24 of 36
24
A pragmatic discussion about free will
Posted: 18 October 2013 11:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 346 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
LilySmith - 18 October 2013 06:35 PM

I do believe a person acts according to his nature—his wishes and beliefs that are caused—and therefore I cannot judge him, but will treat him with respect.  I’m with you on that.

edit: Agreed, we can’t judge him. We can judge the behaviour for consequential reasons.

But no, because of my beliefs I don’t believe in sheer luck.

I think we agree, I just meant he has the beliefs and wishes due to circumstances beyond his control.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2013 11:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 347 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
kkwan - 18 October 2013 06:41 PM

then, there is no freedom “due to prior indeterminism” and none thereafter due to nomological determinism, which means there is no free will per se, in a finite universe with an indeterminate beginning i.e. the BB.

It depends upon what you mean by free will Kkwan.

There is free will compatible with determinism as I described, a giant two stage model.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 12:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 348 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
kkwan - 18 October 2013 10:14 PM

Apparently, it is only a well known contention (that indeterminism can’t give us freedom) of compatibilists and their supporters, but the contention is rejected as false, misconceived and misleading by metaphysical libertarians and their supporters.

And yet they can’t see how adding some dice in with the dominoes makes the slightest difference to us except to add another luck factor.

What you need is a way that bringing indeterminism into the decision making process can get us responsibility over and above compatibilist responsibility. That’s the acid test.

It can’t be done and if you think it can Kkwan show me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 12:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 349 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
Lois - 18 October 2013 08:19 PM

Lois, you’re forgetting that belief in Libertarian free will is a determining factor!

It could be, but we cann’t know for sure.

We do know for sure. Beliefs make differences and this is a key belief.

In addition, a belief in anything is detemined and not a conscious act.

Irrelevant.

Besides that, no one has yet explained to me the difference between “libertarian” free will and plain old-fashioned free will. I’ve asked. Nobody has answered.

I answered there is no difference. But since there is also compatibilist free will, we need different labels.

[ Edited: 19 October 2013 12:09 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 01:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 350 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Lois - 18 October 2013 08:19 PM

Besides that, no one has yet explained to me the difference between “libertarian” free will and plain old-fashioned free will. I’ve asked. Nobody has answered.

If you do not bother to read the postings in this thread, yes, you have no answer. Old-fashioned free will and libertarian free will are the same: it is the unreflected position that we can act without those actions being caused. You could read that from here.

To VYAZMA:
Before the discussion on combatibilist free will burst out again completeley, read the postings here, especially here, a bit here. Lily has already understood what it is about, as I can read from her reactions, even if I assume she does not agree with me at all. You and Lois have still not shown even to understand what combatibilist free will is about. Every argument you, Lois, and most of the times George give are pointed at libertarian free will, not against my position.

We are just repeating the same theatre again and again: I point out what a concept of free will is that is compatible with determinism on one side, and our daily practice of assigning responsibility on the other, and you keep arguing against another concept of free will. See e.g. here, here (you can read the links provided there!), here (in case you start about asteroids and bees again), and I still like this one.

I just want to stress this explicitly once again: the concept of compatibilist free will presupposes a certain degree of determinism. So do not bother to argue against my position by saying we are determined or that everything we do is caused by previous factors. You can try to understand the concept of compatibilist free will, or you can fight straw men.

[ Edited: 19 October 2013 02:06 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 01:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 351 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 18 October 2013 12:01 PM

GdB-Essential is that contrary to stones people have wishes and beliefs. If these are causes for their behaviour, then the person acts free.

Ok so everybody alive is free. Even if I am being held against my will, I still have wishes and beliefs.

You missed the word I made bold.

VYAZMA - 18 October 2013 12:01 PM

If wishes and beliefs are causes of behavior, they don’t necessarily cause the desired outcome. Due to further environmental conditions….

And what is the relevance of that?

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 01:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 352 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
LilySmith - 18 October 2013 12:48 PM

It seems to me that a person’s wishes and beliefs are a result of what caused them, but when they are his wishes and beliefs and he is free of constraint, he acts on them.

Acts according to them. I assume you mean that. Acting on them points again in a direction where we could change our wishes and beliefs as if they are not determined, or as Lois likes to say, caused by prior factors. That is of course impossible.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 08:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 353 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9281
Joined  2006-08-29
GdB - 19 October 2013 01:35 AM

Every argument you, Lois, and most of the times George give are pointed at libertarian free will, not against my position.

Yeah, I don’t think you have difficulties recognizing that we don’t have free will, you just have a hard time accepting it. Just like the agnostics and accomodationists do with the nonexistence of God. You are a skillful philosopher and a debater to a certain degree, but that only seems to help you to justify what you want to believe.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 354 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 19 October 2013 08:14 AM

Yeah, I don’t think you have difficulties recognizing that we don’t have free will, ...

Yes, George, you are right, we don’t have libertarian free will. We are determined, and what we do is caused by prior factors we have no control over. However, that does not mean that I cannot act according to my wishes and beliefs, or that I can be forced by somebody else to act according to his wishes and beliefs. And that is what combatibilist free will is about, and is the basis of assigning responsibility to people for their actions.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 355 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9281
Joined  2006-08-29

Ok, Gdb.  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 356 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
StephenLawrence - 18 October 2013 01:32 PM
VYAZMA - 18 October 2013 01:22 PM

Nobody ever, ever did not act on their wishes! Ever!

Yes we do not act on our wishes. Say you are thirsty and are forced to drink dirty water because there is no clean water available. You act against your wishes in an important sense. One that matters to us a great deal for all sorts of reasons.

No.  You wish to drink the water.  That’s the “wish” one is acting on!
The feelings of thirst are just events.
You just made my point. 
Nobody purchases Fish and Chips when they want Curry Steve.

-edited.  I misread your scenario at first.

[ Edited: 19 October 2013 10:45 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 09:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 357 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 19 October 2013 01:35 AM
Lois - 18 October 2013 08:19 PM

Besides that, no one has yet explained to me the difference between “libertarian” free will and plain old-fashioned free will. I’ve asked. Nobody has answered.

If you do not bother to read the postings in this thread, yes, you have no answer. Old-fashioned free will and libertarian free will are the same: it is the unreflected position that we can act without those actions being caused. You could read that from here.

To VYAZMA:
Before the discussion on combatibilist free will burst out again completeley, read the postings here, especially here, a bit here. Lily has already understood what it is about, as I can read from her reactions, even if I assume she does not agree with me at all. You and Lois have still not shown even to understand what combatibilist free will is about. Every argument you, Lois, and most of the times George give are pointed at libertarian free will, not against my position.

We are just repeating the same theatre again and again: I point out what a concept of free will is that is compatible with determinism on one side, and our daily practice of assigning responsibility on the other, and you keep arguing against another concept of free will. See e.g. here, here (you can read the links provided there!), here (in case you start about asteroids and bees again), and I still like this one.

I just want to stress this explicitly once again: the concept of compatibilist free will presupposes a certain degree of determinism. So do not bother to argue against my position by saying we are determined or that everything we do is caused by previous factors. You can try to understand the concept of compatibilist free will, or you can fight straw men.

I suppose you have been conditioned to be defensive with me.  Sorry.  I didn’t come looking for a fight.  I just wanted to drop into this thread for a little visit.
In my latest discussions here I am just trying to discover redundancies in this thought process.
Like having to highlight why we act on “wishes and beliefs”.  That seem like a redundant avenue to me.
In other words, it’s pre-loaded.(obviously the topic of wishes and choices and beliefs would come up in a routine discussion about free-will)
It’s pre-loaded and it seems people are taking an awful lot of time to “incorporate” wishes into the fabric of free-will vs. determinism.
This redundancy is most borne out here by people having to say that we act on wishes and beliefs-but we do it in a determined fashion.

The next thing that baffles me is why people have to talk about the other form of freedom or liberty.  It really confuses things.
Do we really need to philosophically explore the idea of coercion or restraints as a method of influencing physical motion or properties?
I think everyone knows that a person who is tied up can’t move.  But wants to move.(don’t take this bait right here…it leads nowhere.)

Why aren’t Lois, George and me not getting the compatibilist approach?  What are we missing?
I know you have explained it before, but it always seem redundant, or an unnecessary extra step in the thought process.
One that is over ruled by causality anyways.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 358 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 19 October 2013 08:53 AM

No.  You wish to drink the water.  That’s the “wish” one is acting on!

In one sense yes. I want to drink dirty water more than I want to put up with being thirsty.

But I’d rather this wasn’t the choice I faced. I want the option of drinking clean water. I’m forced into drinking dirty water because my preferred option isn’t available.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 02:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 359 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
StephenLawrence - 18 October 2013 11:49 PM

edit: Agreed, we can’t judge him. We can judge the behaviour for consequential reasons.

  Exactly! 

I think we agree…

I think we do too.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 360 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
GdB - 19 October 2013 01:50 AM
LilySmith - 18 October 2013 12:48 PM

It seems to me that a person’s wishes and beliefs are a result of what caused them, but when they are his wishes and beliefs and he is free of constraint, he acts on them.

Acts according to them. I assume you mean that. Acting on them points again in a direction where we could change our wishes and beliefs as if they are not determined, or as Lois likes to say, caused by prior factors. That is of course impossible.

Forgive my sloppy English. Duly noted.  smile

Profile
 
 
   
24 of 36
24