I don’t know how, dude.
Couple of points here, from some notes I’ve been taking:
-
Probability is a mathematical field.
-
Memories, and conscious thought in general, are some of the least common, most obscure influences on human action and behavior.
-
If free will changes in effect nothing for the way humans and reality in general unfold, why is the concept so important, and to whom?
-
The Christian God is not only not a deterministic one, he is credited with inventing free will. Free will only came to be as a concept as a product of Christian theology.
-
Interestingly, if one removes free will, Evil doesn’t become determined, but ceases to exist altogether. Or, could any here point out where Evil lies absent free will?
it definitely sounds like it.
That he invented free will does not mean he invented libertarian free will ( i.e. the kind that is incompatible with determinism. )
That’s a made up term. There’s no such thing as libertarian free will.
If you want to say something about free will in general, or make some distinctions on different ways it can be approached, I am interested. But making up terms doesn’t help, it muddies.
[quote=“origami”]
Couple of points here, from some notes I’ve been taking:
- Probability is a mathematical field.
Peacegirl: The probability that a certain number of people will be killed at the hands of another can be predicted based on mathematical computations taken from past years. Is that what you mean?
- Memories, and conscious thought in general, are some of the least common, most obscure influences on human action and behavior.
Peacegirl: Memories are not necessarily nostalgic, but rather used to give us information. If we remember how sick we got from eating something we were allergic to, we will make sure not to eat that food again. That is how we learn to make choices that we believe will benefit us. It doesn’t always work out that way but that is our motivation.
- If free will changes in effect nothing for the way humans and reality in general unfold, why is the concept so important, and to whom?
Peacegirl: It is important for theologians to free God of responsibility for the evil in the world. For secularism, it allows the courts to justify punishment on the grounds that this person had a choice to do right but chose, of his own free will, to do wrong.
- The Christian God is not only not a deterministic one, he is credited with inventing free will. Free will only came to be as a concept as a product of Christian theology.
Peacegirl: Our entire civilization is based on the idea that man has free will. Superficially it appears as if we have a free choice, but in reality it’s an illusion.
- Interestingly, if one removes free will, Evil doesn’t become determined, but ceases to exist altogether. Or, could any here point out where Evil lies absent free will?
Peacegirl: It is believed that evil (which means hurt in this context) will increase when man is not controlled with threats of punishment. There is some truth to that if we would suddenly remove all of the present deterrents such as threats of punishment. People would steal and murder left and right. Nothing would be safe from looters. But that is not what is being advocated here.
Punishment is not the ultimate deterrent. There are people who don’t care about threats of punishment. The most dangerous criminals are the ones who will risk going to prison for the sake of getting what they want. There is a better deterrent than punishment and it is locked behind the door of determinism.
All terms are made up. If you want to say that it is me who invented the term “libertarian free will”, then you’re wrong. And even if it was me who invented it, why is that a problem for you? One has to invent names for concepts that are unnamed or that share a name with other concepts. When different concepts are attached to one and the same term ( as is the case with “free will” ), that can very easily lead to confusion ( as is the case here. ) Having different names for different concepts, whether they are recent inventions or not, actually helps clarify things. It reduces the probability of equivocation.
You’re making a false distinction between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. There IS NO FREE WILL of either kind. Having reasons does not give a person the free will to have done otherwise. In fact having reasons supports determinism. Compatibilists are using a definition of free that is arbitrary and does nothing to prove that man could choose other than what he does.
Frankly, I consider you too intelligent for something quite so ham handed.
Because free will is a distinct term, with a history and a meaning. Many things can be said about it. If you invent a new name for it, you are still saying things about it, pretending not to, and removing clarity by adding a requirement for an additional layer of interpretation which will simply print: false distinction.
Try this excercice and see if I am correct or not: try to say what you want to say about free will without using the term libertarian free will.
“He invented free will, but not my special free will.”
Yes your special free will. He is credited with inventing the whole concept.
No. What I mean is that a conception of human decision making which holds that its outcome can be described in terms of probability, 60% this, 40% that, perfect 50-50, would be a mathematical conception.
This is a bold claim, and false, except to the extent that the civilization you are talking about is Christian civilization. Then it’s debatable. The concept does not exist outside the Christian religion.
It is a term that has multiple meanings. It’s similar to the word “ass”. The word “ass” can mean “donkey” but it can also mean “an annoying person”. Thus, when someone asks “Is Pedro an ass?”, they might be asking “Is Pedro a donkey?” but they might also be asking “Is Pedro an annoying person?” You can’t tell which one is the case from their wording alone and that’s what can easily lead to all sorts of confusions. This is pretty much what you want us to do: talk about whether or not Pedro is an ass without letting everyone know what we mean when we say “ass”. When you abandon the term “ass” and go for terms such as “donkey” and “an annoying person”, you make it crystal clear what you’re talking about. And that’s what I do. I say “libertarian free will” when I want to talk about the ability to make decisions that are not fully determined by the past and “compatibilist free will” when I want to talk about the ability to make decisions based on one’s beliefs. To do anything else would be to wallow in ambiguity. Why would you want to do that? We already have iambiguous filling that role.
Hahahahahaha aw come on.
No, look, you are making up new terms so that we will play by your rules. But these are old terms, old concepts, with centuries behind them. Play by the big boy rules.
First of all, I didn’t invent these terms. If you think that I did, I am afraid it’s because you’re uninformed. That’s your problem, not mine.
Second of all, even if I did invent them, that does not mean I am not playing by the rules. When someone says “Pedro is an ass?”, you have no choice but to ask what they actually mean by that. Do they mean “Pedro is a donkey?” or do they mean “Pedro is an annoying person?” That’s not playing against the rules. It’s perfectly fine and even better than simply presuming that you understand their question. Similarly, when they say that Christian God gave people free will, I have no choice but to ask what they mean by that. Do they mean He gave people libertarian free will ( i.e. the ability to make decisions that are not fully determined by the past ) or do they mean that He gave them comptaibilist free will ( i.e. the ability to make decisions that are based on one’s beliefs )? That’s a perfectly legitimate question that’s not violating any rules. And it’s an important one because there’s a dispute as to what kind of free will he gave people. But here you are, making an excuse for your unwillingness to answer it. What can I say?
“What a stud, that guy.”
There’s a very clear distinction between the two concepts. You can see it from the definitions that I provided.
I can accept that there is no such thing as libertarian free will but to think that there is no such thing as compatibilist free will is to think that human choice cannot be determined by one’s beliefs. Do you really believe that? I am actually pretty sure you don’t. I am certain that you actually believe in the existence of compatibilist free will. You stated on numerous occasions that we have “choice”. That’s how you call compatibilist free will. You call it “choice”. But you don’t see that because you don’t really understand what “compatibilist free will” really means.
Finally, compatibilists aren’t attempting to prove that libertarian free will exists.
Peacegirl: Free will was necessary for our development, for without this belief it would be hard for our justice system to function.
Peacegirl: They don’t have to. They have their own version that, in their mind, solves the problem. Unfortunately, it does no such thing.