If it were true that there was one possible future you could have got to from the actual circumstances of your birth,
This is pure Pollock to me.
From July 55 to now there were as many possible futures as there are between how and the future.
What's freewill have to do with that?
That sentence sounds like a rejection of randomness.
where do random, but far reaching impacts on our live's fit into this?
do you think that would have restricted your freedom?
I don't understand.
And I think you're way over focused on "freedom" "LFW" - and worrying about what "I" believe, it's irrelevant.
I keep hearing your assumptions, I'd rather hear you trying to define this "freedom" you take such umbrage at.
Does going down gnarly rapids restrict a kayaker's freedom?
OK you folks like offering examples, here’s one of mine to consider:
A person is hitchhiking on a road, his determining factors have put him there.
The next ride comes, he looks in the vehicle and unless all systems scream run,
he will get in that vehicle and join in on the reality of that driver.
Thing is, everyone who picks him up, are different people with different personalities and different agendas.
Our hitchhiker will not, can not behave/interact the same way with any two people,
each encounter is unique and each brings out slightly different aspects HH’s personality.
And each encounter will result in a slightly different outcome… which then lead on to their unique cascading consequences
How is this aspect of reality addressed in your philosophy?
Please notice I have not brought “free will” into any of this. :blank:
I keep hearing your assumptions, I'd rather hear you trying to define this "freedom" you take such umbrage at.
I have defined it but the definition means nothing to you. It means nothing to you because you don't think about how you feel determinism would restrict you.
Basically you are putting your fingers in your ears and a blindfold on and asking me to show you.
You need to start thinking for yourself, what would the implications of determinism be for free will?
Of course we know where to start since you couldn't have done otherwise given the actual circumstances of your birth.
Also there is no cartoon here, this probably is the reality of the situation. Think about the cards, note how you could be dealt any card but only the one you get is possible given the order the cards started in and the deal.
OK you folks like offering examples, here's one of mine to consider:
A person is hitchhiking on a road, his determining factors have put him there.
The next ride comes, he looks in the vehicle and unless all systems scream run,
he will get in that vehicle and join in on the reality of that driver.
Thing is, everyone who picks him up, are different people with different personalities and different agendas.
Our hitchhiker will not, can not behave/interact the same way with any two people,
each encounter is unique and each brings out slightly different aspects HH's personality.
And each encounter will result in a slightly different outcome… which then lead on to their unique cascading consequences
How is this aspect of reality addressed in your philosophy?
Please notice I have not brought "free will" into any of this. :blank:
You are saying slightly different circumstances produce different, sometimes very different outcomes.
Well it's what we'd expect.
All determinism says is there is one possible outcome given the circumstances precisely as they were (like with the cards)
Indeterminism is the idea that different results could follow from exactly the same initial conditions. Think about the card example. Indeterminism is weird to us.
each encounter is unique and each brings out slightly different aspects HH's personality.
And each encounter will result in a slightly different outcome…
I hope you see how you are thinking in terms of determinism. There is an assumption above that there is one possible outcome that will be arrived at from each slightly different situation.
each encounter is unique and each brings out slightly different aspects HH's personality.
And each encounter will result in a slightly different outcome…
I hope you see how you are thinking in terms of determinism. There is an assumption above that there is one possible outcome that will be arrived at from each slightly different situation.Up until you telling me what I'm thinking you were doing great.
Thanks for the info.
====================
Maybe I could get you to answer you're own question here… nah
how about simply explaining this question.
If it were true that there was one possible future you could have got to from the actual circumstances of your birth, do you think that would have restricted your freedom?
====================
Maybe I could get you to answer you're own question here… nah
how about simply explaining this question.
If it were true that there was one possible future you could have got to from the actual circumstances of your birth, do you think that would have restricted your freedom?
OK. 1) You made that post yesterday. You chose to do it freely because you were able to do what you wanted. If you'd wanted to post you would have as you did, and if you hadn't wanted to you wouldn't have.
But 2) given the actual circumstances of your birth you had to post, it was physically impossible for you not to post *and* have that actual past.
For you to have not posted your distant past would have had to have been different.
If 2) were true would your freedom to post or not post have been restricted?
Citizenschallenge,
I’ll talk a little more about the hitchhiker example.
I’ll look a little deeper, just a little I don’t want to add more layers of complication than necessary. Why not? Because they are just layers, once you’ve looked at one the rest are just the same, nothing fundamental changes.
So Sam or Pete might stop for the hitchhiker and the outcome will be different depending upon who does stop. Total over simplification of course but that is OK because of what I said about layers.
What happens is Sam stops.
Now the thing is what do we mean by Pete could have instead? Well let’s look at why Sam got there first in my version. Pete was a mile behind Sam. He would have been in front but he stopped for petrol, he was just pulling out of the gas station when Sam stopped to pick the hitchhiker up.
The point is these two possibilities weren’t things that could have happened in the actual situation, obviously not since Pete was a mile down the road in the actual situation.
Citizenschallenge,
Well I guess my last explanation fared no better. Here’s another go, a bit of a wacky analogy it might work.
So I’m playing poker and I need an Ace. I don’t get one and lose all my money. After the game I take the pack of cards and say to them “look here all you had to do was give me an Ace how hard can it be?”
The pack says to me “but I couldn’t”
I say “of course you could you are capable of producing any of 52 cards, aren’t you?”
The pack says “yes I am but I couldn’t give you an ace without either the shuffle having been different or the order the cards were dealt in being different, and neither of those things had anything to do with me so it’s not my fault”
So the question is do you think the cards had a point?
Citizenschallenge,
Well I guess my last explanation fared no better. Here's another go, a bit of a wacky analogy it might work.
Sorry I'm Holy Unimpressed.
In fact, if anything, I'm a bit irritated.
Between everyone ignoring
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17445/
Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY
as though what he's describing were some meaningless "externality".
And Lois' grand beginning to this thread:
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.
Lois
but then Lois folding up and disappearing and wholly ignoring GdB,
who certainly has a better grasp of these concepts then me,
{when someone with real interest is looking in}
# 121
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/202094/
~ ~ ~
I've listened to too many people trying to blow too much smoke, to go for anything that rings a flat as what I've seen in these pages.
Like I said before, as far as I can go is...
Determinism isn’t forced on me any more, or less, than water is forced on a fish.
And you're simple examples have nothing to do with the complexity of the real world or our navigating through it :blank:
And you're simple examples have nothing to do with the complexity of the real world or our navigating through it :blank:
Simple examples are fine.
You don't want to look and see so complain about the simplicity, as if complication would help. And yes they have everything to do with the real world since it's as deterministic for us as the cards.
Also GdB agrees we don't have LFW and that there are negative consequences of believing in it.
And there is little doubt that Lois has made an error, thinking that because we don't have LFW our deliberations don't influence our actions.
You believe in LFW you feel you want it, you don't want to let it go or look into it. Very understandable but it has nothing to do with the debate or the facts.
You don't want to look and see so complain about the simplicity
You're lucky we aren't sitting at the bar, since I have a couple words for you (and Lois ??? :-/ ) hiding behind your presumptuousness in order to justify your simpleton assessment of the question.
ONE LAST TIME:
PLEASE STOP TELLING US WHAT YOU PRESUME I BELIEVE !
YOU'D BE MUCH BETTER OFF TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW SO WELL :blank: :blank: :blank:
Something you aren't doing that well. >:-(
StephenLawrence have you even taken the step of listening to this talk and thinking about what he has to share about the science of the brain ? Remember philosophy without science is just so much bull shit.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17445/
Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY
OH… and I'm quite disappointed this is one seems to be going right over your head also.
Like I said before, as far as I can go is...
Determinism isn’t forced on me any more, or less, than water is forced on a fish.
StephenLawrence have you even taken the step of listening to this talk and thinking about what he has to share about the science of the brain ? Remember philosophy without science is just so much bull shit.
If I get time I'll have a look. In this case philosophy without science isn't bullshit. Assuming determinism you have to do what you do given the way the big bang banged. No science can change that. So what we are interested in is the implications of that for freedom..
OH… and I'm quite disappointed this is one seems to be going right over your head also.
Like I said before, as far as I can go is...
Determinism isn’t forced on me any more, or less, than water is forced on a fish.
It doesn't go over my head.
But it's also true that you are forced to do what you do by antecedent circumstances which have nothing to do with you (assuming determinism) and that's going right over your head.
ONE LAST TIME:
PLEASE STOP TELLING US WHAT YOU PRESUME I BELIEVE !
This is quite a special case, it's not like you can not believe in LFW,or at least it's highly unlikely, you'd be 1 in 100 million or something.
YOU'D BE MUCH BETTER OFF TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW SO WELL :blank: :blank: :blank:
Something you aren't doing that well. >:-(
Well, you say I haven't done it very well but I don't know if that's true.
If you take determinism seriously and check you'll get it. The distant past would have had to have been different for me to have done better. Assuming I've not done very well It's sheer bad luck because I needed the distant past to have been appropriately different to do better and the distant past has nothing to do with me.
If you can't grasp that there is nothing I can do. But you can grasp it if you think about it.
CC, I think Damazio’s video that you referenced, is a worthy attempt at understanding consciousness and perception of self. I would substitute the term “patterns of neurological correlates” for the term “map” as he uses it, as I think this would be a more precise and less metaphorical term. I wish that he also had expertise in the processes of verbal behavior, as understood by applied behavior analysts. (I also wish that he believes, as I do, and he may, that there are neurological correlates, or patterns of neurological correlates, for all behaviors, and states of consciousness, and for all thinking, dreaming, imaging, conceptualizing, remembering, sensing, communicating, perceiving, planning, etc.) as I think that both would enable him to, even more fruitfully, expound on his developing understanding of the topic.)
As to the relevance to the topic of “free will from the ground up”, I think that it is relevant because we could not have a sense of free will, and we could not even have CFW, without consciousness and a sense of self.
I would add, that I do not believe that we could have a sense of free will, and we could not have what Damasio refers to as our autobiographical self, if we did not have some minimal level, at least, of sophistication in our verbal behavior.
OK Ill try this CC
Do you believe A: We judge people as if they could have done otherwise in the actual situation.
Or B) As if they were prevented from doing otherwise in the actual situation (since there was only one thing they could have done in the actual situation) But would have done otherwise if their distant past had been appropriately different.
Really try thinking about which of these we do.
CC
LFW has two parts. The first is a mistake over what ‘could have done otherwise’ means.
So I’ve talked about what ‘could have’ means. I’ve also asked you questions about what ‘could have’ means.
But you show no sign of thinking about it.
If you want to understand what LFW is and whether you believe in it or not you have to think about it, not complain it isn’t being explained well.
Your hitchhiker example was useful and I believe my replies were useful. Numerous people could have stopped, Pete being one of them but he was a mile away. Could have in the actual situation?? Of course not he was a mile away.
Is that like real life? Of course it is. Is it like the cards example? Of course it is.
The meaning of ‘could have’ never changes, so you just have to get what it means and for that simple examples are the way to go.
And once you get what it means I think you will see the problem.
As to the relevance to the topic of "free will from the ground up", I think that it is relevant because we could not have a sense of free will, and we could not even have CFW, without consciousness and a sense of self.
All we need for CFW is beliefs and desires and for those to motivate actions, so we don't need consciousness for that.