Compatibilism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Compatibilism » Compatibilism

Compatibilism
How free-will and determinism can co-exist

Page: First 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Compatibilism

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 07/30/09 - 06:10 PM:	#171
Death Monkey wrote: if the above were the definition of Libertarian free will, then a will that is simply subject to random influences would qualify. But of course when this is pointed out, the Libertarian will immediately amend the above to include the stipulation that it is a "genuine" choice, and not just a random event. And that is where it becomes, at least on the face of it, self-contradictory. There is no need to amend my definition--it already includes the word "genuine". And what is "self-contradictory" about stipulating that it be a "genuine" choice--one that involves the intentional exercise of active power, not just deterministic and/or random effects? Death Monkey wrote: J. P. Moreland wrote: Person P exercises libertarian agency and freely does some intentional act e just in case (1) P is a substance that has the active power to bring about e; (2) P exerted his/her active power as a first, unmoved mover (an 'originator') to bring about e; (3) P had the categorical ability to refrain from exerting his/her power to bring about e; (4) P acted for the sake of reasons which serve as the final cause or teleological goal for which P acted. Again, perfectly consistent with P simply being made up from ordinary matter which, due to the nature of quantum mechanics, behaves in an implicitly random way to some degree. You cannot just dismiss this formalization so easily. Does "ordinary matter" have active power? Can "ordinary matter" exert such power as a first, unmoved mover? Does "ordinary matter" have the categorical ability to refrain from exerting such power? Can "ordinary matter" act for the sake of reasons? Where do you see randomness in any of these statements? Where do you see self-contradiction? Death Monkey wrote: It's difficult to judge from isolated quotes like this, but it seems to me that Moreland is being deliberately misleading here. The justification point he makes in the last sentence is, in no way, specific to libertarian free will. In fact, it is also perfectly consistent with, and indeed required by, compatibilism. Not at all--what Moreland means by "active power" is impossible if determinism is true. J. P. Moreland wrote: Active power is a primitive notion with a sense that is ultimately understood ostensively in acts of first-person introspective awareness of one's own initiation of change. A characteristic mark of active power is the ability to initiate motion, to bring something about. Active power is a dual ability to exert or refrain from exerting one's power. So understood, it is impossible for an exercise of active power to be causally necessitated by prior events. A first-mover is a substance that has active power. The notion of categorical ability in (3) has two important aspects to it. First, it expresses the type of ability possessed by a first-mover that can exercise active power, and as such it contrasts with the conditional ability employed by compatibilists. Second, categorial ability is a dual ability: if one has the ability to exert his power to do (or will to do) a, then one also has the ability to refrain from exerting his power to do (or will to do) a. Finally, (4) expresses a view of reasons as irreducible, teleological goals for the sake of which a person acts. In general, we may characterize this by saying that person s e'd (e.g., went to the kitchen) in order to r (e.g., get coffee or satisfy s's desire for coffee). This characterization of action, according to (4), cannot be reduced to a causal theory of action that uses belief or desire event causation. I apologize for such a lengthy quote, but I wanted to put all of this on the table for your consideration and response.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Beno
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 74

Posted 07/30/09 - 11:14 PM:	#172
Makarismos wrote: What is 0 x infinity? Surely it is still 0? So if the pieces here all zero points long, then the finite length would suddenly disappear? Something decidedly strange is going on here - and I think I know what: Has it simply been decided that x/infinity = some kind of special infinity small fraction of x? Surely we cannot say that x = 0, because 0 x infinity could not be anything at all. You are using an incomprehensible thing (i.e. infinity) to disprove the only two things which are possible (i.e. determinism or randomness) using 'common sense'. You are positing a possible third thing, but you do not want to go in to that. I want to know what that could be? Your words have so far been rather unclear, I am only attempting to understand what your on about. So far, I have made very little headway, but you last post sounded clearer than the previous. Ok, that makes sense to me - the future is possible but unpredictable in principle. I still dont know how we could asertain that their are an infinite veriaty of options or states for the universe.. Come to think of it, this is the kind of thing which is not open to empirical investagation. What reasoning can you bring to bear on that point? I think you will find that there is no third option. If the universe is an algorithm, then even the universe cannot be determined, or random. This means that you require a third option: what is it? Your revised argument sounds much less like junk, I will have a think about it. I must admit that I am by no means convinced that these phenomena merit the term "self contradictory". I will however, look in to it. 0 x infinity is probably 0. Remember not all operations have to be symmetric. Simply because we can't reverse the process and get our finite quantity back out does not mean that that's not what happens. A line or finite quantity is simply a form of relationship between the individual points or elements. Remove the relationship i.e. divide by infinity and you have nothing. Maths produces lots of weird results. Whether that's due to a lack of understanding on our part I don't know. If you're asking me to speculate on a third alternative then I'll air some thoughts I've had on the matter. It might be that the Universe can perform super tasks. These are tasks whereby an infinite number of steps occurs in a finite amount of time. Such tasks though would not be ordinary algorithms as we understand them. They would represent a form of logic we can't fully grasp at the moment. Are they contradictory to common sense? Yes. But I consider them a lesser of three evils because with super tasks you can actually do things and produce things which seems to be beyond what determinism and random chance on their own can do. Edited by Incision on 07/31/09 - 11:08 AM. Reason: apostrophes

Poisson
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 07/30/09 - 11:34 PM:	#173
ecspose wrote: Let me start by saying, yes determinism is true I disagree, because of quantum mechanics. In QM, a particle is not anywhere before measurement. Therefore, the prior state does not determine what happen after measurement.

ecspose
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2005

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 144

Posted 07/31/09 - 07:20 AM:	#174
Poisson wrote: I disagree, because of quantum mechanics. In QM, a particle is not anywhere before measurement. Therefore, the prior state does not determine what happen after measurement. What is this, drive-by-debating? Quantum Mechanics is only yet more proof that we can observe things that we do not understand. A quantum 'particle' in a non-state still exists in some form. Just because we cannot predict an event, does not mean it won't unfold with mechanical precision. Otherwise it's like saying when a ball is put under one of three cups and shuffled behind a curtain, at the point where we can no longer observe the cups or ball they don't exist. Again, 'chance' is just our way of estimating our ignorance of something, when in fact only one thing will happen. 'Random' is a misused word, as random cannot mean anything other than 'too complex to determine'. There are interaction we can observe, and interactions we cannot. Nothing that happens can happen without being a direct result of interaction.
Self replication leads to self replication

Simple Occam
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 728

Posted 07/31/09 - 07:48 AM:	#175
The only extent to which human will is free is the extent to which it is determined by reason. Other animals also have a will and make choices to perform this or that behavior, based on intuition, instinct and a certain kind of inductive reasoning that includes memories of how things behaved in the past and expectations about how they will behave in the future. The greater the range of choices avaliable to the animal and the greater the mental capacity to remember and predict potential outcomes, the more free the animal is in the choices it makes. Freedom, therefore, is a matter of degree, greater then zero but less than infinite. Human animals are a quantum leap beyond other animals becasue we have all that, plus language. We can decide not only on how to move around in space so as to survive and reproduce. We also can reason about what the best choice is, based on a much broader range of considerations. That is, we have morality. A choice is free to the extent that it is a moral choice, i.e., one that is motivated by reasoning to the best possibility, such that to know that (and why) it is good IS to do it. Thus, will, which determines behavior, is most free when it is determined by reasoning to the best possible action. This argument supports the Socratic dictum, "To know the good is to do the good". Edited by Simple Occam on 07/31/09 - 07:58 AM

Poisson
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 07/31/09 - 02:51 PM:	#176
ecspose wrote: What is this, drive-by-debating? Quantum Mechanics is only yet more proof that we can observe things that we do not understand. A quantum 'particle' in a non-state still exists in some form. Just because we cannot predict an event, does not mean it won't unfold with mechanical precision. Otherwise it's like saying when a ball is put under one of three cups and shuffled behind a curtain, at the point where we can no longer observe the cups or ball they don't exist. This the wrong analogy. The quantum particle cannot be at some location before measurement, because there would be experimental consequence according to Bell` s theorm. i think such hidden variable theory is made very implasible.

ecspose
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2005

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 144

Posted 07/31/09 - 06:34 PM:	#177
Poisson wrote: This the wrong analogy. The quantum particle cannot be at some location before measurement, because there would be experimental consequence according to Bell` s theorm. i think such hidden variable theory is made very implasible. I think you're missing the point. The quantum particle doesn't exist, but the waveform does. There are still mechanistic processes at work no matter what 'form' a quantum particle is in. I suggest you see posts #136 and #139 where I've already made comments on this. Unless you have something more, I have nothing further to add.
Self replication leads to self replication

Beno
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 74

Posted 08/01/09 - 11:35 PM:	#178
ecspose wrote: I think you're missing the point. The quantum particle doesn't exist, but the waveform does. There are still mechanistic processes at work no matter what 'form' a quantum particle is in. I suggest you see posts #136 and #139 where I've already made comments on this. Unless you have something more, I have nothing further to add. If the Universe was completely deterministic then all its relationships would be constant and never change. If alls its relationships were constant then there would be no motion because motion represents changing relationships between entities. Hence we can deduce that the universe is not completely deterministic simply because things move.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 08/02/09 - 03:49 AM:	#179
Beno wrote: If the Universe was completely deterministic then all its relationships would be constant and never change. If alls its relationships were constant then there would be no motion because motion represents changing relationships between entities. Hence we can deduce that the universe is not completely deterministic simply because things move. A new argument? P1 If the Universe was completely deterministic then all its relationships would be constant and never change. P2 Motion represents changing relationships between entities C1 [therefore] the universe is not completely deterministic How do you reason P1? I can quite easily conceive of a deterministic universe in which the relationships of separate objects varied, and was not constant. In a limited sense, we can think of a pool table, and the changing relationships of the balls as a deterministic system/universe, and there seems to be no conflict to its deterministic nature if those balls are in motion.

Beno
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 74

Posted 08/02/09 - 11:38 AM:	#180
Makarismos wrote: A new argument? P1 If the Universe was completely deterministic then all its relationships would be constant and never change. P2 Motion represents changing relationships between entities C1 [therefore] the universe is not completely deterministic How do you reason P1? I can quite easily conceive of a deterministic universe in which the relationships of separate objects varied, and was not constant. In a limited sense, we can think of a pool table, and the changing relationships of the balls as a deterministic system/universe, and there seems to be no conflict to its deterministic nature if those balls are in motion. Logic represents a set of relationships that are static and unchanging. The laws of logic never change, hence if everything could be logically defined then there would be no change in state of the Universe. How could there be motion in such a Universe?

Page: First 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.