What you seem to be fearing is people will decide not to make decisions. [Enter appropriate Rush lyrics here.]
II Gyan II–
Here’s something else I wanted to post (but I had to go teach–I hate it when work gets in the way of serious business!):
The ability to evaluate evidence is a cognitive ability, not a volitional one. So if belief is voluntary, choosing to believe (the volitional step) would come after the cognitive step (evaluating the evidence). And so I don’t at all see where a voluntarist has an advantage over an involuntarist when it comes to evaluating evidence. And the fact that you can voluntarily choose your belief should give you no confidence in your cognitive abilities, particularly in your ability to recognize evidential superiority. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have faith in your cognitive abilities–I’m just saying that this confidence shouldn’t stem from your faith in the voluntariness of belief.
Sorry, I sort of remember Rush, but not their lyrics.
I fear… no, I’ll put it another way. I hope that if people take responsibility for their choices, that they’ll put in at least a little more effort, and therefore make better choices.
I have to admit that the metaphysical aspects of this thread are beyond me. Still, since childhood I’ve thought the Universe must be a closed system. It has always seemed obvious to me that if anything exists outside the Universe as we know it, well, that’s just part of the system we don’t know about. The system remains closed.
This may just be my limitation, but I can’t imagine a closed physical system in which each state does not logically follow the preceding state. Since I can’t imagine an open system, I can’t imagine a Universe in which everything, including Life, and even God if there is one, is not a deterministic physical process.
But that coin has another side. I am convinced that our knowledge of the physical universe has so barely scratched the surface that even our most thoroughly tested empirically-derived peer-reviewed scientific facts are at best a working model of reality. Beneath that is a deep, unplumbed well of Chaos that, however deterministic, might as well be Magic for all we know about it. I’m not saying this to condone any of the imaginative mythical, religious, or pseudoscientific crap that people bandy about. But it seems possible, even likely, that Life itself might be “just” an illusion.
Even if, at some level, my decisions and even my life don’t have any meaning, that’s really all down in the noise band. However much I might want to stay in bed until it’s over, I think the only practical approach to life is to live it as if it’s real. At least, the people around me seem real enough to deserve consideration. Likewise the only practical approach to decisions is to choose as if my choice matters.
The illusion of free-will is enough for me.
Got it in nine words. I bow to you sir. (Or madam.) 
Sure. Do you have any evidence, even anecdotal, that a significant portion of people who deny the existence of libertarian free will succumb to the shoals of which you warn? Who are these people who feel their routine choices don’t matter in their lives or the lives of other people? Are you just projecting your fears or is this somehow a real problem? I don’t see it.
Recursion error: Deciding not to make decisions is itself a decision.
What I’m concerned about (‘afraid of’ doesn’t quite fit the way I feel) is that people could quite easily conclude this idea in nihilistic, fatalistic, sociopathic directions.
What I find perhaps most jarring is that here we have a thread in which it is asserted that it is quite normal, acceptable, advisable, to embrace and entertain an illusion - a delusion, even. I hope you understand when I say that really is not what I’m used to seeing on these boards.
I had to go look up libertarian again, but I guess you’re right. Nobody who understands libertarian free will well enough to deny it should have any trouble getting up in the morning.
However, you might imagine someone who believes in determinism and hasn’t yet grasped that determinism and free will can be compatible ideas. That person might well go through some uncomfortable moments before they realize their mistake. Especially if they start the process years before there’s a Wikipedia. :smack:
Well, you could decide not to make further decisions.
What’s fatalistic about being deterministic again? I mean, clearly your life doesn’t have any more or less ‘meaning’ as a result. And just as clearly you’re still actually making decisions and living your life. So I don’t see the method you’d use to jump from this to something nihilistic, fatalistic, or sociopathic, unless you were simultaneously abandoning some religion you were using as a crutch (the loss of which is a separate issue).
Well, unlike some delusions, this one is not only pretty natural, it also has no destructive behavioral side effects, nor any imparments to clear, rational thinking tied to it. That helps its rating considerably.
That said, I entertain no such illusion of free will (though I do accept the possibility of randomity), and don’t see why anyone would either benefit from such an illusion, or why losing it would trouble them (assuming they’re not also losing some other religious crutch).
I’m not inclined to reject life, even if it might be a delusion. It remains useful to me as a working model of reality as I see it.
I’d say one is in fact a fairly obvious conclusion of the other. You cannot change the future if you have no freedom of will, and the system is deterministic.
How can you be making decisions, when you have no free will?
You cannot ‘change’ the future anyway; it doesn’t exist yet to be changed. You can effect the future; in fact, you will effect the future. The shape of the mark you make is based on your knowledge and characteristics and not, well, whatever the libertarians think is driving them, is all.
Your computer makes decisions all the time. Detect keypress, assess which program should recieve it based on various factors and thereby make the decision to send a message to that program’s main event handler, then follow that program’s instructions to decide how to react to the keypress.
If that’s not making decisions, I don’t know what is.
Yes, exactly.
Maybe I’m missing your reference here. We don’t worry about embracing optical illusions. We’re just aware that our machinery has shortcomings in representing the external world. It’s very possible to carry on and acknowledge illusions without embracing them as real.
Let’s just stop that right here and now. Nobody here, except you, is proposing that life is a delusion. If you want to have that discussion, start a new thread. It’s a silly attempt to poison the well here with more emotional claptrap
Well, OK, but you can’t exert your will upon the future then.
That’s a bit like saying a stone decides to roll about in the surf. It doesn’t have any choice in the matter.
Sorry. I didn’t mean it that way.
Y’know, I recall seeing an argument something like this in discussing omniscience (substitute “God” for “computer”…ah, never mind the details, as they’re not really pertinent). I didn’t get it then, and I don’t get it now.
To me, especially where free will is concerned, the term “decision” entails “choice” – that is, it must be possible for things to be different. A computer is a deterministic machine: with the current state, program, and inputs fully specified, only one output can possibly be produced. So, if any other occurrance is impossible (due to determinism), it’s not at all clear to me what there is that might be considered a decision. Might you expand on that?
Self-evidence is an example of basic belief, not involuntary belief. If it wasn’t evident, you wouldn’t believe it.
Yes, you can. You can claim NFW as self-evident. But if it’s not self-evident, then your cognitive path to NFW is self-defeating, or at the least, unsound. e.g.
1)I believe I’m an agent,
2)But hey, I’m ultimately made up of matter
3)Matter is governed by rules independent of me
4a)Hence, I am governed by rules independent of me
4b)Hence, my judgement is governed by rules independent of me
5)So, I can’t judge if 1 through 4 make sense, nor 5 itself.
I don’t know where these demarcations come from, and how they’re justified.
Ultimately, free will is about power and control. Choice is the prominent form of control, but not necessarily its only manifestation.
So,
given free will, the self-evident aspect indicates accuracy but which I can’t rule out as illusory, and if the latter’s the case, then I can’t rule it out.
given NFW, the involuntary aspect indicates indeterminacy of accuracy and hence unreliable but the process may be accurate, after all.
Whoa there; you took the ‘free’ off of ‘will’ - which by my reckoning makes ‘will’ compatible with determinism right off the bat. If you’re a robot and have programming that makes you inclined to behave in a certain way, then that’s your will - and you do is exert it on the future.
No; the surf is external to yourself, you are guided by your internals. Your analogy is flawed.
It’s more like choosing coke over pepsi becuase you prefer the taste of coke. You don’t choose to prefer the taste of coke; you just do.
Well, I still don’t reject randomity as being part of the universe, so I don’t reject the possibility of different outcomes. But, as it happens, I can show you how a choice can have many possible outcomes, yet only one actual outcome quite easily: a multiple choice test.
x = 2 + 2. What is x?
a) 2
b) 3
c) 4
d) 5
Clearly, there are five choices here to choose from. Many options. But, there is only one best option. So, you decide which option is best, and you choose that option.
Now, it’s pretty obvious that your choice will be c). Predetermined, even. But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re choosing among multiple options.
I disagree. Try an experiment. Can you disbelieve that 2 + 2 = 4? No, you cannot. It is self-evident.
I just don’t see how voluntariness has any bearing on our ability to evaluate evidence. Couldn’t we be terrible at evaluating evidence and systematically deluded even if belief were voluntary? Please, explain how voluntariness of belief gives us an additional reason to belief in the reliability of reason.