Philosophy Now Forum

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:11 pm ... one needs to be motivated from the outside to fulfill a desire or need, and motivation spells reaction not action, for action infers independence of the will.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 4:26 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:11 pm ... one needs to be motivated from the outside to fulfill a desire or need, and motivation spells reaction not action, for action infers independence of the will.

The notion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is somewhat dated, as is the notion of force. Today, scientists tend to prefer the term interactions. There is no action that is followed by a reaction. Instead, when two things interact, each of them causes the other to react. The process could be run backwards in time and still make sense from a physical point of view. Neither action nor reaction “infers independence of the will.” Free will can not instigate anything at all; that's an illusion.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 5:24 pmBigMike.

Different terminology meaning the same thing. I stated there were reciprocal causations which of course involve reciprocal reactions. There is no action, there is but cause and effect, the effect being reaction. I never stated that my explanation supported free will, in fact it makes it quite impossible. Do you have difficulty with the idea that organisms are reactive creatures or that diseases are a reactionary response to invasive elements chemical, organic or injury? Do you have difficulty with the fact that the physical world is cause to all reactive organisms? You are stating that this interaction is instantaneous, if so, it does not change the process, when brought together both are cause to the other's reaction. Although I might question how anything can be instantaneous and still be process, time is necessarily involved. Something to ponder further at any rate. You mention instigate, which would normally be termed action and there is really no such thing for reactive creatures or for inanimate objects. Being is cause to other beings and to the world at large, behaviors are reactions.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:24 pmLet me first say that is doesn't matter what will is; if it is nonphysical it can not control your actions. Period.

In speculating, I would compare it (our will) to the blueness of the sky, or the greenness of grass. It is the perception of a physical sensation. Take the will to eat, for instance. When the body's energy reserves are sufficiently depleted the stomach will produce a hormone (ghrelin) signaling a sense of pain or discomfort: hunger. As children, after being fed, the pain went away. We quickly learned that at the first sign of hunger pain, we should start looking for something to eat. Our will to eat is "forced" upon us, by necessity, otherwise we die.

Similarly, all of our basic needs (air, water, shelter, etc. ref Maslow's pyramid of needs, for example) get worse and worse unless they are met. If ignored, they will all lead to death. Similarly, safety needs, social needs, etc. drive us to eliminate the pain and suffering associated with each of them. Unmet, they may lead to serious illness, mental disorder, suicide, etc. The basic needs are the source of our will, as I see it. Unmet needs are what motivate us to act; our drive to meet them becomes our "will".

But then again, it really doesn't matter what a will is with respect to the free will question; it is not and cannot be free.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:38 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 5:24 pmBigMike.

Different terminology meaning the same thing. I stated there were reciprocal causations which of course involve reciprocal reactions. There is no action, there is but cause and effect, the effect being reaction. I never stated that my explanation supported free will, in fact it makes it quite impossible. Do you have difficulty with the idea that organisms are reactive creatures or that diseases are a reactionary response to invasive elements chemical, organic or injury? Do you have difficulty with the fact that the physical world is cause to all reactive organisms? You are stating that this interaction is instantaneous, if so, it does not change the process, when brought together both are cause to the other's reaction. Although I might question how anything can be instantaneous and still be process, time is necessarily involved. Something to ponder further at any rate. You mention instigate, which would normally be termed action and there is really no such thing for reactive creatures or for inanimate objects. Being is cause to other beings and to the world at large, behaviors are reactions.

We could be nitpicking here. We probably agree on most of it. Here's how I explained my stance here about three months ago.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:24 pmLet me first say that is doesn't matter what will is; if it is nonphysical it can not control your actions. Period.

In speculating, I would compare it (our will) to the blueness of the sky, or the greenness of grass. It is the perception of a physical sensation. Take the will to eat, for instance. When the body's energy reserves are sufficiently depleted the stomach will produce a hormone (ghrelin) signaling a sense of pain or discomfort: hunger. As children, after being fed, the pain went away. We quickly learned that at the first sign of hunger pain, we should start looking for something to eat. Our will to eat is "forced" upon us, by necessity, otherwise we die.

Similarly, all of our basic needs (air, water, shelter, etc. ref Maslow's pyramid of needs, for example) get worse and worse unless they are met. If ignored, they will all lead to death. Similarly, safety needs, social needs, etc. drive us to eliminate the pain and suffering associated with each of them. Unmet, they may lead to serious illness, mental disorder, suicide, etc. The basic needs are the source of our will, as I see it. Unmet needs are what motivate us to act; our drive to meet them becomes our "will". But then again, it really doesn't matter what a will is with respect to the free will question; it is not and cannot be free.

BigMike,

Excellent, we are definitely on the same page. Most helpful, I would not have expressed it that way myself but it's a bonus. THANKS!

Objection

But we can object that this is too weak a notion of free will. It is not enough to say that I would have acted differently if I had chosen differently. We also need to say that I could have chosen differently. Someone may choose to act as they do, but be motivated by a compulsion or addiction. For example, if I am addicted to smoking, there may be times when I feel I have to have a cigarette – I can’t chose not to. Yet it would still be true, that if I did chose not to, then I wouldn’t. But I’m not free to chose not to have a cigarette.

Another example: suppose that someone has inserted a chip into my brain and is able to cause me to choose to act in a particular way. It is true that if I had chosen differently, I would have acted differently. But I couldn’t have chosen differently, because someone is controlling what I choose. In both examples, what I choose determines what I do, yet I could not choose anything else, so in what sense are my choices free?

Objection

But we can object that this is too weak a notion of free will. It is not enough to say that I would have acted differently if I had chosen differently. We also need to say that I could have chosen differently. Someone may choose to act as they do, but be motivated by a compulsion or addiction. For example, if I am addicted to smoking, there may be times when I feel I have to have a cigarette – I can’t chose not to. Yet it would still be true, that if I did chose not to, then I wouldn’t. But I’m not free to chose not to have a cigarette.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 7:15 pm

Objection

But we can object that this is too weak a notion of free will. It is not enough to say that I would have acted differently if I had chosen differently. We also need to say that I could have chosen differently. Someone may choose to act as they do, but be motivated by a compulsion or addiction. For example, if I am addicted to smoking, there may be times when I feel I have to have a cigarette – I can’t chose not to. Yet it would still be true, that if I did chose not to, then I wouldn’t. But I’m not free to chose not to have a cigarette.

And how do you know that "can't choose not to have a cigarette"?
Because you look back after you have had the cigarette and you write a narrative around it.

But it's really this : "I can't choose not to have it because I chose not to have it."

Stupid but innocuous. A mess of past, present and future.

It gets bad when people start telling you that you can't choose and that you don't have control. Then you start believing that you can't choose in the present/future and you start limiting your choices.

What are your limits now? What is determined for you today?

You won't know until after you have acted.

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.

And how do you know that anything you know you had opted freely to know? Same with your behaviors.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:13 pm

And how do you know that anything you know you had opted freely to know? Same with your behaviors.

I didn't opt "freely to know" because I opted to know in response to what is. I acted in response to what is.

It would be silly for me to act in response to what isn't. It would be silly for me to not act in response to what is.

And, of course, what is here or is not here you merely presume to know freely because you were never able not to presume it.

Ontologically?
Teleologically?
Deontologically?

The "choice" to act as you do is but the psychological illusion of autonomy. Why?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 4:26 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:11 pm ... one needs to be motivated from the outside to fulfill a desire or need, and motivation spells reaction not action, for action infers independence of the will.

The notion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is somewhat dated, as is the notion of force. Today, scientists tend to prefer the term interactions. There is no action that is followed by a reaction. Instead, when two things interact, each of them causes the other to react.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 4:26 pm The process could be run backwards in time and still make sense from a physical point of view. Neither action nor reaction “infers independence of the will.” Free will can not instigate anything at all; that's an illusion.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 4:08 am

And, of course, what is here or is not here you merely presume to know freely because you were never able not to presume it.

FFS, I don't claim to know anything freely.

Everything that I know came from some existing state. Somebody told me something or I observed it in the world. Even my errors are either wrong statements that I believed or some combination of wrong observation and wrong reasoning.

Or genetic knowledge. Like how to suck a nipple or how to acquire language. Etc. But we're not going there.

Ontologically?
Teleologically?
Deontologically?

In the clouds.

You never find me using *ologically words.

The "choice" to act as you do is but the psychological illusion of autonomy. Why?

How can I have the "psychological illusion of autonomy" when I admit that I am responding to something specific?

Seriously. As soon as I respond, then I am not free in the deterministic sense. I'm could only be free if I don't respond or if my response does not address the post or question in any way.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 4:08 am

And, of course, what is here or is not here you merely presume to know freely because you were never able not to presume it.

FFS, I don't claim to know anything freely.

Everything that I know came from some existing state. Somebody told me something or I observed it in the world. Even my errors are either wrong statements that I believed or some combination of wrong observation and wrong reasoning.

Or genetic knowledge. Like how to suck a nipple or how to acquire language. Etc. But we're not going there.

Ontologically?
Teleologically?
Deontologically?

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 4:08 amYou never find me using *ologically words.

The "choice" to act as you do is but the psychological illusion of autonomy. Why? Because human psychology itself is but another inherent, necessary manifestation of the human brain. And others call it silly because they were never able to not call it silly. Some then conclude nothing that we think, feel, say, or do is not wholly determined by a human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter. But is this too but another intrinsic component of the only possible reality?

Again, why on earth do you suppose, even in a free will world, so many come back to God here? Because He and only He can explain, well, everything, right?

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 4:08 amHow can I have the "psychological illusion of autonomy" when I admit that I am responding to something specific?

Seriously. As soon as I respond, then I am not free in the deterministic sense. I'm could only be free if I don't respond or if my response does not address the post or question in any way.

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.

Okay, if you don't have free will as some understand it, then your "FFS" emotional reaction here is no less embedded in the only possible reality. And somebody could have not told you what they did and you could have not observed anything other than what your brain wholly in sync with laws of matter compelled you to observe. There can be no true errors as the libertarians encompass them because there can be no wrong observation and wrong reasoning. At least not in the sense that they are wrong because you did have the option to get them right but fucked up.

Are we [compelled or not] on the same page here in regard to that? Or are you another "free will determinist" like BigMike?

Ontological: I exist out in a particular world understood in a particular way. But how does that fit into the reason existence itself exists?
Teleological: does my individual existence have any essential, ultimate meaning and purpose?
Deontological: is there a way for me to know how I ought to behave when interacting with others?