Hint: Maybe because they "see" it unfolding before their very eyes?That's like saying when we go to a magic show we see a lady sawn in half. The illusion in the case of free will is a mistake over what is meant by the circumstances, we imagine it means exactly as they were/are. So it's an intellectual error. Imagine I toss a coin and don't reveal whether it's a head or a tail. You would be in circumstances in which the coin is either a head or a tail. But if we took the circumstances to mean exactly as they are that makes no sense, the point is when we talk about the circumstances we mean something broader than exactly as they are/were. It's that people struggle with especially when thinking about choice making.
Was there a reason you included me in these quotes Lois? I'm just checking to make sure you haven't misconstrued anything I have typed here. You do realize that we are on the same side of this issue?No Vyazma. You are like a climate change denialist who argues that pumping all that C02 into the atmosphere is either having no effect at all or at least no harmful effect. That's just the approach you take with libertarian free will. Lois believes we are better off without belief in it.
Just to take this back on track. For Stephen's hopeful benefit, the best we as humans can achieve on this matter is to have learned lawmakers and judges who understand these concepts and can occasionally balance out punishment with Empirical Knowledge about neurology, psychology and sociology etc....(which would be an indirect route to the reality of Determinism.) And of course this has been done for many years already and is steadily improving perhaps.Yep
But for this to imply that people are benefiting from "disbelief in the concept of Libertarian Free-Will" is a long stretch.Nope. And the process would get much more approval if it wasn't fought against due to people on mass believing in libertarian free will including most judges and law makers. Also as always the focus comes to the legal system when in fact belief in libertarian free will is going on in all interactions.
The scientifically proven and most humane way of killing is nitrogen gas induced hypoxia. All you need is a canister of gas, a tube and mask.
Death is completely painless, very clean, requires no expertise, is flawless, easy to implement and the victim dies with a sense of euphoria.
We’ve known about this method for ages, since we kill animals this way under strict guidelines of humane and ethical treatment of animals. Strangely, when it comes to killing human beings, people apparently play dumb and think up all the other less human methods.
The illusion in the case of free will is a mistake over what is meant by the circumstances, we imagine it means exactly as they were/are. So it's an intellectual error.You really believe this? You think it is an intellectual error? Actually it's no surprise that you believe this given the input you have made into the various Free Will threads. The word "Illusion" is a word I have used too. It's suitable for the phenomenon for now. However if you think this is an intellectual error you are wrong. Obviously you have used deduction and reasoning to come to this conclusion...I'm sorry but it does not speak highly for you. How could you possibly think the human(and possibly other animal) behaviors of simple and/or complex social interactions are intellectual error?
The scientifically proven and most humane way of killing is nitrogen gas induced hypoxia. All you need is a canister of gas, a tube and mask. Death is completely painless, very clean, requires no expertise, is flawless, easy to implement and the victim dies with a sense of euphoria. We've known about this method for ages, since we kill animals this way under strict guidelines of humane and ethical treatment of animals. Strangely, when it comes to killing human beings, people apparently play dumb and think up all the other less human methods.As they say That's an excellent question !
Was there a reason you included me in these quotes Lois? I'm just checking to make sure you haven't misconstrued anything I have typed here. You do realize that we are on the same side of this issue?No Vyazma. You are like a climate change denialist who argues that pumping all that C02 into the atmosphere is either having no effect at all or at least no harmful effect. That's just the approach you take with libertarian free will. Lois believes we are better off without belief in it. :lol: Is this some cheeky crap you're pulling here? A little gratuitous baloney? I don't take any approach with libertarian free-will you momo!! It doesn't exist. The human mind does exist, and so does the complex, as of yet, not fully understood realm of consciousness. ...I'm like a climate change denialist? How desperate and pathetic of you. That's what happens on this forum. People get spanked and their arguments and comments revert to that kind of garbage.
We know for a fact that human actions are determined. There have even been brainscans done under scientific conditions that show that people make decisons before they are consciously aware of them. Yet there is no scientific evidence that we have free will. We all imagine we have it and generally speak as if we have it (even determinists do that) but there is no evidence that free will is anything but an imaginary concept. Until free will can be proven to exist determinism is the default.This get's back to the "if you can't explain it to my satisfaction, it doesn't exist" attitude. Which I find closely related to the apparent guiding principle of philosophizing "if I can weave together the words to describe something, it must exist" As for this "determinism" vs "free-will" thing seems to me, it's sort of like trying to argue for "Nature" or Nurture" and ignoring that it's actually a complex intermingling of both. For those who prefer their philosophy on the succinct side here's an interesting site I've come across http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libertarianism.html
Stephen-I believe that too much inequality is morally wrong simply because it’s unfair and yet understand we need some inequality because we need consequences to guide behaviour.Steve I just pulled this off the thread in the Politics Forum. You just recently typed it. You just recently typed this around the same time that you stated that "belief"(my quotes) in Libertarian Free-Will is an intellectual error. I'm just wondering if you can identify the obvious contradiction here or not? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you aren't always yourself or some such thing. Wouldn't it require a belief in Libertarian Free-Will to recognize consequences that guide human behavior in the context of economic inequality? How can we utilize some inequality to guide human behavior through consequences Stephen? Without the concept of Libertarian Free-Will that is? (or the belief of it therein) Wouldn't that be intellectually incorrect according to you?
Was there a reason you included me in these quotes Lois? I'm just checking to make sure you haven't misconstrued anything I have typed here. You do realize that we are on the same side of this issue?No Vyazma. You are like a climate change denialist who argues that pumping all that C02 into the atmosphere is either having no effect at all or at least no harmful effect. That's just the approach you take with libertarian free will. Lois believes we are better off without belief in it. :lol: Is this some cheeky crap you're pulling here? A little gratuitous baloney? I don't take any approach with libertarian free-will you momo!! It doesn't exist. The human mind does exist, and so does the complex, as of yet, not fully understood realm of consciousness. ...I'm like a climate change denialist? How desperate and pathetic of you. That's what happens on this forum. People get spanked and their arguments and comments revert to that kind of garbage. Vyazma either you think belief in libertarian free will hss no effect or is harmless. That is just like climate chsnge denial. Highly unlikely to be true and no good reason to believe it.
Vyazma either you think belief in libertarian free will hss no effect or is harmless. That is just like climate chsnge denial. Highly unlikely to be true and no good reason to believe it.You don't even know what level you're on bro. You have no bearings in this discussion. If one has taken to explaining these concepts through ideological lenses or moral lenses they really have no idea of the concept in the first place. Visualizing Libertarian Free-Will as a belief or an intellectual behavior that has bad consequences or effects is revealing of a complete lack of understanding on this matter. And we have all discussed it plenty. I'm not going there again with you. This is just another outlet here for you to possibly see the error of your thinking. Take it or don't. I reckon you won't. You haven't in the six or so years I have electronically known you.
Vyazma, Libertarian free will is that we could have done otherwise without circumstances beyond our control having been appropriately different. Of course it doesnt require that to recognise consequences. You have no clue and when people try to explain you rant.Stephen-I believe that too much inequality is morally wrong simply because it’s unfair and yet understand we need some inequality because we need consequences to guide behaviour.Steve I just pulled this off the thread in the Politics Forum. You just recently typed it. You just recently typed this around the same time that you stated that "belief"(my quotes) in Libertarian Free-Will is an intellectual error. I'm just wondering if you can identify the obvious contradiction here or not? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you aren't always yourself or some such thing. Wouldn't it require a belief in Libertarian Free-Will to recognize consequences that guide human behavior in the context of economic inequality? How can we utilize some inequality to guide human behavior through consequences Stephen? Without the concept of Libertarian Free-Will that is? (or the belief of it therein) Wouldn't that be intellectually incorrect according to you?
Vyazma, Libertarian free will is that we could have done otherwise without circumstances beyond our control having been appropriately different. Of course it doesnt require that to recognise consequences. You have no clue and when people try to explain you rant.Can you give me an example of a consequence Stephen from your scenario above? From this right here: I believe that too much inequality is morally wrong simply because it’s unfair and yet understand we need some inequality because we need consequences to guide behaviour. What is an example of a consequence here? That would guide human behavior?
Vyazma, Libertarian free will is that we could have done otherwise without circumstances beyond our control having been appropriately different. Of course it doesnt require that to recognise consequences. You have no clue and when people try to explain you rant.Can you give me an example of a consequence Stephen from your scenario above? From this right here: I believe that too much inequality is morally wrong simply because it’s unfair and yet understand we need some inequality because we need consequences to guide behaviour. What is an example of a consequence here? That would guide human behavior? Yes, you chew on this for awhile Stephen. Please don't forget the most important point of all-as far as I'm concerned. This:
VYAZMA-You really believe this? You think it is an intellectual error? Actually it’s no surprise that you believe this given the input you have made into the various Free Will threads. The word “Illusion" is a word I have used too. It’s suitable for the phenomenon for now. However if you think this is an intellectual error you are wrong. Obviously you have used deduction and reasoning to come to this conclusion…I’m sorry but it does not speak highly for you. How could you possibly think the human(and possibly other animal) behaviors of simple and/or complex social interactions are intellectual error?As I said, the illusion is a suitable word until science can close all the gaps concerning consciousness. If you think the illusion is an intellectual error you need to go back to the drawing board. That's what are our little debate is centered around here. This is where you go horribly wrong. You didn't answer my questions about micro chips, eugenics, or some "new school" Steve... Of course, doing any of that would constitute exercising Libertarian Free-Will. In fact, the obvious error in your thinking is this, Recognizing that a "belief" in Libertarian Free-will is an intellectual error and that it can somehow be corrected is exercising a Belief in Libertarian Free-Will!! Are you aware of this?
Can you think of some reasons why people would believe they have libertarian free-will?Yes, it's an illusion generated by a combination of the mistake that could means could in the actual situation and the concept of the choice being up to us. The reason people continue to believe once that's explained is because they feel they want libertarian free will, they think it's a negative thing not to have it. Once people see the benefits of disbelief in it, less hatred for one and understand that any supposed negatives are just mistakes they stop believing in it. Lois is just one example, I am another and their are many others. Geez, I never saw this post. This is absolutely hilarious.(I'll also leave judgement out for Lois, because I'm not so sure she thinks this.) But for you and others it must be incredibly strenuous, Herculean like in the sagacity to walk the Earth blocking out the impulse to believe the illusion. Incredible! Of course, if you are just doing it selectively( :) ) your whole argument crumbles. It's like I said in the beginning-yours is just an ideological interpretation of the concept. A selective interpretation. This of course is just mental salad. It's nothing in regards to the Actual concept of Determinism and Causality. Nothing. To practice this selectively is nothing more than proselytizing. Jeez, it just occurred to me Steve, probably lot's of people block out selectively the illusion of free-will. Yeah, I see it all the time. People might say: " Oh well, there's nothing I can do about that." or "Hey, he couldn't help it." Or, "Achh, Fuck it!, it doesn't matter!" Is this what you are talking about Stephen? Because I've pointed that out to you for years now. That's why the Free-will threads are utterly clogged with your nonsense. And just a note: I myself do think I am making choices all the time. I know why for the most part, but I don't fight it. It's the illusion. It's the part that science has not yet figured out. When and if ever, science can bridge the gap between Electrons and Consciousness we'll know better perhaps. Until then we think we are making choices. And that's ok!!! It's Natural. It's supposed to be that way!!!
What does it mean other than having conscious control over our actions? You may be defining free will differentlt than I am. LoisLois the thing is we use the term free will to mean more than one thing. Unless you accept we do that we will get no where regarding compatibilism and it will be quite tough for you to back down on that, it was for me. Your definition of libertarian free will isn't enough, what problem would determinism be for that and what does conscious control mean? Clearly it's all about the interpretation of could have done otherwise. I've defined libertarian free will many many times, I will again. When we look back at what people could have done we imagine we mean could in the actual situation. That combined with the concept of the choice being up to us gives us the illusion that the choice was entirely up to us. The reality is circumstances beyond our control would have had to be different for us to have made another choice and we are merely fortunate or unfortunate that they weren't. So Libertarian free will is that we could have done otherwise without circumstances beyond our control having been different. Compatibilist free will is something else which has nothing to do with determinism nor conscious control I'd say. We can start with examples like the difference between slavery and someone who volunteers in a charity shop. If you ask the slave if he wants to work he'll say no I'm doing it because I have to. If you ask the charity worker if he wants to work he says yes and he wouldn't do it if he didn't want to. Both the charity worker and the slave are choosing to work but it would be dangerously morally wrong to treat both choices as the same. It's in ordinary use to treat one as a free choice and one as a forced and we can look at the differences to see why. Whether humans have free will or not is not a matter of supposed consequences. Either we have it or we don't. Why pretend free will exists because you are afraid of the consequences of assuming it doesn't? The point is that our minds "decide" what we do based on billions of factors we have no control over. To assume free will is to assume that the same mind can independently think outside the factors that control our thoughts actions and somehow, magically, perhaps, override those factors. How would that work? How can a part of a human mind override the factors that determine thoughts and actions? Do we have a second mind that is not determined but is so powerful that it can override our determining factors by force of will that is not affected by determining factors? Where does that "will" reside? Is some it part of our mind independent of it? Do we have two minds, one determined and one free of determining factors by force of "will"? You wrote: "We can start with examples like the difference between slavery and someone who volunteers in a charity shop. If you ask the slave if he wants to work he'll say no I'm doing it because I have to. If you ask the charity worker if he wants to work he says yes and he wouldn't do it if he didn't want to." Yes, that might be what each would say and consciously think, but what we say and consciously think has nothing to do with the existence of free will. The charity shop worker says he wouldn't do it if he didn't want to is simply how he consciously interprets his determined actions. It has nothing to do with free will. He's a charity shop worker for millions of reasons he has no control over, most of which he is unaware of. He just likes to think he is freely and consciously choosing to work in a charity shop--that he thinks he does it for conscious reasons and that he is consciously overriding competing determining factors is a fantasy. He is working in a charity shop because his determining factors (including why he is in a place that has a charity shop in the first place) brought him to that point, not any kind of conscious will. The slave works because he is forced to by factors beyond his control, not because any sort of free will is denied him. He is in a position to work as a slave because of determining conditions beyond his control (just like the charity shop worker). The concept of free will cannot remove him from slavery. He could try running away if he had the determining factors that would allow him to run away, but that is not free will. He is afraid of the consequences (another determined factor)--and fear and his response to it is another factor he has no free-will control over. Fear (and myriad other unconscious factors) determine whether he runs or stays. What his conscious mind cooks up as to why he is working and why he is staying and not running away has nothing to do with free will. It is simply how he consciously justifies his position. Even how he justifies his actions is determined. Lois
The scientifically proven and most humane way of killing is nitrogen gas induced hypoxia. All you need is a canister of gas, a tube and mask. Death is completely painless, very clean, requires no expertise, is flawless, easy to implement and the victim dies with a sense of euphoria. We've known about this method for ages, since we kill animals this way under strict guidelines of humane and ethical treatment of animals. Strangely, when it comes to killing human beings, people apparently play dumb and think up all the other less human methods.As they say That's an excellent question ! Yep. One answer would be that people think killing them humanely is "too good for them", which we wouldn't think about any animal. Why? Because people supposedly have libertarian free will.
Vyazma,
Your posts make no sense, it’s not like I can go through them and respond. So what’s going on?
Well it’s that you don’t know what libertarian free will is. You need to go back to the drawing board if you’re interested. Chess computers can make choices i.e select from options so it’s not that we don’t make choices. Then you may say but they’re not real choices. So what are real choices? Well, clearly it’s to do with being able to do otherwise in the actual situation, otherwise how would determinism be a problem?
So, it is as I say and this isn’t just me, it’s standard philosophy. It’s you who is way off the beaten track and in this case it’s not that you’ve beaten your own right track it’s just that you are lost.
Vyazma, Your posts make no sense, it's not like I can go through them and respond. So what's going on?Well then that's an easy out for you. What doesn't make sense to you Stephen? Anything specific? Did the part where I asked you to come up with an example of a consequence from your quote not make sense to you Stephen? How could that not make sense? Did that request somehow not make sense? Hmnnn... How about when I asked you to explain how you can get people to stop believing that they have libertarian free-will? Did that not make sense? Seems like pretty straightforward English there.
Whether humans have free will or not is not a matter of supposed consequences.Gdb especially, and sometimes I have tried to explain this, it took me ages to get it b.t.w but it is just a question of you don't get it. The first problem with the above is it assumes the term free will refers to one thing and so from there it's an either or situation. But it isn't either or, compatibilists know we don't have libertarian free will. Now you are right that whether we have libertarian free will or not is not a matter of supposed consequences but the point is people are influenced by the consequences, so if they think the consequences are bad they will tend to hang on to belief in libertarian free will.
Either we have it or we don't.Either we have libertarian free will or we don't and the answer is we don't.
Why pretend free will exists because you are afraid of the consequences of assuming it doesn't?I'm not pretending libertarian free will exists. I'm not afraid of consequences of assuming it doesn't. I think the consequences are wholly good, I think belief in libertarian free will is the worst false belief of all which is why I discuss it.
The point is that our minds "decide" what we do based on billions of factors we have no control over.Yes, that's right and I've written that in other words. The way I've put it is that for us to have made different choices circumstances beyond our control would have had to be different.
To assume free will is to assume that the same mind can independently think outside the factors that control our thoughts actions and somehow, magically, perhaps, override those factors.That is what to assume libertarian free will is, you're quite right. So somehow to assume we could have done otherwise without the need for circumstances beyond our control to have been different.
How would that work? How can a part of a human mind override the factors that determine thoughts and actions?It's obviously impossible. So since it's obviously impossible why won't people accept it? It's back to supposed consequences.
You wrote: "We can start with examples like the difference between slavery and someone who volunteers in a charity shop. If you ask the slave if he wants to work he'll say no I'm doing it because I have to. If you ask the charity worker if he wants to work he says yes and he wouldn't do it if he didn't want to." Yes, that might be what each would say and consciously think, but what we say and consciously think has nothing to do with the existence of free will.It has nothing to do with the existence of libertarian free will since it simply doesn't exist.
The charity shop worker says he wouldn't do it if he didn't want to is simply how he consciously interprets his determined actions.It is expressing that the choice depended upon what he wanted which makes it different to the slaves choice which doesn't depend upon what he wants.
It has nothing to do with free will.It has nothing to do with libertarian free will.
He's a charity shop worker for millions of reasons he has no control over, most of which he is unaware of.Correct, so he doesn't have libertarian free will. But still it's true that his choice is different than the slaves choice because it depends upon what he wants, amongst other reasons.
He just likes to think he is freely and consciously choosing to work in a charity shop--that he thinks he does it for conscious reasons and that he is consciously overriding competing determining factors is a fantasy.I don't know why you bring consciousness into it. Anyhow this has nothing to do with overiding competing determining factors it's about being determined by what he wants.
He is working in a charity shop because his determining factors (including why he is in a place that has a charity shop in the first place) brought him to that point, not any kind of conscious will.I have no idea what conscious will is, anyway he is working in the charity shop because of his determining factors yes. What we do is pick out certain determining factors and call them causes. So for example someone might eat because he's hungry. You wouldn't say that isn't true he's determined to eat.
The slave works because he is forced to by factors beyond his control, not because any sort of free will is denied him.This is where what you are saying gets dangerous. He is being denied the freedom to do what he wants, which is particularly nasty in this case.
He is in a position to work as a slave because of determining conditions beyond his control (just like the charity shop worker).Yes of course. But he can't do what he wants and so is at a big disadvantage and this needs to be acknowledged.
The concept of free will cannot remove him from slavery.The concept of it being morally wrong to remove his freedom to do what he wants can remove him from slavery. If you treat all choices as the same you can't tell the difference between slave labour and labour nor the difference between rape and consenting sex and so on. So the difference is very important and as GdB and I try to point out over and over it's just semantics to argue over the labels we use. The problem is you insist the label free will can only be used to mean one thing, well it just isn't. It's like insisting the label earth only refers to flat earth. If you want to make the case that the term free will should just be used to mean libertarian free will then that's fine, that's something to discuss. But at the moment you just are not recognising that compatibilist free will is simply something other than libertarian free will.