What do you need a free will for?

Being a fundamentalist pragmatic, I see words as tools, their only sense to be found in possible consequences. And so see the question of whether there exists a free will as identical to the question of whether that idea is the most functional in what we are trying to accomplish with it.

Where you obviously need it is in morals, as in selecting those deserving rewards from those who deseve punishment; for as to be reward deserving good morals must be a result of themselves. An obvious absurdity true enough, but the alternative is having received those good morals as a gift, and there is no accomplishment in that. A free will here must be a will with which you manipulate this selfsame will into giving birth to it self.

Let us consider the alternative, not to a free will, but its usefulness. Consider that jails and post mortem hells were unnecessary, because deserving jail or hells was obviously stupid even without jails or hells. What do we then need free will for?
Adam Smith with his invisible hand, where the selfishness of a baker gained his customers, were hailed by Ludwig von Mises as the first time someone had suggested that humans could be free. Frédéric Bastiat had a bit earlier - likely influenced by the same source - asked why God should have constructed a world where humans had conflicting interests?

I am not saying that we can do away with morals immediately – I am saying that it is to me imaginable that we can attain that stage in some future time - and what destiny will that spell for free will?

Okay, I’ve read determinism as being an unpleasant idea to many, but I can’t see this as a necessary consequence of free will disappearing. Determinism sounds to me like some sort of tunnel you can’t get out of, but if things do not follow each other, but are all influenced by all others, what can then be said to be pre-decided? Many with some knowledge of physics have noted that if you wave your little finger you heat up its surroundings and change all weather on Earth forever, we are united all of us by energy.

I myself must admit never having noticed a thought of mine as being detached from what has been forced upon me, I’m just trying to adapt to changing circumstances. But others will most likely see things differently?

I'm not sure if I have the intentions of the post straight, but I gather that the core idea is: Hypothetically, if free will played no part in imprisonment or damnation, then what would its function be? The first answer that occurs to me is that our believing in free will is universally required for motivation. If you completely reject free will then there is no reason to form strategies/intentions/ambitions, since these would all be illusory anyway. If every action you make is predetermined, if free will doesn't enter into it, then why "will" yourself to get out of bed in the morning? If such willing doesn't enter the picture, then you may as well not bother pretending that it does. So, I guess I'm saying that, though the existence or non-existence of free will might not have a function, one's belief or disbelief in it does. It's true that determinists still go about their lives normally (as far as I can tell), but if they genuinely disbelieved in free will at bottom then I see no reason why they wouldn't lay still perpetually and waste away. So I guess I think that free will is just an assumption that humans have to make at the most basic level, and without this basic assumption of free will civilization would probably crumble. I'm personally a compatibilist (I believe in free will and determinism), but your idea (if I understood it correctly) is a fun exercise.

I find the concept of a free will fairly useful in describing my phenomenological experience of my own autonomy. I think that's probably use enough to defend it on pragmatic grounds.

2: "So, I guess I'm saying that, though the existence or non-existence of free will might not have a function, one's belief or disbelief in it does."

I'm not sure that that distinction between the function of X and the function of the belief in X would make much sense to a pragmatist, though.

True, I didn't know much about pragmatism when I posted that reply and I suppose the distinction I made isn't particularly helpful here.

I find free will quite useful in deciding to ignore the thorny conceptual mess of all forms of predestination and determinism.

>2 AtticWindow:-4, Actually from a pragmatic point of view the distinction between the function of X and the function of the belief in X would be moot because the effect is the same.

>6 pmackey:

Isn't that what I said?

>7 cjbanning: Yes, I think so. When I posted I thought I saw a nuance to clarify. In reading back through the posts, that nuance now escapes me.

I wonder what has happened to modalursine. It was he who first got me challenge my belief that belief in free will is a matter of faith.

I believe that there is no such thing as free will. The more I think about it the less I believe I can even understand what free will might be. But though I agree with the first premise of this article I found a lot in it that is just false or beside the point despite the author's attempt to make a point.

The universe for example is not fully determined. There are random events. Even as is we cannot decide whether we believe in free will; the belief is determined, possibly after a random event in our neurons. And so forth.

I am compelled by my will, unfree as it is, to post this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free...

Robert

>10 Mr.Durick: Nature deals me a biological "hand". Nurture (my environment) influences how I play that hand. It's still my decision, my will, to do with it as I choose. From a practical viewpoint, what I do or do not do is my choice, resulting in or deriving from free will. I believe this is true for the vast majority of people, with exceptions for those who are severely mentally ill or have had other physical conditions or trauma which effect the brain. What I remember of Pragmatism is this: If it works, it's true. So, if I'm remembering correctly, then we have free will.

The Atlantic article was interesting but doesn't change my view on free will.

>11 pmackey: So what is the mechanism of free will? How is your decision not determined?

Robert

>12 Mr.Durick:

It seems to me that a large part of this conundrum rests in what one understands by 'determined'. Until — and if — all participants can agree on that, they most likely will talk past each other.

I am not proposing, by the way, to float a definition.

I think the problem is not so much the "free" (undetermined) as it is the "will" (executive focus). Section 19 of Beyond Good and Evil is my go-to text here. The Atlantic article is relevant. The "the emotion of the command" is an effect, not a cause. But it is an effect of the operation of the constructively organized psyche.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030740-400-physics-killed-free-will-and...

Scientists argue for the existence of free will. (Unfortunately you'll have to go the the library to read the full thing if you don't have a subscription.)

“Without free will, the certainty of scientific truths would become illusory.”

It's not a question about whether or not we are certain we have free will, it's that we cannot be certain without free will.

Jules Lequyer (Philosopher, from the article)

Elsewhere

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

J. B. S. Haldane

>1 jahn:
OP: What do you need a free will for?

I believe you are stuck with it, whether you like it or not.