Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:10 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:05 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:54 am
Free will.

Could you define the will part of that phrase? Free will leads to the speciic choice you make....what does that mean?

It doesn't lead to a specific choice, it leads to any specific choice you want.

So what leads to the *one choice* then? That's what he's asking.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:17 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:16 pm FJ's rewind example clearly shows that free-will defined as "the ability to act differently" doesn't exist.

I wouldn't say it necessarily "doesn't exist", but that if it did exist, it wouldn't be because of *you* or your will.

It's totally possible we live in a universe where we rewind to the exact same state, press play again and something different happens. It's just not, in my view, justifiable to call that 'free will' or make that the basis for free will.

I get that if a different choice was made, then it would be randomness and not an expression of one's will. And it wouldn't be any sort of freedom, since in effect one would be the 'victim' of randomness.

Just out of curiosity, do you personally think we live in a world with some randomness? Or is it completely deterministic? And how, in your view, does QM relate to the determinism-or-indeterminism of the universe?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:52 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:44 am

'Free will', the ability to choose.

It's better than free-will= "the ability to have acted differently in an absolute sense".

Which is an ability that nobody has, not even the free-willers.

So it makes sense for compatibilists to go with a more realistic definition.

Redefining key philosophical concepts to suit your needs is called sophistry.

Trying to find what the so-called, ACTUAL, 'philosophical concept' of 'a word', let alone a 'few words' is like an impossible ask.

Also, if 'an issue', like this one here, has been talked about, and over, for a few thousand years or more, then, just maybe, it is time for 'a redefinition'. Or, maybe time for just a consideration about what the 'actual definition' is, exactly, that has been used, so far.

Furthermore, if so-called 'key philosophical concepts' have not led to the solving of things, for thousands of years, centuries, decades, years, months, weeks, days, or even hour or so, then, just maybe, it is 'time' for a 'redefinition'. And, one made in consultation with all involved, and done in peaceful open and honest discussion, I would suggest.

If a 'key philosophical concept' does 'not work', then it is 'time' for 'a change'. But, of course, you, and others, could continue on how you, and them, have been "atla" if you so 'wish to'.

But, as most here would already know, doing the same thing over and over, while hoping for a different result, could be considered a form of ...., Correct?

Also, if redefining a word 'works', and/or 'fits in', perfectly, with other words, and definitions, then why not 'just redefine'?

And, is the definition I provided really that much of a 'redefinition' anyway?

Furthermore, that definition I provided never suited 'my needs', because I had absolutely 'no needs' at all, when I came across 'that definition.

I never made up 'that definition'. It came all by itself when I was just 'looking' openly and honestly. And, 'seeing' that it worked, perfectly, I have just kept it, used it, and repeated it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:21 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:10 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:05 am Could you define the will part of that phrase? Free will leads to the speciic choice you make....what does that mean?

It doesn't lead to a specific choice, it leads to any specific choice you want.

Exactly, but then 'want' is connected to desire, goals and motivation and what one knows.

If I ask what leads to the choice, your answer 'free will' doesn't make sense.

Free will is part of the context, but it doesn't lead to any particular choice, which was why I asked for a specfic choice from you earlier. You can break all physical laws, you in the moment you receive my message are asked what will you do next. Any specific answer will have to do with wants, even the perverse want to do what you don't want to do, which is still a want. If one is not hindered in any way at all by the rules of the universe, and you choose based, then, on what you want, then wants determine choices.

A: What leads you to choose out of all the possible actions - free from all physical law restraints - one action?
B: Free will.
Actually, no. It's not free will that leads to the specific choice.

But you're assuming I have no free will to make any choice. It's circular reasoning.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:10 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:05 am Could you define the will part of that phrase? Free will leads to the speciic choice you make....what does that mean?

It doesn't lead to a specific choice, it leads to any specific choice you want.

So what leads to the *one choice* then? That's what he's asking.

Free will

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:53 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:37 am
Oh great, looks like the caps are back too since this interaction. But it's just a FACT for all of us to SEE that age is a TREMBLING COWARD who TOTALLY LACKS THE COURAGE to notice its own false assumptions.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If you, 'now', want to talk about COURAGE, then SHOW some by providing an actual assumption, which you assume and claim that I have made here. And, feel free to 'look through' this WHOLE FORUM if you like.

Also, 'LOOK AT' how these ones are, ONCE AGAIN, 'trying' their hardest to DEFLECT AWAY FROM the 'things' that I have been pointing out about what they have been saying and claiming here. The 'things' that they will NOT acknowledge nor clarify and stand behind, but will IGNORE, and TRY TO MOVE AWAY FROM, INSTEAD.

Saying and/or claiming some thing like, 'This one does not have the COURAGE to notice its own [whatever]' is about one of the most IDIOTIC and RIDICULOUS ACCUSATIONS that could be made. It is also just ANOTHER ATTEMPT to FOOL and DECEIVE of some thing that may not even actually be there.

And, just about 'on cue', "atla" fell STRAIGHT INTO, and FOR, 'the deception'.

Keep this up and you're going back on antipsychotics soon.

Why? When did you think, or believe, that I stopped using them?

According to you I would have no choice anyway. As 'I' am just a 'dribbling mess', being held up and supported by 'carers' 24 hours, every day.

So, to you, when and why did 'they' stop giving me 'anti-psychotics' anyway? That would not have been very responsible of them, right?

Also, do you, actually, believe that you FALLING into, and for, 'the deception', and then ADDING ON further deflection, and more deception, is, really, going to 'help you', here?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:59 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:52 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:44 am

It's better than free-will= "the ability to have acted differently in an absolute sense".

Which is an ability that nobody has, not even the free-willers.

So it makes sense for compatibilists to go with a more realistic definition.

Redefining key philosophical concepts to suit your needs is called sophistry.

What is sacred about definitions?

If a definition isn't useful, then changing it is perfectly reasonable.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

If what does not work, then why not just 'change it'?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:03 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:59 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:52 am
Redefining key philosophical concepts to suit your needs is called sophistry.

What is sacred about definitions?

If a definition isn't useful, then changing it is perfectly reasonable.

But it's useful, you claim to know that there's no free will but you don't.

Could what was being claimed there is 'none of', be just because 'the definition' of 'that thing' could just 'not be'?

This would be like claiming that 'the definition' of 'a word' is some thing that could not exist, and so then just, reasonably, say and claim that 'that word' does not exist.

For example, one could provide 'a definition', for 'a word', which would be impossible to exist, and then just say and claim that 'that thing'/word' does not exist.

If you take notice you can 'clearly see' that you human beings have been doing 'this' for centuries, hitherto when this is being written.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:27 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:10 am

It doesn't lead to a specific choice, it leads to any specific choice you want.

So what leads to the *one choice* then? That's what he's asking.

Free will

You just said it doesn't lead to a specific choice. You must be trolling at this point.

Just out of curiosity, do you personally think we live in a world with some randomness? Or is it completely deterministic? And how, in your view, does QM relate to the determinism-or-indeterminism of the universe?

There probably is some randomness. The usual example is radioactive decay. Scientists who have studied it (more than me), seem to unable to find any direct causes for the timing of any particular decay.

I don't have much interest in QM.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:59 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:52 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:44 am

It's better than free-will= "the ability to have acted differently in an absolute sense".

Which is an ability that nobody has, not even the free-willers.

So it makes sense for compatibilists to go with a more realistic definition.

Redefining key philosophical concepts to suit your needs is called sophistry.

What is sacred about definitions?

If a definition isn't useful, then changing it is perfectly reasonable.

Also, some words are abstract pointers rather than concretely defined things. I make a word, say "jrumbo", and I say "it's that thing" and I point to some new thing, even before I know what that thing is. Jrumbo is a pointer-word, that points to some thing, right? It means "whatever that thing is".

Then some person, say Pete, later gets a strong idea of what "that thing" is and they come up with a more specific description of what they think "that thing" is, and then they decide "jrumbo is defined as this sentence I think describes 'that thing'".

But what if they got it wrong? What if their description of "that thing" ISN'T the actual thing "that thing" is? Well, not we're in this awkward situation where "jrumbo" means 2 things - it means "that thing" AND it means "the thing Pete thinks that thing is". But why should Pete have a monopoly and trying to figure out and describe what "that thing" is? Especially when half the people around think he got it wrong?

After all, "that thing" still exists, and if other people have different ideas of what "that thing" is, they ought to have the right to give their own alternative ideas of what that thing is, and since "jrumbo" means "whatever that thing is", then these other ideas can be viable alternative definitions of jrumbo.

Giving libertarians a monopoly on the meaning of "free will" is a mistake.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:27 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:23 pm

So what leads to the *one choice* then? That's what he's asking.

Free will

You just said it doesn't lead to a specific choice. You must be trolling at this point.

It would help if I knew what exactly you guys are asking?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:43 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:27 pm

Free will

You just said it doesn't lead to a specific choice. You must be trolling at this point.

It would help if I knew what exactly you guys are asking?

He makes one choice. He could have made many, sure, but he made one. Why did he make that one? You said free will doesn't lead to a specific choice already, so free will isn't the answer to the question. Why did he make that one?

Your answer can INCLUDE free will, sure. Free will, plus these other things, led to that choice. But you can't say "free will doesn't lead to a specific choice" and then say the cause of this one specific choice is free will. That's obviously contradictory, right?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:44 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:43 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:37 pm
You just said it doesn't lead to a specific choice. You must be trolling at this point.

It would help if I knew what exactly you guys are asking?

He makes one choice. He could have made many, sure, but he made one. Why did he make that one? You said free will doesn't lead to a specific choice already, so free will isn't the answer to the question. Why did he make that one?

Be more specific. What is the question?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:54 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:52 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:50 am
Not necessarily, I'd be free to choose things that go against my current desires and motivations, or are unrelated to them.

Sure, and is this random or...what would lead you to pick option 235 over all the other billions or trillions of options?

Free will.

I'm refreshing you on the context of this conversation. You said the thing that leads to option 235, which is a *specific choice*, is free will. But then you said free will doesn't lead to a specific choice. Surely you see why Iwannaplato and I aren't finding that very satisfactory, right? If free will doesn't lead to a specific choice, then free will alone didn't lead to 235.

what would lead you to pick option 235?