Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:00 pm Volition is a word that means ability to choose. E.g." I stopped buying pig products of my own volition".

The causes of my no longer buying pig products adequately explain my choice with no need for any add-on such as voliition or 'Free Will'.

A pig if hungry enough will eat pig products. Any pig has a small range of choices because it is a pig, not because it lacks some supernatural quality some call 'volition'.

And that's a common objection critique by incompatibilists.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism#Criticism

Critics of compatibilism often focus on the definition(s) of free will: incompatibilists may agree that the compatibilists are showing something to be compatible with determinism, but they think that this something ought not to be called "free will". Incompatibilists might accept the "freedom to act" as a necessary criterion for free will, but doubt that it is sufficient.

...I'm an unrepentant incompatibilist. Agent Causality is the only free will worth having.

FREE WILL

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:49 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:41 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:28 am In short, the only possible explanation for ontic Free Will is that it was given to man, and only to man, by God.

First of all, the term, "free will," is problematic because it is loaded with religious conotation and a false assumption that free will means able to choose or do just anything. The correct term ought to be volition and the right definition of that word is: "the human necessity and ability to consciously choose everything one does, including everything one thinks and everything one does overtly." (It does not include biological functions, the behavior of the autonomic nervous system, or reflexes.)

Secondly, volition is a perfectly natural attribute of human consciousness as a living organism. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about volition. All human action is initiated by conscious choice.

What you are describing sounds like the Compatibilist view on free will (which is the one I subscribe to)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibi ... _free_will

My view is not at all like compatibilism. Nothing but one's own conscious decision determines volitional behavior. Within the limits of physical possibility and one's own intellectual ability, a human being can and must consciously choose everything one thinks and does.

The significance of volition is not so much that a human being can consciously choose, the significance is, a human being must consciously choose. Nothing makes a human being think or do anything. If a human being does not choose to think or act he will do nothing and die.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:15 pm ...I'm an unrepentant incompatibilist. Agent Causality is the only free will worth having.

FREE WILL

I have an experiment for you.

Demonstrate agent causality - hold your breath for 60 minutes. If you are REALLY good at this game, somewhere around minute 5 or 6 your "automated idiot protection system" will kick in, you will pass out and your body will resume autonomous breathing.

Then send your complaints to "The Universe Doesn't give a Shit@gmail.com" when your figure out that your freedom is being oppressed.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:14 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:15 pm ...I'm an unrepentant incompatibilist. Agent Causality is the only free will worth having.

FREE WILL

I have an experiment for you.

Demonstrate agent causality - hold your breath for 60 minutes. If you are REALLY good at this game, somewhere around minute 5 or 6 your "automated idiot protection system" will kick in, you will pass out and your body will resume autonomous breathing.

Then send your complaints to "The Universe Doesn't give a Shit@gmail.com" when your figure out that your freedom is being oppressed.

If you knew what Agent Causality was you'd know how dumb your post was, but you don't, so you can't.

Typical skep-dipshittery.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:02 pm If you knew what Agent Causality was you'd know how dumb your post was, but you don't, so you can't.

Typical skep-dipshittery.

If you knew what an agent (or agency) was you would know how on-point my post is.

But instead of going "heh, yeah! My philosophy is inconsistent - like everybody elses." you are lashing out...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)
Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment

So act freely! Actively your breath for 60 minutes.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:04 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:02 pm If you knew what Agent Causality was you'd know how dumb your post was, but you don't, so you can't.

Typical skep-dipshittery.

If you knew what an agent (or agency) was you would know how on-point my post is.

Educate me: how does Agent Causation lead to absolute bodily control?

I'm not aware of any interpretation (and there are several) that makes that claim.

No, Agent Causation theory simply asserts the agent can initiate causal chains, and bend and end some causal chains.

Ain't nuthin' in there about Mastery of Space & Time & Matter & Energy.

Agent Causation asserts man is a cause.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation

As I say: you don't know what you're talkin' about.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:14 pm Educate me: how does Agent Causation lead to absolute bodily control?

I'm not aware of any interpretation (and there are several) that makes that claim.

No, Agent Causation theory simply asserts the agent can initiate causal chains, and bend and end some causal chains.

Ain't nuthin' in there about Mastery of Space & Time & Matter & Energy.

Agent Causation asserts man is a cause.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation

As I say: you don't know what you're talkin' about.

From your very own link.

Agent causation, or Agent causality, is an idea in philosophy which states that an agent can start new causal chains not determined by prior events.

Please start a causal chain that results in you holding your breath for 60 minutes.

Are you "free" or "not free" to start such a causal chain?

Skepdick wrote:
Please start a causal chain that results in you holding your breath for 60 minutes

Are you free or not free to start such a causal chain

This is not physically possible so one is not free to start that chain

The freedom to start / not start a causal chain is therefore only limited to things which are physically possible
And so while I can not start a chain involving holding my breath for 60 minutes I could start one for 60 seconds

Causality is limited by the laws of physics otherwise anything would be possible not only in theory but also in practice

Has anyone questioned if there is difference between willful conscious actions and mechanical reactions? Is daily life in the jungle the result of willful conscious actions or mechanical reactions to universal laws.?

Nick A wrote:
Has anyone questioned if there is difference between willful conscious actions and mechanical reactions
Is daily life in the jungle the result of willful conscious actions or mechanical reactions to universal laws

The subconscious controls the conscious so the notion of conscious decision making is entirely false
Even so called instinctive reactions that appear instantaneous are really taken by the subconscious

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:30 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:14 pm Educate me: how does Agent Causation lead to absolute bodily control?

I'm not aware of any interpretation (and there are several) that makes that claim.

No, Agent Causation theory simply asserts the agent can initiate causal chains, and bend and end some causal chains.

Ain't nuthin' in there about Mastery of Space & Time & Matter & Energy.

Agent Causation asserts man is a cause.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation

As I say: you don't know what you're talkin' about.

From your very own link.

Agent causation, or Agent causality, is an idea in philosophy which states that an agent can start new causal chains not determined by prior events.

Please start a causal chain that results in you holding your breath for 60 minutes.

Are you "free" or "not free" to start such a causal chain?

As a smoker I doubt I could hold my breath for even two minutes, but I could make the attempt, could start a chain. And because I understand full well I'd pass out in the attempt (the chain goin' in a direction I don't like), I choose to not make the attempt.

Not seein' how Agent Causality has been disputed, or even threatened, by your lil experiment.

You're flailing, lashing out, cuz you (still) don't know what you're talkin' about and you won't admit it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:53 pm Has anyone questioned if there is difference between willful conscious actions and mechanical reactions? Is daily life in the jungle the result of willful conscious actions or mechanical reactions to universal laws.?

We all engage in rotes, in mechanical behavior. We call these habits and muscle memory and prejudices and a dozen other names. Largely, these habitual behaviors and reactions are natural and normal. First time a person sits in a car to learn to drive, everything is new, the person is overly conscious/self-conscious. He has no experience to draw from, no habits to rely on. As he learns to drive, his attention is divided among all the unfamiliar actions and coordinations that go into driving successfully.

A year down the road, if he's been drivin' regularly, the bulk of what he does behind the wheel is automated. All those formerly new actions, those physical coordinations he was unaccustomed to, are all habits. His attention is (or should be) more fully on the road.

As I say: this habitualizin' is natural and normal. If we lived in a state of perpetual novelty or perpetual unfamiliarity we'd never accomplish more than the minimal in our day-to-day.

The problem: allowin' the entirety of ourselves to become mechanized or automated or habitualized. For example: the driver who takes the same route everyday, at the same time, could find his attention to the road becomin' habitual too, which is to say he's not really payin' attention but just goin' through the motions of attending.

Our attention, gettin' away from us, leads to our intentions witherin': road hypnosis.

We become robotic.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:20 pm As a smoker I doubt I could hold my breath for even two minutes, but I could make the attempt, could start a chain. And because I understand full well I'd pass out in the attempt (the chain goin' in a direction I don't like), I choose to not make the attempt.

So why can't you make the other choice? Choose to make the attempt.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:20 pm Not seein' how Agent Causality has been disputed, or even threatened, by your lil experiment.

Because you aren't ONLY arguing "agent causality", Henry - you are ALSO arguing incompatibilism. These are your words:

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:15 pm ...I'm an unrepentant incompatibilist.

And so I am going to quote you paragraph you aren't going to like.

Incompatibilists might accept the "freedom to act" as a necessary criterion for free will, but doubt that it is sufficient. Basically, they demand more of "free will". The incompatibilists believe free will refers to genuine (e.g., absolute, ultimate) alternate possibilities for beliefs, desires, or actions, rather than merely counterfactual ones.

So IF you are an "incompatibilist" (as you claim to be) and you "demand more!!!" then not only should you be absolutely able to make the alternative choice - to attempt to hold your breath, but you should also be able to succeed at it.

If you can't make the alternative choice; and you can't act it out - you can't possibly be an incompatibilist.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:20 pm You're flailing, lashing out, cuz you (still) don't know what you're talkin' about and you won't admit it.

Well, Henry - given that you SAY that you are an incompatibilist but ACT otherwise, It seems to me that you are the one who "don't know what you're talkin' about and you won't admit it."

EVERY philosophy has contingencies. Every. Single. One. To try and "define yourself" is a pretty pointless exercise. If you don't know that you aren't much of a philosopher.

Henry

The problem: allowin' the entirety of ourselves to become mechanized or automated or habitualized. For example: the driver who takes the same route everyday, at the same time, could find his attention to the road becomin' habitual too, which is to say he's not really payin' attention but just goin' through the motions of attending.

Our attention, gettin' away from us, leads to our intentions witherin': road hypnosis.

We become robotic.

Very true!! IMO most are ignorant of the distinction between free will and reaction to desire. I could go on for hours on this idea. The cause of our potential for conscious attention necessary to be more than robotic creatures of reaction is essential psychology often ignored. Dr. Phil doesn't talk about it

The world situation is such that many believe in Absurdism which is the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe. This is considered normal. It must appear normal since we have been conditioned to believe that absurdity is the norm without realizing that nothing else is possible when people as a collective are content to be creatures of conditioned reaction sacrificing their the potential for free will. If Man can collectively evolve to realize that it isn't the world that is purposeless and chaotic it is humanity, more may consider what is necessary to become consciously normal