The Beauty Of Determinism!

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, it doesn't matter what science says, that is not what we are discussing - I am making the point that freedom and determinism are not compatible. And you keep saying that we can choose otherwise - that is the very definition Libertarian Free Will. In other words do you agree that I had the power to choose a different color shirt this morning, other than the one I did?

Yes, in determinism we can do otherwise, because antecedent circumstance allow multiple different choices.

It is obvious you ignore and do not care about science when it contradicts your agenda.

You have not responded to the fact that scientific research has demonstrated that the philosophy of 'Libertarian Free Will is a loser.

[Tassman]

And you have the illusion of being rational...

Answer the question. How does the sense of freedom experienced by the other primates differ from the sensation of free choice experienced by the human primate? The behaviours and knowledge of all primates, including humans, are generated solely by the brain, and cannot be separated from that. If you disagree give evidence-based reasons as to why.

[Jichard]

Stop being an idiot Shuny, I have read a number of these sources.

...says the idiot.

[Jichard]

Except you claimed to like Dan Dennett, and he makes a good case for LFW. And he does this by denying that everything is deterministic.

More quote-mining and misrepresentation. You left this out of your quote-mine of your source, even though this is the very first thing said by your source:

"While he himself is a confirmed compatibilist, even a determinist, in "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want," Chapter 15 of his 1978 book Brainstorms, Daniel Dennett articulated the case for a two-stage model of free will better than any libertarian."

How does Dennett "den[y] that everything is deterministic", when Dennet is a determinist?

[Jichard]

Nonsense Jichard, Dennett himself says that his model would give what the libertarians want - would it satisfy all libertarians - doubtful.

Once again, stop quote-mining Dennett. He clearly says that the libertarian position is impossible and that the best case for libertarianism does not work:

Libertarians have long insisted that the compatibilist sorts of free will I am describing and defending are not the real thing at all, and not even an acceptable substitute for the real thing [...] According to us compatibilists, libertarians seem to think that you can have free will only if you can engage in what we might call moral levitation. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to levitate - and then to dash off in any direction with the merest flick of a whim? I'd love to be able to do that, but I can't. It's impossible. (Freedom Evolves, page 101).

[...]

An examination of the best positive case for libertarianism shows that it cannot find a defensible location for indeterminism within the decision-making processes of a responsible agent. Since it cannot motivate its defining requirement, we can leave indeterminism behind and consider more realisitic requirements for freedom, and how they could have evolved (Freedom Evolves, 136-137)."

And why are you still in my threads?

You should know why, you dishonest quote-miner:

Then tell me how are these things; rational deliberation, conscious considerations, planning, etc... not just as determined as anything else - in what sense are they FREE? This is what I mean, you are not defining what free will means, in what sense are we free.

Let me quote Peter van Inwagen



Do you agree, disagree?

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Seer,

If you want Jichard out of your thread, you are not allowed to post directly to him. Please state your intentions again either way

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Jichard]

Then tell me how are these things; rational deliberation, conscious considerations, planning, etc... not just as determined as anything else - in what sense are they FREE?

Please stop acting that something being determined prevents it from being free. As has been explained to you over and over and over and... determinism does not preclude freedom. Bypassing precludes freedom, since bypassing prevents one's conscious intentions from causing what one does. Determinism does not do that, since determinism allows one's conscious intentions to cause what one does. So determinism does not entail epiphenomenalism, fatalism, or anything else that might preclude freedom. I've explained this several times:

Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:

"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cl...en&as_sdt=0,26

"Suppose laypersons are presented with scenarios that describe a deterministic universe, and suppose that some respond that agents in that universe do not have free will (FW) and are not morally responsible (MR)bypassing to preclude FW and MR. While bypassing does preclude FW and MR, it is a mistake to interpret determinism to entail bypassingepiphenomenalism about the relevant mental states (i.e., that deliberations, beliefs, and desires are causally irrelevant to action), or it might take the form of fatalismhave to happen even ifThe crucial point is that determinism, as defined by philosophers debating free will, simply does not entail bypassingThe history of compatibilism might be caricatured as an attempt to drive home this point. Compatibilists have emphasized that determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen

The research also supports my points about bypassing, since the research shows that the scientific determinism is not the same thing as the fatalistic determinism (the latter of which entails bypassing, while the former does not).

[...]

"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"
http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ka...2028201329.pdf

"[...]

A second cluster of beliefs was interpreted as fatalistic determinismscientific determinismdoes undermine autonomy is the fatalistic version: It harbors the implication that our actions do not matter because the future is already set in stone. This pessimistic tone may explain why fatalistic determinism has maladaptive correlates, such as an external locus of control and a lack of emotional stability (Paulhus & Carey, 2011).

Our findings also suggest that believing in fatalistic determinism leads people to interpret causal explanations as inevitable (138-139)."

This is what I mean, you are not defining what free will means, in what sense are we free.

Same old falsehoods. You were told what free will is:

""

Let me quote Peter van Inwagen



Do you agree, disagree?

I'm not interested in your quote-mines of people you've neither read nor understood (as you've done for Harris, Dennett, and Vilenkin, and so on). And I know you don't understand van Inwagen at all, since if you did, then you'd know van Inwagen rejects there being libertarian free will. So you wouldn't quote him in defense of libertarian free will; he thinks such free will is incoherent. I'm already familiar with van Inwagen's position; I've literally istended to lectures where he's laid it out. Of course, you're careful to leave this out of your quote-mines as usual.

In any event, I've already told you what my actual position is.

[seer]

Yes, in determinism we can do otherwise, because antecedent circumstance allow multiple different choices.

Shuny if you agree that I could have chosen a different shirt than I did, then that is LFW by definition, the power of contrary choice.

Again:

sometimes can will more than one possibility. According to this view, a person who freely made a particular choice could have chosen differently

So you are agreeing with LFW, if you believe I could have chosen differently.

[seer]

...says the idiot.

Stay out of my threads Jichard.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;261618]Shuny if you agree that I could have chosen a different shirt than I did, then that is LFW by definition, the power of contrary choice.

No, and Dennett agrees with me. Compatabilism considers Determinism and Free Will compatible.

Again:

So you are agreeing with LFW, if you believe I could have chosen differently.

No and Dennett agrees with me. Compatabilism considers Determinism and Free Will compatible.

[seer]

No, and Dennett agrees with me. Compatabilism considers Determinism and Free Will compatible.

No and Dennett agrees with me. Compatabilism considers Determinism and Free Will compatible.

That has nothing to do with what I said or the definition of LFW, which you seem to agree with. LFW states that we have the power of contrary choice (I was not determined to choose the red shirt, I had it within my power to choose the green), if you agree then climb on board, if not then it what sense are we free? Please define what you mean by free will.

[seer]

Answer the question. How does the sense of freedom experienced by the other primates differ from the sensation of free choice experienced by the human primate? The behaviours and knowledge of all primates, including humans, are generated solely by the brain, and cannot be separated from that. If you disagree give evidence-based reasons as to why.

That is fine Tass, then our will is no more free than that of a monkey if you are right. Please inform Shuny of that fact.

[Jichard]

Stay out of my threads Jichard.

Stop directing your posts at me, liar.

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Seer,

If you want Jichard out of your thread, you are not allowed to post directly to him. Please state your intentions again either way

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

Then tell me how are these things; rational deliberation, conscious considerations, planning, etc... not just as determined as anything else - in what sense are they FREE? This is what I mean, you are not defining what free will means, in what sense are we free.

Let me quote Peter van Inwagen



Do you agree, disagree?

But the NASA press release says:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/...er-than-losses



Are you saying that you understand NASA's study better than NASA?

[shunyadragon]

That has nothing to do with what I said or the definition of LFW, which you seem to agree with. LFW states that we have the power of contrary choice (I was not determined to choose the red shirt, I had it within my power to choose the green), if you agree then climb on board, if not then it what sense are we free? Please define what you mean by free will.

In Compatibilism, LFW and determinism one has the power contrary choices. The Difference is LFW believes there are no antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices. Compatabilism and Determinism recognize there are antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices, but we still make choices.

[Tassman]

That has nothing to do with what I said or the definition of LFW, which you seem to agree with. LFW states that we have the power of contrary choice (I was not determined to choose the red shirt, I had it within my power to choose the green), if you agree then climb on board, if not then it what sense are we free? Please define what you mean by free will.

Who knows what subconscious components were in play when you opted to wear your red shirt rather than the green one. But you cannot argue that your decision was a LFW decision...other factors of which you were unaware also informed your choice of shirt.

That is fine Tass, then our will is no more free than that of a monkey if you are right. Please inform Shuny of that fact.

Who knows what subconscious components are in play when a monkey opts for one banana in preference to another. But, as with you and your shirt, it is not making LFW decisions.

[JimL]

In Compatibilism, LFW and determinism one has the power contrary choices. The Difference is LFW believes there are no antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices. Compatabilism and Determinism recognize there are antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices, but we still make choices.

But the "you" that makes those choices based on those antecedent conditions is your brain, not some ghost within the body. Thats the part that seer is grappling over with his "what causes me to choose a blue shirt rather than a red one? argument ." He believes that because he can make either the one or the other choice on any given day that it can't therefore be the brain itself that is doing the choosing unconsciously. The brain in its complexity is in constant conflict with itself and so its unconsciously made choices differ from one day to the next which makes it seem as though the option chosen is made freely and therefore made by a free willed agent or mind separate from the physical brain. There are many factors involved in the brains decision making process, consciousness itself being one of them, but the actual choice itself, in real time, is an unconscious one.