Free Will

[bahman]

Well I can think of several ways of interpreting the term, and I don't even know much about the subject, other than what occurs to me. And there is the matter of the degree of free will we might have; I think it simplistic to see it as an all or nothing situation.

And yet it is. Because although conceptions of free will can allow for physical causality, the same is not at all true of Determinisms. They absolutely require NO element of free will be actually involved AT ALL. Even one admitted countercase would defeat Determinisms.

Determinism, which I assume is a sort of strict physical cause and effect principle, is one possibility, but I don't see why some element of randomness could not be incorporated within it. There is still much we have to learn about physics, particularly at the quantum level; he said, as if he knew what the quantum level was.

And then there is human psychology; there is still much to learn about that. It could well be that the decisions we think we are consciously making have already been made subconsciously, and our impression of having freely made them is just an illusion. Why discount any of the possibilities when we simply do not yet have the knowledge to establish the matter one way or the other?

Claiming that the decision is made by the subconscious mind does not resolve the problem since the subconscious mind faces the same problem that the conscious mind is facing.

[Harbal]

And yet it is. Because although conceptions of free will can allow for physical causality, the same is not at all true of Determinisms. They absolutely require NO element of free will be actually involved AT ALL. Even one admitted countercase would defeat Determinisms.

Determinism, which I assume is a sort of strict physical cause and effect principle, is one possibility, but I don't see why some element of randomness could not be incorporated within it. There is still much we have to learn about physics, particularly at the quantum level; he said, as if he knew what the quantum level was.

Problem: “Randomness” doesn’t fix anything. Would you rather be predetermined by physical causality, or predetermined by things that “just happen for no cause or reason,” randomly? How is the second any better…or ultimately, any more allowing of free will, than the first? We’re all just pawns either way: in the first case, to iron laws, and in the second, to a throw of the dice. But nobody gets to make an actual choice in either case.

You seem to be objecting, but I didn't think I had said anything definite enough to be objected to. What I said was just speculation, and I was trying to make the point that there are lots of possibilities that we are as yet unable to verify or discount.

And then there is human psychology; there is still much to learn about that. It could well be that the decisions we think we are consciously making have already been made subconsciously, and our impression of having freely made them is just an illusion.

That’s what Compatibilism tries to say.

I don't know what compatibilism is, but I think what I described is called epiphenomenalism.

“Well, yeah, we’re all actually predetermined, but since we’re ignorant of that fact, maybe we get free will back.” Obviously, though, that doesn’t work. Whether or not we KNOW we are predetermined would be a totally different question from whether we ARE predetermined. And if they affirm the latter, then all it’ means is that we are ignorant of the truth of determination…not that determination is less true, or that we somehow become free by being ignorant.

That doesn't really sound like what I was talking about.

[Fairy]

And yet it is. Because although conceptions of free will can allow for physical causality, the same is not at all true of Determinisms. They absolutely require NO element of free will be actually involved AT ALL. Even one admitted countercase would defeat Determinisms.

Determinism, which I assume is a sort of strict physical cause and effect principle, is one possibility, but I don't see why some element of randomness could not be incorporated within it. There is still much we have to learn about physics, particularly at the quantum level; he said, as if he knew what the quantum level was.

And then there is human psychology; there is still much to learn about that. It could well be that the decisions we think we are consciously making have already been made subconsciously, and our impression of having freely made them is just an illusion. Why discount any of the possibilities when we simply do not yet have the knowledge to establish the matter one way or the other?

Claiming that the decision is made by the subconscious mind does not resolve the problem since the subconscious mind faces the same problem that the conscious mind is facing.

Any concept that can be conceived of is known. And yet, that which is “known” knows nothing.

[bahman]

Determinism, which I assume is a sort of strict physical cause and effect principle, is one possibility, but I don't see why some element of randomness could not be incorporated within it. There is still much we have to learn about physics, particularly at the quantum level; he said, as if he knew what the quantum level was.

And then there is human psychology; there is still much to learn about that. It could well be that the decisions we think we are consciously making have already been made subconsciously, and our impression of having freely made them is just an illusion. Why discount any of the possibilities when we simply do not yet have the knowledge to establish the matter one way or the other?

Claiming that the decision is made by the subconscious mind does not resolve the problem since the subconscious mind faces the same problem that the conscious mind is facing.

Any concept that can be conceived of is known. And yet, that which is “known” knows nothing.

What do you mean?

[Immanuel Can]

Determinism, which I assume is a sort of strict physical cause and effect principle, is one possibility, but I don't see why some element of randomness could not be incorporated within it. There is still much we have to learn about physics, particularly at the quantum level; he said, as if he knew what the quantum level was.

Problem: “Randomness” doesn’t fix anything. Would you rather be predetermined by physical causality, or predetermined by things that “just happen for no cause or reason,” randomly? How is the second any better…or ultimately, any more allowing of free will, than the first? We’re all just pawns either way: in the first case, to iron laws, and in the second, to a throw of the dice. But nobody gets to make an actual choice in either case.

You seem to be objecting, but I didn't think I had said anything definite enough to be objected to. What I said was just speculation, and I was trying to make the point that there are lots of possibilities that we are as yet unable to verify or discount.

Objecting? No. Just pointing out the irrelevance of the observation. Some folks (maybe not you) think appealing to “randomness” might change something. But as you can see, it really doesn’t. If anything, it merely makes the Determinism problem worse.

[Harbal]

Problem: “Randomness” doesn’t fix anything. Would you rather be predetermined by physical causality, or predetermined by things that “just happen for no cause or reason,” randomly? How is the second any better…or ultimately, any more allowing of free will, than the first? We’re all just pawns either way: in the first case, to iron laws, and in the second, to a throw of the dice. But nobody gets to make an actual choice in either case.

You seem to be objecting, but I didn't think I had said anything definite enough to be objected to. What I said was just speculation, and I was trying to make the point that there are lots of possibilities that we are as yet unable to verify or discount.

Objecting? No. Just pointing out the irrelevance of the observation. Some folks (maybe not you) think appealing to “randomness” might change something. But as you can see, it really doesn’t. If anything, it merely makes the Determinism problem worse.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not really pointing to any one thing, I'm just saying the question of free will is one that we just can't answer with any certainty.

[henry quirk]

[Fairy]

Claiming that the decision is made by the subconscious mind does not resolve the problem since the subconscious mind faces the same problem that the conscious mind is facing.

Any concept that can be conceived of is known. And yet, that which is “known” knows nothing.

What do you mean?

If what you’ve said above is true, then you have conceived this truth as your conception. What you’ve said above is known to you, even though you cannot say what this knowing is, only that it is.

[henry quirk]

We are by nature, greedy creatures in which life of short duration demands an afterlife of eternity...above or below!

I didn't bring all that nonsense up: why did you?

I answered your question and supplied a reason when the PLUS side goes too far. If you don't like it, being something of an IC follower, it ain't my fault. It only goes to show stupidity is catching.

You're an idiot. Your answer is idiotic. Your assessments are idiocy-distilled. In the dictionary you'll find...

idiot
noun
id·​i·​ot ˈi-dē-ət
plural idiots
Synonyms of idiot
1
: a foolish or stupid person
"… Idiot that I am to wear my heart on my sleeve! …"
—George Bernard Shaw
2
dated, now offensive : a person affected with extreme intellectual disability
idiot adjective
3
see dubious

[Fairy]

I didn't bring all that nonsense up: why did you?

I answered your question and supplied a reason when the PLUS side goes too far. If you don't like it, being something of an IC follower, it ain't my fault. It only goes to show stupidity is catching.

You're an idiot. Your answer is idiotic. Your assessments are idiocy-distilled. In the dictionary you'll find...

idiot
noun
id·​i·​ot ˈi-dē-ət
plural idiots
Synonyms of idiot
1
: a foolish or stupid person
"… Idiot that I am to wear my heart on my sleeve! …"
—George Bernard Shaw
2
dated, now offensive : a person affected with extreme intellectual disability
idiot adjective
3
see dubious

You are the idiot for deliberately avoiding the easy solutions to the hard problems of Plus. Just a chip off the usual blockheads. IC being the oldest blockhead on the block.

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to be objecting, but I didn't think I had said anything definite enough to be objected to. What I said was just speculation, and I was trying to make the point that there are lots of possibilities that we are as yet unable to verify or discount.

Objecting? No. Just pointing out the irrelevance of the observation. Some folks (maybe not you) think appealing to “randomness” might change something. But as you can see, it really doesn’t. If anything, it merely makes the Determinism problem worse.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not really pointing to any one thing, I'm just saying the question of free will is one that we just can't answer with any certainty.

Not with absolute certainty, no. But certainly with strong evidence. For one thing, every human being in this history of the world has found that he/she has had to live as if choice changes things. But if Determinism were true, that would be a totally contrary-to-reality belief. So it would be up to the Determinist to explain why, although Determinism is supposed to be a description of hard-nosed reality, in reality, that same belief never works.

[bahman]

Objecting? No. Just pointing out the irrelevance of the observation. Some folks (maybe not you) think appealing to “randomness” might change something. But as you can see, it really doesn’t. If anything, it merely makes the Determinism problem worse.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not really pointing to any one thing, I'm just saying the question of free will is one that we just can't answer with any certainty.

Not with absolute certainty, no. But certainly with strong evidence. For one thing, every human being in this history of the world has found that he/she has had to live as if choice changes things. But if Determinism were true, that would be a totally contrary-to-reality belief. So it would be up to the Determinist to explain why, although Determinism is supposed to be a description of hard-nosed reality, in reality, that same belief never works.

Doubts are real therefore determinism is false.

[bahman]

Any concept that can be conceived of is known. And yet, that which is “known” knows nothing.

What do you mean?

If what you’ve said above is true, then you have conceived this truth as your conception. What you’ve said above is known to you, even though you cannot say what this knowing is, only that it is.

What this knowing is? It is a thought that is true.

[Fairy]

What do you mean?

If what you’ve said above is true, then you have conceived this truth as your conception. What you’ve said above is known to you, even though you cannot say what this knowing is, only that it is.

What this knowing is? It is a thought that is true.

Yes, knowing is a thought that is true, a thought that is a concept known by knowing.

You are this knowing, this immortal knowing.

But can this immortal knowing translate into any form of experience and knowledge about what this immortal knowing is.

[bahman]

If what you’ve said above is true, then you have conceived this truth as your conception. What you’ve said above is known to you, even though you cannot say what this knowing is, only that it is.

What this knowing is? It is a thought that is true.

Yes, knowing is a thought that is true, a thought that is a concept known by knowing.

You are this knowing, this immortal knowing.

But can this immortal knowing translate into any form of experience and knowledge about what this immortal knowing is.

Experiences are two types, those that cannot be conveyed like the experience of immortality, or those that can be conveyed like thoughts such as my argument about free will.