Can Libertarian Free Will Be Rescued?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

salima
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 07:15 pm
@chap9898,
so we have free will to go against our own desires. the wish to go against our own desires may be caused by some unknown factor in our history, or it may result in our intellectualizing that our innate desires are wrong...which is also a cause. a choice is a cause and a choice is caused.

everything is connected in some odd way, and i think it is not really linear.

as far as morality, probably there really is no such thing. it can only be evaluated using criteria such as whether or not there is a beneficial effect in behaving a particular way-and then again, i think morality issues are also affected and adjusted in the process of evolution.

basically we are sitting here thinking about things which are going on as they do behind the scenes and we can do nothing about them and it doesnt do any good to know how they work either, not being able to change it. but that must be what philosophy is...

i feel bad i cant understand the algebraic way of expressing these ideas and proofs, but at the same time i suspect they dont really give an accurate picture. for instance, 2+2=4. but if you have two sour oranges and two sweet ones, and each of four people get one, they will not all be of the same opinion as to their fortune in life. and if two of the oranges were as large as grapefruit and two were as small as cherries, any two of the four plus the remaining two would not be of equal weight.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 07:21 pm
@kennethamy,
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 07:30 pm
@salima,
salima;156932 wrote:
so we have free will to go against our own desires. the wish to go against our own desires may be caused by some unknown factor in our history, or it may result in our intellectualizing that our innate desires are wrong...which is also a cause. a choice is a cause and a choice is caused.

everything is connected in some odd way, and i think it is not really linear.

as far as morality, probably there really is no such thing. it can only be evaluated using criteria such as whether or not there is a beneficial effect in behaving a particular way-and then again, i think morality issues are also affected and adjusted in the process of evolution.

basically we are sitting here thinking about things which are going on as they do behind the scenes and we can do nothing about them and it doesnt do any good to know how they work either, not being able to change it. but that must be what philosophy is...

i feel bad i cant understand the algebraic way of expressing these ideas and proofs, but at the same time i suspect they dont really give an accurate picture. for instance, 2+2=4. but if you have two sour oranges and two sweet ones, and each of four people get one, they will not all be of the same opinion as to their fortune in life. and if two of the oranges were as large as grapefruit and two were as small as cherries, any two of the four plus the remaining two would not be of equal weight.


Well we do sometimes go against our desires, because we find that what we desire is contrary to what we ought to do. But, that seems to me and important part of being a human being. Doesn't it seem so to you?

I don't know why you come to the conclusion (if that is what you did) that there is no such thing as morality, when you say in the next breath that "it can only be evaluated using criteria such as whether or not there is a beneficial effect in behaving a particular way". For why isn't it morality to do just that? Shouldn't a moral person evaluate his actions in terms of whether what he does is beneficial? And I don't understand why you say that we cannot do anything about what happens "behind the scenes". It seems to me that what we do often does change the way things would happen unless we did as we did. You seem to be saying that some kind of fatalism is true, when it doesn't seem to me that you have given any justification for that. Indeed, in allowing that we sometimes act contrary to our desires aren't you allowing that we can sometime change what would have occurred unless we had acted against our desires?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 07:40 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156937 wrote:
Well we do sometimes go against our desires, because we find that what we desire is contrary to what we ought to do. But, that seems to me and important part of being a human being. Doesn't it seem so to you?

I don't know why you come to the conclusion (if that is what you did) that there is no such thing as morality, when you say in the next breath that "it can only be evaluated using criteria such as whether or not there is a beneficial effect in behaving a particular way". For why isn't it morality to do just that? Shouldn't a moral person evaluate his actions in terms of whether what he does is beneficial? And I don't understand why you say that we cannot do anything about what happens "behind the scenes". It seems to me that what we do often does change the way things would happen unless we did as we did. You seem to be saying that some kind of fatalism is true, when it doesn't seem to me that you have given any justification for that. Indeed, in allowing that we sometimes act contrary to our desires aren't you allowing that we can sometime change what would have occurred unless we had acted against our desires?


Measuring up our "irrational" or less rational desires against our desire for reason, if it is there, says nothing against determinism as you well know...what comes up to be our decision is not more free because we have weight other possible courses, that where in practice proven to be less auto convincing...what we are measuring in the end of the day are the bruit facts of life around us and their forces and pulls towards us and our supposed will...one of them will prevail over the others and convince us to do what must be done !

---------- Post added 04-26-2010 at 08:47 PM ----------

The real funny thing on this is that I would bet my life that I am probably more pro freedom that you will ever be given your posts in all sort of matters...
 
salima
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 12:44 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156937 wrote:
Well we do sometimes go against our desires, because we find that what we desire is contrary to what we ought to do. But, that seems to me and important part of being a human being. Doesn't it seem so to you?

I don't know why you come to the conclusion (if that is what you did) that there is no such thing as morality, when you say in the next breath that "it can only be evaluated using criteria such as whether or not there is a beneficial effect in behaving a particular way". For why isn't it morality to do just that? Shouldn't a moral person evaluate his actions in terms of whether what he does is beneficial? And I don't understand why you say that we cannot do anything about what happens "behind the scenes". It seems to me that what we do often does change the way things would happen unless we did as we did. You seem to be saying that some kind of fatalism is true, when it doesn't seem to me that you have given any justification for that. Indeed, in allowing that we sometimes act contrary to our desires aren't you allowing that we can sometime change what would have occurred unless we had acted against our desires?


well, kenneth-i have only come to a few conclusions-first, that i will continue to make decisions as though they were mine to make whether or not i have free will, since i dont believe the question will ever be settled to my satisfaction. second, that i believe in a sense of morality that has come to me over time which is static and subject to change, and i intend to try to act within its limits, while constantly updating its definitions.

pretty much, all of what you said is what i am thinking, but it is only pondering about things we will most likely never know for certain. when i say there probably is no such thing as morality, i mean it is one of those things like beauty-we sense it, but cant describe it or put a limit around it or keep it in a box. we will argue about it and do a lot of soul searching, but what it really amounts to is 'doing the right thing' but then one has to define right, and we are back to the beginning.

i was working on this in a blog or two, had to give it up-life got in the way.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 03:11 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;156839 wrote:
The tossing of a coin is a determined event. Whether it turns up heads or tails is a function of several things, such as the force exerted on it, the direction of the force, the resistance of the air, and the properties of the surface upon which it lands. The fact that people do not have sufficient control over the force that they exert, and do not know about all of the properties of the relevant other factors, makes them unable to accurately predict the outcome. But that inability to predict the outcome does not entail that it was not caused by the preceding events. What this illustrates is that epistemically there may appear to be more than one possible outcome, but that does not make it actually the case that there is more than one possible outcome. One not knowing what will happen does not make the event not causally determined. Likewise, the decision to act in accordance with the outcome of some event may itself have preceding causes.
None of which has any bearing on the matter.
Pyrrho;156839 wrote:
And, of course, no one can prove that they could have done other than what they have done, given all of the circumstances that obtained.
On the contrary, as I said, it can be demonstrated that the probability of incompatibilist free will is infinitely great.
Pyrrho;156839 wrote:
When one decides to have chocolate rather than vanilla, that is likely due to preferences one has regarding the taste, though it could also have to do with beliefs regarding allergies and so forth. Or one might attempt to prove that one has "free will" by choosing what one would normally not choose. But that desire to prove something is then the cause, which itself is probably due to preceding events, and so we still have not left the realm of causal determination.
Determinism has nothing to do with cause and it has nothing to do with events. Both notions are meaningless in a determined world.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 06:34 am
@salima,
salima;156997 wrote:
well, kenneth-i have only come to a few conclusions-first, that i will continue to make decisions as though they were mine to make whether or not i have free will, since i dont believe the question will ever be settled to my satisfaction. second, that i believe in a sense of morality that has come to me over time which is static and subject to change, and i intend to try to act within its limits, while constantly updating its definitions.

pretty much, all of what you said is what i am thinking, but it is only pondering about things we will most likely never know for certain. when i say there probably is no such thing as morality, i mean it is one of those things like beauty-we sense it, but cant describe it or put a limit around it or keep it in a box. we will argue about it and do a lot of soul searching, but what it really amounts to is 'doing the right thing' but then one has to define right, and we are back to the beginning.

i was working on this in a blog or two, had to give it up-life got in the way.


William James said something I think was wise. He said that whatever the truth about free will, he will continue to act as if only he was free, and all others were not.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:06 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;157012 wrote:
...On the contrary, as I said, it can be demonstrated that the probability of incompatibilist free will is infinitely great.



Then please provide the demonstration.


ughaibu;157012 wrote:
Determinism has nothing to do with cause and it has nothing to do with events. Both notions are meaningless in a determined world.


You are completely wrong about the meaning of the word "determinism". See:

Determinism | Define Determinism at Dictionary.com

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free Will[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As you are evidently using "determinism" in a nonstandard way, it would be helpful for you to say precisely what you mean by it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:10 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;157048 wrote:


You are completely wrong about the meaning of the word "determinism". See:

Determinism | Define Determinism at Dictionary.com

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free Will[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As you are evidently using "determinism" in a nonstandard way, it would be helpful for you to say precisely what you mean by it.


And helpful for us too.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:33 am
@Pyrrho,
When the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asked me to write the entry on determinism, I found that the title was to be "Causal determinism".
I therefore felt obliged to point out in the opening paragraph that determinism actually has little or nothing to do with causation

PhilSci Archive - Causality and Determinism: Tension, or Outright Conflict?
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:36 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;157061 wrote:
When the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asked me to write the entry on determinism, I found that the title was to be "Causal determinism".
I therefore felt obliged to point out in the opening paragraph that determinism actually has little or nothing to do with causation

PhilSci Archive - Causality and Determinism: Tension, or Outright Conflict?


The fact that you have one deviant person does not show what the word "determinism" means, nor does it show how the term is generally used. If you paid attention, I provided four different sources, including an ordinary dictionary. I suggest you look up the term in your favorite English dictionary and see what it says.

Furthermore, you have failed to say what it is that you do mean by the term, and you have failed to provide the demonstration that you claimed to have.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:45 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;157061 wrote:
When the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asked me to write the entry on determinism, I found that the title was to be "Causal determinism".
I therefore felt obliged to point out in the opening paragraph that determinism actually has little or nothing to do with causation

PhilSci Archive - Causality and Determinism: Tension, or Outright Conflict?


Yes, I know. You keep quoting that. You never say, however, how that is relevant to the issue of whether you (and the SEP guy) are using the term, "determinism" deviantly. Obviously you both are. That is not how the term is used standardly in philosophy. That is simply a matter of fact. There is no dispute about it. The question is what justifies the deviation.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:58 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;157062 wrote:
The fact that you have one deviant person does not show what the word "determinism" means, nor does it show how the term is generally used. If you paid attention, I provided four different sources, including an ordinary dictionary.
The "deviant person" is the author of one of the articles that you referenced, the most authoritative of the articles that you referenced.
Pyrrho;157062 wrote:
I suggest you look up the term in your favorite English dictionary and see what it says.
I suggest that you think about the ramifications of determinism, and read some serious articles.
Pyrrho;157062 wrote:
Furthermore, you have failed to say what it is that you do mean by the term, and you have failed to provide the demonstration that you claimed to have.
I have failed in neither respect, because on this occasion I have made no attempt.
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157065 wrote:
Yes, I know. You keep quoting that. You never say, however, how that is relevant to the issue of whether you (and the SEP guy) are using the term, "determinism" deviantly. Obviously you both are. That is not how the term is used standardly in philosophy. That is simply a matter of fact. There is no dispute about it. The question is what justifies the deviation.
Determimism and free will, endlessly debated never settled even the meaning of the terms it seems is debatable.

What would you call the notion that all events are caused, but that the same causes may have different results (non identism theories of mind for instance, or quantum indeterminism, or the notion that will itself can be a cause). This gives the future multiple as opposed to a single possiblility. Is that what you mean by "soft determinism"?

"Hard determinism" it seems is the "iron block universe" of James, or the Laplaces demon of Newtonian mechanics where the same causes always elicit the same result and therefore there is only one possible future for the universe.

It seems to me that the notion of a single possible future versus the notion of multiple possible futures is an important issue for the notion of "free will". The notion of multiple possible futures seems more in keeping with modern physics and science, intuition and exprerience. In fact, many physicists now talk about multiple even infinite universes.

Maybe we can leave aside this dispute about causality and determinism and deal with a single versus multiple "real, actual" possiblities for the future at least for a moment. For that seems relevant not only to free will but to the entire notion of causality and determinism.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:02 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157065 wrote:
you (and the SEP guy) are using the term, "determinism" deviantly. Obviously you both are.
Stanford articles are authored by recognised experts in their field, and are peer reviewed. Posters on internet fora are generally not experts and have not had the superficiality of their views exposed by a peer review process, at least not by one to which they pay any attention.

---------- Post added 04-27-2010 at 11:03 PM ----------

prothero;157073 wrote:
What would you call the notion that all events are caused
This position is called 'causal completeness'.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:16 am
@chap9898,
I regret to say that I took the time to read the entire linked paper: What is being written on is not the same issue as this discussion; they've only a superficial relationship (and this, only on a mechanical level). As a matter of fact, it seems to be defending and supporting a banality.

... completely different contexts; the same terms yet on very different planes/levels.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:21 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;157071 wrote:
The "deviant person" is the author of one of the articles that you referenced, the most authoritative of the articles that you referenced.



Yet curiously, he has no problems using the term non-deviantly in the article to which I provided a link.


ughaibu;157071 wrote:
I suggest that you think about the ramifications of determinism, and read some serious articles.



Reading "serious" articles is not going to tell me what you mean by the term.


ughaibu;157071 wrote:
I have failed in neither respect, because on this occasion I have made no attempt.



Do you not see a problem with posting that there is a proof of something, yet refusing to deliver on it? Suppose I were to say, there is a proof of the falsity of everything you have ever written or stated, but refused to provide the proof. Do you not think that there would be something wrong with doing that?

I say, either put up or shut up. If you have an argument, provide it. But do not tell us you have an argument and then refuse to say what it is. Quite frankly, saying that one has an argument but refusing to say what it is, makes it seem like you are talking out of your ass, with nothing real to say. You don't want to seem like that, do you?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:26 am
@prothero,
prothero;157073 wrote:
Determimism and free will, endlessly debated never settled even the meaning of the terms it seems is debatable.

.


But it isn't debatable at all. It has a perfectly well understood standard use. That one or two deviate from that use is no reason to think it is not the standard use of the term. It is the ordinary philosophical use of "determinism".
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:27 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;157081 wrote:
I say, either put up or shut up. If you have an argument, provide it.
As far as I can tell, you're a determinist, so, according to your worldview, there has been a fact about what I post and when I post it, since the beginning of time. I guess we'll just have to see what that fact is.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:29 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;157078 wrote:
I regret to say that I took the time to read the entire linked paper: What is being written on is not the same issue as this discussion; they've only a superficial relationship (and this, only on a mechanical level). As a matter of fact, it seems to be defending and supporting a banality.

... completely different contexts; the same terms yet on very different planes/levels.


That is hardly surprising, given what has been stated (and what has not been stated) in this thread.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/06/2024 at 04:47:00