Free will.

[seer]

Your choices would be limited to your antecedent ice-cream experiences and you would probably choose the flavour you have always considered the nicest in the past. However there could be a chance element, e.g. a brand new flavour being available or your new girlfriend suggesting you try something different or your mate daring you to choose by tossing a coin. Any of these chance elements may result in you overriding your previous experiences and choosing the new ice-cream.

Or you just decide to try a new flavor, the ability to make contrary choices. And I will ask again Tass, why is the ability to make contrary choices or the ability to do otherwise incoherent?

[JimL]

But why do you consider what you call chance elements such as "a brand new flavor" or "ones new girl friend suggesting trying a new flavor" or "your new mate daring you to choose by tossing a coin" why do you consider those so called chance element to be outside of the realm of determinism? In a determined world our choices would be determined in the same way as those events which you call the chance elements are determined, i.e. by antecedent causes, and those so called chance elements would be considered an antecedent cause of the choices we make, no less so than every other effect is due to an antecedent cause. You seem to be trying to fit free will into a system that contradicts its existence. I believe that Spinoza did somewhat the same thing, he was a determinist, but he also seemed to think that one could direct himself within a construct that was otherwise determined. Not sure if it was his error or my own, but I never could understand his logic on that. Then there are many phycisists such as Einstein, Spinoza was his idol btw, who were hard determinist. So there is certainly no consensus, and I'm not sure that I agree with either side, although the latter view seems to be the more coherent of the two.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=JimL;464356]

Why not? Please explain?

It is not deterministic, because it involves human free will choice within the chain of cause and effect determinism. I gave a perfectly detailed example of choice of religious belief which involved both determinism and free will choice and simple passed it by with a hand wave,

Tassman has more eloquently explained compatibilism in detail and the role of free will choice, and you simply remain unfortunately stoic and combative.

[JimL]

Or you just decide to try a new flavor, the ability to make contrary choices. And I will ask again Tass, why is the ability to make contrary choices or the ability to do otherwise incoherent?

Well, I believe that it is either one or the other, we either have free will or we are determined. We are certainly influenced by antecedent causes in either case, and the will may be constrained in that sense, but it seems to me that because we have the ability to consciously deliberate is indicative of our possessing the freedom to choose as we will.

[JimL]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;464457]

It is not deterministic, because it involves human free will choice within the chain of cause and effect determinism. I gave a perfectly detailed example of choice of religious belief which involved both determinism and free will choice and simple passed it by with a hand wave,

Tassman has more eloquently explained compatibilism in detail and the role of free will choice, and you simply remain unfortunately stoic and combative.

Shunya, just because I disagree with your logic doesn't mean I am being stoic or combative. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I'm not necessarily taking sides here, though I lean more towards free will, I'm just trying to think it through. Your argument just didn't seem coherent to me, perhaps I'm wrong.

[seer]

Well, I believe that it is either one or the other, we either have free will or we are determined. We are certainly influenced by antecedent causes in either case, and the will may be constrained in that sense, but it seems to me that because we have the ability to consciously deliberate is indicative of our possessing the freedom to choose as we will.

Right being both determined and free is a contradiction, of course you could be partly determined and partly free. But what does that partly free side look like, exactly how are we free? Shuny's hero Dennett believes that freedom does not include the ability to do otherwise - so what does it include. Compatiblism's claim of freedom seems to be no more than an assertion.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=JimL;464461]

Shunya, just because I disagree with your logic doesn't mean I am being stoic or combative. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I'm not necessarily taking sides here, though I lean more towards free will, I'm just trying to think it through. Your argument just didn't seem coherent to me, perhaps I'm wrong.

What about Tassman's description of compatibilism? Is it incoherent? In one of your posts you actually described a version of a compatibiist philosophy.

It looks like you have inspired a groupie supporter seer for your argument. Is that intentional?

[Littlejoe]

I think I like these quotes:

Free will and determinism are like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you is determinism. The way you play your hand is free will.
~ Norman Cousins

Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will.
~ Jawaharlal Nehru

[JimL]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;464611]

What about Tassman's description of compatibilism? Is it incoherent? In one of your posts you actually described a version of a compatibiist philosophy.

It looks like you have inspired a groupie supporter seer for your argument. Is that intentional?

I answered Tass, I don't belive that compatibilism itself is coherent. Limited free will doesn't make sense in my opinion. Limited and free are themselves contradictory terms. I think that we either have free will or we don't, I lean toward the former, whether we use it or not is another story. I think that we can unconsciously allow ourselves to be ruled in a deterministic manner, but I also think it possible that we consciously rule ourselves even though all other aspects of the world be determined. So, as in the O.P. I think that the will and its freedom is related to consciousness, which itself is an emergent characteristic of matter.

[JimL]

I think I like these quotes:

Free will and determinism are like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you is determinism. The way you play your hand is free will.
~ Norman Cousins

Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will.
~ Jawaharlal Nehru

I like those as well.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=JimL;464621]

I answered Tass, I don't belive that compatibilism itself is coherent. Limited free will doesn't make sense in my opinion. Limited and free are themselves contradictory terms. I think that we either have free will or we don't, I lean toward the former, whether we use it or not is another story. I think that we can unconsciously allow ourselves to be ruled in a deterministic manner, but I also think it possible that we consciously rule ourselves even though all other aspects of the world be determined. So, as in the O.P. I think that the will and its freedom is related to consciousness, which itself is an emergent characteristic of matter.

Again, you take an unrealistic black and white robotic view which is as irrational and illogical as it gets. Both libertarian free will and strict determinism do not fit the upfront evidence of how humans make choices in the real world. We are neither deterministic robots, nor free willies anything goes libertarian flap our wings and we can actually fly.

What you have not done is present a coherent alternative

[Tassman]

I think I like these quotes:

Free will and determinism are like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you is determinism. The way you play your hand is free will.
~ Norman Cousins

Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will.
~ Jawaharlal Nehru

This is perfectly in keeping with compatabilism.

[Tassman]

But why do you consider what you call chance elements such as "a brand new flavor" or "ones new girl friend suggesting trying a new flavor" or "your new mate daring you to choose by tossing a coin" why do you consider those so called chance element to be outside of the realm of determinism? In a determined world our choices would be determined in the same way as those events which you call the chance elements are determined, i.e. by antecedent causes, and those so called chance elements would be considered an antecedent cause of the choices we make, no less so than every other effect is due to an antecedent cause. You seem to be trying to fit free will into a system that contradicts its existence. I believe that Spinoza did somewhat the same thing, he was a determinist, but he also seemed to think that one could direct himself within a construct that was otherwise determined. Not sure if it was his error or my own, but I never could understand his logic on that. Then there are many phycisists such as Einstein, Spinoza was his idol btw, who were hard determinist. So there is certainly no consensus, and I'm not sure that I agree with either side, although the latter view seems to be the more coherent of the two.

http://www.informationphilosopher.co...terminism.html

[seer]

You really don't have an alternative Jim. Libertarian free-will as an option is not even on the table, because it's logically incoherent.

Again Tass, what is incoherent about the ability to do otherwise?

gives compatibilists the kind of free will

Define free will Tass, if it is not the ability to do otherwise, then what is it.

[shunyadragon]

Again Tass, what is incoherent about the ability to do otherwise?



Define free will Tass, if it is not the ability to do otherwise, then what is it.

Tassman already gave an adequate explanation of free will from the perspective of compatibilism.

I also cited here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Which describes in detail free will in compatibilism, and the alternatives, for which you have not responded. This source is very good, because it describes the different philosophical views on free will without judgement as which in reality is the best explanation. Your argument is far too one sided in favor of a form? of Libertarian free will, which you have failed to coherently describe. All you have done in the past is say; 'There are many definitions of Libertarian free will.' without further explanation.