Procirclism, Determinism, and moral values

Use this forum to discuss the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Free Will, Do You Have It? by Albertus Kral
stevie
Posts: 705
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Procirclism, Determinism, and moral values

Post by stevie »

Sushan wrote: February 18th, 2022, 10:34 pm
stevie wrote: February 18th, 2022, 3:38 am
Sushan wrote: February 17th, 2022, 10:40 pm
stevie wrote: February 15th, 2022, 5:42 am

I cannot follow your differentiations "logical inputs" and "emotional and rational thinking".
The author may be telling us many things, however has he ever considered whether he has thought about and concluded based on his relatively free will or whether he had no choice but to tell us like a remotely-controlled machine without relatively free will?
With the developement of the brain we have actually achieved a degree of free will that cannot be found in animals. E.g. based on relatively free will humans can decide to suppress instincts animals cannot suppress.
Maybe you are correct about the author. He may just have wrote what his brain told him to write depending solely on its prior processes, but not considering any of the author's own thoughts. He may just have been a puppet of his own brain, and he may not had any free will at all. That all thought makes me doubt the validity of all of his concepts, and even my ones too. Is it possible that all of us are mere prisoners of our brain processes, without any sort of free will? Can what we experience as relatively free will be an illusion?
From my perspective it's quite simple: the concept of 'free will', absulutely free or relatively free, is necessarily connected with the concept of personal 'self'. If one rejects the reality of personal self then one won't be able to talk about 'free will' at all because then there can't be an owner of any kind of will and thus the differentiation 'free vs non-free' doesn't make sense. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' then one will necessarily have to come to the conclusion that there is free will when observing one's own decision making in the context of its degrees of freedom. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' but still asserts that there is no free will then one is ignorantly abiding in the 'realm of mere abstract thought' without taking notice of one's own degrees of freedom when it comes to one's own decisions.
I think it goes far more deep when we think about the existence of 'self'. People accept and deny various things as per their beliefs, knowledge, experience, etc. But that does not alter the objective truth, but only affects the subjective perspectives. There can be flaws in individual thought processes, and that is why all three groups of people that you mentioned exist. But what is the reality? Is there a thing called 'self'?
Well, you won't be able to delineate where 'objective truth' begins and where 'beliefs' end. All you can do is to express your belief about it. Therefore your referrence to an alleged "objective truth" does neither add nor remove clarity and/or confusion.
There are arguments in favour of a self and there are arguments against a self. I don't deny the appearance of self every now and then in my mental continuum but I am not speculating about whether this appearance 'is' or 'corresponds with' truth or not.
Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
Rende
Posts: 49
Joined: January 29th, 2022, 3:56 pm

Re: Procirclism, Determinism, and moral values

Post by Rende »

I think my belief is that to describe the world you can ask yourself if 0 is 0 and 1 is 1. Then if 0 changes to 1 what is in between 0 and 1. Expanding possibilities maybe. It's not so clear but for me it's related to something i was thinking. That's why i got this idea.
The answer to a problem usually lies in the solution. The world is bigger than us. Life always finds a path.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1143
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Procirclism, Determinism, and moral values

Post by Sushan »

stevie wrote: February 20th, 2022, 5:11 am
Sushan wrote: February 18th, 2022, 10:34 pm
stevie wrote: February 18th, 2022, 3:38 am
Sushan wrote: February 17th, 2022, 10:40 pm

Maybe you are correct about the author. He may just have wrote what his brain told him to write depending solely on its prior processes, but not considering any of the author's own thoughts. He may just have been a puppet of his own brain, and he may not had any free will at all. That all thought makes me doubt the validity of all of his concepts, and even my ones too. Is it possible that all of us are mere prisoners of our brain processes, without any sort of free will? Can what we experience as relatively free will be an illusion?
From my perspective it's quite simple: the concept of 'free will', absulutely free or relatively free, is necessarily connected with the concept of personal 'self'. If one rejects the reality of personal self then one won't be able to talk about 'free will' at all because then there can't be an owner of any kind of will and thus the differentiation 'free vs non-free' doesn't make sense. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' then one will necessarily have to come to the conclusion that there is free will when observing one's own decision making in the context of its degrees of freedom. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' but still asserts that there is no free will then one is ignorantly abiding in the 'realm of mere abstract thought' without taking notice of one's own degrees of freedom when it comes to one's own decisions.
I think it goes far more deep when we think about the existence of 'self'. People accept and deny various things as per their beliefs, knowledge, experience, etc. But that does not alter the objective truth, but only affects the subjective perspectives. There can be flaws in individual thought processes, and that is why all three groups of people that you mentioned exist. But what is the reality? Is there a thing called 'self'?
Well, you won't be able to delineate where 'objective truth' begins and where 'beliefs' end. All you can do is to express your belief about it. Therefore your referrence to an alleged "objective truth" does neither add nor remove clarity and/or confusion.
There are arguments in favour of a self and there are arguments against a self. I don't deny the appearance of self every now and then in my mental continuum but I am not speculating about whether this appearance 'is' or 'corresponds with' truth or not.
Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will.
Conventional ways are accepted for so long, and many things are developed on them. But that does not mean conventional scopes are the only extents that our thoughts or truth can be extended to. It all depends on what we choose to accept and believe.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1143
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Procirclism, Determinism, and moral values

Post by Sushan »

Rende wrote: February 24th, 2022, 2:13 pm I think my belief is that to describe the world you can ask yourself if 0 is 0 and 1 is 1. Then if 0 changes to 1 what is in between 0 and 1. Expanding possibilities maybe. It's not so clear but for me it's related to something i was thinking. That's why i got this idea.
0 has no value related to 1. 1 has a value related to 0. So everything are relative in this world. Seemingly there is an unlimited amount of possibility, and all these things are relative to something.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
stevie
Posts: 705
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Procirclism, Determinism, and moral values

Post by stevie »

Sushan wrote: February 24th, 2022, 11:10 pm
stevie wrote: February 20th, 2022, 5:11 am
Sushan wrote: February 18th, 2022, 10:34 pm
stevie wrote: February 18th, 2022, 3:38 am

From my perspective it's quite simple: the concept of 'free will', absulutely free or relatively free, is necessarily connected with the concept of personal 'self'. If one rejects the reality of personal self then one won't be able to talk about 'free will' at all because then there can't be an owner of any kind of will and thus the differentiation 'free vs non-free' doesn't make sense. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' then one will necessarily have to come to the conclusion that there is free will when observing one's own decision making in the context of its degrees of freedom. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' but still asserts that there is no free will then one is ignorantly abiding in the 'realm of mere abstract thought' without taking notice of one's own degrees of freedom when it comes to one's own decisions.
I think it goes far more deep when we think about the existence of 'self'. People accept and deny various things as per their beliefs, knowledge, experience, etc. But that does not alter the objective truth, but only affects the subjective perspectives. There can be flaws in individual thought processes, and that is why all three groups of people that you mentioned exist. But what is the reality? Is there a thing called 'self'?
Well, you won't be able to delineate where 'objective truth' begins and where 'beliefs' end. All you can do is to express your belief about it. Therefore your referrence to an alleged "objective truth" does neither add nor remove clarity and/or confusion.
There are arguments in favour of a self and there are arguments against a self. I don't deny the appearance of self every now and then in my mental continuum but I am not speculating about whether this appearance 'is' or 'corresponds with' truth or not.
Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will.
Conventional ways are accepted for so long, and many things are developed on them. But that does not mean conventional scopes are the only extents that our thoughts or truth can be extended to. It all depends on what we choose to accept and believe.
As far as I am concerned it merely depends on what kind of knowledge I apply when I use verbal expressions. And knowledge of self is generally applied in society in countless contexts, actually social life would be impossible without knowledge of self. Even communication and verbal expressions would be impossible without "I" "you" "she" etc.
And scientific knowledge is independent of religious and philosophical beliefs due to its primary dependence on evident sense perception. Therefore "Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will."
So what I say what it comes to "free will" is guided by mere pragmatism and non-speculation.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
Albertus
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: April 5th, 2022, 10:55 pm

Re: Procirclism, Determinism, and moral values

Post by Albertus »

Procirclism, when reading this concept, is different than reframing determinism and rename it. It is complex, it involves all stimuli the brain ever had, the quality of our brain and instant stimuli, when it reaches a threshold. The brain processes constantly and produces outcomes which we then manifest. What we choose is what is presented. We are incapable of making a different decision when all precipitating factors that were present in our previous decision, are still present in our current decision. 2+2=4. If 5 is produced it cannot result from 2+2.
Yet, we feel that we can choose whatever we want because we cannot be aware of all brain processes.
We must understand that in the author’s presentation of procirclism, nothing can go outside of this concept.
When we ask, not who chooses but “what” does the choosing only then will it lead to discoveries that cannot otherwise be made, is my humble opinion.
Note: emotions etc are all stimuli to the brain. Thoughts are also a result of the brain as the author clearly discusses in the book; before we have a thought we don’t have that thought. We cannot think about a thought before we have it. When we think about it, we have it.
Post Reply

Return to “Free Will, Do You Have It? by Albertus Kral”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021