For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
No, you have not. You have acted based on a combination of chance and reasoned choice.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 12:01 am Wikipedia has this to say:
That seems fine to me. I reason, I want, I desire, I have ethical motivations, and if all of those things combined in my brain produce what we call a "choice" that I can then act on, then I've acted according to my free will.Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had the freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."[14] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. This definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism.[2] This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination.
I accept that the type of free will that compatibilists think is good enough, is not satisfying to everyone. You are not satisfied with that type of freedom, not satisfied with to call it "free will". That's okay, I understand why you feel that way. I agree with it mostly, actually, but not entirely.
Do you believe it's possible to have a tiny admixture of Free Will such that sometimes this Free Will thingy actually originates a choice?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 6:06 pmI accept that the type of free will that compatibilists think is good enough, is not satisfying to everyone. You are not satisfied with that type of freedom, not satisfied with to call it "free will". That's okay, I understand why you feel that way. I agree with it mostly, actually, but not entirely.
I don't believe you're explicitly incorrect to reject the compatibilist approach.
The main thing I think is explicitly incorrect is libertarian free will.
To my mind, if something is uncaused, it's random, so if when you say it "originates" a choice you mean that that choice exists outside of any previous cause, it's just spontaneous, then... that sort of thing might happen, yes, but I wouldn't describe it as "freedom". It doesn't feel any more free to me than pure determinism.
I think I understand why it "starts looking" like that to you.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 6:13 pm However, if the idea of a mind originating a choice doesn't require it to be uncaused, then it starts looking like compatibilism.
Click.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amI didn't say anything was obvious about Mary and Jane being obvious in relation to compatiblism. I pointed out what I thought was obvious about what you were doing, by parodying the post where you were critical of me and FJ. It's obvious you were doing this, since, well, the post is right there. Your post, the one I parodied. What we were doing was also obvious. You didn't like it and implied we were doing something wrong. Don't make this more complicated than it was.iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:13 pm Okay, in regard to Mary and Jane what do you think is "obvious" in regard to compatibilism? I must have missed that post. Or I don't remember it.
My interest in compatibilism revolves around the extent to which technical philosophical arguments regarding free will can be made applicable to actual human behaviors. And since some argue that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility why not go right to the top: abortion.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:25 pmAnd that's a perfectly reasonable interest. It's not as if I think you shouldn't have that interest.
That plus my main interest [in turn] revolves around bringing conclusions reached about compatibilism down out of the intellectual clouds and noting their relevance to situations like abortion...or regarding any other conflicting goods such that, if we do possess free will, than holding someone morally responsible takes on a whole other meaning. As opposed to a world where Mary was not able to not abort Jane. Yes, Mary could have opted to give birth to Jane. Somehow that can be substantiated. What, philosophically, ethically, are we to make of that?
Back again to just how surreal it is discussing this at all. Until science is able to pin down how matter acquired biological life acquired consciousness acquired self-consciousness, how on earth can we ever be sure about anything? Not to mention the gap between what we think we know about the "human condition" and all that would need to be known about how and why the human condition itself fits into the profoundly problematic existence of existence.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amRight, so what do you think would happen if someone could prove that she had free will or could prove that she didn't? You seem to find it problematic if someone here does not bring this down to the ground. They should be, it seems according to you, demonstrate something about Mary's situation. It seems from reading the above quote of yours and other quotes, that you think it makes a difference to the situation and perhaps how you would view it and act if you knew that determinism or free will was the case or if somehow free will was compatible with determinism. Where did you get that impression? What did difference would it make? How might it help you feel less fractured and fragmented? With specifics....
Again, of course: click.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amWell, if I know that the universe is determined, then I will do X or I will view Mary as Y, and thus I will feel less fractured because of Z. These actions and views being concrete and specific. Likewise with Free Will or Compatiblism.
Take us through the Mary situation and tell us what differences you think it would make if you, personally, viewed determinism or free will as the case, or a compatiblist combination?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:25 pmHow come you are fractured and fragmented about everything except the psychology of people you disagree with or who don't focus on topics the way you want? There you just present a unified front.
Not sure what you mean here. I am as much fractured and fragmented regarding my own psychology...The closest I have come to understanding why I think I am the way I am revolves around this...
"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest." John Fowles
The provocative, polemical part of myself here, in particular.
As for this...
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:25 pmWhy are you so confident about your beliefs about what goes on in other people's minds my motives and psychology, even to the point where you refuse to believe their sense of what is going on in their minds?
Somehow you solved the problem of other minds.
...again, that's your iambiguous, not mine. i don't recognize myself in that way at all.
Again, given some measure of free will, your own rendition of what I am doing here. I still don't recognize myself here.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amOK, well when someone tells me my motivations and I notice that this person does this with some regularlity, tell people why they do things or what they are feeling, and even though he knows this is not what they would say, this person is making a claim to having some direct access to other minds.
Note to others:Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amYou present yourself as being torn between different philosophical positions on a range of issues including the main one in this thread. You see other people as being certain and you are often critical of this certainty.
Right, I'm "fairly objectivist" here. Okay, note the parts that do indicate to you that my assessment here given my own ignorance regarding this...Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amBut here you are acting as if you are psychic or know other people's minds and can dismiss their takes on their own motivations, for example.
So, on this issue you are fairly objectivist. How did you develop this certainty about what is going on in other people's minds?
Huh? In regard to abortion, given free will, my frame of mind revolves around the OPs of these two threads:Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amIf you still don't understand, no worries. What I am most interested in is how you see resolving this issue leads to concrete changes in how you would deal with an abortion situation.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:25 pmMe, personally, the determinism free will issue does not affect the way I view concrete decisions (re:abortion).
What could possibly be more important than pinning down whether or not what we think, feel, say and do we think, feel, say and do of our own volition? Given that neither philosophers nor scientists are really certain about it one way or the other. Unless that's changed. If so, link me to it.
On the contrary, I always note that to the extent it is an important issue and/or becomes important to resolve is embedded existentially in dasein. And that using the tools of philosophy in a No God world there does not appear to be a way to establish that it ought to be an important issue...let alone that there is an objective way in which to resolve it.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amThank you. There you have clearly expressed that this is an important issue and resolving it is important.
I tried to explain that above. I'm the wrong person to ask if you expect the sort of answers you'd get from those who actually are objectivists.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amWhat concrete and specific differences would it make in that situation?
What actions would change for you?
What attitude would you have in relation to Mary that you don't have now?
Let's say it is the day you are going to meet Mary, the day she is going to the clinic.
What specific differences are there that you see? (given that you see resolving this as so important.)
Again, it's not clear [to me] what you are referring to in regard to "not knowing". Not knowing if I have free will or I am wholly determine? Well, I don't know. Though, okay, if it could be determined that I do have free will, not knowing what I would tell Mary that will change anything?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amI don't see myself acting differently if, just before going to sleep, I read the overwhelmingly perfect argument that convinces me utterly - and I see it has also convinced a long list of experts from many fields.
Run through this for us. And then if you think the changes KNOWING would make in you are ones that all rational people should have also. IOW what concrete changes would resolving this issue lead to in you AND (a second issue) do you think others should also be influenced this way. That they should be compelled to feel and act more like X and Y.
What could possibly be more important than pinning down whether or not what we think, feel, say and do we think, feel, say and do of our own volition?
As though you are saying, "okay, we do have free will and you are not fractured and fragmented regarding conflicting goods such as this. What then?"Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 amSo, it would see like you think all or many would be changed in down to earth ways or SHOULD be and should share your sense of the importance.
What do you see knowing which is true (free will or determinism or the combination compatibilism is true) would lead to? And why is it so wrong that I do not think it would change how I would act and think of others?
Would I treat the guy in my theater group differently? Should I if I knew?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:05 am Take us through the Mary situation and tell us what differences you think it would make if you, personally, viewed determinism or free will as the case, or a compatiblist combination?
I don't think that's answering my question. My question isAgain, of course: click.
Given the manner in which I and others construe the "for all practical purposes" existential reality of determinism, what unfolded back then at Essex Community College exactly overlaps with what is unfolding in this exchange today. Everything that did unfold then and is unfolding now unfolds in the only possible manner in which if ever could have unfolded. Why? Because human brains are still no less wholly embedded in the laws of matter. At least until a God, the God reveals how He created autonomous souls or until the No God scientists pin down how lifeless matter did become living matter did become conscious matter did become self-conscious matter.
My question is: how so?What could possibly be more important than pinning down whether or not what we think, feel, say and do we think, feel, say and do of our own volition?
I don't know if your being fractured and fragmented has to do with this issue or moral issues or something else or a mixture. That's all beside the point. You've said that nothing could be more important than knowing this. How do you know that or what makes you think it is important to know? What practical difference would knowing which is the case make? What future difference would it make?As though you are saying, "okay, we do have free will and you are not fractured and fragmented regarding conflicting goods such as this. What then?"
Of course: straight back up into the clouds...iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 8:17 pm Back again to how far he takes this. Does it include his brain compelling him to post this? ... Does it include my brain compelling me to react to the post in the only manner in which I am able to?
Right. Tell that to Mary. And then when she asks you, "if, in a determined universe...one where I was never able not to abort Jane...am I still morally responsible for doing so?", what do you tell her?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:10 pmThis is a language confusion. You're using the terms "him" and "his brain", or "me" and "my brain" as separate things.
In physical materialism, you ARE your brain. You brain isn't compelling you, your brain IS you.
If yes to both then then how is anything that we argue in our posts here not essentially interchangeable. Someone might argue that others ought to argue the same thing as they do...but only because they were never able not to argue this.
Note to others:Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:10 pmYou bring this idea up a lot but you haven't made much sense of it. Why are words meaningless in determinism but not indeterminism? What about randomness existing makes words meaningful?
Though, sure, by all means, note [contemptuously] how you don't understand any of it yourself.How can anyone not understand 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.
...profound mystery in the same way? First [they tell us] was the Big Bang. Then eventually stars. Then eventually stars big enough to produce supernovas. Then out of those supernovas came all the heavier elements that eventually became the planets. Then "somehow" these heavier elements eventually produced living matter "somehow" produced conscious matter "somehow" produced us. That's what the astronomers mean when they tell us we are all born of "star stuff".
With a God, the God thrown in there or not. God thrown in because -- presto! -- instant answer.
How preposterous can it be to actually assert definitively conclusions about human brains "here and now" without grasping how human brains themselves were able to evolve in the first place. Sure, we do it because we can. But why can we?
Exactly as responsible as she'd be in a world with randomness.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:59 am
Right. Tell that to Mary. And then when she asks you, "if, in a determined universe...one where I was never able not to abort Jane...am I still morally responsible for doing so?", what do you tell her?
But none of those words were explicitly about what I asked. I asked a question about why you think randomness makes words meaningful. You didn't make reference to randomness once in all of that.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:59 am Here is my attempt above to explain to him how I make "sense" of it:
That passage appears to express frustration with the lack of understanding of how human brains were able to evolve and become conscious. You appear to be skeptical of explanations that invoke a deity or rely on words like "somehow." However, the passage itself relies on similar vague language and lacks a clear argument.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:59 am Here is my attempt above to explain to him how I make "sense" of it:
How can anyone not understand 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.
...profound mystery in the same way? First [they tell us] was the Big Bang. Then eventually stars. Then eventually stars big enough to produce supernovas. Then out of those supernovas came all the heavier elements that eventually became the planets. Then "somehow" these heavier elements eventually produced living matter "somehow" produced conscious matter "somehow" produced us. That's what the astronomers mean when they tell us we are all born of "star stuff".
With a God, the God thrown in there or not. God thrown in because -- presto! -- instant answer.
How preposterous can it be to actually assert definitively conclusions about human brains "here and now" without grasping how human brains themselves were able to evolve in the first place. Sure, we do it because we can. But why can we?
Was this directed at someone in particular or the post it followed?
I think he's responding to Biggys post, which at parts of it seems to imply that all philosophical conversation must stop until we have very specific and detailed answers to certain questions, like the origin of the human brain, or consciousness itself.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:34 pmWas this directed at someone in particular or the post it followed?
Can you word it differently. I couldn't understand it.