11 Answers

  1. The problem of “Free will” does not overlap with the natural-scientific picture of the world. They don't affect each other in any way.

    Scientific knowledge does not care at all what the reasons and meaning of what is happening are. For him, it does not even matter whether the object of research exists, or whether it is an illusion, since the established laws and relationships between phenomena will not change in any way.

    So the question of free will can be considered arbitrarily by people with natural scientific thinking.

  2. In different ways. Personally, I think so… The determinism of the Universe deprives me of objective (or absolute) freedom, but the nature of man (limited knowledge and mental abilities) gives me a subjective sense of freedom, precisely because I am technically and factually unable to realize even a hundredth part of all that causes any of my choices or “randomness”.

    But the problem is solved simply. Simply by the fact that most of the time, the person is not aware of the problem.

    But if you have already realized, then you can solve the problem, for example, in the following way.

    Yes, the individual (“I”, ego) is not free, precisely because of its limitations. But if you perceive a person as one with the universe, which is hindered by the ego, then “they “(the Universal Person) can probably be completely free. From this angle, the wider your perception, the freer you are.

  3. This problem finds a solution that is both simple and complex. In the scientific picture of the world, freedom in general (and freedom of will in particular) is perfectly studied by F.Engels in the Dialectic of Nature. Objectively, there is no freedom in the real world. Freedom is always limited. More restricted or less restricted.

    Dialectics understands freedom as full knowledge of limitations as possible. Imagine that you are in a maze. You gain freedom only when you know all the walls.

    This understanding of freedom is quite cynical, and easily emasculated. I.e. it turns out that knowing how to circumvent the laws with impunity, you can therefore break them. But on the other hand, free will does not prevent us from adopting the positions of secularism, humanism, etc., and finally, just agree in the community on rules that must be observed by everyone; that is, build additional walls for ourselves in this maze.

    What is the simplicity and complexity of this position? On the one hand, everything is simple: there is no real free will, but knowledge frees you. But on the other hand, new knowledge raises new questions. Dialectics sometimes makes us wonder what metaphysical absolute free will is, but the way we go brings us closer to it asymptotically: how not to shorten the path to the goal by half — there is always half of the way. 🙂 I.e. the scientific picture of the world is in a sense a rejection of absolute freedom (or an escape from it, or an endless path to it: both interpretations are sides of the same coin).

  4. It depends on what is considered free will. At the moment of making a decision, the choice is made by you. but from the point of view of a moment in the future, you can trace how physically you made a decision, roughly speaking, how elementary particles moved. and from the point of view of the future, there is no choice in the present.

  5. There is no such thing as free will. There is no problem of free will. Free will is a religious concept. Therefore, free will is necessary for believers to prove the meaning of the religion they believe in. If you are not a believer, you are simply looking for more precise definitions for everything you encounter, and you have no choice whether to accept them or not. The choice is always predetermined by reasons. If there was an all-knowing god, he could have calculated the fate of all mankind and each individual person even before the creation of humans. he laid the root causes in the system, he could know the state of the system at any time. If you want to manage a person's behavior, try to understand the reasons for the person's choice, i.e. their qualities, and manage the reasons. The person will predictably do what they should. The only problem is that it is impossible to know all the factors that affect human behavior, hence the inability to 100% accurately calculate human behavior.

  6. Yes, almost the same as people with an unnatural-religious picture of the world… Question to nowhere! Look around you to see if atheists and believers are very different in their behavior (you don't need to take extreme expressions from both sides) and how they generally solve certain problems. We (atheists) rely on ourselves, believers on a higher power. In ordinary, everyday life, it is difficult to distinguish one from the other. And the cross hanging from my neck doesn't mean anything…. And by the way, “free will” is also closer to religion or science fiction. For realists, this phrase makes you smile.

  7. For me, free will consists of two things:
    1. My freedom of action ends where the other person's freedom begins. Otherwise, I am limited only by my inner morals and capabilities.
    2. I am aware of my actions and take full responsibility for their consequences.
    To think that everything is predetermined, unchangeable, to shift the blame to a higher being, to curse fate is unacceptable for me.

    Deviating from the topic, I think that the deterministic approach is wrong for this reason: if everything is determined in advance, nothing can be influenced, then if you perceive the course of life as a certain stable system, you can fairly accurately describe its state at any given time. In other words, it would be possible to predict the future. At least that's how I see it.

  8. Yes, there is no “free will problem” – it is sucked out of your finger. This is a pseudo-problem like whether God can create a stone that he can't lift himself.

    And it is solved in an elementary way-it is necessary to recall the “anthropic principle” in a residual way. If there is no free will, if everything is strictly deterministic, then any conversation on this topic (as well as on any other) is meaningless by definition.

  10. They just don't create it . And they do not understand why the possible lack of free will (from some point of view, in the case of some of its specific definitions) can be a problem.� Moreover , you can determine what� freedom of the will is missing , if the will or behavior� controlled� something out� of the human body to� not to create a problem from a legal perspective and the question of responsibility for their actions. If it is controlled by something that is a part of you ( hormones, etc.) – do not care about free will, answer you.

  11. Lunacharsky says: “why without preparation, I've been preparing for this all my life.” It is necessary to understand this in such a way that it is impossible to know what Lunacharsky knows by a single volitional effort. It's not enough to want, you also need to “prepare for this all your life”. Remember how Paul Valerie says, ” If you knew what I know, you wouldn't know what you know.” “We stand on the shoulders of the giants of previous generations.” Our ancestors give us a copy of their cage-a copy of their delusions, a copy of their unfreedom.

    The first thing that a person cannot be free from is sleep. A person is a slave to his metabolism, blood pressure, etc.

    In N. Gribachev's book “Execution at Dawn” we read: “And this personality is grown in a glass jar, isn't it? It is a complex, a product of different multipliers. In this Vadim Shershnev of yours, in different sizes, not counting vodka and girls, sit: dad, mom, uncle, teacher, friend, divisional commander, you and I … Yes, you and I! ( … ) If not only to fill a person with knowledge, but to put the principles themselves and reasonable moral limits-you can't stop here! And fix it in your reflexes. ( … ) Bitter, after all, this service is to judge. Forgive, be kind – take it easy. And there is less responsibility for human life.”

    The statement of Gribachev's hero, a member of the military tribunal, is confirmed in the pedagogical research of V. A. Sukhomlinsky: “… sometimes, as if by chance … in passing ( … ), every minute of life and every corner of the earth with which the emerging personality comes into contact is brought up.” “Nothing surprises or fascinates so much. Nothing makes you want to be better than a smart, intellectually rich person.

    The mind is educated by the mind, the conscience by the conscience, and devotion to the Motherland by effective service to the Motherland. ( … ) Everything ostentatious brings up a hypocrite in a person.”

    “The game in most cases is imitation. Children in the game often imitate the hypocrisy, stupidity, cruelty of adults, but no one will claim that such games have a beneficial effect on children. Nowadays, it's not uncommon to see children playing gallows. (This was written during the years of rampant tsarist reaction. – ed.) There was a story in the papers that two children aged eight and ten had hanged a friend, and then another boy had hanged his little sister. Of course, they don't write about hanged … cats and dogs in the newspapers. ( … ) How often these games wake up the beast in them! ” (“Pedagogical Works”, vol. 1, pp. 130-131).

    Boris Stepanovich Ryabinin reflects on this as follows: “The child grabbed the cat by the tail and dragged it to himself. Stop it now, stop it … explain patiently, mentally – if he is already old enough – why this should not be done.

    Baby scares pigeons. On the surface, it's an innocent activity … because he's having fun. Scaring, he likes that pigeons, at his approach, … fly away, that they are afraid of him (…) When he feels his power, he begins to abuse it. ( … ) The desire to enjoy someone's fear, maybe even subconsciously lives in us. This is probably an atavism, an echo of those distant eras when man was forced to hide himself constantly, like a wild animal; and, of course. He triumphed when someone else was in his position. All this is natural for a certain age. �

    V. Smirnov's book “Discovery of the World”, which introduces the reader to the world of childhood and children's worldview, describes (hereafter the literal text will be given) such a negative, spontaneous, unplanned pseudo-pedagogical experience of zombification-programming a small person to harmful tendencies and actions for society.

    (in this case, a pedagogical mistake was made by the older brother of seven years old, under whose supervision the younger, two years old, brother was left by his parents)

    But such a pedagogical mistake could have been made by the parent himself, and the fact that this error in education is not recognized by the subject of education is due to the situation itself, when there is no time for reflection due to the spontaneity of the act. When the mind is busy, there seems to be a more important task.

    Further in the text: “With extraordinary enthusiasm, Shurka is accepted to calm down her brother. Struck by a happy thought. He voltuzit stick old bucket, which hurt Vanyatku. (…)

    “Here you go, scoundrel. Here you go! I'll let you know how to make a nice little Vanya bo-bo. Shurka says. Working hard with a stick. (…)

    Vanya watches with wet eyes as the stick bounces on the bucket, and stops crying. He crawls up to the offender and, opening his mouth, sticking out his tongue to the side, with pleasure begins to beat the hated bucket with a splinter. Shurkin's calculation was justified” (end of quote).

    The child, like a sponge, absorbs-especially in a stressful situation in which he is-the mindset that if you are in pain, you need to hit someone else to make it easier for yourself.�

    A person can't get rid of an accent with a single strong-willed effort, and many people can't get rid of an accent at all. A person cannot change his gait, speed of speech, manner of communication, order and way of thinking, features of posture and gait, etc. by a single volitional effort.

    “The illusion that man's will is free is so ingrained in our souls,” writes William Somerset Maugham, ” that even I am ready to accept it. And when I act, I pretend that something depends on me. But when an action is performed, it becomes clear to me that it was caused by the efforts of the eternal forces of nature, [and no matter what a person does, he always remains a person limited by the limits of his mind, and could not act differently from what he did]. It was inevitable. And if it was a noble action, it is not my fault; if it was a bad one, no one has the right to reproach me … / society prepares a crime, the criminal commits it/”.

Leave a Reply

Categories