Search

 23 of 73 « First Prev 21 22 23 24 25 Next Last »
Do non-human animals have free will?
 Posted: 05 December 2012 07:45 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 331 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

The conditions will never be the same. Ever.

 Profile

 Posted: 05 December 2012 07:45 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 332 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6312
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 05 December 2012 07:34 AM

We assign probability out of ignorance, not because they exist.

Don’t forget probability is a useful guide as to what to do, so there is more to it than you are supposing.

And my point was we assign probabilities to the type of alternatives we can demonstrate by repeated experiments.

Stephen

 Profile

 Posted: 05 December 2012 07:53 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 333 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6312
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 05 December 2012 07:45 AM

The conditions will never be the same. Ever.

So now the same has no (useful) meaning. Two women never go to a party wearing the same dress, we are not having the same dinner again this week…

I do think you’ll come to see this all as a mistake.

Stephen

[ Edited: 05 December 2012 07:59 AM by StephenLawrence ]
 Profile

 Posted: 05 December 2012 07:57 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 334 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6312
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 05 December 2012 07:45 AM

The conditions will never be the same. Ever.

So, what does Austin really mean by the same?

He’s imagining the same means exactly the same but also doing the same experiments which clearly are not exactly the same.

At base the mistake is equivocation over the meaning of the same, that’s the point.

Stephen

 Profile

 Posted: 05 December 2012 09:43 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 335 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  4743
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 05 December 2012 06:07 AM

Sure, the illusion that we have a free will is practical. Nobody is denying that, just like nobody is denying that the illusion of seeing your hand as a solid object serves a purpose. There are all kinds of perspective-related geometrical illusions, for example, our minds see all the time, but nobody would ever say that once you are on an airplane, the cars are the size of ants. They look like that, but we know it’s only an illusion to help us measure the distance.

The illusion of free will can then help us to find who is culpable and responsible. I think we all understand why and how this works, but I see no reason to call this illusion any more real than that of seeing cars as being the size of ants and saying they really are that small.

You forget there are two aspects of free will. By denying one you also deny the other.

A determinist sits in the restaurant with the menu card. Say, of the 20 dishes on the menu card he likes 3. Realising that one of the dishes is the same as what he ate yesterday, and that the other might be too much, he choose for one of the dishes.

Now what does it mean that he chose for this dish? It means that his choice was caused by him. It however does not mean that he himself was not caused. Looking from his inner experience, it is clear for him that, given that nobody coerces him to take a dish he does not like, that what he chooses depends only on him. So was his choice determined? Yes, it was. Did his choice (causally!) depend on his wishes and beliefs? Yes, it did. So is he correct that his choice depends on him? Yes, it is.

Does it mean that his choice originates in him and him alone? No, of course not. Now did the idea that we are determined change anything about his choice? No, not at all.

So there are two ‘experiences of free will’: the fact that what I do next depends on my wishes and beliefs. That is free will in the compatibilist sense. And there is the experience that what I do arises from nowhere out of me, i.e. it has no causal history. That is an illusion, the illusion of libertarian free will.

In your sense, George, you cannot even say that the ball flying to the window is the cause of the breaking of the glass, because the ball was kicked by a boy. But the boy was not the cause either, because it was his friend that asked him to go playing football, etc etc. In this way nothing is a cause, because everything is caused. In the same way you deny the causal efficacy of wishes and beliefs: but in fact they are just a part of the causal network of events.

[ Edited: 05 December 2012 10:14 AM by GdB ]
Signature

GdB

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

 Profile

 Posted: 07 December 2012 12:18 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 336 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6312
Joined  2006-12-20

George,

To recap: Why I think you come to the conclusions you do.

1) You are using the wrong meaning of the same. The same doesn’t mean exactly the same. We can demonstrate a coin doesn’t have to land on heads just by doing the same thing (tossing it) a few times.

2) You believe moral responsibility makes sense if people CHDO in exactly the same circumstances. This is not true, it in fact makes no sense, because why they do one thing rather than another has nothing to do with them at all.

By replacing CHDO with CHDO if… we make sense of moral responsibility and the nature of it changes from the illusory version.

The illusory version is ultimate responsibility whilst the correct version accepts that people are not ultimately responsible, it accepts that those who are responsible are merely lucky or unlucky to have the distant past they have and end up responsible as a result.

Because of 1) and especially 2) you miss this significant difference which does bring about a change in us, and this is why we disagree.

Stephen

[ Edited: 07 December 2012 12:22 AM by StephenLawrence ]
 Profile

 Posted: 07 December 2012 05:09 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 337 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I need to take a break from this, Stephen. I get tired arguing about the same stuff over and over.

 Profile

 Posted: 07 December 2012 11:54 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 338 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6312
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 07 December 2012 05:09 AM

I need to take a break from this, Stephen. I get tired arguing about the same stuff over and over.

OK George, that’s fine. I think when or if you come back, being clear about the two points I isolated will be good, to save arguing over the same stuff.

Best,

Stephen

 Profile

 Posted: 02 January 2013 09:32 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 339 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
George - 07 December 2012 05:09 AM

I need to take a break from this, Stephen. I get tired arguing about the same stuff over and over.

It has been several years since I participated in the free-will argument here. It’s nice to see the original threads still exist and have been combined. However, I seen nothing has changed in the contents of the argument arena and new threads continue to be created. I blame the big bang for now.

Signature

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

 Profile

 Posted: 02 January 2013 10:22 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 340 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6312
Joined  2006-12-20
morgantj - 02 January 2013 09:32 AM
George - 07 December 2012 05:09 AM

I need to take a break from this, Stephen. I get tired arguing about the same stuff over and over.

It has been several years since I participated in the free-will argument here. It’s nice to see the original threads still exist and have been combined. However, I seen nothing has changed in the contents of the argument arena and new threads continue to be created. I blame the big bang for now.

How time flies.

Stephen

 Profile

 Posted: 03 January 2013 09:57 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 341 ]
Jr. Member
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2012-12-01

is—-attraction—- a way to begin to describe free will     subatomic   atomic   molecules   elements   compounds   suns   planets   galaxies—-experience—-what is free will for

[ Edited: 17 January 2013 03:05 PM by arnoldg ]
 Profile

 Posted: 04 January 2013 12:45 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 342 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6312
Joined  2006-12-20
arnoldg - 03 January 2013 09:57 AM

is attraction a way to begin to describe free will   subatomic   atomic   elements   suns   planets earth   life galaxies   what is free will for

My curiosity leads me to ask why you don’t use full stops or capital letters arnoldg.

I hope you don’t mind me asking.

Stephen

 Profile

 Posted: 17 January 2013 03:23 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 343 ]
Jr. Member
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2012-12-01

to emphasize to myself   question   as the primary principal of philosophy

 Profile

 Posted: 17 January 2013 03:44 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 344 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6267
Joined  2009-02-26
arnoldg - 17 January 2013 03:23 PM

to emphasize to myself   question   as the primary principal of philosophy

Free will is being able to “choose the path less travelled”.

My choice to use the word “travelled” was an act of free will.

http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-travelled-traveled.asp

here is an example of positive and apparent intelligent action which cannot be described as free will. It is apparent intelligent choice, finding the shortest route to food in a maze.

[ Edited: 17 January 2013 04:07 PM by Write4U ]
Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

 Profile

 Posted: 17 January 2013 07:18 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 345 ]
Jr. Member
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2012-12-01

can one`s will be free   is it attracted only to forces that make keep it free   do I know the forces in me for making keeping free will   is the attraction of thinking a force   is thinking only a beginning

 Profile

 23 of 73 « First Prev 21 22 23 24 25 Next Last »