5 of 168
5
The greatest proof of free will…
Posted: 26 February 2011 05:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
StephenLawrence - 26 February 2011 12:17 AM
Jackson - 25 February 2011 06:04 PM

Hasn’t everything that could be said about free will already been said in that thread?

Perhaps but so what?

Libertarian Free will skepticism is like skepticism of other things such as God, homeopathy, psychics and so on.

Yes the same things get said over and over but the battle is important.

Libertarian Free will is the big one because there are so many believers and so few skeptics and because it’s such a significant motivator of human behaviour.

Stephen

Yes. Thanks Steve. I couldn’t agree more.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2011 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

GdB-

I have another question for you: obviously, you think that determinism cannot together with free will. Then what is missing? What would count as free will? What is exactly the ‘thing’ you are denying?

What would count as free-will is simply believing it exists. By observing the reactions of ones behavioral actions and reflecting upon them and learning from them and using that knowledge in the future to make more behavioral actions one could easily assume to have free-will.
Ideas of guilt, responsibility, reward etc all reinforce this model of free-will.
I say the real cause of these actions stems from evolution. I say it is evolution in action. I believe evolution is very determined.
Correct me if I’m wrong but you simply say free-will exists because we are free to choose what kind of beer we drink.
So the question is: what is the thing that would not make you free to choose something.(something that blocks freedom)  It isn’t a question of blocking freedom. The freedom doesn’t exist in the first place. We are bound to act. We are literally bound by evolution and behavioral experience to act in a determined way. Through evolution we have come up with concepts of guilt and reward which are obviously essential behavioral modes for the efficient flow of our species. We observe this through consciousness. Consciousness allows us to observe this mode and give a value system to it. That value system is called free-will.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2011 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 26 February 2011 05:46 PM

What would count as free-will is simply believing it exists.

That does not work. From your answer to Stephen I understand that you deny libertarian free will. I do too. It would mean that actions, motivations and wishes would not be caused. That is BS. There we agree. But for free will all we need is actions be caused by wishes and beliefs. And that is just what we have! To do what you want is free will. To want what you want is BS. And that is the reason you do not want to call free will free will. Did you choose to heterosexual? Did you choose not to like Brussels sprouts?

VYAZMA - 26 February 2011 05:46 PM

I say the real cause of these actions stems from evolution.

Did I deny that somewhere? Did I deny that consciousness arises when a zygote develops to an adult?

VYAZMA - 26 February 2011 05:46 PM

We are bound to act.

How do you distinguish between an unconscious movement, an accident and an action? What is the conceptual difference?

VYAZMA - 26 February 2011 05:46 PM

what is the thing that would not make you free to choose something.(something that blocks freedom)

Being forced by something I do not identify with. A robber pointing a gun at me. Being emotionally dependent on somebody. Being hooked to betting. Fear for some (imagined) god.

Again if ‘you’ exists, then free will exists. If you deny that you exist, then OK, then obviously ‘you’ (sorry, the body behind your computer, I mean) are not free doing all this argumentation over and over again. This is not magic, or some soul interacting with your body. It is ‘you’, your wishes and believes, that causes you to argue with me. Therefore you are free to argue with me. Or not. Whatever you like. Or don’t you like what you like?

Sleep well, and may your consciousness arise freshly tomorrow.

[ Edited: 27 February 2011 06:15 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2011 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Yes you too Buddy. grin
We are not done here…

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2011 06:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31

Schlaf gut…

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 06:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 25 February 2011 12:13 AM

C’mon, Stephen. How can me still be me, that you can identify me, if I am different because 1000 years before something has changed?

It’s worth returning to this because you are mistaken and the mistake is the error in your theory.

You believe what you do depends upon your beliefs and desires when you are acting freely.

But deny that what these beliefs and desires depend upon (amongst other things) is the way the world was 1,000 years before your birth.

The whole point of the libertarian’s uncaused cause is to deny the dependency of what you do now on the way the world was before you were even born.

You are doing precisely the same thing.

And that is also my answer to this:

StephenLawrence - 24 February 2011 12:56 PM

Even GdB is not really a compatibilist. Even Gdb doesn’t accept that if the world was appropriately different 1,000 years before his birth he would be a rapist, for instance.

Well Gdb I’m afraid I don’t see how you can escape the conclusion, I’ve always been suspicious but you seem to have confirmed my suspicions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 07:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31

Stephen, think about following sentence from Stephen Batchelor’s “Confession of a buddhist atheist” (His mother says to him as a child, when he is looking at a picture of a man):

“If I had not married your father, this man would have been your father”.

(Citation by heart… Couldn’t find it so quickly)

You do not understand modal logic, and the problems of identification through ‘possible worlds’. That’s the reason you think I am inconsistent. Gnostikosis has understood, a few postings before. Look at it, and try to understand it.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 26 February 2011 06:23 PM
VYAZMA - 26 February 2011 05:46 PM

What would count as free-will is simply believing it exists.

That does not work. From your answer to Stephen I understand that you deny libertarian free will. I do too. It would mean that actions, motivations and wishes would not be caused. That is BS. There we agree. But for free will all we need is actions be caused by wishes and beliefs. And that is just what we have! To do what you want is free will. To want what you want is BS. And that is the reason you do not want to call free will free will. Did you choose to heterosexual? Did you choose not to like Brussels sprouts?

I think the question here again is largely semantics. Wishes and beliefs. I think where we are getting hung up is the values you attach to “wishes and beliefs”.  You are trying to define a line between “do what you want” and “want what you want”. I don’t see a difference. And I don’t see these as being evident of free-will. Unless you simply want to call those free-will because it appears you are choosing a course of action that is dependent upon your own unique “self”. This would be the mechanics I described above that enable us as a social species to assign guilt and reward.
Bottom line is you want to attach the phrase free-will to these value systems and mechanics. That’s fine…it’s an apt descriptor.

VYAZMA - 26 February 2011 05:46 PM

We are bound to act.

How do you distinguish between an unconscious movement, an accident and an action? What is the conceptual difference?

I don’t distinguish any differences between them. It all stems from unconscious programming. And I believe this is directly related to a “prime directive” from DNA and evolution. This is what is the causal force behind our actions and choices. You, GdB see our conscious ability to “experience” these actions as free-will. That’s fine!

VYAZMA - 26 February 2011 05:46 PM

what is the thing that would not make you free to choose something.(something that blocks freedom)

Being forced by something I do not identify with. A robber pointing a gun at me. Being emotionally dependent on somebody. Being hooked to betting. Fear for some (imagined) god.

Ha! No! You aren’t being blocked to act here. You’re freedom isn’t being blocked. None of these situations are any different then the other infinite types of situations which are environmentally existent. Your “self” will still act according to the programming that was set out through evolution. Nothing is being blocked.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 07:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 27 February 2011 07:15 AM

You do not understand modal logic, and the problems of identification through ‘possible worlds’. That’s the reason you think I am inconsistent. Gnostikosis has understood, a few postings before. Look at it, and try to understand it.

I don’t understand it fully I’m sure but it aint the problem. I understand what I need to.

Your free actions depend upon your beliefs and desires.

If you had other beliefs and desires you would act differently.

That’s what your actions depending upon your beliefs and desires means.

How could you have other beliefs and desires?

Anwer: You would have other beliefs and desires if you were in appropriately different circumstances.

How could you be in appropriately different circumstances?

Answer: If the world had been appropriately different 1,000 years before your birth you would have other beliefs and desires.

It’s you who doesn’t understand the significant points GdB. What I’ve described to you is compatibilism.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 27 February 2011 07:36 AM

That’s what your actions depending upon your beliefs and desires means.

How could you have other beliefs and desires?

Anwer: You would have other beliefs and desires if you were in appropriately different circumstances.

How could you be in appropriately different circumstances?

Answer: If the world had been appropriately different 1,000 years before your birth you would have other beliefs and desires.

I would not exist at all, or ‘I’ would not be me. I hope ‘he’ is punished, when he is a criminal.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 07:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 27 February 2011 07:15 AM

Stephen, think about following sentence from Stephen Batchelor’s “Confession of a buddhist atheist” (His mother says to him as a child, when he is looking at a picture of a man):
“If I had not married your father, this man would have been your father”.

It’s a false counterfactual Gdb.

It’s irrelevant unless you want to argue that there are no true counterfactuals but then of course nobody is responsible for anything in any sense at all.

Stephen

[ Edited: 27 February 2011 08:03 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 08:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 27 February 2011 07:42 AM
StephenLawrence - 27 February 2011 07:36 AM

That’s what your actions depending upon your beliefs and desires means.

How could you have other beliefs and desires?

Anwer: You would have other beliefs and desires if you were in appropriately different circumstances.

How could you be in appropriately different circumstances?

Answer: If the world had been appropriately different 1,000 years before your birth you would have other beliefs and desires.

I would not exist at all, or ‘I’ would not be me.

You are saying there are no true counterfactuals.

Which is in contradiction with you’re free actions depending upon your beliefs and desires.

You are in a muddle.

I hope ‘he’ is punished, when he is a criminal.

Why, because he’s ultimately responsible for the beliefs and desires he has as they don’t depend upon the way the world was 1,000 years before his birth? grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 08:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 27 February 2011 07:42 AM

I hope ‘he’ is punished, when he is a criminal.

You might be saying you think it’s best for him, he needs to understand the consequences of his actions and that will give him a better life overall.

But I really really doubt it, I think you are saying you hope he suffers for what he has done.

You have a great deal of confidence it isn’t you who will be punished, but it might well be. Most people who are going to be severly punished in say 2 years time think it won’t be them, just like you think, and like I think about myself.

If you hope he is punished you should hope you will be punished if it turns out to be you who “deserves it”

Can you honestly say you do?

I’m afraid if you said yes I wouldn’t believe you in any case.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
StephenLawrence - 27 February 2011 08:22 AM
GdB - 27 February 2011 07:42 AM

I hope ‘he’ is punished, when he is a criminal.

You might be saying you think it’s best for him, he needs to understand the consequences of his actions and that will give him a better life overall.

But I really really doubt it, I think you are saying you hope he suffers for what he has done.

You have a great deal of confidence it isn’t you who will be punished, but it might well be. Most people who are going to be severly punished in say 2 years time think it won’t be them, just like you think, and like I think about myself.

If you hope he is punished you should hope you will be punished if it turns out to be you who “deserves it”

Can you honestly say you do?

I’m afraid if you said yes I wouldn’t believe you in any case.

Stephen

Well Steve for awhile you have been taking this line. I just hope you realize that these actions by humankind are justified. Punishment and reward.
While you personally, like myself and GdB have reasoned the facts behind these mechanics, I hope you are not trying to base some new code of morality based on it.
Can you honestly say you wouldn’t feel good being rewarded? Hmmn?
You would. I just hope you know why you would.
These concepts of punishment and reward didn’t come out of thin air. And they are not due to some collective error in human thought and reasoning.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2011 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31

A few counterfactuals:

1. If I would heat up a piece of paper to 300 Celsius, it would burn.
2. If I would take a resistor of 5 Ohm, apply 5 Volt to it, I would get a current of 1 Ampère.
3. If Staufenberg’s assassination of Hitler would have succeeded, WW II would have ended earlier.
4. If my parents would have been poor, I would be an criminal, but still discuss with you in this forum, and would say, “I can’t help it, it is my past”.
5. “If I had not married your father, this man would have been your father”.
6. “If the world had been appropriately different 1,000 years before your birth you would have other beliefs and desires.”

Which one is true, which one is false, and why? Which one can be put to the test?

I hope ‘he’ is punished, when he is a criminal.

I’m afraid if you said yes I wouldn’t believe you in any case.

No of course not, and right you are in not believing me. You would not be able to identify ‘me’. (Take notice of the quote characters!) It is a BS sentence, but your work with these kind of sentences all the time!

If the world had been appropriately different 1,000 years before your birth you would have other beliefs and desires.

Sorry, I can’t take your arguments serious.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 168
5