Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 02:52 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I also think that in future Legal action will evolve towards Social integration and personality reconstruction instead of punishment...
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 02:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

But I wasn't forced not to move my right foot. And it is not open to anyone to say that although I was not forced not to move my right foot in any ordinary sense of "forced" they have some other sense of "forced" by which I was forced to do so. The question of free will originates in ordinary language. To change meanings in (as it were) in midstream is not to show that I was not free to move my leg. It is to change the subject. It is as if I were to order scrambled eggs, and the waiter were to tell me that I could not have scrambled eggs in the sense that I meant "scrambled eggs" but that I could have scrambled eggs in a different sense of "scrambled eggs", and then serve me waffles. It makes no sense. You cannot change the facts by changing words. Scrambled eggs don't become waffles by calling them waffles, and neither is it shown that I don't have free will by calling free will something else, and demonstrating that I don't have that. That I don't have that in no way shows that I don't have free will, since what I meant by free will was not, that in the first place. Why people think they can get away with this kind of bait-and-switch argument which is at home on used-car lots, I cannot imagine.


Yes, exactly.

When we use the word "free" we say things like "I'm free tonight" meaning that I don't have plans, "she's a free spirit" meaning that there are a significant number of customs that she doesn't follow or something like that, "it's a free country", "free man vs slave" etc etc.

It seems to be only in the free will debate that people try and use it in the sense of "no action is free if it is the result of cause and effect".
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 02:55 pm
@Zetherin,
You know that one of my admitted weaknesses is to not go with the nomenclature...I was n´t aware if it was called the standard model...mostly I speak my mind and my personnel system...but it certainly seams similar to the understanding you just presented above...step by step...
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 02:58 pm
@Jebediah,
But don´t you think is relevant to make the difference ??? How could I go on my business if I did n´t ? It happens right or wrong that I also believe that such Freedom is an side effect, an illusion...
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 03:01 pm
@Jebediah,
Yes, it is because these people, despite their odd belief that humans can't freely make choices, must believe that they can freely make choices in order to even function in our society. They must acknowledge the difference between a free choice and a compelled choice, especially when speaking about moral and legal issues.

So, it's a self-inflicted cognitive dissonance (the holding of contradictory beliefs), where their scientism and rationality clash.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 03:05 pm
@Zetherin,
Don´t extend it that further...most people need a God belief to function and that alone does not make it true...

If my criteria to knowing was what makes me happy where would I be ?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 03:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...Actually contradictions are often common in Human Behaviour...Black and White picturing just does n´t do it anymore...ask any specialist in Psychology !

Further:

I don´t pretend any "Scientism"...I speak my mind... and in the end of the day I even think very modestly on myself !

How easy would it be for my image to not go against but in favour...how easy to swap the net with CTRL C. CTRL P. and make the wise guy...BULLSHIT ! not even fair...
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 03:44 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Yes, it is because these people, despite their odd belief that humans can't freely make choices, must believe that they can freely make choices in order to even function in our society. They must acknowledge the difference between a free choice and a compelled choice, especially when speaking about moral and legal issues.

So, it's a self-inflicted cognitive dissonance (the holding of contradictory beliefs), where their scientism and rationality clash.
It's not that simple. If one was compelled, then no choice was made. The only way around that would be to discard rationality all together.

Any use of will, as we understand it, is aimed at creating a favorable outcome. In this, we all know the will is bound.

Fundamentally, possibility and will can't be discarded because of what we're referring to when we say unnatural. We're saying counter to the normal flow of things. For instance an unnatural death goes counter to the ideal scenario. We have an image of structure. That image wouldn't exist were it not for our conception of the ideal.

It's a valid question: is there really anything that is unnatural? How could there be? In this, we're discarding the ideal and allowing experience to tell us What Is. That's what you call understanding.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 06:09 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

Yes, it is because these people, despite their odd belief that humans can't freely make choices, must believe that they can freely make choices in order to even function in our society. They must acknowledge the difference between a free choice and a compelled choice, especially when speaking about moral and legal issues.

So, it's a self-inflicted cognitive dissonance (the holding of contradictory beliefs), where their scientism and rationality clash.
It's not that simple. If one was compelled, then no choice was made. The only way around that would be to discard rationality all together.

Any use of will, as we understand it, is aimed at creating a favorable outcome. In this, we all know the will is bound.

Fundamentally, possibility and will can't be discarded because of what we're referring to when we say unnatural. We're saying counter to the normal flow of things. For instance an unnatural death goes counter to the ideal scenario. We have an image of structure. That image wouldn't exist were it not for our conception of the ideal.

It's a valid question: is there really anything that is unnatural? How could there be? In this, we're discarding the ideal and allowing experience to tell us What Is. That's what you call understanding.


Could you please say why one's choice cannot be compelled? For example, someone points a gun at me, and choose to give him my wallet rather than take the chance of being shot. Now, since I did not willingly give him my wallet, but chose to do it rather that choosing to be shot, isn't that a compelled choice. I chose to hand over my wallet under compulsion. It is true, of course, that in such circumstances we say, "I had no choice but to hand over my wallet", but it would be wrong to take that literally. Clearly, when we say that kind of thing what we mean is that I had no better choice, not that I had no choice. We call that kind of thing, a choice between the lesser of two evils. Isn't that so. But a choice of the lesser of two evils is still a choice we do not want to make. Therefore it is a compelled choice.

Analytic philosophy to the rescue of clarity, again.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 06:33 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Could you please say why one's choice cannot be compelled?
I agree with what you said. There are many possible actions I could take if someone is threatening me.

Compelled choice doesn't make any sense to me. Sounds like self-inflicted cognitive dissonance.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 08:16 pm
@kennethamy,
The only thing you rescue time and again is your stubbornness... Mr. Green
 
tomr
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 09:15 pm
@Zetherin,
Quote:
They believe that we are nothing more than computer programs (a popular analogy) and are completely physically reducible. We only think we can make choices (they call this the illusion of free will). Any choice we think we make, however, is only the result of matter operating in a certain, determined manner. Our consciousness gives us no consolation here. We're just a heap of matter running its course with no influence.

I do believe that we are like computer programs in the way you describe. You talk as if this is a completely absurd idea. I think I act like a computer program because all I see in the world are things that follow laws like computer programs do. At least we, the hard determinists, are able to make a comparison to something that exists in nature. Where are your comparisons, what is it like to have this power of free-will. Why are we so special that we have this power when no examples exist outside the minds of those who believe they have it. Do other animals have this power. I want your power too, I do not like being a machine.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 09:32 pm
@tomr,
Well you know...they are special, they must have some kind of pedigree...

Certain types of approach are a good indicator of when an argument is lost...
Raising the voice of authority is a common stratagem in these people...pitiful. (but it works down the chain of his follower´s...save the face is the motto !)
This is one of the reasons why the Academy (most of it) bores me to death...mediocrity runs down the walls almost everywhere !
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 09:54 pm
@tomr,
tomr wrote:
I do believe that we are like computer programs in the way you describe. You talk as if this is a completely absurd idea. I think I act like a computer program because all I see in the world are things that follow laws like computer programs do. At least we, the hard determinists, are able to make a comparison to something that exists in nature. Where are your comparisons, what is it like to have this power of free-will. Why are we so special that we have this power when no examples exist outside the minds of those who believe they have it. Do other animals have this power. I want your power too, I do not like being a machine.


You're begging the question against indeterminism. There's no reason why computers can't work exactly the way they do in a completely random universe.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 09:55 pm
Buying a farm grow some plants and retire to countryside to have an honest life far and away from this infiltrators seams to be the right thing to do...fed up with it !
To them this is politics, a holly war against some sort of wind mills in the horizon of their imagination...an agenda in philosophy could not be worse then this...
 
tomr
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 09:55 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Is it even possible to convince someone who believes in the power of free-will otherwise? Is it possible to convince someone who believes they are determined that instead they have free-will? Have you ever convinced anyone? I'm not sure I have. Is there really so much at stake here that we cannot come to some conclusion?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:00 pm
@tomr,
Several friends of mine some with a PHD are already convinced...its different face to face talk...less bullshit...

...about conclusions...in the end of the day is a matter of perspective and ultimately belief, if it was an easy issue would be settled already...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:09 pm
@tomr,
tomr wrote:

Is it even possible to convince someone who believes in the power of free-will otherwise? Is it possible to convince someone who believes they are determined that instead they have free-will? Have you ever convinced anyone? I'm not sure I have. Is there really so much at stake here that we cannot come to some conclusion?


It would be very hard to convince me. But let me explain why. It is because I don't believe (as you seem to) that determinism and free will are incompatible. For example, the cause of my visiting a new restaurant may be that my friend recommended it to me, and I would not have visited the new restaurant unless I did so because of my friend's suggestion. Now, I don't believe that because I went to the restaurant at my friend's suggestion that I did not go to the restaurant of my own free will. The cause of my going was my my friend's suggestion that I go. But why would you think that I did not go of my own free will? Certainly, I was not compelled to go. I went because I wanted to go, and I wanted to go because my friend suggested that I go. Why would anyone say that I did not go of my own free will? Can you explain that to me?
 
tomr
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:10 pm
@Night Ripper,
Quote:
You're begging the question against indeterminism. There's no reason why computers can't work exactly the way they do in a completely random universe.

Give one example of something you know is completely random. Something you know to be random that does not rely on timing to give the appearance of randomness like a random number generator or something that only appears to be truely random because we cannot follow the underlying determined process. And by completely random I am thinking of a process that is unpredictable because there are no underlying determined processes.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:20 pm
@tomr,
You need not go that far...it suffices to ask on Randomness decent definition...
...these days Randomness is the new Religion !
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/02/2020 at 10:11:25