No Free Will? Is this a viable philosophy?

[Divine Insight]

Most people dismiss solipsism as simply being unworthy of consideration. Solipsism holds that only one person is having an experience and everything else (including all other people) are just an illusion in the mind of the one single person who is imagining life to exist.

Solipsism can't be disproved. We have no way to determine whether other people are actually having an experience. Yet, dispute the fact that it can't be disproved most people dismiss it as simply being a highly unlikely hypothesis. It just seems more rational to believe that all humans and even animals are actually having an experience just like us.

And this is a very rational position to take.

~~~~~

So now, what about the question of "Free Will"?

Is it rational to dismiss the concept and demand that there can be no such thing as "Free Will"?

Well, we can ask what that would mean.

If there is no such thing as "Free Will", then J.R.R. Tolkien had no choice but to write "The Lord of the Rings" precisely as he wrote it. He could not be credited with having any creativity because ultimately he didn't even come up with it. He was just doing what he deterministic had no choice but to do. Frodo Baggins and Gollum were determined to be characters in this fantasy billions of years ago. Potentially it was carved in stone at the Big Bang according to hardcore determinism.

Not only that, but the same it true of everything, including the Christian Bible. Every jot and tittle of the Bible would have needed to have been determined by the universe long before humans (who have no free will of their own) would be determined to write it out precisely as we see it today, including all of disagreeing versions.

Same is true of Greek mythology too, of course, and everything else that any human has ever done. Every song, comedy act, you name it. Everything would have needed to be predetermined from the dawn of time.

Question for debate, "Does this make any more sense than solipsism?"

Is it even remotely reasonable to hypothesize that humans have no free will, meaning that everything they do has already been determined ahead of time?

[Miles]

As for the relationship between free will and blame. Placing blame only makes sense where there is the option of choosing to do differently. This would only be the case where free will was the operative agent.

You still haven't explained to me what you mean by free will, as in a will free of what?

I'll go along with the Oxford Dictionary's definition, with two additions.
"The power of acting [and thinking] without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act [and think] at one’s own discretion."
source

Pragmatically, free will is the ability to have done differently.

Nor have you explained why it is you think that it would validate the concept of blame.

See post 84

Where free will is not operating, the only possible operative agencies are pure randomness and determinism.

Pure randomness and determinism are the two options, it's a dichotomy. A choice that is free of any causal explanation is a random choice, a choice that can be causally explained is determined by the said causal factors. This is why there is no coherent concept of free will that would correspond to our intuitional idea about blameworthiness.

Choice does not exist where determinism and randomness are the operating agents, so in as much as free will is an illusion, choosing does not exist. Don't bother trying to work with it.

I still see some confusion, you keep refusing to answer my questions. I can look at the dictionary myself too, thank you.

Excuse me!! You asked me what I (Miles) mean by free will, as in a will free of what. And what I mean by "free will" is pretty much in line with what the dictionary says. Should my definitions of terms not be in line with what dictionaries say? Aren't yours?

Setting aside the fact that you can't explain what you mean by free will, here's the main issue:

Sorry if my meaning of free will is too difficult to understand and/or posses to much of a problem for you, but it's never troubled anyone else before. Perhaps someone will explain it to you.

You have explained why you think that blaming someone doesn't make sense without free will. This is all good with me, since I haven't even heard of a coherent definition of free will to begin with. However, you've completely failed to explain how placing blame would make any more sense with free will.

Yeah, I know I haven't been able to get through to you. My failing I guess. Perhaps this too can best be explained by someone else.


..................................................[font=Georgia]Anyone want to take a crack at it? [/font]

..................................................Explain why placing blame makes sense where free will is the operating agent,

..................................................but does not where determinism or absolute randomness are.

[instantc]

As for the relationship between free will and blame. Placing blame only makes sense where there is the option of choosing to do differently. This would only be the case where free will was the operative agent.

You still haven't explained to me what you mean by free will, as in a will free of what?

I'll go along with the Oxford Dictionary's definition, with two additions.
"The power of acting [and thinking] without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act [and think] at one’s own discretion."
source

Pragmatically, free will is the ability to have done differently.

Nor have you explained why it is you think that it would validate the concept of blame.

See post 84

Where free will is not operating, the only possible operative agencies are pure randomness and determinism.

Pure randomness and determinism are the two options, it's a dichotomy. A choice that is free of any causal explanation is a random choice, a choice that can be causally explained is determined by the said causal factors. This is why there is no coherent concept of free will that would correspond to our intuitional idea about blameworthiness.

Choice does not exist where determinism and randomness are the operating agents, so in as much as free will is an illusion, choosing does not exist. Don't bother trying to work with it.

I still see some confusion, you keep refusing to answer my questions. I can look at the dictionary myself too, thank you.

Excuse me!! You asked me what I (Miles) mean by free will, as in a will free of what. And what I mean by "free will" is pretty much in line with what the dictionary says. Should my definitions of terms not be in line with what dictionaries say? Aren't yours?

Setting aside the fact that you can't explain what you mean by free will, here's the main issue:

Sorry if my meaning of free will is too difficult to understand and/or posses to much of a problem for you, but it's never troubled anyone else before. Perhaps someone will explain it to you.

It's never troubled anyone else before? Obviously it has. It seems to me that you've done very little if any research on this subject. There are countless different concepts of free will, suggested by different philosophers. Libertarian free will, Kantian free will and Cartesian free will, just to name a few.

"The ability to have done differently" says absolutely nothing about what you mean by free will and simply reveals your lack of knowledge on the subject. It is widely accepted that libertarian free will, for example, is not a coherent concept to begin with, while other concepts are more open to a debate. Thus, in order for us to have a serious conversation, you'd have to think through what you actually mean when you say free will.

Lastly, looking through your posts, you have not even attempted to explain why in your view the concept of blame makes sense in the context of free will. You've simply asserted it a few times. You know the difference between an assertion and an argument, don't you Miles?

[Miles]

As for the relationship between free will and blame. Placing blame only makes sense where there is the option of choosing to do differently. This would only be the case where free will was the operative agent.

You still haven't explained to me what you mean by free will, as in a will free of what?

I'll go along with the Oxford Dictionary's definition, with two additions.
"The power of acting [and thinking] without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act [and think] at one’s own discretion."
source

Pragmatically, free will is the ability to have done differently.

Nor have you explained why it is you think that it would validate the concept of blame.

See post 84

Where free will is not operating, the only possible operative agencies are pure randomness and determinism.

Pure randomness and determinism are the two options, it's a dichotomy. A choice that is free of any causal explanation is a random choice, a choice that can be causally explained is determined by the said causal factors. This is why there is no coherent concept of free will that would correspond to our intuitional idea about blameworthiness.

Choice does not exist where determinism and randomness are the operating agents, so in as much as free will is an illusion, choosing does not exist. Don't bother trying to work with it.

I still see some confusion, you keep refusing to answer my questions. I can look at the dictionary myself too, thank you.

Excuse me!! You asked me what I (Miles) mean by free will, as in a will free of what. And what I mean by "free will" is pretty much in line with what the dictionary says. Should my definitions of terms not be in line with what dictionaries say? Aren't yours?

Setting aside the fact that you can't explain what you mean by free will, here's the main issue:

Sorry if my meaning of free will is too difficult to understand and/or posses to much of a problem for you, but it's never troubled anyone else before. Perhaps someone will explain it to you.

It's never troubled anyone else before? Obviously it has.

Why is it obvious, because it troubles you? Piffle. I suggest you don't project your difficulties onto others.

It seems to me that you've done very little if any research on this subject. There are countless different concepts of free will, suggested by different philosophers. Libertarian free will, Kantian free will and Cartesian free will, just to name a few.

Ah ha, you've been rutting around in Google, searching "free will: types," or some such configuration no doubt. And all for naught. It's like coming up with various modes of transportation when the discussion is centered on cargo ships. It all comes in as a one big "So What?" So what if there are different sorts of free will? I've defined what I'm talking about and that's all that's relevant here. Although it's good that your searching has broadened your understanding. . . . . . . . hopefully.

"The ability to have done differently" says absolutely nothing about what you mean by free will and simply reveals your lack of knowledge on the subject. It is widely accepted that libertarian free will, for example, is not a coherent concept to begin with, while other concepts are more open to a debate. Thus, in order for us to have a serious conversation, you'd have to think through what you actually mean when you say free will.

Fine. unlike others, and there have been many, you're unable to process my definitions and explanations. But just so you don't think I'm alone in my understanding of free will as "The ability to have done differently", simply consider:

"Classical compatiblists considered free will nothing more than freedom of action, considering one free of will simply if, had one counterfactually wanted to do otherwise, one could have done otherwise without physical impediment."
Source: Wikipedia.

"What appears to matter most is whether people do something of their own free will; that is, whether they could have done otherwise if they had chosen, decided, or willed to do so."
source

"There are two theories of free will that are often discussed in relation to ethical responsibility. The first is usually called “libertarianism,� . . .The libertarian argues that such a view is essential to moral responsibility. For no one is responsible for an act unless he “could have done otherwise.�
source


"The idea that a free agent 'could have done otherwise' is a key element in the libertarian argument."
source


"I was free then because I could have done otherwise then.
source

Lastly, looking through your posts, you have not even attempted to explain why in your view the concept of blame makes sense in the context of free will. You've simply asserted it a few times. You know the difference between an assertion and an argument, don't you Miles?

Just to back up a bit, in post 60 you said:

"once you break it down you realize that "true blame" is an incoherent thought. Everything that we do can be causally explained. The outward and internal circumstances that led to the bad choice existed prior to the choice. Every bad choice can be causally traced back to circumstances that are out of our control. Therefore "true blame" couldn't exist even in theory."

Because you failed to explain what you meant by "true blame," I ignored it and in post 71 responded with:

"Well we can still assign blame and praise, but it doesn't make any sense, does it."

Then! in post 83 you asked what I mean by "true blame"!!!! Just to remind you, this is your term, not mine. However, in post 84 I went ahead and did explain what I meant by "blame."

................."But to help you out, by "blame" (the verb) I mean:

.................1) to hold responsible; find fault with; censure:

.................2) to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.)

As for the relationship between free will and blame. Placing blame only makes sense where there is the option of choosing to do differently. This would only be the case where free will was the operative agent. Where free will is not operating, the only possible operative agencies are pure randomness and determinism. Under either of these a person can't help what they do, and if one can't help what I do why should they be blamed (or praised) for it? "

Now, I through holding your hand through this discussion. If you can't get it, you can't get it. I'm unable to care anymore.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 103 by Miles]

An assertion entails stating your view on a certain matter. An argument is a process of reasoning providing an explanation as to how you came to hold the said view. An assertion is usually backed up with arguments, especially on a debating site.

To illustrate, this is an assertion:

As for the relationship between free will and blame. Placing blame [...] makes sense where there is the option of choosing to do differently. This would only be the case where free will was the operative agent.

Anybody who takes the time to go through your posts in this thread will find that you haven't even attempted to present any arguments to back up this claim.