Praising and rewarding the dog works, so we know you are wrong.But it takes belief in LFW to praise and reward the dog? You said that was intellectually incorrect... Steve just quit. It doesn't. We know that is wrong because praising and rewarding the dog works and makes the dog happy. No need for belief in LFW at all. And people don't believe dogs have libertarian free will.
The illusion that we have, that makes us think consciously that we are choosing(which we also project onto others by way of judging or praising for example) cannot be changed. It is hardwired into our brains.I don't have the illusion I'm consciously choosing. I am conscious of choosing which is different. Also the illusion that we are consciously choosing (if there is such a thing) is not the illusion of LFW . You are talking about something else, that is the trouble. LFW is about CHDO.
I don't have the illusion I'm consciously choosing. I am conscious of choosing which is different.That's fine, "consciously" is a redundancy when talking about the illusion of choosing. And vice versa. "Consciously choosing" will suffice without illusion. I just like the illusion part in there because I'm a Determinist. We aren't choosing anything in reality.
Also the illusion that we are consciously choosing (if there is such a thing) is not the illusion of LFW .Right, let's stop quibbling down this rabbit hole Stephen...
You are talking about something else, that is the trouble. LFW is about CHDO.LFW is about choosing. Choosing is about "could have done otherwise". I'm not talking about something else. I just don't think you realize everything there is to know about the something we are talking about.
It doesn't. We know that is wrong because praising and rewarding the dog works and makes the dog happy. No need for belief in LFW at all.Why would anyone praise a dog if they felt it couldn't have done otherwise..ie act they way they wanted it to act?
And people don't believe dogs have libertarian free will.They don't have to believe the dog has LFW, but most people surely do believe their dogs have LFW. As long as the pet owner believes they themselves have LFW they can project the concept onto other beings. Hence people kicking their dogs or giving them a treat because they felt their dog could have done otherwise, but instead chose to do the right or wrong thing. But I don't want to talk about dogs and computers Steve. Simple tests can show that dogs choose things just like people. The tests can also show why dogs or people choose the way they do, but most people, you yourself I'm sure, would rather think that Fluffy chose the blue ball because blue is their favorite color or some such nonsense. The list of examples is exhaustive.
LFW is about choosing. Choosing is about "could have done otherwise". I'm not talking about something else. I just don't think you realize everything there is to know about the something we are talking about.Choosing is about CHDO in the same metaphysical sense that a chess computer or any choice making machine CHDO. LFW is something else.
Why would anyone praise a dog if they felt it couldn't have done otherwise..ie act they way they wanted it to act?To make the dog happy, to make themselves happy and to encourage good behaviour in the future. Anyhow the dog could have done otherwise, as explained over and over, you just won't listen
They don't have to believe the dog has LFW, but most people surely do believe their dogs have LFW.No they don't. If a dog is bad nobody wishes it rots in hell, for instance, everyone recognises it was just acting according to it's nature and didn't make itself. So a 'bad' dog might sadly have to be put down but we don't think it deserves it. You are simply wrong Vyazma, LFW and all the bad stuff that goes with it, like hatred, is reserved for humans only.
To make the dog happy, to make themselves happy and to encourage good behaviour in the future. Anyhow the dog could have done otherwise, as explained over and over, you just won't listenOh..the dog could have done otherwise, but the human that you want to show mercy on could not have done otherwise? So dogs are somehow immune to causal-determinism, but humans are not? The dog simply chose with it's own free-will to sit down when ordered to by you, and then received a dog treat for following your orders. So then I guess according to your own new revisions of your argument, it would be ok to beat the dog then-seeing as how it could have done otherwise? After all, as I explained to you, thousands upon thousands of dogs get beaten everyday by humans around the world because the humans felt the dog could have done otherwise. It doesn't matter if you think the dog has LFW or not Steven, it only matters what the person doing the beating or the treating thinks about the dog. Humans project naturally their innate consciousness of LFW on other humans, animals, even machines. I've seen people slam their fists on machines hundreds of times because they thought the machine could have done otherwise. Like I said Stephen, just quit. Quit hijacking 1 in 10 threads with your skewed and unbalanced thoughts of LFW and your ideological versions of "philosophy". Your arguments are inconsistent and pathetic. I've shown that you are not prejudiced against people who show signs of "belief" in LFW as long as their "beliefs" coincide with your own subjective views. It should be quite easy for even a novice like yourself to understand that LFW cuts both ways evenly. If blame is rooted in the consciousness of LFW then so is praise. But your nincompoop ramblings have made this thread draw out for pages while you squirm, regroup, rephrase, and weasel out more and more confusing rebuttals that are inconsistent.
No they don't. If a dog is bad nobody wishes it rots in hell, for instance, everyone recognises it was just acting according to it's nature and didn't make itself. So a 'bad' dog might sadly have to be put down but we don't think it deserves it.What are you high right now...? You have the authority to speak for people on matters of dogs everywhere? Is this what you are desperately trying to rest your argument on? So a dog that bit a baby's head off and is being put down... the victims parents don't think the dog deserves it? Stephen speaks for all people, everywhere, all the time on matters of emotions and behaviors of people concerning dogs...and possibly other things. :lol:
1.Oh so if we go back far enough we can find people who didn't think they were choosing, or didn't blame or praise people? Seriously?VYAZMA, as long as you don't even react on my arguments, and don't answer the questions I asked, you can yell what you want. I have said several times that it is not necessary to believe in LFW at all in order to choose, blame or praise. Show me why a determinist would not have the experience of choosing. And therefore he would conclude that others choose too. As long as you do not proof this point, you are beating thin air.
Where do you trace the idea of free-will back to? When did it start? And before that time you're saying people didn't "think" they had LFW? Somewhere along the way it was culturally taught to them?Yes. From the moment they believed in one God, who was omnipotent, all-knowing and good. Free will was the solution for the problem of evil.
2.Are you friggin' serious? Just off the top of my head I'm wondering how such a folk could have even been taught anything under such neurological conditions. A people with no sense of responsibility, no accountability, no praxis to look up to leaders, no method of following people, no method of having their accomplishments reinforced or their failures corrected...(all of this, and much much more requires an illusion of free-will)What you are yelling here is based on the same misconception as above. Proof that a person who chooses necessarily must believe in uncaused free will.
The illusion that we have, that makes us think consciously that we are choosing(which we also project onto others by way of judging or praising for example) cannot be changed. It is hardwired into our brains.Same thing again. We choose, even if we are determined. But not of everything we do we have conscious, long deliberated decision processes. But for some things we do have. Same error again.
However if you think the illusion can be unlearned-en masse, that's ridiculous. Unlearned meaning people can stop consciously thinking in terms of choosing-and by projection, that other people are choosing therefore creating blame and praise etc..Again you are hard connecting people's praxis of blaming an praising with the idea of LFW. It is only the believe in ultimate responsibility, and therefore earning all the praise or blame, that is dependent on LFW. Stop yelling, start thinking.
And you will never get people to think they aren't choosing, that they don't have free-will. It's impossible!!Proof it, VYAZMA. React on my arguments and questions. If you only say that they are foolish, then I know you have none. Oh, and this:
Like I said Stephen, just quit. Quit hijacking 1 in 10 threads with your skewed and unbalanced thoughts of LFW and your ideological versions of "philosophy". Your arguments are inconsistent and pathetic.Stop with throwing in these kind of accusations. This is not a way to discuss. Try to understand Stephen and me, instead of yelling your own idée fixes.
You have proof for this?Where do you trace the idea of free-will back to? When did it start? And before that time you're saying people didn't "think" they had LFW? Somewhere along the way it was culturally taught to them?Yes. From the moment they believed in one God, who was omnipotent, all-knowing and good. Free will was the solution for the problem of evil.
I don't have to prove it. Have people been thinking they have been choosing of their own free-will forever? Yes. Is every society on Earth that ever was based upon judging and blaming and praising people's choices. Yes. Is the human brain set-up for self introspection to weigh choices made in the past and choices that will be made in the future? Yes. So now like I asked Stephen, just explain how you can convince people they don't have free-will? Explain to me how you will convince people to stop judging and praising other people's actions and "choices"? Can you answer this? If you can answer this then I will consider it proof and I will withdraw my assertions citing lack of proof.And you will never get people to think they aren't choosing, that they don't have free-will. It's impossible!!Proof it, VYAZMA. React on my arguments and questions. If you only say that they are foolish, then I know you have none.
I am also still waiting for Stephen to explain how praising(rewarding) is different than blaming(punishing)…when looked at through the conceptual lens of LFW…
I have said several times that it is not necessary to believe in LFW at all in order to choose, blame or praise. Show me why a determinist would not have the experience of choosing. And therefore he would conclude that others choose too.First, I said people don't have a "belief" in free-will. They consciously think it. It's taken for granted. That can't be proven yet, but you certainly cannot dispute it. Especially with your counter that LFW is a belief system that came online with the advent of monotheistic religion. Presumably before that, people were automatons that had no idea about the concepts of consequences, praise, blame, choices, etc...Which again begs the question that if these people existed-how is it that they came up with the concept of gods or LFW in the first place? I'm sure you have no idea..your just making this stuff up as you go along. I just explained right here how a determinst, a cook, a policeman, priest, bank robber or anybody else would have the experience of choosing. That's about the 20th time I've explained that everyone-EVERYONE, has the experience of choosing or thinking others are choosing. Experience being an illusion that is rendered through consciousness. A perception of choosing. It's not a belief that can be unlearned. It part of the operating system of the mind. How else would your Determinst here "experience" the feeling of choosing, or of others choosing?
I am also still waiting for Stephen to explain how praising(rewarding) is different than blaming(punishing)...when looked at through the conceptual lens of LFW...It isn't different, we are not ultimately to blame and equally we cant take ultimate credit. Still it makes sense to train the dog with praise and rewards and as little blame and punishment as possible.
Vyazma
GdB defines LFW as choosing uncaused.
His definition is the same as Lois’ and mine. The point of it is to deny the role luck plays since if circumstances beyond our control had been different we would make different choices for better or worse.
That’s it, that’s LFW. You need to get that you are not addressing LFW as we define it.
Have people been thinking they have been choosing of their own free-will forever? Yes. Is every society on Earth that ever was based upon judging and blaming and praising people's choices. Yes. Is the human brain set-up for self introspection to weigh choices made in the past and choices that will be made in the future? Yes.Fully agree. But now comes the point: is this free will uncaused free will or is it determined? If you say it must be determined, then you must tell me what the difference in experience is between a person who chooses thinking that his free will is uncaused, and a person who thinks he is determined. You consistently refuse to answer this question, already for pages. (So why become these threads so long?)
Explain to me how you will convince people to stop judging and praising other people's actions and "choices"? Can you answer this?I don't want to. What I want to say is that people do not earn all the praise and all the blame. They are not ultimately responsible for their actions. Point is that compatibilist free will can explain that we can have an illusion of LFW, but that for assigning responsibility CFW is enough. And that it is easy to see through this illusion, if you just would start to think about it.
Have people been thinking they have been choosing of their own free-will forever? Yes. Is every society on Earth that ever was based upon judging and blaming and praising people's choices. Yes. Is the human brain set-up for self introspection to weigh choices made in the past and choices that will be made in the future? Yes.Fully agree. But now comes the point: is this free will uncaused free will or is it determined? If you say it must be determined, then you must tell me what the difference in experience is between a person who chooses thinking that his free will is uncaused, and a person who thinks he is determined. You consistently refuse to answer this question, already for pages. (So why become these threads so long?) I just answered this above...are you reading my posts, and understanding them, or are you too busy thinking about what you are going to bloviate next?
VYAZMA-I just explained right here how a determinst, a cook, a policeman, priest, bank robber or anybody else would have the experience of choosing. That’s about the 20th time I’ve explained that everyone-EVERYONE, has the experience of choosing or thinking others are choosing. Experience being an illusion that is rendered through consciousness. A perception of choosing.Try reading my posts GdB and then we don't have to go through this mire you create: You consistently refuse to answer this question, already for pages. (So why become these threads so long?)
Hee hee ha ha..Great that's what you want to say! And? Millions of people every minute are saying this. "He doesn't deserve that money". "She doesn't deserve to go to jail" "They shouldn't have chose that place to build a house" Your philosophy wants to "tell the people" that sometimes they are right in how they decide and sometimes they are wrong in how they decide. Your philosophy wants to differentiate between an acceptable way of coming to conclusions and an unacceptable way of coming to conclusions. What do you mean by "all" the praise and "all" the blame? You think it easy to see through the illusion? That "illusion" is hardwired into our brains. It is the operating system of our minds. Just like Windows is an operating system for computers. We don't see through the illusion. That is not how it works. The illusion is what makes us see in the first place.(and by "seeing" I mean consciousness) It's reversed. You have it backwards. Oh sure most of us can sit around here on this forum or in a coffee shop and postulate about the ramifications of determinism and the fact that there is no LFW(free-will etc...)that's relatively easy. Notice CC trying to get in-half-heartedly...he can understand it, but he basically says.."Why? Why do we need to understand this, talk about it? That's not how I go through my day". Nor does anyone!! It completely analogous to sitting around and talking about how we are made of atoms and that we interact with other atoms in terms of positive and negative charges, and that is the real reason one can't pass their hand through a table. Plus millions of neutrinos are passing through their hand every half-second as well. Nobody thinks that way in their daily life. Nor should they...they would be autistic or insane. When an astrophysicist stubs his toe on a coffee table he doesn't immediately think about the connection between electrons. He immediately thinks about how goddamned hard that table is and how it hurts. The same with our consciousness...when someone cuts you off on the road, we immediately blame. We don't start running through a Causal diagram in our heads to determine how it was that the driver came to cut us off. And you will never, ever change this. What you are doing is proselytizing. You're advocating for a better way of social interaction. This has nothing to do with LFW/Determinism/Consciousness. Like I said, it's honorable but your just piggybacking a social moral code onto Hard Determined systems about how are minds work.Explain to me how you will convince people to stop judging and praising other people's actions and "choices"? Can you answer this?I don't want to. What I want to say is that people do not earn all the praise and all the blame. They are not ultimately responsible for their actions. Point is that compatibilist free will can explain that we can have an illusion of LFW, but that for assigning responsibility CFW is enough. And that it is easy to see through this illusion, if you just would start to think about it.
I just answered this above...are you reading my posts, and understanding them, or are you too busy thinking about what you are going to bloviate next?You realise you did not answer my question? Of course everybody has the experience of choosing! The missing link is that this necessarily must lead to a belief in Libertarian, uncaused free will. That is what you must show me. Why can even a determined decision process not be experienced as choosing? In what respect it is not choosing? How can I derive from the fact that I am choosing that I must have the illusion of libertarian, uncaused free will? You see, I did not react on that posting because you did not answer my question at all, and in my previous posting it should be clear that there is no necessary link between choosing and having LFW. Your reference that without this belief people would be automatons is ridiculous. They chose, blamed, and praised without giving it deep thought. You see, (or probably not), the problem of free will is an intelligibility problem, not a scientific one. It is the question how two concepts that on the surface do not seem to fit, 'determinism' and 'free will' in fact do fit. On a correct analysis they fit perfectly. Compatibilist free will is the answer. It shows that all problems evaporate when you see that free will only means 'being able to do what you want'. Only one (incoherent) idea has to go: that free will is uncaused. But we don't need that idea to have the capability to choose. The opposite of having free will is being forced by somebody else, not being determined. On objects that have no will, i.e. no wishes and beliefs, it makes no sense to ask if it does something out of free will or not. So the opposite of being determined is randomness.VYAZMA-I just explained right here how a determinst, a cook, a policeman, priest, bank robber or anybody else would have the experience of choosing. That’s about the 20th time I’ve explained that everyone-EVERYONE, has the experience of choosing or thinking others are choosing. Experience being an illusion that is rendered through consciousness. A perception of choosing.Try reading my posts GdB and then we don't have to go through this mire you create: You consistently refuse to answer this question, already for pages. (So why become these threads so long?)
The same with our consciousness…when someone cuts you off on the road, we immediately blame. We don’t start running through a Causal diagram in our heads to determine how it was that the driver came to cut us off. And you will never, ever change this.One more important note. In regards to the angle you and Steve take about this...when we immediately(or slowly come to the conclusion through investigating evidence) find fault in an action, or responsibility, the social process amplifies this. It becomes reinforced through social concurrence.