Free will and determinism

[Ana the Ist]

Which is another way of saying that we don't make decisions. Which we do for reasons that determine our choices. That's what 'reasoning' is. A robot will take all available information and reach a decision as to the best choice. And it obviously has no free will. If you ask it for the reasons why its chose as it did then it will tell you.

What do you think reasoning actually means? I hope you're not going to say 'something we do with our free will'. Here's a standard definition:

'Reason is the capacity of applying logic by drawing valid conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth.'

ChatGpt will do that (with the exception of 'consciousness' which I took out not to muddy the water).

You've clearly never heard of the "Chinese Room" thought experiment.

It could easily be that whether we use logic or sophistry.....the language is simply insufficient in some way to accurately describe reality. Likely because the limits of our cognitive abilities likewise limit our languages.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Ana the Ist

The problem of people being hungry, homeless, and whatnot, cannot only be solved by food kitchens and stuff always having enough, etc, but the problem is a lot more complex than that, etc. And I know because I have been, etc. And while it is not true in everyone's case who is there, or has been there, etc, what's true in the great majority of cases, as it was with me, etc, is that unless they change some things, they are always going to be there, and you're always going to have to be constantly feeding them, and nothing is ever going to change, or get any better, etc. I made these changes, but many don't, and that is why they are still there, etc.

If you do a little bit or research on the problem, you'll find out just how complex it really is, etc, and your head will probably hurt a little bit afterwards, lol.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Ana the Ist

The problem of people being hungry, homeless, and whatnot, cannot only be solved by food kitchens and stuff always having enough, etc, but the problem is a lot more complex than that, etc. And I know because I have been, etc. And while it is not true in everyone's case who is there, or has been there, etc, what's true in the great majority of cases, as it was with me, etc, is that unless they change some things, they are always going to be there, and you're always going to have to be constantly feeding them, and nothing is ever going to change, or get any better, etc. I made these changes, but many don't, and that is why they are still there, etc.

If you do a little bit or research on the problem, you'll find out just how complex it really is, etc, and your head will probably hurt a little bit afterwards, lol.

Take Care/God Bless.

When I run into people, and if I get involved in a conversation with them, I always start by telling them my story, and how I made these changes, in the hopes that it will have an effect, and hopefully do much more than just putting food in their stomach for a day, etc, but sometimes I will provide that for them too, or also, etc, especially if it keeps them around long enough for me to tell them my story, and maybe provide them with some advice specific to their unique situation, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, of course she is. We all do. There aren't just 'physical determinants' as in events outside ourselves. We are always, and I mean always part of the process. We act according to our preferences as the situation dictates. The self makes the decision. Which yet again, doesn't mean that free will exists.

Your arguing against your own video now. Kane was using the business women example in support for how free will can exist.

So the woman has a choice. And she makes one or the other. One of them will obviously be her preference at that specific time. And will be determined by antecedent conditions.

No your video disagrees. Kane is saying that at the juncture of making certain choices, (self Affirming free choices) that require our attention and deliberation there may be paraelle processes going on which reflect these dilemma type situations where our will is divided. We are in an indeterminant state and our free choices are not completely dictated by the past.

He likens this to a heroine is a novel whose character is not yet defined and yet still can make willful choices that are not arbitray because they are only loosely based on the past but also made with an intention about a future self that is not yet set. Despite this the person knows this and commits themselves totheir choice whether its right or wrong.

He mentions theres a sort of value experiment going on that we base our chooices on. Basically he is saying this paraelle processing allows for both a certain level of determinism but also indeterminism that is not arbitray. I think this is a more reasonable explanation as it actually reflects the reality of how we make free will choices. Theres a lot more of us as a self affirming agent in the mix than just deterministic processes.

Prediction doesn't come into it (although Kane brings it up). You can predict an outcome or not. It has no bearing on free will whatsoever. He wanted to strike the table. That was determined. Whether it actually breaks or not is an unknown and is completely irrelevant up to the point when he strikes it. Whether it then breaks or not will determine his consequent decisions.

Well then you will have to re watch your video because that is certainly not what he is saying. I will post the part related to this.

Consider a husband while arguing with his wife in a fit of rage swings his arm down on her favorite glass top table intending to break it. Again we assume that some indeterminism in his outgoing neural pathways makes the momentum of his arm indeterminant so its genuinely undetermined whether the table will break right up to the moment it is struck. Whether the husband breaks the table or not is undetermined yet he is truely responsible if he does break it. It would be a poor excuse to say to his wife chance did it and not me.

The trick here is not to think of indeterminism that might be involved in free choices as a cause acting on its own but an ingredient in some larger goal directed or teleological process or activity in which the indeterminism functions as a hinderance or obstacle to the attainment of the goal. Such as the role envisaged for indeterminism in the efforts leading to self forming choices.

We tend to reason for example that if the outcome of an action whether its breaking a table in the husbands case or making a choice in the business womens case depends on whether certain neurons fire in the arm or the brain then the agent must be able to make those neurons fire or not if the agent is to be held responsible for the outcome. In other words we think that we have to crawl down to where the indeterminism originates in the individual neurons and make them go one way or another. We think we have to become originators at the micro level and tip the balance that chance leaves untipped if we and not chance are to be responsible for the outcome.

But we don't have to do that as its the wrong place to look. We don't have to manage our individual neurons to perform proposive actions and we don't have such micro control over our individual neurons even when we perform ordinary actions such as swinging an arm down on a table.

In other words its unreal to think of free will as from neurons to action as the only causal links in the chain or as the main cause. Theres some indeterminacy going on at other levels which are not arbitrary but allow us to make free will choices and take responsibility for them as well. Its more a mixture of determinant processes but also indeterminant ones that are not just based on chance but the injection of self as a self forming agent.

He then goes on to explain how free will can work due to paraelle processing. I suggest you re watch the video its quite interesting his take and one I that I think fits well with what is really going on with certain choices like Self Forming Actions SFA).

 

[Bradskii]

Your arguing against your own video now. Kane was using the business women example in support for how free will can exist.

Yeah. He was wrong.

No your video disagrees. Kane is saying that at the juncture of make certain choices, (self Affirming free choices) that require our attention and deliberation there may be paraelle porocesses going on which reflect these dilemma type situations where our will is divided. We are in an indeterminant state and our free choices are not dicted by the past.

He likens this to a heroine is a novel whose character is not yet defined and yet still can make willful choices that are not arbitray because they are only loosely based on the past but also made with an intention about a future self that is not yet set. Despite this the person knows this and commits themselves totheir choice whether its right or wrong.

Well...yeah. Kane was trying to suggest that free will was somehow related to future choices. But all choices are made in the present. Based on antecedent conditions. Which will include that which we desire in the future. We decide what we want based on all available information.

...a certain level of determinism but also indeterminism that is not arbitray.

That's just nonsensical.

Consider a husband while arguing with his wife in a fit of rage swings his arm down on her favorite glass top table intending to break it. Again we assume that some indeterminism in his outgoing neural pathways makes the momentum of his arm indeterminant so its genuinely undetermined whether the table will break right up to the moment it is struck. Whether the husband breaks the table or not is undetermined yet he is truely responsible if he does break it. It would be a poor excuse to say to his wife chance did it and not me.

That's as ridiculous as saying that if I shoot and kill my neighbour it's determined but if he survives then it wasn't.

We tend to reason for example that if the outcome of an action whether its breaking a table in the husbands case or making a choice in the business womens case depends on whether certain neurons fire in the arm or the brain then the agent must be able to make those neurons fire or not if the agent is to be held responsible for the outcome. In other words we think that we have to crawl down to where the indeterminism originates in the individual neurons and make them go one way or another. We think we have to become originators at the micro level and tip the balance that chance leaves untipped if we and not chance are to be responsible for the outcome.

It beats me why Kane spends so much time on responsibility. Well, actually I do know. It's because he's not able to separate morality, responsibility and free will. He thinks we should hold people responsible for the results of their actions so free will must exist. So if the table breaks the guy is responsible and if it doesn't then he isn't. Whether it does or doesn't has no bearing on it.

In other words its unreal to think of free will as from neurons to action as the only causal links in the chain or as the main cause. Theres some indeterminacy going on at other levels which are not arbitrary but allow us to make free will choices and take responsibility for them as well. Its more a mixture of determinant processes but also indeterminant ones that are not just based on chance but the injection of self as a self forming agent.

How many ways are you going to find to say that we have free will because it's obvious that we do? Give me an action or decision that was not determined.

 

[Neogaia777]

Your arguing against your own video now. Kane was using the business women example in support for how free will can exist.

No your video disagrees. Kane is saying that at the juncture of make certain choices, (self Affirming free choices) that require our attention and deliberation there may be paraelle porocesses going on which reflect these dilemma type situations where our will is divided. We are in an indeterminant state and our free choices are not dicted by the past.

He likens this to a heroine is a novel whose character is not yet defined and yet still can make willful choices that are not arbitray because they are only loosely based on the past but also made with an intention about a future self that is not yet set. Despite this the person knows this and commits themselves totheir choice whether its right or wrong.

He mentions theres a sort of value experiment going on that we base our chooices on. Basically he is saying this paraelle processing allows for both a certain level of determinism but also indeterminism that is not arbitray. I think this is a more reasonable explanation as it actually reflects the reality of how we make free will choices. Theres a lot more of us as a self affirming agent in the mix than just deterministic processes.

Well then you will have to re watch your video because that is certainly not what he is saying. I will post the part related to this.

Consider a husband while arguing with his wife in a fit of rage swings his arm down on her favorite glass top table intending to break it. Again we assume that some indeterminism in his outgoing neural pathways makes the momentum of his arm indeterminant so its genuinely undetermined whether the table will break right up to the moment it is struck. Whether the husband breaks the table or not is undetermined yet he is truely responsible if he does break it. It would be a poor excuse to say to his wife chance did it and not me.

The trick here is not to think of indeterminism that might be involved in free choices as a cause acting on its own but an ingredient in some larger goal directed or teleological process or activity in which the indeterminism functions as a hinderance or obstacle to the attainment of the goal. Such as the role envisaged for indeterminism in the efforts leading to self forming choices.

We tend to reason for example that if the outcome of an action whether its breaking a table in the husbands case or making a choice in the business womens case depends on whether certain neurons fire in the arm or the brain then the agent must be able to make those neurons fire or not if the agent is to be held responsible for the outcome. In other words we think that we have to crawl down to where the indeterminism originates in the individual neurons and make them go one way or another. We think we have to become originators at the micro level and tip the balance that chance leaves untipped if we and not chance are to be responsible for the outcome.

But we don't have to do that as its the wrong place to look. We don't have to manage our individual neurons to perform proposive actions and we don't have such micro control over our individual neurons even when we perform ordinary actions such as swinging an arm down on a table.

In other words its unreal to think of free will as from neurons to action as the only causal links in the chain or as the main cause. Theres some indeterminacy going on at other levels which are not arbitrary but allow us to make free will choices and take responsibility for them as well. Its more a mixture of determinant processes but also indeterminant ones that are not just based on chance but the injection of self as a self forming agent.

He then goes on to explain how free will can work due to paraelle processing. I suggest you re watch the video its quite interesting his take and one I that I think fits well with what is really going on with certain choices like Self Forming Actions SFA).

You are wanting his explanations of how free will can still work or still be possible in the light of all the evidence for determinism to be true, and there are probably a million different reasons/causes for that, so I guess I won't fault you for it, etc.

But the explanation is simple with the man, etc. He obviously has or had a past up to that point that caused him to act or react the way he did to or with with his wife and what she was saying or doing at the time, and the table, etc. And the table breaking or not is also simple, and is just a plain simple matter of physics, which is all determined/predetermined already, etc. How hard did he swing, and how much force was applied, where he struck it, etc, and a couple of other factors, etc. But the thing that really seems to be bothering you, and a lot of other people, with determinism and whatnot, etc, is people being responsible for their actions or not, etc, even going so far as fearing people being able to use it as a legal defense legally, etc. Well, responsible or not really doesn't matter, because we still have to hold them accountable for their behavior/actions, etc, and do our best to get them to try and change it in and for the future, etc, because that's the one thing that not one single one of us knows yet, etc, and so from our perspective, is still unwritten/undecided/determined yet, and can still always, always be altered, made better or worse, or still be changed yet, etc.

And again I'd like to remind you that we still must hold people accountable regardless, etc. The only thing it could or should maybe change is only our own level of compassion for them maybe only, etc. But if they do wrong, they still have to face justice, etc. But we do this in the hopes of future change, etc. But if nothing changes, and they continue to do bad/wrong/harm, or act/behave evily, etc, then there are always, always, still consequences for it that we have to bring down upon them, or enact upon them for it regardless, etc. Hopefully they will change it, and be able to change it, but if they don't, or can't, or won't, then there are still consequences for it regardless, etc. They were more than likely not ignorant of the rules and their consequences, so we still have to hold them accountable for it anyway, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, responsible or not really doesn't matter, because we still have to hold them accountable for their behavior/actions...

Exactly right. And people don't seem to be able to differentiate between responsibility and accountability. Then again, it's so inbred that it's hard to break out of that way of thinking.

 

[Neogaia777]

Exactly right. And people don't seem to be able to differentiate between responsibility and accountability. Then again, it's so inbred that it's hard to break out of that way of thinking.

Yep.

They seem to want some kind of "feeling" to be involved in their judging either for good or ill, etc.

But that kind of thing, especially when it comes to judgement or judging, can corrupt your soul, etc, and your judgement or judging, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Exactly right. And people don't seem to be able to differentiate between responsibility and accountability. Then again, it's so inbred that it's hard to break out of that way of thinking.

I used to fight very, very hard for free will once upon a time, and I didn't/couldn't give it up very easily at the time, etc.

I've argued very, very hard on that side of it here even for quite a long time, etc.

So I guess I can't fault or blame others for not giving up on it very easily, or trying to do the same, etc.

And like I mentioned in some of my earlier posts, it's difficult to reconcile with a lot of other things for a lot of other people, etc, or other long held thoughts or beliefs that we've always been taught, or are hard wired to believe/assume must all be true, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

So I guess I can't fault or blame others for not giving up on it very easily, or trying to do the same, etc.

Likewise. Well, obviously likewise.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah. He was wrong.

Then why post him as evidence. Your actually posting evidence supporting free will. And how do you know he is wrong. I cannot see any real problem with his reasoning. He is using the science showing parallel cognitive processes going on at the same time.

Well...yeah. Kane was trying to suggest that free will was somehow related to future choices. But all choices are made in the present. Based on antecedent conditions. Which will include that which we desire in the future. We decide what we want based on all available information.

This shows you don't understand what he is saying. He is talking about how present choices are about future directions. About Self Affirming choices to will go towards making the person who they will be. About how important choices are related to who we want to be, what type of person. Thats why we have dilemmas because its a matter of conscience.

His very point was there was no justification for having that purely deterministic view based on the science. Its not just deterministic processes going on and indeterminant processes are not necessarily arbitrary.

What is most impressive is he uses real life scenarios such as the business women having to choose her self formed future self based on a value experiement that was not fully deterministic. This reflects exactly what happens in real life.

The same as the angry husband bring his arm down on the table. Its more than just the individual neurons making his arm move. Thats the robotic view that excludes the self that comes into play. As Kane says which I agree

The trick here is not to think of indeterminism that might be involved in free choices as a cause acting on its own but an ingredient in some larger goal directed or teleological process or activity in which the indeterminism functions as a hinderance or obstacle to the attainment of the goal. Such as the role envisaged for indeterminism in the efforts leading to self forming choices.

We cannot just see our choices, intentions and actions solely on the basis of neurons firing or misfiring as it does not account for self forming choices.

That's just nonsensical.

To me it seems you have not properly researched your own material. Kane clearly explains how this indeterminism is not completely arbitrary with the example of the novel writer in developing the character of the heroine.

When she is called to make a choice and yet her character is not developed sufficently as in real life to know with certainty which to choose and yet in not completely arbitrary having some input from past experiences. Her choice is then as he says a value experiement and neither determined or arbitrary for which she is a willing participant and willing to take full responsibility for in developing her self.

As Kane says

Imagine a writer in the middle of a novel. The novels heroine faces a crisis and the writer has not yet developed her character in sufficent detail to say exactly how she will act. The author makes a judgement about this which is not determined by the heroines already formed past which does not give unique direction. In this sense the judgement (arbitrium) of how she will act is arbitrary. But not entirely so. It had input from the heroines fictional past and inturn gave input into her projected future.

In a similar way agents who exercise free will are both authors of and characters in their own stories all at once by virtue of self forming judgements of the will (iudicium voluntatis) or what I call self forming actions they are arbitors of their own lives. Making of themselves out of a past that if they are truely free doesn't limit their future pathways to one.

Suppose we were to say to such persons but look you did not have sufficient or conclusive prior reasons for choosing as you did since you also had viable reasons for choosing the other way. They might reply as follows true enough but I did have good reasons for choosing as I did which I am willing to stand by and take responsibility for. If these reasons were not sufficent or conclusive reasons thats because like the heroine of the novel, I was not a fully formed person before I choose and still am not for that matter. Like the author of the novel, I am in the process of writing an unfinished story and forming an unfinished character who in my case is myself.

That's as ridiculous as saying that if I shoot and kill my neighbour it's determined but if he survives then it wasn't.

Your not understanding your own source. You post it as evidence for determinism and then start calling the author ridiculous because you are misrepresenting his reasoning. Whereas if you did research his arguement you would have realised that this is not what he was saying.

He sets the arguement up regarding the angry husband with another example that goes into how these unknown factors that are unconscious like nerve activity in the arm don't fully account for free will and how despite them our conscious willing comes into play at the initiation of choices and actions that aim at something and at the end when we accomplish the agenda endorcing it. Its not as though we are acting blindly or without input and control in overiding and directing the unconscious processes towards a goal.

Consider an assiassin attempting to kill a primeinister with a high powered rifle from a great distance. There are many factors for which the assassin has no control that will influence whether he attains the goal. Wind and other factors affecting the long distance, whether the ministers aide moves in front of the primeminister. Trump comes to mind when he moved his gead to look at the projection screen. Or whether a wavering tick will move the assassins arm. There are other factors going on in his nervous system that he is not aware of and has no control over.

But lets assume that despite all these factors he has no control over the assassin fires and does succeed in killing the primeminister. Is he responsible morally and legally for killing the primeminister, The answer is yes.

The reason is despite all these unknown factors of which he lacked control the assassin did consciously aim to kill the primeminister (conscious intention). Secondly when he became aware that he had succeeded in doing so he consciously endorced that outcome as something he was trying and aiming to do all along.

In other words with these deliberation consciousness came into play at both ends of the process. On the one hand setting and indirectly guiding the agenda about what he was aiming to do and on the other consciously endorcing the successful accomplishment of that agenda. Much of what went on in the carrying out of that agenda however but not necessarily all may have been below the level of conscious awareness.

I believe that philosophers in general who discuss free will have continuously underestimated the role of unconscious processes in the exercise of free will. Neuroscientists have taught us otherwise. Conscious willing must be involved to some degree in free and responsible action but only at crucial junctions and low resolution. Much of the detailed work goes on unconsciously which consciousness plays a coordinating role.

It beats me why Kane spends so much time on responsibility. Well, actually I do know. It's because he's not able to separate morality, responsibility and free will. He thinks we should hold people responsible for the results of their actions so free will must exist. So if the table breaks the guy is responsible and if it doesn't then he isn't. Whether it does or doesn't has no bearing on it.

How many ways are you going to find to say that we have free will because it's obvious that we do? Give me an action or decision that was not determined.

Thats a complete simplification and misrepresentation of what he reasoned. I suggest that you are simplifying things to avoid the more reasonable explanation which is more middle of the raod where both determinism and indeterminism work as paralelle processes. Your what is classed as a hard determinist at one end of the extreme.

The thing I like about Kane is he sounds a determinist and understands the deterministic processes such as neurons and nervous systems effect on the body. But also what he calls the Self Forming Agent who is not completely subject to deterministic forces. Its more like a mixture where low level unconscious influences can be harnessed through goal directed intentions which are acknowledged and confirmed and assented to towards a future goal.

That seems a much more balanced view of the reality of our lived experiences of free will rather than just dismissing Self as being under the ultimate control of nerves, neurons, the wind and other factors beyond our control.

 

[Bradskii]

Then why post him as evidence. Your actually posting evidence supporting free will.

Yes, I'm trying to give both sides of the argument.

Now please give me an example of an act or decision that was not determined.

 

[Chesterton]

Which is another way of saying that we don't make decisions. Which we do for reasons that determine our choices. That's what 'reasoning' is. A robot will take all available information and reach a decision as to the best choice. And it obviously has no free will. If you ask it for the reasons why its chose as it did then it will tell you.

Robots were not created in the Garden of Eden. They are created and programmed by the mind of man just as pocket calculators were. To borrow from Marshall McCluhan, every human artifact (invention) is an extension of man, as the wheel is an extension of the foot, and a camera is an extension of the memory. And it will always be this way. When we have robots that program other robots that in turn program other robots, man will still always be the god of robots.

What do you think reasoning actually means? I hope you're not going to say 'something we do with our free will'. Here's a standard definition:

'Reason is the capacity of applying logic by drawing valid conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth.'

ChatGpt will do that (with the exception of 'consciousness' which I took out not to muddy the water).

I'll say what reasoning is not. It's not physics. A billiard ball striking another ball and causing it to move is not reasoning. It's also not chemistry. A Mentos candy and soda causing a geyser out of a bottle is not reasoning. Yet you seem to believe these same kinds of actions in your brain can amount to reasoning.

As to what reasoning is (especially as it relates to free will), if you haven't read it I recommend reading chapter 3 of the C. S. Lewis book Miracles:

3. The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism

His argument is fairly easy to understand, but it's a bit long because he's thorough, goes step by step and considers objections. I figure if you're still participating in this thread of yours which is now over 100 pages, you might be interested enough in the topic to read it. But if not, no worries, you won't hurt my feelings if you ignore the link.

 

[Bradskii]

Robots were not created in the Garden of Eden.

No, human is an evolved animal. I think you'd agree that the simplest of creatures such as bacteria do not have free will. But there has been a gradual increase in the ability of the nervous system - eventually a central nervous system, to make conscious decisions. So did free will simply emerge at some point? Did (and do) some creatures have only a partly free will? It can't have emerged oneTuesday aftrernoon a few million years ago. So what is the difference between them and us. It can only be physical .

I'll say what reasoning is not. It's not physics. A billiard ball striking another ball and causing it to move is not reasoning. It's also not chemistry. A Mentos candy and soda causing a geyser out of a bottle is not reasoning. Yet you seem to believe these same kinds of actions in your brain can amount to reasoning.

It's exactly physics. And biology. And chemistry. Reasoning happens inside the wet meat between your ears. What other processes are you suggesting could responsible?

As to what reasoning is (especially as it relates to free will), if you haven't read it I recommend reading chapter 3 of the C. S. Lewis book Miracles:

3. The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism

His argument is fairly easy to understand, but it's a bit long because he's thorough, goes step by step and considers objections. I figure if you're still participating in this thread of yours which is now over 100 pages, you might be interested enough in the topic to read it. But if not, no worries, you won't hurt my feelings if you ignore the link.

I'm not a fan of Lewis. I'm not sure if I've read that already. I'll let you know.

 

[Bradskii]

His argument is fairly easy to understand...

He seems to be talking about how we can know the truth of any matter. Well, in some cases we can't. And as for determinism it's all but impossible. Try listing all the reasons why you are reading this. It's not possible. But there are undoubtedly events that ocurred in the past that determined it.

He starts with pointing out that tossing a coin a million times will allow to us state with some accuracy the number of heads. The more tosses, the greater the accuracy. But it's impossible to do it with one toss. So he classes that as, not exactly supernatural, but 'sub-natural'. Say what? It's simply unpredictable. That's all. The result of each toss is determined by the spin, the humidity, the force, the temperature...what does it matter that we can't know all of the variables?

He quotes Haldane: 'If mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain...I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true'. There's an argument to be had against that statement, but his quote is irrelevant to free will so I won't make it. We don't need to know the truth to make decisions. We make them on what we believe to be true.

Then he suggests that motions like prejudices are caused but ungrounded? In other words it cannot be known what caused it. That doesn't matter. We're not looking for an explanation of everything. We don't need to know what caused something. Only to accept that it must have been caused.

So it doesn't matter that our knowledge of the world is incomplete and subjective. We don't need to know the incontrovertable truth of any matter to make a decision. But that decision will be determined by antecedent conditions.

None of what he said has any bearing on free will.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not a preference. It's a logical deduction. IF a THEN b.

It's induction. It's not a testable hypothesis....it's a premise based on experience and it's also the conclusion, without any steps between premise and conclusion.

It's claim no one can reason into a conclusive statement.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Ana the Ist

The problem of people being hungry, homeless, and whatnot, cannot only be solved by food kitchens and stuff always having enough, etc, but the problem is a lot more complex than that, etc.

To be clear....I wasn't suggesting that morals will potentially solve problems. I was simply pointing out that even if we accept moral judgements as true reflection of our selves....it's rather obvious that we don't act as if they are true reflections of who we are. Fortunately there's multiple plausible explanations for why this is....it could be intentionally how we want to be seen, it could be genuinely how we see ourselves and we struggle to accept on some level just how little we care about the suffering of others....etc.

And I know because I have been, etc. And while it is not true in everyone's case who is there, or has been there, etc, what's true in the great majority of cases, as it was with me, etc, is that unless they change some things, they are always going to be there, and you're always going to have to be constantly feeding them, and nothing is ever going to change, or get any better, etc. I made these changes, but many don't, and that is why they are still there, etc.

Well I don't think you're considering the full potential of the law. I'm fairly certain at one point in the USSR, Stalin outlawed being poor and homeless.

If you exile, execute, or imprison them all....you would be shocked at just how quickly poverty and all complaints of poverty disappear.

If you do a little bit or research on the problem, you'll find out just how complex it really is, etc, and your head will probably hurt a little bit afterwards, lol.

See above. If the function of the state requires the elimination of poverty.....buddy, it can be eliminated.

 

[Neogaia777]

To be clear....I wasn't suggesting that morals will potentially solve problems. I was simply pointing out that even if we accept moral judgements as true reflection of our selves....it's rather obvious that we don't act as if they are true reflections of who we are. Fortunately there's multiple plausible explanations for why this is....it could be intentionally how we want to be seen, it could be genuinely how we see ourselves and we struggle to accept on some level just how little we care about the suffering of others....etc.

I don't wish to offend you, but I think you might be thinking about or referring to yourself here maybe? And are maybe projecting that onto others maybe? And if that's the case, then you have fallen far, (no offense).

But it is true that none of us can do enough to solve all problems, etc. Many of them are not solvable unless some people change, etc. Which is not up to us, but is entirely up to them, etc.

Well I don't think you're considering the full potential of the law. I'm fairly certain at one point in the USSR, Stalin outlawed being poor and homeless.

If you exile, execute, or imprison them all....you would be shocked at just how quickly poverty and all complaints of poverty disappear.

See above. If the function of the state requires the elimination of poverty.....buddy, it can be eleliminated .

Are you suggesting that this is what we do about it maybe?

If so, or if not, why, or why not?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

C. S. Lewis book...

It was Mere Christianity I'd read. And this quote from it is interesting where he discusses free will specifically:

'Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.'

He's not come to a realisation that we have free will. He assumes that it's a God given certainty. And as Swift said, if you haven't been reasoned into a position then you won't be able to be reasoned out of it (and that's applicable to a lot of people who have posted in this thread). So any and all his arguments for free will are based on the position that it exists.

So examine the statement above. And tell me if you made a free will decision to love your wife or your kids. Or that you made a free will decision to be happy when something delightfull happened. Free will is often confused with making decisions. But you didn't even get that far when you loved or when you felt joy. If you didn't actually make a decision in those circumstances, then where on earth could the free will be there?

Lewis is wrong. Very wrong in the example he gave.

 

[stevevw]

You are wanting his explanations of how free will can still work or still be possible in the light of all the evidence for determinism to be true, and there are probably a million different reasons/causes for that, so I guess I won't fault you for it, etc.

But the explanation is simple with the man, etc. He obviously has or had a past up to that point that caused him to act or react the way he did to or with with his wife and what she was saying or doing at the time, and the table, etc. And the table breaking or not is also simple, and is just a plain simple matter of physics, which is all determined/predetermined already, etc. How hard did he swing, and how much force was applied, where he struck it, etc, and a couple of other factors, etc.

What Kane is saying is that our actions cannot be reduced to mere neuron and nervous activity making the arm move in the case of the angry husband hitting the table, the assassin pulling the trigger and the business women having to choose between helping the victim being mugged or getting to her appointment to not lose her career.

In all these situations despite the factors that may influence choices the Self is brought in to override these factors, despite these factors. A conscious commitment to the action ie the assassin chose to pull the trigger and then affirmed his choice once it was done ie target hit and job done.

It is this aspect of self forming actions as opposed to deterministic or rather despite deterministic influences that makes free will choices. Theres a battle of wills going on, a person is in two minds and can potentially be both and either but ends up choosing and endorcing one over the other and willing to accept responsibility for it. .

But the thing that really seems to be bothering you, and a lot of other people, with determinism and whatnot, etc, is people being responsible for their actions or not, etc, even going so far as fearing people being able to use it as a legal defense legally, etc.

Not really. I like Kanes explaination as I think it actually reflects and breaks down what actually happens with Self Forming Actions which require conscious input as opposed to unconscious processes. Its not just speculated but also based on neuroscience that there is more than one process going on in the brain at different levels. Thats why we can have two minds about a dilemma and have to put ourselves into the situation to workout a way forward.

Whereas the Hard determinist view keeps repeating an assumption without much explanation. Well its the same repeated explanation over and oover that doesn't seem to reflect reality. Its a bit like how some claim evolution, natural selection as the creator of everything from phenotypes to alturism which doesn't account for what is actually going on beyond genes. Such as how creatures make purposeful and directed choices about their enviornments rather than being passively acted upon by outside forces.

Well, responsible or not really doesn't matter, because we still have to hold them accountable for their behavior/actions, etc, and do our best to get them to try and change it in and for the future, etc, because that's the one thing that not one single one of us knows yet, etc, and so from our perspective, is still unwritten/undecided/determined yet, and can still always, always be altered, made better or worse, or still be changed yet, etc.

Thats doesn't make sense. Just like if there is no objective morality choice is a matter of differences and not morality. Like taste for food or feelings for things. So it makes no sense talking about making things better as there is no basis as to what is right or wrong morally. This seems to go with no free will, the same kind of logic.

I think we believe people are accountable not because we have to despite the claim there is no free will, like its some arbitrary determination or an insurance policy to keep society from chaos. Rather because of our 1st hand lived reality of it. Thats it, its that simple and we don't need 3rd person rationalisations of the why's and wherefores.

That is what makes us so sure, so determined and worried that people need to be responsible. Because its 'real' and we live that responibility or lack of and embody its reality. Its a bit like moral realism. There can be no more better evidence than direct experience of something.

And again I'd like to remind you that we still must hold people accountable regardless, etc. The only thing it could or should maybe change is only our own level of compassion for them maybe only, etc. But if they do wrong, they still have to face justice, etc. But we do this in the hopes of future change, etc. But if nothing changes, and they continue to do bad/wrong/harm, or act/behave evily, etc, then there are always, always, still consequences for it that we have to bring down upon them, or enact upon them for it regardless, etc. Hopefully they will change it, and be able to change it, but if they don't, or can't, or won't, then there are still consequences for it regardless, etc. They were more than likely not ignorant of the rules and their consequences, so we still have to hold them accountable for it anyway, etc.

God Bless.

It seems strange that Hard Determinist will say there is no free will but then act like there is free will and then have to explain how even though its not real we have to act like its real. Like our acting that its real is not really real but manufactured. Or that if it is seemingly real its a epi realism, not quite the real thing but imposed for some secondary reason like keeping order.

But like subjective morality there is no reason to hold people accountable. Morals are subjective and could change like tastes in music. We are either responsible because we are actually responsible for our free choices and there is a truth to right and wrong or stop pretending. It really undermines Self as something real.

All seems very cynnical and robotic and unreal as to what we actually experience and sometimes what we actually experience is a true reflection of what is actually going on. Its like trying to rationalise love away lol.