FREE WILL FROM THE GROUND UP

Humanism
41
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.
Doesn't this assume we have NO control over "circumstances" ? As in no influence over - yet "circumstances" are quite fluid and though I'm sure we may not "control" "circumstances", we most certainly influence how certain circumstances unfolds. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
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.
slightly off topic, but... Now you are touching on, IMHO, one of the biggest weaknesses of today's mental health system (within the legal setting) - they don't have a comprehensive appreciation for the difference between "reasons" and "justification" And many use "blame" as a bludgeon reaping vengeance rather than as a diagnostic tool for better understanding the dynamics of a destructive dysfunctional situation. But, then of course such a perspective demands an appreciation that none of us is innocent, {other than slavery and such forced situations} we are all dynamic elements in and enablers of the situations we find ourselves in to one degree or another! Pretending that anything is all "their" fault is deluded and the refuge of liars.
42
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.
First off, I was talking about the "Passion play" within ourselves, that many/most must traverse. The "sin/condemnation" I spoke of was self-condemnation and self-loathing for the sins we know we have committed. Nothing to do with other's words or other's writing or such. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ This talk is where all logic breaks down. What are we talking about? The split second decision to run that red light or pocket that diamond… or saying shit on that and following the rules. The split second decision to take a deep breath... before putting your fist through a wall… and walking away or suddenly being caught up in a whole new maelstrom of one's own making… ~ ~ ~ That's why this whole thing of LFW/determinism does not compute, does not compute, does not compute, it's words following formulas and not trying to look at how our real lives unfold. Because everyone is so busy trying to cram it into their own nutshell :blank:
43
Well Lois, How is the thread doing?
Rather than giving Lois a hard time, why not help out with this thread? :smirk:
44
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.
Doesn't this assume we have NO control over "circumstances" ? It depends what you mean by that. As you've spotted a lot of this is semantics. The fact is for any of us to have done other than we did our distant past would have had to have been different, assuming determinism. Clearly it just is a matter of our good or bad fortune what our distant past was. It's important to be clear on this, you may want to go on to question assuming determinism, but the first thing to do is to be clear on the sense of sheer luck I'm talking about.
As in no influence over - yet "circumstances" are quite fluid and though I'm sure we may not "control" "circumstances", we most certainly influence how certain circumstances unfolds.
Sure we influence how circumstances unfold but that doesn't change the sense in which it's sheer luck what influence we have. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But, then of course such a perspective demands an appreciation that none of us is innocent, {other than slavery and such forced situations}
OK so you need a theory of free will that is possible assuming determinism to deal with that. But it won't get us moral responsibility as ordinarily understood, that's simply impossible, we are all innocent in that sense.
we are all dynamic elements in and enablers of the situations we find ourselves in to one degree or another! Pretending that anything is all "their" fault is deluded and the refuge of liars.
This philosophy doesn't allow us to shift the blame, it would make no sense to do so. What it does is fundamentally change what blame is what fault is, that's the thing to get. Nobody is morally responsible in the traditional sense, so nobody can be to blame in that sense, so we can't shift the blame, there is nobody to shift it to.
45
The "sin/condemnation" I spoke of was self-condemnation and self-loathing for the sins we know we have committed. Nothing to do with other's words or other's writing or such.
OK well I think we feel better if we reflect that to have done what we should have done circumstances beyond our control would have had to have been different and we were merely unlucky that they weren't.
This talk is where all logic breaks down.
It doesn't.
46
~ ~ ~ That's why this whole thing of LFW/determinism does not compute, does not compute, does not compute, it's words following formulas and not trying to look at how our real lives unfold.
What we need a grasp of is what 'could have done otherwise' really means. Concrete examples are great. So looking at how our lives really unfold is useful. But don't give up and say it does not compute, that isn't true. So here is a concrete example. Dawn was riding her bike home and a golf ball flew over the driving range fence, bounced of the road and flew past her head missing by inches. She said "that golf ball could have killed me" i.e the golf ball could have done otherwise (since it didn't kill her) So what did she mean by that?
47
It depends what you mean by that. As you've spotted a lot of this is semantics. The fact is for any of us to have done other than we did our distant past would have had to have been different, assuming determinism.
What about all the rest of the stuff that's happened between the distant past and this moment? There's a lot of competition for which influenced you the most in any particular moment
Clearly it just is a matter of our good or bad fortune what our distant past was. It's important to be clear on this, you may want to go on to question assuming determinism, but the first thing to do is to be clear on the sense of sheer luck I'm talking about.
Of course this is true to a large extent, and I have given it much thought over the decades considering how much my blood, heritage, upbringing together with the particular innate lens of my own perception, have enabled my various adventures. But overlaid over all that is how I deal with the moments and I(we) don't always deal the same way with each moment plus there are a myriad of other influences that impact how our days unfold. And of course we also tend to rerun the skits and struggles learned in our first few years of life, that does instill a degree of determinism, but to me it seems more like lane borders, within which we maneuver. {when it comes to life I relate to the Kayaker type of control, more than the ridged dam builder's attitude.} I believe in enabling influences, but this talk of "determinism/LFW" still seems like little more than a mind game...
Sure we influence how circumstances unfold but that doesn't change the sense in which it's sheer luck what influence we have.
and what's that mean? After all , perhaps getting in the door was sheer luck, but then how one engages the ensuing situation is just as important and significant - and when dozens of proximal and thousands of distal "determinist" events intermingle in determining one's actions . . . Where does that leave us?
48
What about all the rest of the stuff that's happened between the distant past and this moment?
What about it? I just go back to the distant past to use something so obviously out of our control that there can be no doubt.
There's a lot of competition for which influenced you the most in any particular moment
Sure.
Clearly it just is a matter of our good or bad fortune what our distant past was. It's important to be clear on this, you may want to go on to question assuming determinism, but the first thing to do is to be clear on the sense of sheer luck I'm talking about.
Of course this is true to a large extent, Not to a large extent, the luck just stays at 100%
But overlaid over all that is how I deal with the moments
No, how you deal with the moments is 100% luck too.
and I(we) don't always deal the same way with each moment
We've dealt with that. Each moment is different, you are different too. Or put another way 'the same with differences' this is so important, not word games or what ever you thought when I first brought it up. This whole debate is over the meaning of 'the same' and the meaning of 'could have done otherwise' actually.
plus there are a myriad of other influences that impact how our days unfold.
Yes.
And of course we also tend to rerun the skits and struggles learned in our first few years of life, that does instill a degree of determinism, but to me it seems more like lane borders, within which we maneuver. {when it comes to life I relate to the Kayaker type of control, more than the ridged dam builder's attitude.}
There is no conflict with your Kayaker example and determinism, that's important to get.
I believe in enabling influences, but this talk of "determinism/LFW" still seems like little more than a mind game...
There is no talk of determinism/LFW. The claim is 1) LFW is impossible. 2) We should assume determinism for the purposes of understanding free will and your Kayak example b.t.w
After all , perhaps getting in the door was sheer luck, but then how one engages the ensuing situation is just as important and significant -
And how one does that is sheer luck in the sense I've given.
and when dozens of proximal and thousands of distal "determinist" events intermingle in determining one's actions . . . Where does that leave us?
It's just that we don't have LFW and so are not morally responsible in the traditional sense. Apart from that it leaves us just where you thought we were.
49
Sure we influence how circumstances unfold but that doesn't change the sense in which it's sheer luck what influence we have.
and what's that mean?
It means what I said it means. For you to behave differently circumstances beyond your control would have had to have been different. And if they had been appropriately different you would behave differently. Both these are examples of what I mean by sheer luck.
50

Citizens challenge
If you get time have a go at what Dawn meant by ‘the golf ball could have killed her’, I do think it will shed light on all this.

51
But don't give up and say it does not compute, that isn't true. So here is a concrete example. Dawn was riding her bike home and a golf ball flew over the driving range fence, bounced of the road and flew past her head missing by inches. She said "that golf ball could have killed me" i.e the golf ball could have done otherwise (since it didn't kill her) So what did she mean by that?
Does not compute doesn't mean I've given up. :) Are we talking about the ball's "free will" or the Dawn's "free will" ? And is this a fair analogy of the complexity/dynamics of interacting with people and events? ============================================= Looking at it from another angle, this is true of all jobs, but it's quite dramatic in food service, were I first came to recognize the importance of mental preparation for the job. By that I mean, when heading to work if I focused on the coming shift, my mise en place]*, thinking about the menu, perhaps reviewing our beers and wines, and my 'spiel' for the guests - the transition into work and then the rush of customers would go smooth. If however, I went to work with my mind all wrapped up in a writing assignment or some personal drama, I'd trip and sputter and get through a rough shift. My knowledge of my job hadn't changed, but the degree of focus I give it makes all the difference. What I keep hearing in these conversations is that I have no control over my mind during that half hour before work starts and that it was something else beyond my control that 'made' me either continue focusing on a project or mentally setting it aside so I could focus on the upcoming job. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * That's actually an anemic definition of Mise en place, since it leaves out the personal component of, employee mental and physical preparation (being clean, presentable and ready to go.)
52
Are we talking about the ball's "free will" or the Dawn's "free will" ? And is this a fair analogy of the complexity/dynamics of interacting with people and events?
We are talking about the meaning of 'could have'. Once we have the meaning for the golf ball we can apply it to people, the meaning won't change.
By that I mean, when heading to work if I focused on the coming shift, my mise en place]*, thinking about the menu, perhaps reviewing our beers and wines, and my 'spiel' for the guests - the transition into work and then the rush of customers would go smooth.
OK. So how could things have turned out differently? Answer: if you hadn't focused on the coming shift when heading to work. How could you not have focused on the coming shift when heading for work? There will be another if, and so on and so on. At some point we will bump into an if which is beyond your control, that's the point.
If however, I went to work with my mind all wrapped up in a writing assignment or some personal drama, I'd trip and sputter and get through a rough shift. My knowledge of my job hadn't changed, but the degree of focus I give it makes all the difference.
Yep.
What I keep hearing in these conversations is that I have no control over my mind during that half hour before work starts and that it was something else beyond my control that 'made' me either continue focusing on a project or mentally setting it aside so I could focus on the upcoming job.
Well what might 'having control over your own mind' mean? If you say 'what's going through your mind depends upon your want', for instance then we just get a regress to the want. What you can't do since it's logically impossible is get control of everything and as long as you don't, what I say about sheer luck follows. So back to Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." Even if you did want what you wanted you would just get a regress back to where the first want came from, at some point you will get back to something beyond your control.
53
So back to Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." Even if you did want what you wanted you would just get a regress back to where the first want came from, at some point you will get back to something beyond your control.
Then what the hell is all this blahblah good for in actually dealing with life as it actually unfolds for us? Seems like an endless regression of rationalizations. Intellectuals playing chase their tails…..
54
So back to Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." Even if you did want what you wanted you would just get a regress back to where the first want came from, at some point you will get back to something beyond your control.
Then what the hell is all this blahblah good for in actually dealing with life as it actually unfolds for us? Seems like an endless regression of rationalizations. Intellectuals playing chase their tails….. Ive said what it's good for, reduced hatred for one. Belief in LFW has influence. And no its not intellectuals chasing their tails. If we assume determinism there is an obvious sense in which what we get to do is sheer luck. At the moment people deny that. What youre doing is assuming that denial is doing no harm, without any justification.
55
So back to Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." Even if you did want what you wanted you would just get a regress back to where the first want came from, at some point you will get back to something beyond your control.
Then what the hell is all this blahblah good for in actually dealing with life as it actually unfolds for us? Seems like an endless regression of rationalizations. Intellectuals playing chase their tails….. Ive said what it's good for, reduced hatred for one. Belief in LFW has influence. And no its not intellectuals chasing their tails. If we assume determinism there is an obvious sense in which what we get to do is sheer luck. At the moment people deny that. What youre doing is assuming that denial is doing no harm, without any justification. OK sorry for flailing out… but can you, or anyone else, provide a simple but explanatory description of how this is supposed to help inform or guide an individual's actions and they face the flow of daily events. Or is all this about political sociological arguments? "reducing hatred" doesn't help much. Using "determinism" as some sort of counter balance to LFW {which is the one message I'm getting from your efforts} doesn't help much either.
56
OK sorry for flailing out…
OK.
but can you, or anyone else, provide a simple but explanatory description of how this is supposed to help inform or guide an individual's actions and they face the flow of daily events.
I think getting a grip on what 'could' means (you see people really haven't) will help with choices. But really it's about reflecting on what we did do. So if you are upset about something you did or somebody did, I think if you reflect on what 'could have done otherwise' really means things change for the better. I think what you need to do is get clear on what 'could have' means and try it.
Or is all this about political sociological arguments?
I think our sense of fairness is warped by belief in LFW so yes it is about that. But it's also about our day to day lives.
"reducing hatred" doesn't help much.
Well if I'm right that disbelief in LFW reduces hatred it would help a great deal.So it's that you're not convinced.
Using "determinism" as some sort of counter balance to LFW {which is the one message I'm getting from your efforts} doesn't help much either.
Determinism is a simple model so as long as all we need for this subject is the simple model it helps to stick with that. The point is to get what 'could have' means right. Maybe go back to the golf ball. Work through this and you may be pleasantly surprised at the benefits.
57


This might be helpful

58
Well Lois, How is the thread doing?
Rather than giving Lois a hard time, why not help out with this thread? :smirk: Sorry, it is not quite clear what you two really are discussing. What I think you are asking is why this difference between LFW and CFW is important. So I'll try a short answer, because if that is not your question then I am writing for nobody. I made a distinction in the discussion with VYAZMA in the 'beheading thread' between two areas of the human life world: the present occurrence of choosing for an action and how you look at it from a distance. For the present occurrence of choosing I see not much difference between LFW and CFW: you have a choice, and if this choice is undetermined or not does not make such a difference for yourself: a determinist must also choose what to eat in the restaurant. If this is 'contra causal', or determined by 'factors we have no control of', it will not change the fact that you choose. However it becomes different when you reflect on your choosing, and ask yourself questions about responsibility, right and wrong, maybe guilt. It also plays a role when you judge an action of somebody else: could he have done otherwise; or should he have done otherwise? It is obvious when somebody could not have done otherwise, the question about should he have done otherwise is empty. Maybe he should have, but he couldn't. Hard determinists (i.e. incompabilist determists) are inclined to say that because we are all determined, there is no way we could have done otherwise. that means nobody is responsible for his actions, and responsibility, praise, blame and guilt are empty words, just as illusory as the fact that 'you could have done otherwise'. So it is an easy way to get rid of all responsibility yourself. LFWers do it the other way round. In the extreme they say that everybody is responsible for everything he does, so everything he gets in his life is his merit, every doom his own fault. That is an easy way to sneak out of the responsibility for the bad situation others are in, but also a good way to be be very hard to yourself (blame), or unbearable for others (praise). CFWers hold that there is a perfect understanding of 'could have done otherwise' in the sense of real existing options: I can take the bus, or I can take a taxi. If I take the bus, and am too late to catch my train, I can get angry about my choice because I know I could have done otherwise: taking a taxi. I am responsible for the choices I can do, based on who and what I am, and what the circumstances are. But I am not fully responsible in the sense of the LFWer: I am not totally responsible for who I am. So I can find a way between the two extremes of not being responsible at all, and being completely responsible for my whole life. And the beauty of it: this concept of free will is completely consistent with being determined. If you regret your choice, then you can learn from it and do it differently in a similar situation in the future. So it makes sense to look back on your choices, and feel responsible for your choices. Your choices belong to the causal fabric of the universe, but your reflection might change how you act in the future. You can blame yourself for what you did. But not all the blame. You can praise yourself for what you did. But not all the praise. You are not completely self-made. Did that help? And about Lois: she just never answers my questions. I think she doesn't because she sees the problem. Maybe she doesn't want to judge too hard about herself, and incombatibilist determinism is the best way out, and she does not want to loose this comfort. (So much about trying a short answer...) Late night edit: typos
59
So back to Arthur Schopenhauer: “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want." Even if you did want what you wanted you would just get a regress back to where the first want came from, at some point you will get back to something beyond your control.
Then what the hell is all this blahblah good for in actually dealing with life as it actually unfolds for us? Seems like an endless regression of rationalizations. Intellectuals playing chase their tails….. Ive said what it's good for, reduced hatred for one. Belief in LFW has influence. And no its not intellectuals chasing their tails. If we assume determinism there is an obvious sense in which what we get to do is sheer luck. At the moment people deny that. What youre doing is assuming that denial is doing no harm, without any justification. OK sorry for flailing out… but can you, or anyone else, provide a simple but explanatory description of how this is supposed to help inform or guide an individual's actions and they face the flow of daily events. Or is all this about political sociological arguments? "reducing hatred" doesn't help much. Using "determinism" as some sort of counter balance to LFW {which is the one message I'm getting from your efforts} doesn't help much either. Does the truth depend on whether something "helps inform or guide an individual's actions as they face the flow of daily events"? Plenty of truth does no such thing. How does biology, for example, "help inform or guide an individual's actions as they face the flow of daily events"? How does any scientific understanding do that? Are you suggesting that we should accept as true only those concepts that "help inform or guide an individual's actions as they face the flow of daily events"? If we were to do that we'd still be living in caves amd believing that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around it. Does the concept of a heliocentric universe "help inform or guide an individual's actions as they face the flow of daily events"? Science itself demands that we not believe everything we see or imgine to be true. It requires looking beneath the surface and eliminationg untenable preconceived notions. Taking the position that science must "help inform or guide an individual's actions as they face the flow of daily events" would stop all scientific inquiry in its tracks. Lois
60

Stephen, thanks for the link. I watched it this morning so had a chance to think about it, this evening I took up rewatching and transcribed interesting quotes, it did clarify what some of the talk is about, and gave me much to wrestle with and better understand my objections to this kind of talk - since my gals out of town, I wound up spending hours at it, now I’m too tired to explain anything but I’ll be back.
GdB - thank you likewise and that was helpful in understanding the notion, I’ll be back.
Lois - sorry, but you must be joking.
I was asking about a philosophy not a science…
I dare say that I am most certainly looking under the surface…
Mind you I haven’t defended anything I’m asking, listening, chewing on it and sharing my opinion…
I reject “contra-causal freewill” but I’m not satisfied with this determinism thing
because from what I’ve read so far, it ignores too much of what happens within our bodies and our lives.
Incidentally here’s how I read your comment:

This is the Truth. The truth doesn't need to have a purpose, {does that mean it doesn't need to be justified?} If I can't accept it, that's my problem.