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

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Tassman already gave an adequate explanation of free will from the perspective of compatibilism.

    I also cited here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

    Which describes in detail free will in compatibilism, and the alternatives, for which you have not responded. This source is very good, because it describes the different philosophical views on free will without judgement as which in reality is the best explanation. Your argument is far too one sided in favor of a form? of Libertarian free will, which you have failed to coherently describe. All you have done in the past is say; 'There are many definitions of Libertarian free will.' without further explanation.
    You are so full of crap Shuny, from your link:

    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.
    There is no set definition of free will. And again you are dishonest - I have given you my definition of free will - the ability to do otherwise, and that is not incoherent. So Tass, is obligated to offer his definition.
    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


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      You are so full of crap Shuny, from your link:



      There is no set definition of free will. And again you are dishonest - I have given you my definition of free will - the ability to do otherwise, and that is not incoherent. So Tass, is obligated to offer his definition.
      Yes there are different definitions of free will, but up front that is not one important issue that you have avoided. What is your specific unambiguous specific definition of Libertarian free will? If you allow some forms of determinism in your definition your moving toward compatibilism.
      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


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Yes there are different definitions of free will, but up front that is not one important issue that you have avoided. What is your specific unambiguous specific definition of Libertarian free will? If you allow some forms of determinism in your definition your moving toward compatibilism.
        I gave you my definition - the ability to do otherwise. And that is not moving towards Compatibilism - that concept of doing otherwise is central to any definition of Libertarian free will that I know of, of which there are a number of definitions. In other words, I'm free to respond to you or not respond to you - I have the ability to do either - that I am not determined by antecedent conditions to choose one over the other.
        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


        • [QUOTE=shunyadragon;464637]
          Originally posted by JimL View Post

          Again, you take an unrealistic black and white robotic view which is as irrational and illogical as it gets. Both libertarian free will and strict determinism do not fit the upfront evidence of how humans make choices in the real world. We are neither deterministic robots, nor free willies anything goes libertarian flap our wings and we can actually fly.

          What you have not done is present a coherent alternative
          Actually that, presenting a coherent explanation of limited free will, is what you have yet to do shunya. By arguing the compatibilist position, i.e. that we have limited free will, you are making the argument that we do indeed have free will as a property. What do you suggest limits the will, is it a limitation in the agent himself, or is the limitation a result of outside influences. If the limitation is the result of outside influences, then as an agent we possess the ability to do otherwise in any situation. I think we are arguing different things here, I think we are arguing on the one hand "whether or not we have free will" and on the other hand "Is our free will influenced by external experiences. I would say yes to both, which may sound somewhat like the compatibilists perspective, but what I don't think is being understood in that view is that the will itself is free, and that we are able to do otherwise. I attribute that ability to do otherwise, a.k.a. free will, and our moral responsibility, to conscious deliberation and reason, abilities that we also possess, but don't always use.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer
            I gave you my definition - the ability to do otherwise. ... In other words, I'm free to respond to you or not respond to you - I have the ability to do either - that I am not determined by antecedent conditions to choose one over the other.
            While its typically called 'the ability to do otherwise' I personally find that a poor term for it. As when a philosopher is asked to unpack the meaning of that statement they wind up using time travel, quite often turn free will into nothing more than complete randomness.

            I think the best thing to focus on is the latter statement you make: That Free Will means that there is a cause to our decisions, located within us, and which isn't forced by either external or internal pressures to act one way or the other, but reflects a choice unique to the person. That is that in order to understand the choice a person makes, it is absolutely impossible not to make reference to choices originating from that person.

            "I am the captain of my soul." - Invictus

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              While its typically called 'the ability to do otherwise' I personally find that a poor term for it. As when a philosopher is asked to unpack the meaning of that statement they wind up using time travel, quite often turn free will into nothing more than complete randomness.

              I think the best thing to focus on is the latter statement you make: That Free Will means that there is a cause to our decisions, located within us, and which isn't forced by either external or internal pressures to act one way or the other, but reflects a choice unique to the person. That is that in order to understand the choice a person makes, it is absolutely impossible not to make reference to choices originating from that person.

              "I am the captain of my soul." - Invictus
              OK, but it still means that I can do otherwise - correct?
              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


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                OK, but it still means that I can do otherwise - correct?
                I think the point that the combatibilists are admitting to is that they agree that we do indeed have free will, that it is influenced or constrained by the construct it operates within is really besides the point, that would be the case no matter what.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  I think the point that the combatibilists are admitting to is that they agree that we do indeed have free will, that it is influenced or constrained by the construct it operates within is really besides the point, that would be the case no matter what.
                  The level to which humans have influence over their future is itself largely dependent on present and past. The degree to which our decision-making processes affect reality is unknown and much debated between 'hard determinists' and 'compatabilists'. What is not debatable is the incoherent notion of Libertarian Free-Will, whereby an agent can disregard the antecedent events that form the subconscious mind. If an agent takes this into account, then we're no longer talking about LFW but combatabilism.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Again Tass, what is incoherent about the ability to do otherwise?
                  See above.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    I gave you my definition - the ability to do otherwise.And that is not moving towards Compatibilism
                    Do you mean the ability to ALWAYS do otherwise, without exception? If you say yes, then you are being logically incoherent because you are ignoring the impact the antecedent events that formed your subconscious mind. And if you acknowledge the impact of your subconscious upon your decision-making processes, you have entered the realm of Compatabilism.

                    - that concept of doing otherwise is central to any definition of Libertarian free will that I know of, of which there are a number of definitions. In other words, I'm free to respond to you or not respond to you - I have the ability to do either - that I am not determined by antecedent conditions to choose one over the other.
                    See above.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      I gave you my definition - the ability to do otherwise. And that is not moving towards Compatibilism - that concept of doing otherwise is central to any definition of Libertarian free will that I know of, of which there are a number of definitions. In other words, I'm free to respond to you or not respond to you - I have the ability to do either - that I am not determined by antecedent conditions to choose one over the other.
                      Than you agree with the definition I previously provided, which you previously hedged.

                      Source: https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will



                      Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      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


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Do you mean the ability to ALWAYS do otherwise, without exception? If you say yes, then you are being logically incoherent because you are ignoring the impact the antecedent events that formed your subconscious mind. And if you acknowledge the impact of your subconscious upon your decision-making processes, you have entered the realm of Compatabilism.
                        Did I say always? No! And earlier on I made it clear that there are some things that impact choice, like addiction, brain injury, upbringing, etc... But that generally we have the ability to do otherwise. That is the foundation of any LFW theory (of which there are a number) and that concept is not incoherent. And if you believe that we have the ability to do otherwise, even if only rarely, then you too agree the concept is not incoherent.
                        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


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Than you agree with the definition I previously provided, which you previously hedged.

                          Source: https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will



                          Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Where did I agree with this definition? The fact is Shuny I have made clear that I do believe there are constraints, some stronger than others. Some easier to over come than others. The discussion of free will is not black and white.
                          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


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            The level to which humans have influence over their future is itself largely dependent on present and past. The degree to which our decision-making processes affect reality is unknown and much debated between 'hard determinists' and 'compatabilists'. What is not debatable is the incoherent notion of Libertarian Free-Will, whereby an agent can disregard the antecedent events that form the subconscious mind. If an agent takes this into account, then we're no longer talking about LFW but combatabilism.
                            Right, that is why the courts often take a defendants past exerience into consideration when sentencing and so forth, but that doesn't effect the nature of the will itself, or our ability to do otherwise. The world we live in may be determined and those external factors can influence our choices, but we are still free to overide those external factors an choose to do otherwise. Thats all I'm trying to say about the will, that it itself is not determined, and I think you may agree.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              I think the point that the combatibilists are admitting to is that they agree that we do indeed have free will, that it is influenced or constrained by the construct it operates within is really besides the point, that would be the case no matter what.
                              It should be noted I am not a compatibalist. While I think explaining what free will is, is a hard task, I think compatibalism however respectable it can be is even more problematic than a more traditional approach to this old question. The original incentive for compatibalist was the sixteenth century notion that our universe was a clock work of only deterministic efficient causes, while trying to avoid the conclusion that humans can't really be held accountable. That justice, intent and choice were mere illusions of the human condition. And do this in a world with no final cause, no telos, no directionality, but just things that happen as dictated by merciless physical laws; Justice in a game of infinite billiards of the atoms.

                              The idea that our universe a mechanical clockwork has long since died, and while deterministic interpretations of physics are perfectly possible, there's not really any particular reason to have them. So if I have to guess I'd take our universe exhibits non-mechanical behavior, though I reject the idea that there is such a thing as an event without a cause.

                              Its not really that difficult considering that we make reference even to whether an atom will, or will not decay. Implying by language already that a cause of the radioactive decay resides with the particle itself. One that we can't know of, since we can't see the essence of that particle. We just know it by the physical effects it produces, and our physical theories accurately produces the odds that it'll decay in a particular way.

                              Reminds me that I need to read Real Essentialism by Oderberg.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Right, that is why the courts often take a defendants past exerience into consideration when sentencing and so forth, but that doesn't effect the nature of the will itself, or our ability to do otherwise. The world we live in may be determined and those external factors can influence our choices, but we are still free to overide those external factors an choose to do otherwise. Thats all I'm trying to say about the will, that it itself is not determined, and I think you may agree.
                                Yes I agree with the proviso that the degree to which our decision-making processes affect reality is unknown and much debated between 'hard determinists' and 'compatabilists'...as I said previously.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 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