View Single Post
Old 08-07-2019, 12:58 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,738
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I...the primitive idea that sociopaths are simply people who have just chosen to be bad for badness' sake. Whether posters here want to admit it or not, that is what the free will connotes to most people.
If you care about convincing people, you might eschew unfounded generalizations such as this. Whether or not "most people" believe this, I've seen nothing to suggest this is a position held by any posters to this thread.

Originally Posted by Mijin
Because "free will" is actually defined in lots of ways, and is the root of the whole problem.

1. Mostly, people just define it in a very vague way that doesn't really mean anything e.g. "Could have chosen differently"
To which monstro responds
Free will means being able to act freely independent of initial conditions.
I doubt anyone in this thread would question that actions are not INFLUENCED by prior conditions. My perception is that the disagreement is whether EVERY action is ENTIRELY DETERMINED by those conditions. In other words, in Mijin's definition - could you have decided otherwise?

I do not know the answer. I'm certainly not a neurochemist/physicist. But it sure FEELS like I'm able to decide which flavor of ice cream to have. And I (and it seems most people) seem to view life as more enjoyable and meaningful if we act under what may be a shared delusion that we each have at least some limited degree of personal agency.

So the debate is:
science hasn't proven the existence/mechanism of free will VS it sure seems like we have FW, yet current science is unable to explain it.

Decide which side you prefer and live your life accordingly.
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.