Do you have any evidence that says the choices you list cannot be made?Can you choose to believe in magical leprechauns? Can you choose to desire homosexuality over heterosexuality? Can you choose to be happy instead of sad? — chatterbears
I don't understand that definition. Let's suppose there's a universe exactly like ours, excepting that there's "the ability to have acted differently". What would that look like? It doesn't sound like the proposal is that we can actually retroactively change what we did... but the suggestion is that there's some distinction between that universe and our universe... ours being, one in which there is no such ability. And I have no idea what form that distinction would take, if any.it is "the ability to have acted differently" — chatterbears
Not sure I quite understand this either. Let's take an example action... you typed stuff on a keyboard in English. To me, I would explain your ability to type in terms of your ability to interact with your keyboard; and to type in English as a result of your prior interactions with other English speakers.I would argue that there are 3 things that enforce your actions. Beliefs, Desires (or wants), Mood. — chatterbears
This sounds like cherry picking to me. Your definition of free will has something to do with the ability to do otherwise. Your point is that we have no free will. But your argument is to point out particulars we can't influence. I don't think that matches the burden you selected... if you're trying to make the point that we have no free will, your burden is to argue that nothing we do is such that we had the ability to do something diferent, not that some particulars are such.Can you choose to believe in magical leprechauns? Can you choose to desire homosexuality over heterosexuality? Can you choose to be happy instead of sad? — chatterbears
I've been leaning towards free will NOT existing, after some deep thought on the subject. And to define 'free will' quickly, I would say it is "the ability to have acted differently". I would argue that there are 3 things that enforce your actions. Beliefs, Desires (or wants), Mood. None of which are your choice. Can you choose to believe in magical leprechauns? Can you choose to desire homosexuality over heterosexuality? Can you choose to be happy instead of sad? — chatterbears
Your beliefs, desires, and mood contribute to making you who you are. Your choices are therefore a product of you, and you alone.I would argue that there are 3 things that enforce your actions. Beliefs, Desires (or wants), Mood. None of which are your choice. — chatterbears
In the end, they ignore the simplest explanations (from demonstrations) that the schedule of reinforcement delivered at the slots selected the person's gambling behavior in a way that looks very similar to what happens when arranging those schedules of reinforcement for non-human species used in experiments. — CeleRate
One needs scientific testing. — CeleRate
I'm having some difficulty untangling what you're trying to say here. The demonstrations you're referring to sound like something akin to Pavlovian experiments. That in my mind qualifies as scientific testing, in particular, in the field of psychology. Where I'm choking is that you're partially complaining about psychological explanations on the basis that one needs scientific testing, but then appealing to scientific testing performed as part of a psychological investigation.Because different people experience different effects on their behavior, philosophical and psychological explanations often pay too much attention to the individual and too little to the conditions when trying to explain addiction. — CeleRate
What experimentation shows through replicable effects on people's behavior is that the person is not the origination point for the choices they make. — CeleRate
I'm confused. If different people experience different effects, then in what sense are those replicable effects?Because different people experience different effects on their behavior — CeleRate
The demonstrations you're referring to sound like something akin to Pavlovian experiments. — InPitzotl
I'm confused. If different people experience different effects, then in what sense are those replicable effects? — InPitzotl
Where I'm choking is that you're partially complaining about psychological explanations on the basis that one needs scientific testing, but then appealing to scientific testing performed as part of a psychological investigation. — InPitzotl
That I would describe as replicable experiments; i.e., we get the same results when we repeat these experiments. To me the term "replicable effects" is stronger, suggesting that the effects themselves are replicable.Experimentation reveals the orderliness of effects on behavior, and with proper experimental control, allows the scientist to predict, verify, and replicate. This further reveals principles at work that are then described with models that explain the observed phenomena. — CeleRate
...this to me sounds like it's describing folk psychology; and I would agree there are problems with folk psychology. I don't think folk psychology is entirely flawed, because it's demonstrably useful (theory of mind, for example, is critical for deceiving people... not necessarily unethically). Things like personality traits and such get muckier; e.g., we are susceptible to things like attribution bias... so I can buy a general criticism here.However, when stepping away from experimental settings and experimental control, and people casually observe one another doing things — CeleRate
Wait... back up. What is a common misunderstanding?This is a common misunderstanding. Psychology is the study of the mind. Although it is true that operant conditioning had its beginnings in psychology, it eventually became a field unto itself as the study of the self went from metaphysics, to logical positivists, to radical behaviorists in one of the lines of epistemological changes. The study of the mind became the study of behavior, with an entirely new set of tools and scientific methodology. — CeleRate
That I would describe as replicable experiments; i.e., we get the same results when we repeat these experiments. To me the term "replicable effects" is stronger, suggesting that the effects themselves are replicable. — InPitzotl
It sounds to me like you're using the terms a bit differently than these sources suggest — InPitzotl
So would you say that the mind does not affect behavior, that there is no such thing as the mind, or that the mind itself is simply a result of operant conditioning? — InPitzotl
Interesting... that's somewhat similar to how I view mind, only I would describe it more in terms of what's useful at the agency level as opposed to the sense of agency per se. I think I generally get here from a different path though... more like a software engineer reverse engineering his mind.I view "mind" as shorthand for the sense of agency we all have, and a way to describe the thoughts that we happen to notice. — CeleRate
Well, the way I see it, on the topic of free will, everyone is an expert but nobody can agree. That itself looks a bit fishy to me; my gut instinct suggests that there are flaws in our assumptions (at least most of us) at play. (I suppose at some level this has to be true of everyone; but for me, I'm more interested in pausing here and just trying to find those flawed assumptions).Now we might have even more time to sit at the safety of our computers opining about such topics. — CeleRate
the ability to have acted differently — chatterbears
I've been leaning towards free will NOT existing, after some deep thought on the subject. And to define 'free will' quickly, I would say it is "the ability to have acted differently". I would argue that there are 3 things that enforce your actions. Beliefs, Desires (or wants), Mood. None of which are your choice. Can you choose to believe in magical leprechauns? Can you choose to desire homosexuality over heterosexuality? Can you choose to be happy instead of sad? — chatterbears
And to define 'free will' quickly, I would say it is "the ability to have acted differently". — chatterbears
Free will is the determination of ends(purposes) by reason in and for itself. — Heiko
What is it that you are calling "reason"? It's an odd term, conflating the noun and the mass noun; The reason given for an action is a self-serving back construction thought up as an excuse after the act. — Banno
You wouldn't say I think about how mathematics work after I write down the result of a equation. — Heiko
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.