Let's say I played a game of chess; I started at 11:47pm, last Saturday. I was playing against my friend on a computer. It was a rainy night. I opened E4. So you're saying, now, what? That if I play again with my friend at 11:47 next Saturday, I might open with D4 instead? That's no different from the FFW of the computer using a PRNG. Surely you don't mean that last Saturday at 11:47pm, despite my having chosen E4, I can choose to having had chosen D4, right?What I'm saying is that given the same circumstances, a computer would always make the same choice. — Cidat
I don't think you're aware of how this actually works in practice. We don't make decisions "consciously", at least as a matter of course. We make decisions and become conscious of them. On some rare occasions, we deliberate, but most of the time we just act. The more habituated the action is, the more consciousness is "optional" for it. Also, the "us" in the we is the "subject" of consciousness, not the "object" of it; by which I mean, what you are self-aware of isn't your entire self... it's just a fraction of your self. Any notion of free will that we're actually likely to have must fit into this. And any sensible theory of free will requiring responsibility needs to account for the fact that the guy generating these actions most of the time isn't aware of them while generating them, but is still nevertheless the guy who did them. Otherwise, you're just going to invent a fiction of folk theory. As a curious free will agnostic, I'm more interested in the kinds of free will we might actually have.Randomness and free will are different things. Freely willed actions are consciously chosen, — Cidat
TBH I'm kind of wondering about a similar issue... how this works in terms of moral choice. I made a terrible decision last Saturday at 11:47pm; it was a bad thing to do. But now I realize it, and am a better person. Free will means I can go back to that state, down at the atomic level and make a different choice... perhaps a better one. But, now, it's not really identical, because the second time around, I am the "better" person... the first time, I was a "worse" person... so the "revert time" version really isn't as identical as it's being made out to be. Apparently, though, I have to be exactly as terrible as I was last Saturday at 11:47pm, and make a different decision, to have free will. If I make the same decision, being the exact level of blameworthiness as I was last Saturday at 11:47pm, then I don't have free will and therefore cannot be blamed?So, what makes you think a rational decision could be different all circumstances being the same? Is rationality arbitrary? — Heiko
If I make the same decision, being the exact level of blameworthiness as I was last Saturday at 11:47pm, then I don't have free will and therefore cannot be blamed? — InPitzotl
I don't know about that:In fact, if it would depend on anything it would not be "will" but an effect of that property. — Heiko
This has a flaw... if an action is uninfluenced by totally everything, then you cannot have willed it. So will necessitates at least influence of the actor; otherwise, in what sense is it will at all? So there must be influence for there to be will. With that crack in the door, though, the rest becomes questionable; if an effect is a result of properties, but those properties make you who you are, then there's no difference between your acting of your own will and the actions being a result of those properties... they are the same thing. The conflict here would be illusory, something analogous to the fallacy of the single cause.Being uninfluenced by totally everything is what makes it free and why "will" is always free. — Heiko
I guess "will" cannot be taken as a thing different from the subject. It is part of it's being. A mode of existence. After all, when you do something, the "doing" is just you in a special mode.This has a flaw... if an action is uninfluenced by totally everything, then you cannot have willed it. So will necessitates at least influence of the actor; otherwise, in what sense is it will at all? — InPitzotl
But in this case I'd not be a subject anymore but an object. Not even a "who" but a mere "what" (those properties). How degrading. I guess you meant to say something else.With that crack in the door, though, the rest becomes questionable; if an effect is a result of properties, but those properties make you who you are — InPitzotl
The difference is that one holds dignity, the other does not.then there's no difference between your acting of your own will and the actions being a result of those properties — InPitzotl
Why are those mutually exclusive? Who you are is what you are works fine for me.Not even a "who" but a mere "what" (those properties) — Heiko
Again, only if those things are mutually exclusive. Otherwise, you would be a what that is a who. Who you are is what you are, but not all what's are who's.But in this case I'd not be a subject anymore but an object. Not even a "who" but a mere "what" (those properties). How degrading. I guess you meant to say something else. — Heiko
I don't buy that.The difference is that one holds dignity, the other does not.
Yes. Your aren't me. That's a no-brainer. But the question is not "what works". There were many things that kinda "worked" but weren't right either.Why are those mutually exclusive? Who you are is what you are works fine for me. — InPitzotl
To Do and Being done. No difference?Again, only if those things are mutually exclusive. — InPitzotl
A "what" is never free. Things are involved in external relations defining them and putting them in place. This would contradict free decisions.Otherwise, you would be a what that is a who. Who you are is what you are, but not all what's are who's. — InPitzotl
There is no "us" in final things. The point is that either I am a free subject in a decision or I am not.With that in mind, when you hear the suggestion that we are x, you picture that as (a) lowering us from our level to the level of x. But that is an artificial perspective, and it is completely unnecessary. There are at least two other ways of looking at the same thing: (b) it elevates x, (c) it elevates x when x is us. — InPitzotl
For me, it absolutely is. The alternative to this is that the question is, "what is my favorite pet theory"? I prefer the Feynman path: "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting 'not knowing' than to have answers that might be wrong."But the question is not "what works". — Heiko
A lot of people tend to want to view things as if there are two kinds of things... a subject, and an object; a me, and a world. Why? How come you can't just be part of the world?To Do and Being done. No difference? — Heiko
I think you need to try again. You're trying to convince me that there's some sort of a problem with us being a what, but all I'm getting from this is that you have a term free that you define a certain way and another compound term free decision that you define a certain way, and what's don't really fit the definition too well. Okay, sure, but what should I make out of that outside of it being a linguistic exercise applied to your vocabulary?A "what" is never free. Things are involved in external relations defining them and putting them in place. This would contradict free decisions. — Heiko
You either get the distinction between subjects and objects or don't.Okay, sure, but what should I make out of that outside of it being a linguistic exercise applied to your vocabulary? — InPitzotl
The essence of Dasein lies in its existence. Accordingly those characteristics which can be exhibited in this entity are not 'properties' present-at-hand of some entity which 'looks' so and so and is itself present-at-hand; they are in each case possible ways for it to be, and no more than that. All the Being-as-it-is [So-sein] which this entity possesses is primarily Being. So when we designate this entity with the term 'Dasein', we are expressing not its "what" (as if it were a table, house or tree) but its Being.
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.