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
We don't have one for thinking with consciousness, and one for thinking without consciousness. — Patterner
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
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
We have a word for thinking. We don't have one for thinking with consciousness, and one for thinking without consciousness. — Patterner
No. Just another example.↪Patterner what does thinking without consciousness have to do with anything? Did someone suggest that in this thread? — flannel jesus
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.It seems to me that to some degree "intuition" is a word we use for speaking about 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.And if you don't mind multiple words being used, Here is some recent casual discussion of thinking without consciousness. — wonderer1
Since determined thinking and thinking without consciousness were not a big part of the collective consciousness — Patterner
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
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
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
So yeah. I live in bliss. :grin:I've never posted this kind of thing before. — Patterner
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
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
if asked about determinism, most people would say they have not heard of it, and would need it explained? — Patterner
If we don't have conscious control of how our intuitions shape our choices, do we have free will? — wonderer1
↪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
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
He doesn't write about compatibilism...but his description of behavior seems perfectly consistent with compatibilism. — Relativist
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.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. — Relativist
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.
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.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
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.