popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:43 am
Interesting!! Truth is though, most people born into a society just mindlessly accept what is in place and are governed by their given society.
Yes. Or I might say, they accept the rules of the subgroup they are in. Generally this includes following most laws, most of the time. But from there it can lead to very different lives, when comparing between groups and even individuals in groups. I am not saying they are really evaulating rules and norms to see how they actually feel about them (or think about them).
To think of it as a willful game one that one consciously embarks upon to further his/her self-interests is something to consider, though it would be an extremely rare case if there were one to find at all.
I didn't mean that most people are consciously gaming the system. But I do think many have self-interested goals when they comply with laws. Yes, people can have morals that guide them, but I think generally speaking if people knew they could get away with things, they'd be all over the place. Sort of like The Invisible Man series. And I think most know this to some degree. I think it is hard for most people to notice that they are mainly avoiding punishment, but on smaller things, I think most people realize they are protecting themselves or presenting a social face to some degree.
Playing society like a video game? Though this is the best argument I have come across. From a different perspective, all organisms are reactive organisms, there is no such thing as an agent of free actions/that would be free will; for there is but human reactions.
I am not arguing that there is ontological free will.
The statement can be affirmed by the fact that one needs to be motivated to move, which spells reaction. It is due to this reactionary nature of organisms that evolutionary adaptation is possible, it is the way biology plays its part as a functional element of the world. The physical world is cause to all organisms, and their reactions to the physical world are the cause of change/reactions in the chemistry of the world. This, if one accepts its reality, negates the concept of free will, it is more than semantics, it is functionality. I do hope I have understood your position, it is not one I've heard before. What one does today is determined by what one has done in the past, from the gasp of one's first breath.
I think there could be ontological free will and we would not be able to discount it by looking at the choices. Like batch B of choices shows unfree people. Batch Z, however, those people are free or more free. I don't think that works. One can make as you do physicalist arguments against free will, which is a different category of challenge.
Probably the best challenge to free will, I think, is simply to ask for an explanation of a choice the other person made that was not dependent on internal or external causes.
It would be strange. I chose to ask her out, not be cause I was attracted, or wanted to spend time with her. IOW not because of feelings and anticipation I had in the moments (weeks, months) before I asked her out. No, I asked her out because of nothing that went before.
Then follow up questions: why didn't you ask out someone else? Why her? Why that day?
IOW I think the free will person (who thinks they can present a rational case for free will and how it works) is left with saying - I just do random stuff having nothing to do with my desires and experiences. They can certainly say that, but I think it will be an ego-dystonic explanation for nearly everyone.
This doesn't disprove free will, but I think it is the most effective approach. I am sure Henry Quirk was faced with this approach in some form and I am sure he never said: Oh, I see, but still I think it's the top approach.
I'm actually agnostic. Or perhaps fickle. I notice I view things in contraditory ways. I have problems to solve and so far that hasn't struck me as one. IOW I have no motivation, at this moment, to competely convince myself one way or the other on free will and determinism. On other issues I am more unified (not all, but many).
I am actually not sure how I would act or view my days, other people, or myself differently.
(and as I've said to others here: I don't think when most people talk about free will they are talking about ontological free will. I think they mean that if someone pointed a gun at them, they might not shoot a child. Or there is abuse from government or pressures socially or advertising BS or employer mistreatment that they will resist AND/OR hold themselves responsible if they don't.
They aren't saying that their own motivations and desires and values are not causal. And if you listen to them, when they talk about free will, they will generally talk precisely about their values, desires, preferences, rights, moral nature and so on.
They mean free will in relation to outside causes, and generally not complete freedom there.
Now, yes, if you tried to explain that referring to internal motivations still fits with determinism they may balk. But my contention is that they are not thinking about free will, the ontological version, like philosophers do.
And just to be clear, I do not consider myself a philosopher. But I do understand how philosophers categorize some things. I have some knowledge of philosopher, but am an utter amateur and not in the sense of the amateurs of the 1800s, say, (or in some cases even now) who including even the leading lights of their fields.
My point is that when people say free will, they generally have a different lay meaning for that phrase.