Compatibilism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Compatibilism » Compatibilism

Compatibilism
How free-will and determinism can co-exist

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

Compatibilism

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 07/05/09 - 12:51 AM:	#11
aletheist wrote: ... Conscious humans are thus unique causal agents whose beliefs and decisions are not the result of strictly deterministic and/or random processes ... And if determinism is true, how can we have "judgment" of any kind, as it is commonly understood? ... So you think that if our choices are made because of our past, then they are not free. But if they are made because of random quantum fluctuations, or made with no influence from our selves, then they are not ours. It seems that choices could not be a mater of this impossible "free will". If determinism is false, how can we have "judgment" of any kind, as it is commonly understood? What can it mean to say that we might have chosen otherwise!? If you had the exact same mood and temperament, and rather than choose to marry your beloved, you chose to run away to the monastery: how could this possibility make one more free? Do we say that you are not free because you acted according to your character? What an unusual, philosophers definition of freedom this is.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 07/05/09 - 03:22 AM:	#12
The pro argument for free will is just the desire for self importance. Free will seperates human beings from everything else in the universe, putting 'us' in the centre again. It is so religiously sad, as the logic is quite simple. We are our past. Our brains react to incoming stimulus. If free will existed you would be able to do things such as invent a colour that lies outside the visible spectrum (which you cannot do, as 'will' is not free). You know nothing, except for the information you have recevied over your life-time, and your dna (which controls your initial state) is just the result of evolution. If I had your dna, and lived your exact life, I would be 'you'!
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Cohan8
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 05, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 07/05/09 - 06:35 AM:	#13
To battle elemental thought against elemental thought through the perception of language actually explaining what we are thinking is to invariably choose one over another, effectively simplifying an outcome we intended to broaden. Why would it be that we are determined not to accept, to inevitably accept through another man's understanding of DNA, which is itself a battle with tangibility?
There is no right and there is no wrong, find a new way to dream about what surrounds you and you find reverence through ignorance.

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 07/05/09 - 07:20 AM:	#14
mway wrote: The pro argument for free will is just the desire for self importance. Free will seperates human beings from everything else in the universe, putting 'us' in the centre again. The above seems to have been written with no awareness of any previous posts in this thread; it is not applicable to the compatibilist position at all. The will's freedom from coercion isn't asserted to "place us in the center" of anything, and it has nothing to do with self importance. We speak of freedom from coercion because it's morally relevant. Or, is talk of morality just something to place us in the center of the universe? Really, the uninspired lack of effort that went into your bundle of proclamations should probably get them deleted.
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 07/05/09 - 04:16 PM:	#15
Kamerynn wrote: The above seems to have been written with no awareness of any previous posts in this thread; it is not applicable to the compatibilist position at all. The will's freedom from coercion isn't asserted to "place us in the center" of anything, and it has nothing to do with self importance. We speak of freedom from coercion because it's morally relevant. Or, is talk of morality just something to place us in the center of the universe? Really, the uninspired lack of effort that went into your bundle of proclamations should probably get them deleted. It's ok, I always expect the people who are pro free will to get defensive (it is hard for people to let go of self importance). Compatibilism is irrational. It says we live in a world of causality, and yet somehow every human (and not any other species or object) has the ability to break this causal chain. Nothing more needs to be said, as this basically becomes the same as any religious argument.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 07/05/09 - 04:21 PM:	#16
Nope, breaking the casual chain is irrelevant with regards to freedom. Compatabilism seems quite logical. Depending on the particular brand.

aletheist
Professor

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 07/05/09 - 04:28 PM:	#17
Kamerynn wrote: However, philosophers are well known for taking common concepts and analyzing them more deeply than the layman. There are philosophers in all three camps (hard determinist, compatibilist, libertarian). Kamerynn wrote: After all, random, uncaused will impedes our moral notions rather than sustaining them. Who said anything about "random, uncaused will"? Kamerynn wrote: In other words, I'm merely trying to head off the argument that there is no such thing as freedom from coercion, as I'm sure we can all agree that blackmail counts. But if everything is determined, then the presence or absence of coercion is also determined. The whole concept of coercion becomes meaningless. Kamerynn wrote: How could we assess a given situation if we could not analyze potential causes and predict probable effects? The debate is not over cause and effect per se; there are obviously deterministic processes at work in the material universe. The question is whether human "choices" are entirely the result of deterministic processes. Kamerynn wrote: This is one reason why I say that it is the incompatibilist who redefines the notion, not the compatibilist. The compatibilist simply works with a more common-sense, practical notion that already exists in the vocabulary of many laymen I think that having the genuine ability to take more than one possible course of thought or action under a given set of circumstances is very much part of the common sense notion of free will. Yours is a special case of this more general definition. Kamerynn wrote: The trick in the above is the use of "really free" instead of something more precise such as "freedom from all causation, i.e., randomness." You are making a false dichotomy by insisting that the only two options are determinism and "freedom from all causation, i.e., randomness." By recognizing humans as unique causal agents, the libertarian rejects both of these.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

aletheist
Professor

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 07/05/09 - 04:45 PM:	#18
Makarismos wrote: So you think that if our choices are made because of our past, then they are not free I think that if our choices are made entirely becuase of our past, then they are not free. Makarismos wrote: But if they are made because of random quantum fluctuations, or made with no influence from our selves, then they are not ours. I completely agree with this. Makarismos wrote: It seems that choices could not be a mater of this impossible "free will". Libertarian free will is only "impossible" if you presuppose determinism or assume that randomness is the only alternative. Makarismos wrote: If determinism is false, how can we have "judgment" of any kind, as it is commonly understood? Please elaborate. Makarismos wrote: What can it mean to say that we might have chosen otherwise!? If you had the exact same mood and temperament, and rather than choose to marry your beloved, you chose to run away to the monastery: how could this possibility make one more free? It is not the choice itself that makes us free, it is the (genuine) ability to choose. Makarismos wrote: Do we say that you are not free because you acted according to your character? What an unusual, philosophers definition of freedom this is. You are not free if your "character" is completely determined, rather than being shaped (at least in part) by your own free choices.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 07/05/09 - 05:08 PM:	#19
alethiest wrote: The question is whether human "choices" are entirely the result of deterministic processes. This is the crux of the argument, and I said above it becomes a similar argument to that of religion. If human "choices" are not governed [entirely] by causality, then logically you must posit some dualist perspective. As there is no evidence to date that can be used as a basis for dualism (other then religion, or blind self love), then it becomes logical to assert that compatibilism, while still possible, is not the path of least assumption. Just imagine if this was a dualist existence, whereby humans had the ability to truly make choices (opposing causality). If we could understand the origin of this ability, we could use it to create anything (magic). The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

aletheist
Professor

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 07/05/09 - 05:09 PM:	#20
mway wrote: Free will seperates human beings from everything else in the universe, putting 'us' in the centre again. Free will--according to both the libertarian and compatibilist definitions--does appear to be limited to humans, and not shared by any other known species. Consciousness, rationality, the unified self, intrinsic value, and moral absolutes also appear to be unique to humans. Do you disagree? mway wrote: It is so religiously sad, as the logic is quite simple. Who said anything about religion? mway wrote: We are our past. Our brains react to incoming stimulus. This is a presupposition on your part, including the implied "only" between "brains" and "react". mway wrote: If free will existed you would be able to do things such as invent a colour that lies outside the visible spectrum (which you cannot do, as 'will' is not free). This is not how anyone is defining free will in this thread, as far as I can tell. mway wrote: You know nothing, except for the information you have recevied over your life-time, and your dna (which controls your initial state) is just the result of evolution. If I had your dna, and lived your exact life, I would be 'you'! Again, you seem to be injecting some presuppositions here. Identical twins have the same DNA, and can live very simliar (though not exact) lives, yet be very different individuals. Besides, in order to live my exact life, you would have to make my exact choices--at every single step of the way. In other words, you would have to be me already.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

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