Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:29 pm

You simply cannot shake the notion that neither free will nor free choices exist.

Hey, if I'm the meat machine you say I am: I got no choice in the matter.

I'm with you here, henry.

Or, as I noted above:

We have IC insisting that we have free will because the Christian God installs it in our soul at the moment of conception. And we have BM insisting that we don't have free will...but then going back and forth with IC in a manner that is indistinguishable from someone who believes that he does have free will.

Lots of determinists like this around. They fervidly defend determinism, but they never seem to take it all the way back to their own arguments.

Though, sure, not that they were ever able to do otherwise.

Click.

Speaking of souls, what's the latest on IC trying to save yours?

And we have BM insisting that we don't have free will...but then going back and forth with IC in a manner that is indistinguishable from someone who believes that he does have free will.

That's because there is no difference.

Both IC and BM are constrained by antecedents.

Both are presented with choices by their situation.

Both use the same sort of processing within the brain to select among choices.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:42 pm

And we have BM insisting that we don't have free will...but then going back and forth with IC in a manner that is indistinguishable from someone who believes that he does have free will.

That's because there is no difference.

Both IC and BM are constrained by antecedents.

Both are presented with choices by their situation.

Both use the same sort of processing within the brain to select among choices.

Click.

No thanks.

This point of yours never seems to get any less ridiculous to me. And I've responded to it above in regard to Mary and Jane.



Note to others:

It's not ridiculous to you?

Okay, in regard to Mary and Jane -- or to the IC/BM bout here -- try to explain what you think he means by it.

Which part is ridiculous?

That there are antecedents ?

That in the present moment a person is faced with choices?

That a person uses his/her brain to decide among choices?

Okay, to move this along a bit faster ...

IC doesn't seem to recognize antecedents. BM does.

IC seems to think that 'will' originates outside of the brain. In a soul? The soul decides what it wants to do and then sends the message along to the brain for it to be implemented? Something like that? BM thinks it all happens in the brain.

Discuss.

Click.

Okay, one more time.

Mary aborts Jane because in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, she was never free to opt not to abort her.

Mary has decided of her own free will as some understand it to abort Jane, her unborn fetus. But Susan of her own free will has a conversation with Mary and is able to convince her not to abort Jane.

Some years later Jane is around to, of her own freewill, thank Susan for the very life that she is living.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 8:09 pm Which part is ridiculous?
That there are antecedents?
That in the present moment a person is faced with choices?
That a person uses his/her brain to decide among choices?

Antecedent: a thing or event that existed before...and precedes another.

Okay, things and events existed before for both a wholly determined and for a free will Mary.

But tell that to Jane. If you know what I mean. Though apparently, you don't.

As I noted above to henri...

Think of it like this...

Imagine the universe being such that there is a free will part and a wholly determined part.

Those from the free will part are hovering above planet Earth in the wholly determined part. They note that over and over and over again you and I and everyone else down here are choosing things.

But then they remind themselves that what we in fact choose we are not in fact choosing freely.

We need but go down the chain of life here and note, say, a colony of ants. We watch them choosing their behaviors. But we think, "it's virtually all instinct, behaviors programmed almost entirely by their ant brains."

On the other hand, sure, human consciousness is matter of a whole other kind. But then back to what you think you know about it as an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the vastness of all there is. Hell, you won't -- can't? -- even admit to yourself what you don't know about it.

Right?

How is this not applicable to you, presuming a free will world.

And, again, I'm not an objectivist here. I'm not arguing that I can demonstrate that your point is ridiculous...only that to me, subjectively, here and now it is ridiculous.

And, indeed, maybe someone here will succeed in explaining to me in regard to Mary and Jane why it is not ridiculous.

Mary aborts Jane because in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, she was never free to opt not to abort her.

Mary has decided of her own free will as some understand it to abort Jane, her unborn fetus. But Susan of her own free will has a conversation with Mary and is able to convince her not to abort Jane.

There is nothing preventing Susan from talking to determined Mary and nothing preventing determined Mary from being convinced by Susan not to abort.

If she is not convinced then you are going to say that "she was never free to opt not abort the fetus". If she was convinced then you are going to say that "she was never free to opt not to give birth".

That's because you are always looking back at something that has already happened and saying "she had no option". You're always saying "aha" no matter what happens.

Okay, things and events existed before for both a wholly determined and for a free will Mary.

But tell that to Jane.

There's no connection between those two statements ... no reasoning.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:55 pm

Mary aborts Jane because in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, she was never free to opt not to abort her.

Mary has decided of her own free will as some understand it to abort Jane, her unborn fetus. But Susan of her own free will has a conversation with Mary and is able to convince her not to abort Jane.

There is nothing preventing Susan from talking to determined Mary and nothing preventing determined Mary from being convinced by Susan not to abort.

If she is not convinced then you are going to say that "she was never free to opt not abort the fetus". If she was convinced then you are going to say that "she was never free to opt not to give birth".

That's because you are always looking back at something that has already happened and saying "she had no option". You're always saying "aha" no matter what happens.

Okay, things and events existed before for both a wholly determined and for a free will Mary.

But tell that to Jane.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:55 pmThere's no connection between those two statements ... no reasoning.

Click.

Still utterly ridiculous.

Just ask Jane.

But, again, for those here who are convinced that it is not ridiculous at all, give it a go. Explain how in a wholly determined world where Jane is flushed down the toilet, that is, what, interchangeable with a world where Jane is around to contribute of her own volition her own thoughts on the matter?

To me, his assessment is borderline Ecmandu.

If you know what I mean.

I'm with you here, henry.

Well, there's a first time for everything.
just stay on your feet...I don't swing that way

I'm with you here, henry.

Or, as I noted above:

We have IC insisting that we have free will because the Christian God installs it in our soul at the moment of conception. And we have BM insisting that we don't have free will...but then going back and forth with IC in a manner that is indistinguishable from someone who believes that he does have free will.

Lots of determinists like this around. They fervidly defend determinism, but they never seem to take it all the way back to their own arguments.

Though, sure, not that they were ever able to do otherwise.

Click.

Speaking of souls, what's the latest on IC trying to save yours?

Mr. Snippet wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 11:33 pmWell, there's a first time for everything.

So, are you still damned to Hell by IC or aren't you?

There is nothing preventing Susan from talking to determined Mary and nothing preventing determined Mary from being convinced by Susan not to abort.

If Susie and Mary are meat machines (not free wills, or -- as BM prefers -- lacking free will), then anything, everything, each does or thinks or sez is necessarily what it must be. Mary's mind can't be changed and nuthin' Susie sez or does is gonna change it.

Whatever drama a free will might witness as these meat machines converse or argue is nuthin' but empty gestures and meaningless noise. There's no one actually there to root for or disapprove of.

Susie & Mary: just meat.

-----

are you still damned to Hell(?)

No doubt.

You?

Still utterly ridiculous.

Just ask Jane.

This is some kind of appeal to emotion which doesn't even make sense as an appeal to emotion.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 11:49 pm

There is nothing preventing Susan from talking to determined Mary and nothing preventing determined Mary from being convinced by Susan not to abort.

If Susie and Mary are meat machines (not free wills, or -- as BM prefers -- lacking free will), then anything, everything, each does or thinks or sez is necessarily what it must be. Mary's mind can't be changed and nuthin' Susie sez or does is gonna change it.

Whatever drama a free will might witness as these meat machines converse or argue is nuthin' but empty gestures and meaningless noise. There's no one actually there to root for or disapprove of.

Susie & Mary: just meat.

Everything that Susan says changes the state of the world and Mary will respond to it some way. That doesn't mean she will be convinced and it doesn't mean she won't be convinced.

It's how determinism works.

Somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that determinism means that people don't respond to new situations ... that they ignore what's happening.

Determinism: everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way; every event includin' human events, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

There's no wiggle room. No loophole for even the tiniest choice.

It's not that they ignore what's happening. Literally, they have no choice to ignore or attend.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 11:49 pm

There is nothing preventing Susan from talking to determined Mary and nothing preventing determined Mary from being convinced by Susan not to abort.

If Susie and Mary are meat machines (not free wills, or -- as BM prefers -- lacking free will), then anything, everything, each does or thinks or sez is necessarily what it must be. Mary's mind can't be changed and nuthin' Susie sez or does is gonna change it.

Click.

Exactly. Just as posting what you do here was all you were ever able to do. Only [so far] nature has not seen fit to have you admit it. Let alone to explain how this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

...is not applicable to you. Instead, you wiggle out of addressing that over and over and over and over again.

are you still damned to Hell(?)

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 11:49 pmNo doubt.

You?

Me, I'm thinking that if He does exist, He will have considerably more respect for those who are actually willing to think for themselves...and not the meat-machine objectivists who dogmatically divide up everything under the sun between "I'm right" and "you're wrong."

The fulminating fanatic pinheads I call them.

I just wasn't expecting to find so many of them here.

Not that it ever could have been otherwise.