An question about free will, blames and credit?

[henriette]

in Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?, EDDY NAHMIAS reports this sometimes heard argument :

"Indeed, free will matters in part because it is a precondition for deserving blame for bad acts and deserving credit for achievements. "

Is not this idea a logical contradiction?

[Serpent]

Where is the contradiction?
If you control your own actions, then you can be punished for bad actions and rewarded for good actions. If you don't control your actions, whatever you do wrong is not your fault and whatever you do right is not your merit.

And, of course, without free will, we cannot blame or credit, reward nor punish; we cannot make any judgments at all.

So, if you can discuss anyone's free will, you probably have it yourself.

[Gregorygregg1]

"...free will matters in part because it is a precondition for deserving blame for bad acts and deserving credit for achievements. "
In other words, the ego requires at least the illusion of free will to survive.   Whether I receive blame or credit makes no difference, either is a confirmation of my individuality.  On the other hand, free will may mean the ability to choose to reject the ego and realize what I truly am, without blame or credit.

[henriette]

If you control your own actions, then you can be punished for bad actions and rewarded for good actions. If you don't control your actions, whatever you do wrong is not your fault and whatever you do right is not your merit.

Thank you dear for the constructive comment.

???????????????
This is what appear a contradiction to me.
You can be punished for "bad" or "good" actions whenever you have controlled them or not : you can be punished by law and the existence of the law does not need the existence of free will.

And, of course, without free will, we cannot blame or credit, reward nor punish;

On the contrary, of course you can. You can even punish by law someone to death for unconscious actions. It does just depend on the law. Those kind of laws are very common in history. The law is enough, you do not need free will to blame.

In a world where free will does not exist, the blame just results from the law. It is the case with muslims' rules : free will does not exist and the Kuran is the law.

So, if you can discuss anyone's free will, you probably have it yourself.

Sorry I do not understand the logic of this sentence.

The point is : what would happen when people will realize that free will is an invention? No matter if it is real or an illusion, the point is that free will is a social invention.

[henriette]

"...free will matters in part because it is a precondition for deserving blame for bad acts and deserving credit for achievements. "



In other words, the ego requires at least the illusion of free will to survive.   Whether I receive blame or credit makes no difference, either is a confirmation of my individuality.  On the other hand, free will may mean the ability to choose to reject the ego and realize what I truly am, without blame or credit.

?????????????????????
Dear, Thank you for this answer. I am surely from planet Mars because I just can not believe you have written that.
With ego you add a new concept on the block. Some civilisations did not have the concept of free will (inch allah maktoub : everything is already written) and the people did not commit suicide because an alleged "ego" was frustrated.

The scientific advent of the murder of the free will will arguably follow that of god and, finally, people will as a consequence procrastinate more and this would yield peace.

[moranity]

if theres no freewill what ever is gonna happen is gonna happen anyway, whats the point in fussing about it, or not fussing about it, infact, why decide to do anything, lets all just sit here and not make a choice, because "us" is just a tape playing if theres no free will. i personally find it impossible to act, except in the most extreme of circumstance, without making a choice from a number of options, we have emotions and desires pushing us towards different choices, but in the end its we who choose.
do you know of the gom jabbar in Dune, that, for me is what makes humans different from animals, the ability to choose even when pushed so hard by fear or desire, I am not a slave of circumstance, i choose what i do.
“You dare suggest a duke’s son is an animal?"
“Let us say I suggest you may be human,”

[henriette]

Dear moranity,

Make a choice and decide differ. Societies that deny free will act anyway, this is because determinism and free will are not incompatible. They are surely more fatalist and less stressed by the concept of a successful life, anyway.

"Your" decisions may not be free, whatever? Is not the point that the illusion of "oneness" is determined from free will? "Thank to free will, one can choose" is the way we define the "one" that acts.

Indeed, with free will we suggest that this "one" as an "ontological" status, this "one" not only exists as a concept (like the concept of cow) but as a reality. Like if humans were an offspring of reality. If you consider that the agent that acts is just a concept than you can not decide whether he has free will, this is why we can not say that cows have free will : "cow" is just a concept. While men exist in the reality, apparently. At this point my English is too bad to express my thoughts...I agree with you that the unveiling that free will is an invention may turn the Duke into a duck. Hence science may be dangerous...“And, still, it turns”

[moranity]

when you say that "make a choice" and "decide" differ, do you mean that "make a choice" presuposes free will, but "decide" does not neccessarily do so?
In my limited experience Islamic societies do not deny free will, but try to conform their will with the will of God and when they say "it is the will of God" they generally talk about external matters, not their own decisions. I do not know of any societies that, by tradition, deny free will. There are some forms of christianity that do so, and they have had a marked effect on some present societies, but it is not the mainstream view in any societies that i know of.
In my own observations of my mind during the moment when choices are made, i can choose any of the available options, i may follow my desires or fears or plans or what ever advisors are there, but i do not have to. I assume that others are the same, when they actually pay attention to the process, which, admittedly is hard to do.

[henriette]

when you say that "make a choice" and "decide" differ, do you mean that "make a choice" presuposes free will, but "decide" does not neccessarily do so?

Yes, this is exactly what I tried to underline. The cat decides to jump on the mouse but he has no choice to do it as cats always do.

In my limited experience Islamic societies do not deny free will,

They do with some complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Islam). Augustine also did, yielding an apory. Everything is not only determined in Islam, it is already written, like with the cat above : Maktoub (from the verb "to write"). This is linked to the fatalism that enjoyed so much european orientalists during the 19th century. Free will is a question of choice with different degrees. But science may show it does not exist.

In my own observations of my mind during the moment when choices are made, i can choose any of the available options, i may follow my desires or fears or plans or what ever advisors are there, but i do not have to. I assume that others are the same, when they actually pay attention to the process, which, admittedly is hard to do.

I follow this, the concept of free will is a major interest but science may give us a new opportunity to temper this concept and then that of responsibility, making the world a less stressing place

[moranity]

first off, Henriette, that wikipedia article states that the koran says men choose to go against god's word

However it should be noted that people are not predestined by Allah to enter Hell. Rather people will only bear the their own sins that they themselves committed with free will and no one will be responsible for another persons deeds. The Quran holds that no man will be treated unjustly and everything will judged by Allah. The Qur'an says this in the following verse:

" Say: You will not be questioned as to what we are guilty of, nor shall we be questioned as to what you do. Say: Our Lord will gather us together, then will He judge between us with the truth; and He is the greatest Judge, the All-knowing."
— Qur'an, Sura 34 (Saba'), ayat 25-26[4]

"They will cry out to them: Were we not with you? They shall say: Yea! but you caused yourselves to fall into temptation, and you waited and doubted, and vain desires deceived you till the threatened punishment of Allah came, while the archdeceiver deceived you about Allah. "
— Qur'an, Sura 57 (Al-Hadid), ayat 14[5]

so free will is just as alive in Islam as in Christianity

i do not think the world will become less stressful if people do not take responsibility for their actions, i find it's the other way around.
In Buddhism there is a state of mind called "equinimity" where all desires and fears and other mental advisors have no power to move a person and that person is free to choose.

[Serpent]

Choosing to talk about it presupposes free will.
Framing laws presupposes free will.
Carrying out the judgments, reward and punishments under the law presupposes free will.
Calling total strangers Dear requires free will and refraining from same does, too.
Please to exercise latter option.

[henriette]

Framing laws presupposes free will.
Carrying out the judgments, reward and punishments under the law presupposes free will.
Calling total strangers Dear requires free will and refraining from same does, too.
Please to exercise latter option.

Dear, is not this a dogma?
Framing of laws may just be an automatic procedure, like with the Magnetic Fields of surrealist artists A. Breton and P. Soupault. Is there a way out to show if framing law requires free will or not? Can the concept of logical reasoning be of help here? It rather looks like an apory like with the existence of god. Some beleive the law is from god, for the men, but not by them, so those laws do not require our will to be free; gravity neither.

Is free will still a concept of interest? It appears it is to the extend that this vanity contributes to the dignity of the person because it gives sense to self consciousness, responsability and to a gap between us humans and the rest of the world. But science may anyway makes it and obsolete concept in the same way as with Aristotle's celestial spheres, no?

What would be the social consequences of a scientific calling into question of the concept of free will, in the perspective of the related scientific studies suggested in the this forum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Breton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Champs ... 3%A9tiques

[Percarus]

I won't say much about the metaphysical as a lot has been covered before. However, on a very personal note, I believe free will dwells on aspects of 'faith'. A Theist in one aspect may deem that God is in absolute control, mayhap even free will. Different Theist faiths may credit that God granted free will. Atheists may give credence that we are essentially machines with no free will and at entire mercy of our environment. Other Atheists may see the human brain as encompassing of mega nano scale random variations (in relations think the atomic clock) thus granting us individuality and hence free will. Personally I believe that one's 'faith' and utter wish alone (from within the heart) establishes as us having free will. Each human being confronts life differently and in order to justify our existance we become so embedded on our very concept of free will that the degree of 'free will' differs from individual to individual based on faith alone. Regardless, that is not to say we live life different to each other or have different desires, instead it paves way to the notion that free will is a variant in the human species contributed by choice or early environment.

[mtbturtle]

I'm an atheist. I make choices. I'm responsible for them. Aren't you?

[Percarus]

Hey mtbturtle... I was an Agnostic Theist most my life but now I am a Theist. I make choices, I believe I am responsible for them. But I also give credence that God shapes my free will by manipulating the environment around me when he/she/it sees fit.

[Enigmonaut]

"Indeed, free will matters in part because it is a precondition for deserving blame for bad acts and deserving credit for achievements. "

Blame and credit are simian ideas to generate (and manipulate) social standing. Devoid of social context blame and credit are irrelevant. I admit I struggle with the term "deserve"- Is this an allusion to justice?

Free-will as a "precondition" sounds like cart before the horse material. More generally "Free-will" is preconditioned unless you exist in a vacuum. I admit I do not understand what free will is; while suspecting it can be co-opted, I do not think one can avoid justice by avoiding responsibility for their acts and for that matter- Their circumstance.

Can you take the human out of a human (or put it in) and apply "justice" for an apparent outcome?

I feel this is garbage in, garbage out, check your premises situation. Perhaps the larger point might be "what is justice?"

[Gregorygregg1]

?????????????????????
Dear, Thank you for this answer. I am surely from planet Mars because I just can not believe you have written that.
With ego you add a new concept on the block. Some civilisations did not have the concept of free will (inch allah maktoub : everything is already written) and the people did not commit suicide because an alleged "ego" was frustrated.

The scientific advent of the murder of the free will will arguably follow that of god and, finally, people will as a consequence procrastinate more and this would yield peace.

Sweetheart,
It is a matter of how we see ego. I see Ego as a straw man we are taught to construct to separate and shape individuals to fit into a given social structure. The trouble is we begin to believe the straw man has reality. the reality is that egos obstruct our vision of what we truly are, which is far more than a cog in society's wheel. We are the consciousness of the universe. This is not a concept ego permits. If we are all the consciousness of the universe, what makes me better, or more important than anyone else? This does not preclude bathing in fountains of inspiration, or sharing what you find there with the rest of the consciousness.