By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Your "Free" Will is Not Free

Jay520 on 07 August 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


If you know the reason(s) to why criminals commit their crimes it should obviously improve future crime-preventive works. Just saying "Fuck criminals!" won't help anyone, including those criminals.


You should be more clear as to what you mean by "fuck you". "Fuck you" has no definitive meaning and is used by many people with many different meanings such as "I don't care about you", "I hate you", "I'm upset with you", "You should be killed", "You are evil" , "Leave me alone", etc. There are many interpretations of "fuck you", some of which are appropriate in some contexts. It's an ambigious phrase so if you want anyone to respond, you should be more precise with your terminology. I'm really not sure what you mean by it.



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII on 07 August 2012
Jay520 said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


If you know the reason(s) to why criminals commit their crimes it should obviously improve future crime-preventive works. Just saying "Fuck criminals!" won't help anyone, including those criminals.


You should be more clear as to what you mean by "fuck you". "Fuck you" has no definitive meaning and is used by many people with many different meanings such as "I don't care about you", "I hate you", "I'm upset with you", "You should be killed", "You are evil" , "Leave me alone", etc. There are many interpretations of "fuck you", some of which are appropriate in some contexts. It's an ambigious phrase so if you want anyone to respond, you should be more precise with your terminology. I'm really not sure what you mean by it.


In this case it would mean something like; "I hate criminals for commiting such actions."

I, on the other hand, say that it's sad that criminals prefer a criminal lifestyle over a law abiding lifestyle. Their personal preference is twisted and needs to be rectified, but I can't blame them for having a preference.



RedInker on 07 August 2012

I both entered and left this thread through my own free will. Free Will is free.



Jay520 on 07 August 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


In this case it would mean something like; "I hate criminals for commiting such actions."

I, on the other hand, say that it's sad that criminals prefer a criminal lifestyle over a law abiding lifestyle. Their personal preference is twisted and needs to be rectified, but I can't blame them for having a preference.


But wouldn't hatred be inappropriate against anyone, not just prisoners? Why restrict the topic to criminals? Why not just say all hatred is wrong? 



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 07 August 2012
Jay520 said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


In this case it would mean something like; "I hate criminals for commiting such actions."

I, on the other hand, say that it's sad that criminals prefer a criminal lifestyle over a law abiding lifestyle. Their personal preference is twisted and needs to be rectified, but I can't blame them for having a preference.


But wouldn't hatred be inappropriate against anyone, not just prisoners? Why restrict the topic to criminals? Why not just say all hatred is wrong? 


Yup. In my opinion it's not appropriate to hate anyone.



Around the Network
kain_kusanagi on 07 August 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
kain_kusanagi said:

That is total and utter bullshit. No offense, but it is 100% hokum.

The kid could have decided not to buy either and get a drink from a water fountain and eat an apple when he gets home. Or he could buy a bag of chips or a toy or put the money in a piggy bank and save it up for college. Even after picking one and walking to the check stand his eye could catch a more enticing choice. Maybe at the check stand the kid could end up donating the money in the disabled jar instead of buying anything.

Anybody can make up an example with only two choices and then rationalize it and make it seem plausible. The real world is much more complex and full of real choices. Our past does not dictate our lives it only informs us so that we can plan our future. The present is so full of choices we filter it out and don't even realize the hundreds of choices we make because they are often so trivial. We only notice the choices we make when faces with need, want, health, love, etc.

Free will exists because anything else is impossible. There is no computer program running our lives. We are the writers of our own plotlines. What we choose to believe and do is our responsibility alone.


Of course there are countless options for the kid, but the two presented are the only options that he really care about and are considering at the moment. I just wanted to make an as simple scenario as possible (unlike you who did the opposite) because this is applicable whenever a decision is made.

Your simple scenario is so flawed that it illustrates nothing. We are all 100% responsible for our actions and choices. Your arguement would place all blame for bad choices on history. That's the problem. We may not be able to change our past, but we are in control of our present and future. Our past only gives us a context to make choices in our present so that we can set our future. Nothing more, nothing less. I suppose you think a rapist isn't at fault because his life leading up to his crime forced him to do it?



JWeinCom on 07 August 2012

Isn't free will the ability to act on your preferences and/or what you think is the best course of action? Of course, free will is based on our thoughts, ideas, and evaluations of a situation. Free will doesn't mean that we do things randomly for no raisin (sic).



Galaki on 07 August 2012

How much free will you have depends on how much money you have.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

ArnoldRimmer on 08 August 2012
Mnementh said:

I agree that are more flaws on the model. But you are not right on altruism. There are cases, in which altruism benefits you personally long time. But in other cases, you clearly get no personal benefit. It is explainable with evolution, there are evolutionary benefits of such behaviour. But the model of homo oeconomicus is based on PERSONAL profit and I think if the OP talks about maximizing profit he also means personal profit. Humans do things, that are not so. Sometimes people even willingly die for others. But also less extreme cases of true altruism (not long term egoism).

I believe in the end we mean almost the same. For example, I am fully aware of phenomena like the bee that decides to sting and therefor dies, I don't consider them a contradiction to my belief. I believe that in such situations the brain computes that this is the best/most desireable option, but you are right that such decisions can hardly be considered "personal profit" or "egoism" in the common understanding of these words.



Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 08 August 2012

A hard decision can be differentiated from "easy" decisions because unlike easy decisions, no sensory input can achieve majority.

If you are saying that we make our decisions are based on sensory input, then what about "hard" decisions then? Dont your "sensors" conflict against each other in a hard decision? Often achieving equal consequences for all options that was though of?

Then there must be an "X" factor in the equation. Which is free will.






Yay!!!