Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Free will.
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThats my understanding as well, and what I would like to know from shunya, Tass, or others professing there to be a modicum of free will with respect to combatibilism, is exactly what it is that they mean by free will. If in the end, according to compatibilism, we are not free to do otherwise, then in what sense exactly are you defining the will to be free?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThats my understanding as well, and what I would like to know from shunya, Tass, or others professing there to be a modicum of free will with respect to combatibilism, is exactly what it is that they mean by free will. If in the end, according to compatibilism, we are not free to do otherwise, then in what sense exactly are you defining the will to be free?
Despite what you keep selectively citing references and asserting, like seer, we are not deterministic robots.Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-29-2017, 06:34 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIn compatibilism we are free to do other wise, within the framework of determinism. We have limited choices to do otherwise as cited and described from different sources.
Despite what you keep selectively asserting, like seer, we are not deterministic robots.Last edited by seer; 07-29-2017, 06:21 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIn compatibilism we are free to do other wise, within the framework of determinism. We have limited choices to do otherwise as cited and described from different sources.
Despite what you keep selectively citing references and asserting, like seer, we are not deterministic robots.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNot trying to be difficult shunya, . . .
. . . .but if we are free to do otherwise, then we are free to do otherwise regardless of the framework. That's free will.
It doesn't matter if there are limited choices, if we are free to choose any one of the choices available within the framework, then that is free will. Perhaps you are just not explaining it clearly, but what you are defining is free will.
I haven't cited anyone, I'm just using common sense.
. . . which as you know does not always bring one to a valid conclusion. And I am also leaning now toward the free will side of the argument, which I do believe must emerge, though I don't know exactly how, from out of an otherwise deterministic framework.Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-29-2017, 08:26 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYes you are.
The compatabilist view is you are able to do otherwise within a limited range of choices within the determinist framework. and you cannot do otherwise regardless of the framework. This statement resembles a from of libertarian 'free will' that humans have the ability of contrary choice in most cases regardless of the framework.
Yes, it is described as limited 'free will' within a deterministic framework by Dennett. No all philosophies concerning free will deal with it and define it the same way.
Commonsense only is self serving.
What you are describing is a form of compatabilism. The limited free will choice that humans have is considered to emerge from determinism, just as our mind, and consciousness emerge from determinism.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThats my understanding as well, and what I would like to know from shunya, Tass, or others professing there to be a modicum of free will with respect to combatibilism, is exactly what it is that they mean by free will. If in the end, according to compatibilism, we are not free to do otherwise, then in what sense exactly are you defining the will to be free?
Originally posted by seer View PostExactly, if we can not do otherwise, I don't see how we have any kind of freedom.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Postdoes allow for limited free choice. Just as the world affects us we in turn affect the world via our choices, which in turn affects us etc...it's all a part of the causal chain.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostShunya, we are going in circles, you keep saying the same thing, but you fail to explain what you mean by it. Surely you can provide a simple example of a list of choices say, and then show in what sense our will is either limited or free to choose amongst them. I think you know what I mean. Could you do that? Can you give that kind of an explanation?
Dennett is only one philosopher of many that advocates a form of compatibilism, and not the only explanation for the belief that a limited form of free will emerges from determinism within limited choice.
An interesting example is the choice of church or religious or non-religious belief system in our culture. In some other cultures the choice of an alternate belief system is punishable by death, or prison so people rarely make an alternate choice. In our culture the search is far more open, but nonetheless, but a limited number make the choice outside the accepted sense of community of the culture, and yes a limited number of people make choices'outside the box,' but yes they do so dominently seeking a 'sense of belonging' decision that leads most people to make a choice that is comfortable to them. Many people do indeed 'church shop' within this limited range of choices to pick one that they are comfortable with. They are not deterministic robots, but by far most indeed make limited free will choices within a limited number churches that meet the limited predetermined social and cultural framework. Of course, the majority make the choices of their parents, and grandparents, still within Dennett's 'elbow room.'
The problems with free will in this deterministic chain of events is the reason I describe it as 'potential free will.'
Within the deterministic causal chain of events within a cultural and social there are limited free will choices that people make. Dennett describes this as 'elbow room' within a deterministic frame work where people make choices.Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-29-2017, 09:15 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSure, but again Tass, I don't see how that equates with free will.All you are saying here is that just as the determined world affects our choices, our determined choices affect the world. Where exactly is the freedom in that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe compatabilist view is you are able to do otherwise within a limited range of choices within the determinist framework. and you cannot do otherwise regardless of the framework. This statement resembles a from of libertarian 'free will' that humans have the ability of contrary choice in most cases regardless of the framework.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Yes, but the fact that our choices matter, and that they are one of the steps, or an integral part of the causal chain, does not in any sense explain how those choices free. Every event, and or choice made, in the causal stream matters, but mattering doesn't make them free. If I choose to murder someone, it matters, but if I only did so because that choice was an integral part of the causal stream, an action for which I could not do otherwise, then it wasn't what we would define as a free will action.Last edited by JimL; 07-30-2017, 09:38 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostHow many times are you going to ignore the fact that Dennett does not believe that we are able to do otherwise?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostHow many times are you going ignore that Dennett believes people have choices and can do otherwise in a limited framework of determinism. Your usual selective citation and biased agenda prevents meaningful dialogue.
https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/...0010_0553_0565Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment