We either have it or we don't. IMO, we don't. LoisThat's because you insist on only one meaning of free will. But if you accept more than one meaning then we can have free will and not have free will depending upon which meaning we are talking about. If you really want to further the debate you need to say why you are insisting on only one meaning of free will?
We either have it or we don't. IMO, we don't. LoisThat's because you insist on only one meaning of free will. But if you accept more than one meaning then we can have free will and not have free will depending upon which meaning we are talking about. If you really want to further the debate you need to say why you are insisting on only one meaning of free will? Because as I see it free will is the ability to overrule our determining factors. Either we can do it or we can't. I see no other meaning. You are right, since I can't accept any other meaning, we can hardly debate further. But I do have a few questions about how you can say there is more than one kind of free wiil. Can any of your definitions of free will overrule all of our determining factors, or just some of them? Does the overriding free will happen under all circumstances or or just under certain ones? Are there certain determining factors that can be overruled and certain ones that cannot? How does one know which ones can be and which ones cannot be overruled? How can you be sure that when one of your definitions of free will is in force and that it isn't actually being driven by your determining factors but you are unconscious of it? Do you think you are consciously aware of your determining factors to the point that you can consciously overrule them? Which part of the mind can separate itself from unconscious determining factors and override them? Do we have two or more minds, completely separate from each other? Do we have more than one mind? If so, are they completely independent from one another, one or some of them controlled by determining factors we are not conscious of and one or some of them not? Lois
But I do have a few questions about how you can say there is more than one kind of free wiil. Can any of your definitions of free will overrule all of our determining factors, or just some of them?Definition(s) of free will which are possible assuming determinism don't have free will overuling any determining factors.
Does the overriding free will happen under all circumstances or or just under certain ones? Are there certain determining factors that can be overruled and certain ones that cannot?None can be overiuled.
How does one know which ones can be and which ones cannot be overruled?None can be overruled.
How can you be sure that when one of your definitions of free will is in force and that it isn't actually being driven by your determining factors but you are unconscious of it?I assume determinism so assume I'm always being driven by determining factors I'm unconscious of including my distant past.
Do you think you are consciously aware of your determining factors to the point that you can consciously overrule them?I think overuling determinig factors is logically impossible.
Which part of the mind can separate itself from unconscious determining factors and override them? Do we have two or more minds, completely separate from each other?No part of the mind can overrule determining factors.
Do we have more than one mind?No.
Because as I see it free will is the ability to overrule our determining factors. Either we can do it or we can't. I see no other meaning. You are right, since I can't accept any other meaning, we can hardly debate further.Right. I had no idea why you were so naive to start such a discussion again. 'Free will is how I see it. Basta.'
Can any of your definitions of free will overrule all of our determining factors, or just some of them?None, of course. After so many discussions, you should have known. Let me try to explain with another example. You know what vehicles are. There are white vehicles , blue vehicles , red ones, etc. So here we have a concept, with an adjective. Now assume you only know of cars, and you come up with a definition: vehicles have 4 wheels. It fits, and whatever the adjective (white, blue, red) it is correct. But then somebody comes (GdLawrence), and says that there are motor bikes. You say 'that is not acceptable!' 'Vehicles have 4 wheels!' (Maybe you would add that a 2 wheel bike would fall over because 2 wheels are not stable: so a 2 wheel vehicle cannot exist, you don't accept it.) So here we have 2 kinds of adjectives: colour, which as long as you apply it to cars is just referring to a subset of cars. They still all have 4 wheels. Or the number of wheels: a 2 wheel vehicle is a complete different category of vehicles. So adjectives can refer to a subset (white cars, blue cars), or to a totally different set (motor bikes instead of cars). When we are talking about Compatibilist Free Will, we talk about something different: something that does not have your 'overruling of determining factors'. But which still can be a basis for assigning responsibility, for our practice of praising and blaming. If you cannot accept that, then a rational investigation on the question if Compatibilist Free Will can really provide this basis is useless.
But if you accept more than one meaning then we can have free will and not have free will depending upon which meaning we are talking about. LoisWhat about the difference between your typical sheople types who buy a simple story and proceed through life as though they are cogs in God's machine, never curious about what's beyond their blinders - As opposed to the inquisitive questioning mind that seeks new experiences and learning opportunities - rather than shunning them. Are we both the creatures of the same constraints?
Are we both the creatures of the same constraints?No. There is freedom from all sorts of constraints. That's possible assuming determinism so is no problem. But we are entirely controlled by circumstances beyond our control and so don't have LFW. That's a controversially way of putting it but I am trying to jolt you into seeing the point. Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." What he is saying is the want isn't in your control, the action is in the control of the want but where does the want come from? Either it appears due to circumstances beyond our control or we set of a regress back to circumstances beyond our control. In an important sense what we get to do is 100% luck and nothing can change that. We can't get a little bit of control (in this sense) the luck just stays at 100%. This is what Lois is saying and she's dead right. At first people don't like the look of this but when you get used to it you see we have all the power we could hope for given the situation we find ourselves in (situation in the broad sense) We're amazing choice making machines built by natural selection, how much better could it get? And rejecting LFW is very important for our ethics, I believe. When we accept people have no LFW compassion and empathy rise and our sense of what is fair changes. http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html
I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza. But what I think about this man I can express in a few words. Spinoza was the first to apply with strict consistency the idea of an all-pervasive determinism to human thought, feeling, and action. In my opinion, his point of view has not gained general acceptance by all those striving for clarity and logical rigor only because it requires not only consistency of thought, but also unusual integrity, magnamity, and — modesty.Not saying I've managed to live up to this b.t.w but being a determinist does help me.
But we are entirely controlled by circumstances beyond our control and so don't have LFW. That's a controversially way of putting it but I am trying to jolt you into seeing the point. Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." What he is saying is the want isn't in your control, the action is in the control of the want but where does the want come from? Either it appears due to circumstances beyond our control or we set of a regress back to circumstances beyond our control. In an important sense what we get to do is 100% luck and nothing can change that. We can't get a little bit of control (in this sense) the luck just stays at 100%. This is what Lois is saying and she's dead right. At first people don't like the look of this but when you get used to it you see we have all the power we could hope for given the situation we find ourselves in (situation in the broad sense) We're amazing choice making machines built by natural selection, how much better could it get? And rejecting LFW is very important for our ethics, I believe. When we accept people have no LFW compassion and empathy rise and our sense of what is fair changes.Well I'm at least following your words and perhaps hearing the concept… One reason it remain out of my 'grasp' is because it seems like this has been reduced to an either or argument with of LFW vs. Determinism and one wins… that why it reminds me of the nurture/nature debate where neither side can ever win, because real nature is more complex than our minds can tease out. by the way enjoyed that link.
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.htmlThough I gotta admit to getting this weird little tingle of satisfaction, or … perhaps relief, when I read something so interesting and learned and typo sprinkled. :)
For all those interested in free will, I suggest you post your own definitions of libertarian free will and compatibilist free will or any other kind of free will you bring into a discussion, You all use certain terms but it isn't clear how you each define them. Without clear definitions we can all agree on, we will never get through to each other and we wind up talking at cross purposes. Please, if you agree to give your definitions, make them concise and write them your own words, as you understand them and use them. Don't just copy an Internet or dictionary definition. Also define causal reasoning as you use it. Then maybe we can get a discussion of free will on the right path. Thanks. LoisHow we say anything is all about semantics so our definations basically end at the point we say them.
But I do have a few questions about how you can say there is more than one kind of free wiil. Can any of your definitions of free will overrule all of our determining factors, or just some of them?Definition(s) of free will which are possible assuming determinism don't have free will overuling any determining factors.
Does the overriding free will happen under all circumstances or or just under certain ones? Are there certain determining factors that can be overruled and certain ones that cannot?None can be overiuled.
How does one know which ones can be and which ones cannot be overruled?None can be overruled.
How can you be sure that when one of your definitions of free will is in force and that it isn't actually being driven by your determining factors but you are unconscious of it?I assume determinism so assume I'm always being driven by determining factors I'm unconscious of including my distant past.
Do you think you are consciously aware of your determining factors to the point that you can consciously overrule them?I think overuling determinig factors is logically impossible.
Which part of the mind can separate itself from unconscious determining factors and override them? Do we have two or more minds, completely separate from each other?No part of the mind can overrule determining factors.
Do we have more than one mind?No. Exactly! Some people who can't accept the idea that we have no free will will redefine it until they think they can make it fit. Pounding square pegs into round holes comes to mind. Lois
Because as I see it free will is the ability to overrule our determining factors. Either we can do it or we can't. I see no other meaning. You are right, since I can't accept any other meaning, we can hardly debate further.Right. I had no idea why you were so naive to start such a discussion again. 'Free will is how I see it. Basta.'
Can any of your definitions of free will overrule all of our determining factors, or just some of them?None, of course. After so many discussions, you should have known. Let me try to explain with another example. You know what vehicles are. There are white vehicles , blue vehicles , red ones, etc. So here we have a concept, with an adjective. Now assume you only know of cars, and you come up with a definition: vehicles have 4 wheels. It fits, and whatever the adjective (white, blue, red) it is correct. But then somebody comes (GdLawrence), and says that there are motor bikes. You say 'that is not acceptable!' 'Vehicles have 4 wheels!' (Maybe you would add that a 2 wheel bike would fall over because 2 wheels are not stable: so a 2 wheel vehicle cannot exist, you don't accept it.) So here we have 2 kinds of adjectives: colour, which as long as you apply it to cars is just referring to a subset of cars. They still all have 4 wheels. Or the number of wheels: a 2 wheel vehicle is a complete different category of vehicles. So adjectives can refer to a subset (white cars, blue cars), or to a totally different set (motor bikes instead of cars). When we are talking about Compatibilist Free Will, we talk about something different: something that does not have your 'overruling of determining factors'. But which still can be a basis for assigning responsibility, for our practice of praising and blaming. If you cannot accept that, then a rational investigation on the question if Compatibilist Free Will can really provide this basis is useless. Just keep hammering those square pegs into round holes, GdB. Keep on redefining free will until it finally fits your prejudice. That's the way to do it. Lois
Because as I see it free will is the ability to overrule our determining factors. Either we can do it or we can't. I see no other meaning. You are right, since I can't accept any other meaning, we can hardly debate further. But I do have a few questions about how you can say there is more than one kind of free wiil. Can any of your definitions of free will overrule all of our determining factors, or just some of them? Does the overriding free will happen under all circumstances or or just under certain ones? Are there certain determining factors that can be overruled and certain ones that cannot? How does one know which ones can be and which ones cannot be overruled? How can you be sure that when one of your definitions of free will is in force and that it isn't actually being driven by your determining factors but you are unconscious of it? Do you think you are consciously aware of your determining factors to the point that you can consciously overrule them? Which part of the mind can separate itself from unconscious determining factors and override them? Do we have two or more minds, completely separate from each other? Do we have more than one mind? If so, are they completely independent from one another, one or some of them controlled by determining factors we are not conscious of and one or some of them not? LoisFunny, I agree with nearly every answer that Stephen gave. Except this one:
How can you be sure that when one of your definitions of free will is in force and that it isn't actually being driven by your determining factors but you are unconscious of it?The problem word is 'driven'. You can be driven by other people, by work, by appointments ('busy, busy...'), by fear etc. The metaphor of being driven is too suggestive. You might also reformulate, and ask if you 'unfold the factors that determined you'. If you can you are free, if you can't you are not.
Just keep hammering those square pegs into round holes, GdB. Keep on redefining free will until it finally fits your prejudice. That's the way to do it.Also funny: you start a thread where everybody can give his or her definition, but you also say that it least must have the main element of your definition: having control of your on your determining factors. That means you are not even interested in a discussion. And did you know that square pegs can perfectly fit through round holes. They just must be small enough. You say that free will is not just being able to do what you want, but that it also means that you can want what you want. And even if that is obviously absurd, you stick to it. A question: how would you characterise the difference between somebody who can do what he wants, and somebody who cannot do what he wants? (Somehow I expect you don't answer this question: you nearly never answer questions of mine. Where I do answer yours.)
Just keep hammering those square pegs into round holes, GdB. Keep on redefining free will until it finally fits your prejudice. That's the way to do it. LoisIt's not a question of redefining free will, it's the case that there are at least two meanings in use. The thing is to look at examples and see. I gave the examples of the difference between a forced marriage and two people marrying 'of their own free will' and a voluntary charity shop worker and a slave. If you look at these examples you'll see that all parties choose to do as they do but we need to differentiate between the choices. We shouldn't treat all choices as the same.
Well I'm at least following your words and perhaps hearing the concept…Cool
One reason it remain out of my 'grasp' is because it seems like this has been reduced to an either or argument with of LFW vs. Determinism and one wins…That really isn't the case. I haven't argued for determinism. I've said we should assume determinism for the purposes of understanding the subject of free will. What one needs to do is fully appreciate what the problem determinism is for LFW. Once you do that you see indeterminism cannot make a difference. Back to this: Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." What Schopenhauer is saying is the want isn't in our control. You may wonder if that's true but how could the want be in our control? You may say 'because it stems from our character', but then the question just comes 'how could our character be in our control'? It's a problem of logic, LFW is simply impossible. You'll say 'but it's complicated' and the answer is 'no it isn't'. All that blocks knowing the answer is the desire for LFW. But thankfully LFW is not something to be desired.
Well Lois,
How is the thread doing? In my opinion just that happened what I predicted:
- You allow only for definitions of free will that contain at least some ‘control (or overrule) on your determining factors’. (here])
- You do not answer questions ]that are asked ('how would you characterise the difference between somebody who can do what he wants, and somebody who cannot do what he wants?), or, longer ago here]: some very clear cut questions, but you do not answer them (also a thread you started!)
- You do not react on the contents of an argumentation, but just react on it with a sneer ](‘Just keep hammering those square pegs into round holes, GdB. Keep on redefining free will until it finally fits your prejudice.’)
Add to it that it turns out that the idea of free will very well means something to you:
a. You made a difference between human and non human animals in the respect of having free will].
b. You post a great text about freedom here ](‘Free to judge and determine for myself’)
Maybe you say ‘yes but that is not the kind of free will I am talking about here!’. Very well. I agree that we do not ‘have control on your determining factors’. So let’s just do away with that. OK? You do not believe in that, I don’t either (it is a logical self contradiction anyway: if you have control on your determining factors, then these were not determining after all. So you are perfectly right that such free will does not exist).
Now have a look at the concept of free will you do use, that has some meaning for you: the concept that speaks from the points a. and b. Let’s flesh out what it is. That would be a rational procedure. That would be ‘FREE WILL FROM THE GROUND UP’ (btw, why did you use capitals?)
And then, if we have worked out the meaning of free will as you are using it daily, then we can look if this concept can bear the load of assigning responsibility, of our practice of praising and blaming.
Now what ? [insert big ear smilie]
or as some might ask…
Where do we go from here ? :blank:
or to put it another way
is all this talk about words and semantics and transferring perceived meanings and talking past each other ? …
or
How does all this relate to how we, as cognizant self-conscious individuals, deal with life, growing, mistakes, learning,
part-taking in our own individual passion plays - that is our personal drama’s containing their own elements sin,condemnation/spirtual deaths / personal redemption and rebirth … and such …
Now what ? [insert big ear smilie] or as some ask… Where do we go from here ? :blank:Well it's a question of understanding what the free will we don't have is. Understanding the free will we do have. And seeing what a difference it makes to us if we get this right. I think it makes a tremendous difference and LFW is the most pervasive myth of all. It's strange that even when people get that it's a myth and agree that almost everybody believes in it, they then tend to shrug their shoulders. There is a different attitude to this myth amongst skeptics than other myths. And, of course it's still the case that most skeptics, having rejected other myths don't reject this one, they still carry on believing in LFW
they still carry on believing in LFWoops, posted at the same time. How would you/others define what Libertarian Free Will is :question:
they still carry on believing in LFWoops, posted at the same time. How would you/others define what Libertarian Free Will is :question: LFW is: Could have done otherwise without the need for circumstances beyond our control to have been different.
is all this talk about words and semantics and transferring perceived meanings and talking past each other ? …A lot of it is but not all.
How does all this relate to how we, as cognizant self-conscious individuals, deal with life, growing, mistakes, learning, part-taking in our own individual passion plays - that is our personal drama's containing their own elements sin,condemnation/spirtual deaths / personal redemption and rebirth … and such … ==========================Well, I'll focus on mistakes and learning. We learn from our mistakes and the first thing to do is admit we've made a mistake. That is one thing disbelief in LFW helps with. Understanding that to have avoided the mistake we would have needed to have been in slightly different circumstances and were merely unlucky that we weren't, reduces the stakes, we weren't ultimately responsible for the mistake. We can lighten up a little and admit our mistake. Others can also give us a break, which again helps us to admit the mistake.
How does all this relate to how we, as cognizant self-conscious individuals, deal with life, growing, mistakes, learning, part-taking in our own individual passion plays - that is our personal drama's containing their own elements sin,condemnation/spirtual deaths / personal redemption and rebirth … and such … ==========================On sin and condemnation, there are still actions that cause suffering and we still strongly disapprove. But we realise the person who commits such actions was just unlucky in an important sense. He just drew the short straw since if circumstance beyond his control had been appropriately different he wouldn't have done it and if circumstances beyond my control had been appropriately different I would have. There but for circumstances go I. When we realise this it's very hard to hate him, nor do we think he deserves to suffer. Still sadly we need deterrents, but we see just how awful this is when we see that those who are used to deter others with their own suffering just drew the short straw. We would want to rely less on deterrents and be more interested in the wider causes of the persons behaviour if we disbelieved in LFW. We'd be interested in keeping penalties down to the minimum that works. We'd be more interested in finding out what does and doesn't work. How much punishment simply doesn't work and is even counter-productive? On blame, how often does blaming each other do any good? Sometimes it does but we blame counter-productively an awful lot, I'd say. And lastly how much bad behaviour is the result of belief in LFW in the first place? If it is causing us to live in an over hateful, over blaming over punitive world, I suspect that's creating quite a lot of disturbed people. And many bad actions are the result of belief that the person harmed deserves it.