There is no Hope without Jesus

[PaulSacramento]

It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
HOW isn't relevant as much as WHY.

[RickD]

Nils,

Lemme guess...you don't have any children?

[Nils]

Ken, I’m not happy with your way to describe me. To me, my intellect, feelings, desires, thoughts, memory etc are stored/expressed/implemented in/by/on my brain (I don’t know the best short way to express it). That together with my body inclusive my genes constitute me.

Great! Now that is the response I was looking for. Now getting back to the freewill discussion, everything stored, expressed, and implemented by your brain is your decision, your thoughts your actions, and a result of your freewill. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?

KEn, I am confused. Where does free will come in?
To be a bit detailed:
In the reasoning I assume a definition of free will as something that is above H&E and I think you accept that definition.

At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I don’t know much about the brain development of infants; as far as their ability of independent thought and their ability to make decisions, but I would say whenever stage a person develops this ability, that is when they have developed free will

What do you mean by "independent thought"?

the ability to think on your own, in spite of outside influences.

"on your own", se below.

Independent of what? Independent of H&E? If so, how is that possible?

You have an unusual definition of Heredity and environment, so I’m not sure if it is free of how you define H&E, but I define heredity as what is inherited from from one generation to another, and environment strictly as an outside source.
Just because someone may inherit (for example) an addictive gene, doesn’t mean they will become an addict. And just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful. So to answer your question, yes; independent of how I define H&E.

Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.
With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.
We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

How do you define Free will?
Nils

The ability to make decisions on your own.

A reasonable definitions. What I say is that there is no “your own” in some import sense. Something that is generated from something else than HeredityN and EnvironmentN.
Nils

[Kenny]

Great! Now that is the response I was looking for. Now getting back to the freewill discussion, everything stored, expressed, and implemented by your brain is your decision, your thoughts your actions, and a result of your freewill. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?

KEn, I am confused. Where does free will come in?
To be a bit detailed:
In the reasoning I assume a definition of free will as something that is above H&E and I think you accept that definition.

At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I don’t know much about the brain development of infants; as far as their ability of independent thought and their ability to make decisions, but I would say whenever stage a person develops this ability, that is when they have developed free will

What do you mean by "independent thought"?

the ability to think on your own, in spite of outside influences.

"on your own", se below.

Independent of what? Independent of H&E? If so, how is that possible?

You have an unusual definition of Heredity and environment, so I’m not sure if it is free of how you define H&E, but I define heredity as what is inherited from from one generation to another, and environment strictly as an outside source.
Just because someone may inherit (for example) an addictive gene, doesn’t mean they will become an addict. And just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful. So to answer your question, yes; independent of how I define H&E.

Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?

With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?

We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

[B. W.]

Great! Now that is the response I was looking for. Now getting back to the freewill discussion, everything stored, expressed, and implemented by your brain is your decision, your thoughts your actions, and a result of your freewill. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?

KEn, I am confused. Where does free will come in?
To be a bit detailed:
In the reasoning I assume a definition of free will as something that is above H&E and I think you accept that definition.

At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I don’t know much about the brain development of infants; as far as their ability of independent thought and their ability to make decisions, but I would say whenever stage a person develops this ability, that is when they have developed free will

What do you mean by "independent thought"?

the ability to think on your own, in spite of outside influences.

"on your own", se below.

Independent of what? Independent of H&E? If so, how is that possible?

You have an unusual definition of Heredity and environment, so I’m not sure if it is free of how you define H&E, but I define heredity as what is inherited from from one generation to another, and environment strictly as an outside source.
Just because someone may inherit (for example) an addictive gene, doesn’t mean they will become an addict. And just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful. So to answer your question, yes; independent of how I define H&E.

Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?

With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?

We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

You don't know children do you???
-
-
-

[Kenny]

KEn, I am confused. Where does free will come in?
To be a bit detailed:
In the reasoning I assume a definition of free will as something that is above H&E and I think you accept that definition.

At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I don’t know much about the brain development of infants; as far as their ability of independent thought and their ability to make decisions, but I would say whenever stage a person develops this ability, that is when they have developed free will

What do you mean by "independent thought"?

the ability to think on your own, in spite of outside influences.

"on your own", se below.

Independent of what? Independent of H&E? If so, how is that possible?

You have an unusual definition of Heredity and environment, so I’m not sure if it is free of how you define H&E, but I define heredity as what is inherited from from one generation to another, and environment strictly as an outside source.
Just because someone may inherit (for example) an addictive gene, doesn’t mean they will become an addict. And just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful. So to answer your question, yes; independent of how I define H&E.

Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?

With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?

We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

You don't know children do you???
-
-
-

Why do you ask?

[Nils]

I notice that there are societies that work rather well without any knowledge of absolute morality, I think of some animals, apes and early humans.

Where did you get that idea ??

It takes too much time to answer your question. Why do you ask?

Please define absolute morality.

Sorry, I intended to write "objecive".

Nils

[Nils]

Hereditary and environment, Nature and nurture, Genetics and adaptation, etc.

They all mean the same things, that we are a SUM of what we are and what we are exposed to and how we learn and adapt to it.
If there was no choice then what we do would be based SOLELY on our genetics and environment.

Yes

BUT you would still have to address WHICH of those factors would be dominate at any given time and WHY.

If You are based SOLELY on Heredity and Environment, do you think that this You can decide which of H&I would dominate? To do that decision or choice you have to base it on something, apparently not on H&E but H&E is the only thing you can use as a base. It doesn't seem consistent.

I asked earlier what kind of logic you refer to but I don't think that I got any answer.

Logic based on reasoning and experience ( and not just OUR experience, by history as well of course).

Where is the logic of holding someone accountable for actions not under their control?

In logic you uses is a deductive method to deduce a conclusion from some premises, but the truth of the conclusion is dependent of the truth of the premises. I think were disagree on the premises so the problem is not the logic. See more below.

The general answer is pragmatism.

Which is no answer.

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected.

What is your category for "satisfactory" and satisfactory for whom? based on what?

Satisfactory to me and people who think as I do, based on our rational thinking and experiences.

It doesn’t seem to me that we come anywhere in this discussion.
To be a bit more productive I’ll try to state some premises and come to a conclusion:

P1. Assume that there are no good arguments for an objective moral. (For instance that there is no God and moral Naturalism isn’t a satisfactory idea).
P2. Assume that we despite P1 want to live in a decent society like a welfare state with liberty and personal security.
P3. Assume that we think that without an objective moral there is no argument for a desert based juridical system (That could be argued even if there is an objective moral, but forget that now).

What should I do if I think that these three premises are true? Try to hide in a corner? No.
To me it seems that your answer is that the conclusion would be disastrous and therefore one of the premises has to be wrong and we have to believe in absolute morality and hence God. To me for other reasons, that way is not possible so I have to stick with the premises. So what to do?

I notice that there are societies that work rather well without any knowledge of absolute morality, I think of some animals, apes and early humans. I notice that it is possible to create rules that make a decent living. Unfortunately we have to create a system with punishment for those who don’t follow the rules. Hopefully, this will cause most persons to follow the rules but we have to punish those who don’t, those that were unlucky to have the wrong genes and wrong environment not understanding the stupidity of there actions. Punishm, not because of they deserve it but because it is needed to maintain the rules. If it were possible we would prefer not to punish them but say to all others that we do, but that will not work in the long run.

With the three premises, this is the best way forwards. This system is not ideal, it’s pragmatic, but it works. And note, I also think that it is a better system, gives a better society, than to continue believing in absolute moral and desert based punishment. I think that without desert we will get a better society, not only for the unlucky ones but for everybody. With less crime, less hatred and less fear. A society with fairness, respect and liberty. It takes more effort to argue for this in detail but I think that it can be done successfully.

Nils

I just have one question:
What do you base ANY of this on?

I would appreciate if you answer my questions and also comment my argument if you don't agree.

Nils

[Nils]

It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.

WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.
In the philosophical litterature there are several definitions of free will. How can you say that any of these are wrong.

I am interested in Free WIll as a base for moral desert. As Galen Strawsson says: It is a matter of punishment of hell and the bliss of heaven.

HOW isn't relevant as much as WHY.

Please explain why.

/Nil

[Kurieuo]

It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.

WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.

No it doesn't. A computer doesn't choose anymore than a clock, digital or otherwise, chooses to move to the next second. They don't possess the ability to do other than what they've been instructed or mechanically engineered to do.

[RickD]

Nils,

Lemme guess...you don't have any children?

Since you missed this the first time, I'll ask again.

[Nils]

Nils,

Lemme guess...you don't have any children?

Since you missed this the first time, I'll ask again.

Rick, I try to answer the posts in the right order and it takes some time, so please, be patient.

I don’t think that I have ever read such a short message that brought so many thoughts!
The first thought is that I hope that you are able to do better guesses / conclusions in other areas

More seriously, it probably shows how big the difference is between on one hand my cultural subgoup and yours including many of the debaters on this site. I guess (hopefully better than you) that your comment relates to the problem of raising children without punishment. I can tell you that among my close relatives and my close friends there is never practiced backwards looking punishment, i.e. punishment because of the child “deserves” it but only actions that were meant to deter from future bad behavior (but of course without any physical or psychical violence). In a wider part of my social subgroup, I don’t know, but I have never heard of anyone having a different attitude. This I put in relation to what I a few years ago read in a discussion on a USA based philosophical professional forum. They were discussing (informally) how to punish disobedient teenagers. I thought it was horrifying.

But to answer your question. I have three children and some grandchildren and my relation to them has always been good (and also, they confirm it )
Nils

[RickD]

Nils,

Lemme guess...you don't have any children?

Since you missed this the first time, I'll ask again.

Rick, I try to answer the posts in the right order and it takes some time, so please, be patient.

I don’t think that I have ever read such a short message that brought so many thoughts!
The first thought is that I hope that you are able to do better guesses / conclusions in other areas

More seriously, it probably shows how big the difference is between on one hand my cultural subgoup and yours including many of the debaters on this site. I guess (hopefully better than you) that your comment relates to the problem of raising children without punishment. I can tell you that among my close relatives and my close friends there is never practiced backwards looking punishment, i.e. punishment because of the child “deserves” it but only actions that were meant to deter from future bad behavior (but of course without any physical or psychical violence). In a wider part of my social subgroup, I don’t know, but I have never heard of anyone having a different attitude. This I put in relation to what I a few years ago read in a discussion on a USA based philosophical professional forum. They were discussing (informally) how to punish disobedient teenagers. I thought it was horrifying.

But to answer your question. I have three children and some grandchildren and my relation to them has always been good (and also, they confirm it )
Nils

Thanks for responding to my question nils. I realize that you are communicating with multiple people here, and it can be difficult responding to everyone.

Actually, I asked if you have children, not because of punishment. I was thinking about how you would teach your children about being responsible for the choices they make, good and bad, if you teach them that they aren't really making choices. As my son has grown up(he's 18), I've tried to show him how to make good choices. I've explained to him, with different levels of understanding as he's growing up, that all of his choices have consequences.

It's such an important part of a child growing up and becoming a productive person, that I just can't understand how you raised children without teaching them there are consequences to their actions.

[PaulSacramento]

WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.
In the philosophical litterature there are several definitions of free will. How can you say that any of these are wrong.

I am interested in Free WIll as a base for moral desert. As Galen Strawsson says: It is a matter of punishment of hell and the bliss of heaven.

The first step of understanding free will is to understand what it is at its core and that is simply the act of choosing between available choices.
So, yes, computers do that.
Next step, HOW do they do that?
Computers choose based on programming, programming done by an exterior source.
They don't understand anything other than binary code that drives their process of "choice".
They Can't go against their programming ( programming being analogues to the human "nature & Nurture" thing).

Humans, however, CAN and DO choose to go against their "programming".

The moment a person, who is exposed to violence all their life, choose NOT to be violent.
The moment a person that has been rick all their life, choose to give up wealth.
The moment a person choose to disobey their parents, even knowing it is NOT in their best interest.
The moment a person KNOWS that act A) is wrong and commits act A).
Etc, etc, etc.

This is why we hold people accountable that are deemed mentally "competent" and do NOT hold those that are NOT mentally competent, Because we understand that conscious CHOICE to do something that is wrong.

If people do NOT choose their actions, it means that there was no ability to do otherwise AT ALL.
When a man rapes a child, he didn't choose to rape. He had no choice BUT to rape, he is but a "victim" of his environment and his genetic make-up. He can't be held accountable for his actions since he had no choice in the matter.

Of course, what needs to be explained is why doesn't everyone rape or at least, why don't people with similar ( no such thing as identical) environmental and hereditary issues, also do that.

[PaulSacramento]

By the way Nils, We really appreciate your participation in this thread.