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?
I'm not going to look through again Vyazma. I believe that there would be less hatred if people didn't believe in libertarian free will, so there is one consequence. You talked about some contradiction but there isn't one and you didn't say why you think there is one so I don't have something I can argue against.
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.
I did explain. But you don't accept the explanation because you don't know what libertarian free will is which is why we can't get anywhere.
The first thing you need to do is define libertarian free will.
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.
It's not. The way to deal with this is think what would be true if determinism were true. Then see what difference indeterminism could make.
The problem with determinism is one of luck as I did succinctly explain. Since indeterminism is just heaping more luck upon luck it doesn't help and this is pretty obvious. The resistance comes from wanting libertarian free will, so rather than accepting the obvious we get "well it's very complicated perhaps there is some way we could have it."
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
It argues for a "two stage" model of free will. The first stage the indetermined bit just adds another element of luck.
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?
Being paid more or less depending on what you do.
Vyazma,
Look at this definition of libertarian free will from Lois.
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.
Note it's the same as mine. What it's about at base is that if we had libertarian free will somehow we wouldn't need circumstances beyond our control to be different to make a different choice.
Citizens Challenge,
Well I think and hope after this brief foray you’ve made into the free will topic you understand it better.
The idea of a humane death being “too good” for some people is a useful example. That sentiment is based on belief in Libertarian free will because it’s based on the concept the person deserves to suffer. And as we know people will go on to wish he burns in hell too.
The only way to justify the suffering would be as a deterrent, so his suffering will stop others from doing it (not saying that’s true). But it sounds distinctly odd to say “he deserves to suffer because it will be a deterrent to others”. “Unfortunately he needs to suffer as a deterrent” sounds more like it and that makes us feel much more uncomfortable about it.
If people didn’t believe in libertarian free will I believe they would be less likely to approve of the death penalty. Some say no to that because there are good reasons for it all the same. But if people truly realised that the person to be executed was just the poor sap who drew the short straw and so is going to be used as a deterrent I think that would change how people feel.
So you might say well that isn’t such a big benefit to society but it’s not just about these extreme cases, they just illustrate the point well. Belief in libertarian free will is all pervasive.
Stephen
VYAZMA-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.
I did explain.
No you didn't explain. You just extolled the virtues of a world where nobody believes in Libertarian Free-Will.
You don't even realize you are using a firm belief in Libertarian Free-Will in discussing how the World would be better if we could prevent people from believing they have LFW.
How would you get everyone to stop thinking they had LFW Steve?
And your explanation on why people "believe" they have LFW is comical.
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?
Being paid more or less depending on what you do.
So how could that person's human behavior be guided Steve if he or she didn't believe they had LFW under those circumstances?
Seems to me they would just go on working and accept their fate in life if they didn't believe they had LFW?
But you want to prevent people from believing they have LFW?
VYAZMA-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.
I did explain.
No you didn't explain. You just extolled the virtues of a world where nobody believes in Libertarian Free-Will.
You don't even realize you are using a firm belief in Libertarian Free-Will in discussing how the World would be better if we could prevent people from believing they have LFW.
How would you get everyone to stop thinking they had LFW Steve?
I did tell you. Part of it is explaining the benefits because people do view not having libertarian free will as negative. but it's been a common idea over many centuries especially in Buddhism that believing in dependent arising as they call it increases empathy and compassion and reduces hatred. anyhow I only have my reasons for believing that and anecdotal evidence as you rightly say so it's a matter for science but you have no good reason to think belief in libertarian free will is doing no harm.
The other part is explaining what could have done otherwise really means. So one person who I've explained this to is my daughter who totally gets it which is cool. Another person who totally gets it is my girlfriend who puts it like this, "we are all doing the best we can" which might not be strictly right but it's getting at the same thing so it works.
And your explanation on why people "believe" they have LFW is comical.
Well this isn't an argument, you have no arguments. Of course people are confused over the sense in which they could select different options and yes combining that with the choice being up to us is what creates the illusion, what else?
Stephen-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.
What exactly does this mean Stephen?
Because I say we are hard wired to think(think, believe, buy into the illusion...)that we have LFW.
I say that is through millions of years of evolution. DNA and evolution found the best course for survival by hardwiring higher order creatures into thinking they have LFW. Basically consciousness and human behavioral psychology. Ego. Id. Social Interactions. Survival. Procreation.
These things take a "belief" in LFW to function.
But you say it is an intellectual error?
You say it is an intellectual error because it causes hatred. That is so naive!
So how could that person's human behavior be guided Steve if he or she didn't believe they had LFW under those circumstances?
Just like a dog's can with dog treats.
Seems to me they would just go on working and accept their fate in life if they didn't believe they had LFW?
It might seem like that but there is no rational basis for that. So how can I get you to see that? Well you'd have to start with defining free will and then follow with an argument that you think follows from that.
Something people do need to understand is what they do makes a difference but denying that doesn't follow from lack of libertarian free will, that comes from denying we have causal power, something we wouldn't deny the wind has for instance. So people really need to understand a bit about causality which involves understanding what "could" really means and that "the circumstances" means something broader than the actual circumstances.
Clearly you haven't looked into this.
I did tell you. Part of it is explaining the benefits because people do view not having libertarian free will as negative. but it's been a common idea over many centuries especially in Buddhism that believing in dependent arising as they call it increases empathy and compassion and reduces hatred. anyhow I only have my reasons for believing that and anecdotal evidence as you rightly say so it's a matter for science but you have no good reason to think belief in libertarian free will is doing no harm.
The other part is explaining what could have done otherwise really means. So one person who I've explained this to is my daughter who totally gets it which is cool. Another person who totally gets it is my girlfriend who puts it like this, "we are all doing the best we can" which might not be strictly right but it's getting at the same thing so it works.
Is this all you got? This is laughable.
You just want to tell people to "Do no harm", and be peaceful etc etc..which is laudable.
I get your points about explaining to people about the virtues of "live and let live" etc...
Increase empathy, understanding etc etc..That's great!!
I can even understand why you want to cross this philosophy/ideology over into a discussion about Free-will. There are parallels.
But some of us are trying to reason out the scientific basis for these themes.
Saying that "belief in LFW is an intellectual error" just does not fit into this discussion.
Saying that kind of stops the flow of the discussion. It ends it right there-right or wrong,(and it is wrong)without going further into reachable, explainable, deductive possibilities.
Stephen-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.
What exactly does this mean Stephen?
Because I say we are hard wired to think(think, believe, buy into the illusion...)that we have LFW.
Obvioiusly not, I don't believe in it and there are many others.
I say that is through millions of years of evolution. DNA and evolution found the best course for survival by hardwiring higher order creatures into thinking they have LFW. Basically consciousness and human behavioral psychology. Ego. Id. Social Interactions. Survival. Procreation.
These things take a "belief" in LFW to function.
That's because you haven't defined free will.
But you say it is an intellectual error?
You say it is an intellectual error because it causes hatred. That is so naive!
Of course it I don't say that, I say it does increase hatred. And that isn't naive some of us have the experience of disbelief in it reducing hatred, you might say we need more empirical evidence than that which is fine, but no it isn't naive. The two sayings which sort of sum it up are "there but for circumstances go I" and "to know all is to forgive all".
Many philosophers and scientists have recognised that belief in ultimate moral responsibility is a bad influence, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett Albert Einstein, to name three. Lois recognises it and GdB recognises it, though his main concern is not losing any concept of free will at all.
I have to accept I might be wrong though of course I firmly don't believe that. But you have no good reason for your scepticism and this all stems from you not defining libertarian free will
I hope you looked at Lois' definition, of course that mistake isn't hard wired, you are obviously talking about something else.
So how could that person's human behavior be guided Steve if he or she didn't believe they had LFW under those circumstances?
Just like a dog's can with dog treats.
Let's assume that the dog has basic thinking abilities and consciousness like our analogy subject the human...
Which by the way in the dog's case could be entirely possible, on a simpler level.
Does the dog think he wants a treat Steve?
Does the dog know what a treat is? Has the dog had a treat before?
Is the dog conscious of getting a treat? Does the dog remember getting treats before Steve?
And most importantly Steve!! Most importantly...does the dog know that if he stands up on his hind legs and begs for a treat he may get a treat?
If knowing this Steve is a belief in LFW, then the dog must be making an intellectual error-according to you.
Be sure and translate this analogy over to our human subject from your example above Steve. I don't want to start getting into a debate about a dog's consciousness, or cogency here. People are wont to do this from time to time around here. Derails can be very convenient for some.
OK well I say you can take a giant leap with that by understanding that if I had an appropriately different past I would do as others do and if they had been lucky enough to have an appropriately different past they would have done better and so the difference between us is sheer luck.
Saying that "belief in LFW is an intellectual error" just does not fit into this discussion.
And yet it's right and you don't see it because you don't define free will.
It's a mistake over could have done otherwise, why on earth do you think determinism poses a problem for LFW? You just haven't thought it through yet that's all.
I have to accept I might be wrong though of course I firmly don't believe that. But you have no good reason for your scepticism and this all stems from you not defining libertarian free will
Why would I want to define Free-Will Stephen?
This all stems from me not wanting to define free-will? Really?
We are doing just fine in our debate using your definition of free-will.
So let's just keep using your definition of Free-Will. I'm fine with that.
So I don't see how this debate stems from me not wanting to define free-will.
Also, other than GdB and Lois, I don't know any of those other folks you mentioned. I have heard of Einstein, but I don't know anything about what
he thought. So I don't know what value dropping their names here serves.
It's a mistake over could have done otherwise, why on earth do you think determinism poses a problem for LFW? You just haven't thought it through yet that's all.
Yes I have Steve. You just don't understand that we are hard wired to believe we have free-will.
Even though you go about your daily life acting and thinking consciously as if you do have LFW-just like every other person on this planet who has ever lived.(except maybe some extreme cases of Autism or sociopathy etc..I don't know. There could be some medical exceptions to this.)
And for you to sit there and say you don't-which you alluded to a page or so back is so disingenuous.
Did you allude to that Stephen? Did you hint that you go through your conscious life without ever thinking you are making choices which have consequences. Choices which GdB describes as acting upon one's wishes and beliefs.
Are you saying you don't do this? More accurately-that you don't THINK(believe) you are doing this?
The only difference between GdB's and my interpretation of this is some subtle, indiscernible(for me) line he labels Compatibilism.
I say it is an illusion. You say you are immune to the illusion? Go ahead...I dare you to say this!
So how could that person's human behavior be guided Steve if he or she didn't believe they had LFW under those circumstances?
Just like a dog's can with dog treats.
Let's assume that the dog has basic thinking abilities and consciousness like our analogy subject the human...
Which by the way in the dog's case could be entirely possible, on a simpler level.
Does the dog think he wants a treat Steve?
Does the dog know what a treat is? Has the dog had a treat before?
Is the dog conscious of getting a treat? Does the dog remember getting treats before Steve?
And most importantly Steve!! Most importantly...does the dog know that if he stands up on his hind legs and begs for a treat he may get a treat?
If knowing this Steve is a belief in LFW, then the dog must be making an intellectual error-according to you.
Oh dear. Belief in libertarian free will is thinking we could select a different option without the need for circumstances beyond our control to be different. That's why determinism is a problem. You need to think it through and define free will.
Be sure and translate this analogy over to our human subject from your example above Steve. I don't want to start getting into a debate about a dog's consciousness, or cogency here. People are wont to do this from time to time around here. Derails can be very convenient for some.
There is no need to translate the analogy, if we can change a dog's behaviour with rewards we can change a human's behaviour with rewards doh.
Crumbs Vyazma,
People believe we are ultimately responsible for our choices, that’s what this is about, and it isn’t just me saying this it’s well known stuff. What people believe is we were perfectly free to pick other options, meaning perfectly free without any restriction from circumstances beyond our control. So we are like little gods causa sui.
You just haven’t woken up to this. Goodness knows what you think LFW is.
Because you can't know what you are talking about unless you do and you can't make any reasoned arguments unless you do
This all stems from me not wanting to define free-will? Really?
No, it stems from you not defining free will.
We are doing just fine in our debate using your definition of free-will.
[
No, because then what I say follows.
Also, other than GdB and Lois, I don't know any of those other folks you mentioned. I have heard of Einstein, but I don't know anything about what
he thought. So I don't know what value dropping their names here serves.
It's that this is a fairly common idea not just my ideology. It's that other people have experienced the effect of disbelief in LFW that I experience. It's some empirical evidence.
There is no need to translate the analogy, if we can change a dog's behaviour with rewards we can change a human's behaviour with rewards doh.
Is that method of changing someone's behavior dependent on them thinking they are making choices or following a course that will result in a reward?
Are they conscious of a possible reward Steve?
Can your treat analogy work if the subject doesn't know what a treat is Steve?
What was going through that person's consciousness when they were being tempted with a treat Stephen?
We're they reasoning that "if I do this then I will get a treat"? Was that going through their mind?
Was that an intellectual error on their part Steve?