Against Free-Will

[Perplexity]

You, sir, don’t know what you are talking about. Indeterminism is not the case you describe - indeterminism is compatible with S’ causal contributions to A adding to A, just not that S is guaranteed to bring about A.

I’ve said multiple times now what indeterminacy is. I agree that it’s compatible with S’s causal contributions. How you got otherwise is beyond me.

You show even more ignorance here. What kind of mechanism for “luck” is there? Quantum fluxes and radioactive decay? Guess what - those are too far removed to have any effect on anything a free will believer would claim S could be morally responsible for.

Wut. The luck aspect is the indeterminacy.

 

[Bobber90]

The immaterial aspects of the mind can be affected by the physical, but the physical cannot force it into anything - there is no physical (name removed by moderator)ut that will guarantee you have a certain thought. There is mental output that in normal cases will guarantee you perform a certain action.

I think that under normal circumstances, seeing a written word (as an (name removed by moderator)ut from the physical world) will guarantee that you have a certain thought. Namely, you think of the meaning. Isn’t that an example of causality from the physical to the supposed non-physical realm?

 

[Perplexity]

Neither do they make it true. I’m not struggling to keep up. You’re struggling to get ahead of everyone else and making a fool of yourself in the process, in my opinion.

I never implied your language was anything new. I’m not struggling to keep up. You and your ilk are struggling to get ahead by creating these theoretical systems that are based on, but bear no resemblance to, real life. You then congratulate yourselves on understanding everyone else better than themselves. It’s intellectual egotism. Just being HONEST.

Which brings us to, “I’M A TRUTH TELLER.” Are you sure? Of course, if there’s no free will there would be no reason to be proud of it either way. Not like it’s your own doing. And besides that, I don’t see how spouting out extremely vague postulates that have no concrete or permanent bearing on any thing we might actually deem “truth” makes you a “truth teller.”

“I HAVE A BIGGER VOCAB THAN YOU.” Really? We’re resorting to playground taunts? As though this means anything at all. In my view, someone who feels the need to flex their arcane vocabulary is just showing their even deeper need to feel superior.

“NEW AND BIG WORDS DON’T MAKE A STATEMENT FALSE.” Nor do they make it true, as you seem to think. My quarrel was not with your words, but the ideas they express. Your language is intentionally vague, not meaning that the words don’t have clear meanings, but that the implications for our reality would be very hard if not impossible to verify, or falsify as the case may be.

Let me stop you here. You’re responding to what I said to empther as if I had said it to you. So, in trying to show us that you’re not struggling to keep up, you’ve actually mistaken my response to empther as a response to you. Now, that’s irony.

Philosophy has advanced just as the empirical sciences have. Just as they have developed complicated languages and methods of analyses so has philosophy. If you want to whine and complain about this development in philosophy, why are you here on a philosophy board?

I only encounter complaints like this from people who haven’t spent significant time in philosophy. Ridiculous

 

[Bobber90]

Here’s a pictorial representation of indeterminacy, correct me if I’m wrong.

Being causally responsible for the obtaining of an effect through an indeterminate process would be akin to shaking a magic 8 ball that has boundless numbers of answers. We shake it and cause the outcome, but we are not morally responsible for the outcome (say it was an obscene joke) because we had absolutely no way to predict what would be the result. It was indeterminate.

 

[Perplexity]

Here’s a pictorial representation of indeterminacy, correct me if I’m wrong.

Being causally responsible for the obtaining of an effect through an indeterminate process would be akin to shaking a magic 8 ball that has boundless numbers of answers. We shake it and cause the outcome, but we are not morally responsible for the outcome (say it was an obscene joke) because we had absolutely no way to predict what would be the result. It was indeterminate.

Brilliant example.

 

[Pieman333272]

I think that under normal circumstances, seeing a written word (as an (name removed by moderator)ut from the physical world) will guarantee that you have a certain thought. Namely, you think of the meaning. Isn’t that an example of causality from the physical to the supposed non-physical realm?

No - first of all, not everybody in normal circumstances thinks of a word’s definition.

Second, not everybody thinks of the same definition.

So your argument fails.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Here’s a pictorial representation of indeterminacy, correct me if I’m wrong.

Being causally responsible for the obtaining of an effect through an indeterminate process would be akin to shaking a magic 8 ball that has boundless numbers of answers. We shake it and cause the outcome, but we are not morally responsible for the outcome (say it was an obscene joke) because we had absolutely no way to predict what would be the result. It was indeterminate.

Again, this demonstrates the intellectual leaps necessary to illustrate so much of contemporary philosophy. For your illustration of the concept, you must employ a fictional Magic 8 Ball. Let’s hear an example of a CREDIBLE scenario.

 

[Bobber90]

No - first of all, not everybody in normal circumstances thinks of a word’s definition.

Second, not everybody thinks of the same definition.

So your argument fails.

We automatically read it, and it need not be that it forces the meaning of the word that I associate with the word, but it will evoke the consistent meaning that you associate with this splodge of black and white doodling…

That is causation, isn’t it?

 

[Pieman333272]

I’ve said multiple times now what indeterminacy is. I agree that it’s compatible with S’s causal contributions. How you got otherwise is beyond me.

So then this is a non-issue. If S’ indeterminacy is compatible with all of S’ acts adding together to cause A, your argument fails!

Wut. The luck aspect is the indeterminacy.

Circular definitions. How unsurprising.
Bobber:

Being causally responsible for the obtaining of an effect through an indeterminate process would be akin to shaking a magic 8 ball that has boundless numbers of answers. We shake it and cause the outcome, but we are not morally responsible for the outcome (say it was an obscene joke) because we had absolutely no way to predict what would be the result. It was indeterminate.

But all of S’ causal acts can add together and cause it with is still being indeterminate, no? Then Perp’s argument fails and free will is compatible with indeterminism.

 

[Bobber90]

Again, this demonstrates the intellectual leaps necessary to illustrate so much of contemporary philosophy. For your illustration of the concept, you must employ a fictional Magic 8 Ball. Let’s hear an example of a CREDIBLE scenario.

haha! Yes this is an excellent point. We would have to be living in a reality pervaded by something equivalent to the magic 8 ball mechanism, and yet still believe that we have control of our actions. Given that we seem to recognise determinacy rather than indeterminacy, we have to understand free will in that context. That is the upshot of the argument, I think. It is precisely the point that indeterminacy is exposed as implausible.

 

[Pieman333272]

We automatically read it, and it need not be that it forces the meaning of the word that I associate with the word, but it will evoke the consistent meaning that you associate with this splodge of black and white doodling…

That is causation, isn’t it?

I guess, but either way my claim can be revised to SOME mental events not being forced by physical events, not ALL of them.

 

[Perplexity]

But all of S’ causal acts can add together and cause it with is still being indeterminate, no? Then Perp’s argument fails and free will is compatible with indeterminism.

They can cause it in a probabilistic sense. i.e., they raise the event’s probability. But, they do not suffice individually or collectively to cause the event. If they do, it’s not indeterminate.

If you don’t think the failure of all the agent’s causal influences to suffice implies the agent isn’t responsible, I’m not sure we can go any further. Which is fine. A lot of metaphysics comes down to intuitions which differ.

 

[Bobber90]

But all of S’ causal acts can add together and cause it with is still being indeterminate, no? Then Perp’s argument fails and free will is compatible with indeterminism.

Well there is certainly will going on, and with it the main problem I have of ‘what is the cause of the will’, but it is not freedom in a morally responsible sense.

 

[Pieman333272]

They can cause it in a probabilistic sense. i.e., they raise the event’s probability. But, they do not suffice individually or collectively to cause the event. If they do, it’s not indeterminate.

You’re using a definition of intdeterminism nobody uses (except you). Indeterminism is when A is not guaranteed to happen for ANY REASON, NOT because S’ causal influences do not add to A. S’ causal influences adding to A but not being forced to happen ARE EXAMPLES OF indeterminism.

 

[Bobber90]

I guess, but either way my claim can be revised to SOME mental events not being forced by physical events, not ALL of them.

Indeed, and my claim that there would be reciprocal causation between physical/non-physical realms is supported.

 

[Pieman333272]

Well there is certainly will going on, and with it the main problem I have of ‘what is the cause of the will’, but it is not freedom in a morally responsible sense.

Why? Just going for the ol’ dismiss & assert line of argument?

 

[Pieman333272]

Indeed, and my claim that there would be reciprocal causation between physical/non-physical realms is supported.

But it’s arbitrary anyway, so it doesn’t really make your argument any stronger. Especially since you defined it as the physical causing a certain type of thought and not a specific thought.

 

[Perplexity]

You’re using a definition of intdeterminism nobody uses (except you). Indeterminism is when A is not guaranteed to happen for ANY REASON, NOT because S’ causal influences do not add to A. S’ causal influences adding to A but not being forced to happen ARE EXAMPLES OF indeterminism.

I’ve not disagreed that these would be examples of indeterminism (if they were real)! I’m pointing to these examples and saying we can’t be responsible for indeterminate actions.How can we be responsible for that which has no sufficient cause? I’m using the same understanding you are but apparently you don’t have the same intuition.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That’s nice. I’ve seen the same in non-contemporary philosophy. Even granting that this philosophy is pompous etc. it could still be true, so I don’t see what you’re hoping to achieve through this degradation.

I can hardly make sense of this talk of real life etc. To me this is like complaining to a physicist that he’s using too big of words. So what? Physics et al need to sore. Let’s not clip the eagle’s wings to tip the ol’ hat to Nietzsche

Much of metaphysisc (the field free-will skirmishes take place on) is about making ‘mathematical’ or ‘symbolic’ models of reality. It’s just how science works. But, fair enough, try this out:

I’m thinking about standing up. At time t1 I’m sitting. At time t2, I’m standing. Prior to t2, I desire to stand in the more or less absent minded way I usually desire to physically move (like when I walk, I’m not really that conscious of all the physical stuff going on with each step). Nevertheless I choose to stand, or act on my desire.

If that action (of standing) is indeterminate, then prior to t2, no cause or causes are sufficient to entail my standing. That is, my desire to stand, my thought to stand etc. aren’t enough to make me stand. They might make it likely that I do, but aren’t the sufficient cause themselves. As we stipulated, I stood up. Was I responsible for that action? I don’t think so. I ****wasn’t the sufficient cause of it.

 

[prodigalson2011]

By the way, Perplexity, I went back and looked over that post. Somehow I missed the quotation of empther above it, and for some reason thought it had followed my last post. Not sure how it happened, but my mistake. I hope it is within the bounds of your indeterminate will to forgive me.