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 JimL View Post
    Sure, but I'm sure you'd agree that the illusion of free will is not the same thing as actually having free will. When we speak of free will, we do not mean to infer by that term that we are under the illusion of possessing it. I don't think it a valid argument to say that we are both determined, while arguing also that our choices are not beyond our control. Those a contradictory arguments it seems to me.
    The illusion of free will is not the same thing as having libertarian free-will, certainly. That would be logically incoherent. But, in practical terms we do have available choices and we make our decisions on this basis. Hence we have a degree of free-will free from external coercion, which is what Compatibilism is all about.
    “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 Tassman View Post
      The illusion of free will is not the same thing as having libertarian free-will, certainly. That would be logically incoherent. But, in practical terms we do have available choices and we make our decisions on this basis. Hence we have a degree of free-will free from external coercion, which is what Compatibilism is all about.
      Yes, but you know that that isn't free will Tass. If we are determined, then it makes no sense to say that our decisions are based on the available choices that we have, if we are determined, then our choices are determined as well, and those choices are based on antecedent causes. If the argument is that we have a certain amount of free will, well then, we have free will, and are not determined. To argue that we have a certain amount of free will is to contradict your previous argument. You have often asked seer to explain where and how free will emerged from out of the causal chain, implying that there was no such explanation, but with compatibilism you seem to be giving such an explanation.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Yes, but you know that that isn't free will Tass. If we are determined, then it makes no sense to say that our decisions are based on the available choices that we have, if we are determined, then our choices are determined as well, and those choices are based on antecedent causes. If the argument is that we have a certain amount of free will, well then, we have free will, and are not determined. To argue that we have a certain amount of free will is to contradict your previous argument. You have often asked seer to explain where and how free will emerged from out of the causal chain, implying that there was no such explanation, but with compatibilism you seem to be giving such an explanation.
        There is a big difference between seer's argument for libertarian free will, and compatibilism, where yes, limited range of choices free will emerges from causal chains, and that is the explanation compatabilism gives.

        Tassman was rightly questioning how libertarian free will with little or no constraints on human free will decisions could arise from causal chains.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-25-2017, 04:24 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


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          There is a big difference between seer's argument for libertarian free will, and compatibilism, where yes, limited range of choices free will emerges from causal chains, and that is the explanation compatabilism gives.
          But however you come to understand how it is that free will emerges, the fact that it does so is all that is necessary to admit of free will. Of course it is constrained by both the limited choices that be and by the causal chain that leads to each new act of choosing, but the will itself would still be free. In other words, yes, I do believe we are present choices are somewhat constrained by our pasts, but they are not determined in the sense that we can't do otherwise.
          Tassman was rightly questioning how libertarian free will with little or no constraints on human free will decisions could arise from causal chains.
          I would argue that we have libertarian free will, that it does emerge from the causal chain, but that we can be, and usual are, somewhat constrained in the use of it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            But however you come to understand how it is that free will emerges, the fact that it does so is all that is necessary to admit of free will. Of course it is constrained by both the limited choices that be and by the causal chain that leads to each new act of choosing, but the will itself would still be free. In other words, yes, I do believe we are present choices are somewhat constrained by our pasts, but they are not determined in the sense that we can't do otherwise.
            Confusing! Compatibilism definitely does deny free will. You need to qualify the above to lower the fog index and reflect what the difference between libertarian free will and compatibilism.

            I would argue that we have libertarian free will, that it does emerge from the causal chain, but that we can be, and usual are, somewhat constrained in the use of it.
            That description does not remotely fit libertarian free will how it is defined, and how seer sees it.
            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 JimL View Post
              Yes, but you know that that isn't free will Tass.
              Well it's not libertarian free-will. LFW is logically incoherent. But compatibilism argues for free-will of a sort.

              If we are determined, then it makes no sense to say that our decisions are based on the available choices that we have, if we are determined, then our choices are determined as well, and those choices are based on antecedent causes. If the argument is that we have a certain amount of free will, well then, we have free will, and are not determined. To argue that we have a certain amount of free will is to contradict your previous argument. You have often asked seer to explain where and how free will emerged from out of the causal chain, implying that there was no such explanation, but with compatibilism you seem to be giving such an explanation.
              Dennett's combatibilism argues that choice exists in a general sense because we have evolved to base our decisions on context. We increasingly limit our options as the situation becomes more specific (e.g. if confronted by a ravenous lion) and our choices, although largely predetermined, are nevertheless genuine free-will decisions within limite.

              You’d best read it yourself. This argument is expounded in Daniel Dennett’s ‘Elbow Room. The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting’.

              https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/elbow-room
              “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 shunyadragon View Post
                Confusing! Compatibilism definitely does deny free will. You need to qualify the above to lower the fog index and reflect what the difference between libertarian free will and compatibilism.
                Correction of an error: Confusing! Compatibilism definitely does deny [libertarian] free will. You need to qualify the above to lower the fog index and reflect what the difference between libertarian free will and 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
                  Correction of an error: Confusing! Compatibilism definitely does deny [libertarian] free will. You need to qualify the above to lower the fog index and reflect what the difference between libertarian free will and compatibilism.
                  Again Shuny, there are different views of what LFW entails: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert..._(metaphysics)

                  Most I think would agree with the power of contrary choice, that in most situations we can freely choose between A,B, or C - that we are 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


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Again Shuny, there are different views of what LFW entails: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert..._(metaphysics)

                    Most I think would agree with the power of contrary choice, that in most situations we can freely choose between A,B, or C - that we are not determined by antecedent conditions to choose one over the other.
                    The problem is defining 'most situations,' and yes pretty much all definitions of libertarian free will believe that our choices are not determined by antecedent conditions to choose one over the others. You previously gave a very limited selection of situation where we may not have free will. I am not as much interested in how many definitions of libertarian free will there are, because they are all similar, but to pin you down as to what libertarian free will is too you. I previously provided a Theological definition that comes close to your view. You can go from there.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-26-2017, 02:02 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


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The problem is defining 'most situations,' and yes pretty much all definitions of libertarian free will believe that our choices are not determined by antecedent conditions to choose one over the others. You previously gave a very limited selection of situation where we may not have free will. I am not as much interested in how many definitions of libertarian free will there are, because they are all similar, but to pin you down as to what libertarian free will is too you. I previously provided a Theological definition that comes close to your view. You can go from there.
                      Well since you believe that we have real options, that we have the power of contrary choice, which is a core issue, then you agree with Libertarianism, at least some form of it. And your "Theological definition" is not the only view as I linked.

                      From my link:

                      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.
                      Do you disagree?
                      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=seer;462840]Well since you believe that we have real options, that we have the power of contrary choice, which is a core issue, then you agree with Libertarianism, at least some form of it. And your "Theological definition" is not the only view as I linked.

                        I believe that we have real options from a limited perspective as defined by Compatiblism as Dennett describes. This is not equivalent to libertarian free will. Your incomplete descriptions do not contribute to the discussion.

                        From my link:



                        Do you disagree?
                        No, I do not agree, because your citation is incomplete. You need to cite the complete definition of libertarian free will for the conversation to be meaningful.
                        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
                          I believe that we have real options from a limited perspective as defined by Compatiblism as Dennett describes. This is not equivalent to libertarian free will. Your incomplete descriptions do not contribute to the discussion.



                          No, I do not agree, because your citation is incomplete. You need to cite the complete definition of libertarian free will for the conversation to be meaningful.
                          There is no one definition Shuny, that is the point, the one thing they do agree on is the power of contrary choice. Again from the link: The existence of alternative possibilities (or the agent's power to do otherwise) is a necessary condition for acting freely, and that determinism is not compatible with alternative possibilities (it precludes the power to do otherwise).

                          The power of contrary choice is key - and you believe in the power of contrary choice - 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
                            There is no one definition Shuny, that is the point, the one thing they do agree on is the power of contrary choice. Again from the link: The existence of alternative possibilities (or the agent's power to do otherwise) is a necessary condition for acting freely, and that determinism is not compatible with alternative possibilities (it precludes the power to do otherwise).

                            The power of contrary choice is key - and you believe in the power of contrary choice - correct?
                            No, not from the perspective of libertarian free will. The key is the degree of determinism that limits contrary choices. This where we disagree, and to understand my position and that of Dennett concerning compatabilism versus libertarian free will, and determinism. References on Dennett's philosophy and compatabilism are many on the internet.

                            The reference you cited only describes the two extreme philosophies of libertarian free will as not compatible with determinism, but the philosophy of compatibilism is not included in this citation. The philosophy of compatibilism is not equivalent to the philosophy of determinism, which is referenced in your citation, therefore it remains incomplete.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-26-2017, 03:31 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


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              Well it's not libertarian free-will. LFW is logically incoherent. But compatibilism argues for free-will of a sort.
                              I think that may depend upon how you are defining "free will" Tass. I mean, we of course are not able to choose the impossible, we can't choose to fly for instance, but are we free to choose amongst the possible options?


                              Dennett's combatibilism argues that choice exists in a general sense because we have evolved to base our decisions on context. We increasingly limit our options as the situation becomes more specific (e.g. if confronted by a ravenous lion) and our choices, although largely predetermined, are nevertheless genuine free-will decisions within limite.
                              Do we limit our options, or are our options limited?

                              Comment


                              • An interesting discussion between Dennett and Harris, I think Harris clearly wins with his deterministic view: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/it...will-revisited
                                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
                                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