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 seer View Post
    Shuny, what is wrong with you? My only point is that Dennett does not agree with your definition of free will - the ability to do otherwise. I link the the paper where he clearly refutes the ability to make contrary choices. And this is what you always do - when you are proven wrong you accuse others of misrepresenting the argument. And I did not deny that Dennett believes we have freedom, but he does not believe that we do or can make contrary choices. And any one is free to read the entire paper here:
    Thats my understanding as well, and what I would like to know from shunya, Tass, or others professing there to be a modicum of free will with respect to combatibilism, is exactly what it is that they mean by free will. If in the end, according to compatibilism, we are not free to do otherwise, then in what sense exactly are you defining the will to be free?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Thats my understanding as well, and what I would like to know from shunya, Tass, or others professing there to be a modicum of free will with respect to combatibilism, is exactly what it is that they mean by free will. If in the end, according to compatibilism, we are not free to do otherwise, then in what sense exactly are you defining the will to be free?
      Exactly, if we can not do otherwise, I don't see how we have any kind of freedom.
      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 JimL View Post
        Thats my understanding as well, and what I would like to know from shunya, Tass, or others professing there to be a modicum of free will with respect to combatibilism, is exactly what it is that they mean by free will. If in the end, according to compatibilism, we are not free to do otherwise, then in what sense exactly are you defining the will to be free?
        In compatibilism we are free to do other wise, within the framework of determinism. We have limited choices to do otherwise as cited and described from different sources.

        Despite what you keep selectively citing references and asserting, like seer, we are not deterministic robots.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-29-2017, 06:34 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
          In compatibilism we are free to do other wise, within the framework of determinism. We have limited choices to do otherwise as cited and described from different sources.

          Despite what you keep selectively asserting, like seer, we are not deterministic robots.
          Shuny, does Dennett believe we have the ability to do otherwise? And can you quote any compatibilist that says we have the ability to do otherwise... I will be waiting...
          Last edited by seer; 07-29-2017, 06:21 PM.
          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
            In compatibilism we are free to do other wise, within the framework of determinism. We have limited choices to do otherwise as cited and described from different sources.
            Not trying to be difficult shunya, but if we are free to do otherwise, then we are free to do otherwise regardless of the framework. Thats free will. It doesn't matter if there are limited choices, if we are free to choose any one of the choices available within the framework, then that is free will. Perhaps you are just not explaining it clearly, but what you are defining is free will.
            Despite what you keep selectively citing references and asserting, like seer, we are not deterministic robots.
            I haven't cited anyone, I'm just using common sense, which as you know does not always bring one to a valid conclusion. And I am also leaning now toward the free will side of the argument, which I do believe must emerge , though I don't know exactly how, from out of an otherwise deterministic framework.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Not trying to be difficult shunya, . . .
              Yes you are.

              . . . .but if we are free to do otherwise, then we are free to do otherwise regardless of the framework. That's free will.
              The compatabilist view is you are able to do otherwise within a limited range of choices within the determinist framework. and you cannot do otherwise regardless of the framework. This statement resembles a from of libertarian 'free will' that humans have the ability of contrary choice in most cases regardless of the framework.


              It doesn't matter if there are limited choices, if we are free to choose any one of the choices available within the framework, then that is free will. Perhaps you are just not explaining it clearly, but what you are defining is free will.
              Yes, it is described as limited 'free will' within a deterministic framework by Dennett. No all philosophies concerning free will deal with it and define it the same way.

              I haven't cited anyone, I'm just using common sense.
              Commonsense only is self serving.

              . . . which as you know does not always bring one to a valid conclusion. And I am also leaning now toward the free will side of the argument, which I do believe must emerge, though I don't know exactly how, from out of an otherwise deterministic framework.
              What you are describing is a form of compatabilism. The limited free will choice that humans have is considered to emerge from determinism, just as our mind, and consciousness emerge from determinism.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-29-2017, 08:26 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
                Yes you are.



                The compatabilist view is you are able to do otherwise within a limited range of choices within the determinist framework. and you cannot do otherwise regardless of the framework. This statement resembles a from of libertarian 'free will' that humans have the ability of contrary choice in most cases regardless of the framework.




                Yes, it is described as limited 'free will' within a deterministic framework by Dennett. No all philosophies concerning free will deal with it and define it the same way.



                Commonsense only is self serving.



                What you are describing is a form of compatabilism. The limited free will choice that humans have is considered to emerge from determinism, just as our mind, and consciousness emerge from determinism.
                Shunya, we are going in circles, you keep saying the same thing, but you fail to explain what you mean by it. Surely you can provide a simple example of a list of choices say, and then show in what sense our will is either limited or free to choose amongst them. I think you know what I mean. Could you do that? Can you give that kind of an explanation?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Thats my understanding as well, and what I would like to know from shunya, Tass, or others professing there to be a modicum of free will with respect to combatibilism, is exactly what it is that they mean by free will. If in the end, according to compatibilism, we are not free to do otherwise, then in what sense exactly are you defining the will to be free?
                  Combatabilism is really just determinism with “wriggle-room” (Dennett’s word), i.e. we have a real but limited input regarding our choices. You can argue that it’s a just a semantic difference if you like, but compatabilism does allow for limited free choice. Just as the world affects us we in turn affect the world via our choices, which in turn affects us etc...it's all a part of the causal chain.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Exactly, if we can not do otherwise, I don't see how we have any kind of freedom.
                  This is from someone who supports the logically incoherent notion of 'libertarian free-will'. LFW is not a viable option. It cannot exist.
                  “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
                    Combatabilism is really just determinism with “wriggle-room” (Dennett’s word), i.e. we have a real but limited input regarding our choices. You can argue that it’s a just a semantic difference if you like, but compatabilism does allow for limited free choice. Just as the world affects us we in turn affect the world via our choices, which in turn affects us etc...it's all a part of the causal chain.
                    Sure, but again Tass, I don't see how that equates with free will. All you are saying here is that just as the determined world affects our choices, our determined choices affect the world. Where exactly is the freedom in that.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Shunya, we are going in circles, you keep saying the same thing, but you fail to explain what you mean by it. Surely you can provide a simple example of a list of choices say, and then show in what sense our will is either limited or free to choose amongst them. I think you know what I mean. Could you do that? Can you give that kind of an explanation?
                      Despite Tassman's repeated coherent explanations concerning compatibilism how Dennett describes, you persist in a combative approach concerning the nature of free will within and emergent from a deterministic framework.

                      Dennett is only one philosopher of many that advocates a form of compatibilism, and not the only explanation for the belief that a limited form of free will emerges from determinism within limited choice.

                      An interesting example is the choice of church or religious or non-religious belief system in our culture. In some other cultures the choice of an alternate belief system is punishable by death, or prison so people rarely make an alternate choice. In our culture the search is far more open, but nonetheless, but a limited number make the choice outside the accepted sense of community of the culture, and yes a limited number of people make choices'outside the box,' but yes they do so dominently seeking a 'sense of belonging' decision that leads most people to make a choice that is comfortable to them. Many people do indeed 'church shop' within this limited range of choices to pick one that they are comfortable with. They are not deterministic robots, but by far most indeed make limited free will choices within a limited number churches that meet the limited predetermined social and cultural framework. Of course, the majority make the choices of their parents, and grandparents, still within Dennett's 'elbow room.'

                      The problems with free will in this deterministic chain of events is the reason I describe it as 'potential free will.'

                      Within the deterministic causal chain of events within a cultural and social there are limited free will choices that people make. Dennett describes this as 'elbow room' within a deterministic frame work where people make choices.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-29-2017, 09:15 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 JimL View Post
                        Sure, but again Tass, I don't see how that equates with free will.
                        Well you’re right if you’re equating free will with ‘libertarian free-will’. But LFW is incoherent, as you yourself have acknowledged in previous threads.

                        All you are saying here is that just as the determined world affects our choices, our determined choices affect the world. Where exactly is the freedom in that.
                        Again, there can only be limited free will choices within the deterministic causal chain of events. But our choices, such as they are, matter because they are in themselves integral parts of the causal stream that is determinism. IOW: Compatibilists accept determinism but argue that man is free as long as his own will is one of the steps in the causal chain,
                        “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
                          The compatabilist view is you are able to do otherwise within a limited range of choices within the determinist framework. and you cannot do otherwise regardless of the framework. This statement resembles a from of libertarian 'free will' that humans have the ability of contrary choice in most cases regardless of the framework.
                          How many times are you going to ignore the fact that Dennett does not believe that we are able to do otherwise?
                          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
                            Well you’re right if you’re equating free will with ‘libertarian free-will’. But LFW is incoherent, as you yourself have acknowledged in previous threads.



                            Again, there can only be limited free will choices within the deterministic causal chain of events. But our choices, such as they are, matter because they are in themselves integral parts of the causal stream that is determinism. IOW: Compatibilists accept determinism but argue that man is free as long as his own will is one of the steps in the causal chain,
                            Yes, but the fact that our choices matter, and that they are one of the steps, or an integral part of the causal chain, does not in any sense explain how those choices free. Every event, and or choice made, in the causal stream matters, but mattering doesn't make them free. If I choose to murder someone, it matters, but if I only did so because that choice was an integral part of the causal stream, an action for which I could not do otherwise, then it wasn't what we would define as a free will action.
                            Last edited by JimL; 07-30-2017, 09:38 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              How many times are you going to ignore the fact that Dennett does not believe that we are able to do otherwise?
                              How many times are you going ignore that Dennett believes people have choices and can do otherwise in a limited framework of determinism. Your usual selective citation and biased agenda prevents meaningful dialogue.
                              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
                                How many times are you going ignore that Dennett believes people have choices and can do otherwise in a limited framework of determinism. Your usual selective citation and biased agenda prevents meaningful dialogue.
                                No Shuny, he does not believe we can do otherwise, that is not the freedom that Dennett is speaking of. And again you are being dishonest, I did not use a selective quote, I linked the entire paper. You are wrong about Dennett, and I have proved you wrong with his own words. Stop misleading because everyone can see that you are prevaricating.

                                https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/...0010_0553_0565
                                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
                                161 responses
                                513 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                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