A challenge to show me wrong

[Willamena]

You mean, something people desire they had? Ok then.

Where "responsibility" is born from the desire you expressed, as you expressed it, "free will" is the condition that gives it birth. Desires are real, as is responsibility and the condition --we have these things now, they are not absent.

The relationship between "responsibility" and "free will" is that "you" have to have acted freely in order to have responsibility for "your" actions.

I thought you disagreed about this being a matter of perception instead of fact?

No. It's a matter of perception that it's a matter of fact, and a matter of fact that it's a matter of perception. (Don't get me started...)

 

[Skwim]

All these philosophical musings regarding free will vs determinism are well and good, but the bottom line is to me, as with all philosophical musings - WHAT'S THE REAL LIFE APPLICATION?

None that I know of, unless because of the knowledge one is prompted to act on it in some way. Do you feel it's necessary that philosophiocal musing have "real life" applications? In this case perhaps that's all these musings will ever be, just musings.

It seems to me that the natural application of a strictly determinism POV is that man is basically absolved from guilt or glory. This outlook seems to have some very negative applications taken to it's logical conclusion.

I quite agree; however, because of the way our lives are determined this doesn't seem likely. In my case, although I am a determinist (with one troublesome reservation), for whatever reason my mind shoves it to the background and I operate and view the world as one in which free will reigns. Certainly a seemingly hypocritical stance if there ever was one, but it's not my choosing. I can do no differently.

Maybe, depends on what you mean by random...

Read the OP.

My freewill does. Let's say there is one path to my house and one path to my neighbor's, even if I know which way is home I could go to my neighbors', even if I have no reason to.

If you have no reason to (are caused to) then you wouldn't do it.

In a way. There is a reason why they do things.

But it wouldn't be their reasoning that did it. As far as I know spinach, slime molds, and rocks don't reason.

 

[Willamena]

I quite agree; however, because of the way our lives are determined this doesn't seem likely. In my case, although I am a determinist (with one troublesome reservation), for whatever reason my mind shoves it to the background and I operate and view the world as one in which free will reigns. Certainly a seemingly hypocritical stance if there ever was one, but it's not my choosing. I can do no differently.

Why is it "hypocritical"? I think that's significant.

 

[doppelganger]

Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them?

Rather obviously, blame and praise and anticipation of blame and praise, combined with human psychology, are part of the web of causes of human behavior. We have learned it is practical for the organization of social reality to condition individual humans to respond to blame and praise.

 

[LuisDantas]

Where "responsibility" is born from the desire you expressed, as you expressed it, "free will" is the condition that gives it birth. Desires are real, as is responsibility and the condition --we have these things now, they are not absent.

Desires are desires. What is the point of calling it free will instead?

The relationship between "responsibility" and "free will" is that "you" have to have acted freely in order to have responsibility for "your" actions.

I most emphatically disagree. Responsibility rarely if ever comes due to having freedom of action. It is a consequence of action itself, not of freedom of action.

No. It's a matter of perception that it's a matter of fact, and a matter of fact that it's a matter of perception. (Don't get me started...)

Never mind then.

 

[Skwim]

Why is it "hypocritical"? I think that's significant.

"Seemingly hypocritical." It could appear to be hypocritical in that I argue free will isn't true, yet I operate under the notion that it is.

 

[blackout]

But it wouldn't be their reasoning that did it. As far as I know spinach, slime molds, and rocks don't reason.

They do things though,
and there are reasons they do them.

Having to do with their makeup,
and their environment.....

 

[blackout]

"Seemingly hypocritical." It could appear to be hypocritical in that I argue free will isn't true, yet I operate under the notion that it is.

You act "as if".

 

[Willamena]

Desires are desires. What is the point of calling it free will instead?

I never said free will was a desire.

I most emphatically disagree. Responsibility rarely if ever comes due to having freedom of action. It is a consequence of action itself, not of freedom of action.

If there was no person at the helm of an action, then there is no one to assign responsibility to. If the action itself is to be given responsibility, then a person is freed of responsibility.

Edit: Who-(or what-) ever gets the consequence wins the prize.

 

[Skwim]

They do things though,
and there are reasons they do them.

Having to do with their makeup,
and their environment.....

Very true, and these reasons amount to causes, but there's no free will involved, which is what The Sum of Awe was aiming to establish in his post.

 

[Willamena]

"Seemingly hypocritical." It could appear to be hypocritical in that I argue free will isn't true, yet I operate under the notion that it is.

Do you mean by arguing in favour of determinsim, that by default you argue that free will isn't true? (This is indicated in the dichotomy mentioned in the OP.)

Have you heard of compatibilism?

 

[gnomon]

Viral meningitis.

Cushing's disease.

Psychosis.

Certain diseases that affect the brain can, in rare cases, dramatically alter an individuals personality. What this tells me is that much of our will is directly controlled by subconscious processes we cannot control. Reading the works of Oliver Sacks has led me to believe that while we have some free will, or can make some reasoned choices, the data that we rely on to make our choices is beyond our control.

There was once a time I could not enter my home alone without going through a long involved process to ensure that there wasn't someone hiding in the house. I would enter a specific door in a specific manner, jump over to the fireplace and grab a poker and then proceed a systematic check of every room, closet, closing doors behind me, proceed to the basement, etc. Rather annoying. This form of high anxiety borderlining paranoia would exhibit in other situations as well. Then I started drinking and using drugs. I noticed a remarkable difference in the way I handled certain situations. I no longer exhibited the anxiety when alone but the paranoia in other situations would still manifest.

Then I received treatment with Lithium. There was a remarkable change in the level of anxiety and how I handled certain situations.

All due to chemical reactions within my brain introduced by chemicals from the outside.

I see some free will in the manner in which I acted on certain situations but no free will in the underlying thought processes that gave rise to the possibility of options. At least, that's what I like to think.

I'm not making any sense.

 

[Skwim]

Do you mean by arguing in favour of determinsim, that by default you argue that free will isn't true? (This is indicated in the dichotomy mentioned in the OP.)

Yes, although I don't see it as dichotomous.

Have you heard of compatibilism?

Yes, but this isn't the case.
Except for one reservation I don't see how determinism cannot be true and free will false; however, as soon as my mind leaves this observation it evidently goes into some kind of survival mode and operates as if free will is true.

 

[blackout]

"Seemingly hypocritical." It could appear to be hypocritical in that I argue free will isn't true, yet I operate under the notion that it is.

You act "as if".

I acted "as if" ("free will" was not true)
for two days,
as a result of this thread.
That I was nothing but a series of
automated/automatic
responses.

It was an interesting experience,
but one that I found far too...
disruptive to my ability to create,
and Imagine, and flow freely through my life.
It put an abyss between me, mySelf, and I.
I the data code processer, watching me the robot,
mySelf-- the automaton relationship between the two.
Weird, interesting,
but a disjointed mind set
that almost totally annihilates
my swagger and my luster.

It's like paying attention to your foot
while you're tappin' the beat. :no:

 

[doppelganger]

I have no choice but to conclude free will is a useful illusion.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, although I don't see it as dichotomous.

Yes, but this isn't the case.
Except for one reservation I don't see how determinism cannot be true and free will false; however, as soon as my mind leaves this observation it evidently goes into some kind of survival mode and operates as if free will is true.

If you mean what I think you mean, it's very much the case for lots of people. Neither determinism nor free will arise as concepts without reason, and philosophers who support compatibilism also do so not without reason. Each has a history of ideas (i.e. a long story) that support them as conclusions.

"Dichotomous" just means "it's either or or the other," which is what you've expressed time and again in this thread (again just now). How we define determinism and how we define free will will determine how the two pieces of the puzzle will fit together. How we define determinism will in turn depend on how we've defined what a cause is, and how it leads to an effect. One person in particular has ideas on this concept that really shine with common sense: David Hume. His ideas lead him to a conclusion of compatibilism, and while it's a bit too much to go into here, he demonstrated the way in which we experience something (i.e. the world) and assign its cause from observation, and then turn that around and call what we've experienced "effect". Effectively, effect precedes cause.

It's all pieces of the puzzle that is us putting the picture of the world together.

 

[Skwim]

I acted "as if" ("free will" was not true)
for two days,
as a result of this thread.
That I was nothing but a series of
automated/automatic
responses.

It was an interesting experience,
but one that I found far too...
disruptive to my ability to create,
and Imagine, and flow freely through my life.
It put an abyss between me, mySelf, and I.
I the data code processer, watching me the robot,
mySelf-- the automaton relationship between the two.
Weird, interesting,
but a disjointed mind set
that almost totally annihilates
my swagger and my luster.

It's like paying attention to your foot
while you're tappin' the beat. :no:

I understand completely (well put, by the way

), and believe this is the sort of thing my mind is protecting me from.

 

[gnomon]

I have no choice but to conclude free will is a useful illusion.

I think that's the best position.

Now will you have the chicken or the meatloaf for dinner?

 

[gnomon]

On a more serious note, this thread reminds me of that godawful doc called "What the bleep do we know" in which John Olmsted of Oberlin College asked the producers of the film if a child with Down Syndrome was capable of creating his own reality. Creating one's own reality would be the superlative act of free will. Let's just say the response of the producers of the film, of which the whole point was to prove that we create our own reality, was rather dismal. Their response was exactly the opposite of the concept of an individual creating their own reality in that the child with Down Syndrome was paying for past transgressions in a bizarre interpretation of Karma.

Speaking of which I have often asked spiritual believers, especially Christians due to the severity of the necessity of belief in Jesus, if individuals with Down Syndrome are actually capable of believing in religion. Let's just the response to that has been less than adequate.

edit: For if one must freely choose to adopt a savior in order to enter the Kingdom what chance do people with severely limiting mental disorders have of actually honestly adopting such beliefs.

 

[Skwim]

"Dichotomous" just means "it's either or or the other," which is what you've expressed time and again in this thread (again just now).

I took you to mean contradictory in the sense that both could illogically exist together. My bad.

How we define determinism and how we define free will will determine how the two pieces of the puzzle will fit together. How we define determinism will in turn depend on how we've defined what a cause is, and how it leads to an effect. One person in particular has ideas on this concept that really shine with common sense: David Hume. His ideas lead him to a conclusion of compatibilism, and while it's a bit too much to go into here, he demonstrated the way in which we experience something (i.e. the world) and assign its cause from observation, and then turn that around and call what we've experienced "effect". Effectively, effect precedes cause.

It's all pieces of the puzzle that is us putting the picture of the world together.

:yes: