Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

anon · August 9, 2011, 11:38am

So I had to look up something this morning about “ironists” and found an interesting article. When I read this section, I thought of the determinism versus free will issue…

…it might be helpful to address briefly some contemporary texts–by David L. Hall (1994), Linda Hutcheon (1995), and Hayden White (1987, 104, 145)–that offer views on the philosophical status of irony.

For Hall, as for the post-ironist, “It’s not our intuitions, but the account of them, that presents us with the dilemmas” that irony reflects (Hall 1994, 139). But Hall, unlike the post-ironist, sees no way for our accounts to avoid these dilemmas. For him, the relationship between human life and reality is inherently and inescapably ironic. The fact, however, that not everything fits together under a single method of representation, or in terms of one’s preferred way of rendering an account of a part of reality, need not be experienced as ironic incongruity. Rather than being attributed to some quality inherent to human reality, “the incongruity between life’s tragic and comic, its serious and lightminded, elements” (146), which for Hall constitutes irony, can more promisingly be understood according to the model of the ambiguous figure. The two aspects of Wittgenstein’s duck-rabbit, for example, need not paralyze one’s interpretive [End Page 82] abilities. With sufficient exposure, one can learn to see the duck-rabbit simply as a duck-rabbit, without privileging either aspect, even though the general public perception and public language may lag behind this, insofar as the duck-rabbit does not come to occupy a paradigmatic place in public awareness. Since there is nothing against which to measure what reality should be like, except more reality, whatever is initially identifiable as being philosophically ironic is susceptible to losing its ironic quality with the elaboration of context that sufficient exposure makes possible. Except to the extent that one wants to cling to such irony, or to a particular method of representation that does not allow the recognition of intermediate cases, human understanding admits an ongoing proportioning of language to reality (however idiosyncratic this might be in each case) that serves continually to drain off any buildup of philosophically ironic incongruity.

Despite her intentional refusal to get entangled in philosophical issues, Linda Hutcheon’s balanced and interesting study of irony offers many philosophically relevant insights. According to Hutcheon, “[I]n interpreting irony there is a rapid oscillation between the said and the unsaid” (Hutcheon 1995, 60). Also specifically referring to the duck-rabbit figure, she agrees (vs. Gombrich 1969, 5) that “our minds almost can experience both readings at the same time” (Hutcheon 1995, 59-60). In discussing her experience of Shakespeare’s Henry V through both reading and seeing movie renderings, Hutcheon admits the oscillation is so rapid between heroic Christian and Machiavellian interpretations of Shakespeare’s characterization of Henry V that she “constantly perceive[s] both the duck and the rabbit” (70).

source

WW_III_ANGRY · August 9, 2011, 12:26pm

Its not ironic and anyone who thinks so isn’t understanding it.

anon · August 9, 2011, 12:29pm

I didn’t claim it was ironic.
Go ahead and teach us all.

WW_III_ANGRY · August 9, 2011, 12:52pm

Its not ambiguous, incongruous, contradictory, paradoxical, its not a conceptually quantum like mind fuck such as electrons being in two places at once. Free will doesn’t usurp authority over determinism, our choices do not violate the laws of physics and our inner uncontrollable selves. Free will is a term that means we must be able to do whatever we want, whenever we want. We are subject to the laws of physics as we are not able to walk through brick walls just as we are not able to conceptualize a choice outside of what our mind/body allows us due to our imperfect organic structure. These bear equal weight on the matter; simply because we cannot control who we are as a biologically organic structure, a human being, with all the nuances of our DNA that make us who we are and determine what we will do and act like in any given situation doesn’t mean we still do not have choices to make and will make as a functioning organic structure. We are not separate from the inner workings of our unconscious functions that result in a decision to act or not, to make a choice, even prior to us consciously recognizing the choice made by our unconscious inner workings. We are the totality of our mind and body.

Thus any deterministic output that, when passing through our organic structure to result in an action made by ourselves is of a free will by our organic structure, our mind/body, which is always based upon the limits of our mind/body, our environment and what we are able to do in any given situation. Free will is a term that doesn’t mean what incompatibilists think or want it to mean, it is simply a choice that we as a “law-of-physics” abiding organic structure are able to make and do make, and will make, based these laws of physics.

anon · August 9, 2011, 1:07pm

I think a hard determinist wouldn’t accept that choice is anything other than determined. If it is anything other than determined, it is free. I don’t think it’s all as simple and obvious as you make out, and ultimately you are appealing to intuition.

Flannel_Jesus · August 9, 2011, 1:11pm

I understand, mr.Angry, that this is the definition of Free Will that you use, and that it is not incompatible with determinism, but your post implies that this is the only definition that people use for the term Free Will, and that is just plain incorrect. The reason incompatibilists exist at all is because, precisely because, some people use a definition of free will that IS incompatible with determinism. Just because yours isn’t incompatible doesn’t mean none of them are.

For example, definition 2 here: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

WW_III_ANGRY · August 9, 2011, 1:48pm

Flannel Jesus:

WW_III_ANGRY:

Free will is a term that doesn’t mean what incompatibilists think or want it to mean, it is simply a choice that we as a “law-of-physics” abiding organic structure are able to make and do make, and will make, based these laws of physics.

I understand, mr.Angry, that this is the definition of Free Will that you use, and that it is not incompatible with determinism, but your post implies that this is the only definition that people use for the term Free Will, and that is just plain incorrect. The reason incompatibilists exist at all is because, precisely because, some people use a definition of free will that IS incompatible with determinism. Just because yours isn’t incompatible doesn’t mean none of them are.

For example, definition 2 here: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

To both anon and Flannel:

There is no good reason to utilize a definition that is impossible and say it doesn’t exist, when there are perfectly good senses of the term free will that work just fine and that is the bottom line. Incompatibilists have derived an impossible concept and then argued against it as if they think they have some sort of work of genius they deduced that goes against the grains of thought on the matter, when they are simply arguing against a ghost, against something that nobody holds true and nobody acts as if it holds true.

Its similar to this: Lets say there’s a term called squircle. Some (lets call them compatibalists) say squircle means a square-like shape with round edges. Perfectly logical right? Others (Lets call them incompatibalists) say a squircle is a square circle, something that couldn’t possible exist and is illogical. The incompatibalists argue that a squircle is impossible and all these compatibalists don’t know what they’re talking about.

anon · August 9, 2011, 1:53pm

I don’t see how that answers my comment.

WW_III_ANGRY · August 9, 2011, 1:56pm

Ok if that doesn’t answer it then my first post on the matter answers it. Simply because a determinist won’t accept it is irrelevant. It is as simple and obvious as I made out and I am not appealing to intuition. You’ll have to be more specific on your critique of my explanation for me to go further with my explanation as to why you see it doesn’t tie all the loose ends.

anon · August 9, 2011, 2:04pm

So you have the ability to make a choice. The hard determinist says that whatever choice you made occurred because it had to. Neurons are firing in a certain way, based on previous firings of neurons, it’s all according to the laws of physics, and there is no “you” that occupies a privileged position relative to reality. A ball, dropped, will fall. It has no choice in the matter. The difference between “ball” and “person” is only a difference in complexity and function.

Flannel_Jesus · August 9, 2011, 2:07pm

mr angry, i know it sounds hard to believe, but some people really, really do use that definition of free will and believe it. that’s how it made it into webster’s dictionary. that’s why some people are incompatibalists. some people really, actually, in reality, believe that human choices are free from causality. we didn’t make up this belief just to prove it wrong, it’s something people believe buddy.

Moreno · August 9, 2011, 2:10pm

This is NOT how free will is usually conceived. Very few advocates of free will say that you can do anything at all, but rather that within a range of possible choices one is free to pick and choose and not completely determined. I am sure some New Agers believe one can swallow the Sun if you choose to, but I have never read any position in support of free will saying that the laws of physics can be bypassed by the person with free will. And physics is not currently deterministic, it is probablistic.

Flannel_Jesus · August 9, 2011, 2:12pm

as a matter of fact, you recently had a run-in with a group of people who believe in this definition: FreedomainRadio. Stefan Molyneux is an incompatibilist as well, but he’s not a determinst. Nope, he believes in the incompatibilist definition of Free Will that you claim nobody believes. Hell, I can even find you some podcasts in which he says it if you like. Also, Moreno gets it. =D>

WW_III_ANGRY · August 9, 2011, 2:14pm

As I already explained in different words, because the “neurons” fired according to the laws of physics “because they had to” doesn’t mean I am separate from my neurons. The “choice” is the result of the way an organic body processes outside information and acts upon it.

anon · August 9, 2011, 2:17pm

WW_III_ANGRY:

anon:

So you have the ability to make a choice. The hard determinist says that whatever choice you made occurred because it had to. Neurons are firing in a certain way, based on previous firings of neurons, it’s all according to the laws of physics, and there is no “you” that occupies a privileged position relative to reality. A ball, dropped, will fall. It has no choice in the matter. The difference between “ball” and “person” is only a difference in complexity and function.

As I already explained in different words, because the “neurons” fired according to the laws of physics “because they had to” doesn’t mean I am separate from my neurons. The “choice” is the result of the way an organic body processes outside information and acts upon it.

Isn’t that determinism?

WW_III_ANGRY · August 9, 2011, 2:18pm

anon:

WW_III_ANGRY:

anon:

So you have the ability to make a choice. The hard determinist says that whatever choice you made occurred because it had to. Neurons are firing in a certain way, based on previous firings of neurons, it’s all according to the laws of physics, and there is no “you” that occupies a privileged position relative to reality. A ball, dropped, will fall. It has no choice in the matter. The difference between “ball” and “person” is only a difference in complexity and function.

As I already explained in different words, because the “neurons” fired according to the laws of physics “because they had to” doesn’t mean I am separate from my neurons. The “choice” is the result of the way an organic body processes outside information and acts upon it.

Isn’t that determinism?

Yup. As well as free will.

Flannel_Jesus · August 9, 2011, 2:18pm

yes, anon, he’s a determinist, his argument is just that nobody believes in the incompatibalist definition of free will (but that’s untrue as I am soon to proove)

WW_III_ANGRY · August 9, 2011, 2:19pm

No. I know people can believe in it. That doesn’t mean it is a valid, logical concept.

anon · August 9, 2011, 2:21pm

Then why did you take issue with the OP?

Moreno · August 9, 2011, 2:21pm

WW_III_ANGRY:

anon:

So you have the ability to make a choice. The hard determinist says that whatever choice you made occurred because it had to. Neurons are firing in a certain way, based on previous firings of neurons, it’s all according to the laws of physics, and there is no “you” that occupies a privileged position relative to reality. A ball, dropped, will fall. It has no choice in the matter. The difference between “ball” and “person” is only a difference in complexity and function.

As I already explained in different words, because the “neurons” fired according to the laws of physics “because they had to” doesn’t mean I am separate from my neurons. The “choice” is the result of the way an organic body processes outside information and acts upon it.

Sure, but once you view your choices as utterly determined in this way or any way, the idea of rational argument becomes ironic. If you really believe your ideas and the logic via which you support them are based on utterly determined processes, you must also believe that you cannot objectively evaluate any of this. It will seem right to you because it has to. The nerves that fire and give you that quale ‘this makes sense’ are as determined as the other nerves firing to make that choice/belief.

I find it really strange that people who believe in determinism continue to make rational arguments. For all they know their belief just is. and for all they know their sense that they can generalize this conclusions to including others is simply something determined back in the Big Bang, but is not correct.