I think we just have a difference in vocabulary, because my beliefs are really similar to yours, but I just call it compatibilism. — flannel jesus
(From another thread.). I had never heard the term compatibilism before coming to this site, and can't say that I have much of a handle on it. You say these things;↪T Clark I'm a compatibilist, — flannel jesus
The reasoning in the linked article is why I believe libertarian free will doesn't make sense — flannel jesus
I'm actually inclined to think it's basically tautologically true that, for any given evolution of a closed system from one state into another state, either that evolution is deterministic or it involves some randomness. — flannel jesus
It doesn't sounds like you think there is free will, which, from what I'm reading, is a part of compatibilism.Is it random?
— Patterner
In my view, yeah, that's really the alternative to determinism. If we have a system evolving over time, it seems to me that any given change in that evolution must either be determined or be at least in part random. — flannel jesus
Bob1 gets a book, Bob2 goes to the kitchen, in the linked article.Btw, in the thought experiment, just how exactly do Bob1 and Bob2 act differently?
Or is it that you think there is free will, but not libertarian free will? — Patterner
If you set the world back to just before the decision point, all the factors that led to the decision would still be present - even mental factors that may operate independently of the deterministic universe. I don't see how a different decission could ensue- unless it's due to some randomness. Randomness doesn't seem a reasonable basis for libertarian free will.In short, if you maintain that if you were to set the entire world state back to what it was before a decision (including every aspect of your mental being, your will, your agency), and then something different might happen... well, maybe something different might happen, but you can't attribute that difference to your will. — flannel jesus
How do you have that in a deterministic world? — tim wood
In the Book vs. Water scenario, which action is a thing you want and are free to do, and which is the result of the machinery? I don't suspect you mean book is one and water is the other. Perhaps you are free to choose to get a book, but the machinery decides which book you will pick? Or the other way around?↪Patterner I am a decision making machine. I'm free, perhaps in a trivial way, to do (or try to do) the things I want to. The things I, as a decision making machine, decide to. — flannel jesus
Yes, I've started that. Thank you.You should definitely read the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy article on compatibilism. No doubt my concept of compatibilism is not universal among compatibilists. — flannel jesus
In the Book vs. Water scenario, which action is a thing you want and are free to do, and which is the result of the machinery? — Patterner
https://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=47
This has been my issue with libertarian free will for maybe decades. I've worded it in various ways myself, but I think this guy puts it pretty well.
In short, if you maintain that if you were to set the entire world state back to what it was before a decision (including every aspect of your mental being, your will, your agency), and then something different might happen... well, maybe something different might happen, but you can't attribute that difference to your will. — flannel jesus
For example, he conflates libertarianism with incompatibilis — SophistiCat
He does? I missed this. I don't think he said incompatibilism at all in his article. Libertarianism is a subcategory of incompatibilism, and that's what he's talking about. — flannel jesus
In particular, libertarianism is an incompatibilist position[2][3] which argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe. Libertarianism states that since agents have free will, determinism must be false.
Why do you think libertarianism isn't a subcategory of incompatibilism? — 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.