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! Now you are talking about something else. I'm talking about Libertarian free will, which Lois and I have defined. You are so confused.
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.I already said- that's great! We'll use this definition. What's the problem?
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? It's not relevant because LFW is believing as Lois and I have defined
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?Of course it's not an intellectual error it's causal reasoning. But even if it is it doesn't matter because that's not the intellectual error in question which is as I and Lois have defined. This is why you need to stick with my definition or come up with one of your own.
Now you are talking about something else. I'm talking about Libertarian free will, which Lois and I have defined. You are so confused.Whoa now Stephen! What something else am I talking about? You keep bringing up your definition Stephen? I told you I understand your definition and am willing to work with it. What "something else", am I talking about?
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? It's not relevant because LFW is believing as Lois and I have defined That's what I am saying. Is this method of "treats" dependent on the subject believing Stephen? I said "thinking". Same thing. So if they believe they are using LFW to get a treat than they are making an intellectual error according to you?
Of course it's not an intellectual error it's causal reasoning.Causal Reasoning?!?! Did you just make this word up Stephen? Unlike your definition of LFW-which I am happy to entertain, I cannot entertain the use of the word "causal reasoning". Until you define it for me....
Stephen, also I wanted you to answer my question concerning the veiled claim you made that you and some others you know go through life immune to the illusion of free-will.
Is that correct Stephen? Are you saying that you never believe you are choosing according to what you believe are wishes and choices.
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? No.
Can your treat analogy work if the subject doesn't know what a treat is Steve?I guess so.
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?No it was correct. I don't think there is much dispute about us choosing on the bases of what will happen if.. Anyhow that's not libertarian free will so it doesn't make your case. You need to work with my definition of LFW or Lois' or come up with your own. But don't confuse by not defining it and then coming up with things not in our definitions
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? No.
Can your treat analogy work if the subject doesn't know what a treat is Steve?I guess so. Really? Perhaps you can explain how this is possible?
Of course it's not an intellectual error it's causal reasoning.Causal Reasoning?!?! Did you just make this word up Stephen? Unlike your definition of LFW-which I am happy to entertain, I cannot entertain the use of the word "causal reasoning". Until you define it for me.... Crumbs well it just is working out what will happen if we take one course of action or another. It just is working out causal consequences. Note how I have no problem giving definitions unlike you. Clearly we have managed to have some idea of the laws of physics and therefore what will happen if we do this or that and be motivated to act on the bases. If not you've got a hell of a job explaining some behaviour. But anyhow we are away from the topic of LFW now.
Note how I have no problem giving definitions unlike you.I like your definitions Steve. Let's keep using them.
If not you've got a hell of a job explaining some behaviour. But anyhow we are away from the topic of LFW now.Well you brought it up. Causal Reasoning! As a Causal Determinist myself, that has to be one of the stupidest terms I have ever heard of. All reasoning is causal.
Clearly we have managed to have some idea of the laws of physics and therefore what will happen if we do this or that and be motivated to act on the bases.What causes this motivation Stephen? So if I had an idea of the laws of Physics and realized that I could steal funds from a nursery school to support my cocaine habit that would be an intellectual error. But if I had an idea of the laws of physics and saw grass fire burning upwind of me and getting closer, and I ran away to safety that would be causal reasoning?
Stephen, also I wanted you to answer my question concerning the veiled claim you made that you and some others you know go through life immune to the illusion of free-will. Is that correct Stephen? Are you saying that you never believe you are choosing according to what you believe are wishes and choices.When have I denied I believe I'm "choosing according to what I believe are wishes and choices"? Stick to my or Lois' definition of LFW, that's what I say I go through life disbelieving. To switch to a definition of compatibilist free will is such a glaring error and the problem is if you're unable to see that you are unable to reason well enough to have a worthwhile discussion.
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? No.
Can your treat analogy work if the subject doesn't know what a treat is Steve?I guess so. Really? Perhaps you can explain how this is possible? Well a dog could have behaved in a way that got it a treat in the past and so been wired to behave that way again as a result. The dog wouldn't need to know it was happening or what a treat was, I don't think. Anyhow this has nothing to do with being able to have done otherwise without the need for circumstances beyond our control to have been different.
All reasoning is causal.No, not all reasoning is based on causal consequences. Deductive reasoning is one example. When we analyse what will happen if we do this or that, we are thinking about what would cause what.
So if I had an idea of the laws of Physics and realized that I could steal funds from a nursery school to support my cocaine habit that would be an intellectual error.Of course not, it would be true.
But if I had an idea of the laws of physics and saw grass fire burning upwind of me and getting closer, and I ran away to safety that would be causal reasoning?Obviously they are both causal reasoning
I just googled causal reasoning
I just googled causal reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_reasoningYeah, that's off track. did you want to discuss causal reasoning now?
I just googled causal reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_reasoning
Types of causal reasoning While causal understanding can be automatic, in complex situations advanced reasoning is necessary. Types of causal reasoning include: Deduction Deductive reasoning implies a general rule; an event is a guaranteed conclusion. An outcome may be deduced based on other arguments, which may determine a cause-and-effect relationship. Induction Inductive reasoning is an inference made with uncertainty; the conclusion is likely, but not guaranteed. Induction can be used to speculate about causality. Abduction In abductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee a conclusion. Abduction moves from data description to a hypothesis without a necessary relationship between cause and effect.All forms of reasoning fall under Causal Reasoning Stephen.
So Stephen, can you give me an example of someone’s behavior who believes they have LFW under your definition?
I just googled causal reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_reasoningYeah, that's off track. did you want to discuss causal reasoning now? Hard to know what you mean. Anyhow that causal reasoning plays into our choices is interesting and useful to know. Nothing to do with libertarian free will of course. This was interesting.
New Caledonian crows have been studied for their ability to reason about causal events.[26] This intelligent species uses tools in a way that even chimpanzees cannot, making complex tools to bring food within reach. Experimental work with this species suggests that they can understand hidden causes in a way that was previously believed uniquely human.[27] In the first of two experiments a crow was confined, with food in a tube inaccessible to the crow without some effort. A human entered the enclosure and went behind a curtain, waving a stick near the food tube through a hole in the curtain. When the human left the enclosure the crow confidently moved toward the food area and retrieved the reward, knowing that the human cause of the moving stick (albeit invisible) was gone. In the second experiment, no human entered or exited the enclosure. In this case the crow moved toward the food uncertainly, not knowing what caused the stick to move.
I just googled causal reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_reasoning
Types of causal reasoning While causal understanding can be automatic, in complex situations advanced reasoning is necessary. Types of causal reasoning include: Deduction Deductive reasoning implies a general rule; an event is a guaranteed conclusion. An outcome may be deduced based on other arguments, which may determine a cause-and-effect relationship. Induction Inductive reasoning is an inference made with uncertainty; the conclusion is likely, but not guaranteed. Induction can be used to speculate about causality. Abduction In abductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee a conclusion. Abduction moves from data description to a hypothesis without a necessary relationship between cause and effect.All forms of reasoning fall under Causal Reasoning Stephen. That's what it says, I disagree on deductive reasoning but heck maybe I'm wrong not gonna argue over everything.