The reason I give up, which I thought I had made clear, is that I can't accept he notions of LFW or CFW.
That is clear. But that does not make a rational discussion. You have not given one single argument against CFWI don't have to. You are the one claiming that free will exists, whether it's CFW or some other kind. The burden of proof is on you to prove any kind of free will exists.. I don't have to argue anything more than that you have not proven your claim. The defaut is that if you can't prove your claim that your claim is invalid. Adding adjectibes to free will does not constitute evidence of free will. It is nothing but a diversionary tactic. You have presented no evidence that free will exists. It doesn't matter what "types" of free will you come up with or what you call them. You have not proven that any claim of free will is valid.
. On the other side, I gave many in favour of it, but instead of understanding, and maybe countering them, you say:
You give arguments but not one has any evidence behind it. All you're doing is trying to redefine what free will is amd shifting the burden of proof. You still have no evidence. You can redefine it and come up with different forms forever, but without evidence, your basic premise fails. You are like the person who claims god exists and when he is challenged on evidence, argues in favor of another kind of god, thinking he can argue his way out of presenting evidence for his claim by changing his definition of god..
When that is thrown into the conversation it stops me cold because it's like arguing with someone who answers every question with a reference to god.
That shows that you have not understood it at all. I do not argue from some 'this-answer-it-all-position'.
And really, Lois, it is very clear that you always stop discussing free will when critical questions are asked and/or good arguments are given. You did that in also in other free will threads. I repeatedly asked you to react on arguments and questions I have given before; you never did. You do nothing else than trying to save your face now.
It's obvious to me that when you are asked for evidence, you change or redefine the claim instead of presenting evidence. It's the kind of a red herring theists use when claimimg god exists. I have yet to hear a good argument in favor of free will (any kind you might come up with) from you or anyone else--and I have yet to see evidence from you because you don't have any. If you did you would present it instead of trying to argue your way out of it. I have no intention of arguing with someone who has no understanding of the burden of proof and who thinks that arging and redefining his claim is going to relieve him of the obligation to present evidence for it. I have nothing to "save face" about, but you do.
The main reason we get so little progress on this topic is it’s very hard to get people to treat the subjects of LFW and CFW separately.
So CC clearly hasn’t seen through the free will illusion but since he won’t separate that out from CFW just thinks nothing’s changed.
Then there is Lois who clearly has seen through the illusion, understands very well what LFW is and that we don’t have it but just won’t accept that we often have free will by another definition.
It's obvious to me that when you are asked for evidence, you change or redefine the claim instead of presenting evidence. It's the kind of a red herring theists use when claimimg god exists. I have yet to hear a good argument in favor of free will (any kind you might come up with) from you or anyone else--and I have yet to see evidence from you because you don't have any. If you did you would present it instead of trying to argue your way out of it. I have no intention of arguing with someone who has no understanding of the burden of proof and who thinks that arging and redefining his claim is going to relieve him of the obligation to present evidence for it. I have nothing to "save face" about, but you do.
Let's say a theist defines God as the universe. It makes no sense to ask for evidence since you believe in the universe too.
What you might want to do is argue against using that definition
Same goes for free will, we've agreed that sometimes actions are motivated by beliefs and desires, so since you believe that too there is no point in arguing against it or asking for evidence.
Again what you might want to do is ask 'why call that free will?' and argue against doing so.
Like I’ve said before Stephen stop assuming and stop telling me what I believe -
all I’ve done is ask questions, listen, and poke once in a while Why are you so obsessed with shoving me in your preconceived nutshell?
As we know I’m an Earthy character and no educated philosopher.
If I were more learned perhaps I could put it in words for you to grasp, but until then I’ll just crew on it, thank you very much.
Very good that you reacted Lois.
But it is clear that you still have not got the point I am making.
You claim two things at the same time:
I redefine free will: I say it is CFW, not LFW
I give no evidence.
First is perfectly true. I do. I’ll come back to that. With 2. you should ask: evidence for what? For LFW? Of course you will not get that, because I think the idea of LFW is inconsistent and I think that we are practically determined. So if I give evidence, it is for CFW. But you keep expecting evidence for LFW from me. Why?
Let’s take your God example. Say, a Christian ‘proves’ that God exists referring to the Big Bang, the moment of ‘creation’. He defines God as the cause of the Big Bang. Now we can say: “OK, if you want to define God that way, you can do it. But now you must show that this God was able to lead the people of Israel through the Red Sea, or is an anchor point for morality.” And there our Christian might have a problem. How can an unknown physical cause of a one time event do miracles, speak with Moses, give his Laws, etc etc.
So, now I (well, many philosophers before me, I just read them and found their arguments convincing) redefine free will as CFW (‘the ability to act according your own wishes and beliefs’). So the burden of proof on my side is to show that CFW is consistent with determinism, can be the basis of our experience of free will, of our moral thinking, of praising, blaming, punishing, assigning responsibility, and even can explain why we have the illusion of LFW. Now this is what I did, dozens of times. What I did not: give evidence for LFW. And that is what you expect from me all the time.
So if you want to attack the idea of CFW, you must show that it cannot bear the burden of our societal praxis concerning free will, or that it still is inconsistent with determinism. Just to say it again: I did already argued in favour of CFW dozens of times. But you keep repeating that I should give evidence for LFW.
The middle ground is more rationality as opposed to pervasive irrationality. CFW is one rational idea that can be useful in our society being based on rational beliefs. Our societies are moved by many irrational beliefs, not just in the area of an understanding of free will.
OK. I just don't see why you call this 'middle ground'.
Though I generally strive to make my posts accurate, precise, concise, and insightful, I do not always succeed completely. The "middle ground" comment was a poor effort. On the upside, at least I know that you read my posts carefully.
Like I've said before Stephen stop assuming and stop telling me what I believe -
all I've done is ask questions, listen, and poke once in a while :kiss:
Why are you so obsessed with shoving me in your preconceived nutshell?
As we know I'm an Earthy character and no educated philosopher.
If I were more learned perhaps I could put it in words for you to grasp, but until then I'll just crew on it, thank you very much.
:kiss: :kiss:
It's not my own personal nutshell, you haven't seen through the free will illusion and just treat CFW as if it's LFW.
I respond to your questions but you ignore mine. Try answering mine and you'll see what LFW is.
This is not a deep philosophical topic so you don't need to be an educated philsoopher, if you did I wouldn't understand it.
I'll repeat a question:
We often judge people as if they could have done, what they should have done, without the need for there to have been differences in the universe, stretching back to before they were born, for them to have done it. We judge them as if there only needed to be differences within them.
Do you agree or disagree?
Perhaps CFL is a latent emergent property in the more active, engaged mind -
I'm guessing you meant CFW.
You see if you did it just shows you haven't grasped it. Lois knows we sometimes/often act in accordance with our beliefs and desires, it's just that she doesn't call that free will and if someone else does she imagines they mean more than that.
Perhaps CFL is a latent emergent property in the more active, engaged mind -
I'm guessing you meant CFW.
You see if you did it just shows you haven't grasped it. Lois knows we sometimes/often act in accordance with our beliefs and desires, it's just that she doesn't call that free will and if someone else does she imagines they mean more than that.
Not exactly. Our beliefs and desires are also determined by the same factors that thoughts and actions are determined by, so saying we act out of out beliefs and desires is just another way of saying everything is determined.
Lois
Perhaps CFL is a latent emergent property in the more active, engaged mind -
I'm guessing you meant CFW.
You see if you did it just shows you haven't grasped it. Lois knows we sometimes/often act in accordance with our beliefs and desires, it's just that she doesn't call that free will and if someone else does she imagines they mean more than that.
Not exactly. Our beliefs and desires are also determined by the same factors that thoughts and actions are determined by, so saying we act out of out beliefs and desires is just another way of saying everything is determined.
Lois
Looks like yes exactly Lois. We have no disagreement really, just a communication problem.
Lois
Everything is predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe (assuming determinism) which is very important since it means we dont have the sort of moral responibility generally believed in.
But once weve agreed that, we are interested in more proximate causes and choices are freer or less free depending upon what those proximate causes are. And that freedom is morally important. I’m sure, like me, you get grumpy when people try to get you to make a choice that you don’t want and recognise they are restricting your freedom.
That latter topic is important morally and for our well being and that topic also goes by the label free will unfortunately.
Our beliefs and desires are also determined by the same factors that thoughts and actions are determined by, so saying we act out of out beliefs and desires is just another way of saying everything is determined.
Yes. Neither TimB, nor Stephen, nor I deny that.
But we can distinguish between actions that are according to my own wishes and beliefs, and those that I am coerced to by somebody else. First kind of actions is called free, the second is not. If we correctly analyze what we mean with free will, then we will see that this is the only meaningful use of the concept of free will. It has nothing to do with uncaused wishes and desires, or 'control of my own determining factors' or whatever. We are determined, but when we can make above distinction, then it is meaningful to speak about having free will.
Before I forget, you did not react on my posting of yesterday].
... Lois knows we sometimes/often act in accordance with our beliefs and desires, it's just that she doesn't call that free will and if someone else does she imagines they mean more than that.
Not exactly. Our beliefs and desires are also determined by the same factors that thoughts and actions are determined by, so saying we act out of out beliefs and desires is just another way of saying everything is determined.
Lois
As I understand it, CFW is not just another way of saying everything is determined. Rather, it is a way of looking at what we perceive as free will, that is compatible with everything being determined. It enables further explanation and has utility. Saying that "everything is determined" cannot, sensibly, be used to say that CFW is erroneous, as CFW acknowledges that it is most likely true that "everything is determined".
And saying "everything is determined", end of story, as an ultimate answer to the topic of free will, (and using this stance to declare that CFW is erroneous or superfluous), is illogical.
Recognizing that "everything is determined" should not generally be used as an ultimate answer, to questions, but should be used as a framework, for better understanding of our universe.
Using the statement "everything is determined" as an ultimate answer has only barely more utility, than using the statement "It is God's will", as an ultimate answer. It effectively suggests that we know everything we can or need to know about a particular topic, so let's move on.
CC
I’ll try another question.
When we judge a person for moral wrongdoing we usually think that only makes sense and is only fair if he was able to do what he should have done.
Assuming determinism there is a sense in which he was unable to do it because he was prevented by his distant past being as it was.
So the question is do you think being unable to do otherwise in that sense is a problem for judging him morally responsible?
CC
I'll try another question.
When we judge a person for moral wrongdoing we usually think that only makes sense and is only fair if he was able to do what he should have done.
Assuming determinism there is a sense in which he was unable to do it because he was prevented by his distant past being as it was.
So the question is do you think being unable to do otherwise in that sense is a problem for judging him morally responsible?
Pardon me for butting in, but I would like to take a crack at the question.
At first glance, it would seem to most people, I think, that it is unfair to judge someone responsible for their actions if they could not have done otherwise.
However, upon further review, we can see that concepts of fairness, justice, personal responsibility, and morality are social issues, exclusive to living social organisms (that have developed some level of sophistication in their capacity for verbal behavior). So the question, I think, (in order to make sense) should be "is it fair from a societal perspective to judge someone as responsible for their actions, if they could not have done otherwise?"
So, for example, the industrialist who takes actions that make him fabulously wealthy while exploiting others and damaging the air and the climate, could not have done otherwise. The jihadist who, yells "Allah Akbar!' while cutting off the head of an innocent hostage, could not have done otherwise. The lucid psychopath who sates his lust by raping and murdering children, could not have done otherwise. Is it fair to judge them as responsible for their actions? ... Yes.
CC
I'll try another question.
When we judge a person for moral wrongdoing we usually think that only makes sense and is only fair if he was able to do what he should have done.
Assuming determinism there is a sense in which he was unable to do it because he was prevented by his distant past being as it was.
So the question is do you think being unable to do otherwise in that sense is a problem for judging him morally responsible?
Pardon me for butting in, but I would like to take a crack at the question.
At first glance, it would seem to most people, I think, that it is unfair to judge someone responsible for their actions if they could not have done otherwise.
However, upon further review, we can see that concepts of fairness, justice, personal responsibility, and morality are social issues, exclusive to living social organisms (that have developed some level of sophistication in their capacity for verbal behavior). So the question, I think, (in order to make sense) should be "is it fair from a societal perspective to judge someone as responsible for their actions, if they could not have done otherwise?"
So, for example, the industrialist who takes actions that make him fabulously wealthy while exploiting others and damaging the air and the climate, could not have done otherwise. The jihadist who, yells "Allah Akbar!' while cutting off the head of an innocent hostage, could not have done otherwise. The lucid psychopath who sates his lust by raping and murdering children, could not have done otherwise. Is it fair to judge them as responsible for their actions?
... Yes.
I don't see a reason why there yet Tim.
My understanding is psychopaths arent morally responsible b.t.w.
As I understand it, CFW is not just another way of saying everything is determined. Rather, it is a way of looking at what we perceive as free will, that is compatible with everything being determined. It enables further explanation and has utility. Saying that "everything is determined" cannot, sensibly, be used to say that CFW is erroneous, as CFW acknowledges that it is most likely true that "everything is determined".
Yeah, right. I took Lois' statement not very precise. I read it more or less as 'nearly everything is determined, but when we suppose that wishes and beliefs are determined too, then we can say everything is determined'.
Recognizing that "everything is determined" should not generally be used as an ultimate answer, to questions, but should be used as a framework, for better understanding of our universe.
What do you mean with an 'ultimate answer'? (I think there is only one ultimate answer: there are no ultimate answers...). 'Determinism' is the answer to the question if everything is caused without randomness. We know the answer: it isn't. However no form of randomness (pseudo randomness, like throwing dies or coins, and computer randomisers) or real randomness (QM) contribute to the question if we have free will. Exactly the opposite: without determinism free will would be impossible (funny, I've already said this dozens of times too, but Lois never even tried to understand it.)
Using the statement "everything is determined" as an ultimate answer has only barely more utility, than using the statement "It is God's will", as an ultimate answer. It effectively suggests that we know everything we can or need to know about a particular topic, so let's move on.
Interesting comparison... Lois thinks that CFW is a 'It is God' kind of reaction on the topic of free will.
However, upon further review, we can see that concepts of fairness, justice, personal responsibility, and morality are social issues, exclusive to living social organisms (that have developed some level of sophistication in their capacity for verbal behavior). So the question, I think, (in order to make sense) should be "is it fair from a societal perspective to judge someone as responsible for their actions, if they could not have done otherwise?"
Yeah, hit on the head. Free will is a kind of 'social construct'. It is definitely not a metaphysical category. But all my 'free will opponents' keep arguing on the (meta)physical level. Of course we have some 'physical requirements' for free will. A stone will never have free will. What we need are systems that can anticipate the future: that can evaluate different possible futures depending on its own actions. If such systems are able to communicate, then they can assign each other and themselves free will, responsibility, etc. But such a system is still a completely determined state machine.
If somebody could have done otherwise then means that we look if somebody had other options for actions, i.e. that it really there were different possible futures from his point of view. That means that we can analyse 'could have done otherwise' completely in its unproblematic, modal meaning. This meaning is completely compatible with determinism, even stronger, it is difficult to understand what causality means without using modal logic.
...
What do you mean with an 'ultimate answer'? (I think there is only one ultimate answer: there are no ultimate answers...)...
I was responding to Lois re: what I perceive to be a tendency to respond to many posts by saying something along the lines of "because it is determined", as if that is a complete enough response. (That is the sense, in which I used the term "ultimate answer", in that, ultimately speaking it is technically correct.)
"Because it is determined." is an, "ultimately" accurate, but woefully inadequate response to many questions.
Why does the wind blow? Because it is determined by the natural processes of the universe.
Why did I have cheerios for breakfast? Because I live in a deterministic universe.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because it was determined to.
(None are particularly informative or satisfactory answers, except for, perhaps the chicken question, but all are technically, ultimately, so to speak, correct.)
CC
I'll try another question.
When we judge a person for moral wrongdoing we usually think that only makes sense and is only fair if he was able to do what he should have done.
Assuming determinism there is a sense in which he was unable to do it because he was prevented by his distant past being as it was.
So the question is do you think being unable to do otherwise in that sense is a problem for judging him morally responsible?
Pardon me for butting in, but I would like to take a crack at the question.
At first glance, it would seem to most people, I think, that it is unfair to judge someone responsible for their actions if they could not have done otherwise.
However, upon further review, we can see that concepts of fairness, justice, personal responsibility, and morality are social issues, exclusive to living social organisms (that have developed some level of sophistication in their capacity for verbal behavior). So the question, I think, (in order to make sense) should be "is it fair from a societal perspective to judge someone as responsible for their actions, if they could not have done otherwise?"
So, for example, the industrialist who takes actions that make him fabulously wealthy while exploiting others and damaging the air and the climate, could not have done otherwise. The jihadist who, yells "Allah Akbar!' while cutting off the head of an innocent hostage, could not have done otherwise. The lucid psychopath who sates his lust by raping and murdering children, could not have done otherwise. Is it fair to judge them as responsible for their actions?
... Yes.
I don't see a reason why there yet Tim...
Do you mean why is it fair to judge them? Because, it is in the collective best interest. It is fair to society to protect people from other people who do harmful things.
...
My understanding is psychopaths arent morally responsible b.t.w.
Some psychopaths have a firm understanding of societal concepts of "right and wrong". Did you ever watch "Hannibal"? He had marvelous mental faculties (superior to almost everyone), and a firm understanding of "right and wrong", yet he was a cold-blooded killer/cannibal.
Regardless of what we deem "moral responsibility" to be, it would be a good idea, IMO, to put someone like Hannibal to death, ASAP (even though, in our deterministic universe, he cannot do otherwise than to serially kill people in the most intricate and devious of ways and then make aesthetically pleasing gourmet meals from their body parts).
