True, but there are people who will get it and will want to be instrumental in bringing this knowledge to light.Yes there are many people arguing against CCFW because of the harm they think belief in it does. GdB is understandably concerned with disbelieving in free will which has a broader meaning than just the illusory bit. I tend not to say we don't have free will. Rather I say I'm a determinist for practical purposes.
When you say, "I had that option available", that is a true statement. But when you say, "I could have chosen dish 7 given the same exact circumstances", that is false.Well if you can't get over it... Here I am again, your spouse, just hearing what the doctor said after your day in the restaurant. I have a tick to say things sometimes a bit more difficult than needed, so I yell 'How could you do that! You had another option!'. (Remember, something I cannot say in the situation where you were in the cantina).
And you did not answer one of my crucial questions: is 'but I was determined!' a valid excuse for you having eaten white beans in the restaurant?No, it's not a valid excuse but who is asking for one? In the new world the question wouldn't even come up because we would already know you couldn't help yourself, so you're already excused. OK, I would say, my point has been made. My excuse not being valid, shows that I can make you responsible. But I can only make somebody responsible who acted from free will. A 'free will' that is strong enough to bear the praxis of assigning responsibility is fully justified to be called 'free will'.
When you say, "I had that option available", that is a true statement. But when you say, "I could have chosen dish 7 given the same exact circumstances", that is false.Well if you can't get over it... Here I am again, your spouse, just hearing what the doctor said after your day in the restaurant. I have a tick to say things sometimes a bit more difficult than needed, so I yell 'How could you do that! You had another option!'. (Remember, something I cannot say in the situation where you were in the cantina). Yes I had another option at the time, but when I thought about which choice was more preferable (given my knowledge, experience and desires), I chose to take a chance and eat dish 7. In reality, I did have another option but I was not free to choose it. Please try to understand this: If B (dish 5; the dish I now wish I had picked looking back) was an impossible choice at that moment because it gave me less satisfaction (based on what I knew about my food allergy and the calculated risk I was willing to take for the sake of eating something I knew I would enjoy) I was not free to choose dish 7.
And you did not answer one of my crucial questions: is 'but I was determined!' a valid excuse for you having eaten white beans in the restaurant?No, it's not a valid excuse but who is asking for one? In the new world the question wouldn't even come up because we would already know you couldn't help yourself, so you're already excused.
OK, I would say, my point has been made. My excuse not being valid,Once again, who said your excuse isn't valid when no one is asking you for one because we know you couldn't help yourself?
shows that I can make you responsible.How can you make this kind of leap when there is no excuse necessary? IOW, how can you make me responsible for what everyone knows I am not responsible for? You need to prove that a person could have done otherwise given the exact same conditions. Saying that he could have done otherwise just because he had options doesn't prove that he could have. Again, this does not mean that actions that hurt others are being condoned (which is why the free will/determinism debate is more than just intellectual), but something miraculous happens when the two-sides of this equation come together. We haven't even gotten to the actual discovery.
But I can only make somebody responsible who acted from free will.True, but where is the free will? The fact that you had options does not grant you freedom of the will. It only indicates you had options to consider.
A 'free will' that is strong enough to bear the praxis of assigning responsibility is fully justified to be called 'free will'.Yes, if there was such a thing. But this is not justified when we discover that there was no free will of any kind, not even the kind that you claim justifies assigning blame and punishment. If you would only be patient enough to bear him out (which you are obviously not willing to do; maybe deep down you know you're checkmated which is why you are so resistant), you may change your tune. In the meantime, I cannot make headway with compatibilists since they believe their analysis is airtight when I know it is full of holes.
OK, I would say, my point has been made. My excuse not being valid, shows that I can make you responsible. But I can only make somebody responsible who acted from free will. A 'free will' that is strong enough to bear the praxis of assigning responsibility is fully justified to be called 'free will'.Peacegirl hasn't come to talk about whether you're justified in calling CFW free will. She's come to talk about benefits of disbelief in LFW A.K.A CCFW. So why are you arguing over a completely different point which is if you're justified in using the label free will for what you have in mind. It's just not what the thread is about.
True, but there are people who will get it and will want to be instrumental in bringing this knowledge to light.Yes there are many people arguing against CCFW because of the harm they think belief in it does. GdB is understandably concerned with disbelieving in free will which has a broader meaning than just the illusory bit. I tend not to say we don't have free will. Rather I say I'm a determinist for practical purposes. And the practical purposes go way beyond what even the strictest of determinists can even fathom. ;-)
You still haven't gotten to the point. I managed to read part of the sample and almost fell asleep. I have little patience with authors who devote multiple pages telling me how revolutionary their idea is. Don't tell me how smart you are, tell me your idea, Mr. Author. peacegirl, please post a short synopsis of what this Earth-changing idea includes and how it will save our civilization. I'm not going to buy the book to find out.Really it's a very old idea Darron. The idea is if we accept determinism and don't believe people are magically free we don't think people deserve their good or bad fortune in the way we ordinarily do and how we feel about allowing or causing suffering changes. Bottom line is to have done otherwise circumstances not of our choosing would have had to be different. That's what people generally don't accept. peacegirl is basically right although she sees this as a complete cure to all our ills rather than just a very helpful change. http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html
When asked to write short essay on "the ethical significance of Spinoza's philosophy," Einstein replied: I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza. But what I think about this man I can express in a few words. Spinoza was the first to apply with strict consistency the idea of an all-pervasive determinism to human thought, feeling, and action. In my opinion, his point of view has not gained general acceptance by all those striving for clarity and logical rigor only because it requires not only consistency of thought, but also unusual integrity, magnamity, and — modesty. bold by me.Lessans discusses Spinoza throughout the book (20 times to be exact). Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 37 Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of good and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around quite a bit but did not know how to slay the fiery dragon (the great impasse of blame), so he pretended it wasn’t even there. He stated, “We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when seen in total perspective," and he rejected the principle of an eye for an eye. Will Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s philosophy, although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He also went in and looked around very thoroughly and, he too, saw the fiery dragon but unlike Spinoza he made no pretense of its non-existence. He just didn’t know how to overcome the beast but refused to agree with what common sense told him to deny. The implications really need no further clarification as to why free will is in power. Nobody, including Spinoza and other philosophers, ever discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free because they never unlocked the second door which leads to my discovery. The belief in free will was compelled to remain in power until the present time because no one had conclusive proof that determinism was true, nor could anyone slay the fiery dragon which seemed like an impossible feat. Is it any wonder that Johnson didn’t want to get into this matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond the vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so difficult to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated?
You still haven't gotten to the point. I managed to read part of the sample and almost fell asleep. I have little patience with authors who devote multiple pages telling me how revolutionary their idea is. Don't tell me how smart you are, tell me your idea, Mr. Author. peacegirl, please post a short synopsis of what this Earth-changing idea includes and how it will save our civilization. I'm not going to buy the book to find out.Really it's a very old idea Darron. The idea is if we accept determinism and don't believe people are magically free we don't think people deserve their good or bad fortune in the way we ordinarily do and how we feel about allowing or causing suffering changes. Bottom line is to have done otherwise circumstances not of our choosing would have had to be different. That's what people generally don't accept. peacegirl is basically right although she sees this as a complete cure to all our ills rather than just a very helpful change. http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html
When asked to write short essay on "the ethical significance of Spinoza's philosophy," Einstein replied: I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza. But what I think about this man I can express in a few words. Spinoza was the first to apply with strict consistency the idea of an all-pervasive determinism to human thought, feeling, and action. In my opinion, his point of view has not gained general acceptance by all those striving for clarity and logical rigor only because it requires not only consistency of thought, but also unusual integrity, magnamity, and — modesty.bold by me. Which is the very reason it has not gained general acceptance. Those characteristics are woefully lacking in most people, even those considered well-educated. Lois
I am not overestimating this effect.Well if you are or you aren't we agree belief in contra causal free will is a very nasty piece of fiction and this is the point to get across,most people seem to think it's fairly benign sadly.
It is true that there are other conditions that must be in place before this principle can work. For example, if the only way I can feed my family is through stealing (assuming there is no other way to get food), then this principle will have no effect whatsoever because self-preservation is the first law of nature and if I have to hurt someone in order to survive, then this is what I will be compelled to do. But when the hurt done to me is removed (e.g. the fact that I can now find gainful employment), this law will prevent me from striking a first blow.OK I agree I think. What you're saying is we'll not think anybody deserves to be struck so that motivation will be removed. Is that it? A person who is unemployed and must feed his family will steal or or will not, depending on all of his determining factors. There is certainly more than the self-preservation factor at work. If that were not the case, everyone who has lost a job and must feed his family would steal, and we know that is not the case. Lois
The author did get to the point but you're not willing to invest the time to find out. The fact that he makes extraordinary claims does not mean he's wrong for making them especially if he is right in his analysis. How do you know his findings are not revolutionary if you don't know what they are? The author demonstrates why man's will is not free, and then extends this knowledge into every area of human relation. Philosophers down through the ages looked at determinism and could not get past the implications for if man's will is not free, we cannot blame. The question becomes: How in the world can we not blame people who hurt us, and wouldn't this make man even less responsible? This impasse has been a difficult stumbling block to overcome since blame and punishment is the cornerstone of our civilization. I cannot give a quick synopsis as it will not do this work justice. You fell asleep that fast? Sorry to have bored you.The blame theory is not "a stumbling block", it just plain wrong and I can't understand why you have been unable to work this out. I'm not sure what you mean by "been able to work this out". Could you explain? Yes. If you are a determinist, which you say you are, and you understand determinsim, you would not be taken in by the blame argument. You would know that the motivation to blame and to punish is not conscious--it's determined, like everything else, and we don't have any conscious control over what we think at any particular moment. Yes, being conscious of being a determinist might have some eventual effect on whether we blame people for their acts, but it could well be a positive effect. We might become more understanding of immoral behavior and we might work to reform the way our justice system works and the way we treat prisoners, for example. But it would not happen right away, it would take a long time for such factors to kick in and have any effect. It doesn't happen overnight. To me, the idea that if we accept that our thoughts and actions are determined we would therefore completely drop all ideas of blame and punishment is ridiculous. There is nothing in the determinist philosophy that would point to such an outcome. . It's the kind of thing that people who don't understand determinism would say, not those who understand and accept that our thoughts and actions are the result of millions of determining factors we have no control over, nor are we conscious of them. Lois
Humans blame others for the same deterministic reasons we do anything. Even a world of determinists will try to assess blame--for the simple reason that we are determined by unconscious factors to do it. If everyone on earth became a hard determinist tomorrow we would still blame and punish for the simple reason that what we do and the paths we take are not a matter of free will. Even determinists fall into the irrational trap of thinking that the idea of blame is a stumbling block. It is no such thing.It actually is a stumbling block but that does not mean it can't be overcome. I hope you follow this discovery which hasn't even been revealed. Do you see how everyone jumps to premature conclusions based on their faulty reasoning?
If blame and punishment are the cornerstones of our civilization, it's not because humans created it through free will. It was created by the same determining influences that determine everything else we do and think, none of which we have any control over. Accepting that we have no free will does not change our determining influences. This is basic. LoisThat is very true, but that does not mean that we cannot do better based on our new knowledge. To say we can do better is an understatement because this knowledge prevents the very thing that blame and punishment came into existence (i.e., to try to deter people from hurting others using threats of punishment).
I am not overestimating this effect.Well if you are or you aren't we agree belief in contra causal free will is a very nasty piece of fiction and this is the point to get across,most people seem to think it's fairly benign sadly.
It is true that there are other conditions that must be in place before this principle can work. For example, if the only way I can feed my family is through stealing (assuming there is no other way to get food), then this principle will have no effect whatsoever because self-preservation is the first law of nature and if I have to hurt someone in order to survive, then this is what I will be compelled to do. But when the hurt done to me is removed (e.g. the fact that I can now find gainful employment), this law will prevent me from striking a first blow.OK I agree I think. What you're saying is we'll not think anybody deserves to be struck so that motivation will be removed. Is that it? A person who is unemployed and must feed his family will steal or or will not, depending on all of his determining factors. There is certainly more than the self-preservation factor at work. If that were not the case, everyone who has lost a job and must feed his family would steal, and we know that is not the case. Lois I was using this as a hypothetical where the only option this person had was to steal or face starvation. Most people would choose to steal as the lesser of two evils. The point I was making is that, under these conditions, this would not be considered a first blow because he is already being hurt. This law (or principle) could not prevent him from stealing in a situation like this, but it would prevent him from stealing to gain at another person's expense.
GdB
The trouble is when you say we have free will almost everybody thinks you mean we have contra causal free will.
They just don’t get it.
I understand your motives. I even agree with you. But it doesn’t work.
The author did get to the point but you're not willing to invest the time to find out. The fact that he makes extraordinary claims does not mean he's wrong for making them especially if he is right in his analysis. How do you know his findings are not revolutionary if you don't know what they are? The author demonstrates why man's will is not free, and then extends this knowledge into every area of human relation. Philosophers down through the ages looked at determinism and could not get past the implications for if man's will is not free, we cannot blame. The question becomes: How in the world can we not blame people who hurt us, and wouldn't this make man even less responsible? This impasse has been a difficult stumbling block to overcome since blame and punishment is the cornerstone of our civilization. I cannot give a quick synopsis as it will not do this work justice. You fell asleep that fast? Sorry to have bored you.The blame theory is not "a stumbling block", it just plain wrong and I can't understand why you have been unable to work this out. I'm not sure what you mean by "been able to work this out". Could you explain? Yes. If you are a determinist, which you say you are, and you understand determinsim, you would not be taken in by the blame argument. You would know that the motivation to blame and to punish is not conscious--it's determined, like everything else, and we don't have any conscious control over what we think at any particular moment. Yes, being conscious of being a determinist might have some eventual effect on whether we blame people for their acts, but it could well be a positive effect. We might become more understanding of immoral behavior and we might work to reform the way our justice system works and the way we treat prisoners, for example. But it would not happen right away, it would take a long time for such factors to kick in and have any effect. It doesn't happen overnight. To me, the idea that if we accept that our thoughts and actions are determined we would therefore completely drop all ideas of blame and punishment is ridiculous. There is nothing in the determinist philosophy that would point to such an outcome. . It's the kind of thing that people who don't understand determinism would say, not those who understand and accept that our thoughts and actions are the result of millions of determining factors we have no control over, nor are we conscious of them. Lois It is true that everything we think and do (conscious or subconscious) is determined by many factors, but part of our evolutionary history shows that formal punishment (i.e., the creation of a penal and justice system) developed out of necessity; out of our need to deter behavior that society could not tolerate. In order to justify this punishment, we had to believe that man's will was free; that he could have chosen another behavior than the one for which is now being punished. This is all in keeping with determinism. This author is not saying that we should drop all blame and punishment without certain conditions being in place. Not only would that be naive; it would cause every thief to come out of the woodwork, and even those who did not consider themselves to be thieves would be quite tempted. At this point, you need to follow his reasoning to see where this knowledge leads. This is in Chapter Two and we haven't even discussed Chapter One fully. It is true that nothing in the determinist philosophy to date (that I know of) points to such an outcome since no one has made this discovery. It is unprecedented.
Accepting that we have no free will does not change our determining influences. This is basic. LoisYou're obviously wrong because belief in free will is a determining influence. This is basic. (By free will I mean the free will you have in mind.)
I am looking for people who would like to study this work and give it a fair and balanced review. I’m willing to pay for the cost of the ebook and send it as a gift, if that’s a problem. I do have the book on Kobo and google play books, but not on ibooks yet. I’m not looking for agreement. I am looking for people who will act like investigators who will take the time to see IF THIS MAN MAY HAVE SOMETHING OF VALUE. I am also looking for a discussion once the book is read. How can a discussion make any real progress when no one has read what is under discussion?
Accepting that we have no free will does not change our determining influences. This is basic. LoisYou're obviously wrong because belief in free will is a determining influence. This is basic. (By free will I mean the free will you have in mind.) There is no such thing as free will. If you think there is, please present objective eidence. We have planty of objective eidence of determinism. Belief in anything is evidence of nothing but that the human brain tends to believe in things without evidence. Lois
Accepting that we have no free will does not change our determining influences. This is basic. LoisYou're obviously wrong because belief in free will is a determining influence. This is basic. (By free will I mean the free will you have in mind.) There is no such thing as free will. Ifyounthink there is, please present objective eidence. We have planty of objevtive eidence of determinism. Belief in anything is evodence of nothing but that the human brain tends to believe in things without evidence. Lois This is a good example of what I'm saying to GdB. When compatibilists say we have free will people they think they are referring to contra causal free will. Of course there is such a thing as free will if it's defined in a way that it exists. The only argument can be over whether it's right to do so. So lets define free will as I have more than one option I can select. (that's not it exactly it but it doesn't matter.) Now I can check. Yesterday I chose to drink tea with my breakfast. The day before I chose to drink coffee with my breakfast. So I can either choose to drink tea or coffee with my breakfast and I have empirical evidence for it, which is what I assume you mean by objective evidence.
Please try to understand this: If B (dish 5; the dish I now wish I had picked looking back) was an impossible choice at that moment because it gave me less satisfaction (based on what I knew about my food allergy and the calculated risk I was willing to take for the sake of eating something I knew I would enjoy) I was not free to choose dish 7.Bold by me. Yep. I understand what you are saying. And please understand me that I do not accept this as 'coerced will'. When a will is not coerced, then it is free. When you act according your own wishes and beliefs, then you are free. In daily language: you are free if you can do what you want. The 'free will part' lies in the relationship between your motivations and your actions. Not between your 'causal history' and what your wishes and beliefs are. Determinism is not a constraint, not a force that coerces us to do something, but a description of regularities how events follow each other. Seeing causes as coercion, as compulsion, is an anthropomorphism: if a stone falls to the earth, is it forced by the earth, or does the stone want to go earth's surface? Isn't that a meaningless question?
No, it's not a valid excuse but who is asking for one? In the new world the question wouldn't even come up because we would already know you couldn't help yourself, so you're already excused.You say that free will does not exist. But I can ask for the responsibility of you having diarrhoea, and there is a definite answer: what are you else then the totality of your wishes and beliefs? I don't know anything about this 'new world' so if you do not explain, then it is just air.
You need to prove that a person could have done otherwise given the exact same conditions.There exactly lies our difference. 'Could have done otherwise given the exact same conditions' is the chimera of libertarian free will. It is impossible and does not exist. I even think that it has no meaning in a non-determined universe. The past is past, and so I still have no idea what it would mean. On the other side, there is an absolutely unproblematic reading of 'could have taken dish 7': the past tense of 'can take dish 7', i.e. having the option to choose dish 7. That has a meaning, just as 'If I yesterday would have heated up a kettle of water, it would have boiled after a time'. The sentence is true, even if it did not happen. It is a description of the causal relationship between 'heating up water' and 'coming to a boil'. The 'could have done otherwise' in the situation of the restaurant is the description of the causal relationship between my preferences and my choosing. Nothing more.
True, but where is the free will? The fact that you had options does not grant you freedom of the will.The fact that nobody coerced you to a choice makes your choice an action from free will. The kind of free will you think is needed for responsibility, libertarian free, will does not exist, we agree on that. But the kind of free will that really exists, acting according to your preferences and beliefs, does exist. And the point is that this notion of free will is enough to assign responsibility. Arguing that that is not true because it is not real free will, is just saying that you are right, and I am not. You can only argue against this idea of free will by showing that it cannot bear the load of assigning responsibility. But saying that we are compelled by our satisfaction simply does not work for me, as I wrote in the first paragraph of this posting.
So why are you arguing over a completely different point which is if you're justified in using the label free will for what you have in mind.Because she denies nothing when she denies the existence of libertarian free will. It is as interesting as saying that there are no square circles. Of course, when people show silly behaviour because they think that square circles exist, we must show it to them. But to say that there are no circles at all is definitely false.
The trouble is when you say we have free will almost everybody thinks you mean we have contra causal free will. They just don't get it.Yeah, nicely formulated. Even if I say it thousand times, explain it in hundreds of different ways, they don't get it. The must be determined not to get it...
Yesterday I chose to drink tea with my breakfast. The day before I chose to drink coffee with my breakfast. So I can either choose to drink tea or coffee with my breakfast and I have empirical evidence for it, which is what I assume you mean by objective evidence.Yes. Simple idea. Obviously very difficult to understand. The wrong, metaphysical meaning of 'could have done otherwise' is obviously very difficult to get rid of.
Please try to understand this: If B (dish 5; the dish I now wish I had picked looking back) was an impossible choice at that moment because it gave me less satisfaction (based on what I knew about my food allergy and the calculated risk I was willing to take for the sake of eating something I knew I would enjoy) I was not free to choose dish 7.Bold by me. Yep. I understand what you are saying. And please understand me that I do not accept this as 'coerced will'. When a will is not coerced, then it is free. When you act according your own wishes and beliefs, then you are free. In daily language: you are free if you can do what you want. The 'free will part' lies in the relationship between your motivations and your actions. Motivations are what drives one's choices in the direction of greater satisfaction, so where is the free will? Having options that are not burdened by external constraint is a distinction that is contrived to make it appear as if free will and determinism can co-exist. Please let his words sink in. What we do [of our own free will; of our own desire because we want to] is not done of our own free will. Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 44 If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone as Morrison understood from his scientific observations; that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false." So without any further ado, let us begin.
Not between your 'causal history' and what your wishes and beliefs are.Huh? Don't your motivations and actions come from your beliefs and wishes? :gulp:
Determinism is not a constraint, not a force that coerces us to do something, but a description of regularities how events follow each other.[/qote] That is very true, and I explained this already. This is a huge conundrum because of the definition of determinism, which, as the opposite of free will, implies that something is causing one to do what he does. You are right in that determinism cannot coerce anyone to do something. This IS his second principle (that nothing can make a person do what he doesn't want to do, not even his God himself) together with the fact that man's will is not free gives us the two-sided equation, the discovery that is being referred to. This was very clear in the text. Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place p. 54 Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.Seeing causes as coercion, as compulsion, is an anthropomorphism: if a stone falls to the earth, is it forced by the earth, or does the stone want to go earth's surface? Isn't that a meaningless question?But I'm in agreement with you. The kind of coercion that is defined as determinism in the conventional literature is not reflective of what is actually going on in reality. This has caused a major stumbling block in the determinism/free will debate where there seems to be no solution. That is why the meaning Lessans gives to determinism needs to be carefully examined for accuracy.No, it's not a valid excuse but who is asking for one? In the new world the question wouldn't even come up because we would already know you couldn't help yourself, so you're already excused.You say that free will does not exist. But I can ask for the responsibility of you having diarrhoea, and there is a definite answer: what are you else then the totality of your wishes and beliefs? I don't know anything about this 'new world' so if you do not explain, then it is just air.Of course it is hot air until you learn more about it. I've done all I can to try to share this discovery but with little success, even after revising 7 books which took me 10 years, and after putting it on Kindle to reduce the price. People are still stubbornly resistant. Yes, I am responsible for having diarrhea, so what? I haven't caused you any serious pain. If anything, I've caused myself pain. Who wants to have loose stools knowing that I did it to myself by the bad choice I made?You need to prove that a person could have done otherwise given the exact same conditions.There exactly lies our difference. 'Could have done otherwise given the exact same conditions' is the chimera of libertarian free will. It is impossible and does not exist. I even think that it has no meaning in a non-determined universe. The past is past, and so I still have no idea what it would mean. On the other side, there is an absolutely unproblematic reading of 'could have taken dish 7': the past tense of 'can take dish 7', i.e. having the option to choose dish 7. That has a meaning, just as 'If I yesterday would have heated up a kettle of water, it would have boiled after a time'. The sentence is true, even if it did not happen. It is a description of the causal relationship between 'heating up water' and 'coming to a boil'. The 'could have done otherwise' in the situation of the restaurant is the description of the causal relationship between my preferences and my choosing. Nothing more.There is nothing wrong with saying "if I had not eaten dish 7, I would not have diarrhea; but I did eat dish 7 which looking back, given my frame of mind, and the situation before me, I could not have acted otherwise. You are skewing the definition of free will in order to make it compatible with determinism, but there is a serious flaw. There is no convincing you GdB. You sound like another compatibilist I talked to who was so adamant that we have this special kind of free will (the kind that is not compulsive and is not caused by external constraints), that he was deaf to hearing my explanation.
Motivations are what drives one's choices in the direction of greater satisfaction, so where is the free will? Having options that are not burdened by external constraint is a distinction that is contrived to make it appear as if free will and determinism can co-exist. Please let his words sink in.I did, and after examination, they fell through. You still don't see the point what we are discussing about: - You say we would need libertarian free will to assign people responsibility - I say we need compatibilist free will to assign people responsibility We both agree that libertarian free will does not exist. - Your reaction: we must draw the consequences of this! My father proves we can make it a better world when we think this through! - My reaction: so what?
What we do [of our own free will; of our own desire because we want to] is not done of our own free will.You see you get trouble formulating what you mean? You use 'free will' in 2 different meanings, so you recognise it is a form of free will. The only step you must make now is that the second, red one, is based on an unfounded metaphysical idea, and then examine if the first, green one, can bear the load of assigning responsibility.
Out of context my phrase means nothing. (It not even sentence). I am saying that free will means that our reasons determine our actions. The objection that my reasons themselves are caused has nothing to with it, as long as we are grown up normally and are not a victim of Cuthbertj's daemon. As long as we can anticipate the future, evaluate options for actions, and know what society abhors, I can decide what do do and I am free. That my considering is a determined process has nothing to do with it.Not between your 'causal history' and what your wishes and beliefs are.Huh? Don't your motivations and actions come from your beliefs and wishes? :gulp:
The kind of coercion that is defined as determinism in the conventional literature is not reflective of what is actually going on in reality.So what is actually going on in reality, apart from just one huge causal process?
Yes, I am responsible for having diarrhea, so what? I haven't caused you any serious pain.No. But you threw our holiday into the water. It has consequences for me, and therefore I make you responsible, and therefore I am justified angry.
There is nothing wrong with saying "if I had not eaten dish 7, I would not have diarrhea; but I did eat dish 7 which looking back, given my frame of mind, and the situation before me, I could not have acted otherwise.Yes, in the metaphysical sense you could not have done otherwise. But in the normal, daily meaning you could have taken another dish. And even if you were determined, it was you who did it, and therefore you accept your responsibility. If the idea that you are determined does change something in your attitude, then it is not that you are not responsible, but that you see that your act of taking dish 5 just has its consequences, and you timidly accept my anger as completely justified in the situation you created. You know you can do otherwise, next time, and in this sense (think about Stephen's example with he tea and coffee), you also could have done otherwise.
You are skewing the definition of free will in order to make it compatible with determinism, but there is a serious flaw.There is no flaw: the flaw lies completely in the idea that we need libertarian free will to support our praxis of assigning responsibility.
There is no convincing you GdB. You sound like another compatibilist I talked to who was so adamant that we have this special kind of free will (the kind that is not compulsive and is not caused by external constraints), that he was deaf to hearing my explanation.It will not wonder you, that I of course think the same of you. And it is no special kind of free will: it is the only one we have, being able to do what you want. Your 'free will' I made green above.