are there any books that make remotely convincing arguments in favor of free will?
thinking of checking out Dennett's "Freedom Evolves". can anyone vouch for it, or recommend something better?
>>8133741
Why do you want free will to exist? If you end up finding a convincing argument, what is to be gained?
>>8133930
really mostly just looking to round out my understanding of the the issue. i'm not afraid of the truth.
although i'd be lying if i told you that i don't find the idea of determinism tremendously sad.
>>8133958
Reality is actually indeterministic, but that makes no difference to the issue of free will.
>>8133741
If you are watching a recorded football match, can't rewind or ask anybody how it ended, does it really differ from watching it live?
>>8133958
I'm not going to act like I'm well-versed in the literature or anything. But my sense of the argument (from watching a lot of youtube debates and shit) is that it typically goes like this:
Dude A makes an argument against the existence of free will based on the unbroken buttom-up propagation of deterministic interactions. Then Dude B says something like "Actually, here's what the REAL definition of free will is..." and constructs a definition that isn't incompatible with physical determinism but also generally doesn't live up to the image that most people have in mind when they think about free will. Either that or they'll make some bizarre argument where they point out that since some quantum phenomenon don't seem to be deterministic, this randomness at the tiniest scales somehow grants us free will (Which it doesn't. You have no more free choice in the outcome of a random dice roll than you do in a predetermined outcome). Or worse yet, they'll make a cop-out argument like "Free will exists because God granted it to us, end of story."
But yeah, for the most part it's just pointless arguments about semantics. What this tells me (and I'm not a philosophy major or anything) is that the debate is still going on because there's something inherently wrong with the way we've chosen to frame it. Some assholes in Greece 3000 years ago came up with this oversimplified concept we call "free will", and now Western civilization is stuck trying to address our concerns about personal responsibility, human potential, environmental influence on behavior, etc., through that lens. In my personal opinion it's a dated concept that doesn't really merit being talked about any more, just like physicists no longer talk about the four fundamental elements, phlogiston or the ether.
>>8133958
>although i'd be lying if i told you that i don't find the idea of determinism tremendously sad.
read Spinoza and Nietzsche. both see determinism as a joyful and freeing perspective on the world.
>>8134002
when considering it from a religious perspective, i feel it does. if we aren't responsible for our actions, what does that imply for the idea of a judgement day? to me the idea of free will is the greatest hurdle to get over when trying to accept, in my case, christianity. In terms of day to day living, however, i agree with you, there's not much difference either way you look at it.
>>8134369
If you were God, what would your judgement be on a hypothetical person who was born with whatever combination of genes yields a severely low IQ, along with a tendency toward psychopathic and violent behavior? Let's also imagine that they happened to be born into an uncaring and abusive household. An intervention with behavior therapy etc., might have helped steer them onto a better path, but they were never afforded this opportunity. At age 16, this person commits murder, rape, or some other morally reprehensible act, and then they die.
You're playing the role of God here. Do the details of their traumatic upbringing and their faulty brain wiring have any influence on your judgement of their sins? Should they get a lighter sentence, given the circumstances? It's also worth pondering the fact that, if you're God, you're the one who put them into those circumstances and gave them those unlucky genetics to begin with. I'm not trying to make a pointed argument here, just some stuff to think about.
