Spirituality
13 Jun 07
15 Jun 07
Originally posted by dottewellNow dotty , do you think there is only one possible and real life that you can ever lead in your future? Do you think your future is inevitable?
[b]Since you have chosen not to mock but debate instead I will respond in good faith. You have also had the guts to address the question , so fair play to you.
People have been trying to make this point all along.
The choices you talk about cannot be fully free because they are determined.
STOP. Once again, you are assuming something th ...[text shortened]...
Yes, in some sense. But it will be the future that I choose.[/b]
Yes, in some sense. But it will be the future that I choose.
RESPONSE---
So you will select your future life from a list of one possible future life , or more than one? Notice you said "in some sense" , you hesitated , what's stopping you from just saying that your future is inevitable as logically it must be under your view?
15 Jun 07
Originally posted by dottewellTo me, the fact the world (including me) ultimately operates according to deterministic laws is an abstract point. The question of "free will" is to do with the circumstances in which I make a choice. Dotty
[b]Since you have chosen not to mock but debate instead I will respond in good faith. You have also had the guts to address the question , so fair play to you.
People have been trying to make this point all along.
The choices you talk about cannot be fully free because they are determined.
STOP. Once again, you are assuming something th ...[text shortened]...
Yes, in some sense. But it will be the future that I choose.[/b]
DOH! The circumstances in which you make your choice IS the deterministic world you inhabit. It's not abstract , you are living in it. Your brain forces you deterministically to make a certain choice every bit as much as a gun does. The subjective experience is different but objectively you are still forced to make one choice and one choice only.
15 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloLibertarian free will does not require that there is no rationale for a course of action or choice , it just requires that the rationale is not sufficient to force the action.
God, what a load of goo. You're tiresome.
Worms aren't capable of making choices. They are not capable of acting from reason, and their movements and behaviors are not indicative of evaluative commitments.
Interestingly, this side show about worms is more relevant to your conception of freedom, genius. According to your conception, when ...[text shortened]...
-----------
By the way, you're just begging the question with, e.g., Premises 2 and 3.
15 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat happens to be just one of many things that makes your conception of freedom so deeply absurd. Under your view, acting freely does not admit of rational explanation. Under you view, when one chooses freely, one necessarily had insufficient reason for his choice. And I simply do not agree that rationale -- as in some set of servicing reasons -- has anything to do with "free" choice under your view. After all, if you can choose differently at T4 vice T1 (pace bbarr's example that you never really bothered to address seriously), then your "free" choices are divorceable from any and all reasons at your disposal. Your view entails that free choices are made arbitrarily. Far from providing for it, your view actually completely undermines the notion of personal autonomy. How am I to govern myself if nothing, including my own deliberations and evaluative commitments, can exert causal control over my choices?
Libertarian free will does not require that there is no rationale for a course of action or choice , it just requires that the rationale is not sufficient to force the action.
16 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJellothen your "free" choices are divorceable from any and all reasons at your disposal. Your view entails that free choices are made arbitrarily.LEMON
That happens to be just one of many things that makes your conception of freedom so deeply absurd. Under your view, acting freely does not admit of rational explanation. Under you view, when one chooses freely, one necessarily had insufficient reason for his choice. And I simply do not agree that rationale -- as in some set of servicing reasons -- has ...[text shortened]... my own deliberations and evaluative commitments, can exert causal control over my choices?
No , the free choice is intimately linked with the reasons at hand it's just that each and any reason is influentual and maybe compelling but not sufficient to absolutely FORCE an inevitable choice. I agree that it's mysterious (or absurd as you put it) but if God exists its possible because he can influence and involve himself with our choices in a way that is not going to force choice upon us.
16 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloFar from providing for it, your view actually completely undermines the notion of personal autonomy. How am I to govern myself if nothing, including my own deliberations and evaluative commitments, can exert causal control over my choices?LEMON
That happens to be just one of many things that makes your conception of freedom so deeply absurd. Under your view, acting freely does not admit of rational explanation. Under you view, when one chooses freely, one necessarily had insufficient reason for his choice. And I simply do not agree that rationale -- as in some set of servicing reasons -- has ...[text shortened]... my own deliberations and evaluative commitments, can exert causal control over my choices?
Nope , your INTERPRETATION of what my view is completely undermines the notion of personal autonomy. In reality my view gives you more control than any model because it is based on being imbued with supernatural power that is the master of all causality and all the universe. In my view you are not subject to determinism but determinism is subject to you in certain choices. You get the choice as to which line of causality you are going to allow to influence you. You get more doors and more power to choose which door you want , and you still get to understand the reasoning and rationale for those choices.
17 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterLOL.
Far from providing for it, your view actually completely undermines the notion of personal autonomy. How am I to govern myself if nothing, including my own deliberations and evaluative commitments, can exert causal control over my choices?LEMON
Nope , your INTERPRETATION of what my view is completely undermines the notion of personal autonomy. In re ...[text shortened]... h door you want , and you still get to understand the reasoning and rationale for those choices.
You agree that your view of freedom is mysterious and absurd. So you play some sort of God card: God exists and somehow, in a way you cannot understand or explain, He sprinkles his magical supernatural foo-foo dust around and thereby makes everything copacetic. All this ridiculous metaphysical hoop-jumping to preserve, in your estimation, the notion that whenever you choose freely you could have "done otherwise". I realize you're really hung up on this notion that the ability to have "done otherwise" under identical conditions is necessary for freedom. But I and many others have already given you many good reasons to think it is incoherent. By extension, your conception of free will is incoherent. The vague crap about God doesn't help any.
That aside, if you have some problem with compatibilism, then present some considered argument that doesn't just beg the question.
17 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloOnce again you resort to extremes and parody. No-one is talking about foo dust (except in your own mind) just that there is a certain mystery to it that's all. If you can say to me hand on heart that there has never ever been any choice that you have made that "could have been otherwise" then I will shut up but I bet if you are honest you can't. Do you REALLY believe that the life you are living is the only life you could ever, ever have lived? Does it ring true in the depth of your being? One thing I know about compatabilism is that it's much much harder to live by aunthentically because it's logical implications are fatalism.
LOL.
You agree that your view of freedom is mysterious and absurd. So you play some sort of God card: God exists and somehow, in a way you cannot understand or explain, He sprinkles his magical supernatural foo-foo dust around and thereby makes everything copacetic. All this ridiculous metaphysical hoop-jumping to preserve, in your estimation, the no ...[text shortened]... compatibilism, then present some considered argument that doesn't just beg the question.
17 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNot the way you're conducting it. I've suggested what it means for a human act to be free (as have others); it has the merit of being coherent and in accordance with science.
But surely the whole free will debate is far deeper than that . Do you think the whole world of philosophy has been debating about whether guns are being held to peoples heads or not. ?
It is for you to demonstrate that something important is missing. And not by simply stamping you foot and saying "But that's not REAL freedom!"
On my account, humans are capable of thought and choice that is simply not open to worms, etc. The fact they are both ultimately subject to deterministic laws of science is irrelevant; whether my human choice X is ultimately determined by scientific laws is irrelevant to whether it was freely made.
17 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterFine, take out "in some sense" if you prefer.
Now dotty , do you think there is only one possible and real life that you can ever lead in your future? Do you think your future is inevitable?
Yes, in some sense. But it will be the future that I choose.
RESPONSE---
So you will select your future life from a list of one possible future life , or more than one? Notice you said "in some sens ...[text shortened]... you from just saying that your future is inevitable as logically it must be under your view?
17 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe circumstances in which I make choices are complex; they relate to a combination of things (my beliefs, outside circumstances, etc.). These are the things that concern me when I make a choice.
To me, the fact the world (including me) ultimately operates according to deterministic laws is an abstract point. The question of "free will" is to do with the circumstances in which I make a choice. Dotty
DOH! The circumstances in which you make your choice IS the deterministic world you inhabit. It's not abstract , you are living in it. Your bra ...[text shortened]... nce is different but objectively you are still forced to make one choice and one choice only.
When I decide to plunge into an icy lake to save a child, I'm not thinking of the fact the world is ultimately governed by deterministic laws.
It is in this sense that the determinism of the universe is "abstract" when we speak of free will.
18 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think everyone knows and agrees that there are random factors in the universe and that the moment you say "could ever have been" you are really saying that even a random event is actually predetermined or deterministic in nature (and not actually random). I don't think anyone is making such a claim.
If you can say to me hand on heart that there has never ever been any choice that you have made that "could have been otherwise" then I will shut up but I bet if you are honest you can't.
Do you REALLY believe that the life you are living is the only life you could ever, ever have lived? Does it ring true in the depth of your being?
I do believe that my most important choices are deterministic (otherwise I would feel out of control of my life). I do however think that the world has a significant amount of randomness in it and that even the set of choices that I am presented with are fairly random in nature.
One thing I know about compatabilism is that it's much much harder to live by authentically because it's logical implications are fatalism.
What do you mean by "live by authentically" and "fatalism"? I don't really see what your real problem is with compatibalism. Please explain it further.
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you REALLY believe that the life you are living is the only life you could ever, ever have lived? Does it ring true in the depth of your being? KM
I think everyone knows and agrees that there are random factors in the universe and that the moment you say "could ever have been" you are really saying that even a random event is actually predetermined or deterministic in nature (and not actually random). I don't think anyone is making such a claim.
[b]Do you REALLY believe that the life you are livi ...[text shortened]... 't really see what your real problem is with compatibalism. Please explain it further.
I do believe that my most important choices are deterministic (otherwise I would feel out of control of my life)WHITEY
RESPONSE--
I don't think you understand. the important choices when you made them , did you feel that the choice that you made was the only choice you could have made? Did you feel that there really were two possible options open to you? When you stood at the crossroads did it feel like you were at a real crossroad of your life? Do you not look back and ever think "boy my life could so easily have been different if I had chosen X"??
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadOne thing I know about compatabilism is that it's much much harder to live by authentically because it's logical implications are fatalism.km
I think everyone knows and agrees that there are random factors in the universe and that the moment you say "could ever have been" you are really saying that even a random event is actually predetermined or deterministic in nature (and not actually random). I don't think anyone is making such a claim.
[b]Do you REALLY believe that the life you are livi ...[text shortened]... 't really see what your real problem is with compatibalism. Please explain it further.
What do you mean by "live by authentically" and "fatalism"? I don't really see what your real problem is with compatibalism. Please explain it further.whitey
RESPONSE--
It's quite simple really . If one really believes that ones life was predetermined to be a certain way then why bother with making choices? Most humans do not subscribe to fatalism because they believe authentically that they really are making real choices between X and Y and that both are really possible depending on that choice. We believe we are the shapers of our own destinies , which only logically makes sense with free will.
19 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterNow you are confusing things external to me and things internal to me.
Did you feel that there really were two possible options open to you? When you stood at the crossroads did it feel like you were at a real crossroad of your life? Do you not look back and ever think "boy my life could so easily have been different if I had chosen X"??
Given a choice A or B external to me, there are two possible options available to me. I choose A. Given a rerun I will still choose A. Put a different person with different programming in my place and he may choose B. So the choice remains open. There were two possible options available to me but I could only ever choose A. I still have free will.
Would my life have been different if I chose B? yes. If we reran my life 100 times would I sometimes choose B? No.
It's quite simple really . If one really believes that ones life was predetermined to be a certain way then why bother with making choices?
You are falling prey to the madness that ensues if you try to go too deep into philosophy that you cant understand.
Most humans do not subscribe to fatalism because they believe authentically that they really are making real choices between X and Y and that both are really possible depending on that choice. We believe we are the shapers of our own destinies , which only logically makes sense with free will.
You concept of free will does not make logical sense (as you have admitted on multiple occasions) so you are contradicting yourself.
My concept of free will does make logical sense and still allows me to be the shaper of my own destiny. In fact, yours specifically removes the actual decision from you as an entity so you cannot possibly claim to be the shaper of your destiny.