Thread: Illusion of Free Will and Strict Determinism

This topic came up in another thread, but rather than clutter up that good discussion, it's got it's own thread now.

Originally posted by tboothby
Dude... the illusion of free will is not enough to permit jack sh--. If you are a determinist then you would beleave that some action has caused that it is absolutly nessisary for you to have this discussion. Sounds like you are discribing weak-determinism... but if you have another explanation please do tell

(I am not being sarcastic, I am actually really interested in determinalism and would love to hear more about your veiws on free will ect.)

I love this topic. Probably one of my favorites.

Here's my question to you and everyone else (which may seem beside the point at first):
If you hold a strict view of determinism, can and should criminals be held accountable for their actions? If so, why?

No & Yes. If you hold a determinist view then you would believe that the crimial was unable to not comit the crime because a certain series of events caused the nessesity of his action.

Now... In countries around the world justice systems have been set up. This is also nessesarily caused because of a series of events.

So the criminal will or will not be brought to "justice" do to a nessisary cause of events.

It does not matter if we believe he should be punished or not. He will either be punished or he won't and there is nothing we can "WILL" that will make it otherwise.

Exactly, I hold the same view about conversations about the nature of the universe.

They don't mean "jack sh--" in actuality. But they were determined to take place long ago.

Furthermore, I think that the illusion of choice is very significant. For example, look at your keyboard and pick a key to press. Really, the key that you will "choose" has already been determined, but right now you are under the impression that you can choose whichever key you want. This is how people live their day to day lives.

The illusion of free will is also determined.

Originally posted by bradybaker


The illusion of free will is also determined.

In your opinion is this determined for everybody?? I my self an not a determinalist but I would imagine that a determinalist would suppose he was determined to believe in determinalism and thus in the non existance of free will.

From my reading of determinalism I have understood that a determinalist believes there is not free will... perhaps some are disillusioned into believing they have free will (through determinalism) but the fact that they believe they are choosing freely when they really are not?? I don't see how this makes their "choice" important.

Of course you would still punish the criminal, because expectation of punishment causes others to not committ such an act who would otherwise committ it.

On the free will vs. determinism debate, I really don't have a firm stance.

On the one hand, the way my mind thinks(and the way it thinks about the way it thinks) would suggest that it is all caused by past events, and that the only way they could not be determined is if they were random, but randomness is nothing like free will. Determinism is the only view that really makes sense in the universe as we understand it.

I have also heard arguements that we have what is as good as free will because we are ignorant of the causes of our thoughts and desires and so we are uncertain about what we will choose making our decision not uncaused, but unknown until we make it. So from our subjective perspective we could choose either way, but from an objective point of view(which noone has) it is still determined. This idea appeals to me because I tend to think of the universe from a subjective perspective more than an objective one.

I started a thread a while ago asking for people's thoughts about the nature of the will itself, not whether it is free or unfree, but how it functions, whether it is a part of yourself or not, and its relation to the outside world. I think I'll bump it.

Free will is an illusion. End of story.

I love this thread.

Originally posted by bradybaker
For example, look at your keyboard and pick a key to press. Really, the key that you will \"choose\" has already been determined, but right now you are under the impression that you can choose whichever key you want. This is how people live their day to day lives.

Well... no I actually don't. When I press the key (if i am a determinist) I don't think i choose the key. I am not disiilusioned about my freedom. I know I pressed the key because I had to, there were events that made it nessisary i press it.

Of course not everyone is a determinist (i am not) so yes "this is how people live their day to day life" applies to some, but to say you are a determinist and also hold the illusion of free will as important seems a contradiction to me.

I beleive I have free will because I am actually a part of my brain or I am atleast connected to it. the only problem is I dont know exacly who I am. I am guessing that the one who sees through my eyes is the same one who feels and smells for me and decides what to do, and that is what I call I. so there for I have free will there is a part of my brain that does'ent have free will but I do.

But all your brain activity consists of electrons moving around. When you go to smaller and smaller you find out that everything consists of those damn little things, electrons, protons and neutrons and atoms that they have formed. These things act in a certain way in certain situations, and if there's no randomness in their behaviour, you simply are programmed to act in a certain way in certain situations. On the other hand, if there is randomness, then it's possible that determinism won't work.

Anyway, is it a free decision if it's caused by those little things' behaviour and casual randomness?

Just few thoughts...

Originally posted by Redeyedwolfking
I beleive I have free will because I am actually a part of my brain or I am atleast connected to it. the only problem is I dont know exacly who I am. I am guessing that the one who sees through my eyes is the same one who feels and smells for me and decides what to do, and that is what I call I. so there for I have free will there is a part of my brain that does'ent have free will but I do.

This sounds like a Cartisian View: EG: your mind and body are seperate, and your will is uneffected by outside forces.

Is this your view??
You believe that there is a part of your mind/soul/self that is not physical... and therefore is not determined by the physical forces of nature?

the soul might be physical I think it is both. It is connected to a part of the brain in a way that it kind of is that part. it can't think but it desides what to do with thoughts. it is different in that it is not made out of atoms it does not have normal physical traits. it is a point of infinite energy. It is not effected by anything it works together with a different part of the brain that is effected by everything.

it has*
its*
believe*
absolutely*
necessary*
describing*
determinism*
views*
etc.*
necessity*
necessarily*
due*
necessary*
myself*
am*
determinist*
determinist*
determinism*
nonexistence*
determinism*
determinist*
determinism*
commit*
commit*
arguments*
no one*
I*
I*
disillusioned*
necessary*
I*
I*
believe*
at least*
doesn't*
separate*
unaffected*
affected*
affected*

and finally *slap*.

^ Huh?

Probably a lawyer would be best at answering this question because there are different levels of motivation and it is complex. I think that’s why they make good money
Determinism may be dependent on motivation