Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Free will.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Then tell me how we can be both free and determined. And then please define free will. Let's see if you have a clue.
    Easy, the 'determinism' of decision making process that is determined by natural law limits the possible individual choices, but does not prevent a possible range of choices in a human chain of cause and events of the choices of the will that are not limited by the "fixed" limits of natural law. In compatibilism 'moral responsibiity' is a factor that influences the decision making process and determinism.

    Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/


    Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Despite your assertions and objections based on your agenda, there is a significant section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Compatibilism, with many academic references that support the 'possibility' of free will in compatibiism in the human decision making process. If you want to deal with a more academic firmer foundation for this read that.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-13-2017, 02:36 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Easy the determinism of decision making process that is determined by natural law limits the possible individual choices, but does not prevent a possible range of choices in a human chain of cause and events of the choices of the will that are not limited by the "fixed" limits of natural law.
      So you agree that we have the power of contrary choice? That in most situations we are free to choose A or B?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        So you agree that we have the power of contrary choice?
        Compatibilism supports this possibility

        That in most situations we are free to choose A or B?
        Your statement of 'most' is a questionably subjective value judgment of the degree of possible human free will, which I will not comment on.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-13-2017, 02:42 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          That is what I have been saying for years Jim. I believe the conscious self plays an important causal role. For instance - you have two competing thoughts - I would really like that extra piece of cake, but I really need to watch my diet. I believe the conscious self, rationally, decides between the options then acts.
          Yes, you have been arguing this point, but always, I believe, from the perspective of how it "feels" to you, or that its what you believe. That kind of argument is insufficient in derailing the deterministic, free will is an illusion argument, which is based on physics, simply because that kind of argument isn't based on anything other than "feelings." We all "feel" as though we have free will, but there seems to have been no evidence that could validate those "feelings" we have of freedom to be correct. What I'm really interested in now is what the believers in determinism think, or how they might argue against free will when in meditation it seems as though it, i.e. a free and conscious will, can be summoned in order to battle with and defeat the unconscious activity of the brain?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Compatibilism supports this possibility
            I just defined libertarian free will, are you saying that Compatibilism supports this?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Yes, you have been arguing this point, but always, I believe, from the perspective of how it "feels" to you, or that its what you believe. That kind of argument is insufficient in derailing the deterministic, free will is an illusion argument, which is based on physics, simply because that kind of argument isn't based on anything other than "feelings." We all "feel" as though we have free will, but there seems to have been no evidence that could validate those "feelings" we have of freedom to be correct. What I'm really interested in now is what the believers in determinism think, or how they might argue against free will when in meditation it seems as though it, i.e. a free and conscious will, can be summoned in order to battle with and defeat the unconscious activity of the brain?
              Jim, I really feel that what goes on in my head actually corresponds to reality. I can not prove that logically or empirically. I feel that other minds, similar to mine, exist, I can not prove that logically or empirically. I believe that I'm self-aware - I can not prove that that isn't an illusion.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                I just defined libertarian free will, are you saying that Compatibilism supports this?
                No, and I qualified it in response. . . . no you did not explicitly define 'libertarian free will,' nor did I accept your post without qualification. Careful,you proposed the word 'most' which is a vague 'subjective' determination as to how much 'free will' humans can express in their decision making process.

                Again, I nor Compatibilism as defined accept your view of 'libertarian free will.' What you described is too vague.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-13-2017, 07:22 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  No, and I qualified it in response. . . . no you did not explicitly define 'libertarian free will,' nor did I accept your post without qualification. Careful,you proposed the word 'most' which is a vague 'subjective' determination as to how much 'free will' humans can express in their decision making process.

                  Again, I nor Compatibilism as defined accept your view of 'libertarian free will.' What you described is too vague.
                  Libertarian free will is defined as the power of contrary choice, that is what it is. So either that is compatible with Compatibilism or it is not.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Libertarian free will is defined as the power of contrary choice, that is what it is. So either that is compatible with Compatibilism or it is not.
                    Your simplistic statement does not define 'libertarian free will.' and of course there is more to it than that.

                    The problem is that you define libertarian free will as being 'most' decisions made be an individual can be known by the individual as contrary decisions to all possible alternative decisions. No this is NOT what the philosophy of compatibilism supports as defined in the reference.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-13-2017, 08:08 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Your simplistic statement does not define 'libertarian free will.' and of course there is more to it than that.
                      Actually it does :Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert..._(metaphysics)

                      So yes, there may be more to Libertarian free will but at it's core it requires the power of contrary choice


                      The problem is that you define libertarian free will as being 'most' decisions made be an individual can be known by the individual as contrary decisions to all possible alternative decisions. No this is NOT what the philosophy of compatibilism supports as defined in the reference.
                      Compatibilism defines free will as the ability to act according to our nature, apart from external influence. But a dog can do that, and it is all still determined. Redefining the meaning of free will does nothing to change the fact that our our acts are still determined by antecedent conditions.

                      But again Shuny, I asked a while back - please give us your definition of free will.
                      Last edited by seer; 04-14-2017, 05:43 AM.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Jim, I really feel that what goes on in my head actually corresponds to reality. I can not prove that logically or empirically. I feel that other minds, similar to mine, exist, I can not prove that logically or empirically. I believe that I'm self-aware - I can not prove that that isn't an illusion.
                        Yes, and you really feel as though you have free will, but really feeling or believing a thing isn't itself evidence of its truth. What I would like is the opinion of some of the determinists here who say that consciousness is only an after effect of our unconscious activity. My point in the OP is that consciousness can actually be utilized to suppress the seemingly determined unconscious activity of the brain, and thus can not be said to only be an after affect of that activity. Consciousness can be the cause of action, rather than just the resulting after effect of unconscious activity, and if that is so, does that consciousness then, that ability we have to control the unconscious, evince in us the emergence of a freedom from it, a freedom from our otherwise determined natures?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Compatibilism defines free will as the ability to act according to our nature, apart from external influence. But a dog can do that, and it is all still determined. Redefining the meaning of free will does nothing to change the fact that our our acts are still determined by antecedent conditions.

                          But again Shuny, I asked a while back - please give us your definition of free will.
                          I do not believe the bold above is not necessarily a part of the definition for Compatibilism. It is most definitely not apart of the definition I gave. The following is the definition for free will I support.

                          Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreWil


                          1.1 Free Will
                          It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have been hunting for is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct.[1] Different attempts to articulate the conditions for moral responsibility will yield different accounts of the sort of agency required to satisfy those conditions. What we need as a starting point is a malleable notion that focuses upon special features of persons as agents. As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility.[2] Clearly, this definition is too lean when taken as an endpoint; the hard philosophical work is about how best to develop this special kind of control.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          The problem is 'apart from external influence.' This is a difficult if not an impossible provision to demonstrate. Our whole existence is an integral part of 'external influences.' First and foremost, it would be impossible to get around the external influence of natural law.

                          I do add another aspect of free will that 'conditions of moral responsibility' does not address. We make decisions every day of our lives within a range of possible choices that could possibly constitute free will choices. Some of these choices may be actually meaningful of future consequence concerning future chains of cause and effect outcomes, but most are just mundane choices that likely have no future consequence.

                          The concept of 'contrary choice' is over rated. It simply means a choice is made contrary 'diametrically opposed' to other possible choices. The only proviso in determinism, and compatibilism is that contrary choices cannot by contrary to natural law. It should be understood that the human assessment of what are 'free will' or contrary choices is subject to our anecdotal and subjective judgement, and of course our bias as to what 'free will' is.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-14-2017, 07:27 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I do not believe the bold above is not necessarily a part of the definition for Compatibilism. It is most definitely not apart of the definition I gave. The following is the definition for free will I support.

                            Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreWil


                            1.1 Free Will
                            It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have been hunting for is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct.[1] Different attempts to articulate the conditions for moral responsibility will yield different accounts of the sort of agency required to satisfy those conditions. What we need as a starting point is a malleable notion that focuses upon special features of persons as agents. As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility.[2] Clearly, this definition is too lean when taken as an endpoint; the hard philosophical work is about how best to develop this special kind of control.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            The problem is 'apart from external influence.' This is a difficult if not an impossible provision to demonstrate. Our whole existence is an integral part of 'external influences.' First and foremost, it would be impossible to get around the external influence of natural law.

                            I do add another aspect of free will that 'conditions of moral responsibility' does not address. We make decisions every day of our lives within a range of possible choices that could possibly constitute free will choices. Some of these choices may be actually meaningful of future consequence concerning future chains of cause and effect outcomes, but most are just mundane choices that likely have no future consequence.

                            The concept of 'contrary choice' is over rated. It simply means a choice is made contrary 'diametrically opposed' to other possible choices. The only proviso in determinism, and compatibilism is that contrary choices cannot by contrary to natural law. It should be understood that the human assessment of what are 'free will' or contrary choices is subject to our anecdotal and subjective judgement, and of course our bias as to what 'free will' is.
                            Shuny, I gave you a clear definition of LFW, and what do you offer? Are you admitting that you have no clear definition? If that is the case then you can not claim that Determinism is compatible with human freedom since you can not even define what free will is
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Shuny, I gave you a clear definition of LFW, and what do you offer?
                              No you did not.

                              Are you admitting that you have no clear definition? If that is the case then you can not claim that Determinism is compatible with human freedom.
                              My references are clear, specific and from good academic sources. I am arguing for the possibility of compatibilism, and not causal nor classical determinism. I gave academic sources support that.

                              since you can not even define what free will is
                              My definition is from a reliable academic source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

                              You actually have not responded coherently to my post.

                              I await coherent responses from JimL and others.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-14-2017, 12:46 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                No you did not.
                                That is a falsehhod Shuny, I certainly did:

                                Actually it does :Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert..._(metaphysics)


                                My references are clear, specific and from good academic sources. I am arguing for the possibility of compatibilism, and not causal nor classical determinism. I gave academic sources support that.



                                My definition is from a reliable academic source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

                                You actually have not responded coherently to my post.

                                Another falsehood Shuny, there was no clear definition of free will in your quote. So I will ask for the third time: please offer a definition of FREE WILL. And stop hiding behind "academic sources" that you don't even understand.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X