Perhaps a conscious decision is one where we logically weigh all factors and do some sort of analytics to determine a course of action, whereas most decisions just seem to come to us after pondering. I see a difference. — jgill

I was probably unclear - I meant that the difference doesn't matter from the point of view of whether free will is involved, i.e. a decision made subconsciously can be a reflection of free will. Does that make a difference?

Lesson: accountability starts after will is executed, but we don't call it accountability if we don't presuppose free will. — pfirefry

Are our actions different if we assume no free will is involved than if we assume there is?

The concept of FW is the result of determinism being too complex for us to countenance. We big-brained apes can grasp and understand only so much--and a full understanding of determinism is more than we can manage. — Bitter Crank

Clearly, people's actions are controlled by factors outside their control to some extent. People who are abused as children tend to abuse others. People of very low intelligence may not be able to understand right from wrong. That seems different to me than a lack of free will associated with metaphysical materialistic understanding of reality.

Therefore, we do hold ourselves and others accountable. There is no conceivable way to track all the factors that led Joan to murder Sam, so we are forced to settle for personal guilt and prison. The opposite is true too. "I am a successful businessman because I am very smart, and I chose to do everything just exactly right." — Bitter Crank

There is a way of understanding that denies the need or validity of taking credit or accepting blame for our actions. The Tao Te Ching discusses it. That doesn't mean that you don't expect to have to face the consequences of your actions and decisions.

I think the answer is obvious: yes, we should keep holding each other accountable. Practically speaking, the answer to the question of free will doesn't drastically change our behaviour regarding accountability. — pfirefry

I agree.

Although we can argue that the universe must not be deterministic or that free will must not exist, I tend to think that there is an answer which allows both statements to hold true. — pfirefry

Ok. Or maybe neither statement is true. I think they are metaphysical statements. You're new here, so you haven't heard my never-ending refrain - metaphysical positions are neither true nor false. They have no truth value. They are more or less useful in a particular situation at a particular time.

The criminal system works well with the absence of will: this person is a criminal, they don't seem to control their own actions and therefore we need to send them into prison for the benefit of society. — pfirefry

As I've noted in a previous post, wouldn't we treat someone who has done something wrong but does not have free will differently that one who does have free will.

I have my doubts about free will. Many decisions seem to pop into consciousness from hidden areas of the brain. — jgill

I am very aware that my actions "pop into consciousness from hidden areas of the brain." Do you think that means they are somehow not as much part of us as our conscious decisions are? I think a distinction between my unconscious decisions and actions and conscious ones is artificial and pointless.

But as a matter of practical decisions about people, agents who bind themselves to obligation are the only one's worth arranging anything with. That is the mark of voluntary action well beyond the apportionment of blame. Are such willing agents free? — Paine

I don't understand. Are you saying that only people who agree to be judged should be held accountable? I'm pretty sure you're not saying that.

A little Spinoza might help here. — Paine

I really don't understand the point of the Spinoza quote or it's relevance to this discussion. When he says all things are necessary, does he mean that they are determined?

Aristotle started this discussion; but what the old philosopher meant to say (and would have said had we been there to help him) is that the forces of the deterministic universe are too subtle, too pervasive, and too complex for us to follow. — Bitter Crank

This is close to my take on the matter, although I can't speak for Aristotle as you seemingly can.

it was a spoiled jar of Gerber Asparagus baby food. it made you intensely sick for several days. You didn't know what was happening at the time. — Bitter Crank

No, no. It was the fact that my mother, true to her New York upper crust upbringing, always served hollandaise sauce on asparagus. How could you not love anything that has hollandaise sauce on it.

I agree with them. — Tobias

I find pure materialist physics very unconvincing, worse than unconvincing - meaningless. But this is not the place to go into that.

The one I speak about, and the one with which the topic concerns itself, is judicial judgement alone, whereas the judgement concerned with the will of the individual in relation to himself, is aesthetic. — Mww

I don't understand.

Are you asking whether, assuming there is no free will, no real choice, it makes sense to hold people accountable from a pragmatic or a moral standpoint? I'd say from a pragmatic standpoint, any society must hold its members accountable for their actions; that's the pragmatic perspective. On the other hand from the point of view of moral judgement, if people could never have done otherwise than what they have done, then I can't see how they could be morally accountable anymore than animals, lightning or volcanoes are. — Janus

Agreed.

Great linked article. Clear and thorough in discussing the basics of the question along with its history and implications.

I don't think I buy your "meta-philosophical analysis."

I don't see any evidence of that in your OP, nor in most of the discussion.The thread follows the dismal pattern of all such free will discussions, where the subject is obscure and people talk past each other. (@Tobias at least has a definite idea of the sense of "free will" that he is talking about, but is this what you had in mind? I don't know, and I get a sense that you don't know either.) — SophistiCat

Alas.

Many people recognise that in some situations we are so pyschologically strained that we cannot think clearly. The problem is that it is not very consistent. — Tobias

Yes, that brings us back to the question I considered in my response to BitterCrank previously:

What forces control us; gravity, the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism; evolutionary drives such as aggression and sex; medical factors such as brain damage or congenital defects; social forces such as childhood abuse; or some other types of forces. Which ones matter? Which ones count? — T Clark

Which of these do we take into account? The ones you and I are talking about are the medical and social forces I discussed. On the other hand, some people understand our lack of free will to be dependent on a materialistic interpretation of basic ontology.

The thing called "free will" is as deterministic as the cartoon safe plunging to the sidewalk. The source of our free will, whatever it is or is not, are the intricate and immensely complicated transactions of physics and chemistry within our brain cells--which are deterministic. — Bitter Crank

Well, this was the question I was avoiding by stipulating at the beginning that there is no free will. I don't mind you bringing it up, but I would rather this discussion not be side-tracked too far.

We still have to choose all sorts of things during the day: brown socks or black socks; broccoli or asparagus; robbery or burglary; put fake data in the report or let the facts show that one is a lazy bureaucrat; have sex with a stranger or not; read the New York Times or the Boston Globe; stop at Aldi's or Trader Joe's; watch another episode of the Sopranos or not. — Bitter Crank

So, you are proposing free will as applicable at a day to day level, even if not absolutely. Kind of a pseudo-free will or free will as result of statistical mechanics. I was going to say I don't think it's relevant to the question at hand, but I'm not sure that's true. What forces control us; gravity, the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism; evolutionary drives such as aggression and sex; medical factors such as brain damage or congenital defects; social forces such as childhood abuse; or some other types of forces. Which ones matter? Which ones count? A really interesting question that I don't remember being discussed before. Maybe I missed it - I often avoid FW discussions.

If we get into that here, I think it will distract from the discussion I'm trying to have.

Good post.

I would contend that in criminal law the absolute presupposition (in the sense of Collingwood) is made that we have free will. That it is such an assumption of criminal law is not uncontroversial, but I contend that it is, so will accept it for the purpose of this thread. — Tobias

I was thinking of this when I started this discussion - I've read about jurisdictions where mitigating factors; e.g. childhood abuse, poverty, hardship; can not be be brought up during the trial, but they can be considered during the penalty phase when punishment is determined. This would be especially applicable for cases where the death penalty is under consideration.

Contast that with peretrators that plead an insanity defense. They contend that at that point they were not being themselves, they did not have control of their actions. An insanity defense is nothing else than a request to be treated as policy concern and to be absolved from moral blameworthiness. — Tobias

I think there are situations when people clearly are not in control of their actions, e.g. schizophrenia with delusions and hallucinations.

I think such views make the law redundant. — Manuel

The law and any moral or ethical consideration at all.

If a criminal can not avoid committing criminal acts (say, arson, rape, and/or bloody murder), would that not be an excellent reason to lock him or her up? Call it punishment or prevention--some people should not be at large. — Bitter Crank

I think you might treat someone who has no choice in what they do differently than one who does. Perhaps more kindly. If we got rid of punishment and just performed social control, criminal justice might be much more humane.

If there is no free will accountability becomes a mere social convenience and not a moral issue. — EnPassant

I agree.

people who take part in these discussions fail to do the most basic philosopher's due diligence, like asking themselves what free will is, why it is that and not something else, and how it is relevant to whatever they really want to talk about, because, as in your case, what they really want to talk about is something else. — SophistiCat

I don't disagree. I do think that what I am trying to do in this discussion is just the kind of due diligence you are talking about.

In a generally civilized society, the members of it are already held accountable, by means of the tenets of an agreed upon administrative code. Such code, and the voluntary adherence to it, is predicated on the mutual desire to live under some set of conditions as a community, and has nothing to do with an individualized personal will. — Mww

This is a very small part of what constitutes holding someone accountable. It applies in all sorts of situations where there may be no specific rules - in employment, in personal relationships, in business relationships, basically in every aspect of human interaction.

The question as to whether or not the individual ought to conform to the code willingly, is irrelevant, when the only interest he has in it, relates to the mere desire for its benefits. There is no need to will himself to comply, when a want suffices for the same end. — Mww

This raises a question I hadn't thought of - Does acting on desire require free will? I would have thought the obvious answer is "yes." Perhaps not. I'll think about it.

If there is no free will, then this question is equally non answerable because what sense does it make to decide whether to hold someone accountable or not, if there is no free will?

Wouldn't answering that question imply free will? — SpaceDweller

Yes. I guess what I want to examine is the contradiction between what a lack of free will implies and people's actions and behavior. Does anyone actually believe there is no free will?

But these options don't really make sense, so the assumption of no free will has to be modified or admitted. — Manuel

Which is sort of what I'm trying to get at. Hardly anyone has any real commitment to a "no free will" position. Not to the extent that it changes their attitudes or behavior significantly. So it's purely a philosophical, "rational" position.

I have heard of philosopher types who committed suicide after convincing themselves they have no free will. Ironic, I guess.

If we have a choice in the matter, there is free will, and we can be “accountable”, if not, it seems we are determined to hold people accountable anyway. — Ennui Elucidator

Perhaps what I'm looking for is a more personal statement from someone who believes there is not free will. An answer to the question - Do you hold other people accountable for their actions? Does it make sense that you do that? Is the only answer that you have no choice?

I guess my answer to the question is that it makes no difference whether or not we have free will in any aspect of our lives. It certainly makes no practical difference.

They will also probably recognize the term "Reductionism" as being a form of philosophy that is often quoted "as an intellectual and philosophical position that interprets a complex system as the sum of its parts. — Don Wade

A phrase often quoted in gestalt: "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts." deals with how we (humans) deal with visual information as being a whole, parts of a whole, or something greater. — Don Wade

Generally, you'll find that, although you think the definitions of terms such as these are obvious, other people will think they mean something different. Those types of differences often spin discussions into confusion here on the the forum. The terms "gestalt" and "reductionism" also have more complex implications and applications than your over-simple definitions indicate. You've given us very little to work with.

I'll leave it at that and bow out of the conversation.

Suggest you define your terms; describe the issue; and give your own thoughts.

useless and impossible. you are simply expanding your mind — Miller

@ToothyMaw

If you're interested, you should take a look at @Tom Storm's recent discussion - What is it to be Enlightened?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12206/what-is-it-to-be-enlightened/p1

I am and never have been anywhere near an athlete, but I did play football and wrestled in high school. If you play sports, there is a phrase you will hear all the time, at least you would have when I was a kid. I have always liked it a lot - Suck it up. Don't cry. Don't complain. Get off your ass. Get back to work. It's a very male thing to say, which is one of the reasons I like it. I think it highlights better than almost anything else the good and bad things about being a man. It makes me laugh.

I remember football practice vividly. We'd run play after play for hours. In August. In southern Virginia. After a summer of sitting around and sleeping. Down in position. Snap the ball. Guys smashing into each other. Bleeding knuckles, pulled muscles, breath knocked out of you. Exhausted. Thirsty. I learned something about myself. I could take it. Just suck it up.

Is that a good thing? On the positive side, it's what makes a man a man. On the negative side, it's what makes a man a man. I wouldn't necessarily trust a Navy seal to be able to understand the significance of that.

Thanks for your insight.

Out of curiosity, and I'm not asking for names, are there any forum members who you think would make A students. I realize that the format we work in is different from an academic paper. How does the writing and, more important, the quality of thought here compare to your classes?

Therefore, we cannot verify the truth of cognitive closure and mysterianism. — clemogo

It would be a big help if you defined your terms.

In order to detect a limit, you must be able to see both sides of it. — clemogo

I don't see why this is true. I don't need to see the other side of a wall in order to be stopped by it. Yes, I know, you're talking about thoughts. Can you give an example of the kind of situation you are talking about.

I can't find the recent thread about the Russell set.

And when I click the link to 'Feedback' it does nothing. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It got deleted. See fdrakes response to my post in the Shoutbox.

I thought this was a boring idea for a discussion, but I was wrong. Interesting.

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks. I saw that and still couldn't figure out what it was talking about.

f a mental event M supervenes on a physical event P, and P causes a further physical event P* on which a further mental event M* supervenes, serious doubt can be cast on the claim that M causes M*. — Ignoredreddituser

I've looked up "supervene" but I found the definitions and examples confusing. Can you clarify. What does it mean that "M supervenes on P." Does that mean M causes P; P causes M; M and P are correlated; or what? Can you give us a real-life, realistic example of the relationships described in the first paragraph.

The number of mosquitoes (or viral particles) is irrelevant. Doubling the number of people within a given environment cuts the risk in half to any individual within that environment. — Roger Gregoire

Note to self - Do not respond to posts from RG in the future.

So, for those asking, the virus, though non-living organism, does seek a host to replicate. — Caldwell

This is not correct. Viruses are not self-propelled. They move passively with the substance they are attached to, e.g. droplets of moisture from the lungs.

The simple math is -- the more people sharing a viral load, the less individual risk per person. The more healthy unmasked immune people surrounding a vulnerable person, the proportionally safer she becomes. — Roger Gregoire

If we were talking about mosquitos, and if a mosquitos behaved the way viruses do, and if mosquitos could only bite one person, perhaps you would be right. But viruses do not behave like mosquitos and you will never find one virus in a room.

So, show us some evidence. I've asked before. Several other people have too. Put up or shut up. Your so-called "simple math" is wrong.

T Clark, check the science. It is extremely rare for the young (immune) man to replicate and cough up (or "bring in") mosquitoes into the room. — Roger Gregoire

A young person is not necessarily less likely to catch the disease than an older person, just less likely to have serious consequences. Also, as I noted, viruses would diffuse throughout the air in the room, meaning that another person in the room will not decrease the likelihood that the woman will be exposed.

Show me this science you refer to.

Nothing you have said changes my opinion of your post. It's still wrong.

The risk to the vulnerable woman is significantly LESS with the unclothed young man in the room, than without him. — Roger Gregoire

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Yes, well. I just went back and edited that part out.

Lamest thought experiment ever. And that's saying something given how much philosophers and, especially, half-assed would-be philosophers like us here on the forum love a lame-ass thought experiment. Just to be clear, being lame is much worse than being wrong. I'm embarrassed to respond.

The analogy between the woman in the room with a mosquito and her in a room with a virus is, to put it kindly, flawed. By which I mean stupid. If there were viruses in the room, they would be spread evenly throughout the room. Bringing someone else into the room, clothed or naked, would have no effect on the likelihood of the woman being exposed.

Except that's not true. Although we can't be sure there are no viruses in the room before the new guy shows up, there should be very few. That's what isolation is about. Bringing someone in from outside probably increases the chances that there will be more viruses, which will raise the probability of exposure. The more people we let in, the greater the probability.

I won't go into the later analogies. I couldn't without giggling.

Conclusion: Dumb ass analogy. Wrong answer.

[Edited by poster]