Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 122 of 122

Thread: Free will.

  1. #121
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,423
    Amen (Given)
    578
    Amen (Received)
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I actually do have to explain it, and it is best to just research the reference I have given at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ You, of course take the extreme position, and do not agree, but nonetheless it is to a large extent your responsibility to do your own homework and understand the philosophy of comaptibilism.
    I was simply explaining it to seer what the difference is, because like you he takes a extreme view, and is not open to understanding other possible view points.
    You don't know me shunya, I don't take an extreme view, I am neither a hard determinist nor a free will liberterian. I'm a fence sitter myself, but not in the sense that I am a compatibilist, but in the sense that I haven't quite made up my mind which of the former two choices are valid. Go back and read the O.P. and see who wrote it.




    Actually the reference and the source goes into detail as to the the nature of free will and determinism determined by antecedent conditions.

    The 'potential' free will in our choices only exists within a frame work of the factors where determinism is determined by antecedent conditions. It is not the extreme black versus white situation of all free will versus no free will. Antecedent conditions that limit free will are human instinct, cultural controls and the priority of the desire for 'sense of belonging.' The reference emphasizes 'Moral Responsibility' that is an area of human choice of free will exist. Free will is still limited in Moral Responsibility,' because instinct and cultural factors limit the choices, nonetheless in compatabilism there is the 'potential' of free will within a range of possible choices. To add, instinct to survive remains the primary motive for 'Moral Responsibility.

    I also believe that in the choices of human intellect and the advancement of the sciences there is the potential of free will in the natural human curiosity to know and explore things to advance our knowledge, and in general civilization. In this view our potential of free will choices are likely indeed limited, but not mechanistically predetermined.

    I definitely consider strict determinism is too robotic and does not reflect the reality of the potential of a diversity in human choices over time.
    Compatibilism then is just another way of explaining that we do in fact possess free will, so long as we are conscious of the choices we make. We are only determined in so far as we are ruled by our unconscious impulses which in turn are ruled by antecedent causes. If that is compatibilism, then I would have to say that I fit into that category. But I don't think that compatibilism is a thing, free will, if it exists, then it exists, it is only limited in so far as we choose not to act consciously. I believe that free will is somehow tied into the degree to which we maintain consciousness of our choices and actions. If you read the O.P, you will understand that that is where I was coming from in the first place.

  2. #122
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,351
    Amen (Given)
    954
    Amen (Received)
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    You don't know me shunya, I don't take an extreme view, I am neither a hard determinist nor a free will liberterian. I'm a fence sitter myself, but not in the sense that I am a compatibilist, but in the sense that I haven't quite made up my mind which of the former two choices are valid. Go back and read the O.P. and see who wrote it.

    Compatibilism then is just another way of explaining that we do in fact possess free will, so long as we are conscious of the choices we make. We are only determined in so far as we are ruled by our unconscious impulses which in turn are ruled by antecedent causes. If that is compatibilism, then I would have to say that I fit into that category. But I don't think that compatibilism is a thing, free will, if it exists, then it exists, it is only limited in so far as we choose not to act consciously. I believe that free will is somehow tied into the degree to which we maintain consciousness of our choices and actions. If you read the O.P, you will understand that that is where I was coming from in the first place.
    Of course, compatibilism is not a 'thing' your sounding ridiculous.

    I will have to think about this before I respond completely. I disagree with the bold. We may be conscious of our choices, but still we not make the choice completely of our own free will even though we believe we do. Most choices we consciously make are still in some way limited by antecedent causes.

    Most people believe they choose their faith of their own free will, but in reality most choose their faith because of antecedent causes.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •