For many people, the idea of free will is bound up with the notion of “could have done otherwise”. By their lights, if only one future is possible for a person — that is, if the person cannot do otherwise — then free will is an illusion.
Philosopher Christian List — author of the recent book Why Free Will is Real — proposes an interesting species of free will based on the claim that while physics may be deterministic, behaviors at the agent level are not. Agents can do otherwise, according to List, and this is enough to ground free will even if physics is deterministic.
I think List is mistaken, but I’ll save my criticisms for the comment thread.
Readers can find List’s argument in this paper:
Free Will, Determinism, and the Possibility of Doing Otherwise
See you in the comment thread.
Windy, empty oratory. You like to sermonize, obvi.
walto:
keiths:
walto:
That was definitely it. Your two comments contradict each other:
And:
You can’t have it both ways.
The problem goes away if you make the “keithian” move of distinguishing between two kinds of moral responsibility. Your first comment describes what I call “proximate moral responsibility”, and the second describes what I call “ultimate moral responsibility”. If you were to follow my lead, then you’d no longer be faced with a contradiction.
(I realize that pride is an issue, since you’re on record deriding my approach as “toothless” and “mealy-mouthed”.)
Charlie,
I disagree with the claim that an action cannot be free unless it is unmotivated.
Just because God is or maybe omnipotent, it doesn’t mean He has to use His omnipotent abilities all the time…
Let’s say your enemy, keiths for example, says he can run some show better than you…Would you be justified to use your omnipotence to help keiths to prove you wrong if you knew he can’t do as good job as you?
I disagree with the assumption or assertion that the terms free will and determinism have any useful meaning.
Freedom has a political meaning, unrestrained. Which can be extended to animals. Restraints can be physical or psychological. Fear is a restraint.
Freedom could be partially synonymous with capable. (I am not free to write the great American novel. Or to fly.)
I have not yet seen an example of a thought experiment that does not involve some version of choice dilemma. A situation involving mutually exclusive rewards or punishments. One can describe a situation in which the motivations are unknown or infinitesimal, but that doesn’t affect the philosophical quandary.
One can describe situations where someone acts apparently against interest, but that is nothing more than ignorance of motivation.
Sometimes the identification with a group and its interests override strictly self interest ,if that is what you mean.
Oh, sure. you can make “it go away” by throwing a few “ultimately”s around. But my preferred way would be to just admit I made a mistake with that last paragraph. Shouldn’t have said it. And, as I’ve said a couple of times already the other two remarks aren’t contradictory.
Of course you have to be willing admit that you’ve made a mistake.
It is. Saying that wasn’t a mistake.
Not really. People carry around with them a lot of history that is invisible to others. Some of it is invisible to the individual. Freud noticed that. He wasn’t entirely wrong.
Motives are complicated and often contradictory. Complication is a technical problem, not a moral or philosophical one. Not being able to understand why people do things, and not being able to predict behavior, are not evidence for or against free will.
It suddenly occurs to me that physical scientists would give 20 years of their life to find some great generalization that can be expressed in a simple equation.
Social scientists resist the impulse to express findings in a paragraph or two.
But mostly, that’s what social science insights merit.
walto,
Sloppiness caused the problem, so sloppily “throwing a few ‘ultimately’s’ around” won’t fix it. Carefully distinguishing between the two types of responsibility — proximate and ultimate — is what fixes the problem.
Simply retracting that paragraph isn’t enough. You still need to address the issue it raises.
petrushka,
They’re useful and relevant to debates over appropriate punishments, and they’re useful to people who are curious and trying to figure out how the world works.
Plus determinism is an important concept in computer science, computer engineering, and chaos theory.
All of which is dealt with in the philosophy of free will.
Also, many of the issues that come up in discussions of determinism are still issues even if (global) determinism is not true.
Here’s an example. Suppose we identify a particular gene combination that makes its bearers twice as likely to commit a particular crime, say murder, when compared to the general population. How should that influence the sentences they receive, if it should have any influence at all?
What if 95% of the people with that gene combination attempt murder?
What if 100% do?
What if 10% do?
You use “proximately responsible” and “ultimately responsible”: both use the term “responsible”. What does “responsible” mean?
walto,
To be responsible for something is to be accountable for it.
I’ve already laid out the distinction between proximate and ultimate responsibility:
From your point of view:
From my point of view: I like to open up my thoughts and so get feedback, hopefully some of which will be constructive. When I go wrong in my thinking I like to know about it.
I didn’t say that free actions are unmotivated. The actions taken which are the most free are those that are motivated by love for the action without any thought for any gain for the self. Unconditional love is the motivating factor.
I like your idea of proximate and ultimate moral responsibility. This makes it clear that there are different levels of free will. We may be able to make choices between alternative options and we can even call this “free will” but it is in normal circumstances a free will that is restricted to narrow limits.
Who has the greatest level of free will, the rich alcoholic who makes a choice between drinking a single malt, a cognac or any other drink that takes his or her fancy; or a similar person who opts for the added choice of refraining from drinking any alcohol.
We can be slaves to our desires or we can be masters over our desires.
Free will and determinism are very useful terms in that they lead us to ask questions which involves having to do some serious thinking. You, yourself have been thinking about what the term “freedom” means.
You mention having to make choices which involve rewards and punishments. What about choices that a person makes knowing that they will get nothing in return, not even their own feeling of self satisfaction, something given freely out of love?
Do you think we act freely when we are ignorant of the motivation for the action?
Do you make any distinction between not being able to understand why others do things and not being able to understand why you do things yourself, and how it relates to free will?
If its all just chemical states (not chemical systems as you incorrectly put it) , then no one is responsible for anything.
But like Walto said, you want you cake after you eat it too. Its chemical states, but we have a choice about those chemical states….
Nonsense.
Which one do you most desire to be?
Then please explain to us how your choice is “motivated by love for the action without any thought for any gain for the self”. I don’t think you can.
I don’t believe we can be the master over your desires, but we can make sensible decisions about short-term gain versus happiness in the long run.
It seems clear to me that self management, such as delaying gratification, or accepting near term pain for long term benefits, is learned in early childhood. It’s a skill, like learning to talk or to read. It’s more difficult to learn as an adult.
Some capabilities are learned. I don’t see this as relevant to free will or determinism. There is no value added by inventing an infinite regress of decision making homunculi.
We have a moderately good understanding of how people work. But this understanding doesn’t lead to predictions of how individuals will behave. It does, however, make a good living for casinos, drug dealers, and social media moguls.
I would like to say that I only desire to take in what benefits my body, soul and spirit, but in truth I desire mostly what gives me pleasure even if it’s not good for me. Some would say that I am weak willed. My body is supposedly a temple but I tend to treat it more as a pleasure park.
I don’t think any choice I have made was so motivated, but I think it is something to aspire to.
Did you mean “the master over our desires”?
Neither do I, not without giving up our bodily nature that is. And IMO if we were to fully achieve this, then we would experience a transfiguration as Buddha and Christ supposedly did. Both advocated love in the way I have used the term.
Aspiring involves desiring something. Perhaps I am being simple here, but I still don’t see why the former is a noble pursuit and the latter is icky.
Yes, sorry.
I am sure they were both splendid chaps, but I will just stick to loving in my own human way. It’s complicated enough as it is.
ETA: rephrasing
I’m pretty sure the issue is if every state (chemical or not) is determined by the previous state, then there’s no free will. You keep complaining about the chemical part, but as far as I can tell, that’s not what entails determinism
What is this “I” that aspires rather than desires?
Sounds like some desires are more noble than others.
That’s a common sentiment, and a useful one for society.
I fail to see how it is evidence for or against free will.
And yet keiths claims there can be. Because , you know, you can just choose.
One of the evidences of God is “Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.” Omnipotence is required.
Therefore the absence of said abilities is an indication of His choices, the question is the reasoning behind the choices.
This is confusing. Is the question , is justified to help your enemy prove a claim which is false about you? If it resulted in fewer children being abused, yes.
Chemical states can be patterns of chemicals, chemical systems are patterns of chemical states, not sure why only one pattern is correct.
Keeping with the chemical view, one could say a catalyst “ a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change” is responsible . We use the same word “ a person or thing that precipitates an event.“ to denote responsibility.
What actions are we accountable for?
CharlieM,
You’ve gone wrong in your thinking here.
You’re welcome.
Charlie,
Jesus preached self-interest:
walto,
We’re proximately responsible for things we do willingly, and ultimately responsible for none. Again, that’s one of the reasons I’m opposed to retributive punishment.
phoodoo,
“Systems” is the right word. You were saying things like
…which is nonsensical. Systems decide, not states.
phoodoo:
No one is ultimately responsible for anything. But the guy who willingly pulls the trigger is proximately responsible for the murder.
Walto is a compatibilist, like me. He agrees that we have free will even if determinism is true.
Re choices, I simply said that we make them, which is obviously true. I even cited the dictionary:
phoodoo:
keiths:
phoodoo,
As dazz pointed out, a system needn’t be chemical (or even physical) in order to be deterministic. Immaterial deterministic systems are a logical possibility.
Simply appealing to an immaterial soul doesn’t solve the problem of free will.
petrushka,
Who is invoking “an infinite regress of decision making homunculi”?
Any takers on this one?
In other words keiths is promoting another oxymoron, which, ultimately, had been predetermined at the big bang, including the fact that he is ultimately never wrong…
How do you like that, walto? You really have nothing else to waste your time on?
Add ‘oxymoron’ to the list of concepts that J-Mac doesn’t understand.
Anyone who asserts the existence of an “I” that makes decisions that are not motivated. Or an “I” that can override motives.
There are, of course, layers of motivation in brains (not just human brains). There’s the “alligator” brain, the cerebrum, and such. There’s the motive to drink, and the knowledge based motive that it may not be safe or socially acceptable right now.
I see these factors as giving rise to the debate over free will, but I think they are technical problems, not philosophical/theological problems.
For people who wish to assign “responsibility” for behavior, the technical problem is how to manage people. One does not need to know the answer to the free will conundrum.
You forgot to add predetermined to the list of oxymorons…😉
keiths,
You just used “responsible” again. You said”responsible” (which is in both “proximately responsible” and “ultimately responsible” ) means accountable. So i want to know what “accountable” means.
Please don’t use “proximately responsible” to explain this.)
walto,
I answered your questions. Why are you complaining?
You asked:
I answered:
Then you asked:
I answered:
I answered your questions straightforwardly. What’s your beef?
I’m not sure why punishment is discussed so much. Can you imagine working for an employer who used a whip, or put people in time out rooms?
It’s ineffective. It’s used by governments only because they haven’t learned anything better. Perhaps that’s a good thing.
Alternatives Keiths, alternatives! I already pointed out your error to you. Even Dazz gets it. Alternatives are an illusion if only one can be picked.
If you believe in true materialism, and ultimately chemicals (the state they are in!!) are just chemicals, then there is no real free will, only the illusion of free will. And thus no one is responsible for anything, because the chemicals just do what they do whenever they are in the state they are.
Repeating the definition of choose doesn’t fix it keiths.
Here’s how the conversation’s been going:
phoodoo:
keiths:
phoodoo:
phoodoo,
It’s not as if I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. It’s just that I can see your error.
There is more than one kind of free will. The kind you believe in is known as “libertarian free will”, and it’s incoherent. The kind that walto and I believe in is known as “compatibilist free will”, and it’s coherent.
(By the way, it’s also accepted by a majority — about 60% — of philosophers.)
ETA: Libertarian free will is accepted by less than 15%.
petrushka,
Because people’s beliefs about the suitability of punishments depend at least partially on their beliefs about free will and determinism.
That’s what I’m getting at with my genetic example.
I’m more inclined to believe that people’s beliefs are inclined to support their inclinations. That is to say, getting ones jollies by inflicting pain precedes the belief in some idea that supports inflicting pain.
petrushka,
I think there are plenty of people who aren’t predisposed to sadism who seek revenge once they or a loved one are subjected to a heinous crime.