|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2017 18:06:59 GMT
tpfkar Not that you shouldn't do anything; only that it is unsound to hold both positions simultaneously. Any beliefs eroding are by your belief, pre-writ, and will happen or not happen regardless of what you think or attempt. The point being that believing your actions are ultimately uncontrollable by you and simultaneously that what you choose to do can make things better or worse is not balanced thinking. You've already stated that neither you nor anybody is actually making any choices. That would be fine if you could grok that you actually have no control. But adamantly asserting that you have none while trying to assert it is not the process of a clear mind. previously on free willy
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2017 18:11:18 GMT
tpfkar Sure, some are compelled to be unsound of mind. Sitting and avoiding is certainly not the inverse. previously on free willy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 18:40:42 GMT
tpfka Not that you shouldn't do anything; only that it is unsound to hold both positions simultaneously. Any beliefs eroding are by your belief, pre-writ, and will happen or not happen regardless of what you think or attempt. Well, I'm not going to change anyone's beliefs by not sharing my own. And that is one of the factors which causes me to share my insight, because most humans are driven to do what (from their perspective) is right by them and their values. Whether any beliefs are changed, and also whether I will play a significant role in changing those beliefs is pre-determined. But it is deterministic factors that drive me to play this defined role. Either way, my behaviour is both caused and be a causal factor for other events. My actions are a very small part of a grand system. I don't believe that I have control over what I do, but I know that I will play the role that I have to play. People's brains are making choices - going through the motions of making decisions. But our consciousness is not distinct from our brain and we do not choose our own conscious experience, or the decisions that our brains make. I do "grok" that I don't have control. But as stated earlier on, I can do nothing other than what I am caused to do. And the changes that I have witnessed in the past causes me to behave in this particular manner and causes to belief that the choices that my brain makes are more likely to have an influence for good than they are for ill (based on my very limited perspective as a very small cog in a vast machine that can only draw upon an imperfect assessment of historical information). How would one choose not to be a causal factor in whatever event will come to pass? It is impossible. The fact that I exist makes me a causal factor whether I wish to be one or not.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 2, 2017 18:49:23 GMT
There are different domains for modalities--logical, metaphysical/ontological, etc. In which sense are you claiming that it's impossible? It's certainly logically impossible, because you would have to choose your will, and choose how to choose the will that you use to choose the will, and so on to an infinite regress. I don't know about the other ones, but it is impossible to make a logical case for libertarian free will. With "you would have to choose your will," you seem to already be going way off into ridiculous straw man territory. What is a common conception of free will that has it as, or that implies that it would have to be, about "choosing one's will" rather than simply having one's will not be strongly determined?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 18:53:32 GMT
It's certainly logically impossible, because you would have to choose your will, and choose how to choose the will that you use to choose the will, and so on to an infinite regress. I don't know about the other ones, but it is impossible to make a logical case for libertarian free will. With "you would have to choose your will," you seem to already be going way off into ridiculous straw man territory. What is a common conception of free will that has it as, or that implies that it would have to be, about "choosing one's will" rather than simply having one's will not be strongly determined? One is bound to act in accordance with one's will, if not necessarily always one's desires. Your will is what you think is the best thing to do under the circumstances. So free will would require that some kind of acausal factor intervenes in that decision making process. But the thing is that even if quantum or stochastic indeterminism did intervene, that would be random will rather than free will. So no matter which way you look at it, there is no room for libertarian free will. It's impossible in every manner that something could be impossible, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 2, 2017 18:57:54 GMT
With "you would have to choose your will," you seem to already be going way off into ridiculous straw man territory. What is a common conception of free will that has it as, or that implies that it would have to be, about "choosing one's will" rather than simply having one's will not be strongly determined? One is bound to act in accordance with one's will, if not necessarily always one's desires. Your will is what you think is the best thing to do under the circumstances. So free will would require that some kind of acausal factor intervenes in that decision making process. But the thing is that even if quantum or stochastic indeterminism did intervene, that would be random will rather than free will. So no matter which way you look at it, there is no room for libertarian free will. It's impossible in every manner that something could be impossible, I think. So when someone asks you a question such as this: "What is a common conception of free will that has it as, or that implies that it would have to be, about 'choosing one's will' rather than simply having one's will not be strongly determined," the way to answer it, so that the person you're rsponding to considers it an answer, is by explicitly referring to a common conception of free will that has it as, or that implies that it would have to be, about "choosing one's will" rather than simply having one's will not be strongly determined. The way to answer isn't to give some loose summary of the Dennettian view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 19:05:07 GMT
One is bound to act in accordance with one's will, if not necessarily always one's desires. Your will is what you think is the best thing to do under the circumstances. So free will would require that some kind of acausal factor intervenes in that decision making process. But the thing is that even if quantum or stochastic indeterminism did intervene, that would be random will rather than free will. So no matter which way you look at it, there is no room for libertarian free will. It's impossible in every manner that something could be impossible, I think. So when someone asks you a question such as this: "What is a common conception of free will that has it as, or that implies that it would have to be, about 'choosing one's will' rather than simply having one's will not be strongly determined," the way to answer it, so that the person you're rsponding to considers it an answer, is by explicitly referring to a common conception of free will that has it as, or that implies that it would have to be, about "choosing one's will" rather than simply having one's will not be strongly determined. The way to answer isn't to give some loose summary of the Dennettian view. Your first sentence is so long and convoluted, that I am having difficulty with understanding it. Libertarian free will is about, in effect, choosing one's own will (given that one can not help but act in accordance with one's will at the moment, even if it does not coincide with one's greatest desires). Libertarian free will is also the only meaningful (albeit incoherent) paradigm of free will. Compatibilist free will is not free in any meaningful sense. Given that libertarian free will is the only 'free' type of free will; this is the paradigm to which I am always referring when I talk about 'free will'.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 2, 2017 19:06:00 GMT
So when someone asks you a question such as this: "What is a common conception of free will that has it as, or that implies that it would have to be, about 'choosing one's will' rather than simply having one's will not be strongly determined," the way to answer it, so that the person you're rsponding to considers it an answer, is by explicitly referring to a common conception of free will that has it as, or that implies that it would have to be, about "choosing one's will" rather than simply having one's will not be strongly determined. The way to answer isn't to give some loose summary of the Dennettian view. Your first sentence is so long and convoluted, that I am having difficulty with understanding it. Have you read Kant or Hegel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 19:06:58 GMT
Your first sentence is so long and convoluted, that I am having difficulty with understanding it. Have you read Kant or Hegel? No
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 2, 2017 19:09:45 GMT
Have you read Kant or Hegel? No Okay. Thanks for answering that. Re this: "Libertarian free will is about, in effect, choosing one's own will...", basically, I'm asking you this: per what, or per whom, is libertarian free will about that? I'm asking you that because I'm claiming that your explanation of why it's logically impossible is based on a straw man version of free will (relative to common accounts by proponents). So I'm challenging you to support that your description is not a straw man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 20:53:54 GMT
Okay. Thanks for answering that. Re this: "Libertarian free will is about, in effect, choosing one's own will...", basically, I'm asking you this: per what, or per whom, is libertarian free will about that? I'm asking you that because I'm claiming that your explanation of why it's logically impossible is based on a straw man version of free will (relative to common accounts by proponents). So I'm challenging you to support that your description is not a straw man. OK. Well, libertarian free will is integral to the Christian outlook on the life (with the exception of Calvinism and perhaps others). So as per that outlook, an individual would both have to choose to sin and also would have the ability to choose or reject Christ as salvation. Here is a definition of libertarian free will from a theological website: www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-willHuman behaviour is shaped by myriad factors outside of our conscious control: genetics, environment, nurture, external events occurring around us. Those are the factors which determine the decisions that our brain makes. We do not have conscious control over the firing of our neurons, and we cannot choose which thoughts to think before we think them. We always act according to our will, even if not always in accordance with our greatest desires. "Will" = what we have decided upon as being the most appropriate course of action.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 2, 2017 21:18:54 GMT
Okay. Thanks for answering that. Re this: "Libertarian free will is about, in effect, choosing one's own will...", basically, I'm asking you this: per what, or per whom, is libertarian free will about that? I'm asking you that because I'm claiming that your explanation of why it's logically impossible is based on a straw man version of free will (relative to common accounts by proponents). So I'm challenging you to support that your description is not a straw man. OK. Well, libertarian free will is integral to the Christian outlook on the life (with the exception of Calvinism and perhaps others). So as per that outlook, an individual would both have to choose to sin and also would have the ability to choose or reject Christ as salvation. Here is a definition of libertarian free will from a theological website: www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-willHuman behaviour is shaped by myriad factors outside of our conscious control: genetics, environment, nurture, external events occurring around us. Those are the factors which determine the decisions that our brain makes. We do not have conscious control over the firing of our neurons, and we cannot choose which thoughts to think before we think them. We always act according to our will, even if not always in accordance with our greatest desires. "Will" = what we have decided upon as being the most appropriate course of action. Why is there no author credited on that page or on that site on the front page, and why are there no citations whatsoever? Anyway, even supposing that that really is a common account of free will, where in what you quoted, exactly, does it say or imply anything about " choosing your will" (and then choosing the choosing of your will, etc.)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 21:29:04 GMT
OK. Well, libertarian free will is integral to the Christian outlook on the life (with the exception of Calvinism and perhaps others). So as per that outlook, an individual would both have to choose to sin and also would have the ability to choose or reject Christ as salvation. Here is a definition of libertarian free will from a theological website: www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-willHuman behaviour is shaped by myriad factors outside of our conscious control: genetics, environment, nurture, external events occurring around us. Those are the factors which determine the decisions that our brain makes. We do not have conscious control over the firing of our neurons, and we cannot choose which thoughts to think before we think them. We always act according to our will, even if not always in accordance with our greatest desires. "Will" = what we have decided upon as being the most appropriate course of action. Why is there no author credited on that page or on that site on the front page, and why are there no citations whatsoever? Anyway, even supposing that that really is a common account of free will, where in what you quoted, exactly, does it say or imply anything about " choosing your will" (and then choosing the choosing of your will, etc.)? I don't know why there's no author credited, or why there are no citations.Probably because that's simply the standard way that 'free will' needs to be defined in order for the Christian concept of salvation and sin to make any sense, as well as for it to make sense that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent and yet there is still evil and suffering. The definition cited in that article has to be a common understanding, because if it wasn't, then it would not be possible to be a Christian (except for Calvinism). Why would the article need citations if it is simply defining a term in ostensibly the most common way that the term is understood? The dictionary does not have citations. As for choosing one's will; how would you define 'will'?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 2, 2017 21:31:47 GMT
Why is there no author credited on that page or on that site on the front page, and why are there no citations whatsoever? Anyway, even supposing that that really is a common account of free will, where in what you quoted, exactly, does it say or imply anything about " choosing your will" (and then choosing the choosing of your will, etc.)? I don't know why there's no author credited, or why there are no citations. Probably because that's simply the standard way that 'free will' needs to be defined in order for the Christian concept of salvation and sin to make any sense, as well as for it to make sense that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent and yet there is still evil and suffering. The definition cited in that article has to be a common understanding, because if it wasn't, then it would not be possible to be a Christian (except for Calvinism). As for choosing one's will; how would you define 'will'? You're getting off track again. I asked you this: "Where in what you quoted, exactly, does it say or imply anything about 'choosing your will'?" To answer that, you tell me where, exactly, it says that in the article you quoted. Or, if you need to make a case for something that article says implying that, you tell me just what you're taking to imply it, and then present a valid logical argument for the implication. How I define "will" has nothing to do with whether the article says what you're claiming it says in your characterization of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 21:41:51 GMT
I don't know why there's no author credited, or why there are no citations. Probably because that's simply the standard way that 'free will' needs to be defined in order for the Christian concept of salvation and sin to make any sense, as well as for it to make sense that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent and yet there is still evil and suffering. The definition cited in that article has to be a common understanding, because if it wasn't, then it would not be possible to be a Christian (except for Calvinism). As for choosing one's will; how would you define 'will'? You're getting off track again. I asked you this: "Where in what you quoted, exactly, does it say or imply anything about 'choosing your will'?" To answer that, you tell me where, exactly, it says that in the article you quoted. Or, if you need to make a case for something that article says implying that, you tell me just what you're taking to imply it, and then present a valid logical argument for the implication. How I define "will" has nothing to do with whether the article says what you're claiming it says in your characterization of it. Actions are the manifestation of the will. The article states that libertarian free will means the ability to act contrary to our nature and any causal factors. As actions are the manifestation of one's will (one does not do something intentional unless one wills it), then this scenario would entail the individual choosing their will.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 2, 2017 21:42:29 GMT
I don't know why there's no author credited, or why there are no citations. Probably because that's simply the standard way that 'free will' needs to be defined in order for the Christian concept of salvation and sin to make any sense, as well as for it to make sense that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent and yet there is still evil and suffering. The definition cited in that article has to be a common understanding, because if it wasn't, then it would not be possible to be a Christian (except for Calvinism). As for choosing one's will; how would you define 'will'? You're getting off track again. I asked you this: "Where in what you quoted, exactly, does it say or imply anything about 'choosing your will'?" To answer that, you tell me where, exactly, it says that in the article you quoted. Or, if you need to make a case for something that article says implying that, you tell me just what you're taking to imply it, and then present a valid logical argument for the implication. How I define "will" has nothing to do with whether the article says what you're claiming it says in your characterization of it. I am pretty sure this discussion is due to confusion about semantics. I think what @miccee means by "choosing your will" is this ---> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation_(philosophy)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 21:50:51 GMT
You're getting off track again. I asked you this: "Where in what you quoted, exactly, does it say or imply anything about 'choosing your will'?" To answer that, you tell me where, exactly, it says that in the article you quoted. Or, if you need to make a case for something that article says implying that, you tell me just what you're taking to imply it, and then present a valid logical argument for the implication. How I define "will" has nothing to do with whether the article says what you're claiming it says in your characterization of it. I am pretty sure this discussion is due to confusion about semantics. I think what @miccee means by "choosing your will" is this ---> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation_(philosophy)Yes, that is basically what is implied by the article, and also what is required for Christians to be able to take the blame off God and place it on to human free will for evil and suffering.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 2, 2017 21:51:33 GMT
I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever made a decision to disbelieve in God by reasoning about free will. It seems highly unlikely to me, mostly because of the philosophical murkiness surrounding the concept of free will (at least in my opinion). To me the far more effective path is reasoning based on a scientific understanding of the universe, and concluding that the god(s) as depicted by the ancient religions are highly unlikely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 21:58:51 GMT
I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever made a decision to disbelieve in God by reasoning about free will. It seems highly unlikely to me, mostly because of the philosophical murkiness surrounding the concept of free will (at least in my opinion). To me the far more effective path is reasoning based on a scientific understanding of the universe, and concluding that the god(s) as depicted by the ancient religions are highly unlikely. Epicurus' quote comes up rather commonly, although I would think that most people don't necessarily couple that with the realisation that libertarian free will cannot exist. Free will is even more nonsensical than the Christian God. At least it's possible to imagine a world created by the Christian God. It's not even possible to imagine a universe in which libertarian free will obtains. The reason being that if you ever got down to the level of how free will could operate, you find yourself bogged down in incoherence. If anyone could explain how libertarian free will could operate in logical terms, then I would be impressed. I don't think that it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 2, 2017 22:10:05 GMT
I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever made a decision to disbelieve in God by reasoning about free will. It seems highly unlikely to me, mostly because of the philosophical murkiness surrounding the concept of free will (at least in my opinion). To me the far more effective path is reasoning based on a scientific understanding of the universe, and concluding that the god(s) as depicted by the ancient religions are highly unlikely. Epicurus' quote comes up rather commonly, although I would think that most people don't necessarily couple that with the realisation that libertarian free will cannot exist. Free will is even more nonsensical than the Christian God. At least it's possible to imagine a world created by the Christian God. It's not even possible to imagine a universe in which libertarian free will obtains. The reason being that if you ever got down to the level of how free will could operate, you find yourself bogged down in incoherence. If anyone could explain how libertarian free will could operate in logical terms, then I would be impressed. I don't think that it can be done. I think that the people who could perhaps give the best input, might be neuro-scientists using scientific analysis of the chemical and physical processes of how conscious human thoughts are manufactured in the brain. This ties nicely in with the thread topic, also, I think.
|
|