I believe agency is a distinct concept from both free will and causal determinism. But I admit this is problematic. It seems to me that from a deterministic point of view, agency must necessarily be deterministic, or else it is just a version of free will. And sounds compelling to me. But I can’t say I understand exactly what it says - after all, what does “multiple domain supervenience” mean? It would be pretentious of me to act like I have more than even a tiniest bit of a clue. I’m sure it sounds compelling to me, just because I intuitively agree with its conclusion that “downward causation will occur in consonance with the principles of physics, rather than in violation of them.” This conclusion just plain makes sense. But surely that doesn’t make it true.
I think you are right and I’ve always believed that despite being a free will nihilist, ie I don’t believe in free will and like any Iconoclast will tear it down. But then I’d like to be proven wrong, just for a change of pace if nothing else.
You’d like to be provenwrong about what? That free will exists? Its just the ability to make a choice without outside coercion. Whats so hard to believe about that?
I don’t think so, there was never an implication that anything could avoid causation to some extent in free will. That is certainly not the original meaning of free will, which is probably scriptural or biblical, being free to choose without god forcing us to live our lives certain ways. To change the definition to something that it wasn’t intended to be is kind of odd to me. Any choice can be influenced by a myriad of causes, what I prefer, what is available, what I have experienced, how I think, etc etc… That is rather a ridiculous definition you have provided or an overly vague one.
Augustine fostered unbridled volition as free will and he predates them both. I would rather utilize a term that makes sense. As far as the usage that is provided and commonly fought against (well of course it would be), I never heard of such a thing until delving into philosophy, preceding that I attended 13 years of Catholic schooling. Free will was never freedom to choice without causation, from what I was taught. The origin is practically directly transferable with minimal interpretation reading the bible, to twist it to choice without causation would require a whole lot of twisting indeed.
In general, to me at least, this newer definition or opposing definition seems to be some sort of manner to destroy the phrase free will, by altering its meaning to something impossible. It might be some anti religious agenda, I’m not sure. It doesn’t seem to be legitimate however or “intellectually honest”, at least in its origin. Free will, being able to choose without outside coercion, is quite simply a practical concept.
Ok, but philosophers like to look at things more deeply than that. So I choose to do or not do something, and I can follow through with my decision if I have enough power relative to my environment. But the choice I make, in itself, is constrained by a number of factors. The hard determinist believes there is ultimately no choice at all. Or something like that. Anyway, I don’t think the debate over free will is as simple as you make it out to be.
I understand all of that. They think the “free” in free will is supposed to be omnipotent, or something. As if there are no constraints. I’ve always seen it as arguing against concepts that nobody holds dear to their heart, a ghost enemy.
I think the question is aren’t there always constraints? Isn’t every tiny thing we do completely (pre)determined, ultimately? If not, then what are we to make of choice? Where did the choice come from? It’s as nonsensical to talk about a choice coming “from nowhere” as it is a predetermined choice.
I think this is an example of how we can be led astray by misguided concepts. If the application of concepts leads to absurdity, the concepts themselves must be faulty. But I’m not so ready to dismiss the absurdity while leaving the concepts uninvestigated.
If you just think discussing things is asserting your opinion like some chimp the fine! I’ll ignore you. =D>
Loads of people on this forum think just asking why endlessly makes them sound smart don’t be one of them or you could end up being a mod or worse one of the usual suspects, ie morons with a badge and an opinion!
then answer a mofo god damn question without dancing around like a cnut? It’s not rocket science!
Philosophy these days is about how big your ego is and how many questions of semantics you can ask like some asanine piece of flotsam who read to much Bertrand Russel or Schopenhaur or wank to make sense like a normal person, well I don’t subscribe to that philosomophy. So either make sense or stfu!
The reason you think everything, no matter what, will be consonant with the laws of physics is because you think the laws of physics just are the laws by which the universe operates—and by ‘universe’ you mean, synonymously, “everything”. So it’s no surprise that the behaviour of agents would have to, also, be consonant with the laws of physics. But let’s just be aware that this is all a matter of definition—not some discovery on yours or anyone’s part.
