Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:23 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:21 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:26 amI'm getting whiplash here

I feel the same.

Again, I concede that all things bein' the same, Junior will accept the nip thru each run-thru but I ask all things bein' the same (his hunger, his curiosity, his gut tellin' him the nip is a good thing, the availability of the nip) why would he decline it?.

I allow guaranteed in that context (he has no reason to decline, not he can't decline).

Sure, both free willist and determinist observe him accepting the nip thru each run-thru. What each concludes, however, about this observation differs from the other. The two are not on the same page.

I appreciate the respectful exchange we've had, thank you.

Same here...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 11:43 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:20 pm

If determinism is true, there's only the illusion of thinking.

What's the difference between "thinking" and the "illusion of thinking"?

One is real; the other *ahem* is illusion.

Since thinking is what brains do ...

And people would have physical bodies and brains in a deterministic universe, I don't see why those brains would be doing anything other than real thinking.

Why would the brains be there? What purpose would they have? What would they be doing if not thinking?

IOW, what specifically is the illusion?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:48 amWhat purpose would they have?

In a deterministic reality there is no purpose. Everything from single particles to highly complex aggregates of particles do only as they must. Thinking is just empty reaction. The illusion: that thinking is sumthin' other than empty reaction.

For example: I, a free willist, see this exchange between us as one between two persons (free wills; we self-direct, form intent, choose this over that, imagine outcomes, mull over past events, etc.). The determinist sees this conversation as just another necessary outgrowth of two particle aggregates interacting. That's all he, the determinist, can say.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 12:06 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:48 amWhat purpose would they have?

In a deterministic reality there is no purpose. Everything from single particles to highly complex aggregates of particles do only as they must. Thinking is just empty reaction. The illusion: that thinking is sumthin' other than empty reaction.

For example: I, a free willist, see this exchange between us as one between two persons (free wills; we self-direct, form intent, choose this over that, imagine outcomes, mull over past events, etc.). The determinist sees this conversation as just another necessary outgrowth of two particle aggregates interacting. That's all he, the determinist, can say.

I think what is happening is that the free-willist and the determinist write different narratives about exactly the same process.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 12:25 pmI think what is happening is that the free-willist and the determinist write different narratives about exactly the same process.

There have been recent moments leading me to think the same

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 12:25 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 12:06 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:48 amWhat purpose would they have?

In a deterministic reality there is no purpose. Everything from single particles to highly complex aggregates of particles do only as they must. Thinking is just empty reaction. The illusion: that thinking is sumthin' other than empty reaction.

For example: I, a free willist, see this exchange between us as one between two persons (free wills; we self-direct, form intent, choose this over that, imagine outcomes, mull over past events, etc.). The determinist sees this conversation as just another necessary outgrowth of two particle aggregates interacting. That's all he, the determinist, can say.

I think what is happening is that the free-willist and the determinist write different narratives about exactly the same process.

Yes. The question is: who's right?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 12:37 pm Yes. The question is: who's right?

I think the point of what he's saying is, there's not necessarily anybody who's wrong.

Yes. The question is: who's right?

One applies Occam's razor : The determinist is right because his explanation is more parsimonious.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 12:43 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 12:37 pm Yes. The question is: who's right?

I think the point of what he's saying is, there's not necessarily anybody who's wrong.

Okay, my guess was wrong here. Whoops

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:15 am How would unmotivated action be free-will?

All life is motivated (to survive and reproduce). Only life has a will—will representing motive.

All life is reactionary, as being part of something larger than itself in adapting to that larger something/earth. Unmotivated action would not be a reaction, of course, there is no such thing as an unmotivated action, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. Instinct is nothing but a hardwired reaction, sexual selection is hardwired. I have heard it referred to as the will of the species, hardwired, it is not an intellectual choice to be attracted, it is not a choice at all. The physical world plays biology like an instrument, and the melody that it plays upon the organism is that of apparent reality. Think about it, if all life was not reactionary in its nature, would evolutionary adaptation be possible? Motivation is desire to affect change, and in order to react to that desire one must make the desire one's will, but it remains a reaction to a larger reality.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 12:45 pm

Yes. The question is: who's right?

One applies Occam's razor : The determinist is right because his explanation is more parsimonious.

No, the free willist is right becuz his explanation satisfies common (universal) intuition and has fewer unexplaineds to navigate.

Okay, my guess was wrong here. Whoops

Depends on what right and wrong means in this case.

If there are two explanations for an observation, then one ought to use the simpler one.

The free-will position seems to add complexity when compared to the determinist position. Therefore, the determinist position is the preferred one to use. So it is "RIGHT".

"Morality and free will are mutually exclusive." Nietzsche

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 1:22 pm "Morality and free will are mutually exclusive." Nietzsche

Which work is that quote from?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 1:28 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 1:22 pm "Morality and free will are mutually exclusive." Nietzsche

Which work is that quote from?

You got me, I read Nietzsche a few eons ago. Google it!!