Then humans: humans are also 'future anticipating animals', i.e. they have options and they choose. But again, there is no concept of LFW needed for that.
Ok great. There is no LFW. I agree.
Do you agree the person's actions are determined? Do you think other observers are thinking that you exercise your free-will when choosing?
In otherwords, you could have chosen otherwise?
I am sitting in the restaurant and order a menu. Same. I choose between options. No LFW needed for that.
Right we can readily observe people choosing. Nobody needs to think about the concept of LFW for that.
If one of the options is Tuna, you may not want to order that because it harms dolphins. We can see how that causal chain may have made you come to that decision. If someone else observes your decision they may think you're foolish. They will think you are exercising your free-will.
I, stone age human, am angry that one of my clan stole a piece of meat from me. So I hit him, and get it back. Again, what do I need LFW for?
I don't know? In that situation why would you need LFW? There is no Free-will. There were causal reasons why you did this, like everything else.
I, Raskolnikow, killed my landlady and her sister. Nobody forced me to do this. I chose to do it. So I am punished for it. So now I, or the judge, need LFW, or what? Why?
The judge would need to think that you had Free-will so that he could punish you. Otherwise if he thought in terms of causal-determinism he wouldn't have a job. The judge would need to think that he had free-will to exercise punishment or not with you. The judge wouldn't think he was Causally-Determined to punish you. The judge would need to think that you could have chosen NOT to do the things he is judging you for.
And that is exactly what he will be thinking. Like every person from the beginning of time.
Yes, I can. Looked it up for you: somewhere in the second century.
Where did he get the idea from? Did it just magically appear in his diary, or did god send him a burning message about this?
Where did he get the concept of god in the first place to arrive at these conclusions? Are you serious with this?
Was he determined to come up with this concept? Yeah...he was. I wonder what the Causality of that possibly could have been...?
You cannot tell me when we started thinking consciously that people choose independently of what is already determined.
You cannot tell me that the human consciousness is not set-up to operate on an LFW thinking matrix. And you can't tell me when that began.
Sorry, your historical reconstruction of LFW doesn't hold water. There is just no reason that for choosing one needs an idea of LFW. It is a fiction, with which we can perfectly do without.
I completely agree. Nobody needs an understanding of the concepts of Free-will to choose.
Nobody is actually choosing to begin with. They just feel they are choosing or that others are choosing.
They certainly don't need to be aware of the facts of Determinism or the concepts of Free-will to do this.
Like I said we are hardwired already to think consciously in terms of Free-will.
If I asked anybody on the streets who was choosing something off of a menu: "Are you choosing those foods of your own free-will?" They would say yes.
If I asked someone who was spanking a child if they thought the child deserved it, they would say yes.
If I asked them what the child could have done-or not done-to avoid the spanking they would say, "The child should not have used curse words."
Then I could say, "So the child chose to use curse words?" And the parent would reply, "Of course! I already told the child not to swear."
So you see, this above in italics is a small example of how we all consciously think in terms of Free-will. It's Determined that we have this hardwiring. We didn't culturally learn this. We evolved this process of thinking. I can't believe you would think otherwise.
Vyazma, it’s clear that you are not working with the same concept of LFW as GdB or I.
LFW is, what is supposed to let God off the hook. Taking God out the picture it’s what is supposed to take away the sense in which it is merely our good or bad fortune what choices we get to make.
This isn’t required for praising or blaming or anything else you mention. All these things can operate whilst accepting it’s all the luck of the draw. By the luck of the draw I mean if I get the distant past that leads to me making a bad choice I’m unlucky, if you get it you’re unlucky and that is the difference between us.
Until you either work with the same concept of LFW or come up with one of your own you continue to make little sense.
I had muesli for breakfast this morning.
It's true that I would have had scrambled egg for breakfast instead if I had preferred.
By virtue of that fact, I could have had scrambled egg for breakfast this morning.
So far you've refused to take any notice of this, which is why you imagine we need a concept of LFW I guess.
Vyazma, it's clear that you are not working with the same concept of LFW as GdB or I.
I got this from Wikipedia. Although I like your definition even better. The one you restated for me 20 times earlier in this thread.
Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.
LFW is, what is supposed to let God off the hook. Taking God out the picture it's what is supposed to take away the sense in which it is merely our good or bad fortune what choices we get to make.
But now, what is this? Are you changing your definition Steve? I really liked it alot.
The one about "could have done otherwise". The Free-will Definition, in the metaphysical sense. The Libertarianism Philosophical sense.
I thought you really nailed it with your definition.
But now you're shifting....? To some BS god concepts? Huhn?
I had muesli for breakfast this morning.
It's true that I would have had scrambled egg for breakfast instead if I had preferred.
By virtue of that fact, I could have had scrambled egg for breakfast this morning.
So far you've refused to take any notice of this, which is why you imagine we need a concept of LFW I guess.
Well we certainly need a concept of LFW for this thread. Otherwise, what would be talking about. :lol:
And I must say you bring the topic up quite often(often enough to derail threads-this one included by the way.) So you certainly need
some concept of LFW.
Me? I never claimed we "need" LFW. Please quote me. I'll correct that. I could see how you might infer I said that.
No, I claim that our consciousness is set-up, our minds are set-up to think as though we have LFW.
We evolved this trait. so maybe "need" is a decent word for it. I don't know. I don't want to debate what the word "need" means with you.
Vyazma, it's clear that you are not working with the same concept of LFW as GdB or I.
I got this from Wikipedia. Although I like your definition even better. The one you restated for me 20 times earlier in this thread.
Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.
OK, that's fine but you have to follow through to why?
The answer is it's an attempt to get all the circumstances under our control. It's about denying that circumstances beyond our control would have had to be different for us to have made different choices.
But now, what is this? Are you changing your definition Steve? I really liked it alot.
No, it's always the same as explained above. For those who believe in God since he controls the circumstances beyond our control, he's responsible for our choices, assuming determinism. But I'll leave god out of it from now on.
So basically LFW is the denial it's the luck of the draw as I've been describing, there is no change.
We don't need to deny that to praise and blame, punish or reward. But it might well be the case that we'd be fairer about it if we didn't deny it.
I had muesli for breakfast this morning.
It's true that I would have had scrambled egg for breakfast instead if I had preferred.
By virtue of that fact, I could have had scrambled egg for breakfast this morning.
If circumstances were right, there were eggs and Muesli in your kitchen this morning. That's all we can really infer.
After that your just telling me what you preferred.
If there were eggs in your kitchen you could have eaten them-if you preferred to. But you were Determined to eat the cereal.
You had cereal this morning. Now later, you're telling me about eggs? Why?
I have not much time anymore, I have to cook.
But just as Stephen, I noticed that in post 241 you are using the words ‘free will’, and not ‘LFW’.
Just ask people: ‘Did you choose to do X’? and they might say ‘Yes’.
If you ask them then: ‘So there are no causes why you did X?’ you might get more 'no’s then you expect.
Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.
This definition is a correct definition of LFW when the given 'set of circumstances' includes my own brain state. It is wrong when it doesn't.
Of course you already saw how I explain 'could have done otherwise' here] (second half). Show me why this explanation is wrong. If you can't, I know enough. If you refuse to read it, too.
No, I claim that our consciousness is set-up, our minds are set-up to think as though we have LFW.
No, we've slipped over the meaning of CHDO, which again you are ignoring. We can check and see it doesn't really mean could in exactly the same situation. We've merely jumped to a wrong conclusion, like we do when we see a lady cut in half at a magic show.
You give no argument why this isn't so.
If there were eggs in your kitchen you could have eaten them-if you preferred to. But you were Determined to eat the cereal.
You had cereal this morning. Now later, you're telling me about eggs? Why?
Because I'm giving you the correct interpretion of CHDO, what we really evolved to be interested in when praising and blaming.
Just a minor detail. :-)
No you two… I don’t have to do any of those things you insist upon.
I only need to know that humans have evolved this form of consciousness and LFW thinking, that it is causally-determined and that’s all.
You both have said as much already. That humans think in terms of LFW or “LFW Like”(if you prefer)consciousness.
Your only problems is that you think this is cultural(nurture).
I know for a fact that it is Evolved and is a part of our consciousness, just like love, fear, knowledge etc…
You both have problems with certain manifestations of this natural, evolved consciousness and thinking-that’s fine. Most people do.
Nobody likes to be judged for example. Most people like to be praised.
Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.
This definition is a correct definition of LFW when the given 'set of circumstances' includes my own brain state.
It includes your brain state and any other extant circumstances at the time.
No you two.. I don't have to do any of those things you insist upon.
I only need to know that humans have evolved this form of consciousness and LFW thinking, that it is causally-determined and that's all.
You both have said as much already. That humans think in terms of LFW or "LFW Like"(if you prefer)consciousness.
Your only problems is that you think this is cultural(nurture).
I know for a fact that it is Evolved and is a part of our consciousness, just like love, fear, knowledge etc...
You both have problems with certain manifestations of this natural, evolved consciousness and thinking-that's fine. Most people do.
Nobody likes to be judged for example. Most people like to be praised.
We make a mistake over CHDO. We would not have evolved to think about what we could have done in the exact situation, there is no sense to it. But we would have evolved to think about what people could have done if they'd chosen to, since praise and blame are inputs which influence choices.
The fact we jump to the wrong conclusion about CHDO will be to do with how we are wired, yes but still it is not hard to correct the mistake.
Also this is culturally reinforced with the idea we are ultimately responsible and can deserve to suffer for what we have done.
VYAZMA-If I asked anybody on the streets who was choosing something off of a menu: “Are you choosing those foods of your own free-will?" They would say yes.
If I asked someone who was spanking a child if they thought the child deserved it, they would say yes.
If I asked them what the child could have done-or not done-to avoid the spanking they would say, “The child should not have used curse words."
Then I could say, “So the child chose to use curse words?" And the parent would reply, “Of course! I already told the child not to swear."
This right here...This is how the consciousness of LFW(for lack of a better term)has existed since before there probably was Homo Sapiens.
Who knows how far back it goes? I don't. You don't either. But it is definitely natural, and it isn't cultural.
There are many cultural manifestations of this...including perhaps the spanking bit here, but the process of blaming and culpability is ingrained.
And obviously there are an infinite number of other scenario-examples that stem from the same praxis.
You guys can try and rid the world of certain cultural manifestations of this Human Mind, but you will never get rid of the Cause of these manifestations.
That's what I'm talking about. That's what I have been talking about.
To get rid of, or try to get rid of the certain cultural manifestations is social progress, or regression as is the case.
That's all you guys are campaigning for... Social progress.
But to think you can rid the human mind of the LFW consciousness is futile.
VYAZMA-If I asked anybody on the streets who was choosing something off of a menu: “Are you choosing those foods of your own free-will?" They would say yes.
If I asked someone who was spanking a child if they thought the child deserved it, they would say yes.
If I asked them what the child could have done-or not done-to avoid the spanking they would say, “The child should not have used curse words."
Then I could say, “So the child chose to use curse words?" And the parent would reply, “Of course! I already told the child not to swear."
This right here...This is how the consciousness of LFW(for lack of a better term)has existed since before there probably was Homo Sapiens.
Who knows how far back it goes? I don't. You don't either. But it is definitely natural, and it isn't cultural.
There are many cultural manifestations of this...including perhaps the spanking bit here, but the process of blaming and culpability is ingrained.
And obviously there are an infinite number of other scenario-examples that stem from the same praxis.
You guys can try and rid the world of certain cultural manifestations of this Human Mind, but you will never get rid of the Cause of these manifestations.
That's what I'm talking about. That's what I have been talking about.
To get rid of, or try to get rid of the certain cultural manifestations is social progress, or regression as is the case.
That's all you guys are campaigning for... Social progress.
But to think you can rid the human mind of the LFW consciousness is futile.
You say these things because you are not accepting that LFW is a mistake over the correct interpretation of CHDO.
As I said we would not have evolved to think about what people could have done in the exact circumstances, it makes no sense. But we would have evolved to think about what they could have done if they'd chosen to.
You're not giving this mistake over CHDO the consideration it deserves.
Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.
This definition is a correct definition of LFW when the given 'set of circumstances' includes my own brain state.
It includes your brain state and any other extant circumstances at the time.
Well if that's the case our actions are not chosen and have nothing to do with us at all. This is why it makes no sense and how we know that we simply slip over the interpretation of CHDO, something that can be corrected fairly easily.
Well if that's the case our actions are not chosen and have nothing to do with us at all. This is why it makes no sense and how we know that we simply slip over the interpretation of CHDO, something that can be corrected fairly easily.
You can sort that out with Doug, GdB or anybody else you want.
I wanna stay on the topic we were discussing unless there is no more disagreement?
Well if that's the case our actions are not chosen and have nothing to do with us at all. This is why it makes no sense and how we know that we simply slip over the interpretation of CHDO, something that can be corrected fairly easily.
You can sort that out with Doug, GdB or anybody else you want.
I wanna stay on the topic we were discussing unless there is no more disagreement?
This is the topic and we are at the bottom of our disagreement. You disbelieve that LFW is a mistake over CHDO.
And you appear to believe that CHDO in the exact circumstances really could gain us something if it were true.
That's about it I think.
You say these things because you are not accepting that LFW is a mistake over the correct interpretation of CHDO.
As I said we would not have evolved to think about what people could have done in the exact circumstances, it makes no sense. But we would have evolved to think about what they could have done if they'd chosen to.
You're not giving this mistake over CHDO the consideration it deserves.
Stephen unless you can describe this better, I can't understand this. I don't know why you have to make this so convoluted.
It's not that complicated.
LFW is not a mistake. It isn't anything. It doesn't exist. It's just a conceptualization.
I'm using the term LFW to describe the way in which our conscious minds think. I'm using the basic, classic sense of the term.
I've fully integrated my views using your own definition of the concept LFW. The simple term Free-will suffices too when used in the same context.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the "correct interpretation of could have done otherwise."
We evolved to think about what people CHDO in any arbitrary set of circumstances according to perception, real circumstances, memory, experiences, etc etc....those are all some, some examples of circumstances.
Again with your bent towards "correct circumstances" I'm guessing you are drifting off into your own ideals, mores, and subjective interpretations on how people should think.