Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote:Henry Quirk wrote:

Speaking for me only: as I've said before, while recognizing c & e, I can't deny my own real, on-going experience as a self-director, so: some aspect of cause and effect must be false, or, some aspect of 'selfness/I-ness' renders that self/I (partially) exempt from c & e.

Henry, your own, real, ongoing experience is a proper basis for your belief, and is better than quotations from any published philosopher. however I suggest that you look again at why you believe your self to be able to originate decisions and ideas.

If your self can originate decisions and ideas it's different from any other organ or tissue mass in your body.

If your self has nothing to do with what caused it to act then your self is something like God, which is supposed to be the only self-caused.

If you believe that something is real simply because it feels as if it's real, then you are at risk of all manner of self deceptions.

Determinists will claim that all causes prove determinism and will deny that any cause could be compatible with free will. It all comes back to where you draw the line, encompassing all causes in determinism, or allowing some causes in free will.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote:
If you believe that something is real simply because it feels as if it's real, then you are at risk of all manner of self deceptions.

(IC replied)
True, but incomplete. It is also true that if you insist that only that which you can verify by methods you choose to prescribe arbitrarily is true, you are also at risk of self-deception. Pick your poison.

Yes, but objective verification accompanied by scepticism is a lot more reliable, as the successes of science can testify.

Belinda wrote:Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote:
If you believe that something is real simply because it feels as if it's real, then you are at risk of all manner of self deceptions.

(IC replied)
True, but incomplete. It is also true that if you insist that only that which you can verify by methods you choose to prescribe arbitrarily is true, you are also at risk of self-deception. Pick your poison.

Yes, but objective verification accompanied by scepticism is a lot more reliable, as the successes of science can testify.

In some ways, yes; but we must recall always that empirical proof isn't "objective," just more highly probabilistic than untested hypotheses.

You're right about science being more reliable on the average, but only for certain kinds of questions...like material concerns. The problem is that there always have been -- and always will be -- things "science" cannot really talk coherently about. Meaning and morals are two very obvious ones, but consciousness, the soul, reason, selfhood, identity, perspective, and so on are regularly set forward as further examples.

Say, did you try my little test of "free will"? What do you think now?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Say, did you try my little test of "free will"? What do you think now?

Do you refer to the oscillating perception of old hag and beautiful young woman? I am familiar with it and have put myself to the test so did not need to look at your link to it.

I would have thought that my inabilities to control which perception arrived first, and the fact and frequency of the change in percept indicate causal determinism.

Immanuel Can wrote:Say, did you try my little test of "free will"? What do you think now?

I took a look. Indeed, who would choose to see either one.

"I suggest that you look again at why you believe your self to be able to originate decisions and ideas."

And I suggest you look again at why you believe yourself to not be able to originate decisions and ideas."

#

"If your self can originate decisions and ideas it's different from any other organ or tissue mass in your body."

My 'self' is me, in my entirety, from the top of my bald head to the tips of my toes. The locus of me is inside my head: my brain.

#

"If your self has nothing to do with what caused it act..."

Where did I claim such a thing? I'm in the world...I respond and react to it...I am not, however, determined by it.

#

"...then your self is something like God, which is supposed to be the only self-caused."

Where did I assert I am self-caused? I only assert I self-direct.

#

"If you believe that something is real simply because it feels as if it's real, then you are at risk of all manner of self deceptions."

True, but I don't claim to 'believe' anything. I claim to 'know' I self-direct through the direct experience of my doing it all the damned time. I know myself to self-direct as cleanly and directly as I know my hand is burned when I touch a hot stove.

It's not a feeling or an intuiting (sorry, Mannie). It's demonstrable, evident, and real as fire.

"I would have thought that my inabilities to control which perception arrived first, and the fact and frequency of the change in percept indicate causal determinism."

Okay.

And when you shift your perception so you see the image you choose (when you will the shift, make the choice) what does that indicate?

A passive determinist will see whichever image comes to them, one who accepts free will will decide which image to see.

henry quirk wrote:"I suggest that you look again at why you believe your self to be able to originate decisions and ideas."

And I suggest you look again at why you believe yourself to not be able to originate decisions and ideas."

Any suggestions that don’t require belief?

thedoc wrote:A passive determinist will see whichever image comes to them, one who accepts free will will decide which image to see.

Most people wouldn't have thought that worth saying, doc, credit to you for going to the trouble.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote:A passive determinist will see whichever image comes to them, one who accepts free will will decide which image to see.

Most people wouldn't have thought that worth saying, doc, credit to you for going to the trouble.

To most people, the obvious, isn't.

Belinda wrote:Immanuel Can wrote:

Say, did you try my little test of "free will"? What do you think now?

Do you refer to the oscillating perception of old hag and beautiful young woman? I am familiar with it and have put myself to the test so did not need to look at your link to it.

I would have thought that my inabilities to control which perception arrived first, and the fact and frequency of the change in percept indicate causal determinism.

Your problem in deciding that was that you didn't really try the experiment. You can't learn much by not trying.

You will find you are able to choose which one you see, and when. Now, you can imagine that as "determined," if you want; but remember, the physical nature of the illusion does not change one pixel. It's the same ambiguous image every time.

But what does it mean that you can choose to switch?

thedoc wrote:A passive determinist will see whichever image comes to them, one who accepts free will will decide which image to see.

Maybe. But only one can be right about the correct description of what is actually happening. They can imagine different things, sure; but the right explanation cannot be opposite things.

This implies that dogs have free will.

Dogs Will Lie to Get What They Want, New Study Says
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ ... study-says

Walker wrote:This implies that dogs have free will.

Dogs Will Lie to Get What They Want, New Study Says
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ ... study-says

Only if you believe that dogs can decide what they want, the dog I'm keeping is always hungry and would ask for food more times than she should have. If it were up to her she would be very fat by now, and I would get scolded by my daughter. Dogs don't lie, the concept is beyond their comprehension.