If, for many thousands of years, anyone had any inkling of determinism, or thought we did not have free will, they probably didn't have many serious conversations about it with many people. — Patterner

I don't think this really bears out. Many ancient thinkers were deterministic, both from a causal point of view and also a theological point of view - ie, "I believe in an all-knowing God, and all-knowing means he knows what's going to happen too". In fact many even argue that a lot of the earliest writings we have on Free Will were written by compatibilists.

It wasn't this underground idea nobody dared to say aloud.

I'm not remotely knowledgeable enough to debate it. I'm just thinking we don't have words for the competing ideas being discussed. We have a word for thinking. We don't have one for thinking with consciousness, and one for thinking without consciousness. We don't have one for thinking independent of the physical events of the brain, and one for thinking that is the physical events of the brain. The ideas of thinking without consciousness and thinking being nothing but the physical events of our brains are not parts of our culture, or our language. Is this because our culture and language grew in a people who, rare individuals aside, never considered these concepts? The things we have words for are the things the people assumed were true without even saying.

We don't have one for thinking with consciousness, and one for thinking without consciousness. — Patterner

Thinking that is not in a state of consciousness is not thinking - dreaming is a conscious state btw.

We don't have one for thinking independent of the physical events of the brain, and one for thinking that is the physical events of the brain. The ideas of thinking without consciousness and thinking being nothing but the physical events of our brains are not parts of our culture, or our language. — Patterner

Because such would be fairly nonsensical so specificity would be required to distinguish such ideas.

Is this because our culture and language grew in a people who, rare individuals aside, never considered these concepts? The things we have words for are the things the people assumed were true without even saying. — Patterner

They exist is specialised fields but are often uncommon in colloquial speech. An example of a technical jargon being transferred to daily parse is "meme," but it did lose a fair bit of its meaning once taken into colloquial speech.

If terms are rarely used they quickly die or are repurposed. A great many philosophical idea from people like Kant or Hegel are often construed in many different ways by different people.

Time is probably the most troublesome concept philosophers have to deal with.

what does thinking without consciousness have to do with anything? Did someone suggest that in this thread?

We have a word for thinking. We don't have one for thinking with consciousness, and one for thinking without consciousness. — Patterner

It seems to me that to some degree "intuition" is a word we use for speaking about thinking without consciousness.

And if you don't mind multiple words being used, Here is some recent casual discussion of thinking without consciousness.

↪Patterner what does thinking without consciousness have to do with anything? Did someone suggest that in this thread? — flannel jesus

No. Just another example.

It seems to me that to some degree "intuition" is a word we use for speaking about thinking without consciousness. — wonderer1

It may be that the word applies at times. But I'm not sure that's the intent of the word, though. The definitions I'm finding are about knowing without conscious reasoning. Does that fit the bill? I'm not sure. I've never posted this kind of thing before.

And if you don't mind multiple words being used, Here is some recent casual discussion of thinking without consciousness. — wonderer1

We can definitely discuss the idea with our language. My point is that we don't have words for things that weren't part of the, shall we say, collective consciousness. Like I've heard there's are many words for "snow" in the Inuit language. Knowing about the different types of snow was extremely important to them. So the language has words for each. Closer to the equator, it wasn't as important. Certainly not a matter of life and death on a daily basis. So, while the people noticed the differences, only major categories got specific words. Snow, slush, ice... The variations only get adjectives. Things like powdery snow and packing snow.

Since determined thinking and thinking without consciousness were not a big part of the collective consciousness, we don't find specific words for them in the language.

This is all just seat of my pants thinking. I couldn't guess how much I have wrong.

Since determined thinking and thinking without consciousness were not a big part of the collective consciousness — Patterner

I don't suppose people, as a whole, have *ever* had a complete model of what it means to think. We experientially understand what thinking is like, but there's never been a complete coherent view of how thought actually works, what makes it work, how subjective experience can happen. I think you're arbitrarily carving out this exception for determinism that isn't there - like we've never understood thought for determinism, when we have understood thought from other perspectives. I think the reality is, we've had a lack of understanding of thought period, determinism or not.

Well, not having had an inkling of this whole line of thought until a couple days ago, plus not having ever read a word about such things, I'm going to ask for some slack. :grin: Certainly, I'm not claiming any great revelations. I just think humanity, as a whole, has always taken the default position that we have free will, and thought is not simply brain states. I think we would have words specifically for that idea if any significant number of people thought it in the language's younger days.

I think we would have words specifically for that idea if any significant number of people thought it in the language's younger days. — Patterner

Like what? Coin a new word, maybe "jiggerston", and tell me what it would mean if it were coined in that context. I'm not understand what new words you think would be useful so maybe an example would help.

It's not a need for a word for thinking in the Determinist sense. It's the fact that there isn't one. Because the idea is not something that has been a part of humanity all along. Which makes sense. Because we don't feel determinism. I mean, everybody who grows uo without ever hearing anything about these ideas is going to take for granted that, faced with different options, although they chose one, they could have chosen another. It doesn't feel as though the choice we make is the only one we possibly could have made.

It's an intellectual idea. One people came to think of after seeing it's how everything we observe and study with our science works, and wondering if it's how our thinking works, too. The idea wasn't originated by someone who felt that's how it works, and started trying to tell everyone.

At least that's the way it seems to me. Even now, having heard this idea for some time, I can intellectually understand it, but I can't feel it.

It's not a need for a word for thinking in the Determinist sense. It's the fact that there isn't one. Because the idea is not something that has been a part of humanity all along — Patterner

Do you have strong evidence of that?

Upon googling, I see that both ancient greeks and buddhists were contemplating determinist world views hundreds of years before christ, so pretty much for almost the entirety of our history of written philosophy, we've had these thoughts.

I think the stuff you're saying in this vein is speculation, and I mean this bluntly but not as an insult, it seems like speculation based on ignorance. Which is fine, it's normal to be ignorant of the things you've never heard of before. But now you've heard of it.

This is all just seat of my pants thinking. I couldn't guess how much I have wrong. — Patterner

Well, not having had an inkling of this whole line of thought until a couple days ago, plus not having ever read a word about such things, I'm going to ask for some slack. — Patterner

I've never posted this kind of thing before. — Patterner

So yeah. I live in bliss. :grin:

Still, I think it's an interesting thought. Stop random people in the street and ask them about consciousness. Even if they haven't thought about it in depth, or tried to understand aspects of it that are often discussed here, it's unlikely they'll say they haven't heard of the topic. I suspect many will express the thoughts that consciousness is self-evident, and it is a more important part of their identity than things like their height and eye color.

Ask random people about determinism, and I think a much higher percentage will say they never heard of it. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most will be able to discuss it in some depth, and a good percentage will say that they feel it is, indeed, how all their thoughts and actions come about.

Your comment seems to be talking as if consciousness and determinism are opposites or something.

If your entire point is "consciousness is a more widely known idea than determinism", then... it hasn't seemed like that's what you were saying up until your most recent post, but that's probably true. Yes, consciousness is probably more widely discussed. I don't know what that's an important comparison to make.

I'm not trying to compare them. And no, they are not opposites. I'm just noticing that both are about our identity and thinking, but one is a commonly known idea, and the other, despite having been written about for millennia, is not. Why is that?

Or am I wrong in thinking that, if asked about determinism, most people would say they have not heard of it, and would need it explained?

I also suspect that, once determinism had been explained to them, most would not say it reflects how they feel their thinking works/is accomplished.

Or am I wrong in thinking that, if asked about determinism, most people would say they have not heard of it, and would need it explained?

I also suspect that, once determinism had been explained to them, most would not say it reflects how they feel their thinking works/is accomplished. — Patterner

This itself is evidence for determinism, in that you can't choose what it is that you find to be intuitive. Intuitions, being a matter of deep learning that occurs subconsciously in our neural nets, can take quite a long time to change.

Not sure what you mean. Why would our deep learning/intuition telling us determinism is not correct be evidence that determinism is correct? Or is that booty what you're saying?

Not sure what you mean. Why would our deep learning/intuition telling us determinism is not correct be evidence that determinism is correct? Or is that booty what you're saying? — Patterner

I wasn't referring to intuitions related to determinism specifically, but to intuitions in general and how slow they can be to change, and the changing of our intuitions not being a simple matter of choice on our parts.

If we don't have conscious control of how our intuitions shape our choices, do we have free will?

:rofl: :rofl: I don't know why. Someone explain to me why my phone types "booty" when I swype "not"! I don't think I've ever intentionally typed "booty" other than when I have to explain this. I usually catch it, but was in a rush that time.

I don't know enough about intuition to know how to respond. How does the "deep learning" about non-determinism take place?

if asked about determinism, most people would say they have not heard of it, and would need it explained? — Patterner

I think most people see consciousness as something they know, and determinism as something they have a sense of, but don’t really know (as most people aren’t philosophers) but they get the idea of fate and lack of real control, and illusion sometimes defeating what was thought to be a free choice.

If we don't have conscious control of how our intuitions shape our choices, do we have free will? — wonderer1

We don’t know where intuition really comes from just like we don’t know where desires come from - so the question of do we have free will remains unanswered, but I don’t think intuition makes it more difficult to answer - it was always difficult/impossible.

My observation is that people's intuition is wrong as often as right. It often seems to be someone's "feeling."

Other times the answer someone's intuition gives them is the answer they get when they consider it and explain reasoning behind it. And a lot of people have some pretty faulty reasoning. I assume a lot of people here will be happy to say mine is faulty. :grin: Perhaps others think I generally do ok. Mainly, we will say someone's intuition is wrong when it leads them to an answer we disagree with.

I guarantee my intuition leads me astray at times.

In short, I don't consider intuition to be very useful. But I don't know what @wonderer1 has in mind.

If you want to learn about the language and thought patterns when a certain kind of determinist talks about choices, this might interest you.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/

Here is something that might interest folks here.

There's No Free Will. What Now? - Robert Sapolsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvDrFwyW4k&t=2804s

↪Patterner If you want to learn about the language and thought patterns when a certain kind of determinist talks about choices, this might interest you.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ — flannel jesus

Thank you. It's confusing me right out of the gate, but I'll see what I can do.

Here is something that might interest folks here.

There's No Free Will. What Now? - Robert Sapolsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvDrFwyW4k&t=2804s — I like sushi

I didn't watch the video, but I've read his book - so I assume it's the same message. It appears to me Sapolsky deals only with the dichotomy: Libertarian Free Will (LFW) OR No Free Will. He also considers there to be no agency unless there is LFW.

He doesn't write about compatibilism...but his description of behavior seems perfectly consistent with compatibilism.

It is kind of funny how they both seem thrilled about the moral implications when judging people as agents yet seem to detach morality from consequences :D

In fairness to Sapolsky he makes no claims to be a philosopher.

He doesn't write about compatibilism...but his description of behavior seems perfectly consistent with compatibilism. — Relativist

This is actually really common. A lot of determinists have compatibilist intuitions but just don't like the word 'free will' because it's too tied up in the libertarian definition. I've even met people who argue for libertarian free will, and then upon some investigation it turns out all of their intuitions about free will are compatibilist too (but that's a bit rarer).

I've even met people who argue for libertarian free will, and then upon some investigation it turns out all of their intuitions about free will are compatibilist too (but that's a bit rarer). — flannel jesus

Are you familiar with Molinism? William Lane Craig is a Molinist, insisting that we have LFW despite the fact that each choice could not have differed from what it actually was - because you can't do something contrary to what the omniscient God knew you would do. He nevertheless insists choices are freely willed: God just happens to have magical knowledge of what freely willed choices you will make.

In other "possible worlds" you might have made different choices, but that would be because the circumstances were different. This is nearly identical to compatibilism. The only real difference is that Craig assumes the mind/will operates independently of the deterministic forces of the universe. So although one's past "determines" (loosely speaking) ones choices, the determining is not exclusively due the necessity of laws of nature.

Are you familiar with Molinism? William Lane Craig is a Molinist, insisting that we have LFW despite the fact that each choice could not have differed from what it actually was - because you can't do something contrary to what the omniscient God knew you would do. He nevertheless insists choices are freely willed: God just happens to have magical knowledge of what freely willed choices you will make. — Relativist

Sounds like quite the pretzel he's twisted his brain into.

This is nearly identical to compatibilism. The only real difference is that Craig assumes the mind/will operates independently of the deterministic forces of the universe.

I would just call that identical to determinism. If the system we live in isn't just physical determinism, but physical determinism + soul determinism (or whatever independent realm he thinks the mind exists in), that's just... determinism.

If the system we live in isn't just physical determinism, but physical determinism + soul determinism (or whatever independent realm he thinks the mind exists in), that's just... determinism. — flannel jesus

Pretty much, except that under physical determinism, it is (in principle) possible to predict all future decisions given perfect knowledge of initial conditions and laws of nature (set aside quantum indeterminacy). Not so with soul determinism: God isn't algoritmically figuring out what choices will be made, he just "knows" by magic.

Why the mental gymnastics? : to rationalize various theistic beliefs. IMO, these tortured rationalizations are good reasons to reject the nonsense.