Right. But, re your opinion, so you just don't feel that that issue is worth bothering with? — Terrapin Station
How would you explain your awareness of other minds without using causation? — Harry Hindu
We are part of the causal chain but the human mind is different than an inanimate object. Causality has influence over our thoughts but the mind has the power to cause things itself. Agent causation takes a massive amount of effort and will so most of the time we don't bother with it, but there are times when people do actually exercise true free will. — Jamesk
And what are the required circumstances for that to happen? — Echarmion
First of all it's not possible to know the configuration of objective reality — Echarmion
Let's say the entire universe is a dream of me, and my will is actually the only thing that changes it. How can I change my decisions without also changing myself? — Echarmion
Hmm, why would you believe that? — Terrapin Station
That depends on whether you're thinking of your decisions as constitutive of yourself. In other words, if you on a complete whim choose rye bread over whole wheat, does that mean you've changed yourself merely because of that fact? — Terrapin Station
The standard arguments on how we do not have any way to establish the objectivity of our experience. — Echarmion
If it's random it's not attributable to the person making the (apparent) decisions, — Echarmion
How would you explain your awareness of other minds without using causation? — Harry Hindu
Of course we can answer it. The answer is, "You can't - at least not without redefining what "awareness", and "other" mean."That, my friend, is the million dollar question. We can't answer that question but that doesn't mean free will is impossible does it? — TheMadFool
As usual with many philosophical debates, the terms that we are discussing are often obscure and incoherent in light of other knowledge that we have. Integrating our knowledge shines a light on these inconsistencies in our definitions. What do you mean by "free will"? What is the "will" and what makes it "free"?I've been thinking about explaining free will within a causal framework but I'm unable to do it. The problem with causation is there's always something that precedes everything in a cause-effect sense. — TheMadFool
How about this for possibility of free will: Our brains and thus our minds are isolated, sealed off, from the rest of the causal web. I mean, yes, we are effects of the great chain of causation that extends back to the Big Bang but once we're born our minds are put inside a cranium that prevents any external influences and thus the choices we make are ours alone. Of course our proclivities are decided beforehand by our genes which connect back to the Big Bang itself but we can and do make decisions that we don't like, which is an ability to override our constitution. Free will? — TheMadFool
We are part of the causal chain but the human mind is different than an inanimate object. Causality has influence over our thoughts but the mind has the power to cause things itself. Agent causation takes a massive amount of effort and will so most of the time we don't bother with it, but there are times when people do actually exercise true free will. — Jamesk
So the difference between a pine cone falling on your head from a tree limb and a person throwing a pine cone at your head is just the explanation for why a pine cone hit you in the head?Remember using causation to explain things is really just invidious selection to provide an explanation, this is not the same thing as 'the cause'. — Jamesk
Nevertheless, we can analyze, in terms of rationality, our preferences and then pick from them what is reasonable and discard what isn't. The fact that we can do that points to free will of some kind doesn't it? — TheMadFool
I don't believe that any of those work. I'm a direct/naive realist. Which ones do you find convincing? — Terrapin Station
Sure it is. It's not someone else making the random decision. That would be like saying, if we were talking about a random number generator, that it's not the random number generator producing the random numbers. I don't know how that would make sense. What would you think is producing the random numbers in that case (and could we then say that it's that thing that's producing the random numbers, or would we have to say that something else is)? — Terrapin Station
In saying that it is rational, are you not saying that it was deterministic as well? Can you give an example of something that is non-deterministic AND rational, or something that is deterministic AND irrational?Nevertheless, we can analyze, in terms of rationality, our preferences and then pick from them what is reasonable and discard what isn't. The fact that we can do that points to free will of some kind doesn't it? — TheMadFool
But why would we ever change/add/delete our preferences? There must be a reason (cause), no? And in pointing to that cause, are you not explaining the rationality of your decision?If you ask me, I think our ability to change/add/delete our preferences indicates free will. — TheMadFool
The walls of the box are part of the causal chain. The balls outside of the box react differently than if the box wasn't there in the first place, and the balls inside increase the density of the box which has an effect on how much the box moves when external balls hit it. In other words, you cannot escape causation unless you completely remove yourself from the world. The world, in essence, is a causal event.As for causality and free will I propose a gedanken experiment. Imagine a pool table. There are balls on the table subject to causality. At the center of the table is a box with some balls inside it. The box has an opening with a valve that only allows balls to exit the box and not enter it. Now, despite balls moving, hitting in all possible combinations on the table they can't cause anything for the balls inside the box due to the walls of the box. However, the balls inside the box have access to the balls outside through the opening in it (remember there's a valve that allows exit but no entry). Our minds could be like that - protected from causality from without by the skull and other mental barriers but capable of initiating a causal chain both within and without. Free will? — TheMadFool
I wonder: What would the phenomenal difference be between being free to pick one thing and discarding another and being predetermined to pick one thing and discard another?If there's no ontological freedom, you can't actually pick one thing and discard another. You're predetermined to pick one thing and discard another. — Terrapin Station
Isn't it sufficient to observe (heh) that we have no criterion to judge the objectivity of an experience? — Echarmion
That question does not allow us to differentiate between results of a free will and results of e.g. an algorithm. — Echarmion
I wonder: What would the phenomenal difference be between being free to pick one thing and discarding another and being predetermined to pick one thing and discard another?
It seems that in both cases one is aware of multiple options but chooses only one while discarding the others. What determines whether or not the choice was predetermined or not? What does it mean for a choice to be predetermined? — Harry Hindu
Doesn't that require ontological freedom in the first place? If there's no ontological freedom, you can't actually pick one thing and discard another. You're predetermined to pick one thing and discard another. Then it would just be a matter of whether the predetermination happens to coincide with "what you think you want," so that you don't notice that you really don't have any choice.
That's a problem with the Dennettian approach to free will in general. — Terrapin Station
In saying that it is rational, are you not saying that it was deterministic as well? Can you give an example of something that is non-deterministic AND rational, or something that is deterministic AND irrational? — Harry Hindu
Yes, good example. Their irrationality is caused by a neurological anomaly.Suppose determinism is true. What about irrational people e.g. the insane? Aren't they part of the causal web? So, deterministic and irrational. — TheMadFool
When we say that someone is irrational, what we're really saying is that the person isn't behaving as if they have common sense or knowledge. From the irrational person's perspective they are acting on their knowledge which is skewed, or limited for some reason. It's not that they are acting randomly. They are acting on their knowledge or perception of the world, just like you and I are doing. It's just that that perception is actually a delusion, or the cause of some kind of amnesia or lack of information that the person labeling the other as "irrational" has. If you know something that someone else doesn't know and you see that that lack of knowledge causes changes in their behavior, those changes would appear to be irrational from your perspective.As for non-deterministic and rational that's what I'm trying to prove.
Yes, rationality can be construed to be a cause but we have control over it. We can always opt out of it and choose to be irrational but then we would lose touch with reality. — TheMadFool
I don't even really understand the idea of that. Why would you need a criterion to judge the objectivity of an experience? That sounds like we're starting from an assumption of idealism. — Terrapin Station
It's a will phenomenon--we're talking about a conscious phenomenon, and it's free because we're not forced to go with one thing or the other.
It's a decision because we're picking one of two or more options. — Terrapin Station
If not pre-determined, then are the only choices that are possible are the ones we are aware of? — Harry Hindu
This would've made sense but what about the choices you made before engaging reason. The pre-reason choices sometimes don't match the post-reason ones do they? If all our preferences were determined from before we wouldn't be able to change our minds. People regulalry do after some reflection don't they? — TheMadFool
I'm not sure that you are using "choice" consistently here.No, of course not.
Say that it's not predetermined that Joe chooses rye bread instead of whole wheat when he orders his sandwich. Well, pumpernickel could be available, too, but Joe might not be aware of this--he didn't look at the menu very carefully, maybe he's never even heard of pumpernickel, etc.
If choices are predetermined, however, then presumably choices you're not aware of are never the predetermined choices, since no one seems to have the experience of choosing pumpernickel when they've never heard of it before or when they weren't aware that it was available. — Terrapin Station
Is pumpernickel a kind of choice, or a kind of bread? — Harry Hindu
Wouldn't your lack of knowledge be a pre-determined factor for your decision? — Harry Hindu
compatibilism — Terrapin Station
When we say that someone is irrational, what we're really saying is that the person isn't behaving as if they have common sense or knowledge. From the irrational person's perspective they are acting on their knowledge which is skewed, or limited for some reason. It's not that they are acting randomly. They are acting on their knowledge or perception of the world, just like you and I are doing. It's just that that perception is actually a delusion, or the cause of some kind of amnesia or lack of information that the person labeling the other as "irrational" has. If you know something that someone else doesn't know and you see that that lack of knowledge causes changes in their behavior, those changes would appear to be irrational from your perspective.
So it's not that the irrational person is just behaving in a way that has no cause. It's just that they're acting on an inaccurate or limited information. — Harry Hindu
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.