Exposing "free will" as no answer - does not make "determinism" a realistic explanation ;- ) {incomplete...}

Hey Stephen, how about getting yourself back over to the Beheading thread and defending your assertion that killing innocent people can be justified?

... I cannot help that I do not like Brussels sprouts...
I think that if you really needed to change your level of desire for brussel sprouts, you could.
... I cannot help that I do not like Brussels sprouts...
I think that if you really needed to change your level of desire for brussel sprouts, you could. Hunger can be a strong motivator.
We are decision making machines, decisions result in feedbacks we constantly assess. We also have desires and goals we work towards, We make choices that we learn to moderate depending on feedbacks we receive, in light of goals we desire. and so on and so forth
I agree with all of that.
And that's what your simple acquiesce of this "determinism" sounds like, withdrawal into something cozy less challenging then actually living life in the moment, since according to the words I hear from you - the moment doesn't belong to you anyways. }
That sounds like fatalism. Fatalism need not go hand in hand with a belief in determinism (and it usually doesn't). We have freedom and we probably do have some conscious control over our actions (just not the quick and arbitrary ones, which appear to be decided as much as several seconds before we're aware of them), we just don't have what most people think of when they think of "free will". If you still want to call it "free will", then you're a compatibilist. If not, you're an incompatibilist.
What are you saying here, they you believe in determinism after all?
Find one place where I deny that I think that we, for all practical purposes, are determined. Again, you haven't even started to understand what I defend. How can you argue against a standpoint that is totally unclear to you?
I am not the one denying the exiatence of a determined decision machine.
Who is?
I don't overlook anything, but you do. And you contradict yourself.
Without saying which of my propositions contradict each other, this remark is useless. And what am I overlooking? Did I miss an important question or argument of yours? Which one(s)?
That sounds like fatalism. Fatalism need not go hand in hand with a belief in determinism (and it usually doesn't).
Philosophically seen: sure, fatalism does not logically follow from determinism. But from my personal experience, many people associate them. They derive a 'it doesn't change anything' from it. Logically incorrect of course.
We have freedom and we probably do have some conscious control over our actions (just not the quick and arbitrary ones, which appear to be decided as much as several seconds before we're aware of them), we just don't have what most people think of when they think of "free will".
That is not quite correct. I already gave the example of training several times: when people practice, e.g. car driving or tennis, they learn, amongst others, to react fast on changing circumstances. By training, one could say, they produce 'short cuts' in their brains, so that many of their reactions will be automatically, but still adequate. They can already react before they have to be consciously aware of it. Afterwards they will be able to give a rational reconstruction of why they did what we did (e.g. they braked for a child unexpectedly running on the street), and claim the action as theiraction, done out of free will. And I think it is justified to say so, just because you trained for it. Roger Federer trained tennis to react faster than his consciousness would allow. I assume you are referring to Libet]- and Libet-like experiments. One of the weaknesses of these experiments is that what the subjects are supposed to do, is doing it with no reason to do it at all. This is hardly a model of free will, is it? Edit: typos
All determinism is, is the idea that there is one physically possible future that can be arrived at from the distant past.
And to me that ignores the complexity of life. {it's like long winded discussions questioning the "reality" of time - we live on this physical planet within this physical realm and the passage of time infusing everything, so get over it and get on with living in it.} Your words smack too much of pre-determinism to offer anything of substance. Again, instead of divining what I'm thinking, wish you could focus on clarify what you are thinking. I wanted to write more but the typing just woke up my baby - and my nature dictates I stop pounding on the keys and allow her to sleep. Later. :)
All determinism is, is the idea that there is one physically possible future that can be arrived at from the distant past.
And to me that ignores the complexity of life. Why? Perhaps an example would help?
{it's like long winded discussions questioning the "reality" of time - we live on this physical planet within this physical realm and the passage of time infusing everything, so get over it and get on with living in it.} Your words smack too much of pre-determinism to offer anything of substance.
My words just are what causal determinism means CC. I also gave an encyclopedia definition. You should take that definition of determinism to be correct. Anything else is indeterminism. Don't fall into the trap of fudging the meaning of (causal) determinism. The claim is real freedom, control/influence and responsibility must be compatible with determinism.
Again, instead of divining what I'm thinking, wish you could focus on clarify what you are thinking.
I have formed clarity. I write the main points in the clearest most concise way I know how. And I continue to try to be clear by answering your questions. What you don't do is answer mine. You will not understand any of this if you don't answer questions because that is how we find out. On divining what you're thinking, I'm sorry I did that again. The problem is GdB wrote as if he agrees with you and that would mislead you. GdB accepts determinism as I define it, for practical purposes and does not reach your conclusions about what that would mean for us. He doesn't think independence from the past gets us anything, he accepts a necessary physical connection with what we do now and the distant past. A couple of useful links: http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/philosophy/docs/bradley/determinism.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism
I wanted to write more but the typing just woke up my baby - and my nature dictates I stop pounding on the keys and allow her to sleep. Later. :)
That's good :-)
What are you saying here, they you believe in determinism after all?
This is extraordinary after all GdB has written, because he says that over and over. But what happens is that gets interpreted to mean something else because he also believes in Free Will. Something similar has been going on with CC and before him with Writer4u. It shows how misled people are by compatibilism, not that they aren't also mislead by other strategies. Anyhow Lois, as we've discussed there are at least two versions of Free will. 1) As you describe well at times, which is called Contra-Causal Free Will or Libertarian Free will 2) Compatibilist Free Will Here is a way to look at compatibilist Free Will. I'm robbed at gun point and am asked this question "Did you want to hand your money over" My answer is "No I didn't want to, I had to" . I Give a bike away for free, for the raffle at the school my Grandson goes to and I'm asked this question "Did you want to give the bike away" My answer is "Yes, I didn't have to I wanted to"
Here is a way to look at compatibilist Free Will. I'm robbed at gun point and am asked this question "Did you want to hand your money over" My answer is "No I didn't want to, I had to" . I Give a bike away for free, for the raffle at the school my Grandson goes to and I'm asked this question "Did you want to give the bike away" My answer is "Yes, I didn't have to I wanted to"
Only got a second - but these simplistic examples you present - explain nothing - they simply sidestep the complexity of life - it's not black and white. It's like using Schrödinger's cat to explain event's in the macro world a la Deepak. Just like constantly focusing on what you believe others are thinking, is simply your way of avoiding explaining yourself in a more meaningful way.
A couple of useful links: http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/philosophy/docs/bradley/determinism.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism
Thanks for the link, did a quick scan of first pages - looks interesting and later I'll get back to it when I have the time to let it soak in.
"Be careful with concepts and the words in which we express them."
good advice. like I've tried saying before I'm not actually advocating anything, still trying to sort it out in light of my own experiences.
Here is a way to look at compatibilist Free Will. I'm robbed at gun point and am asked this question "Did you want to hand your money over" My answer is "No I didn't want to, I had to" . I Give a bike away for free, for the raffle at the school my Grandson goes to and I'm asked this question "Did you want to give the bike away" My answer is "Yes, I didn't have to I wanted to"
Only got a second - but these simplistic examples you present - explain nothing - they simply sidestep the complexity of life - it's not black and white. Really they do explain the difference between compatibilist Free choices and compatibilist Unfree Choices. I don't understand why you are so negative about this. Sure there are more complexities but this is a good place to start. The point is there is a sense of "had to" and "didn't have to" in these examples which is compatible with determinism because it's being used in contrast with being able to do what we want, not in contrast with indeterminism.
Just like constantly focusing on what you believe others are thinking, is simply your way of avoiding explaining yourself in a more meaningful way.
Seriously I am explaining myself in a meaningful way. Why it means nothing to you I don't know.
I assume you are referring to Libet]- and Libet-like experiments. One of the weaknesses of these experiments is that what the subjects are supposed to do, is doing it with no reason to do it at all. This is hardly a model of free will, is it?
I completely agree.
Hey Stephen, how about getting yourself back over to the Beheading thread and defending your assertion that killing innocent people can be justified?
Ad hominem attack. It's against CFI Forum rules. Ithought better of you. If you can't argue a point with good arguments and acceptable debating tactics, refrain from participating. Lois
A theist could also say he has no control over what happens. Is he also a nihilist? Would a theist say god is in control or not?
Interesting thought. But in the case of Christianity it doesn't work: to rightly reward or punish people who did good or bad, free will is needed. Only Libertarian Free Will would do. A good god couldn't rightly punish or reward us, it would be impossible. That's why we cannot be morally responsible as ordinarily understood. But humans do act responsibly because we are determined to do so. One does not have to believe in free will to have feelings of responsibility. We just don't consciously control it---and determinists know better than to claim that only free will can drive responsibilie behavior. It is inherent in our determining factors. Any failures in responsible behavior are determined abberrations and have nothing to do with free will. Lois

Lois, I think where you go wrong, is not in your steadfast claim that all of our behavior is determined. I am with you on that.
Where I think that you go wrong is in going an extra, indefensible, step, in claiming that any awareness or conscious action, on our part, can play no part in the myriad of determining factors for our behavior.
The Libet experiments are completely insufficient, by themselves, to jump to such a conclusion.
What you sometimes claim requires something beyond saying "Perceiving one’s self as having libertarian free will, is illusory.. In that claim I’m with you.
But you have also seemed to claim, at times, that everything, that we are ever aware of, and every action that we consciously take or perceive, can have no influence on our subsequent behavior. I can’t be with you on that. It is an “extraordinary” (I say euphemistically) claim for which you supply no evidence.

Lois, I think where you go wrong, is not in your steadfast claim that all of our behavior is determined. I am with you on that. Where I think that you go wrong is in going an extra, indefensible, step, in claiming that any awareness or conscious action, on our part, can play no part in the myriad of determining factors for our behavior. The Libet experiments are completely insufficient, by themselves, to jump to such a conclusion. What you sometimes claim requires something beyond saying "Perceiving one's self as having libertarian free will, is illusory.. In that claim I'm with you. But you have also seemed to claim, at times, that everything, that we are ever aware of, and every action that we consciously take or perceive, can have no influence on our subsequent behavior. I can't be with you on that. It is an "extraordinary" (I say euphemistically) claim for which you supply no evidence.
Please show evidence that free will exists or that our conscious decisions can influence behavior. Until you can, the default is 100% determinism. We know for a fact that determinism is true. So far, free will is without evidence of any kind. It is exactly on the same plane as claims that a god exists and there is exactly the same amount of evidence for it. Both are empty claims for which other explanations that have evidence in their corners is available. Lois
Please show evodence that free will exists ort hat our conscious decisions can influence behavior. Until you can, the default is 100% determinism. We know for a fact that dwterminism is true. So far, free will is without evidence of any kind. It is exactly on the same plane as claims that a god exists and there is exactly the same amunt of evidence for it. Both are empty claims for which other explanations that have evidence in their corners is available.
Personally, I don't see any contradiction between determinism and the idea that we have some conscious control of our destiny. At bottom, it may all be predetermined (with some randomness thrown in), but that's no reason to conclude that our consciousness can't direct our actions.
They both miss the mark! I've had a chance to do some musing, but will spare you the details. In terms of that thing I've said before: I am no more controlled by determinism than a fish is controlled by water. Determinism doesn't claim we are determined by the atmosphere. You apparently don't knowthe first thing about detrminism. Anyone who does would never make such an inane statement. By that I mean we are aswim in determining factors and chains of events. So much so ... that they are no longer in total control. Living an engaged life, every moment demands choices that steer our actions (or doing nothing, which is an 'action in itself') Those actions produce feed backs, that influence the future flow of events. ... … independent of anything about my 'grandpa' though his blood flows through my veins. (along with 7 other grandparents, not to mention all the 'others' when we look beyond great-grand-parents, etc, all the way down the line of originating evolutionary determinations) What I'm getting at is that though "Free Will" may be nonsense - The sort of "Determinism" I hear Lois and others subscribe to is even worse. It's nihilistic and about as useful as becoming a heroin junky, not to put too fine a point on it :coolsmirk:
That's another thing no person who knows the first thing about determinism--or rational thought--would say or even think
Please show evodence that free will exists ort hat our conscious decisions can influence behavior. Until you can, the default is 100% determinism. We know for a fact that dwterminism is true. So far, free will is without evidence of any kind. It is exactly on the same plane as claims that a god exists and there is exactly the same amunt of evidence for it. Both are empty claims for which other explanations that have evidence in their corners is available.
Personally, I don't see any contradiction between determinism and the idea that we have some conscious control of our destiny. At bottom, it may all be predetermined (with some randomness thrown in), but that's no reason to conclude that our consciousness can't direct our actions. I don't think our consciousness does direct our decisions though. We are conscious of some of the factors that go into the decisions. But what being conscious is doing, if anything, is mysterious so far.