Well, not continental, but still highly readable was Peter Lamarque's "Philosophy of Literature." I just finished it, and it's a fantastic survey of important and interesting ideas regarding literature (and in many ways thus art). Particularly interesting were the chapters on Intentionality, Truth, and Value.

If you can bias the odds, you're controlling them, and as we make a decision, we'd push the bias to 100% (at the point of decision). — Terrapin Station

If you are biasing them, isn't that a cause?

So the idea is that there might be some way to bias probabilities willfully (where we don't know the exact mechanism for this yet), and that could happen dynamically, too. This biasing would be control over the decision. — Terrapin Station

Well, anything is (strictly speaking) possible, I suppose. My response to that would be the same as my response to madfool, in that until it is more thoroughly proven it remains, to me, just a fun hypothetical.

However, even if I entertain the hypothetical for a moment, I'm not sure how it answers my concern that being uncaused, this conception of "freewill" is actually not under our control, and as such may be "free" but has nothing to do with "will." It seems that it would lead to the idea that, whether the odds are 50/50 or 99/1, there is an uncontrollable "force" (I can't come up with a better word. Maybe you have suggestions?) that is directing my actions apart from what I may actually want or think is wise.

Astronomy (the science) evolved from astrology (the superstition). Flying machines were once mythical. I guess I'm saying the alternative to determinism, the uncaused, needn't be mystical/magical. — TheMadFool

I concede that it is entirely possible that there is something we do not currently understand that seems mystical now but could be considered scientific fact someday. However, with the multitude of things that would fall into that category, I hope you'll understand that until that day, I will continue to think of them as mystical.

Why are you not addressing the biasing idea? — Terrapin Station

Because I'm not sure I follow what you even mean by it, how you think it would work, or that it's relevant. But if you elucidate more clearly what it is, I will do my best to address it.

You probably can do that too but, of course, you won't. — TheMadFool

Aw, thanks, I take that as a compliment! :blush:



So, I think probabilistic predictions aren't necessarily indicative of choice.

Take randomness: yes, you may have a 50/50 chance of choosing A or B, but "you" don't choose either of them. The choice just happens irrespective of reason, experience, etc. Randomness wouldn't be under your control in the least. The moment there is any part of "you" choosing something, that becomes involving a predetermined entity. And if you posit some "uncaused" essence of yourself...well, I think that would be invoking some theological/mystical/magical concepts that I personally am not willing to concede.

In determinism, yes, you will choose, say, A with a 100% certainty. But you still chose A. You used reason and experience to inform your choice, and because those are created by a determined universe, you always were going to choose A, but you nevertheless were the agent making the choice.

Am I making sense? — TheMadFool

No. But that's the consequence of trying to do away with reason, which I guess is your choice.

As far as I can tell, the definition of "random" is "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern." So, an uncaused freewill would fall right in that category.

I'm afraid I cannot come up with a way to think about an entirely uncaused freewill that doesn't fit the definition of random. This is why I think it's necessary to rethink what we mean by the term "freewill."

But we (should) hold our convictions loosely, with cautious introspection, knowing how our beliefs and opinions have changed, and leaving room for further enlightenment.. — usfan

I'm curious, how do you square that sentiment with your avatar's slogan "live free or DIE"?

If they are not to your liking, pay them no heed. — Shamshir

Done.

Look, you're clearly into this whole mantra-like, cliche-riddled mystical jargon, but I'm not and I don't see us having a fruitful conversation since I prefer my interlocutors a little more invested in reason and sense-making.

But I do wish all of the you's all the best on your spiritual energy life journey voyage thing.

My advice to you would be: Look it over some more, mull it over some more and then go with what comes - whatever it may be. — Shamshir

Why is it that all y'all mystical, relativist types want to dispense (unrequested) advice to others? It's like you all have this drive to be the "sage" and have the rest of us sit come sit at your knees as your lowly disciples. It's hilarious really how serious you take yourself, despite that it contradicts what you proclaim your worldview to be.

n layman's terms: It doesn't have to be good, so it isn't. It can be good, so it is. — Shamshir

You've stopping making sense here.

Technically, every desire bringing about discontentment with the self, sets one on the path to not be oneself.
Obviously, even during this process, you're you; of a sort. — Shamshir

Now you're starting with the voodoo buddhist lingo, which relies on confused terminology.

You are ALWAYS yourself, because you cannot be anything but yourself. The cliche about "I'm not myself today" for example is not actually saying you're someone other than yourself, but that you're not acting like you usually do, or according to your ideal self. You cannot choose to be anyone but yourself. You can choose to change, but then the moment you do, that change is part of who you are.

And when we're talking about freewill, an unconscious "choice" is definitely not a "freewill" choice, because it was entirely out of your control.

Although we only have a concept of "roundness" due to the existence of not-round things, in itself the curve of the surface is a quality of the object.

Wouldn't choice simply be 'one instead of the other'?
Well, you are what you are, instead of what you aren't.
That's a choice.

You don't have to be aware of what you could be and what you aren't, to be what you are.
You just are - it's a choice without intent — Shamshir

Well, wasn't it Aristotle who observed that "everything is what it is and not some other thing"? Which is true, but it's a description of the basic law of non-contradiction, and not a choice. I cannot choose to be not me any more than a rock can choose to be a deer.

Wouldn't they still be your choices - albeit unrecognized and unforced?
Choices that don't know or care about options — Shamshir

No, I don't believe they would be. Especially if you're not aware of options. Choice implies both having options and making a judgment call between them.

Applying the aforementioned, I deem that the object itself is not representative of a quality, but rather has qualities applied to it; the way you lather something with paint.
A thing is not good, bad, strong, weak, crooked, straight - but viewed as these; and what these are, are just lenses through which one sees. — Shamshir

You're jumbling up different kinds of qualities, though.
There are descriptive qualities like round, 5 feet tall, 7 pounds heavy, etc. that are inherent to the object, and I may or may not be able to perceive this quality about the object, but it is nevertheless a quality of the object.

Then there are more evaluative qualities like good, bad, nice, mean etc that are a judgment call according to the perceivers values and perspective.

Things like green, strong, hot, etc. are somewhat of a mix between the two. For example, a glass of water has a specific temperature, say 95 degrees, but deciding whether it is hot, cold, or lukewarm is relative to the circumstances of the perceiver. If I just had my hand in icewater, 95 degrees will feel very warm.

I guess I'm saying that to be truly free we must be able to overcome any and all influences including emotions and reason. — TheMadFool

And then on what basis are you deciding things? If you make choices absent any good reasoning, or just absent any cause, are they really choices? Wouldn't that make them random?

It just seems to me that being subject to random firings of the brain that can't be controlled or directed by reason or experience is tantamount to being a ragdoll in a hurricane or tornado where you'll be tossed to and fro who knows where or why. I imagine that would be what it feels like to be insane.

To me, freedom means being able to make informed choices and being in control of myself and what happens to me. Yes, determinism tells us that we are not uncaused, uninfluenced agents, because we are always acting in accordance to the sum of our experiences and genetic make-up. However, it also tells us that the more aware we are of these influences, the more we can employ reason, the more we are able to comprehend the complex nature of our choices, the more in control of them we are.

How is this possible? The antithesis of freewill is determinism. Determinism is defined in terms of causality. Freewill, if present, must be acausal. — TheMadFool

There are two things at stake here:
1. The theoretical concept of a "free will" that denotes uncaused choices and actions.
2. The concept of "free will" that most people actually mean when they use the term.

Think about 1. for a second. If your actions are totally uncaused, they must also be uncaused by emotions, reason, past experiences, and anything else. What would that mean for your actions? Would they still be your "choice" if reason and experience weren't factors? I don't see how. They would be random (mis?)firings of the brain.

As for 2, most people aren't worried about "free will" being informed by reason, emotions, and experience. They just insist that they have "free will" in the sense that they do not know themselves to be externally coerced, and that they are able to make decisions based on a combination of their own personal reasoning, emotions, and experiences.

Determinism allows for #2, but obviously contradicts #1.

Anyway, let me stop trying to convince anyone to read things. — whollyrolling

You're forgetting one part: I have read it. And based on that, I scoff.

What makes it a "rabbit hole", please explain that term for me. — whollyrolling

Cause you follow it into a magical land where everything is confused and unreal.

Nietzsche is one of the most influential voices in human history. — whollyrolling

Definitely overstating the case here. He is AN influential voice, but not one of the MOST. Besides which, level of influence does not necessarily equal thoughtfulness, coherence, depth, or truth. The Bible is the most influential text of the western hemisphere, maybe the world, and that's just gobbledygook.

. He lectures at the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies International Symposiums. Entry fee is $350.00 — Daniel Cox

I knew it! This has all just been one long info-mercial.

"Quick! Act now and you'll get not 1, not 2, but 3 hours of mystical wannabe science for the price of one!"

I didn't know the two were mutually exclusive. Ah, shoot, now I have to decide between my books and my weights? Argh, it's like Sophie's Choice! If only there was a way to live a healthy and fit life and be intellectual at the same time! Damn it all! Damn it all to hell!

When I find myself having to make use of secondary literature in order to understand a philosopher's work, sometimes it can mean that writer's ideas are 'no good', but it usually means(for instance in the case of Spinoza, Leibnitz and Kant), that their approach is highly complex and subtle, and their writing style idosyncratic. — Joshs

I think the odds are the other way around, actually. It's more likely that an opaque piece is garbage than that it is useful.

The difference between Kant and Nietzsche is that Kant is dense and complex, but for the most part sensible/logical (except the noumena business, which is just religiosity slipping in), while Nietzsche remains contradictory even after explication.

efficacy of theories of autism, schizophrenia, development of empathy and affectivity — Joshs

That does actually sound interesting.

Antonio Damasio incorporate his ideas into their work. But perhaps there's not much I could say to convince you that Damsio's award winning research is much good at all. — Joshs

I'm not aware of his work, and so cannot comment on how he employs Nietzche. I will say that if it's similar to how most non-philosophers tend to use these types of theories, I think I would spot not just a few errors in his writing. It doesn't look like any of his awards are actually in philosophy.

even though Twinkies are a kind of perverted vegan food-like substance — Bitter Crank

Twinkies contain beef fat!

Personally, I prefer NutterButters and GS Thin Mints to satisfy my vegan munchies :wink:

You may be stuck in a 67 year old body, but you sure sound about 13 or 15 at heart. :joke:

Ok, no more food fight. You win ok. If you keep coming at me I'll solve that with the new ignore feature. Your call. — Jake

Go ahead and ignore me then if you can't keep your cool. To quote some actual young'uns: "you started it!"

I'm irritated at myself (not at you) for yet again getting sucked in to trying to talk reason with atheist Jehovah's Witnesses who are probably just barely old enough to vote. You know, I'm looking my old self who should surely know better by now in the mirror and asking, "Dude, why don't I get a life you moron???" Sorry to report, aging doesn't solve everything. — Jake

I just think it's too funny that you think you can deduce my age from the fact that I simply do not agree with you. I mean, that's just the epitome of religious dogma right there.

If you don't expect that you, or anyone, will learn as they proceed through life then your claim that age is irrelevant is reasonable.

If you do expect to learn as you proceed through life, then your claim that age is irrelevant is nonsense. — Jake

I didn't say I wouldn't learn. I AM saying that just because I will learn (and so will you, because, let's face it, 67 is the new 50, if you care enough to take care of your body and mind), it does not follow that I will ever agree with you. Proof of that are all the octogenarians who precisely do not believe what you do, and never have, and never will.

Additionally, age is immaterial, because either an argument is good or bad in and of itself. Claiming that my or your personal circumstances somehow affect the truth of an argument is just a blatant ad hominem.

In other words, you have no expectation of learning anything as you proceed through life — Jake

Your inability to use logic is showing here.

Ok, so let me ask you this young man. Do you plan learning anything as you proceed through life? Or is it your expectation that your level of insight and understanding will always remain the same?

Do you perhaps see how effortlessly I am slamming your snotty comments back down your throat? That's not because I'm smarter than you, which is probably not true. It's only because I've been playing this game since before you were born, maybe since before your parents were born.

Perhaps we can talk again some time when you've had a chance to calm down and let go of some of this teenager atheist ideologue snottiness. Sadly, becoming 67 does not automatically liberate one from impatience with noisy children. :smile: — Jake

I actually don't think it's my supposed "snottiness" that's getting to you. I think you just have nothing to counter and you're irritated that you can't make a good, strong case for your mysticism. You're lashing out at me with the only thing you think (because, note, you have no idea how old I actually am) you have on me.

Well, I'm not much interested in arguing with someone who can get to be 67 years old and still be so childish. Grow up.

Now you just went from illogical to beyond ridiculous.

Yes, it's religious dogma if I have to do some voodoo carp like meditation to ascertain some illogical, mystical truths/untruths/halftruths/beyond truths. You're right, it's not for me. I really do think it's baloney and a total waste of the precious hours we have on this planet.

Your age-difference justification is just... Reaching? Ageist? Totally bonkers? A sad attempt to save face? There are 10 year old monks who meditate and believe the same dogma you do, and 90 year old philosophers who on their deathbeds still hold my view. My age is immaterial to the discussion, as is yours. But, if you put a little more effort into logic and coherence, you would know that.

Sorry, but your assertions seem to amount to little more than faith. You keep waving at some unknown unknowable realm that can't be seen or heard or reasoned that I'm just supposed to believe in. I'm just supposed to blindly trust some illogical, insane, mystical force that could serve as a way to explore these fantastical worlds that somehow elude us otherwise.

That's the real "religious dogma" here.

For me, the funny part is that you're so quick and happy to accept my worldview as "just an opinion" but you're so insistent on having some grand, sage-like insight into the world, while at the same time contending it to be incomprehensible.

But all y'all postmodernists are alike.

We should happily use logic where it has been proven useful, and proceed with caution where no such proof is available. — Jake

Yup, I agree. Except, there is no realm where not using logic is useful.

My universal maxim reflects the facts better than yours. — Jake

:rofl: :lol: :snicker:

As personal choice I have no complaint. I'm objecting only to any effort to turn a personal choice in to a universal maxim. — Jake

And you're not trying to turn your worldview into a universal maxim? You certainly sound like you're making universal claims about reality and human nature and the role of logic.

No, it's not THE tool. It's a tool. A useful tool without question. You seem to be assuming that making sense is the only valid operation. So you should watch this excellent (very entertaining!) video called. — Jake

You can go down that rabbit hole if you choose to. I have no interest in it. That which is nonsensible is simply not of interest to me. But don't say I didn't warn you if you get lost or stuck or just plain bored on your fantastical spelunking adventure.

Logic is just a tool, not a god. — Jake

Yeah, but it's THE tool. You literally can't make sense without it.

Ah, but we can explore the ways in which we are ignorant, insane and otherwise limited, and we can talk about that. — Jake

In that vein, we can only speak of those things, of which we are knowledgeable enough to recognize our ignorance, and only to that extent.

As for the insane bit: if we allow for insanity, it's all just a jumbled mess and there's no point to any of it.