Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:42 pm

anon wrote:So what is this "you" that is somehow different from its predetermined history?

By the way, I'm just trying to make WW3 understand the position of hard determinism. I'm not selling hard determinism, just as Searle wasn't selling compatibilism.


You are your biological body, in which your unconscious and conscious realms are produced from. You are not the big bang (if you subscribe to that). You are not your dad's sperm, and you are not anything in between.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:44 pm

anon wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
anon wrote:With determinism, our choices are compelled by our reasons, and our reasons are likewise compelled by other things. It is all compelling, all the way through. It doesn't matter if you have "reasons". The inside/outside distinction that many compatibilists think is important, is philosophically negligible. A deterministic universe doesn't stop at some arbitrary threshold. If everything is determined, then everything is determined.


Right, so if everything is determined, certain things are accredited with the determining it. If the causal laws of physics pass through your body in which affect you and your organic structure creates an action based on it, for all intensive purposes you are accredited with making that choice, thus determining it, thus you have free will.

Are you really satisfied with that? False accreditation of agency to some vague entity that science has never discovered and has no function?


I am not a vague entity nor are you.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:44 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:That statement just totally ignored everything previous to it in the discussion.

How so?
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:45 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:That statement just totally ignored everything previous to it in the discussion.


Yes actually the previous two comments from anon did....
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby Flannel Jesus » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:46 pm

anon wrote:
Flannel Jesus wrote:That statement just totally ignored everything previous to it in the discussion.

How so?

you ignored a number of posts which talk about how the idea of "choice" is not necessarily at odds with determinism. it's the choice itself that was determined, the choice still exists and is made...determinism just says that only one choice can and will be made. still a choice.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:47 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Flannel Jesus wrote:That statement just totally ignored everything previous to it in the discussion.


Yes actually the previous two comments from anon did....

Well yes, I don't think your arguments are very compelling. Yet, anyway. So of course.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:48 pm

anon wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Flannel Jesus wrote:That statement just totally ignored everything previous to it in the discussion.


Yes actually the previous two comments from anon did....

Well yes, I don't think your arguments are very compelling. Yet, anyway. So of course.


That's fine, but that doesn't excuse you from this, its just that you're not understanding my arguments. Which is fine as well, but just making you aware of it.
Last edited by WW_III_ANGRY on Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby Only_Humean » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:48 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Very well its an argument over religious doctrine nonetheless, free will initially was much vaguer. Thanks for pointing out that the Scholastics provided the version of free will that incompatibilists use, I'll have to revise my argument. While that is a philosophical dilemma, commonly free will never meant that, the common person who utilize the term don't ponder much on it.


I *think* the common person generally assumes that we all have some sort of soul, and make our decisions such that we are in some sense morally culpable for them as they are internally-generated. I may be wrong.

This one however:
free will
n
1. (Philosophy)
a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
b. the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory Compare determinism
c. (as modifier) a free-will decision
2. the ability to make a choice without coercion he left of his own free will: I did not influence him

Still goes along with what I have stated as I have already discussed these points that Determinists state are the reason this type of free will does not exist.


Sorry, I can't follow what it is you're saying here. Could you explain?

anon wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:My view is that it's a confusion about categories. There's nothing non-physical at work, you're just not describing physical, causal processes when you talk about making decisions. It's a confusion of language more than concepts.


O_H, could you say more about your view here?


Around about the Enlightenment, people got the hang of cause and effect, causal chains and so on. Everything had a cause, everything was an effect of antecedent causes, and so on. Mechanics was born. People got to notice that other people weren't quite so predictable, in fact downright unpredictable, so they assumed some internal cause must exist - in fact, this proved the Christian theology of souls. So they took concepts that people had no problems using - guilt, social responsibility, volition, and so forth, and tried to match them to parts in a causal chain.

If I say I want something, I'm describing my relation to that thing in terms of my dispositions to act in certain ways. But there's no causal link there! So volitions became things that echo around in our heads, pulling us one way unless a greater volition pulls us the other. It's ridiculous when you try and work it out in detail - if a friend asks me if I fancy a drink, my volition to go to bed early fights against my volition to agree and go with him - but is there also a volition to go for one quiet one and another to go out and get wrecked, or are these sub-volitions of the agreement volition? And what about my volition to stay up and post on ILP? These volitions must be countless, springing into existence each time they are needed to explain a pull, or maybe diving from our subconscious to our conscious. And these in turn have no causes, so we must have a prime volition-generator generating them. And by the cosmological argument, you're led to a libertarian soul.

"I decided yesterday to quit my job and work in a charity" is not a sentence describing a physical state of the world, like "I see a cat sitting on my car" is. It's not me talking about some process churning away inside my head called deciding, it's announcing a change in my plans, letting people know I'll be doing different things in the future. "He did that of his own free will" is not describing the operations of an acausal soul, nor is it describing a deterministic process of conditioned response to stimulus, but talking about something non-physical - the context in which we are to judge his actions. But philosophers see a noun and assume there's some Thing to be said about it, because they spend so long analysing simple propositions. :) They see the library and the arts faculty and the science labs and the law halls and then go looking for the university.

Nice thread, by the way! I think the ironist outlook is a little like the universal doubt thing - it's a useful tool rather than a final position on anything.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:01 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Very well its an argument over religious doctrine nonetheless, free will initially was much vaguer. Thanks for pointing out that the Scholastics provided the version of free will that incompatibilists use, I'll have to revise my argument. While that is a philosophical dilemma, commonly free will never meant that, the common person who utilize the term don't ponder much on it.


I *think* the common person generally assumes that we all have some sort of soul, and make our decisions such that we are in some sense morally culpable for them as they are internally-generated. I may be wrong.

This one however:
free will
n
1. (Philosophy)
a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
b. the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory Compare determinism
c. (as modifier) a free-will decision
2. the ability to make a choice without coercion he left of his own free will: I did not influence him

Still goes along with what I have stated as I have already discussed these points that Determinists state are the reason this type of free will does not exist.

Only_Humean wrote:Sorry, I can't follow what it is you're saying here. Could you explain?





Yes well aside from the soul bit, which I find irrelevant, I am saying we do generate our choices internally, which as well as being affected by the outside environment.

Sorry about being unclear on that definition I posted, I was just stating I refuted the requirements for an incompatibilist viewpoint in the definition of free will I posted.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:03 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:determinism just says that only one choice can and will be made. still a choice.

Just say "choice" where you said "free will" in the following statement of yours...

so, in short, incompatibilists did not just make up some new definition of Free Will [choice] to argue against, people, en masse, believe in this definition of Free Will [choice], this is the classical definition of the term, the most frequent one...
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:04 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Yes well aside from the soul bit, which I find irrelevant, I am saying we do generate our choices internally, which as well as being affected by the outside environment.

Sorry about being unclear on that definition I posted, I was just stating I refuted the requirements for an incompatibilist viewpoint in the definition of free will I posted.

Determinism doesn't care about inside versus outside.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:05 pm

Only_Humean wrote:Nice thread, by the way! I think the ironist outlook is a little like the universal doubt thing - it's a useful tool rather than a final position on anything.

Thanks! And I agree. I'll study your post more closely when I have more time.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:06 pm

anon wrote:Determinism doesn't care about inside versus outside.


I'm not arguing against determinism.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby Flannel Jesus » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:12 pm

anon wrote:
Flannel Jesus wrote:determinism just says that only one choice can and will be made. still a choice.

Just say "choice" where you said "free will" in the following statement of yours...

so, in short, incompatibilists did not just make up some new definition of Free Will [choice] to argue against, people, en masse, believe in this definition of Free Will [choice], this is the classical definition of the term, the most frequent one...

Yeah, I understand that you might conflate choice with free will, an easy mistake to make. I don't, though.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:49 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
anon wrote:Determinism doesn't care about inside versus outside.


I'm not arguing against determinism.

Ok, so you're a determinist. And a "choice" is just what you necessarily had to do. So freedom, in your dictionary, means bondage?
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:50 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:
anon wrote:
Flannel Jesus wrote:determinism just says that only one choice can and will be made. still a choice.

Just say "choice" where you said "free will" in the following statement of yours...

so, in short, incompatibilists did not just make up some new definition of Free Will [choice] to argue against, people, en masse, believe in this definition of Free Will [choice], this is the classical definition of the term, the most frequent one...

Yeah, I understand that you might conflate choice with free will, an easy mistake to make. I don't, though.

I don't conflate the two. I'm saying that from the point of view of determinism, choice and free will are both equally illusory.

EDIT: I'm also saying choice means you could have done otherwise. That's what choice means. Determinists say you couldn't have done otherwise.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby Flannel Jesus » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:00 pm

I'm a determinist. We make choices. At least, from what I understand the word "choice" to mean, it's not "illusory" at all, but maybe what I mean by "choice" is different from what you mean.

Allow me to attempt to explain:

One of the common analogies made in determinist/free will discussions is likening a human being to a falling rock. The rock will fall down a cliff according to the laws of physics. The rock has no choice in the matter, it will fall as it will fall, there is only one thing it can and will do, and it does it. It falls in exactly the way it falls, and it couldn't have fallen any other way. Likewise, a determinist would say that all events, including human ones, are like that: there is only one thing that can possibly result from the current state and the current laws, and nothing else will or can happen. What makes a human's action "choice" and a rock's not is just a matter of categorizing: even though they were both completely determined by physics, etc, the category of "choice" applies to the actions of a body that were determined by a brain. The brain is just as pre-determined as the rock, but one is called "choice" just because that's what the category called "choice" means.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:16 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:I'm a determinist. We make choices. At least, from what I understand the word "choice" to mean, it's not "illusory" at all, but maybe what I mean by "choice" is different from what you mean.

Allow me to attempt to explain:

One of the common analogies made in determinist/free will discussions is likening a human being to a falling rock. The rock will fall down a cliff according to the laws of physics. The rock has no choice in the matter, it will fall as it will fall, there is only one thing it can and will do, and it does it. It falls in exactly the way it falls, and it couldn't have fallen any other way. Likewise, a determinist would say that all events, including human ones, are like that: there is only one thing that can possibly result from the current state and the current laws, and nothing else will or can happen. What makes a human's action "choice" and a rock's not is just a matter of categorizing: even though they were both completely determined by physics, etc, the category of "choice" applies to the actions of a body that were determined by a brain. The brain is just as pre-determined as the rock, but one is called "choice" just because that's what the category called "choice" means.

That's an eloquent description of the determinist position, and you say you are a determinist. So that much makes sense to me. But I think it's strange to not, then, call choice an illusion. I understand that you are calling a certain category of determinism "choice", but that's not what nearly anyone means when they use the word.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:17 pm

anon wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
anon wrote:Determinism doesn't care about inside versus outside.


I'm not arguing against determinism.

Ok, so you're a determinist. And a "choice" is just what you necessarily had to do. So freedom, in your dictionary, means bondage?


There's no need to label me as a determinist I already told you that's irrelevant, for the 4th time. Free will is not freedom, you should not equivocate freedom with free will. Pure freedom doesn't exist, anywhere, but thats another topic.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:38 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
anon wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I'm not arguing against determinism.

Ok, so you're a determinist. And a "choice" is just what you necessarily had to do. So freedom, in your dictionary, means bondage?


There's no need to label me as a determinist I already told you that's irrelevant, for the 4th time. Free will is not freedom, you should not equivocate freedom with free will. Pure freedom doesn't exist, anywhere, but thats another topic.

My point isn't to label you, it's to get you to see how inconsistent and ill-thought-out your ideas seem to be. Maybe it's just a problem of expression, but that's always the excuse, isn't it? My own ideas on this are inconsistent as well (that's why there's a "problem"), but you seem to think you aren't just relying on intuition to guide you. I think your confidence is misplaced.

You don't seem to understand what the implications of believing versus not believing in determinism are. If you believe in determinism, there is no such thing as a choice. If you don't, then how does the world work? How does a rock fall? Compatibilism is a misnomer. Compatibilists don't actually believe that determinism and free will are compatible. Most "compatibilists" are determinists.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:50 pm

anon wrote:My point isn't to label you, it's to get you to see how inconsistent and ill-thought-out your ideas seem to be. Maybe it's just a problem of expression, but that's always the excuse, isn't it? My own ideas on this are inconsistent as well (that's why there's a "problem"), but you seem to think you aren't just relying on intuition to guide you. I think your confidence is misplaced.

You don't seem to understand what the implications of believing versus not believing in determinism are. If you believe in determinism, there is no such thing as a choice. If you don't, then how does the world work? How does a rock fall? Compatibilism is a misnomer. Compatibilists don't actually believe that determinism and free will are compatible. Most "compatibilists" are determinists.


Please point out any inconsistency's I have stated instead of trying to fish for them by labeling me. I am arguing for Compatibilism, that is all. You can label me a Compatibilist. Compatibilists do believe free will and determinism are compatible and I already explained how, probably 3 or 4 times as well. Determinism does not say anything about there being a prerequisite about no choice.

Wiki states: Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. There are many versions of this thesis. Each rest upon various alleged connections, and interdependencies of things and events, asserting that these hold without exception.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:54 pm

Only_Humean wrote:"He did that of his own free will" is not describing the operations of an acausal soul, nor is it describing a deterministic process of conditioned response to stimulus, but talking about something non-physical - the context in which we are to judge his actions. But philosophers see a noun and assume there's some Thing to be said about it, because they spend so long analysing simple propositions.

O_H, would you say you're saying the same thing as Flannel Jesus?

Flannel Jesus wrote:What makes a human's action "choice" and a rock's not is just a matter of categorizing: even though they were both completely determined by physics, etc, the category of "choice" applies to the actions of a body that were determined by a brain. The brain is just as pre-determined as the rock, but one is called "choice" just because that's what the category called "choice" means.

Just looking for clarification at the moment.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:56 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
anon wrote:My point isn't to label you, it's to get you to see how inconsistent and ill-thought-out your ideas seem to be. Maybe it's just a problem of expression, but that's always the excuse, isn't it? My own ideas on this are inconsistent as well (that's why there's a "problem"), but you seem to think you aren't just relying on intuition to guide you. I think your confidence is misplaced.

You don't seem to understand what the implications of believing versus not believing in determinism are. If you believe in determinism, there is no such thing as a choice. If you don't, then how does the world work? How does a rock fall? Compatibilism is a misnomer. Compatibilists don't actually believe that determinism and free will are compatible. Most "compatibilists" are determinists.


Please point out any inconsistency's I have stated instead of trying to fish for them by labeling me. I am arguing for Compatibilism, that is all. You can label me a Compatibilist. Compatibilists do believe free will and determinism are compatible and I already explained how, probably 3 or 4 times as well. Determinism does not say anything about there being a prerequisite about no choice.

Wiki states: Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. There are many versions of this thesis. Each rest upon various alleged connections, and interdependencies of things and events, asserting that these hold without exception.

Five pages and you think all I've done is try to label you? Forget about it WW3, I give up. There is no problem for you.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:57 pm

anon wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
anon wrote:My point isn't to label you, it's to get you to see how inconsistent and ill-thought-out your ideas seem to be. Maybe it's just a problem of expression, but that's always the excuse, isn't it? My own ideas on this are inconsistent as well (that's why there's a "problem"), but you seem to think you aren't just relying on intuition to guide you. I think your confidence is misplaced.

You don't seem to understand what the implications of believing versus not believing in determinism are. If you believe in determinism, there is no such thing as a choice. If you don't, then how does the world work? How does a rock fall? Compatibilism is a misnomer. Compatibilists don't actually believe that determinism and free will are compatible. Most "compatibilists" are determinists.


Please point out any inconsistency's I have stated instead of trying to fish for them by labeling me. I am arguing for Compatibilism, that is all. You can label me a Compatibilist. Compatibilists do believe free will and determinism are compatible and I already explained how, probably 3 or 4 times as well. Determinism does not say anything about there being a prerequisite about no choice.

Wiki states: Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. There are many versions of this thesis. Each rest upon various alleged connections, and interdependencies of things and events, asserting that these hold without exception.

Five pages and you think all I've done is try to label you? Forget about it WW3, I give up. There is no problem for you.


I didn't say that is all you've done. I was simply trying to assist you in critiquing me so I know how to respond to answer your critique more succinctly.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism-Free Will as Duck-Rabbit

Postby anon » Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:03 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Dan~ wrote:A superior form of justice would cure bad will and it would be seen as a disease.
Genes, experiences, education, etc. These could all be rewritten or done over until the will is better.

The Will is a form and a compound. It is not an essence and it has no essence.
Will only exists when worlds diverge. Will requires the world and the body.


Everything has an essence :)

Ok, WW3, let's start here, in case it leads to something fruitful. Explain what you mean by "everything has an essence". Examples will probably help.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users