Citizenchallenge
It doesn’t matter whether determinism is true or not. It makes no difference because any freedom and control we do have must be possible even if determinism is true. That is because indeterminism can’t get us freedom or control.
That is why determinism should be assumed for practical purposes and if you did that you might see what all this is about.
Really you’re hanging on to the idea that you have LFW.
There is no disputethat the rain makes the grass wet. The question is what made the rain fall on the grass to make it wet? Does the rain have free will?Nobody is defending that the rain is having free will. But I defend that the rain makes the grass wet, whatever the causes of the rain. So if you agree then can we leave this point. Now why do you not consistently apply this on the next point:
Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't prove free will. As long as deliberations are determined, no free will is necessary. The resultant actions come from the determining influences, not from free will.Your deliberations have influence, whatever their causes: just as the rain makes the grass wet, whatever the causes of the rain. Just stop here. Do you agree with this? If not why do you make an exception for deliberations? Just note: until here I have not mentioned free will yet.
There is no contradiction between being caused, and being a cause. So there is also no contradiction between your deliberations causing actions, and your deliberations being caused.Of course it matters what causes the actions--if scientific iquiry is of any importance to you. A scientist wouldn't say that because we deliberate that means we have free will. If you have no interest in knowing what caused amd controls the deliberations, as long as your investigations stop there, that COULD lead a person completely uninterested in understanding how things work to come up with the fantasy of free will. You need scientific inquiry in what makes the grass wet? The grass becomes wet because of the rain, whatever the causes of the rain. So why do I suddenly need knowledge of what causes the rain to see that the rain makes the grass wet? Why do I need knowledge of the causes of my deliberations to see that my deliberations have influence? Just keep at this point: my deliberations have influence. Now comes the next: we both agree that our deliberations are caused, are determined by previous processes or events. We both agree there is no magical interference from some uncaused supernatural soul or will. Right? Now I define: Free will means you can act according your own wishes and beliefs. You reaction:
Yes, that's exctly what it means, and my contention is that it is impossible for anyone to do anything that supersedes their determining factors.Huh? You say 'Yes, that's exactly what it means'. Now my 'contention' is: if that is exactly what free will is, then we have free will. If I can act according my own wishes and beliefs, whatever caused them, then we have free will. I agree with your idea that we cannot change the processes that lead to what we are now, but we do not need that. Your addition 'that it is impossible for anyone to do anything that supersedes their determining factors' is unnecessary. However, I think that your formulation 'supersede your determining factors' is extremely unclear. But we come at that later.
Only if you assume your wishes and beliefs happen in a vacuum or as a result of free will. If you wish to avoid in examining origins of beliefs and wishes, and going back as far as possible, then free will is as good an answer as any. You might as well say god did it and be done with the investigation. Why go any further? .No, and you already admitted that. Unless you have some powerful counter argument that you have not given yet: - you say that 'Free will means you can act according your own wishes and beliefs' is a correct and exact definition - you agree that rain causes the grass to become wet, whatever the causes of the rain - necessarily you should agree that my deliberations have influence, whatever the causes of my deliberations (see above) If we assume that in my deliberations my wishes and beliefs play a causal role, then we have that it is possible to act according my own wishes and beliefs, which means we have free will.
It does not mean 'having control of your determining factors'. If that was the case steam engines, heaters with thermostates, any servo system, would have free will, because they control their determining factors. See here].No, they wouldn't control their determining factors. But your contention is that humans can control their determining factors by force of will. The determining factors of machinery don't change because some of their actions are caused by a program or whoever created and installed the heaters and thermostats. All of the actions of the machinery are determined. You are the one claimimg free will, not me. Does the machinery with automatic systems have free will? Do the factors that determined the machinery's automatic actions become invalid because the machinery can seemingly act without direct control? That seems to be what you are implying. What can't work for machinery can't work for people. We are programmed machines that can't overcome our programming by the magic of free will, no matter how much you want it to be so. One of the determining factors of a steam engine is the amount of fuel that flows into the burning chamber. If this is reduced by the turning of the steam engine itself, it controls one of its determining factors. That does not mean a steam engine has free will. It shows that your criterion 'control of your determining factors' is worthless. Every servo system has control on one ore more of its determining factors, but surely no mechanical servo system has free will.
If an argument insults you, you should examine why you can't understand analogies. Feeling insulted isn't a good argument. It's more on the level of sayong, "No fair!" and taking your ball and running home.In the first place, you did not insult me, but Cit.pm. You seem to have a bad memory about what you wrote yourself, and to whom. In the second place, for insulting somebody the same is valid what you write: 'Insulting isn't a good argument'. If you want to build an argument against C.pm and you think he did not understand you, then try to explain how you meant it, where he did not understand you. You should have patience.
Citizenchallenge It doesn't matter whether determinism is true or not. It makes no difference because any freedom and control we do have must be possible even if determinism is true. That is because indeterminism can't get us freedom or control. That is why determinism should be assumed for practical purposes and if you did that you might see what all this is about. Really you're hanging on to the idea that you have LFW.Why are you so sure it's an either, or? I know simplistic LFW is false - but I see little real world value in this "determinism" business the way it's being formulated - because it leaves us with nothing and I'm getting the feeling it even ignores randomness, which seems quite silly. Also because folks explaining it seems to require them to use cartoon examples that are impossible in our actually physical living planet - so leave me totally unimpressed. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ For the record, my understanding is that LFW believes in some sort of divine intervention in our daily actions. ~ ~ ~ In my head and heart and gut, I can trace my essence back in time to the most basic cells finally figuring out how to make various biological processes click... etc, etc . . . ~ ~ ~ {no time to get into this, gotta run and sell some old doors and windows. But I'll be back.} GdB, good post in that you actually provide a (intellectually clear) coat rack to hang bits of understanding upon. ;-) CC
Citizenschallenge,
It’s either or because indeterminism refers to anything other than determinism
Again LFW is the belief that we could have done otherwise without circumstances beyond our control having been different.
My example I gave over your ‘duck’ comment might have helped.
Your refusal to think about what ‘could have’ means is telling.
Citizenschallenge, It's either or because indeterminism refers to anything other than determinismYippy, so like you say this is all about semantics - I don't do so good with semantics, I'm more into observing and processing though what gray matter I've been rationed - And these "either - or" formulations, don't particularly impress me, specially if you can't take it back one step and explain the background/reason for the "either - or".
Again LFW is the belief that we could have done otherwise without circumstances beyond our control having been different.Like I said I don't do so good with semantics, and I've read and reread your line until it's rolling off my tongue like a mantra, but it remains empty. one place I get derailed is this "control" - nowhere have I said anything about my controlling anything - "influence" perhaps, making decisions as I navigate each moment, of course. So right there, the sentence become ludicrous and loses all relationship to what I see happening in the active world around me. I hear someone implying that in every moment I can only do one thing, preordained by "determining" factors, (where does this leave randomness?). And if that's not what you are saying please do explain to the five year old me.
My example I gave over your 'duck' comment might have helped. Your refusal to think about what 'could have' means is telling.You can't even explain what "could have" means - and no, sorry you and Lois, a cartoon one-dimensional what-if construction ain't enough to explain anything ! You forget, I'm looking at all this from the perspective of what good is all this when it comes to helping people understand themselves, their place in the world, or how to navigate that, and so on and so forth. All that seem an "externality" to youz guyzies sentences. All you have is some sterile intellectual monument there. I don't care how much truth it might hold, it totally misses the dynamic complexity of the life we lead - it ignores how our own actions influence the future. to busy with staring at the frozen past. ~ ~ ~ PS. The refusal to directly address any of the following is quite telling also. :smirk: Or to explain how "randomness" fits into this Or my suggestion is that all this is about looking at the past, rather than towards the unknowable future . . .
I am an active creative force in that/my pageant. I didn’t “control" anything, I influenced everything. Determinism isn’t forced on me any more, or less, than water is forced on a fish.another "externality" I suppose . . .
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17445/ Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY
Yippy, so like you say this is all about semantics -No, a lot of it is semantics. People believe in LFW, it is influencing them. That isn't semantics. I gave a good example re "duck" explaining that our sentiments often don't match the reality of the situation. Hatred increases as a result of belief in LFW is one claim. Hardly semantics.
And these "either - or" formulations, don't particularly impress me, specially if you can't take it back one step and explain the background/reason for the "either - or".I've given the reason it's because indeterminism can't have anything to do with choice making, influence or freedom. You can find that out for yourself if you start by assuming determinism for practical purposes. But you are resistant to that because you don't like the look of it, you feel you will lose your LFW.
I hear someone implying that in every moment I can only do one thing, preordained by "determining" factors, (where does this leave randomness?). And if that's not what you are saying please do explain to the five year old me.Well, the point is so what if everything is preordained by determining factors? You see you believe you lose something, that something is LFW. The main stream theory is it can't make any difference to us whether everything is preordained by determining factors. Assuming everything is preordained by determining factors you need to be lucky to make good choices. Lucky that they were in the right state so that the one possible future was that you'd make good choices. So once you've got that the problem with determinism for LFW is luck it's fairly obvious that indeterminism can't help, since that is just more luck.
You can't even explain what "could have" means -Sure I can, the golf ball could have killed Dawn by virtue of the fact that there are true 'would have if' statements.
and no, sorry you and Lois, a cartoon one-dimensional what-if construction ain't enough to explain anything !It's not cartoon, it does explain it and if you think about it you'll see you live with an illusion, since you imagine 'could have' means could have in the actual situation in a way that makes the choice up to us, which is the LFW illusion.
You forget, I'm looking at all this from the perspective of what good is all this when it comes to helping people understand themselves, their place in the world, or how to navigate that, and so on and so forth. All that seem an "externality" to youz guyzies sentences.And I've said it helps with all sorts of things. Increased empathy and compassion, reduced hatred, more fairness, less tolerance of inequality. It makes the most tremendous difference but until you see through the illusion you won't see it and you wont see through the illusion because you don't take the approach you need to, which is to assume determinism for practical purposes and assume could have means 'would have if..' and see what the results are.
it ignores how our own actions influence the future.No it doesn't.
to busy with staring at the frozen past.Not too busy it's very important to acknowledge that people were prevented from doing what they should have done by the frozen past when blaming them. It's unfair and unkind not to. It's very important.
Or to explain how "randomness" fits into thisRandomness doesn't fit into it since it's just a luck factor.
Or my suggestion is that all this is about looking at the past, rather than towards the unknowable future . . .Well it isn't all about looking at the past. It's just about being fair and acknowledging that for us to have done otherwise the past would have had to have been different and we are merely fortunate or unfortunate that it wasn't.
I am an active creative force in that/my pageant.OK
I didn’t “control" anything, I influenced everything.OK
Determinism isn’t forced on me any more, or less, than water is forced on a fish.OK
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17445/ Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYYI wonder why you think this is relevant. Is he saying indeterminsm is playing some role? If not interesting as it may be, so what?
I know simplistic LFW is false -No at the moment you believe you would be restricted if determinism were true. So you believe in free will that would be impossible if determinism were true. That is LFW.
For the record, my understanding is that LFW believes in some sort of divine intervention in our daily actions.In a sense yes because it requires us to be causa sui so it's like we are little gods. And that's exactly what you believe we are if you believe determinism would somehow restrict us, which you clearly do. You'll say it's not either or but actually yes it pretty clearly is. You just haven't thought this through yet, mostly you don't want to. This might help: http://www.believermag.com/issues/200303/?read=interview_strawson
This was written before catching up on todays comments, I think it's still work sharing.Lois, what game are you playing? First off, Is the complexity of human anatomy and human life no different from a chemical reaction, or a movie??? YES or NO ??? Again have you listen to Antonio Damasio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY talk? and how would you incorporate that information into your world view?Right the complexity of human anatomy and human life is no different than a chemical reaction. Like that's going to help anyone understand anything.It won't. And what of it?
Is there some "rule" of humanity that says we have to understand anything? We have no control over "understanding," any more than we have control over anything else. We can think we understand something but we are just as likely as not to have it all wrong. What then? Who are you going to complain to?What's this!? Are you just angry and flaying? Jesus what is a humanistic life about if not the constant striving to better understand the universe around oneself through rational learning from one's own observations and by assessing and digesting the substantive learning others have achieved, you know, in light of the constant flow of new information? That is your belief, with no corroborating evidence. Lois, I believe there is no curiosity or science or learning, without a desire to better understand, appreciate the world around us. Good, you can believe anything you like. It has no bearing on the truth of the matter. People have all kinds of beliefs. Beliefs don't matter. You need objective evidence. If it didn't have spiritual and utilitarian value to humans it wouldn't exist. Do you have objective evidence to support that claim? And I'm hearing you say all that is nonsense. :blank: If I misunderstand please explain. What is nonsense is assuming that humans (or any animals) have the ability to act outside their determininhg factors. If you are proposing that we do, please offer one piece of objective evidence and an explanation of how our brains can perform this feat. What part of the human brain can step outside itself and supersede the factors that determine its thoughts and actions? I realize you don't want to think we can't do this, but you offer no evidence that we can. We know human thoughts and actions are determined by millions of factors humans are not conscious of. This has been established and proven by brain scans in laboratories under scientific conditions that show that humans make decisions before they are consciously aware of them. Where is the scientific and objective evidence that humans can overcome this? Show one instance when a human has overcome his determining factors by force of will--whatever "will" is. Try this website and take the quiz. http://www.choosedeterminism.com/
What is nonsense is assuming that humans (or any animals) have the ability to act outside their determining factors.And were have I made that claim?
Does “determinism” recognize The Arrow of Time?
What does “determinism” have to tell us about the difference between the “future” and the “past”?
Or are these concepts unacknowledged externalities?
Does "determinism" recognize The Arrow of Time? What does "determinism" have to tell us about the difference between the "future" and the "past"? Or are these concepts unacknowledged externalities?Determinism just means one future we can get to from our actual past. One difference between the future and the past is that there are things we can do now that will influence the future. That is usually assumed by determinists (and indeterminists)
Try this website and take the quiz. http://www.choosedeterminism.com/
For a long time I considered myself an existentialist…I surmised that we are condemned to be free, that we are each individually responsible for every detail of the unfolding of our lives.Well that was pretty underwhelming. "Are the particles of which you are composed subject to the same forces as other particle in the universe?" Of course. Again, it's a cartoon question, offering nothing to work with, in my estimation. How about asking: Do the particles that created water molecules act the same way as the particles that make up a DNA strand? Does the water molecule exert the same "free will" upon the universe as a DNA molecule?
What is nonsense is assuming that humans (or any animals) have the ability to act outside their determining factors.And were have I made that claim? Well citizenschallenge you are not being very candid. Probably you are not sure what you believe. But it's cleat you feel you would be restricted by determinism somehow and if you get to the bottom of that somehow it will be like Lois says, she's got that bit pretty much right.
What is nonsense is assuming that humans (or any animals) have the ability to act outside their determining factors.And were have I made that claim? Well citizenschallenge you are not being very candid. Probably you are not sure what you believe. But it's cleat you feel you would be restricted by determinism somehow and if you get to the bottom of that somehow it will be like Lois says, she's got that bit pretty much right.Nor are you being candid. Where did I make that claim? And as I've already said, this is more about me trying to figure out what you folks are talking about than explain my own personal philosophy.
How about asking: Do the particles that created water molecules act the same way as the particles that make up a DNA strand? Does the water molecule exert the same "free will" upon the universe as a DNA molecule?Does the question even mean anything? What is 'free will' refering to in the sentence?
How about asking: Do the particles that created water molecules act the same way as the particles that make up a DNA strand? Does the water molecule exert the same "free will" upon the universe as a DNA molecule?Does the question even mean anything? What is 'free will' refering to in the sentence? It's there just to jostle you folks a little. ;-P OK does the water molecule exert the same kind of influence over the universe as a DNA molecule?
What is nonsense is assuming that humans (or any animals) have the ability to act outside their determining factors.And were have I made that claim? Well citizenschallenge you are not being very candid. Probably you are not sure what you believe. But it's cleat you feel you would be restricted by determinism somehow and if you get to the bottom of that somehow it will be like Lois says, she's got that bit pretty much right.Nor are you being candid. Where did I make that claim? And as I've already said, this is more about me trying to figure out what you folks are talking about than explain my own personal philosophy. I am being candid. You are not trying to understand. To understand assume determinism to see what the problem is re could have done otherwise. Recognise that 'could have' means 'would have' if circumstances were appropriately different. Check that against what you actually thought 'could have' meant. Note the sort of opportunity to have done otherwise was not as you thought. Note how the new correct meaning does not fit with the sort of moral responsibility you thought we had for our choices good or bad. Perhaps you just wont get it but clearly you wont by us telling you stuff you have to look in the right place and see
Does "determinism" recognize The Arrow of Time? What does "determinism" have to tell us about the difference between the "future" and the "past"? Or are these concepts unacknowledged externalities?Determinism just means one future we can get to from our actual past. One difference between the future and the past is that there are things we can do now that will influence the future. That is usually assumed by determinists (and indeterminists) Isn't your sentence one and two a bit contradictory?
How about asking: Do the particles that created water molecules act the same way as the particles that make up a DNA strand? Does the water molecule exert the same "free will" upon the universe as a DNA molecule?Does the question even mean anything? What is 'free will' refering to in the sentence? It's there just to jostle you folks a little. ;-P OK does the water molecule exert the same kind of influence over the universe as a DNA molecule? :-) Yes the word influence always means the same thing, there is not more than one kind of influence.
You are not trying to understand. To understand assume determinism to see what the problem is re could have done otherwise. Recognise that 'could have' means 'would have' if circumstances were appropriately different. Check that against what you actually thought 'could have' meant. Note the sort of opportunity to have done otherwise was not as you thought. Note how the new correct meaning does not fit with the sort of moral responsibility you thought we had for our choices good or bad. Perhaps you just wont get it but clearly you wont by us telling you stuff you have to look in the right place and seePerhaps I don't get it because it sounds like contrived circular thinking. Of course given all your assumptions only one answer is possible. But, it still seems like something that's great for explaining what's happened - but not so useful in providing tools for navigating into the future.