This quote is telling to me for a couple of reasons. Before I get to those, I'll first admit that most of what you and many others arguing the determinists side of this issue are saying makes a lot of sense. I can see how it is convincing, and I certainly won't bet against some or most of it eventually being proven correct - or anyway more correct than our perceptions lead us to believe.

But my problem is that the science is just so young. We have so little convincing evidence I'm afraid what is actually happening is a lot of people are jumping on this idea before they should. Why? Perhaps as a backlash against religion. Or even as a way to escape personal responsibility, because they are unhappy with their own choices. You say it is harmful to falsely believe in personal responsibility, but it seems to me much less harmful than falsely believing there is no personal responsibility.

I fully prescribe to the notion we should embrace the truth. The universe does not care what we believe, it just is. But I don't think this question has been settled by a long shot, even after several millennia.

This is comforting, if the facts ever do convince me your side is true.

Right. It hasn't been settled. But we can't help but lean one way or another based on our beliefs.

As far as the personal responsibility, I think the destruction caused by this notion is often overlooked and grossly underestimated. I could easily be way wrong on this of course. But I think the old saying "take some responsibility" causes people to do two things that are generally very harmful:

1.) Take way more credit than they deserve for actions that were more a result of them flukily being in the right spot at the right time than their character being superior to other peoples'.

2.) Blame themselves a lot more than they deserve for actions that were more a result of them flukily being in the wrong spot at the wrong time than their character being inferior to other peoples'.


The problem with the sayings spouted by most libertarians such as "take some responsibility for your life" or "stop making excuses" is that they are based on awful assumptions that are basically religious, such as the idea that everyone was born with an equal chance at achieving the best life possible, or that we are all able to make unconstrained choices at any moment. C'mon now.

In my opinion, honesty should trump the notion of personal responsibility. Excuses are only bad if they're given in an attempt to lie. Yet, so many times I've given a legitimate excuse that was honest and been told, "I don't want to hear excuses; take some responsibility!" This is the phrase that has pissed me off perhaps more than any other in my lifetime. Lack of personal responsibility is only bad if someone truly was solely responsible for something (this is, of course, probably never the case, yet most people act like we are all separate and independent agents freely willing our lives in whatever direction we please).

(1) results in excessive pride. (2) results in excessive guilt. This is where the guessing games begin. How much are our experiences ravaged by those two emotions? More than most people would like to think, in my opinion.

My response would be to make sure to have a healthy understanding of what is and isn't under your control. I realize the attitude of "no excuses" is out there and taken to an extreme can be harmful, though in most cases I think it is simply used as fairly useful a motivational tool. I mean, you might be surprised at just what you're capable of if you are optimistic and don't take no for an answer.

Either way, I currently believe I am responsible for my actions... to the extent that I can control them. That is conceding that there are things beyond my control. As a poker player, this is of supreme importance, as I take credit for my decisions (wrong or right) and learn from them, but do not sweat it when the cards fall against me because that is beyond my control.

But to determine that nothing is within my control... at this point that seems more like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." It's just the opposite of the first extreme mentioned.

there isn't and never has been any baby in the bathwater

The idea that if determinism is true then "nothing is under my control" is completely confused either about the concept of "me" or the concept of "control" or both.

Also, here's a cool Zen koan from the Gateless Gate. As usual, the Buddhists get it right.

I don't think you directly can test it. Figuring out how it works by fiddling with it seems a reasonable and attainable task.

The only difference that I am aware of is that I don't blame people for their behavior because I assume that there is some set of causes for the behaviors I happen to dislike.

I still dislike mean people because they suck, but I don't blame them for being who they are any more than I'd blame a mentally ******ed person for being unintelligent or a psychotic person for acting crazy.

That is only a painful idea if you think that the sun revolves around us because we are important in the universe. It isn't like the problems of daily living have much to do with the relationship between the sun and the earth.

See I think mean people have a choice to be mean, and it lies somewhere in their attitude towards their surroundings. I've been mean before, and I understand pretty well what circumstances lead me to becoming mean, and I fully believe the times when I am mean are a choice I've made in order to deal with another person. Sometimes being mean is just the only way to get your point across, the only thing a certain person will respond to. I think if I were convinced being mean were completely unnecessary I could prevent myself from ever being mean again. Either way, I hold a mean person responsible for his actions. But I'll digress.

I think everyone can differentiate what sorts of behavior are controllable and what is not, and nobody will argue a ******ed person has as much control, as much free will as a more intelligent and enlightened person. Anytime I think of a murderer, I wonder what circumstances must have lead up to his making that decision. And just how hard must it have been for that person to resist the urges before giving in. It's why we punish psychotics less that sane people, and circumstances are considered. To claim nobody is ever responsible for his actions, especially heinous preplanned murders where the culprit was simply robbing the victim for money is a ludicrous idea in my mind. For that person to throw up his hands a claim "I'm not responsible, I had no choice!" would be absurd.

It's an interesting line of thought though, who has free will and how much and who doesn't. Humans tend to use this ideal to separate ourselves from other species. It could be an illusion or misinterpretation as you say and we are simply being arrogant. Reminds me a bit of the book, Ishmael. Why do we believe we get to choose who lives or dies? Perhaps as that author claims it is our ultimate downfall.

"is a ludicrous idea in my mind" is a sentiment, not an argument. It's pretty clear you don't have an argument to back up your sentiments about moral responsibility. Normally this is quite alright, but this forum isn't for expressing sentiments without arguments. It's for making arguments and clowning on people who express sentiments without arguments. If you find these questions as fascinating as you say, you could start reading SEP articles about them so you can bring more to the debate.

Thanks, smrk. I am. By the way, you should try practicing what you preach. Anyhow, I've been presenting plenty of arguments to back up my positions. The past several pages are full of them. I'm allowed to also comment about my sentiments now and then as well, you certainly do.


Here is a website which presents many arguments similar to mine, perhaps more eloquently. Here is a presentation by Daniel Dennett, which presents others challenging your position. Clown away if that's what gets you off.

Here's the problem. Linking articles you don't really understand is going to make you look foolish not me. The first link is to some kind of summary document that I'm not going to read because I've read summary documents on this topic a thousand times. It seems like a poor to average summary document (SEP is much better) to the extent that I skimmed it. It says free will is neither deterministic or random, but it doesn't make or allude to any 'metaphysical' argument. It also says that there are 'ethical' or 'psychological' arguments for free will, which don't really exist. The second link is to Dennett, which I will also not watch because I already use his Elbow Room to prop up my Xbox. The key thing is that if you had read a better summary document beforehand you would have understood that Dennett is a compatibilist, which means he is a determinist, which means he thinks that people 'can't do otherwise', which means he rejects the class of views of the author of the first document (and so your own).

Pardon me, I really hate coming off foolish. Apparently you do not. This is a discussion forum. I really doubt anyone believes we will solve the age old question of free will ITT. So your calls for me to follow some strict guideline which involves never asking a question or describing a sentiment without backing it up with a properly sourced argument are just nitty and quite silly. Foolish.

I, like many here am interested in this question and enjoy learning about the true nature of the topic as well as viewing it from different points of view. I believe I've gained from much from the feedback I've gotten from other posters ITT to better form my understanding. But not from you, because you haven't even taken the time to notice most of my arguments have been compatiblist in nature, much like Dennett's. You don't even bother to summarize why you dislike his book.

Point is, I'm here to learn, not to claim I have the answer. And I'm also reading up on it elsewhere, including SEP. Perhaps you have a much better grasp on this issue and have nothing to learn from the discussions I have been having ITT. If that is the case, kindly contribute or kindly butt out.

We solved it: free will is incoherent.

In your previous post you said: "Here is a website which presents many arguments similar to mine, perhaps more eloquently." Then you say that most of your arguments have been "compatibilist in nature". Do you realize that the (first) website you said represented arguments similar to yours is the exact opposite of being "compatibilist in nature"? And btw your "arguments" have not been "compatibilist in nature". You said you weren't sure what you would choice you might make under the same exact circumstances, which suggests you think that your choices are not fully determined by prior causes, which means you're a proto-incompatibilist.

Some solution. "We solved it: free will doesn't make sense to us." Bravo.

Sigh, there are plenty of points in that article that make sense to me which I've used in my arguments. Also Dennett argues quite well that determinism does not abolish free will and moral responsibility. Do all of my questions, retorts and arguments mirror Dennett's or the article I posted, of course not. As stated, I'm still exploring this issue and forming my ideas with the help of others. I see a lot of truth coming from all directions, not ready to jump into a hard determinist, compatiblist, incompatibilist box just yet, and far from believing the issue is solved.

This is not what compatibilists say. What they say is that "could have done otherwise" is conditional and doesn't mean what the incompatibilists think it means. Maybe not enough Dennett after all?

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/kitdraft.htm

That Great Debate article seems to contradict itself and say compatibilist things in one place and incompatibilist things in another, but the conclusion is: "Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. It is not non-determinism, randomness or non-causality, in any shape or form." That sounds like compatibilism to me.

Also condescension tards up threads, and I'd much rather see arguments for the counter-intuitive view than defenses of the naive one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anBxaOcZnGk

In the 'narrow' sense, all determinists must say that people "can't do otherwise". Another way to say it is if determinism is true, under identical conditions people will act/decide identically. You're right that Dennett thinks that being able to do otherwise in the 'narrow' sense is not important for free will. For him being able to do otherwise under ever so slightly different conditions is important (but this is of course disputable). Here's the passage:

If this is what the other guy wants to put in place of his argument then ok, it's just that this wasn't clearly stated in his posts.

No it's not compatibilism. This is typical libertarian doublethink. "Not non-determinism" is rhetorical nonsense (partial to my heart, I love litotes) but the author is saying it's not non-determinism ie not indeterminism ie not "spooky quantum randomness" without saying it's determinism ie choices are completely determined by prior causes.

If he finds a coal of a reasonable argument, I promise to blow on it -- and then I'm calling the fire department.

Seems rather unlikely, seeing how abruptly you waive off every other point of view, including those of well established philosophers, without bothering to pose much in the way of counterargument.

I've expressed on several occasions I am here to attempt to understand the issue and learn. In doing so, I've asked a lot of questions, made some arguments and enjoyed some interesting discussions with other posters ITT. At no point have I made any claims to know the truth. You are the only one who can't constructively add to the conversation or simply keep out. You seem only able to reach in, pluck various comments out of context and then shred them. Pretty useless, imo, though it could be interesting to understand why this sort of behavior is so amusing for you.

[x] asked a lot of questions
( [ ] read suggested materials)
[ ] made some arguments
[x] enjoyed some interesting discussions

Among the many things you said, it happens that you said (not directed at me but applicable to the position I hold) that not holding murderers morally responsible for their crimes was "ludicrous", but you didn't give an argument. I said you need to give us an argument not a sentiment. Then you gave us two sources which were supposed to express your position more eloquently. However, the two sources you gave express two contrary positions in the free will debate. Where am I going wrong?

Where are you going wrong? By being a nit, I suppose. And by being purposefully obtuse.

I have read many of the suggested materials and many others, which was why I posted a few... to simply refute your second claim (above), not to specifically back up one particular argument. Also, I claimed it was "ludicrous" not to hold certain types of murderers responsible for their actions, specifically one who murders someone simply for his money, which is a way of carrying out the determinist claim of no personal responsibility to an extreme and showing just what types of crimes are supposedly out of a person's control. I think it's called reducto ad absurdum, a form of argument (incidentally, an action of which you also claim I'm not guilty).

Anyway, are you done pointing out what a novice philosopher I am yet? I will freely concede that point. I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to accomplish here, but I'm pretty sure you are failing miserably.

That is entirely compatible with determinism. It isn't the same thing as free will though. It is just plain old run of the mill will.

Of course it would be absurd for a murderer to make such a statement. We punish people who do horrible things. We especially do so if we imagine that we would have done differently.

This is arguably because we are social animals and punishing maleable behaviors is an excellent strategy to create social order and train the young.

To the extent that you mean "he had to think about it first" what you have is a horrible person, not a person ultimately responsible for his horribleness.

It isn't arrogance (not denying that we aren't an arrogant species). Just a little bit of fuzzy thinking.

Ok you win, I'm sorry.

This gets my vote for understatement of the thread...

I think I have maintained cognitive dissonance on determinism for two years now. If asked, I would have to answer truthfully that I think that hard determinism is true. But in all other matters I go for weak determinism / compatiblism (i.e., vaguely speaking, i think hard determinism is true but feel that I live as if compatiblism were true).

I think there is an interesting relation between an atheist who holds the opinion that strong determinism is true and a christian who holds that the opinion that determinism is not true. If we look at the aggregate of people in both these sets, I think most of them, most of the time, just live life normally in the exact same way.

Yes, but only because the vast majority of people who claim to be strong determinists don't truly believe in determinism. They pay lip service to it, but they don't actually believe in it, so their behavior is similar to those who admit they don't believe in it. Determinists who actually believe in determinism have substantially greater compassion for bad people, and even the most "evil" humans don't deserve even the slightest suffering under this worldview.