Free will does not exist!

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I have no intention of pursuing your suggested "project". I honestly believe prison is conducive to rehabilitation. However, I believe that evryone affords
sympathy for their crimes and that is my project: dont judge others.

Your stance does not seem consistent to me. You say that we should not judge others, but in the same breath, you indica ...[text shortened]... , being that you seem to deny both the libertarian and compatibilist notions of free will.[/b]

I believe evil exists. I would define it as anything that is not altruistic or rather that is detrimental to another. Perhaps you coudl refine this.

We have been using judgment in different ways. Yes, we can judge if someone has committed something evil. No, we cannot judge this person as evil.

I repeat, I see no difference between acocuntability in general and moral responsbility.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I believe evil exists. I would define it as anything that is not altruistic or rather that is detrimental to another. Perhaps you coudl refine this.

We have been using judgment in different ways. Yes, we can judge if someone has committed something evil. No, we cannot judge this person as evil.

I repeat, I see no difference between acocuntability in general and moral responsbility.

Suppose I apply for a job, confident that I can beat out the other applicants (one of which, however, would get he job were I not to apply). My pursuit of the job is not altruistic, and my beating out another applicant is, plausibly, detrimental to that applicant, but surely the self-interested pursuit of a job isn't evil.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think you have surmised alot of what has been said. I don't think you were being satirical, maybe more obsequeous?

You are right.

I was not being satirical.

I was elated to see a meaningful discussion on RHP with uncharacteristically intelligent input, marred only occasionally by satire.

I hence thanked you for starting it and continuously contributing.

I also said you must not be discouraged by the satire.

I suppose I did pretty much repeat everything, but it was just to determine whether or not my understanding was correct.

Some of us are not blessed with your intellectual prowess or knowledge in the field.

I re-read my post.

I can see how one could misconstrue it as obsequious.

The truth is that I was irritated with people like Dr Scribbles being satirical and possibly initiating a free for all tirade of insults thus destroying a very good thread. So my thanks were sincere.

But obsequious, no.

I hate sycophants.

Forgive me for coming across as one.

Oh, and by the way, 'obsequeous' is spelt obsequious.

A good rule of thumb is never to use words you have difficulty spelling. (That by the way is sarcasm, in case you misconstrue it for something else, and at the same time satirical in light of what was said earlier)

Anyway, my lesser mind will now take a back seat and continue enjoying the thread from a distance.

Thanks for answering my questions (sincere, not 'obsequeous'😉

Originally posted by bbarr
I think he construes rehabilitation as a causal process that can change the rehabilitated's internal states, thereby preventing future actions that the rest of us deem worth preventing. It is perfectly consistent to claim both that X is not at fault for committing act A, and that X ought to be modified by external causal factors (rehabilitated) to prevent fur ...[text shortened]... A-acts. The judgment here is merely prudential; it is in our best interests to rehabilitate X.

Do you believe human "will" is a hardware (how someone is put
together), or a software (how they think), or some mixture of both?
Please give reasons for your views.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you believe human "will" is a hardware (how someone is put
together), or a software (how they think), or some mixture of both?
Please give reasons for your views.
Kelly

The human will is just the human capacity to be sensitive to reasons, to deliberate upon those reasons, and to form intentions on the basis of such deliberations. Of course, this capacity requires both 'hardware', (the substrate in which the capacity is instantiated), and 'software' (the properties and processes that constitute the capacity itself).

Originally posted by bbarr
The human will is just the human capacity to be sensitive to reasons, to deliberate upon those reasons, and to form intentions on the basis of such deliberations. Of course, this capacity requires both 'hardware', (the substrate in which the capacity is instantiated), and 'software' (the properties and processes that constitute the capacity itself).

In your opinion, does this mean human will cannot be, free?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
In your opinion, does this mean human will cannot be, free?
Kelly

No, but I advocate a compatibilist account of free will.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Was I blaming you for anything? You can tell me you picked out
a car, one of four, and deny it was your free will, a free choice. No
one put a gun to your head, not one denied you the rest of the
universe, or your remaining time left in this life time to pick another
car somewhere else at any other time. Yet, for you, it wasn't a
choice you made freely ...[text shortened]... for people to not be what they want to be, or do what
they want with their lives.
Kelly

This is what first prompted me to initiate this thread.

When completing maths problems I constantly made mistakes. Upon, introspection I observed that when trying to solve the problem, I relayed between my consciousness, my memory and other mental faculties. In brief, I was waiting for an idea to come to me. When, I tried to refine my problem solving skills, I realised that all types of problem solving methods still worked in this way (albeit more efficiently). This I believe was described as the "shuttlecock motion" by Dilthey. However I still make mistakes. It occurred to me that all types of thinking functioned like this. When choosing a car, my decision relied upon the ability of my mind to think. What if some vital thought or idea didn’t occur to me? Could it still be considered a choice, even when it is obvious that my choice is dictated by my thinking (which is not a choice)?
And what makes me decide which “vital thought” is best?

A person on this site said that “reasoning is free will” however as far as I can see reasoning is slavery. Thus, freedom is slavery and freedom is only an illusion.

Sorry about the wait

Originally posted by TheMaster37
I do.

Take two identical haystacks several feet apart. Put a donkey exactly in the middle.

Without free will the donkey would starve, since it has no preference for any of the haystacks.

The donkey won't starve, proving there is something as free will.

Can you prove it?

Originally posted by bbarr
Suppose I apply for a job, confident that I can beat out the other applicants (one of which, however, would get he job were I not to apply). My pursuit of the job is not altruistic, and my beating out another applicant is, plausibly, detrimental to that applicant, but surely the self-interested pursuit of a job isn't evil.

Well, I said you could redefine evil. Do what thou wilt.

Originally posted by ASROMA
You are right.

I was not being satirical.

I was elated to see a meaningful discussion on RHP with uncharacteristically intelligent input, marred only occasionally by satire.

I hence thanked you for starting it and continuously contributing.

I also said you must not be discouraged by the satire.

I suppose I did pretty much repeat everything, but ...[text shortened]... the thread from a distance.

Thanks for answering my questions (sincere, not 'obsequeous'😉

I can't say, were you being sarcastic?

Also, I know how to spell difficult words but my hands suffer from arthritis and dont like working with the keyboard.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, but I advocate a compatibilist account of free will.

Could someone please justify this compatiblism? It just seems to me to be psuedo free will arguments trying to conceal prejudices against no-moral-responsibility.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, I said you could redefine evil. Do what thou wilt.

I'm not redefining evil, I'm presenting a counterexample to your definition.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Could someone please justify this compatiblism? It just seems to me to be psuedo free will arguments trying to conceal prejudices against no-moral-responsibility.

Huh? Compatibilism is a thesis (or, better, a label applied to a constellation of related theses) concerning the conditions under actions are free. Compatibilists think that it makes sense to say of some actions that they are free, and that sometimes people ought to be held morally accountable for their actions. What's the problem here? If you think that the truth of some libertarian notion of free will is a necessary condition for an act to be free (for some mysterious reason), then of course you will disagree with the compatibilist.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I can't say, were you being sarcastic?

Also, I know how to spell difficult words but my hands suffer from arthritis and dont like working with the keyboard.

No I was not being sarcastic.

How do you go from obsequious to sarcastic?

Like I said, I was irritated with Doctor Scribbles and I thought I would show some appreciation and encouragement.

HONESTLY.

Sorry about your arthritis.

You should try acupuncture.

Again, I'm being serious.

My family is full of doctors and from what I’ve seen, it’s far better than any allopathic solution.

Enjoy the forum.