Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

I think it goes far more deep when we think about the existence of 'self'. People accept and deny various things as per their beliefs, knowledge, experience, etc. But that does not alter the objective truth, but only affects the subjective perspectives. There can be flaws in individual thought processes, and that is why all three groups of people that you mentioned exist. But what is the reality? Is there a thing called 'self'?

Well, you won't be able to delineate where 'objective truth' begins and where 'beliefs' end. All you can do is to express your belief about it. Therefore your referrence to an alleged "objective truth" does neither add nor remove clarity and/or confusion.
There are arguments in favour of a self and there are arguments against a self. I don't deny the appearance of self every now and then in my mental continuum but I am not speculating about whether this appearance 'is' or 'corresponds with' truth or not.
Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will.

Conventional ways are accepted for so long, and many things are developed on them. But that does not mean conventional scopes are the only extents that our thoughts or truth can be extended to. It all depends on what we choose to accept and believe.

As far as I am concerned it merely depends on what kind of knowledge I apply when I use verbal expressions. And knowledge of self is generally applied in society in countless contexts, actually social life would be impossible without knowledge of self. Even communication and verbal expressions would be impossible without "I" "you" "she" etc.
And scientific knowledge is independent of religious and philosophical beliefs due to its primary dependence on evident sense perception. Therefore "Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will."
So what I say what it comes to "free will" is guided by mere pragmatism and non-speculation.

Indeed, your argument touches on the practical aspect of this discussion, which I appreciate. The notion of 'self' and its association with 'will'—be it absolute or relative—are integral to our day-to-day lives and interactions. This viewpoint does not necessarily reject the possible deterministic mechanisms behind our cognition but rather focuses on the functional perspective of our existence, which allows us to form societal norms and communicate effectively.

When we discuss 'free will,' it's not solely about deciphering the intricate workings of our brains but also about understanding the larger picture: how we function as individuals and societies. Therefore, even though 'free will' might be restricted by prior processes and conditions, it remains a useful construct in the practical sense because it allows us to interact, make choices, and, in some form, influence our future.

Yet, the fascination with understanding our true nature, whether our actions are predetermined or not, continues. If they are, it may compel us to reconsider some aspects of our societal systems like morality and law. If they are not, we still have to face the question of what exactly gives rise to this perceived freedom. These are complex questions, and discussions like ours contribute to the pursuit of possible answers.

What are your thoughts on the possible implications of these theories on societal constructs such as morality, responsibility, and law? How would our society function if we widely accepted the idea that all our actions are predetermined?