Life doesn't suck. As the spirit desires so it has — Gregory

I lost my husband 3 years ago to MS. The last couple years of his life were very difficult. At one point, as he was having a lot of trouble making a transfer, I said to him, "Tired of this life?"

He replied, "No, this life is good. It's this body I am tired of."

Determinism is debatable even in physics. Complexity theory, uncertainty and stochastic calculations all serve to undermine the supposed Newtonian notion of determinism.

What free will is, is also mercurial. It is clear that an intentional act is free when it is not coerced by some else; and that an act's being free is considered essential to the agent being responsible for the consequences. It's less clear what it means for an act to be free rather than physically determined.

It's also clear that free will is used by theists in order to overcome the problem of god's responsibility for evil.

And that's the usual motivation for the need to give an explanation of free will.

So discussions such as this are often veiled theology.

He replied, "No, this life is good. It's this body I am tired of — Questioner

Well I'm not going to argue with that

I lost my husband 3 years ago to MS. The last couple years of his life were very difficult. At one point, as he was having a lot of trouble making a transfer, I said to him, "Tired of this life?"

He replied, "No, this life is good. It's this body I am tired of." — Questioner

That's an excellent reply.

As the spirit desires so it has — Gregory

You get what you desire? So that if you get poor outcomes, it's becasue that is what you desire?

And I suppose that those who say they did not desire mishap, misadventure and disability are denying what they really desired? True Scotsmen, one and all?

Pretty shitty reasoning.

Pretty shitty reasoning. — Banno

Then you won't get far. The past doesn't exist

The past doesn't exist — Gregory

Layered shite is still shite.

You get what you desire — Banno

Yes

So that if you get poor outcomes, it's becasue that is what you desire — Banno

There is no such thing as a bad outcome. It all depends on how you take it. Every second is a past but the present remains

Every second is a past but the present remains — Gregory

Gobbledegook, attempting to make an excuse to not be responsible for one's choices.

Gobbledegook, attempting to make an excuse to not be responsible for one's choices. — Banno

All my choices have been right in my view. How about your's to you?

You're trying to shift the ground. Your claim was that what you get is what you desire. showed that to be incorrect.

showed that to be incorrect — Banno

I dont agree that life and desire work in that "logical" way

I dont agree that life and desire work in that "logical" way — Gregory

Yep. You have difficulty with logic.

Believing that folk only ever get what they deserve requires great faith.

Well you have the mind of a doubter. Won't get you far

you have the mind of a doubter — Gregory

Thank you.

Note the passive voice: everything in nature is determined. Determined by what? If human behavior is determined then it needs to be determined by something other than ourselves, or else it is determined by us, which entails free will.

:up:

To get around this determinists often posit an abstraction of ourselves to be the determiner of our actions.

Yes, or they point to brain regions, neurons, hormones, etc., as if these are not part of us and as if these would not have to be involved if we were doing any thinking/deciding. Sam Harris thinks to think all proponents of freedom are 17th century substance dualists.

I am reading Sapolsky's "Determined" because it seems to have been somewhat influential, but so far it is just layering on tons of empirical findings (some incredibly weak, like the unreplicatable "Lady Macbeth effect") instead of tackling any serious philosophy of free will. This is an unfortunate tendency in popular science, avalanches of citations substituted for clear argumentation.

But I can see how this might come about. A lot of analytical/legal work on free will is incredibly narrow and seems to miss the point to me.

Here would be my proposal: people are free or unfree. This isn't a binary, it's a sliding scale. We can be more or less self-determining. We might describe intentional versus unintentional actions, and free versus unfree acts (these will overlap, and arguably relatively unintentional acts can be free is they involve a freely chosen habit). However, this level of freedom will be parasitic on the freedom of the person. The analytic fixation on "free acts" and not "free people" is unhelpful.

I also don't get the desire to split off political freedom from freedom tout court. They are deeply related.

It sounds absurd to me that those things have no truth value at all. If that were the case, then why does science work? — Brendan Golledge

Science works now and then, more or less. It works best when the conditions tested match the metaphysical underpinning best, e.g. materialism and reductionism. The further you get from those conditions, the less precise and the less definite the results you get.

My background in biology has me taking the side that says all is random. In nature, there is no such thing as a closed system. There are always random events that impinge upon and influence the outcome of any "cause" in producing its "effect." — Questioner

In this case, it is effectively random because we don't know the information. But if we knew all the information and if quantum mechanics didn't make a difference, then in theory, it would all be determined. This is the same way that a die is technically determined if you do the physics equations to predict how it will fall.

This is the same way that a die is technically determined if you do the physics equations to predict how it will fall. — Brendan Golledge

After it leaves the hand, that is. When it leaves hand isn't determined.

Both randomness and determinism are fine as considered. But most of these discussions miss their interaction and the third force, and it IS a force on its own, balance, in between them.

Effectively, randomness is the single emotion of desire. Determinism is the single emotion of fear. And finally the balancing emotion is anger. And these three forces, these three emotions, together, are the full set, all there is, which taken as a whole and summing them throughout the metaverse is love, God, Truth, ALL; the which terms are all synonymous.

Free will IS a thing, the only thing really that exists. It is caused by the balance, the infinite balance maintaining the perfection of choice as free will caused by the interaction of the three emotions.

If there is no room in the universe for freedom to reason, judge and choose our actions, then each word of this post is not from “me.”

Seems absurd to say that this post is not coming from choices I am making right now, and now again.

But if there is no room in this universe for freedom, no position from which to halt the constant drive of determined necessity and take responsibility for these words here, and here again, and stake a claim as being the sole source of “these words precisely here in this post” as I alone cause them to be, then we are all stenographers. And we have no idea why. Or how. Or why I just said “how”.

In this case, it is effectively random because we don't know the information. — Brendan Golledge

Not 'knowing' (a bad choice of words because we DO NOT 'know' things, but instead we are aware in varying degrees of things) does not have a direct relationship with things being random or determined.

If you mean to say 'seems' random, ok.

But if we knew all the information — Brendan Golledge

This 'but' is crazy. ANY precondition of perfection, in this case omniscience, requires ALL perfection. So, if you get your precondition, NOTHING ELSE need be mentioned because we are AT perfection.

If you mean to say 'all relevant inputs to situation are states of which we are reasonably aware' that would be more clear, although in such a case you are partaking in an error that says there is any situation that can meaningfully be studied in isolation. The truth is there is no isolation and that the entire state of the universe matters to any and all observations, no matter how small a change any given state of 'things' makes to that effect or situation. This is why horoscope is not possibly entirely wrong.

and if quantum mechanics didn't make a difference, then in theory, it would all be determined. This is the same way that a die is technically determined if you do the physics equations to predict how it will fall. — Brendan Golledge

No, the randomness is NOT judged AFTER the toss. The randomness is included in HOW the chooser chooses to toss the die. You are focusing on the wrong timeframe in general. The various vagaries of choice in something as powerfully empowered as a human being is quite relevant. For example, it would be a miracle human, but not impossible, who could FEEL the divots in a die representing the pips well enough to know how the pips on the die were situated in their own closed hand. Then they need only develop a very controlled throw in roughly the same wind conditions and against similar bouncy surfaces and voila! they can 'control' chance and determine the results of the throw of the die.

1. Everything in nature is either determined or random
2. Free will is neither determined nor random
C. Free will does not exist.

P2 is the most controversial premise. I don't see why free will is incompatible with causal determinism. As a compatibilist, I believe in a form of sourcehood freedom such that one has free will if they have the ability act in accordance with their own will (i.e., to act voluntarily); and one has free choice if they have the ability to reach a decision through rational deliberations (i.e., to choose through reason).

The special aspect of a human brain that makes it capable of free will and choice, is that it has the ability to will against it's nature in accordance with its own conative dispositions and to reach a conclusion through the principles of reason. We do not think via the laws of nature, and we do not will necessarily according to natural appetites.

I don't think it is just veiled theology: if there is no free will, then there is no moral responsibility at all. You can't blame people for murdering, raping, etc. if they don't have the right kind, sufficient degree, or basic free will: even if they do not have the ability to have done otherwise.

I don't think it is just veiled theology — Bob Ross

Nor do I. I said it is often veiled theology.

I apologize: I missed that. Nevermind then.

Cheers.

Do you agree that it at least can be veiled theology?

If by "veiled theology" you mean that a person might ad hoc rationalize their belief in (traditional) theism with libertarianism (in order to provide a solution to the problem of evil), then that is of course possible. How often does that happen? I am not sure. I think a far more common ad hoc rationalization for libertarianism is moral responsibility, not a justification for theism itself. I think most people intuit that they cannot hold people morally responsible for their decisions if that person did not have the ability to have done otherwise; and so it becomes more like a companions in guilt style argument.

So discussions such as this are often veiled theology. — Banno

Discussions in the religion forum are only "veiled" theology for those who don't know where they are.

It is worthwhile to ask whether free will is coherent on a naturalistic view. Approaches like Chomsky's "Mysterianism" are pulling on the same thread.

OK.

...the ability to have done otherwise... — Bob Ross

Well, there's the problem. This is understood by some as causal, in a Newtonian, wind-up universe way. Hence my first post here. What we need for assigning responsibility is intent, and intentionality, not physics.

Agreed. I was just noting that people find this very compelling, hence why (I would argue) most people find libertarianism appealing and are confused what compatibilism even is.