If I were smarter than Plato, I would be able to contemplate far more intellectual ideas. Isn’t that a kind of relative freedom?
Sure, but it has nothing to do with free will.
I will contemplate that.
Ok, I did, contemplate that.
If Plato were alive today and also said “I will contemplate that.”, which of us (me or Plato) would have a more free range of contemplation in having used the word “will”?
Wah-lah! Plato has more freedom of “will” in terms of contemplation, than I.
If so, how does that work? Is there any difference between human and non-human free will?
If not, how do they manage to survive?
the will of, say, a raven can be bounded by the same general sorts of things that bound human will, including internal conflict between conflicting wills in a single organism.
what’s special, to me, about human will is that we can be concious of will, itself. We can be concious of our own freedom, concious of our choices and of ourselves as choosers… and we can think about that in a way that i doubt other animals can.
still, a computer could probably be programmed to do a very rudimentary version of this, without having nearly the subtlety of, say, a dog’s brain.
Great link, Stephen. Very clear explained. All videos together are nearly 1.5 hour, but this is one of the clearest exposés I’ve ever seen/read/heard about free will ever. A must see for those who want a really good introduction in the problem topic of free will and about the consequences for the concept of responsibility.
The titles of the fours parts, 20 minutes each:
- Free Will, Determinism and Choice
- Different Concepts of Freedom
- Hume on Liberty and Necessity
- Making Sense of Free Will and Moral Responsibility
I of course would especially advice George, Lois, VYAZMA to have a look at this. Tell us what you think, why you think he is wrong in his descriptions of the relationships of determinism, choice, free will, responsibility and blame.
Thanks Stephen. As I have done no readings on philosphy, and have had no courses on philosophy, other than in taking part in discussions about free will on this forum, I found Millican’s presentation on concepts relevant to the “free will debate, quite interesting.
GdB-And as you do not even try to understand me, I let it be with that. Keep up the yelling, VYAZMA. The louder you declare your own trains of thought, the more convincing they become.
It’s interesting that you perceive yelling.
What’s more convincing then? My yelling, or your repetition?
It’s interesting that you perceive yelling.
What’s more convincing then? My yelling, or your repetition?
Yes, you’re right. As you keep reading what I am not writing, repeating is useless. Did you have a look at the the videos that Stephen linked too? Very clear, I would like to know what you think. Take the time for it, it is a good spend.
Unfair or not, we’re all determined to do it one way or another.
Yes, of course, we are all determined. But what are your criteria then to say a punishment is fair or not? And I do not mean here your purely theoretical answer, but your real answer, that you use in practical life. And then, as Stephen remarked, has the fact that we are all determined anything to do with it?
Back to this question again?
People accept the collective idea about how desserts are dished out. Even people who have no idea about the concept of this thread are involved and justified in collectively agreeing to norms, mores, laws, codes, manners, customs, etc…
You keep coming back to this!
Are you sure you are not sitting in prison? Your constant dwelling on this matter(the justification and philosophical reasons for punishment…) really tells me that you are a person who has alot of time on their hands to contemplate their fate.
You keep coming back to this punishment thing as if you are searching for someone to tell you you are not guilty on a philosophical level or something.
You keep begging the question and answer to the efficacy and logic behind blame and punishment.
I belive we have covered this matter. Is there something you still don’t understand about the formation of cultures and rules within the framework of a collective society.
A society built upon humans who have all developed(evolved) similiar behavioral patterns for just such purposes.
Great link, Stephen. Very clear explained. All videos together are nearly 1.5 hour, but this is one of the clearest exposés I’ve ever seen/read/heard about free will ever. A must see for those who want a really good introduction in the problem topic of free will and about the consequences for the concept of responsibility.
The titles of the fours parts, 20 minutes each:
- Free Will, Determinism and Choice
- Different Concepts of Freedom
- Hume on Liberty and Necessity
- Making Sense of Free Will and Moral Responsibility
I of course would especially advice George, Lois, VYAZMA to have a look at this. Tell us what you think, why you think he is wrong in his descriptions of the relationships of determinism, choice, free will, responsibility and blame.
Watched the video. The guy sounds as confused as any other compatibilist. Not worth your time, VYAZMA and Lois.
Great link, Stephen. Very clear explained. All videos together are nearly 1.5 hour, but this is one of the clearest exposés I’ve ever seen/read/heard about free will ever. A must see for those who want a really good introduction in the problem topic of free will and about the consequences for the concept of responsibility.
The titles of the fours parts, 20 minutes each:
- Free Will, Determinism and Choice
- Different Concepts of Freedom
- Hume on Liberty and Necessity
- Making Sense of Free Will and Moral Responsibility
I of course would especially advice George, Lois, VYAZMA to have a look at this. Tell us what you think, why you think he is wrong in his descriptions of the relationships of determinism, choice, free will, responsibility and blame.
Watched the video. The guy sounds as confused as any other compatibilist. Not worth your time, VYAZMA and Lois.
I have been able to view only one segment (which cut off about 3/4 of the way through) and I agree, that he is confused regarding hard determinism. He doesn’t quite get it. Therefore, he presents points that are in contradiction to hard determinism without ever making his case for free will.
In the first place he seems to confuse the impact of brain factors and environmental factors. He made a statement that made me think he was saying that determinists think everything is predetermined. This is not true. Determining factors change every moment, we just have no conscious control over them. He apparently defines “freedom” and free will differently than most determinists do.
He speaks of having a gun to his head and wonders what he would do under that circumstance. In my opinion he would do what instinct tells him to do at that moment. He wouldn’t have time to think the situation through. His determining factors, laid down a long time ago, would determine his actions, as they do whether he has a gun to his head or not.
As for two doors, he claims to have freely chosen one of the doors. But he disregards the unconscious brain factors that went into that “decision.” In addition, such a “decision” can be made randomly, or apparently randomly, since there is no known consequence of choosing one door over another. It thinks he is making a free choice (free of all brain determinants and environmental determinants) but if he doesn’t know the circumstances of the choice, he can’t make a
conscious choice. In addition, he may just be impulsive or reckless (other brain determinants he has no control over, though he probably has convinced himself that he has).
The only way a person can have free will is if he can step outside his brain and environmental determinants and assess objectively what the factors are and which ones are taking precedence at any time and in any situation. Even then he wouldn’t be able to actually consciously decide outside those determinants. Being conscious does not create free will. One can be aware of what is going on and what decisions are being made without actually having control over those decisions, even if it “feels” as if he does.
I am getting ready for an extended trip, so don’t have time to concentrate on the clips right now. I will revisit this at another time, but for the time being, I think he doesn’t understand exactly what determinism is. He is running around three sides of the barn trying to figure it out, but he will never do it given his preconceived ideas about free will. His own determining factors keep him from understanding it.
He apparently defines “freedom” and free will differently than most determinists do.
Yes, of course he does. He defines it in the way “freedom” is used in daily life, and not in the radicalised metaphysical ways that non-compatibilist determinists do. “Freedom” means choosing independently, i.e. not being forced, compelled or coerced by others. It does not mean independent of who you are, i.e. who you became.
He apparently defines “freedom” and free will differently than most determinists do.
Yes, of course he does. He defines it in the way “freedom” is used in daily life, and not in the radicalised metaphysical ways that non-compatibilist determinists do. “Freedom” means choosing independently, i.e. not being forced, compelled or coerced by others. It does not mean independent of who you are, i.e. who you became.
