"Freedom" of the will.

[Chester]

Rather than build up to my point, thereby allowing some moron to intercede and destroy the thread, I thought that I'd just explain my opinion about freewill, then others can comment on it if they wish.

Firstly , what do we mean by "freedom" . I think this is where most people trip up. Freedom of the will doesn't mean freedom to do anything (we all know that, don't we?), it means freedom to do what we want to do within the confines of reality.Now, reality is a cause and effect environment from which we can not escape, so whatever we choose to do is caused, but that in no way infers that we are not able to freely choose between caused options. The sort of freedom we want is freedom to do what we think is best given the confines of reality.

People may argue that we are unable to control our impulses, this is clearly incorrect because if we have knowledge of what a mistaken impulse will cost us we are able to check our actions by weighing them up against the costs.Knowledge frees us to make the right choice for ourselves.

Now, given the above, the great freedom giver is knowledge because it means we can do that thing that is actually, truly,the right thing to do.With knowledge we cease to be wild animals (that's not to say that incorrect "knowledge" can send us back down the road to barbarism).

True freedom is an act based on knowledge,an act that accepts reality and bends the will to it...self-control.

There you go, my explanation is a bit scrappy ,but I'm sure you chaps get the gist.

[volchok]

so whatever we choose to do is caused, but that in no way infers that we are not able to freely choose between caused options

If whatever we choose to do is caused then choosing between caused options is also caused and therefor not free.
Giant hole in your logic. There goes your argument.

Btw, let's keep this civil ok?

[Chester]

so whatever we choose to do is caused, but that in no way infers that we are not able to freely choose between caused options

If whatever we choose to do is caused then choosing between caused options is also caused and therefor not free.
Giant hole in your logic. There goes your argument.

Btw, let's keep this civil ok?

If what we choose is caused by knowledge, and aimed at what we want to achieve, then that is the only freedom worth having.Working towards our ends in the correct way is what we want, I'm sure you agree.

Self control is freedom.

[volchok]

If what we choose is caused by knowledge

That's an oversimplification. What we choose is caused by many things.

Working towards our ends in the correct way is what we want, I'm sure you agree.

Sure, but that's not free will. That's the ability to pursue your will. Free will would be the ability to will your will.

[incorrect]

just some thoughts

i think freedom and knowledge are intimately tied.. but i don't think one is necessarily based on the other

some people smoke cause its cool
some people smoke cause its cool, but they know its bad for your health
some people smoke cause they are addicted, and they know its bad for your health

its important to point out that given some knowledge, the 'correct' action isn't necessarily taken based on that knowledge.. this is in some ways freedom

however, ones awareness of options increases with knowledge

so given some set of circumstances.. lets say you're a 13 and trying a cigarette for the first time.. and you're given an ultimatum...

smoke and be cool, or not smoke and be laughed at...

and lets say me, being the smarter person, knows there's three options.. smoke and be cool, not smoke and be laughed at, or punch my friend in the face

does that make me more free? perhaps not

but lets say government imposes on us that 'to not smoke and be laughed at' is illegal

now i only have 2 options, and my friend has only 1 option

does that make me more free?

well i am aware of an option... and the other guy is not

in some ways i have a choice he doesn't have.. in some way i am more free

to enumerate the available options is perhaps impossible.. the fact that the law does it, is definitely arrogant

but the alternative.... lets say me punching someone in the face (the more realistically illegal option).. is perhaps also arrogant

at the end of the day i think freedom is the ability of an entity to make its own decisions and reap the benefits/suffer the consequences, regardless of how informed it is

a lack of freedom is perhaps the awareness of some option, and the inability to perform that option, perhaps due to physical restrictions (jailed) or expected consequences (laws)

[volchok]

just some thoughts

i think freedom and knowledge are intimately tied.. but i don't think one is necessarily based on the other

some people smoke cause its cool
some people smoke cause its cool, but they know its bad for your health
some people smoke cause they are addicted, and they know its bad for your health

its important to point out that given some knowledge, the 'correct' action isn't necessarily taken based on that knowledge.. this is in some ways freedom

however, ones awareness of options increases with knowledge

so given some set of circumstances.. lets say you're a 13 and trying a cigarette for the first time.. and you're given an ultimatum...

smoke and be cool, or not smoke and be laughed at...

and lets say me, being the smarter person, knows there's three options.. smoke and be cool, not smoke and be laughed at, or punch my friend in the face

does that make me more free? perhaps not

but lets say government imposes on us that 'to not smoke and be laughed at' is illegal

now i only have 2 options, and my friend has only 1 option

does that make me more free?

well i am aware of an option... and the other guy is not

in some ways i have a choice he doesn't have.. in some way i am more free

to enumerate the available options is perhaps impossible.. the fact that the law does it, is definitely arrogant

but the alternative.... lets say me punching someone in the face (the more realistically illegal option).. is perhaps also arrogant

I agree with this. The problem is that this kind of freedom has nothing to do with free will.

[Dan~]

I believe in self-slavery, and self-destruction.

[without-music]

You're viewing human autonomy objectively, as if analyzing the growth of a plant. From an internal perspective, rooted strongly in the experience of the subject, how do you live the "fact" that your actions are but a link on a causal chain? I put it to you that you don't, and that you can't. This is essentially the problematic for thinking par excellence: the apparent irreconcilability between scientific (as in "the scientific attitude") and subjective (as in "phenomenological") stances. Are they reconcilable? Freedom is a great paradigm through which to view the playing out of such a war.

If whatever we choose to do is caused then choosing between caused options is also caused and therefor not free.

Perhaps you mean definitively caused, for my eating a bar of chocolate might be caused by my desire for chocolate, but not caused entirely, perfectly, definitively -- for I've turned down the chocolate many times before, and I could have done so this time as well. Certainly, it's nonsense to speak as if my actions are miraculously uncaused, but that simple fact doesn't necessitate your leap to the conception that the causes of my actions are both outside of me and definitive to the point of determination.

Take something I recently wrote on Sartre for a class of mine, for example:

untab

“If I accept a niggardly salary,” writes Sartre, “it is doubtless because of fear; and fear is a motive.” In this sense, fear is the cause of action. However, “this fear has meaning only outside itself in an end ideally posited.” It is a fear of dying that drives me to accept the low salary. But this too depends upon a prior value conferred upon life together with the realization that such a life is in danger. At bottom, if I am to recognize such danger, it is in a movement beyond my situation toward the possibility that I might change it. Thus, the structure of the act: I apprehend my life as in danger (because I can no longer afford to feed myself), I project myself toward the possibility that I might change it (thereby nihilating my current situation), and I accept an unusually low salary. My project (the end of my action) is this movement beyond my situation, my act is the acceptance of a “niggardly salary,” and my motive is the death I fear to be imminent if I go any longer without income. For Sartre, the act, the end, and the motive “are all constituted [given meaning] in a single upsurge.” This upsurge is, of course, the expression of freedom, the nihilation of the in-itself toward the possible, the negation of what is and the projection toward what is not. The very character of action is, therefore, the same rupture between in-itself and for-itself that grounds human freedom. Thus, determinism is no longer a threat to Sartre’s project. “Every action must be intentional,” the structure of which is constituted by the nihilating consciousness, the projection toward an end that is not. Action is not, therefore, simply one more link on an endless chain of causation; determinism has been defeated.

Idiosyncratic, sure. But the point is clear: that an action is caused does not necessitate determinism.

[James S Saint]

Rather than build up to my point, thereby allowing some moron to intercede and destroy the thread, I thought that I'd just explain my opinion about freewill, then others can comment on it if they wish.

Firstly , what do we mean by "freedom" . I think this is where most people trip up. Freedom of the will doesn't mean freedom to do anything (we all know that, don't we?), it means freedom to do what we want to do within the confines of reality.Now, reality is a cause and effect environment from which we can not escape, so whatever we choose to do is caused, but that in no way infers that we are not able to freely choose between caused options. The sort of freedom we want is freedom to do what we think is best given the confines of reality.

People may argue that we are unable to control our impulses, this is clearly incorrect because if we have knowledge of what a mistaken impulse will cost us we are able to check our actions by weighing them up against the costs.Knowledge frees us to make the right choice for ourselves.

All quite correct, although not entirely complete.

The entire issue of "Free-Will" is merely another semantic equivocation mind game with intent to associate determinism with oppression.
"Free-Will" means the Freedom to exercise Will without Oppression; "Unopposed Will".
It does NOT mean freedom from Cause; "Acausal Will"

Determinancy refers to the fact that all things have cause. But determinancy also refers to the fact that causes resist oppression ("being determined"). For every cause there is a potential counter cause and thus there is a balance of forces wherein a decision if afforded. The person's will-power is a measure of his determination in the face of counter causes.

[Moreno]

The entire issue of "Free-Will" is merely another semantic equivocation mind game with intent to associate determinism with oppression.

Some people are doing this, but other who are interested in the issue are not.

"Free-Will" means the Freedom to exercise Will without Oppression; "Unopposed Will".
It does NOT mean freedom from Cause; "Acausal Will"

This is how you are defining it. Other people have other definitions. Your version of free will could be compatible with determinism, the other versions cannot be. Not everyone in the free will vs. determinism debate only thinks there is an issue because of a failure to understand the phrase free will.

Determinancy refers to the fact that all things have cause. But determinancy also refers to the fact that causes resist oppression ("being determined").

Causes do not resist oppression. Apart from the fact that oppression is a value, causes do not resist. They cause something. If what they would have caused to happen is interfered with, they do not cause it to happen. So then they are either causes of something else - friction and kinetic energy perhaps, where there might have been flight - or do not cause in any of the senses whoever is watching is interested.

For every cause there is a potential counter cause and thus there is a balance of forces wherein a decision if afforded.

If it is only a potential, then how is it a guarantee of balance. Are we only talking about causes in human contexts? the context of will? Or of all causes? If we are speaking of all causes this is very strange, unless this is a panconsciousness position.

The person's will-power is a measure of his determination in the face of counter causes.

Though in determinism, the outcome was determined back in the Big Bang or before. We just get to watch it unfold. I think it would be better however to refer to counter forces and obstacles. Because calling things causes, when the willpower might keep them from causing whatever it is - the countering - is confusings and rather teleological.

[James S Saint]

Determinancy refers to the fact that all things have cause. But determinancy also refers to the fact that causes resist oppression ("being determined").

Causes do not resist oppression. Apart from the fact that oppression is a value, causes do not resist. They cause something. If what they would have caused to happen is interfered with, they do not cause it to happen.

Quite the contrary.
A cause is an affectent or affectation. An affect can only exist during the time it takes for the effect to take place. The effect cannot take place instantly only due to whatever forces the affectent must overcome in order to bring about the effect; to cause the result. If a cause was not oppressed by anything whatsoever, it would be instantaneous and be gone before it even had time to exist. No change would take place because the change would already be there. There would be no distinction between the affector and the affectee and thus no affecting taking place. No affecting means no causing of anything.

Every cause is always opposed. The issue is merely by how much, for how long, and by what.

For every cause there is a potential counter cause and thus there is a balance of forces wherein a decision if afforded.

If it is only a potential, then how is it a guarantee of balance.

Who said anything about any guarantee? I stated that the balance issue affords an opportunity to make a decision and support one side or the other. Every cause has an adversary. Support the adversay and you have an opportunity to shift the balance against that cause and vsvrsa.

Are we only talking about causes in human contexts? the context of will? Or of all causes? If we are speaking of all causes this is very strange, unless this is a panconsciousness position.

I am talking about truly ALL cause issues both in physics as well, and more importantly, in human dynamics.

The person's will-power is a measure of his determination in the face of counter causes.

Though in determinism, the outcome was determined back in the Big Bang or before. We just get to watch it unfold.

No. We do not merely "get to watch it unfold". That is the subtle lie implied by the equivocation.
We get to play a roll in the unfolding.
If we merely sit back and watch, we are relinquishing our will to who or whatever has arranged the situation and are merely mindlessly and carelessly being used as pawn, cog, or brick.

I think it would be better however to refer to counter forces and obstacles. Because calling things causes, when the willpower might keep them from causing whatever it is - the countering - is confusings and rather teleological.

I thought you said that the counter forces (resistance) didn't exist? Any cause that is counter to another is resisting it. Make up your mind.

And teleology exists only where you tele-project it to be.

[volchok]

Perhaps you mean definitively caused, for my eating a bar of chocolate might be caused by my desire for chocolate, but not caused entirely, perfectly, definitively -- for I've turned down the chocolate many times before, and I could have done so this time as well.
.

I never said that the cause for eating a bar of chocolate would be simply the desire to eat chocolate. Certainly there's more to it then that. There's probably an incalculable number of variables coming into play. Having said that, can you explain why you turned down chocolate when you did and why you didn't when you ate it?

[Chester]

If what we choose is caused by knowledge

That's an oversimplification. What we choose is caused by many things.

Working towards our ends in the correct way is what we want, I'm sure you agree.

Sure, but that's not free will. That's the ability to pursue your will. Free will would be the ability to will your will.

It may be an oversimplification but only acts based on knowledge, or at least sound reasoning, are free from such internal drives as impulse. Knowledge means we are free to make the right choice, a choice based on facts. Nobody really wants to make choices based on wrong information, being free from knowledge/truth is not a cool form of freedom.

Knowledge is the only thing that allows us to will our will. If you wanted to rape a woman but knew you would be caught and hung, you would will your will not to rape her...unless you had a death wish.

[Chester]

just some thoughts

i think freedom and knowledge are intimately tied.. but i don't think one is necessarily based on the other

some people smoke cause its cool
some people smoke cause its cool, but they know its bad for your health
some people smoke cause they are addicted, and they know its bad for your health

its important to point out that given some knowledge, the 'correct' action isn't necessarily taken based on that knowledge.. this is in some ways freedom

however, ones awareness of options increases with knowledge

so given some set of circumstances.. lets say you're a 13 and trying a cigarette for the first time.. and you're given an ultimatum...

smoke and be cool, or not smoke and be laughed at...

and lets say me, being the smarter person, knows there's three options.. smoke and be cool, not smoke and be laughed at, or punch my friend in the face

does that make me more free? perhaps not

but lets say government imposes on us that 'to not smoke and be laughed at' is illegal

now i only have 2 options, and my friend has only 1 option

does that make me more free?

well i am aware of an option... and the other guy is not

in some ways i have a choice he doesn't have.. in some way i am more free

to enumerate the available options is perhaps impossible.. the fact that the law does it, is definitely arrogant

but the alternative.... lets say me punching someone in the face (the more realistically illegal option).. is perhaps also arrogant

at the end of the day i think freedom is the ability of an entity to make its own decisions and reap the benefits/suffer the consequences, regardless of how informed it is

a lack of freedom is perhaps the awareness of some option, and the inability to perform that option, perhaps due to physical restrictions (jailed) or expected consequences (laws)

When we talk about freedom we have to consider what it is we want to be free from. Do you want to be free from the reality around you , do you want to be free from knowledge? Imo ,real freedom is freedom to be able to do the right thing given the restrictions of your aims and situation.

[Chester]

Rather than build up to my point, thereby allowing some moron to intercede and destroy the thread, I thought that I'd just explain my opinion about freewill, then others can comment on it if they wish.

Firstly , what do we mean by "freedom" . I think this is where most people trip up. Freedom of the will doesn't mean freedom to do anything (we all know that, don't we?), it means freedom to do what we want to do within the confines of reality.Now, reality is a cause and effect environment from which we can not escape, so whatever we choose to do is caused, but that in no way infers that we are not able to freely choose between caused options. The sort of freedom we want is freedom to do what we think is best given the confines of reality.

People may argue that we are unable to control our impulses, this is clearly incorrect because if we have knowledge of what a mistaken impulse will cost us we are able to check our actions by weighing them up against the costs.Knowledge frees us to make the right choice for ourselves.

All quite correct, although not entirely complete.

The entire issue of "Free-Will" is merely another semantic equivocation mind game with intent to associate determinism with oppression.
"Free-Will" means the Freedom to exercise Will without Oppression; "Unopposed Will".
It does NOT mean freedom from Cause; "Acausal Will"

Determinancy refers to the fact that all things have cause. But determinancy also refers to the fact that causes resist oppression ("being determined"). For every cause there is a potential counter cause and thus there is a balance of forces wherein a decision if afforded. The person's will-power is a measure of his determination in the face of counter causes.

Yep, I'd go along with that. The way I visualise it is that we are all swinging from the chains of causation, but our will can swing those chains about , we can decide (from the available options) where the next link joins.That may be restriction, but it is not oppression.

[volchok]

It may be an oversimplification but only acts based on knowledge, or at least sound reasoning, are free from such internal drives as impulse.

Isn't acting based on knowledge an impulse as well?

Knowledge means we are free to make the right choice

Just the oposite. Knowledge conditions you. Which may be great. Once you know that getting punched hurts, you'll probably avoid it.

Nobody really wants to make choices based on wrong information, being free from knowledge/truth is not a cool form of freedom.

Indeed and that's why true free will would be terrible.

Knowledge is the only thing that allows us to will our will. If you wanted to rape a woman but knew you would be caught and hung, you would will your will not to rape her...unless you had a death wish.

Uh...?

[volchok]

"Free-Will" means the Freedom to exercise Will without Oppression; "Unopposed Will".
It does NOT mean freedom from Cause; "Acausal Will"

Since when? That is most certainly not what most people take free will to be.

[James S Saint]

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. Two prominent opposing positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.

Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias).

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In science, neuroscientific findings regarding free will may suggest different ways of predicting human behavior.

[without-music]

I never said that the cause for eating a bar of chocolate would be simply the desire to eat chocolate. Certainly there's more to it then that. There's probably an incalculable number of variables coming into play.

I'm interested in this statement of yours. If the causes that determine my choices and actions are incalculable, then what impact does the charge of determinism claim for itself? Is it merely a way of doing away with moral responsibility? If the causes that determine my choices are incalculable, then why suppose they're definitive and complete? This is certainly a weary thought. Rather, why not suppose that there exists some ambiguity within which to exercise one's will? This is certainly the more powerful thought.

In essence, I want to know what kind of picture of determinism you can paint when you concede the incalculability of the causes that determine action. On such a picture, determinism cannot be empirically verified, and so it seems to relegate itself to the warm but irrelevant womb of analytic philosophical academia. That is: it has no force.

[finishedman]

It may be that there is no such thing as cause and effect outside the subjective mental construct that’s been systematically put together in your mind.

All we have are theories and ideas about life. Asking what is the meaning of life is the beginning of nothing but the question/answer ritual. There is no freedom to even ask a question from an area where there are no answers there already. You are restricted to the endurance of your thinking which is governed by the limitations of your knowledge and intelligence.

Why is it not that every event is a separate and independent event? We link certain events together only to make up stories about living. If you don’t link up events, it’s impossible to maintain the set of characteristics recognized as belonging to you and constituting your individual personality/philosophy. Once those conditioning factors are acquired, actions and events take on a more deterministic quality.

[Flannel Jesus]

In essence, I want to know what kind of picture of determinism you can paint when you concede the incalculability of the causes that determine action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved

It's already been proven beyond reasonable doubt that "incalculable" and "unpredictable" are not mutually exclusive with determinism.

[volchok]

I'm interested in this statement of yours. If the causes that determine my choices and actions are incalculable, then what impact does the charge of determinism claim for itself? Is it merely a way of doing away with moral responsibility?

You don't know what is the point of having a theoretical model of how the world works?!?!
Moral responsibility can't possibly exist. Even if determinism is false. So why pretend it exists?

If the causes that determine my choices are incalculable, then why suppose they're definitive and complete? This is certainly a weary thought. Rather, why not suppose that there exists some ambiguity within which to exercise one's will? This is certainly the more powerful thought.

If by powerful, you mean pleasing then yeah, sure. Thinking that we got free will is certainly pleasing but is it true?
Plus why would the fact that your actions are caused by a multitude of factors render those same factors "indefinite" and "incomplete" ? Makes no sense to me.

In essence, I want to know what kind of picture of determinism you can paint when you concede the incalculability of the causes that determine action. On such a picture, determinism cannot be empirically verified, and so it seems to relegate itself to the warm but irrelevant womb of analytic philosophical academia. That is: it has no force.

Is the incapability of the causes that determine actions news to you?
Were you under the impression that only a hand full of variables existed?
You do understand that everything is the product of variables that came into existence at the moment of the big bang right? (if one believes in the big bang, of course).
If you do understand it, then, I think it's pretty easy to see that as complexity slowly arose, more variables came into play.

[volchok]

It may be that there is no such thing as cause and effect outside the subjective mental construct that’s been systematically put together in your mind.

All we have are theories and ideas about life. Asking what is the meaning of life is the beginning of nothing but the question/answer ritual. There is no freedom to even ask a question from an area where there are no answers there already. You are restricted to the endurance of your thinking which is governed by the limitations of your knowledge and intelligence.

Why is it not that every event is a separate and independent event? We link certain events together only to make up stories about living. If you don’t link up events, it’s impossible to maintain the set of characteristics recognized as belonging to you and constituting your individual personality/philosophy. Once those conditioning factors are acquired, actions and events take on a more deterministic quality.

Relativism ftw is it ?

[without-music]

FJ: My question is, to be more specific: of what use is it to us to define the will and human action in terms of chaos theory? It doesn't really yield much of anything outside of the impossibility of moral responsibility. But of course, it's simply ludicrous to suppose we can do away with responsibility while at the same time conceding the incalculability of the causes that determine action. Such is tantamount to proclaiming that we have no idea how it was that John murdered Anthony, but we know it was determined, so we can't hold John responsible. This seems a new shadow of the old god; science as perverted christianity -- the emphatic "NO!" of Volchok is in essence a silent and embarrassed "yes"...

You don't know what is the point of having a theoretical model of how the world works?!?!

Not when the model leaves us paralyzed like the Turkish fatalists: folding our hands before the immense incalculability of the causal world. In a word: the model doesn't actually do anything for us, doesn't change anything. The question, then: what is its purpose?

Moral responsibility can't possibly exist. Even if determinism is false. So why pretend it exists?

My wager is that you "pretend" it exists at every moment of every day of your life. Do you hold me responsible for my words here? If your friend steals your girlfriend do you not react angrily? If a man steals from you your wallet, what is your reaction? Moral responsibility is a massively significant part of the foundation of being-with-others. Without responsibility, it seems strange to conceive of a world-with-others at all.

If by powerful, you mean pleasing then yeah, sure. Thinking that we got free will is certainly pleasing but is it true?

Not pleasing, powerful. Listen carefully. The thought that I can by means of my will choose and shape my world is powerful; if it is pleasing, it is only derivatively so -- in the sense that I derive pleasure from the increase in my power. The thought that all your choices and actions have long since been determined is profoundly abasing, wearisome, tiring. Christianity bent inward upon itself and renamed Science -- a new shadow of the long dead god. Whether it is true or not: it is certainly a model for understanding the world within which we live and act. And an extremely useful, empowering one at that. Your withered determinism, on the other hand: another model, but amazingly tiring, useless. Truth? Is truth really but one more asceticism? Then what matters philosophy...

Plus why would the fact that your actions are caused by a multitude of factors render those same factors "indefinite" and "incomplete" ? Makes no sense to me.

An incalculable multitude. It seems perfectly sensible to suppose that such an immense multitude of factors all conspiring together to shape and determine action might leave some room within which to exert the force of one's will. The more complicated and convoluted the causes, the less definitive the effect: no? Surely, the less knowable... Such is the conclusion one must absolutely draw. You and I, we're not so different. Your supposition sits you down on your rocking chair, draws the blanket over your tired legs; my supposition lifts me miles above the earth; I ascend and fill the skies with my laughter.

Is the incapability of the causes that determine actions news to you?

Incapable? Indeed, for they are incapable of tarrying with the force of my consciousness. Incalculable is perhaps the term you meant to employ, but now not only am I teaching, but I am also correcting. These causes are all objective, Volchok; they all eschew the insurmountable reality of the subject. When I sip from the mug in front of me, I am struck with irreconcilability of the fact that I picked up the mug -- I am not drawn to pontification as to the dispersion of variables and causes birthed forth from that excremental singularity, so many years prior to this one all-encompassing moment. That singularity is nothing compared to my consciousness; they are ontologically distinct entities.

[Flannel Jesus]

FJ: My question is, to be more specific: of what use is it to us to define the will and human action in terms of chaos theory? It doesn't really yield much of anything outside of the impossibility of moral responsibility. But of course, it's simply ludicrous to suppose we can do away with responsibility while at the same time conceding the incalculability of the causes that determine action. Such is tantamount to proclaiming that we have no idea how it was that John murdered Anthony, but we know it was determined, so we can't hold John responsible.

I don't really think that the relationship people see between determinism and "responsibility" makes much sense. Apart from that issue, I'm not really sure of the value of the concept of responsibility itself. It's kinda useless as far as I can tell. Worse than useless even. If there's a thing that someone done that you or a large group of people really don't want them to do (ie crime), then you and the group can take actions to prevent those things from being done. You can do this without the concepts of "justice" or "responsibility". I'm even fairly sure you could do it more efficiently without those concepts.