Can Libertarian Free Will Be Rescued?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155605 wrote:

Since when to compatibilists hold that actions have no cause?

As soon as they adopt realism about determinism.

@Deckard,

Deckard;155613 wrote:

Freedom is the ability to be a cause that is not itself caused by something else.

I don't understand how freedom can be an ability to be a cause. Can you rephrase that? Perhaps you mean to say that free action would be an action that has a cause, but that cause is not, itself caused. So a free action is caused by an uncaused cause. But, is that case, where did that uncaused cause come from? I always thought that every cause was an event, and every event was, itself, a cause. The only uncaused cause I ever heard about is God. You don't mean that God is the cause of every free action, do you?

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 09:06 AM ----------

ughaibu;155615 wrote:

As soon as they adopt realism about determinism.

Oh. But what is that? I am a compatibilist, and even if I hated determinism (which I don't) I would accept it. Does that make me a realist about determinism?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155628 wrote:

But what is that?

I see, you dont understand what realism about determinism is, okay.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;155631 wrote:

I see, you dont understand what realism about determinism is, okay.

I guess I don't.Along with Obama's actions. C'est la vie. But I can look to the New York Times to explain what Obama is up to. Where can I find out about "realism about determinism"?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155628 wrote:

I don't understand how freedom can be an ability to be a cause. Can you rephrase that? Perhaps you mean to say that free action would be an action that has a cause, but that cause is not, itself caused. So a free action is caused by an uncaused cause. But, is that case, where did that uncaused cause come from? I always thought that every cause was an event, and every event was, itself, a cause. The only uncaused cause I ever heard about is God. You don't mean that God is the cause of every free action, do you?

Kant's description does seem to suggest a single unmoved mover when laying down the thesis of the 3rd antinomy but if there can be one such unmoved mover I think there could be many such unmoved movers. That's more or less how I understand free will. We can't create ex nihilo but perhaps we can act ex nihilo and that is freedom. Such free actions are rather god-like. The divine spark.

I suppose a different kind of cause that is completely independent of the other kind may also suggest a different substance. Hmmm (thinking about that mind-body thread )That doesn't so much lead to the mind-body problem as the will-body problem.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155633 wrote:

Where can I find out about "realism about determinism"?

The standard internet resource, for an overview of any well worn philosophical position, is Stanford, but you know that, dont you? So, rather than asking silly questions, why not discuss the ideas.

@salima,

salima;154877 wrote:

...

i thought determinism meant no free will, that they were opposed. ...

You might want to read this:

Compatibilism and incompatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 02:24 PM ----------

ughaibu;155580 wrote:

Realists about incompatibilst free will hold the position that determinism is false, a position that makes no mention of cause. Realists about compatibilist free will, on the other hand, hold that determinism is true, and as determinism is incompatible with cause, compatibilists hold that actions have no cause. In short, you have things exactly backwards.

You are quite mistaken:

Compatibilism and incompatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;156105 wrote:

You are quite mistaken

All three of my sentences appear to be true, and their conjunction consistent.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;156127 wrote:

All three of my sentences appear to be true, and their conjunction consistent.

Appearance need not be reality.

@chap9898,

Free will is the ability to do or to have done otherwise. It is universally and necessarily presupossed in practice (in living) and can only be denied in theory. It does not need rescuing. It is Laplace's demon or William Jame's "iron block universe" that needs rescuing.

@prothero,

prothero;156171 wrote:

Free will is the ability to do or to have done otherwise. It is universally and necessarily presupossed in practice (in living) and can only be denied in theory. It does not need rescuing. It is Laplace's demon or William Jame's "iron block universe" that needs rescuing.

The universe of LaPlace's demon is not inconsistent with free will. In any case, it is about predictability, and that all my actions are predictable (in principle) does not imply that I do not do them freely. I don't think I know what a "block universe" is. But I suppose that James believed it was incompatible with free will. Whatever is incompatible with free will is, of course, false if free will is true. But is free will true?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156195 wrote:

The universe of LaPlace's demon is not inconsistent with free will. In any case, it is about predictability, and that all my actions are predictable (in principle) does not imply that I do not do them freely. I don't think I know what a "block universe" is. But I suppose that James believed it was incompatible with free will. Whatever is incompatible with free will is, of course, false if free will is true. But is free will true?

We all assume and behave as if it is, and I would argue necessarily so. There is insufficient evidence to prove free will true or determinism false or true. So I am going to argue there is very little point in arguing that free will is false and take the pragmatic path of assuming free will is true. In the absence of evidence, I think that which is necessarily presupposed in practice , and utilized in day to day living should be assumed true. I see very little evidence that human behavior is predictable in any precise and useful way. Did you see the "minority report"?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156155 wrote:

Appearance need not be reality.

and wine need not be red.

@prothero,

prothero;156202 wrote:

We all assume and behave as if it is, and I would argue necessarily so. There is insufficient evidence to prove free will true or determinism false or true. So I am going to argue there is very little point in arguing that free will is false and take the pragmatic path of assuming free will is true. In the absence of evidence, I think that which is necessarily presupposed in practice , and utilized in day to day living should be assumed true. I see very little evidence that human behavior is predictable in any precise and useful way. Did you see the "minority report"?

Well you are talking about whether it is useful to believe that free will is true. And that is an entirely different question from the question of whether free will is true.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156247 wrote:

Well you are talking about whether it is useful to believe that free will is true. And that is an entirely different question from the question of whether free will is true.

Well we really can not know if it is true or not, so is not assuming what is useful the pragmatic rational thing to do?

@prothero,

prothero;156249 wrote:

Well we really can not know if it is true or not, so is not assuming what is useful the pragmatic rational thing to do?

Perhaps. But that does not mean that they are not different issues, nevertheless. One is whether believing in God is the pragmatic thing to do. The other is whether the belief in God is true. As an analogy: it may be that it is pragmatic for a terminally ill patient to believe he will recover. But that does not mean that his belief that he will recover is true. We should not confuse the two.

@chap9898,

i didnt think this was about the existence of god-not that again. does determinism mean that god decides everything? cant it also mean everything runs according to rules that can only allow one possibility for everything? i mean i decide what to do based on my entire life history so in a way even though i may struggle sometimes to make a decision, it would only have come out one way at any given point in time. it is in that sense that i come to accept not having any free will.

i always have the option to do an infinite number of things, but i cant help but choosing the one i think is right-and that is based on various factors, like life experience, peer influence, mental capacity, so many things.

certain decisions are more cut and dried, some are more dependent on the mood of the moment. but each person being who they are c an only decide to do what they think is right, unless they are the kind of person who likes to do what they think is wrong because of personality disorders or addictions, etc...and even then that is a determining factor on what their choice would be.

@salima,

salima;156357 wrote:

i didnt think this was about the existence of god-not that again. does determinism mean that god decides everything?

No, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines it as: The view that every event or state of affairs is brought about by antecedent events or states of affairs in accordance with universal causal laws that govern the world.

The CDP is an authoritative source of the meaning of philosophical terms, just as an ordinary dictionary is an authoritative source of the meaning of ordinary terms in the language. That is how philosophers use the term, "deteminism". Someone can invent a meaning for the term (it is still a free country, although that is diminishing steadily) but unless it conform with the definition in the CDP, it will not be how philosophers use the term.

@prothero,

prothero;156171 wrote:

Free will is the ability to do or to have done otherwise. It is universally and necessarily presupossed in practice (in living) and can only be denied in theory. It does not need rescuing. It is Laplace's demon or William Jame's "iron block universe" that needs rescuing.

Nonsense. Free will is not presupposed in practice. First of all, your definition of "free will" is not satisfactory, as it is not clear what you mean. (In one sense of what you stated, it is clearly false that there is an ability to do otherwise, as whatever one does, one does that and nothing else, and cannot have done what one has not done, as then one would have done that and not something else. It is self-contradictory to say that one has done what one has not done, or that one will do what one will not do. Presumably, though, you mean something else by "the ability to do or to have done otherwise", but you have not explained your meaning at all.) And second, there are people who do not believe in free will, and there are those who do not think about the question of whether there is free will or not. One does not need metaphysical speculation to live one's life at all.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;156468 wrote:

Free will is not presupposed in practice.

Even such a hard line free will denier as Wegner admits that, not only is it impossible for him to function without the assumption of free will, but also he must undergo "the illusion" in order to perform the very acts for which he claims that it's unnecessary. All healthy human adults assume that if they visit an unfamiliar location, and they want to piss, they can find out where the toilet is and if it's vacant, they can piss and if it's occupied, they can refrain from pissing. In other words, they assume that they can make and enact a conscious choice between realisable alternatives, and that is demonstrating free will.

Philosophy Forum

Can Libertarian Free Will Be Rescued?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know