Free will, determanism and all that (choices, choice)

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Actually, I think our definitions are the same - subjectively. My metaphor of "willful muscle" is an objective view. My subjective experience of using this muscle is that it is free will. I don't really reminisce over each past memory when I choose something, I usually just act. Which isn't to say I don't think before I act, but if I did so every time, life would get tedious.

But I can't ignore the arguments of hard determinists (even if I choose to believe that objectively we still become agents of free will due to our ownership of past experiences), so I choose semi-free will as the definition for my willful muscle.

Oops! Sorry, my bad.

Which arguments of the hard determinists do you find "hard to ignore"? Perhaps I can relieve you of your "semi-" indecisiveness.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Oops! Sorry, my bad.

Which arguments of the hard determinists do you find "hard to ignore"? Perhaps I can relieve you of your "semi-" indecisiveness.

A hard determinist would argue that any decision I make is determined not by any true freedom I have making a choice, but is dependant upon the weight of prior experiences - due to behavioral psychology, biology, and physics. In other words, my choices are logically determined by causality.

This is reducing the experience of making a choice down to its bare threads. Objectively, it's probably correct. I find it hard to argue (though you may not. I'm interested in your response). My argument is based on the ownership of those prior experiences; they become an intricate part of the self. If free will is the complete freedom of the self to act as an agent of causality, then hard determinism becomes the mechanism behind free will.

Reductionism says nothing about experience, and experience is really all we have. Subjectively, it is free will regardless of how it's reduced.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

A hard determinist would argue that any decision I make is determined not by any true freedom I have making a choice, but is dependant upon the weight of prior experiences - due to behavioral psychology, biology, and physics. In other words, my choices are logically determined by causality.

This is reducing the experience of making a choice down to its bare threads. Objectively, it's probably correct. I find it hard to argue (though you may not. I'm interested in your response). My argument is based on the ownership of those prior experiences; they become an intricate part of the self. If free will is the complete freedom of the self to act as an agent of causality, then hard determinism becomes the mechanism behind free will.

Reductionism says nothing about experience, and experience is really all we have. Subjectively, it is free will regardless of how it's reduced.

It is reducing not the experience of making a choice, but the description of the experience of making a choice. That's an important distinction. Determinism attempts to describe, and hence define, the experience; we live it.

Objectively, it is entirely correct, in my opinion. Objectively our choices are determined by those things. Oh, but look!: by definition, objectivity eliminates any subject from the picture. But when we look at the world through our eyes --the eyes of a subject --suddenly free will is restored. And why should that be?

You know the answer, but I'll state it anyway: the subjective perspective.

The view that we use to examine things objectively --the picture through reality's eyes that we use to describe things --is not the only perspective there is, and not even the most important one to us as living, thinking human beings. The world of illusions and "false interpretations" that we wade through every waking moment of everyday usually trumps the other, especially when it comes to choices. (That is the world of "linguistic construct" that doppleganger speaks of.)

In order to describe free will we must attempt to look at a subjective thing objectively. Which words we choose to define free will, then, become of upmost importance. Is free will "the complete freedom of the self to act as an agent of causality"? (Should it be that? Do we really need one of those?) or perhaps is it "our complete freedom of self as we act as agents of causality" within the context of a cause and effect world? Perhaps others can come up with better wording.

I don't know "reductionism", sorry (my education is sorely lacking).

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Willamena

sorry (my education is sorely lacking).

It sure doesn't show.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

It sure doesn't show.

I agree. I needed several college level philosophy courses to grasp this stuff.

Reductionism is the breaking down of complex systems and objects to their fundamentals. It makes sense in terms of science, which seeks objective truth. But in the end, I would argue that it only shows a part of the whole truth, since as you put it, Willamena, it is removing the subjective perspective.

[Kungfuzed]

Originally Posted by Willamena

It is reducing not the experience of making a choice, but the description of the experience of making a choice. That's an important distinction. Determinism attempts to describe, and hence define, the experience; we live it.

Objectively, it is entirely correct, in my opinion. Objectively our choices are determined by those things. Oh, but look!: by definition, objectivity eliminates any subject from the picture. But when we look at the world through our eyes --the eyes of a subject --suddenly free will is restored. And why should that be?

You know the answer, but I'll state it anyway: the subjective perspective.

The view that we use to examine things objectively --the picture through reality's eyes that we use to describe things --is not the only perspective there is, and not even the most important one to us as living, thinking human beings. The world of illusions and "false interpretations" that we wade through every waking moment of everyday usually trumps the other, especially when it comes to choices. (That is the world of "linguistic construct" that doppleganger speaks of.)

In order to describe free will we must attempt to look at a subjective thing objectively. Which words we choose to define free will, then, become of upmost importance. Is free will "the complete freedom of the self to act as an agent of causality"? (Should it be that? Do we really need one of those?) or perhaps is it "our complete freedom of self as we act as agents of causality" within the context of a cause and effect world? Perhaps others can come up with better wording.

I don't know "reductionism", sorry (my education is sorely lacking).

Do you believe that the subjective perspective is anything other than the electrical and chemical reactions in our brain? Can you explain how the subjective is not physically caused?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

Do you believe that the subjective perspective is anything other than the electrical and chemical reactions in our brain? Can you explain how the subjective is not physically caused?

The subjective perspective is just that: a perspective that encompasses the view from our minds, as interpreted by our brains. It is caused by virtue of the body being conscious.

Do you believe that you don't see a different world through your eyes than is actually out there?

[Kungfuzed]

Originally Posted by Willamena

The subjective perspective is just that: a perspective that encompasses the view from our minds, as interpreted by our brains. It is caused by virtue of the body being conscious.

Do you believe that you don't see a different world through your eyes than is actually out there?

Of course I do, I have to wear contact lenses just to see anything. Our imperfections are part of what causes our subjective perspective. I have contacts, ear wax buildup, callouses, missing taste buds, and a stuffy nose to boot. My subjective world is probably very bland compared so someone with sharper senses. The subjective perspective's imperfections are all physically caused, just as the subjective perspective itself.