Two Conceptions of Free Will
Matthew Gliatto
Published in ILLUMINATION
This might be true. This might not be true. Neuroscience may one day finally arrive at the correct conclusion. Neuroscience may not ever arrive at the correct conclusion.
Then the part where some go completely off the deep end and insist there really isn’t even a way for any of us to determine which. Squabble over what the human brain is and how it got there. But, even if we determine that the human brain is capable of at least attempting to explain itself, we don’t actually know for sure if the human brain itself is capable of explaining itself. Then we can go to intelligent lifeforms “out there” that may well be considerable closer to that than we are. Or, sure, we can go to God.
But: Of his or her own free will, can a philosopher then opt for which position to land on?
Which makes all of this truly mind-boggling to say the least. We are trying to pin down how the human brain functions in the context of “all there is” but all that there is available to us to accomplish this is the human brain itself.
And here I am arguing for determinism only because “intuitively” it seems like the most reasonable frame of mind. But not anymore than “intuitively” it seems like I clearly do have some measure of autonomy.
Differences arise as to a deeper derived effect then at higher-lighter levels of the freedom to will; actually corresponding to the slower flow of a river from the surface.
So one could appear to perceive a a freedom to choose; while that choice is carried along predeterminately, even in total still (nil) determination
Iambiguous: But: Of his or her own free will, can a philosopher then opt for which position to land on?
Peacegirl: Regardless of what position a philosopher lands in, there is only one right answer.
Iambiguous: Which makes all of this truly mind-boggling to say the least. We are trying to pin down how the human brain functions in the context of “all there is” but all that there is available to us to accomplish this is the human brain itself.
Peacegirl: Human beings have been using their brains in the context of “all there is” from the beginning of existence, so what does that comment even mean?
Iambiguous: And here I am arguing for determinism only because “intuitively” it seems like the most reasonable frame of mind. But not anymore than “intuitively” it seems like I clearly do have some measure of autonomy.
Peacegirl: You keep using the word autonomy as being synonymous with free will. Why do you keep conflating these words with different meanings? Are you trying to confuse people purposely? I have the autonomy to make many decisions on my own, but that does not mean my will is free.
Autonomy, according to Iambiguous (I believe) is freedom from anything that precedes a decision. That is the definition of free will. There is so much confusion all due to definition, there is no basis for true communication whatsoever. Definitions mean nothing unless they reflect what is going on in reality. Everyone has their own definition of determinism and free will. These terms can easily be reconciled if they are clarified with precision. Determinism does not take away one’s responsibility; it increases it. Nothing is being taken away. Not only does the truth of no free will add to our understanding of human nature; it has the power to prevent the very thing our justice system is making every effort to prevent.
I believe you are religious so this might not interest you although the author uses the word God as a metaphor for the laws that govern our universe. Let me be clear: This discovery is not a religious work although Lessans was Jewish by birth.
My boys did robotics in high school and after. Autonomous mode involves programming and isn’t free. Only when you can do stuff on your own apart from programming are you free. False. Because you could choose to do stuff in line with your program just because you felt like it. Like sometimes I feel like telling people I identify as female, not because I was born female (I was), but just because I feel like identifying as female. In this day and age, why not? lol
We are never apart from the program that makes us who we are, although the word program is problematic in the sense that it implies we are being forced by something other than ourselves, to make the choices we make. Nothing can do that. IOW, nothing (not heredity, environment, or God himself) can make us do what we make up our mind not to do, or to paraphrase, nothing can make us do anything against our will. This is a problem with the standard definition of determinism and has caused a lot of confusion regarding agency and responsibility.
You are misunderstanding my position but that’s OK.
If you are programmed to argue a certain way and never have a different conclusion other than the one you argue for, we’re probably just going to dance around in circles
Stuff that is part of the general culture tends to repeat - that’s why it’s part of the general culture. Something about it works… resonates with what makes us human. If we didn’t have that baseline, we wouldn’t have culture. The existence of culture is evidence that there is something about us that makes us human…before we even try. Sometimes it is hard to suss out the baseline from the evenly distributed stuff that resonates. That’s the nature/nurture thingy…but there is more to culture than mechanical conditioning (nurture/reason) of the baseline (nature/understanding). Can you guess the third thing? If not, see my harmonic triads thread.
We are not merely natural. (Psst… As I’ve said previously, even nature isn’t merely natural.)
God is the one who opens eyes and ears, hearts and minds. We are supernatural subsumed under/within Supernatural. We, and the fruit of our minds that is in line with the eternal, and not nihil. Cocreators. When it comes to burning up the nihil, we are codestroyers, supplanting with a bigger Yes.
[quote=“Ichthus77”]
So now you do believe in free will?
Peacegirl: No Ichthus77, we don’t have free will, but that does not mean we are programmed in advance where we don’t have choices.
I hthus77: You are misunderstanding my position but that’s OK.
If you are programmed to argue a certain way and never have a different conclusion other than the one you argue for, we’re probably just going to dance around in circles
Peacegirl: How can we come to a different conclusion than what we argue for if that conclusion makes the most sense? I think the word program is confusing the issue.
You never replied to my ‘solution’ if that is owed a reconsideration, try it:
I think all circular reasoning, and this may be no exception, the following may be suggested.
Just a a programming can be a sticky wicker, so do other words cause confusion. The words themselves appear more unique then similar, therefore similarity of words, or approximated ones are not the problem
What is thrown out of similarity within a few words that all make sense , is that the dissimilar ones appear to occupy a new level of comprehension.
This newer or different level can not be taken account in a sequence of near equal possible word meaning to form, in context within it’s own meaningful set of phrases.
It jumps out as unrelated and un-common place.
The levels of perceptible and unperceived meanings are disclosed or implied. Examples could be had but the conceptual goal may not need to concern with them here, only that freedom of choice and determinate exclusion of possible choices can not be really understood on the same level.
Because a determinate state of choices are irrevocably impossible on the same level of reasoning . Once choices are excluded, what remains is those choices remain in general as a single specific idea conveyed in that generality.
The next levels specify those other choices without nihilating them out, since they are one or few single choices which may be selected out of that generality.
Hence , primarily, you get a predetermination, with further appealingly freedom to chose in particular.
The deeper layers of meaning may occur on so subtle versions of generality that the differences may convey imperceptible until they can be differentiated.
At the level of perceptibility of differenciatuon; free will may not be able to get to the general drift of content, so a logical circularuty appears as if specification may be the only apparent content.
There are many freedoms to choose that don’t imply the fact that among those choices , something definitively determinate may be taking place.
Are we free to choose literally freedom to choose rather then be determined?
Can we always freely choose an objective consistent with the definition of ‘good’?
The good valued thousands of years ago, such as seeking naximal pleasure out of marital bliss, is generally not differentiated culturally between conventional monogamous relationships and marruages; and those who value less then monogamy, but seek pleasure in a hareem with multiple partners and unusual relation.
The choice in an undifferentiated primal source of how a good relationship caries over to a multi cultural varience; appears to get the idea of one definition, of the worth and value of what is good in a relationshio; and back in those days people didn’tatter which way it should be chosen.
Later differences noted, and choices abounded, and it seemed those choices meant a freedom to choose among them…The were still concerned with the good, but now they were interpreted variety. No real choices abounded, but those they could understand as firmed from the understood goodness and benefit from the same root. The root or the trunk or the limbs of this structure resemble the tree of knowledge, and all the different bof knowledge were rooted in it’s various interpretations.
No one interpretation could be said to distinct an unrelated necessity, for all choices made are extensions of the next prior outgrowth of that meaning.
HGoping back thousands of years ,current understanding on a thin layer of meaning just can’t make sense, hence current meanings can not unearth the roots, of how they actually were determined into the manifold uses which have come from the source.
We gave become structurally and drastically alienated from usage since the enlightement, and it is the choice subtleties book expression we have alienated ourself from
This reversal is astounding and quite illusive in it’s flow.
The very close meanings predetermined appear as if their representative contents make a c ety giantess difference down the line.
The deconstructed program is really an effect of effecting difference through a definitional determination, and although semantic structure appears the same, intonation changes things as matters of suggesting as if they were choices of expression.
So conflating or de-differentiating such levels suggest the same voices as if the were not constructed in the first place.
If you think; Peacegirl that this is all an exploration into a rhetorical logical compensation, think how half a million words did not come close to the objection of circular reasoning.
In the try to decompensate such an objection
, the ideas of differed meaning can level off into a sensible current use, that can be approached both way, albeit in alternate simultaneity.
Now try this with the current preoccupation with abortion. The general ethical/ moral differentiation in early times did not occur; as prominently as did later epochs, but admittedly; what is morally and ethically has in more recent times: has become problematic and allusion. That is not to say that both considerations play on a sought after unitary way of dealing with it, but a sought after singular solution may only come through on either level taken as literally formative; i.e. at the more certain level of a human embryos development -in terms of approaching the structural fidelity of what that pre-human development was prior to such a point; where the human embryo overcomes it’s pre human aspect in most of the pre-animal and animal like constructions in human development. At that secondary formative human firm of cignatuon: the determination could be a lot more verifiable by methods only lately available.
Reliance to moral notions of inception being as ethically nd equivalently true as $imagine both physiologically and naturalistically, has been a fallacious method by which to ascertain a fallible way of dealing with this issue, and the significant sense of this use of the more logical approach then by merely through language analysis and nearing, going around in circles.
The deterministic general principle contains more and more formative elements delineating more accusative what degree of awareness an embryo has at a certain point, where it would be a violation a human rights not to allow further development.
Finally it would cause confusion to point to a determinism or a free will in any way, and here I agree with the prior poster, for it would suggest a one dimensional solution. Ckarity can only be achieved through description from a de-positive level to try your get to that.
Two Conceptions of Free Will
Matthew Gliatto
Published in ILLUMINATION
To the best of my knowledge, not a single one of these renowned intellectuals had anything to say about compatibilism did not flow almost entirely from a world of words. Scholarly, analytical, thoughtful assumptions no doubt. None however had ever conducted extensive experiments with actual brains, probing how “for all practical purposes” the chemical and neurological interactions came together enabling them to establish that in fact even though Mary could not have not aborted her unborn fetus, she was still morally responsible for doing so. Or, as well, in determining that in fact she did indeed have free will in making her choice.
This is often where the free will advocates go. As though human motivation itself can’t be but an inherent manifestation of a wholly determined mind. It just depends on what someone insist they “just know” about their own motivation. Because they think they are choosing of their own volition, that makes it so.
Or, if someone here believes that it is relevant, let them explain to us how it would pertain to Mary’s decision to have the abortion.
“I should add that there is actually a fourth possible position, which is that there is some sort of inherent randomness in the universe which has nothing to do with a person’s choices. So under that view, determinism is false, but free will doesn’t exist either. There’s just randomness. However, that is not relevant here.)”
This is it in a nutshell.
meno says:
Also Moralily certain certainty cannot; did not raise to ethical relativity as either a matter of choice, nor through some transcendental intent; but least of all by positioning a compatablist simulation. ( almost said: assimilation through stimulation)
I’m sorry Meno, I don’t mean to ignore you but your words are very confusing. I am not sure what any of what you wrote has to do with the author’s proof that no matter what conditions are present, we are compelled to choose the option that makes sense to us at any particular moment in time. If you can prove him wrong by giving examples, I can engage with you, otherwise this is just another derailment.
Determinism and freedom are both the case. There is a determinism (causal-logical structure and system) underlying your freedom. Nothing occurs for literally no reason, including freedom.
Once you start to define what you mean by freedom or free will you’ll begin to realize the whole debate “determinism vs free will” is nothing but a game of semantics being played by people who never once bothered to try and define the essential terms of the discussion.
Getting stuck in a paradox because you failed to even try and understand the very concepts you’re supposedly debating is stupid. It says nothing about the issue at hand, only that you’re acting like terms are magic words somehow with assumed perfect meaning that doesn’t need articulation or elaboration. Real understanding begins where philosophy begins: trying to understand what is actually meant behind and underneath mere language.
Two Conceptions of Free Will
Matthew Gliatto
Published in ILLUMINATION
The sound you hear is me gnashing my teeth.
“Compatibilist free will”. You were predetermined to choose the grilled cheese. Okay, how then is that “for all practical purposes” different from saying that you were never able to choose the hamburger instead?
And if you were never able to not choose the grilled cheese, how than is compatibilist not the complete opposite of libertarian free will. The antithesis of it. How is it not completely ridiculous?
And how is either being familiar with or unfamiliar with philosophy make this any different?
This way…?
An excuse to hold people responsible for the things they do even though they were never able to not do what they can only do in the only possible material world?
Does this work for you? Okay, then how do you differentiate predetermined action rooted in science from predetermined action rooted in the laws of matter? How do you explain chemically and neurologically how the fact that you don’t know what you are predetermined to do was not in turn something that you were never able to not know?
In other words, given Dennett’s own understanding of compatibilism, was he ever able to freely opt for full-blown determinism or libertarian autonomy instead? Or, in the only possible reality, is he just like all the rest of us…convinced that “somehow” our waking world reality is different from our dream world reality.
Or…
Bingo!!
That’s basically my own reaction to compatibilism. You somehow “trick” yourself into believing you are not in all respects a slave to nature, but you were never able not to.
And then of course I am back to “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”. Admitting that I might be completely wrong about all of this but not really having a clue as to how to determine that “once and for all”.
I feel compelled to say nobody is greedy, and you can’t regulate against greed. This is all inevitable. Give up. Stop trying. Just go ahead and blow everything up already. Full tilt. All engines go. Engage. Make it so.
