The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Choose Your Own Determinism

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 762
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by Karpel Tunnel » July 24th, 2018, 8:25 am

chewybrian wrote:
July 21st, 2018, 10:22 am
If I am part of the chain, then I am nothing human. You are simply denying free will.
Yes, here I am.
Why bother labeling it something you won't allow it to be?
I am Calling it will, not free will. It is one of many causes and one of many effects.
My decision is not one more link in the chain, but a fork in the road. I may have powerful incentives to make the 'rational' choice, and it is often too obvious to ignore, or I may have developed very strong habits, yet I still have a choice.
And you will make your choice based on your temperment and information you have. Your temperment is caused by your genetic make up and what you have experienced: causes. The information you have is via experience and perception. Again causes. Yes, parts of you will be the causes of your choice, but those parts of you are effects or other causes, internal and external.
Yes, free will is free. People do not possess artificial intelligence, they have the real deal. So, you'll never be able to predict my actions with certainty.
I can't predict how stones will roll down a hill and they are far less complicated than you are. Inability to predict all the causes involved in a phenomenon does not correlate with freedom.
I will not simply weigh the inputs and take the choice that scores highest. I can introspect, contemplate, allow emotion to rule, follow dogma, try something new for the sake of adventure, or just get things wrong.
And y ou will do these things based on the way your genetics interacted with your Environment.
People are ends, not means, and that important distinction falls away without free choice. No choice means no accountability, and the world becomes a police state where only the threat of punishment can deter an immoral action. Your only incentive not to hurt me for your own gain would be the chance you'd be caught and receive a punishment outweighing the gain. Is that the world you think we should be working toward?
Here you are arguing that the consequences of believing in dterminism would be bad. That is not evidence it is not correct.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 387
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by chewybrian » July 25th, 2018, 7:46 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
July 24th, 2018, 8:25 am
Here you are arguing that the consequences of believing in dterminism would be bad. That is not evidence it is not correct.
Karpel, you are correct. But neither does assuming that laws which apply to other things apply to consciousness and free will, when behavior and subjective experience are not consistent with being forced, but rather with being free. It reminds me of a quote from Bertrand Russel:
“The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken.”
We are both only restating opinion. The facts are not in, so we are free to choose either view, or to withhold judgment. Is our free will consistent with our subjective experience, or with our objective interpretation of the rest of the world? We don't know, and evidence points both ways.

The question then is, why do you wish to choose either view? I wish to believe I have free will, and accept the responsibility in exchange for the freedom to determine my own future as far as outside forces allow. Why would you wish to deny this freedom, and yourself in the process? What world would follow from widespread adoption of your position? Is that the direction you wish for us? I can't see how you would rush to judgment, if you saw the results as being as tragic and dangerous as I see them, so, can you then tell us what is positive about this view that we lack control over our own destiny, or responsibility for our choices? Or, can you tell us what is negative about having control?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 762
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by Karpel Tunnel » July 25th, 2018, 8:17 am

chewybrian wrote:
July 25th, 2018, 7:46 am
Karpel, you are correct. But neither does assuming that laws which apply to other things apply to consciousness and free will, when behavior and subjective experience are not consistent with being forced, but rather with being free. It reminds me of a quote from Bertrand Russel:
Subjective experience is not consitent with determinism, but then subjective experience has been shown to be fallible about many things. Behavior however is not inconsistent with either free will or determinism.
“The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken.”
We are both only restating opinion. The facts are not in, so we are free to choose either view, or to withhold judgment.
That's what I generally do. I am agnostic about it. I think the free will people have a problem explaining how free will is neither random nor determined, since all the things they will say affected their decision run on deterministic chains (or, if you want to drag in QM, then there is a random element).
Is our free will consistent with our subjective experience, or with our objective interpretation of the rest of the world? We don't know, and evidence points both ways.
I see no evidence in favor of free will in terms of what happens. We are complicated, hence predicting is tough. But when I see people make decisions, I never see evidence that it actually might have gone some other way.
The question then is, why do you wish to choose either view?
I don't. I tend to argue against determinists becaues they have an epistemological problem - how do they know their reasoning is valid, given that they are determined. But I also argue with the free will people since they seem to be introducing an uncaused cause. It would mean that I make decisions not based on who I am or what has happened to me. I see no comfort in that.
I wish to believe I have free will, and accept the responsibility in exchange for the freedom to determine my own future as far as outside forces allow. Why would you wish to deny this freedom, and yourself in the process?
I cannot possibly deny you that freedom. First note the irony of someone who says they believe in free will implying I could deny you the freedom to believe or be, but then also, I don't see in practical terms how I can control what you think. I also notice that when it relates to even rather simple things, things you can test pretty easily, people are very stubborn, even unmovable by evidence. That I would actually deprive you of a belief in free will is beyond my abilities. That would take a deity.

Now, and perhaps earlier in the thread somewhere I did not read, you are presenting it as a choice you cannot prove. OK. That's a little different than saying Free Will is the case. When people tell me free will is the case, I feel like they are avoiding feelings and confusion I find it 1) unpleasant myself to face and 2) that are important in the sense that I think it is important to allow ourselves to go to certain levels in our feelings and confusion, rather than convincing ourselves we are certain of things, that they make sense. I see that as a general problem in the world, peopel avoiding that level of themselves.

What you are talking about here is a choice to view things a certain way, rather than saying clearly we have free will, the determinists are wrong. Fine.

But I would then wonder what you are doing in a philosophy forum discussing free will, if you see opposition to your arguments as someone trying to deprive you of your freedom (to believe or to be X). What do you think is going to happen in a philosophy forum when you present arguments in favor of something that is contested?

Why not just live from your axiom, as best you can?

What world would follow from widespread adoption of your position? Is that the direction you wish for us? I can't see how you would rush to judgment, if you saw the results as being as tragic and dangerous as I see them, so, can you then tell us what is positive about this view that we lack control over our own destiny, or responsibility for our choices? Or, can you tell us what is negative about having control?
It is not that we lack control, if one believes in determinism, it is just that our control is determined by the past as everything else is. It is more like there is a general flow which we are a part of. And we will make decisions and live our lives. Some people are not bothered by it. Further one is still great at chess, a loving father, a person who commits violence. And other people reacting to us as they will to these different qualities still makes sense. As it happens I am agnostic. I see problems with the free will argument, because once you are free from the past, then we have little reason to put people's choices in contexts. What led up to that choice is of no consequence, since we are free, undetermined. Relgious people and then those with values influenced by them, have often not wanted to look at context. And this has led to all sorts of unpleasant treatment of people.

I tend to argue with determinists more than I do with free willers. And I think my reason is it is a trickier tasks, plus I see the determinists as now tending to get the upper hand.

But advocates of both, in a philosophy forum, should expect arguments, and I often find the that 'it must be the case quale' arises in my discussions with both groups.

I appreciate that in your case you see it more as what you prefer to believe.

User avatar
AresKenux
New Trial Member
Posts: 16
Joined: July 19th, 2018, 1:33 pm

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by AresKenux » July 25th, 2018, 5:24 pm

If you were actually aware of your choices, and the consequences thereof, then free-will can shortly be exhibited. However, if that choice is then followed through in the way imagined, and does not have the desired consequences or effects, then it must've been determined. Life is what you make of it. You can choose to be determined and aware or free and aware, whatever way you want to live, it's ultimately your choice. But because choice is there, no one can excuse themselves. As responsibility and accountability is a necessity to freedom. There are so many dots to the painting of existence, whatever way you want to connect them always ends up at your level of awareness, whether it be by your choice or by being determined. And yes, QM proves free-will as spontaneity, if you're aware that you're aware that you're aware, how else would you describe reaching that point unless you've submitted your volition to spontaneity? And that's the paradox, that choice is in our hands. But it takes subjection to reach objectivity. And likewise objection to reach subjectivity. Who was it that said? "Physics without a paradox is nonexistent?" Or something like that. Anyways, hope you at least try to consider what I am trying to say, as much as I hope you have the capacity to chew thoroughly through a topic before decided whether to spit it out or ingest it.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 387
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by chewybrian » July 26th, 2018, 6:21 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
July 25th, 2018, 8:17 am
I wish to believe I have free will, and accept the responsibility in exchange for the freedom to determine my own future as far as outside forces allow. Why would you wish to deny this freedom, and yourself in the process?
I cannot possibly deny you that freedom.
Of course not, but that was not what I was saying. Perhaps I should have stated it as "why do you wish to deny this freedom to yourself..."

I have no fear of someone preventing me from using my free will. What I fear is that they will convince others that they have no free will, and allow morality and ethics to collapse in the process. There seems to be no basis for doing the right thing, and no right or wrong thing at all under that view. Everyone would do what suits them, without conscience, and only act in the best interest of others or society by threat of deterrence. So, you may end up in a police state full of lawyers.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
July 25th, 2018, 8:17 am
I see problems with the free will argument, because once you are free from the past, then we have little reason to put people's choices in contexts. What led up to that choice is of no consequence, since we are free, undetermined. Relgious people and then those with values influenced by them, have often not wanted to look at context. And this has led to all sorts of unpleasant treatment of people.
You are right that it is unfair to ignore context, and that it often happens that people do. Yet, I don't see that belief in free will naturally leads to this. But, you are dangerously close to the straw man attack on free will. The free will deniers often assume (because it makes their argument easier), that anyone who believes in free will takes it to be unhindered by genetics or experience or habit, which is just silly. I don't deny any of these influences, and I have yet to see anyone else in the forum asserting we are free of them. So, yes, people will unfairly ignore context when it suits them, but don't unfairly ignore reasonable assertions of the nature of free will because it suits you to attack unreasonable assertions.

Of course, people can go off the rails with religion. But, what of having no basis for right and wrong? Obviously, you don't see the dangers I see in a world of people who don't believe they have choice. Wouldn't people lack a conscience, and any basis for pride or shame to motivate them to do good? In a world without free will, say you see an old woman with something you want, and nobody is around; you perceive no chance of being caught. What is to prevent you from knocking her down and stealing her stuff, and justifying it on the basis that 'context' motivated you, thus resolving you of responsibility? Would there be any acts that could be called good or bad, or would we be limited to legal and illegal?

Do you believe. like Rousseau, that we are born with an instinct for pity, which might suffice and stand in place of a moral code? Do you think people would have a moral code if they did not believe in free will? If so, how would they justify it? I don't want to build my own straw man, but I genuinely don't see the basis for doing good without having a free will. Do you see it, or can you explain why it might not matter?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 762
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by Karpel Tunnel » July 26th, 2018, 9:04 am

chewybrian wrote:
July 26th, 2018, 6:21 am
Of course not, but that was not what I was saying. Perhaps I should have stated it as "why do you wish to deny this freedom to yourself..."
I don't know what that would mean. In my case, as you found below, I am agnostic. But even a determinist will still get up, mull over options and choose one in each case. It is just that when he or she waxes philosophical they will think that their choice was determined by their temperment, past experiences, information, mood at that moment. It went the way it was going to go. But in terms of living, it doesn't change how much freedom they have.
I have no fear of someone preventing me from using my free will. What I fear is that they will convince others that they have no free will, and allow morality and ethics to collapse in the process. There seems to be no basis for doing the right thing, and no right or wrong thing at all under that view. Everyone would do what suits them, without conscience, and only act in the best interest of others or society by threat of deterrence. So, you may end up in a police state full of lawyers.


Let's take the pedophile. Other people are still going to want the pedophile punished so he knows he cannot do what he did again or should not do it since he knows the laws are in place. There is a shift from responsibility to knowing that entities who act in certain ways are going to be treated in certain ways. There will still be all sorts of reasons not to be an asshole. And people who believe in free will also do horrible things. I mean, most people believe in free will and look at the crimes they've committed. I am sure Hitler and Stalin both believed in free will.
You are right that it is unfair to ignore context, and that it often happens that people do. Yet, I don't see that belief in free will naturally leads to this. But, you are dangerously close to the straw man attack on free will. The free will deniers often assume (because it makes their argument easier), that anyone who believes in free will takes it to be unhindered by genetics or experience or habit, which is just silly. I don't deny any of these influences, and I have yet to see anyone else in the forum asserting we are free of them. So, yes, people will unfairly ignore context when it suits them, but don't unfairly ignore reasonable assertions of the nature of free will because it suits you to attack unreasonable assertions.
I don't think it is binary, but I think there is a tendency. You refer to influences, which would be internal and external. Any model of free will will consider those influences to be less of an influence than a determinist will. So I think there will be more of a tendency to see an individual as 'should have not been influenced as much by his or her illness/temperment/past experiences' than a determinist. There is a wedge of freedom in there to some degree that is not present with determinists. This does not mean determinists must absolve everyone of consequences, as I mentioned above. They can still desire to have it known that people who do X will be punished and people who do Y will have Z restrictions.
Of course, people can go off the rails with religion. But, what of having no basis for right and wrong? Obviously, you don't see the dangers I see in a world of people who don't believe they have choice. Wouldn't people lack a conscience, and any basis for pride or shame to motivate them to do good?
There is absolutely no reason not to feel proud of what one does. I am that person who cares, does this or that, etc. Empathy is another motivation and a better one than shame. I mean, if you don't hit people because you would feel shame, your not much of a good person. But if you recognize that others a living entities like yourself, which social mammals and other animals can also do, and you don't want to just hit them, this is approaching something that is like a good person. The other is just a bad person with an internal jailer.


I personally do not believe in objective morals. However I do not find I have no conscience. I can regret hurting people. I would prefer not to in t he future - unless of course it was to protect myself or others. It's odd but I find people who believe in morals, tend to believe that guilt and shame are the only motivations for what they consider good behavior. That is just not my experience. and people will strong morals can be lovely to be around or monsters. History is littered with highly moral people who have no empathy and are extremely destructive.

I am not saying that morals must lead to this, but rather saying that it is not clear to me that lacking morals leads to more problems. I also think it is horrible how much people think we must all be constrained by guilt and shame.

In a world without free will, say you see an old woman with something you want, and nobody is around; you perceive no chance of being caught. What is to prevent you from knocking her down and stealing her stuff, and justifying it on the basis that 'context' motivated you, thus resolving you of responsibility?
Empathy.
Would there be any acts that could be called good or bad, or would we be limited to legal and illegal?
There would be community norms based on preferences. Which, frankly, is what I see present already, but couched in objective moral terms.
Do you believe. like Rousseau, that we are born with an instinct for pity, which might suffice and stand in place of a moral code?
Oh, I know we are. Not all of us, but most of us. Just as other social mammals are. Some of them will even rescue animals of other species, including us, sometimes at great risk to themselves.
Do you think people would have a moral code if they did not believe in free will? If so, how would they justify it? I don't want to build my own straw man, but I genuinely don't see the basis for doing good without having a free will. Do you see it, or can you explain why it might not matter?
I should let someone who is a determinist answer this. as an agnostic who black boxes the whole determinism/free will thing and as someone who does not believe in objective morals, I don't really need or have a solution to that issue. I don't see morals as helping, in the long run. I see them as begging the question, at best, and at worst teaching us to hate ourselves to be good.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 387
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by chewybrian » July 26th, 2018, 10:32 am

Karpel, you do an excellent job of explaining the determinist position in place of those who might profess to believe it. The 'believers' don't ever seem to go very far in defending it, but rather take the easy road of denying free will by clinging to cause and effect to explain everything. If all they have is a hammer of cause and effect, then every notion of free will looks like a nail, I guess. I can't say I agree with your arguments to any great extent, but you express the position and the rational (yet still possibly incorrect) nature of it well.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
July 26th, 2018, 9:04 am
There is absolutely no reason not to feel proud of what one does. I am that person who cares, does this or that, etc. Empathy is another motivation and a better one than shame. I mean, if you don't hit people because you would feel shame, your not much of a good person. But if you recognize that others a living entities like yourself, which social mammals and other animals can also do, and you don't want to just hit them, this is approaching something that is like a good person. The other is just a bad person with an internal jailer.
I do understand and agree that people do have some instinct to feel pity or empathy, and might, in theory, do the right thing on that basis, even if they did not or could not act by their own choice. In my view, the instinct would simply be an influence, encouraging them to do the right thing, though they could also choose to be selfish and ignore that instinct. Also, I should be clear that I don't see pride or shame as primary motivators for people who do think they have free will. When I think I am good, I believe it is because I made a conscious decision to try to be a better person. I only tried to frame things in terms of what might be missing if free will did not exist.

It's a hard line of thought to put into words, and amounts to asking: "How do you try to do the right thing if you don't think you can do the right thing?" After all, there is nothing right or wrong about taking a choice you could not avoid. It's not right or wrong to allow your heart to beat. It's just happening, and it's better than the alternative, but you don't control it, so there is no morality involved. It's good, but not your good.

I see how you might feel pride in your good deed, as you take no stance on free will. But, I wonder how someone could feel pride if they bought the deluxe package of determinism. If I could not avoid taking the action I was born and conditioned to take, then I have no basis for taking pride in any accomplishment that circumstances might have determined me to take, nor any need to regret any terrible act circumstances might have decided for me to commit (beyond perhaps that instinct of pity).

As you feel proud of something you have done, I think you must necessarily be dipping your toe in the pool of free will. There is no rational basis for feeling good about what you did, unless you were certain that you could have done otherwise (without the determining circumstances or 'context' being different). To take pride is to implicitly acknowledge your free will in choosing to do the right thing.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
Garycgibson
Posts: 33
Joined: May 6th, 2012, 4:39 pm

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by Garycgibson » March 2nd, 2019, 10:01 am

A theoria of determinism may be constructed with several criteria from which to choose for whatever purpose is apropos for the goal in making the selection. The OP might be illuminated with the analogy of a quantum field of all possible world-lines wherewith an intelligent particle-wave (e.g. a sentient monad or one-dimensional point) could choose its own waveform collapse location, in the Universe, with quantum decoherence ossifying it down into being and becominga solid state amongst-others.

I guess another paradigm would be that of a philosopher getting off of a boat in Le Havre France who has a choice before debarking, a priori, of what and where he chooses to go. His will is pre-determined, perhaps to walk to the library and see the books that Sartre's self-educated man might have gone over to choose what to read first and last.

The philosopher might wonder about the determinism of the Universe or Universes with metaphysical, speculative thought. He might inquiry with mind-dialectics and induction levering synthetic progress with a posteriori cosmological data about his own phenomenal incarnation as being in-the-Universe if he could have free will or even sentience if all of the Universe is physically pre-determined. He might wonder if he could not have sentience as a 20th order branch location of a large tree of life, perhaps as a sentient leaf growing contempletively old.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 798
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by The Beast » March 3rd, 2019, 3:53 pm

I’m the master of my own words. I conjure them to appear. My words are esoteric to make sense of the energy conjuring them. In this form is not a paradox to use the contemplative as a finality or a start. The exoteric contemplative imagined by the esoteric. Ready or not… turtle or hare.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by Burning ghost » March 4th, 2019, 6:00 am

There is a more simplistic way of looking at this.

Let us take the base premises:

1- Humans have agency (p)
2- Humans don’t have agency (q)

Note: “agency” in somplistic terms regarding actually meaningful alternative choices made by said “human agent.”

It should be clear enough that the statements leave us with p OR q.

Next ...

3- If q then NOT p.
4- If p then NOT q.

This is all fairly obvious and straight forward I hope!

The question is then a matter of looking at the What ifs?

Let is think of humans who go with statement p and humans that go with statement q. Both cannot be correct as we have set out the argument as either or.

Let us now view the possible outcomes of each of these positions with a new set of statements (A):

1- Humans say they DO have agency when they DO NOT ( humans say agency and there is NO agency)
2- Humans say they DO NOT have agency when they DO NOT (humans say NO agency and there is NO agency)
3- Humans say they DO have agency when they DO (humans say agency and there is agency)
4- Humans say they DO NOT have agency when they DO (humans say NO agency and there is agency)

Why is this worth bringing up you might ask, it’s obvious! Yes, it is.

The point is that for (1) and (2) above there is no agency so the perceived choice is illusionary because it’s preset and unchangeable. In neither situation does the human alter the ourcome.

Now look at (3) and (4). Here there is a difference in outcome where there wasn’t for the first 2 situations. (3) holds to the same as (1) with the difference being they are actually an agent and acting like an agent, whereas with (2) and (4) the situations are quite different again yet the consequences are too. In the situations of (1) and (2) what the human says has no bearing whilst in situation (3) and (4) what the human says has a bearing on the outcome, with (3) correct with consequences and (4) incorrect with consequencies. It should be clear enough to see that the consequences for (1) and (2) are empty as there are no consequences on the part of the human agent (there being NO agency) only a set chain of events. Whilst for (3) and (4) the chain of future events is determined by the actions of the human agent.

Of course this is not a proof of human agency or choice. It is merely a look at the possible situations given by the alternative premises and a measure of them against each other to determine which makes logical sense and which doesn’t. The reality of the situation is not being questioned here because I’m not an omnipotent being able to make such claims about the machinations of the universe.

The Possible Counter Argument ...

Someone may say, as they have already, that this is the same as arguing for the belief in god on the off chance that god may exist. Let us look how much weight there this is to this and look a set of statements (B):

1- Humans say they DO have “god” when they DO NOT ( humans say “god” and there is NO “god”)
2- Humans say they DO NOT have “god” when they DO NOT (humans say NO “god” and there is NO “god”)
3- Humans say they DO have “god” when they DO (humans say “god” and there is “god”)
4- Humans say they DO NOT have “god” when they DO (humans say NO “god” and there is “god”)

This is quite a different set of premises becasue unlike the first set there is a meaningful difference of outcome between (1) and (2) assuming the agency of the humans in question because (1) is incorrect and (2) is correct. For (3) and (4) there is also a meaningful difference of outcome with one being correct and the other being incorrect.

The point is the possible consequence fo each. To argue that the statements (A) are the same as statements (B) is clearly incorrect. If they are the same then the only arguement that holds up would be to frame the humans who say they have a “god” as inconsequential and therefore to argue against something being correct when it is inconsequential is rather backwards to say the least.

In statements (A) the issue of agency is in plain sight, in statements (B) they can be conveniently ignored. Of they are not ignored then we are presented with statement set (A) because none of the statements et (B) have any significance to the question of human agency as posed in statements (A).

In fact we could well frame te question in a completely different manner and make the statement set (C) as follows:

1- God exists
2- God gave us free will.
3- God didn’t give us free will.
4- Humans say God gave us free will.
5- Humans say God didn’t give us free will.

Obviously (2) OR (3), and obviously (4) OR (5). Of course (1) is not really under scrutiny here and it doesn’t need to be. I also wouldn’t us the term “free will” and I didn’t originally because it’s a loaded term. The only opening possible is to question the term “agency,” but if the term is not accepted then one cannot address the argument in the first place due to being of the dogmatic persuasion of statement “humans DO NOT have agency” - which by-the-way I neither hold to nor against accept under certain well defined logical statements. By statements in set (A) I see no justification for holding to the fact that we DO NOT have agency which leads to another set of interesting questions where the alternative leads nowhere fast (it’s irrelevant by definition as a premise from which to actively function - correct or otherwise). As compared to “God,” and the possibility of existence of such a being, I’m not about to start believing in such a being and even if such a being existed I’d have a great deal to say to it and wouldn’t blindly follow some apparent “entity” - the existence of sch a thing would intrigue me no end, yet I’d be suspicious, and full of pity for, such a being. I cannot imagine it’s a picnic being responsible for all lf creation, nor can I imagine such a “being” which then also begs the question of what it is people are actually talking about when they refer to “god” if they’re unable to explain or understand what it is they’re talkign about. I know what I mea when I refer to “God” as some actual meaningful concept; it is that which coats the phenomenal horizon of our understanding, that which some wish for and other fear, the unknown and the courage that on occasion drives us out of our comfort zones into possible death and destruction.

If there is some “being” beyond my comprehension then anything I have to say about it is make believe, or at best a highly dubious and deeply skeptical guess based on my own personal sense of what I mean by “beyond” and “comprehension”.

Of course there is plenty of other counter arguments to this but they all step outside the bounds of the statements I set out.

There is immeasureable complexity to the universe. Our limited perspective and capacity to understand the universe tells us that much may appear undetermined and unpredictable yet be a consequence of a set and unmovable rules we’re almost completely disassociated from. I no more pretend to understand my existence than I do dismiss it as insignificant given that “significance” means I am necessarily “significant” in some finite/infite way as little or large as it may or may not be ... this doesn’t make me side with nihilism and choose to live a meaningless life simply because I’m ignorant of so, so, so much.

Enjoy :D
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 798
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Choose Your Own Determinism

Post by The Beast » March 4th, 2019, 3:18 pm

A more modern approach.
There are considerations of subjective and objective nature. As such, the logical is a spectrum resulting in a range and not a binary proposition. The narrative is of agency and I like to color it. At one end a blue and at the other red. In the esoteric discourse there is the amplitude of meaning marching on to the total misunderstanding. This variable within the spectrum of agency might deny its existence.
If there is a parrot reciting agency taught by a master: would the parrot, make any denial of agency by providing the personal view of the words or in ultimate instance a subjective experiential content other than enjoying a reward? The human spectrum is “obviously” a larger one including the objective hereditary content and the amplitude of meaning. In like minds it might be the same color: A color or the color of the feathers. The exoteric?... perhaps (in your case) It is a brave world to ponder the limits of the mind. In instances of objectivity we might share the same color feather.

Post Reply