So I don't see why we can't say that determinism allows for the capacity to prevent some action or another. — Michael
If every thing is determined then what is doing the "preventing"?? — Rich
Compatibilists simply introduce an entirely new force of nature, apparently free from the Deterministic Laws of Nature, called Free Will, that can choose.
Because of a deterministic causal chain, a damn has been built, preventing the valley from flooding. — Michael
In talking about the will being free you're tacitly implying a libertarian definition of "free will", and so all you're really arguing is that the compatibilist's definition is incompatible with the libertarian's definition. — Michael
Free will, for the compatibilist, isn't a matter of whether or not the will is free to choose from more than one outcome but a matter of whether or not we are responsible for our behaviour. And as I've said before, there are two different senses of responsibility: causal and moral. We're causally responsible if the will is the cause of our behaviour and we're morally responsible if we're causally responsible, in the right state of mind, and not under any unreasonable duress. — Michael
If my will causes me to turn down the alcohol then it is responsible for me not accepting and drinking the alcohol. So I don't see why we can't say that determinism allows for the capacity to prevent some action or another. — Michael
You can say it like that if you want, that in talking about the will being free, you're tacitly implying a libertarian definition, but I don't see it the way you're saying it. I don't accept the libertarian definition either, I'm more of a traditionalist. So I'm not implying a libertarian definition, you're just misinterpreting.
What I think, is that the word "free" has a certain range of acceptable usage, and to use it outside that range is unacceptable, even dishonest, because you know that the reader will think that "free" has its normal meaning, but you are really using 'free" to signify something completely different. — Metaphysician Undercover
See, you define "free" with "responsible". But free means not under the control of another, and responsible means to be liable to be called to account for. So these terms are really incompatible, almost even contradictory because to be liable implies that you are bound by another. When you say that the person, or person's will, is free, what you really mean is that the person is liable, or bound, to be called to account. That's not freedom at all. And I think it's a deceptive use of "free", because if you told a person you are free to do want you want, when what you really meant is that the person is bound to be called to account for whatever is done, I would call that deception. — Metaphysician Undercover
You still haven't provided any principles for dealing with the will's capacity to cause inaction. All you have done is described a particular instance of inactivity as an action, ("turn down the alcohol"), in order to avoid the issue, furthering your tactic of deception.
This is false, there is no legal definition of "free will", it is a philosophical term. — Metaphysician Undercover
A Google search for define:free gives "able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another.". It seems to me that this is consistent with the compatibilist's definition: I pick the red ball because it's what I want to happen, not because it's what someone else wants to happen (contrary to my wishes). — Michael
I really don't understand what you mean here. Sometimes I will not to do something (e.g. to not drink alcohol), and because of that will to not drink alcohol I don't drink alcohol. — Michael
Do some research.
Read up on Stanford. They explain the origin of compatibilism. — charleton
I am not inclined to use Stanford because I generally dislike the narrow minded physicalist perspective which they put forward. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you admit that the illusion of self exists in determinism (btw what you are describing is physicalism). Then this illusion is what is called self, therefore it is the self, therefore the self exists, as an "illusion" that emerges from the particles. — BlueBanana
What illusion? — Rich
What a funny way to look at life? Particles are admitting illusions? I guess for some people it is fun thinking of themselves in this manner. Who am I to question such? — Rich
The illusion that you said there'd be if determinism was the case. — BlueBanana
Dude, I don't even believe in determinism myself. I'm arguing against you because your arguments are fallacious and you've misunderstood the concepts of determinism and physicalism. — BlueBanana
Sure, for anyone who adopts Determinism as their philosophy everything is an illusion - including Determinism. — Rich
I understand it very well. — Rich
Interesting point. Declaring causality to be an illusion is certainly a thing that has been done, but it's not a part of determinism. If consciousness is illusion, then knowledge and information must be as well, and that would lead to concepts being illusions. — BlueBanana
. However, the concept represents something. What people understand when the word determinism is used would be an illusion according to determinism, but what the concept represents, what the word determinism refers to, would not be an illusion. — BlueBanana
A true Determinist ultimately has to succumb to the inevitable that if ,the mind is an illusion so it's their whole existence and experience. — Rich
People do still have experiences of the reality outside them, and as long as those experiences do not deny the possibility of one's experience of self, those experiences can be trusted to represent the reality, even if they are an illusion. — BlueBanana
How does it affect the reliability of the perceptions if they are an illusion? — BlueBanana
They become meaningless — Rich
Illusions have no meaning in the world of determinism and physicalism. — Rich
They are neither reliable or unreliable. — Rich
Now one can meditate for the rest of his/her life with the hope of breaking free of illusion. — Rich
The illusion is an accurate representation of the reality — BlueBanana
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.