Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
? The thread is laced with comments on "constraints".No-one has mentioned constraints.
Being constrained to exclude the possibility of a free will choice is common in every discussion on the matter.
The disagreement is not based on tracing the multitude of indirect links as causal to the moral act but the denial that the direct causal link is the actor.A direct link. One that patently obviously could not possibly have been predicted.
That's what it means for an event to be determined.
Sapolsky was.Needless to say, I'm not convinced by his arguments ...
First, the dismissive use of referring to Del Santo as the "guy who makes the same mistake" must be called out. We ought not demean those who disagree with us. I inferred you were going to freely constrain yourself further from using high school debating tactics.From the paper:
'If one asks the reason why a certain event Ej occurred, is now possible to reply: “Because another event Ei/A happened before (i.e., i < j) and not its mutually exclusive alternative Ei/B”
The guy is making the same mistake as you seem to be making. ... Del Santo's view is that there is zero possibility of measuring the number of possibilities, therefore it's not predictable.
? There is no opposing argument in your post. The delusion that one does not have free will as noted in Fromm's work is an excuse to relieve one from the responsibilities of free will.Locomotion is not an illusion. You might need to get from A to B to get some food for example. An illusion of that happening is completely useless. You'll go hungry. The illusion of free will, as previously explained, is not.
A suggestion. Listen to his program again with an open mind.The evolution of free will? And he's using it in the scientific sense. You want me to listen to a guy who spends a lot of time explaining how the process has come to be - a process which you deny even happened? Anyway, I made a few notes with a time mark:
4:00 - asks whether it is the mechanism of brain activity making the decisions - or is it us. Nothing but dualism. A ghost somewhere in the machine.
25:30 (and again at 28:00) - He says it's not possible to determine the state of a system with infinite precision. As the universe is infinite, it's not possible to obtain infinite information about it and no way to predict outcomes. That is completely irrelevant to free will.
32:10 - The configuration of living systems have been selected to make decisions. Well, there's no real choice about how we are then configured. But that evolution has given us the ability to make decisions. Nobody is denying that. Of course we can make decisions.
40:00 - Starts talking about second level decisions. Perceive-Think-Act-Learn. Again, no problem. This is simply the process we go through in making choices. What you perceive are antecedent conditions. Obviously. And what we learn is then an antecedent condition in memory ('That hurt last time, don't do it again').
48:00 - seems to imply that making a decision based on multiple options is then actually free will.
58:00 - You might as well skip to this section. He talks about meta cognition. Thinking about thinking. Making higher level choices. 'We model the activities of our own mind' (third level). 'We think about goals and desires'. No problem. But where do the goals and desires come from?
Nothing in there that wasn't in his book. Nothing there that in any way convinces you of his position. Unless his position is that we make choices, using processes that are evolved and over which we had no control, based on our characters which were likewise evolved (through nature and nurture), considering our desires and goals, which are antecedent conditions - and that we make the decisions ourselves.
Except that it impacts on our understanding of free will.Failing that, determinism has no beneficial meaning or applications.
I was born with a set of characteristics guided by my dna. And my culture, when I was born, my education, my diet, my experiences as a child etc etc all went to form the person typing this.Can you expand?
Calvin, Augustine and Luthor, yes. But I'd rather skip the theological theories of free will. I can't honestly discuss an aspect of free will based on a set of beliefs that I don't hold.I do not hold a position of a Deistic God who watches as the world goes by and does nothing. He is the creator and we are created beings. But we also have free-wills. People often confused or blatantly misrepresent the theological view; Reformed View. Are you familiar with John Calvin, John Gresham Machen, Augustine, Luther, Sproul, and Michael Horton?
I have. And I've read his book. I'm not likely to pay nearly $40 and read 350+ pages with a closed mind. I was very interested in what he had to say. He's one of the better free will proponents. And a neuroscientist. And his thoughts on the evolution of the neural system and the different parts of the brain are worth the price of admission on their own. Which took up about 60% of the book. But when he starts to tie that in with what he suggests is free will...then it starts to fall apart somewhat.A suggestion. Listen to his program again with an open mind.
In truth, not a lot. Because the illusion holds for everyone in any case. What I'd like to see change are aspects of the justice system.in practice what changes?
I was talking of the specific example. Guitar strings and croissants. Obviously if someone held a gun to my wife's head and told me to go buy a couple of them, then that would be a constraint on my decision making process.The thread is laced with comments on "constraints".
All events that are determinate are direct. There will be a direct link between what you do and that particular antecedent event. But it won't be the only one. It will be one of many.The disagreement is not based on tracing the multitude of indirect links as causal to the moral act but the denial that the direct causal link is the actor.
...along the lines Mitchell theorises. I'll quote what he thinks shortly.Sapolsky was.
Sapolsky actually expresses willingness to concede that it is conceivable that we have some degree of free will along the lines Mitchell theorizes.
Gee, sorry Mr. Del Santo. But we're kind of easy going down here about formality.First, the dismissive use of referring to Del Santo as the "guy who makes the same mistake"
Well, it would. Being indeterminate and all. Which is the assumption he makes first up. I'd agree with him if I thought the world was indeterminate as well. But as it's not, I can't.Secondly, you missed the point Del Santo makes in your quote. He is not on commenting on predictability but on alternatives. Indeterminism reflects the reality that the future has a range of probabilistic causalities.
You suggested that locomotion could be some sort of illusion. That's nonsensical, so I opposed it as noted. And compared it to free will, which is an illusion.There is no opposing argument in your post.
As I've said, responsibility still remains. Blame is still a concept we can use. Punishment is still a viable option. We still know right from wrong. I mean, I literally explained all this...The delusion that one does not have free will as noted in Fromm's work is an excuse to relieve one from the responsibilities of free will.
The bad news is that you keep making the same mistake that making a decision equates to free will. The good news is...I can't be bothered correcting you any more.BTW, preceding the locomotion to move from A to B is the free choice decision to do so.
Some contradictions there. But I guess you were using the term in the normal everyday sense. It just looks odd in this context. Why did you decide to have the BBQ? What determined your decision?I have determined that I shall throw this BBQ for my friends and do the cooking and I choose freely to do this act. I am determined to do this event.
I'll be skipping the theological aspects of the matter. Maybe someone else will respond.God created the Earth and everything on it...
But just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true, right? For example, how do you explain morality or reason? Or for that matter where did DNA come from?Calvin, Augustine and Luthor, yes. But I'd rather skip the theological theories of free will. I can't honestly discuss an aspect of free will based on a set of beliefs that I don't hold.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?