3 of 18
3
FREE WILL FROM THE GROUND UP
Posted: 07 October 2014 07:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20
LoisL - 07 October 2014 10:15 AM

Just keep hammering those square pegs into round holes, GdB. Keep on redefining free will until it finally fits your prejudice. That’s the way to do it.

Lois

It’s not a question of redefining free will, it’s the case that there are at least two meanings in use.

The thing is to look at examples and see. I gave the examples of the difference between a forced marriage and two people marrying ‘of their own free will’ and a voluntary charity shop worker and a slave.

If you look at these examples you’ll see that all parties choose to do as they do but we need to differentiate between the choices. We shouldn’t treat all choices as the same.

[ Edited: 07 October 2014 08:15 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 October 2014 08:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 October 2014 07:22 AM

Well I’m at least following your words and perhaps hearing the concept…

Cool

One reason it remain out of my ‘grasp’
is because it seems like this has been reduced to an either or argument with of LFW vs. Determinism and one wins…

That really isn’t the case. I haven’t argued for determinism. I’ve said we should assume determinism for the purposes of understanding the subject of free will.

What one needs to do is fully appreciate what the problem determinism is for LFW. Once you do that you see indeterminism cannot make a difference.

Back to this: Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.”

What Schopenhauer is saying is the want isn’t in our control. You may wonder if that’s true but how could the want be in our control? You may say ‘because it stems from our character’, but then the question just comes ‘how could our character be in our control’?

It’s a problem of logic, LFW is simply impossible. You’ll say ‘but it’s complicated’ and the answer is ‘no it isn’t’. All that blocks knowing the answer is the desire for LFW. But thankfully LFW is not something to be desired.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2014 11:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31

Well Lois,

How is the thread doing? In my opinion just that happened what I predicted:

1. You allow only for definitions of free will that contain at least some ‘control (or overrule) on your determining factors’. (here)
2. You do not answer questions that are asked (‘how would you characterise the difference between somebody who can do what he wants, and somebody who cannot do what he wants?), or, longer ago here: some very clear cut questions, but you do not answer them (also a thread you started!)
3. You do not react on the contents of an argumentation, but just react on it with a sneer (‘Just keep hammering those square pegs into round holes, GdB. Keep on redefining free will until it finally fits your prejudice.’)

Add to it that it turns out that the idea of free will very well means something to you:

a. You made a difference between human and non human animals in the respect of having free will.
b. You post a great text about freedom here (‘Free to judge and determine for myself’)

Maybe you say ‘yes but that is not the kind of free will I am talking about here!’. Very well. I agree that we do not ‘have control on your determining factors’. So let’s just do away with that. OK? You do not believe in that, I don’t either (it is a logical self contradiction anyway: if you have control on your determining factors, then these were not determining after all. So you are perfectly right that such free will does not exist).

Now have a look at the concept of free will you do use, that has some meaning for you: the concept that speaks from the points a. and b. Let’s flesh out what it is. That would be a rational procedure. That would be ‘FREE WILL FROM THE GROUND UP’ (btw, why did you use capitals?)

And then, if we have worked out the meaning of free will as you are using it daily, then we can look if this concept can bear the load of assigning responsibility, of our practice of praising and blaming.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2014 05:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15

Now what ? [insert big ear smilie]

or as some might ask…


Where do we go from here ?  blank stare

=======================

or to put it another way

is all this talk about words and semantics and transferring perceived meanings and talking past each other ?  …

or

How does all this relate to how we, as cognizant self-conscious individuals, deal with life, growing, mistakes, learning,
part-taking in our own individual passion plays - that is our personal drama’s containing their own elements sin,condemnation/spirtual deaths / personal redemption and rebirth … and such …

==========================

[ Edited: 10 October 2014 05:48 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2014 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 October 2014 05:04 PM

Now what ? [insert big ear smilie]

or as some ask…


Where do we go from here ?  blank stare

Well it’s a question of understanding what the free will we don’t have is.

Understanding the free will we do have.

And seeing what a difference it makes to us if we get this right.

I think it makes a tremendous difference and LFW is the most pervasive myth of all. It’s strange that even when people get that it’s a myth and agree that almost everybody believes in it, they then tend to shrug their shoulders. There is a different attitude to this myth amongst skeptics than other myths. And, of course it’s still the case that most skeptics, having rejected other myths don’t reject this one, they still carry on believing in LFW

[ Edited: 10 October 2014 06:07 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2014 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15
StephenLawrence - 10 October 2014 05:49 PM

they still carry on believing in LFW

oops, posted at the same time.

How would you/others define what Libertarian Free Will is question

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2014 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 October 2014 05:57 PM
StephenLawrence - 10 October 2014 05:49 PM

they still carry on believing in LFW

oops, posted at the same time.

How would you/others define what Libertarian Free Will is question

LFW is: Could have done otherwise without the need for circumstances beyond our control to have been different.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2014 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 October 2014 05:04 PM

is all this talk about words and semantics and transferring perceived meanings and talking past each other ?  …

A lot of it is but not all.

How does all this relate to how we, as cognizant self-conscious individuals, deal with life, growing, mistakes, learning,
part-taking in our own individual passion plays - that is our personal drama’s containing their own elements sin,condemnation/spirtual deaths / personal redemption and rebirth … and such …

==========================

Well, I’ll focus on mistakes and learning. We learn from our mistakes and the first thing to do is admit we’ve made a mistake. That is one thing disbelief in LFW helps with. Understanding that to have avoided the mistake we would have needed to have been in slightly different circumstances and were merely unlucky that we weren’t, reduces the stakes, we weren’t ultimately responsible for the mistake.

We can lighten up a little and admit our mistake. Others can also give us a break, which again helps us to admit the mistake.

[ Edited: 10 October 2014 06:22 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2014 11:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 October 2014 05:04 PM

How does all this relate to how we, as cognizant self-conscious individuals, deal with life, growing, mistakes, learning,
part-taking in our own individual passion plays - that is our personal drama’s containing their own elements sin,condemnation/spirtual deaths / personal redemption and rebirth … and such …

==========================

On sin and condemnation, there are still actions that cause suffering and we still strongly disapprove. But we realise the person who commits such actions was just unlucky in an important sense. He just drew the short straw since if circumstance beyond his control had been appropriately different he wouldn’t have done it and if circumstances beyond my control had been appropriately different I would have. There but for circumstances go I.

When we realise this it’s very hard to hate him, nor do we think he deserves to suffer. Still sadly we need deterrents, but we see just how awful this is when we see that those who are used to deter others with their own suffering just drew the short straw.

We would want to rely less on deterrents and be more interested in the wider causes of the persons behaviour if we disbelieved in LFW. We’d be interested in keeping penalties down to the minimum that works. We’d be more interested in finding out what does and doesn’t work. How much punishment simply doesn’t work and is even counter-productive?

On blame, how often does blaming each other do any good? Sometimes it does but we blame counter-productively an awful lot, I’d say.

And lastly how much bad behaviour is the result of belief in LFW in the first place? If it is causing us to live in an over hateful, over blaming over punitive world, I suspect that’s creating quite a lot of disturbed people. And many bad actions are the result of belief that the person harmed deserves it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2014 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15
StephenLawrence - 10 October 2014 11:53 PM

He just drew the short straw since if circumstance beyond his control had been appropriately different he wouldn’t have done it and if circumstances beyond my control had been appropriately different I would have. There but for circumstances go I.

Doesn’t this assume we have NO control over “circumstances” ?

As in no influence over -
yet “circumstances” are quite fluid and though I’m sure we may not “control” “circumstances”, 
we most certainly influence how certain circumstances unfolds.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

StephenLawrence - 10 October 2014 11:53 PM

On blame, how often does blaming each other do any good? Sometimes it does but we blame counter-productively an awful lot, I’d say.

slightly off topic, but…
Now you are touching on, IMHO, one of the biggest weaknesses of today’s mental health system (within the legal setting) -
they don’t have a comprehensive appreciation for the difference between “reasons” and “justification”

And many use “blame” as a bludgeon reaping vengeance
rather than as a diagnostic tool for better understanding the dynamics of a destructive dysfunctional situation.

But, then of course such a perspective demands an appreciation that none of us is innocent,
{other than slavery and such forced situations}
we are all dynamic elements in and enablers of the situations we find ourselves in to one degree or another!
Pretending that anything is all “their” fault is deluded and the refuge of liars.

[ Edited: 11 October 2014 02:04 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2014 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15
StephenLawrence - 10 October 2014 11:53 PM

On sin and condemnation, there are still actions that cause suffering and we still strongly disapprove. But we realise the person who commits such actions was just unlucky in an important sense. He just drew the short straw since if circumstance beyond his control had been appropriately different he wouldn’t have done it and if circumstances beyond my control had been appropriately different I would have. There but for circumstances go I.

First off, I was talking about the “Passion play” within ourselves,
that many/most must traverse. 
The “sin/condemnation” I spoke of was self-condemnation and self-loathing for the sins we know we have committed. 
Nothing to do with other’s words or other’s writing or such.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This talk is where all logic breaks down. 
What are we talking about?
The split second decision to run that red light or pocket that diamond…
or saying shit on that and following the rules.

The split second decision to take a deep breath… before putting your fist through a wall…
and walking away or suddenly being caught up in a whole new maelstrom of one’s own making…
~ ~ ~

That’s why this whole thing of LFW/determinism does not compute, does not compute, does not compute,
it’s words following formulas and not trying to look at how our real lives unfold.

Because everyone is so busy trying to cram it into their own nutshell   blank stare

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2014 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15
GdB - 09 October 2014 11:50 PM

Well Lois,
How is the thread doing?

Rather than giving Lois a hard time, why not help out with this thread?  smirk

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2014 10:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 11 October 2014 01:48 PM
StephenLawrence - 10 October 2014 11:53 PM

He just drew the short straw since if circumstance beyond his control had been appropriately different he wouldn’t have done it and if circumstances beyond my control had been appropriately different I would have. There but for circumstances go I.

Doesn’t this assume we have NO control over “circumstances” ?

It depends what you mean by that. As you’ve spotted a lot of this is semantics.

The fact is for any of us to have done other than we did our distant past would have had to have been different, assuming determinism.

Clearly it just is a matter of our good or bad fortune what our distant past was. It’s important to be clear on this, you may want to go on to question assuming determinism, but the first thing to do is to be clear on the sense of sheer luck I’m talking about.

As in no influence over -
yet “circumstances” are quite fluid and though I’m sure we may not “control” “circumstances”, 
we most certainly influence how certain circumstances unfolds.

Sure we influence how circumstances unfold but that doesn’t change the sense in which it’s sheer luck what influence we have.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But, then of course such a perspective demands an appreciation that none of us is innocent,
{other than slavery and such forced situations}

OK so you need a theory of free will that is possible assuming determinism to deal with that. But it won’t get us moral responsibility as ordinarily understood, that’s simply impossible, we are all innocent in that sense.

we are all dynamic elements in and enablers of the situations we find ourselves in to one degree or another!
Pretending that anything is all “their” fault is deluded and the refuge of liars.

This philosophy doesn’t allow us to shift the blame, it would make no sense to do so. What it does is fundamentally change what blame is what fault is, that’s the thing to get.

Nobody is morally responsible in the traditional sense, so nobody can be to blame in that sense, so we can’t shift the blame, there is nobody to shift it to.

[ Edited: 11 October 2014 10:36 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2014 10:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 11 October 2014 02:21 PM

 
The “sin/condemnation” I spoke of was self-condemnation and self-loathing for the sins we know we have committed. 
Nothing to do with other’s words or other’s writing or such.

OK well I think we feel better if we reflect that to have done what we should have done circumstances beyond our control would have had to have been different and we were merely unlucky that they weren’t.

This talk is where all logic breaks down. 

It doesn’t.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2014 10:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6851
Joined  2006-12-20
citizenschallenge.pm - 11 October 2014 02:21 PM

~ ~ ~

[color=green]That’s why this whole thing of LFW/determinism does not compute, does not compute, does not compute,
it’s words following formulas and not trying to look at how our real lives unfold.

What we need a grasp of is what ‘could have done otherwise’ really means. Concrete examples are great. So looking at how our lives really unfold is useful.

But don’t give up and say it does not compute, that isn’t true.

So here is a concrete example. Dawn was riding her bike home and a golf ball flew over the driving range fence, bounced of the road and flew past her head missing by inches.

She said “that golf ball could have killed me” i.e the golf ball could have done otherwise (since it didn’t kill her)

So what did she mean by that?

[ Edited: 11 October 2014 10:49 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
   
3 of 18
3