Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13212223
Results 221 to 228 of 228

Thread: Free will.

  1. #221
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,806
    Amen (Given)
    771
    Amen (Received)
    3396
    Quote 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.
    "Heaven offers nothing that the mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives. A man's love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. Love, by definition, seeks to enjoy its object.” C.S. Lewis

  2. #222
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,806
    Amen (Given)
    771
    Amen (Received)
    3396
    Quote 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.
    "Heaven offers nothing that the mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives. A man's love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. Love, by definition, seeks to enjoy its object.” C.S. Lewis

  3. #223
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,148
    Amen (Given)
    693
    Amen (Received)
    824
    Quote 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.

  4. #224
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,831
    Amen (Given)
    735
    Amen (Received)
    2225
    Quote 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.

  5. Amen seer amen'd this post.
  6. #225
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,571
    Amen (Given)
    1733
    Amen (Received)
    1128
    Quote 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.

  7. #226
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,571
    Amen (Given)
    1733
    Amen (Received)
    1128
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    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.
    Hence you are a compatabilist, because what you're acknowledging is not libertarian free-will..
    “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.

  8. Amen Charles amen'd this post.
  9. #227
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,806
    Amen (Given)
    771
    Amen (Received)
    3396
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Hence you are a compatabilist, because what you're acknowledging is not libertarian free-will..
    No it is not Tass, there is no hard fast definition of free will.
    "Heaven offers nothing that the mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives. A man's love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. Love, by definition, seeks to enjoy its object.” C.S. Lewis

  10. #228
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,797
    Amen (Given)
    1023
    Amen (Received)
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL
    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.
    I believe this an unwarranted extreme interpretation of compatabilism by Dennett only one view of the nature of the philosophy of compatibilism.

    Actually, as the only alternative I could go with is a flexible determinism that allows only a partial ability to make decisions within a limited decision choice that is predetermined. That is what you describe.

    The problem with the libertarian free will perspective is that there is evidence of decisions making process outside the belief in contrary choice within a limited number of possibilities.

    Fortunately by the evidence, I believe there are several objectively observed properties of our decision making process that fail to describe a strict determinist perspective.

    There is most definitely a chain cause and effect decisions that are to degree influenced by the sequence of cause and effect relationships. The problem is the individual making the decision cannot know the degree of free will involved in each decision. Therefore it is possible that all the decisions of the cause and effects could be predetermined by the collective cause of and effect nature of predetermined events. Therefore it is possible that determinism rules.

    I believe there is evidence that 'potential free will' exists, but that is another story.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-14-2017 at 12:01 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.

Posting Permissions

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