Implicator--
"Compatibilism"...It's good to find out that this idea has a name. I think it seems very reasonable (so much that I am tempted to think that it's just obvious).
Implicator wrote:echi wrote:JLNobody wrote:This is a false problem based on a false subject (self) and a false dichotomy (freedom and determinism). Strictly speaking there is no "SELF" to be either "determined" or "free". We are aspects of what we might tentatively call Reality; we are that through which reality expresses itself. All things are conditioned and interdependent (determinism?) and ultimately all is spontaneous (free will?). As I see it, "my" freedom is not mine; it is that of my true nature which is reality (whatever that is).
What the...? How the heck do you know all this stuff?
I like to read.
So, no way to remove posts on this board??
I responded to a post I thought was intended to me, and then saw it was a response to someone else.
Just ignore the post above
I
Implicator wrote:Implicator wrote:echi wrote:JLNobody wrote:This is a false problem based on a false subject (self) and a false dichotomy (freedom and determinism). Strictly speaking there is no "SELF" to be either "determined" or "free". We are aspects of what we might tentatively call Reality; we are that through which reality expresses itself. All things are conditioned and interdependent (determinism?) and ultimately all is spontaneous (free will?). As I see it, "my" freedom is not mine; it is that of my true nature which is reality (whatever that is).
What the...? How the heck do you know all this stuff?
I like to read.
So, no way to remove posts on this board??
I responded to a post I thought was intended to me, and then saw it was a response to someone else.
Just ignore the post above
I
I'll not only ignore it, I'll quote it so everyone will know which post it was that I ignored.
echi wrote:Implicator--
"Compatibilism"...It's good to find out that this idea has a name. I think it seems very reasonable (so much that I am tempted to think that it's just obvious).
Many people don't like the idea of things being determined for them
so much that they eschew any theory that seems to bring determination and free will (and therefore responsibility) together. I guess the thought is that if I am not
ultimately determining what I do, then why should I be held responsible?
I
I suspect you're right on that. It's not too wise to go about trying to solve questions in that way. Isn't that what "junk science" is all about?
I guess the truth is probably the scariest thing there is.
Neologist--
Yeah. Sounds about right, too.
I wish I had someone to debate with.
I hope as the thread develops, we will find much debate. For example:
Erasmus wrote:Let us shun any hypothesis that makes man a puppet and God a tyrant crueler than any in history.
neologist wrote:I hope as the thread develops, we will find much debate. For example:
Erasmus wrote:Let us shun any hypothesis that makes man a puppet and God a tyrant crueler than any in history.
Ah, yes ... the "puppet" quote
And the stock answer ... "do puppets choose?"
The Calvinist would say he believes that people do, in fact, choose ... it is just that their choices are predetermined.
I
echi wrote:Neologist--
Yeah. Sounds about right, too.
I wish I had someone to debate with.
Whether you have someone to debate with or not has been predetermined.
Deal with it
I
The idea of freewill rests on a ethereal base that is without precedent.
Everything in our 'thus far known' universe has a cause..nothing happens 'just because' that we know of.
When examined, pretty much every action we take can be traced to multiple causes, as well as causes that are not always apparent without pertinent information.
'Freewill' claims total independence from causality, and implies a level of chaos not observed anywhere in our known universe.
In short, the concept is absurd.
My thoughts are:
On an individual level, we all have the opportunities to choose most all things in our lives--and in that which we have little choice in, we still have the opportunity to choose how we will react and/or respond.
Looking at it from an outer vantage point (say the one that God might have)
it would surely be obvious that, as humans, we are probably more than just a little predictable in most cases. Also, we have limits and then there is 'cause and effect.'
I don't see this as 'free will' as many use the word. I see it as an 'opportunity to choose' and each opportunity has boundaries that are set for us, before the choice arises. And yet, in that window, we are able to freely decide.
But to 'will', to me, is an altogether different concept. To 'will' is to absolutely determine, which, to me, is not the same as deciding. Deciding often falls within the scope of determining, but always limited within a certain delineated area. We may not conceive, see, or admit that area, but nevertheless it exists.
I also have the idea of 'will' being the ability to cause effect with the power of the mind, alone. That definitely does not come under the heading of human abilities. The reason I think of this is because of the idea of the word 'willpower.'
'Quitting smoking requires willpower' for example. To desire and then enact by means of mental intention alone, the negation of the body's physiological and psychosomatic desire/need/craving for nicotene or even the physical act of just 'smoking.' With all the addiction treatment centers and various Rx treatments, to aid such things traditionally thought of as the result of a 'weak will' or 'lack of willpower,' demonstrates our inability in this type of power.
On the level of humanity as a whole, I believe that our individual framework of singular decision making might seem divergent, but overall is convergent and that convergency will overide singular diversions, because we are all human and thus, just as we share the destination of death, we also share the destination of life.
All MHO, of course.
Doc, there is, of course, choosing. But there is no subject to make choices. There is just choice-making. Deeds sans doers.
Echi asks how the devil I know all this "stuff". Nice question. I agree that the post he refers to was badly written and presumed too much about an undefinable "reality." But it's not composed of the kind of "stuff" to which Echi is oriented. It has to do with intuitive interpretations based on a wide range of subjective experiences--for better or worse. It's the kind of statement that you intuitivelly resonate with or you dont.
Quote:
Why do you say total independence?
Without this, freewill is just extended causality. If choices are not totally free, if choices are contingent, then they are not free. In fact, they aren't even choices, per say..they are the illusion of choice.
Quote:
Doc, there is, of course, choosing. But there is no subject to make choices. There is just choice-making. Deeds sans doers.
You may believe you are 'choosing' vanilla when presented with two different flavors of ice cream, but the fact you don't like chocolate (a fact itself hinging on multiple causes) , the fact you read a convincing article on the benefits of vanilla (the circumstances of which also rooted in a multitude of causes) , and the fact you are almost out of chocolate, and your girlfriend really likes it (both also steeped in causality) , as well as 30 other contributing factors, all also rooted in a web of cause, leaves no choice at all really. Just the end result of a sequence of events.
freewill implies a degree of freedom that just isn't rooted in evidence or sound reasoning.
So far, it doesn't look like anyone has really disagreed about anything (not much, anyway). I wonder if anyone out there thinks we have free will.
"Helloooooo! Where are you?!"
JLN,
I like that word "resonance" !
There seem to be two levels to refute absolute "free will".
1. The reductionist argument of naive realism - where mental activity can be reduced to deterministic physics and chemistry.
2. The transcendent argument - where "self" dissolves as part of a timeless holism in which "actors actions and objects" are transient ripples in the flux.
Since the second can encompass the first by arguing for the illusion separate "things" , and that "causality" lies only the mind of an so-call "independent observer", the conclusion is that "free will" is a social convention which is associated with the concept of "responsibility of individuals for their actions". It is required to support other social conventions such as "sin" and "guilt" within the interactional network which constitutes current social reality.
Whether the transcendent argument is accepted or not, we cannot analyse "free will" outside the specific contexts in which it is used.
Those contexts involve social actions with social consequences
including "self" debating with "self".
Resonance. I like that word, too.
And, JLN, what you posted earlier does resonate with me. I was just goofing on you because I thought you might start swinging.
I know what you mean about this being a false dichotomy, and all. I guess it is. But "I" (whatever that means) still "like" to "think" about "it".
Implicator wrote: Come on now, Timber ... don't forget that it is we humans who come up definitions in the first place ... definitions which tend to change over time
Sorta difficult to press that point if one is to assert The Canon be the innerrant, revealed, unchanging, absolute truth as expressed through the will and by the word of God.
Which, of course, brings us straight back around to
equivocation and rationalization once again
Still, its a catchy tune
Doe - a deer, a female deer
Re - a drop of golden sun
etc etc etc
Would you folks agree that the traditional concept of an almighty God applies to him the attribute of free will?
This fine fellow believed such:
Martin Luther wrote:God foresees, foreordains, and accomplishes all things by an unchanging, eternal, and effacious will. By this thunderbolt free will sinks shattered in the dust.
Truly, if this were so, I would revile such a god with my dying breath.
