So you are talking about people like yourself who would call themselves something, but then who aren't able to define why they would call themselves that something. — apokrisis
I'm sure you will launch into an explanation at any minute. — apokrisis
So what are you calling yourself — apokrisis
Thanks for illustrating my point about how a reductionist would want to conceive the causal story. — apokrisis
I do not see how the real existence of "the army" could be understood as anything more than individuals acting. — Metaphysician Undercover
There are individuals who chose to act together toward a common goal, and we goal this an army. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then we seek the internal source of this causation rather than looking for some phantom external top-down causation. — Metaphysician Undercover
Let's put aside your fanciful notion that drill sergeants offer raw recruits a lot of free choice during boot camp training, we call an army an army (and not for instance a rabble or a rout) because it really is being regulated by some actual state of form and purpose. — apokrisis
So what I said in the end, eh? — apokrisis
Any raw recruit can choose not to follow the instruction of the drill sergeant, and suffer the consequence. — Metaphysician Undercover
You reveal with your words what you really believe, that it is not the army which is doing the regulating, the army is the passive, artificial thing, which is being regulated by the intentions of human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover
This contradicts constraints arising "immanently", which implies that the constraints come from within the individual part, as I described by referring to intention and free will. So you haven't explained how two apparently opposed processes, "constraints arise immanently", and "constraints of downward causation" are supposed to be the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
So they can't choose not to suffer the consequences? — apokrisis
The consequences are thus quite real as the corollary of their choices. It is all a bit like choosing to jump of a tree and fly, then having to accept the consequences that the law of gravity mandates. Nothing you can do will change anything about the consequences in either situation. — apokrisis
My position is based on the causal notion of synergy. — apokrisis
The most simple way to choose not to suffer the consequences, is to choose to follow the orders. — Metaphysician Undercover
Just like if you disobey the law, it is certain individuals who will seek to have you punished. It's not the law itself which acts to punish you, it those who enforce it. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't see how this notion of the whole constraining the parts is a valid notion. — Metaphysician Undercover
So by choice ... one simply chooses not to have freewill and the constraints are thus rendered an abstract illusion that you never really took seriously. Gotcha. — apokrisis
It is their choice to line you up against the wall and shoot you? — apokrisis
True that. — apokrisis
You've lost me in your contradictory ways. Free will is a constraint? That's the problem with your position, you portray the creative results of free acts as the effects of constraints. Do you not see the inherent contradiction? Or are you a determinist denier of free will? — Metaphysician Undercover
Finally! We agree on something. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is why we credit our "selves" with top-down causal agency. — apokrisis
...a freedom inherent (immanent) within my material being? — Metaphysician Undercover
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.