Philosophy Now Forum

'Free will' is a placeholder, and not a very good one.

Simply: it means a will that is free.

Don't know about you, but I'm bound up in and by the world, by the way the world works.

My will (which is just another placeholder) is not free.

But: I do have (more accurately, 'am') a will. I am a deterministic event in a deterministic universe, but I am not 'determined'. At any given time, I weigh and compare and assess so as to choose left over right, burger over pizza, fight over flee, speak over shut up, caress over slap, and on and on. I self-direct within the constraints or bounderies of the world.

You too are a will, you too choose all the time, you too self-direct.

As I suggested elsewhere: the majority of the squabble over a friggin' placeholder would disappear if folks directed their attention to the event the placeholder is applied to, rather than waving dicks around trying to justify or dismiss the placeholder itself.

Multiple threads in this place are dedicated solely to arguments that amount to 'I say it's a sofa!' versus 'I say it's a couch!'. Folks dicker over a descriptor (sofa! couch!) when it's plain to any one who actually looks that the object in question is a platypus.

*shrug*

how can you be in a deterministic universe, yet not be determined? perhaps you're referring to compatibilism, which simply believes that we have artificial/illusory freewill. genuine (libertarian type) freewill is impossible in a deterministic universe.

though, i must admit, that i didn't understand some parts of your post (placeholder, couch, sofa, etc.).

take care.

As I see it: a determined universe is just dominos falling in a line with no deviations allowed.

A deterministic universe is trillions upon trillions of domino lines merging and diverging and punctuated with self-reflecting points (you and me, for example), each capable of pausing, considering, and choosing. That is: you and me, we get to direct some of those domino lines, and we get to start some of our own.

henry quirk wrote:As I see it: a determined universe is just dominos falling in a line with no deviations allowed.

A deterministic universe is trillions upon trillions of domino lines merging and diverging and punctuated with self-reflecting points (you and me, for example), each capable of pausing, considering, and choosing. That is: you and me, we get to direct some of those domino lines, and we get to start some of our own.

"directing" and "starting" also require other dominoes to steer or initiate them. in other words, starting a domino line can't come of thin air. it must be caused (directed/started) by something else (other dominoes). this makes everything deterministic. otherwise, starting domino lines from scratch means they're causeless, which is impossible and contradictory.

No doubt you're right, logically speaking, and yet: here I am, there you are, considering and choosing (beginning and directing dominos, left and right).

*shrug*

It indeed is a problem.

henry quirk wrote:No doubt you're right, logically speaking, and yet: here I am, there you are, considering and choosing (beginning and directing dominos, left and right).

*shrug*

It indeed is a problem.

yes, "considering" and "choosing", not truly and freely considering and choosing. we have no actual say in what we consider and "choose". it has already been chosen for us previously. it's a sort of artificial/illusory freewill or choice.

You folks need to give up on the either/or.

Review what I posted here: didn't argue for a free will.

But the evidence of my own life has me rejecting determinism.

As I say elsewhere: look for a third option (or not...as you like).

henry quirk wrote:You folks need to give up on the either/or.

Review what I posted here: didn't argue for a free will.

But the evidence of my own life has me rejecting determinism.

As I say elsewhere: look for a third option (or not...as you like).

i'm afraid there's no alternative. no offense, but the evidence you see in your life is nothing but an illusion, if it leads you to accept any kind of true choice. please don't tell me you're a relativist, i.e. that you don't believe in absolutes, just relative truth. if you are, then there's n common ground on which we can debate.

take care, henry.

Truth?

I don't give a flip about 'truth'.

I have a keen interest in 'fact'.

Too bad there are so many who choose to ignore certain basic facts about themselves.

Again: I have to wonder what past misery would make person so willing to cast him- or her-self as mere automation without a jot of responsibility for him- or her-self?

One of the most essential joys of being an individual is being able to 'do' based on the sense that 'one can'. Everything about a human being screams 'self-efficacy' and self-responsibility, but, nope, logic sez otherwise...robots, all, according to the brigade.

*shrug*

Henry, your argument currently looks like this (you can correct it if it is untrue):

Premise #1: If it feels that we have will over our actions, then we have free will.
Premise #2: It does feel that we have will over our actions.
Conclusion: We have free will.

Do you personally accept premise #1?

Nope, cuz I'm not arguing for a free will.

henry quirk wrote:Nope, cuz I'm not arguing for a free will.

what then? compatibilism?

I got no clue what that is.

Again: stop lookin' at the placeholder and look at the event or action the placeholder stands for. You have the perfect testing ground: yourself. As you go through your day, apparently makin' choices (large and small), ask yourself 'do these choices (not the problem you make a choice about, but only your consideration of how to proceed) I make begin with me?' Does it seem, as you pause and consider and choose, that you are the origin of the choice, or that you are merely a conduit for causes that aren't you? Does it seem that the past informs your choices or does it dominate and direct them?

I believe, if you are sane and honest, you'll conclude it is 'you' who chooses, even with the weight of the past pressing down on you, and the restraints of the way the world works binding you up.

I call this 'agency' (just another word that doesn't really mean jack)...you can call it what you like...doesn't matter what any one names 'it' cuz 'it' is 'you'.

You say that you don't argue for free will. Isn't your claim (A) very similar to/exactly the same as free will (B)?

A:

"Does it seem, as you pause and consider and choose, that you are the origin of the choice, or that you are merely a conduit for causes that aren't you?"

B:

"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."

"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."

Nope. Fundamentally, 'free will' only is a will that is free (of the way the world works), sumthin' I addressed up thread and do not endorse.

I like agency (just another word), which means an individual (agent) can pause, consider, choose, form intent, act or respond. 'Free'(dom) need not apply.

And: no, lacking the absolute freedom implied by a will free of constraint is not synonomous with determinism...poor example: the jailed man can still pace the cage, write a letter to relatives, etc., his circumstance (jailed) constrains him but does not determine him....the will (just another word) is constrained by the world but not determined by it.