The concept of subjective opinion solves the problem of free will

Syamsu

There are alternative futures A and B available, A is made the present meaning A is chosen.

Then there is the question "What was it that made the choice turn out A instead of B?

Then the answer is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing a personal opinion on what it was.

Then the common objection of professional philosophers that free will is random, and therefore meaningless, is refuted. Because if we choose a personal opinion that the choice was made out of fear, then that is a meaningful choice.

Or we might choose an opinion that the same choice was made out of an emotional emptiness, and that it was in our opinion, indeed a meaningless choice. The logic still functions, regardless of what opinion is chosen.

This solution to the problem of free will, also solves the problem of how subjectivity works. All subjective opinion, like an opinion that something is beautiful, or that a choice is made out of fear, is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

Any refutation of this solution should also offer a competing account of how subjectivity works.

From a purely objective perspective any choice is random, in the sense that in the moment it can turn out either A or B. There may be reasons offered for choosing either option, but reasons are not agency. Only the subjective spirit making the choice is agency.

The term "spirit" is appropriate to denote the wholy subjective nature of agency. As distinct from material, which is objective.

It is therefore proven that there is a spiritual domain, constituting the agency of choices, from which is decided how the material domain ends up. But proof of the spiritual domain in this sense, only means proof that an opinion that fear exists, or God exists, is proven to be logically valid. Just as long as fear and God are defined in terms of being agency of choices. Ofcourse the opinion that fear does not exist is also proven to be logically valid.

Sir2u

It is therefore proven that there is a spiritual domain, constituting the agency of choices, from which is decided how the material domain ends up. — Syamsu

Is this spirit supernatural? Or is it just your personal opinion of what the subconscious should be called.

Syamsu

↪Sir2u

What are you even talking about? I exhaustively defined it. How the fuck is the subconscious defined as being agency of choices, and a matter of chosen opinion what is in it?

Pantagruel

the common objection of professional philosophers that free will is random, and therefore meaningless, — Syamsu

I have never heard the argument that free will is random. Which professional philosophers make this claim?

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

Well, here it talks about not being in control. Other times the objection against randomness is that without a preceding cause forcing the result, the choice is meaningless.

Standard argument against free will.
"Second, if indeterminism and real chance exist, our will would not be in our control, we could not be responsible for random actions. we call this the Randomness Objection."

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/standard_argument.html

Pantagruel

↪Syamsu

Ok, well that appears to be one person's summary. And even if there is such a thing as randomness, how does this imply that the will is subject to randomness?

I think you have overstated the case. Besides which, the evidence of free will is manifest. Free will doesn't require justification, it most obviously is. It is the denial of free will that needs proof.

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

Sorry, you should just actually read my post.

Pantagruel

↪Pantagruel Sorry, you should just actually read my post. — Syamsu

I did read your post. I just don't believe free will is a problem, it is a phenomenon.

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

What does that mean? You have to explain how it works, just like with everything else. Are you just asserting it is real, without explanation of how it works?

Pantagruel

Pantagruel What does that mean? You have to explain how it works, just like with everything else. Are you just asserting it is real, without explanation of how it works? — Syamsu

People knew that massive objects fall to earth millenia before Isaac Newton explained "how it works."

It is self-evident that people have free-will. Whether or not anyone can explain "how it works" is another whole issue.

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

Things falling to the earth is an explanation of how it works. You cannot just say it is real, without saying what it is.

Another totally bizarre argument of someone about free will.

Alternative futures, one is made the present. What the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion. That's how it works.

Pantagruel

↪Syamsu

The only thing bizarre is your failure to follow a simple example. Gravity works. We knew that millenia before we knew what gravity was. Free-will is as self-evident as gravity. I choose to do x, x happens.

If you think I don't have free-will, then the burden of proof is on you.

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

No, the correct explanation of free will is, having alternative futures available, one is made the present, what the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion.

That's correct.

Why can't anybody be normal about free will?

Pantagruel

No, the correct explanation of free will is, having alternative futures available, — Syamsu

That is not a standard definition of free-will. A typical definition of free-will looks like this:

free will
/ˌfrē ˈwil/
noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

I'm not sure what it is that you are describing, but it isn't what most of the rest of the world thinks of as free-will.

Pfhorrest

To be fair, the kind of free will Syamsu is on about is weirdly popular in the literature. It’s basically what incompatibilists think free will is about. I think it’s a useless notion, because on that account an electron should be reckoned to have more free will than a human (as it behaves in a less deterministic fashion), but nevertheless it’s definitely something a lot of people care inordinately much about, and have for thousands of years.

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

Again with your bizarre attitude. Just like with EVERYTHING else, the logic of how it works must be explained. And the dictionary definitions are corrupt for catering to free will deniers. Or dictionary definitions are talkative, and not really strictly logical.

The logic of free will does not function, when agency is asserted to be a factual issue. That is why it is essential for comprehension of free will to know that what the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion.

Syamsu

↪Pfhorrest

Because emotions, care, is agency of choices. The idea of caring is not validated without free will and it's associate subjectivity.

Pantagruel

↪Pantagruel Again with your bizarre attitude. Just like with EVERYTHING else, the logic of how it works must be explained. And the dictionary definitions are corrupt for catering to free will deniers. Or dictionary definitions are talkative, and not really strictly logical.

The logic of free will does not function, when agency is asserted to be a factual issue. That is why it is essential for comprehension of free will to know that what the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion. — Syamsu

Sorry. Maybe english is not your first language?

@Pfhorrest I agree with Popper that the burden of proof rests with the determinists. Personally, I think anyone who seriously wants to deny free-will is just funny. I guess some people were just pre-destined to be comedians.... :)

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

Rejecting the logic of how it works is much the same thing as denying it..

Also, more of your bizarre attitude where you have no critical understanding of free will whatsoever. And obviously you don't want to understand how it works. This is the most insane attitude about the issue I have ever come across.

Pantagruel

you don't want to understand how it works — Syamsu

What's to understand? I will...I do. It's not rocket science. It's an empirical fact.

Pfhorrest

↪Pantagruel

I’m not talking about free will vs determinism, but about incompatibilism vs compatibilism. The free will vs determinism argument only applies to incompatibilists, which Syamsu definitely is, and you seem also to be. Compatibilists think that's a false dichotomy.

Also, I think everyone in this thread agrees that free will exists. Syamsu just wants to talk about what it's like.

Sir2u

What are you even talking about? — Syamsu

That is why I asked,

Is this spirit supernatural? — Sir2u

to try and find out what the hell you are talking about. Shame you never bother to answer questions.

I exhaustively defined it.

Then there is the question "What was it that made the choice turn out A instead of B?

All subjective opinion, like an opinion that something is beautiful, or that a choice is made out of fear, is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. — Syamsu

How the fuck is the subconscious defined as being agency of choices, and a matter of chosen opinion what is in it? — Syamsu

I am pretty sure that you will find more of those professional philosophers that will agree that opinions, the choice of one thing over another, are made subconsciously. Most people decide that they are scared of something without really being able to explain why, or to explain why they decided that something is beautiful and not ugly.

And I never defined the subconscious as being agency of choices, but because I do not know what the fuck your spiritual realm might be I asked if that was what you meant. Lots of believers think that their soul is spiritual, while other people think that it is all in the brain which is mostly subconscious.

"One's agency is one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. This ability is affected by the cognitive belief structure which one has formed through one's experiences, and the perceptions held by the society and the individual, of the structures and circumstances of the environment one is in and the position they are born into. Disagreement on the extent of one's agency often causes conflict between parties, e.g. parents and children. " — Wiki

Pantagruel

↪Pantagruel I’m not talking about free will vs determinism, but about incompatibilism vs compatibilism. The free will vs determinism argument only applies to incompatibilists, which Syamsu definitely is, and you seem also to be. Compatibilists think that's a false dichotomy.

Also, I think everyone in this thread agrees that free will exists. Syamsu just wants to talk about what it's like. — Pfhorrest

Yes, I know Syamsu believes in free will, I would never post to argue it. I don't think he realized I also endorse it, which is why I wondered if he were not a native english speaker.

As far as both free-will and determinism being true, Systems Theory nicely sorts that out, without much fuss. I suppose it is compatiblist, in that sense.

I believe, with Descartes, that free will is an essential component of thought, so the idea of eliminating free will, for me, is the same as eliminating thought.

Syamsu

↪Sir2u

I exhaustively defined what the spiritual is, with the example of choosing A.

The spiritual is defined as what did this job of making the choice turn out A. It can only be identified with a chosen opinion. That is, choose an opinion that a choice was made out of fear, joy, etc.

You should focus on the logic of it. While what you do is, you have an associative understanding of the word spirit, and then you proceed to use all the different understandings associated to the word spirit.

It doesn't fucking matter what to call it, it's about the logic. You want to give the words supernatural and subconscious the logic that it is agency of choices, and it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, go ahead. You are merely playing with words, and not constructing a logical conceptual scheme.

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

You pretend to be common sensical about free will, but actually with all other things you just have a critical understanding of how it works, but with free will you have a bizarre attitude of studied ignorance.

And then you have the compatibilists, as pfhorrest pointed out, who use a totally different and wrong understanding of free will. An understanding of free will which obliterates the idea of emotions, subjective opinion.

It is important to have the correct understanding of free will.

Pantagruel

It is important to have the correct understanding of free will. — Syamsu

I find that different people are motivated by different objectives which can result in differing perspectives on the same thing, or differing uses of the same thing.

That being the case, I believe it makes rather more sense to focus on areas of core agreement than to quibble about peripheral areas which may not be actual disagreements, but simply areas in which our objectives do not overlap.

@Syamsu Could you provide a positive statement of your conception of the role or significance of free will (rather than a refutation of what to me is an illusory problem)?

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

If generally everyone would accept free will, properly defined, then that would enormously promote freedom of opinion, emotional maturity, religion, democratic government, marriage, friendship, groupfeeling.

Because emotions, as being agency of choices, are validated, together with free will.

And the reverse is also true, that denial of the proper concept of free will, leads to all these things going down.

Pantagruel

↪Syamsu

Sounds ok to me.

So what is the proper definition of "free-will" which you are suggesting?

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

lol I already defined that 5 times here. Having alternative futures available, making of them the present, and then what the agency of the choice is, is a matter of chosen opinion.

Pantagruel

↪Syamsu

Which is why I posted. I don't understand "making present an alternative possible future"? It is all so abstract, I cannot relate to it.

Free-will equals the power to choose?

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

Ging left or right, electing Trump or Harris, etc.

The concept of subjective opinion solves the problem of free will

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions