GdB - 06 November 2012 12:39 AM

All this ‘free will opposed to determinism’ is one big confusion of concepts. There simply is no contradiction between free will and determinism.

Hmm, you’re talking about the confusion between determinism and fatalism.

The key issue regarding free will is the concept of choices being *totally* up to us.

As we know free will isn’t compatible with determinism (or indeterminism) unless you talk about a different concept of free will.

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 06 November 2012 12:57 AM

No but it is what we call an avoidable/evitable event. And it is so because you could have ducked.

The future is what will happen, not what can happen. So if I describe the future as “you are hit by a brick”, well, then you are hit by a brick.

The point I am trying to make is that ‘inevitability’ is not a special mark of the future in a deterministic view: the future is always inevitable.

StephenLawrence - 06 November 2012 01:01 AM

Hmm, you’re talking about the confusion between determinism and fatalism.

Yeah, maybe you are right. Many people equate these.

StephenLawrence - 06 November 2012 01:01 AM

The key issue regarding free will is the concept of choices being *totally* up to us.

Totally? That sounds like finding the ground for ultimate responsibility. Can’t we forget that now?

StephenLawrence - 06 November 2012 01:01 AM

As we know free will isn’t compatible with determinism (or indeterminism) unless you talk about a different concept of free will.

Why do I have the feeling you start from the beginning again… Libertarian free will is conceptual dead, isn’t it?

GdB - 05 November 2012 11:41 PM

Lois - 05 November 2012 08:13 PM

I appreciate any help I can get.  I often use LL before my comments so readers know that it is my comment, in case there is some confusion as to where my comment begins.  I’ve found it to be helpful on other groups but I can drop it here if it’s causing confusion. 

.....

No, no, that’s OK. Only be sure you answer outside the ‘quoted’ area. And I was confused by the ‘LL’. I think I now fully understand: tell me, how is Clark Kent doing?

Super!

GdB - 06 November 2012 09:59 AM

StephenLawrence - 06 November 2012 12:57 AM

No but it is what we call an avoidable/evitable event. And it is so because you could have ducked.

The future is what will happen, not what can happen. 

What will happen is one of the things that can happen. If a brick is going to hit my head it’s evitable because I can duck.

The point I am trying to make is that ‘inevitability’ is not a special mark of the future in a deterministic view: the future is always inevitable.

You don’t appear to be making sense. I’m saying if you throw a brick at me it is not inevitable that it will hit me, regardless of whether it will or it won’t.

You are saying it’s only inevitable if it won’t. This needs sorting out somehow.

Stephen

GdB - 06 November 2012 09:59 AM

Why do I have the feeling you start from the beginning again…

I don’t know.

Libertarian free will is conceptual dead, isn’t it?

The point is inevitability is a problem regarding a negative kind of fatalism that people think arises from it.

This is separate to the free will problem, which is a problem over how we can make choices that are totally up to us.

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 07 November 2012 03:13 AM

GdB - 06 November 2012 09:59 AM

Why do I have the feeling you start from the beginning again…

I don’t know.

Libertarian free will is conceptual dead, isn’t it?

The point is inevitability is a problem regarding a negative kind of fatalism that people think arises from it.

This is separate to the free will problem, which is a problem over how we can make choices that are totally up to us.

Stephen

If Potential is “that which may become reality”, then by definition not everything is inevitable. Perhaps FW may define our ability to recognize potential and “will” (make) it into becoming reality.

StephenLawrence - 07 November 2012 03:07 AM

What will happen is one of the things that can happen.

Yep. But only those things that do happen belong to our future. The thing that can happen, but don’t, do not belong to our future.

StephenLawrence - 07 November 2012 03:07 AM

If a brick is going to hit my head it’s evitable because I can duck.

If it is going to hit your head, it will hit your head. If it flies in the direction of your head, you can duck. It is just the description.

The only importance is to see that the future, i.e. that what will happen is inevitable, and that that is the case in both determinism and indeterminism. But it is more or less a tautology. One just must be prepared with this ‘linguistic luggage’ when somebody says that under determinism the future is inevitable. One can just react with: “yes, as with indeterminism too”. Or do you think there is a difference?

StephenLawrence - 07 November 2012 03:13 AM

This is separate to the free will problem, which is a problem over how we can make choices that are totally up to us.

I hereby promise not to react on any sentence of you with the words ‘totally’ or ‘ultimate’ in it. 

GdB - 07 November 2012 04:30 AM

Yep. But only those things that do happen belong to our future. The thing that can happen, but don’t, do not belong to our future.

OK.

The only importance is to see that the future, i.e. that what will happen is inevitable, and that that is the case in both determinism and indeterminism.

But this is what the dispute is over. What will happen might be inevitable and it might not.

I’m prepared to see this differently, I’m just pushing to see if and how you make sense of this.

But it is more or less a tautology. One just must be prepared with this ‘linguistic luggage’ when somebody says that under determinism the future is inevitable. One can just react with: “yes, as with indeterminism too”. Or do you think there is a difference?

As always it depends what is meant. But I agree there is no difference because I accept your definition fits with what we usually mean.

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 07 November 2012 05:30 AM

But this is what the dispute is over. What will happen might be inevitable and it might not.

Let’s give a very cryptic answer, but maybe you understand:

What will happen is inevitable, but what will happen isn’t.
Clear? 

GdB,

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/other-sports/ice-hockey/belfast-giants-bounce-back-but-fail-to-avoid-euro-exit-16227850.html

I quickly googled this because I was looking for an example of failing to avoid.

It seems to me what the team failed to avoid is what happened, and so what happened had to be avoidable/evitable.

How do you deal with cases like this?

Stephen

GdB - 07 November 2012 05:34 AM

StephenLawrence - 07 November 2012 05:30 AM

But this is what the dispute is over. What will happen might be inevitable and it might not.

Let’s give a very cryptic answer, but maybe you understand:

What will happen is inevitable, but what will happen isn’t.
Clear? 

Oh yeah that is perfectly clear.
(sarcasm)

Can thought provide free will, or only describe it;

By what means can I get free will;

What would it be worth to me?