A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?


And I think that “relatively free” is relatively compatible with compatiblist (actually the same thing).

But where is the arguing and hatred in that? :confused:

So relatively free means, for you, being at least able to act according to one’s motives, but not necessarily being able to choose one’s motives? This is the typical Humean compatibilism.

Or do you have some kind of immanent or transeunt agent causation in mind… so that Joe can be said to be acting on his brain when his brain makes his arm move? If not, wouldn’t hard determinism be the only other option?

The word “free” gets skewed between two extreme concepts; causality and opportunity.

The compatibilist understands this and treats the concern according to context. It is true that in a physics-absolute sort of way, every tiny action is only the direct result of the prior state. But it is also true that decision making entities either have opportunities available or they do not concerning their choices. One focus is toward the past cause, the other toward the future possibilities or clear paths from which to freely choose.

So while speaking of human decisions pertaining to governing and opportunities for a person to live (exercise his will), the word “free” refers to available opportunities. And when speaking of physical, psychological, or sociological actions and reactions, the word “free” refers to causal chain of events.

And just to keep the confusion going, one could say;
“You had no choice at all in everything you have done in the past. But from here, the future is all up to you.”

Most hard determinists don’t accept that. Taking an available course of action doesn’t mean one freely chose to do so, so compatibilism is not without problems. Not the kind of thing one can be ‘relatively’, you know what I mean? Either you are pregnant or you are not. You can’t be relatively pregnant.

I like the idea that neither freewill nor determinism address the case accurately. Nothing compels the whole of existence to exist, so its existence is not caused. Nothing ‘determined’ it to exist. But no single part of it is truly free to be other than it is.

Both freewill and unfreewill are confused concepts when sub specie aeternitatis (the world viewed through eternity). In the end it is a matter of strong and weak power complexes… philosophers can call them ‘wills’ if they insist. The stronger the assembly, the greater the range of action. The human being is a magnificent example of this and his feeling of freewill comes from it.

If that’s the way you want to think of it.

I have always contended that the whole “Freewill” argumentation has been nothing but a mind game.

Ha! As a determinist I have no choice but to think of it that way.

You thought I would get caught in your clever trap, compatibilist!

I am both, not neither. I can think in either way.

The problem with this is it presumes decision making entities are actually autonomous in their decision making and neglects the possibility of a gestalt of many elements within the decision making entity influencing each decision in different degrees with each decision.

“Free” does not just refer to “available opportunities,” it also refers to freedom from external and internal influences contributing to and/or finalizing the decisions from among those opportunities. And if all are decisions are just inevitable effects of causes among a Heraclitean field, than there is no freeedom whatsoever.

This is cute but nonsensical.

Are you trying to say that decision making entities aren’t making decisions? If not, I don’t see the relevance.

Emm… reading problem? I am pretty certain that I covered those concerns.

No, I’m not; so, the reading problem is clearly yours. You also apparently don’t understand the word “gestalt.” I made it clear that decision-making entities might not be autonomous entities making the decisions solely on their singular “own.” That’s not saying decision making entities aren’t making decisions.

As I already showed, you are the one with the reading problem. You didn’t “cover” any of those “concerns” I mentioned at all. However, if you erroneously think you did, you are free to fail trying to show you have.

P.s. You never told me your job after I politely answered your questions about mine. So, what do you do for a living?

Yes. You said that they might not be autonomous. And I am pretty certain that I made it clear that I see no relevance. They are either making decisions or they are not. What comes as the final end result of the potentially many struggles and competing decision makers is not relevant as long as the decision maker in question has influence. As long as he has influence, his influence, as minuscule as it might be, is the physical reflection of his “free” decision (obviously nothing stopped him).

Now I’m thinking “comprehension problem”.

If an opportunity is blocked by any influence from any source, then it isn’t an “available opportunity”. So when I said “available opportunity”, I inherently removed the issue of the interfering causal factors that you have mentioned.

But even that is beside the point. What you apparently need to comprehend is that the word “freedom” has two distinct usages. One involves causality and the other involves available opportunities, for example;
A) Do you have the freedom to buy blue socks rather than black? Yes/No?

The determinist can easily argue (and generally will) that you have no freedom whatsoever because minuscule influences are causing you to make your choice. Such a narrow perspective is typical of a very anti-social person who can’t grasp the intent of a speaker. In some cases it is an actual activist hell bent on promoting the lack of freedom in society (very, very common around this neck of the woods).

The person asking the question is not asking of causation. He is asking if you have the permission, money, and means to acquire blue socks. He is asking if there is anything overtly, socially preventing you from being able to purchase blue instead of black. He is NOT asking about the sub-atomic physics involved.

It is an issue of two uses for the same word (ambiguity). Beyond that it is merely a mind game and rhetoric tool with which to distract and confuse people for manipulative purposes (which are very specific and a part of any social changing).

I seem to remember politely answering your question very shortly down that same thread. If you are asking about my current employment, I have been retired for quite some time.

As I already showed, you are the one with the reading problem. You didn’t cover any of those “concerns” I mentioned at all. However, if you erroneously think you did, you are free to fail trying to show you have.

[quote="James S Saint"Now I’m thinking “comprehension problem”.[/quote]
No, I’ve already shown above you are clearly the one with the comprehension problem.

And you clearly prove your comprehension problem here. Firstly, as I mentioned above, the “available opportunities” are possibilities for decision, not causes dictating the freedom of it. Secondly, as I noted above, but you failed (again) to comprehend, internal elements of a decision-making gestalt are not “interfering causal factors,” they are elements of the decision-making process itself.

No, what you don’t comprehend is you don’t get to erroneously define the word “freedom” for everybody else. It is used for many more things and contexts than just causality and “available opportunities.” Just because you can’t grasp the complexities and complex significations of the word doesn’t mean you get to foist your limited definition on everybody else.

That’s all lovely, but it is irrelevant to our disagreement. Try to stay focused.

That is reductive and absurd. It is, as I have shown above, much more of an issue than that. Try to avoid such banal reductivity; it is not the sign of incisive, complex thinking.

You remember incorrectly, however, you can still tell me what you used to do for a living.

All very interestingly obtuse.

No, your pathetic “comeback” was remarkably obtuse and shows you couldn’t counter anything.

Although in general, I try to make a significant effort to communicate (assuming the topic is of interest), often we run across a people who simply aren’t worth trying to communicate with.

I answered the questions asked. I explained how your statements were related. This subject isn’t worthy of any more than that.

[size=85]…ie. Argue it with someone who gives a damn.[/size]

You’re right, you’re not worth communicating with at all. That didn’t stop me from debunking your erroneous arguments. Your second failure to counter that debunking proves that.

You answered nothing and explained nothing. You just showed poor reading, comprehension, and reasoning skills as you failed to counter my sound criticisms of your flawed arguments.

Your saying that after continuing to engage me above is comical.

P.s. You never told me what you did for a living; I can imagine why.

Sorry for interfering, but your behaviour is unbearable.
You might have a look at the last sentence of this post

(So much for reading-, comprehension-,… or memory skills)

Sorry for debunking your erroneous and clearly biased personal attack, but it is not. If it was, you would have been specific; you weren’t

Your behavior, including your abrupt interference, however, is unbearable. So, welcome to my ignore list, Mit.
And Saint didn’t specify in any way what he did in that link he posted. So much for “reading-, comprehension-,… or memory skills.”

Well, Mithus, the woman put you on her ignore list. You are no longer invited to her birthday or sleepover parties.

Being left in the cold, hurts.

A will as such can only be a free will and is not observable, not cognoscible , thus not provable or disprovable. So we can agree with Schopenhauer and say that the will is Kant’s “thing as such”.