Free will and determinism

[Fervent]

This might again be a short conversation if you keep redefining what was expressed clearly in the first post.

I'm sticking to the general philosophical understanding of free will, your assertion in the first post isn't true just because you claim it as so.

You. As a conscious agent.

Oh? I thought you said that everything was determined by physical laws...how is there now such a thing as agency? How can I be self-directed and determined at the same time? It's one or the other, either eat the cake or have it.

Can you give us a reason why you might decide neither?

Reasons are not prior conditions in the sense that your claim of determinism requires. What your claim of determinism requires is an unbroken chain of purely physical interactions that inevitably result in me deciding neither. So can you demonstrate that there is such an unbroken and purely physical chain of cause and effect relations such that every decision I will ever make is already set and my experience of making choices is just because I lack the appropriate knowledge?

 

[Bradskii]

I'm sticking to the general philosophical understanding of free will, your assertion in the first post isn't true just because you claim it as so.

Gee, all this time you have wasted here arguing against an op that you thought was using the wrong definition. Let me know when you start your thread with the one that you prefer.

So can you demonstrate that there is such an unbroken and purely physical chain of cause and effect relations such that every decision I will ever make is already set and my experience of making choices is just because I lack the appropriate knowledge?

Sure. Just tell me why you might decide not to have icecream and we'll investigate it. As long as it's what you consider to be a free will decision and not arbitrary.

 

[Fervent]

Gee, all this time you have wasted here arguing against an op that you thought was using the wrong definition. Let me know when you start your thread with the one that you prefer.

My argument is addressed at the asserted determinism, not the straw version of free will you took aim at.

Sure. Just tell me why you might decide not to have icecream and we'll investigate it. As long as it's what you consider to be a free will decision and not arbitrary.

Nah, we've been through your word games and conflating definitions enough times there's no point in going round again. At this point, if you want to discuss the matter you could show the relationship between rational thought with purpose and meaning, where something like it raining outside leading to me grabbing an umbrella and not a broom or your seeing words on a screen and coming up with a meaningful response are fully explainable in terms of the prior physical states of your brain alone we might have something to discuss. At the end of the day, if you want to believe in absurdities and convince yourself that it must be the case that you are just dancing to the music of physical laws that's your perogative.

But I will continue to point out how you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too when you don't go the full measure required for consistency in such a position.

 

[QvQ]

you could show the relationship between rational thought with purpose and meaning, where something like it raining outside leading to me grabbing an umbrella

Will is wish if you don't have an umbrella.
Umbrella is a priori. You have to have one first.

 

[Bradskii]

Nah...

Nothing to discuss then.

 

[Fervent]

Rational thoughts are wishes if you don't have an umbrella.
And all the free willing in the world will not make one magically appear

The availability of an umbrella is only tangentially related to what I was pointing out there. His brand of determinism is physical determinism, so what I was pointing out is the explanatory gap between physical operations in the brain and semantic content of our rational thinking. Meaning and purpose have no place in a physically determined explanation, because the process must be fully explicable in terms of physical arrangments moving from one to the next according to purely chemical and electrical signals irrespective of the semantic content if physical determinism is true.

 

[partinobodycular]

In the case of the icecream it's your preference for one over the other that determines it.

Correct, and that preference is part of my will, as are all of my preferences... therefore it's my will that's making the choice. I don't see how you can logically argue otherwise.

 

[Fervent]

Nothing to discuss then.

I can understand your reluctance to defend your assertion of determinism, since it appears indefensible to me but your worldview requires acceptance of it uncritically.

 

[Bradskii]

Correct, and that preference is part of my will, as are all of my preferences... therefore it's my will that's making the choice. I don't see how you can logically argue otherwise.

So you decided that you were going to hate peppermint ice cream. And today you might decide to like it. Really?

No, of course not. It's nonsensical to suggest it.

 

[Bradskii]

I can understand your reluctance to defend your assertion of determinism, since it appears indefensible to me but your worldview requires acceptance of it uncritically.

I won't know what determined your decision unless you tell me.

 

[QvQ]

Meaning and purpose have no place in a physically determined explanation, because the process must be fully explicable in terms of physical arrangments moving from one to the next according to purely chemical and electrical signals irrespective of the semantic content if physical determinism is true.

I see
Meaning and purpose don't factor into whether I do the dishes now or later.
It is a decision based on ...nothing
No reason, no chemical or electrical signal.
Just whim..
I can or can't or I could toss the dishes in the trash and not bother about it at all.

Not certain if that is free will or determinism. There is very small amount of free will but as I said, it seems to be some factor in the totality of circumstances, rather than either/or free will/determinism

The factor I would suspect is whether the free will agent is the director of the play or merely an actor.
Is the free willer a determining agent or a part of the determination

I do have a cat who mostly sits around until the spirit moves her. No free will. No determinism, just whim. Or spirit.
And that I suspect is the X factor As the spirit moves and all things work together for the glory of God.

 

[Fervent]

I won't know what determined your decision unless you tell me.

Then how can you assert that it is pre-determined by physical laws?

 

[Fervent]

I see
Meaning and purpose don't factor into whether I do the dishes now or later.
It is a decision based on ...nothing
No reason, no chemical or electrical signal.
Just whim..
I can or can't or I could toss the dishes in the trash and not bother about it at all.

Yes, and the determinist must claim that which you will choose is already set before you are aware of it.

Not certain if that is free will or determinism. There is very small amount of free will but as I said, it seems to be some factor of the totality of circumstances, rather than either/or free will/determinism

Libertarian free will doesn't mean that we can do whatever we fancy, it just means that when we're presented with a choice neither path is closed to us until we have chosen our path. The determinist imagines that everything is pre-determined such that we never actually make a choice but only have the illusion of making choices because we aren't aware of all of the circumstances involved. The determinist must maintain that there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect relationships so that even choices that appear to be made on a whim in fact were pre-determined based on either God's declaration or some physical laws that fix our decisions and leave us no option.

 

[Bradskii]

Then how can you assert that it is pre-determined by physical laws?

How can I? You won't tell me what it is. Tell me why you chose not to have icecream and we can discuss it.

 

[partinobodycular]

So you decided that you were going to hate peppermint ice cream.

I came to hate peppermint ice cream for reasons that were completely determined by my own personal preferences. Can you demonstrate any choice that you've ever made that wasn't determined by your own personal preferences?

 

[Bradskii]

I came to hate peppermint ice cream for reasons that were completely determined by my own personal preferences. Can you demonstrate any choice that you've ever made that wasn't determined by your own personal preferences?

The question bears no relationship to the initial statement. There never has been a choice I've made that wasn't the one I preferred. That's a truism. The choices I make are, by definition, the ones that I prefer.

And no, you didn't decide to dislike the taste of peppermint icecream. If it was a choice then you could now to choose to enjoy it. Pick something that you really don't enjoy and then decide to enjoy it. Let me know how you get on.

 

[QvQ]

The determinist must maintain that there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect relationships so that even choices that appear to be made on a whim in fact were pre-determined based on either God's declaration

As the spirit moves
The totality of the circumstances are sovereign
And if it is whim, as the spirit moves...
The cat is sitting in a chair
The cat moves, on a whim or as the spirit moves her
She wanders outside
She can lay down on the porch
She can amble on out into the yard
As the spirit moves her, she moves into the yard and becomes a spirit to move the birds up into the trees
It is a kaleidoscope, merely a shifting pattern of circumstances.
It cannot be free will if the circumstances are sovereign
It cannot be determinism if there isn't any cause and effect.
There isn't anything that moved the cat other than the circumstances of the cat being a cat in that particular space and time.

(just some thoughts about objective reality. Not certain if I am actually analyzing this correctly)

 

[Fervent]

How can I? You won't tell me what it is. Tell me why you chose not to have icecream and we can discuss it.

You claim there's an infinite chain of cause-and-effect actions, so why aren't you able to look at the current state and prognosticate based on current conditions?

 

[Fervent]

As the spirit moves
The totality of the circumstances are sovereign
And if it is whim, as the spirit moves...
The cat is sitting in a chair
The cat moves, on a whim or as the spirit moves her
She wanders outside
She can lay down on the porch
She can amble on out into the yard
As the spirit moves her, she moves into the yard and becomes a spirit to move the birds up into the trees
It is a kaleidoscope, merely a shifting pattern of circumstances.
If you focus on the cat, you believe the cat is "doing" If you look at the totality of the circumstances, the entire circumstances are doing

So then the Spirit moves when men decide to gouge out young Zaza's eyes and violate her until she is dead? The spirit moves men to sin and act in ways that God does not approve?

 

[Fervent]

The question bears no relationship to the initial statement. There never has been a choice I've made that wasn't the one I preferred. That's a truism. The choices I make are, by definition, the ones that I prefer.

And no, you didn't decide to dislike the taste of peppermint icecream. If it was a choice then you could now to choose to enjoy it. Pick something that you really don't enjoy and then decide to enjoy it. Let me know how you get on.

If it were a truism, the word is rendered meaningless and saying it is your preference is superfluous. Especially when it is clear that we often are motivated to do things we would prefer not to do for love and money....it is only by torturing the word "prefers" to a point where it is only possible to know after the fact and not as a matter of prediction. So you are doing nothing but torturing language to maintain an irrational position.