Total Posts:147|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pseudo-philosophy.

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:13:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Post every stupid or incoherent philosophical argument or idea here that you can't take anymore.

I, for one, am completely sick of libertarians smugly using the terms "positive" and "negative" rights, as if it gives them an edgier philosophical tone, while not condescending to actually explain the "reasoning" that they purportedly did in order to come to their sweeping conclusion. This essentially their de facto "argument." I don't understand how they don't see the scriptural undertones in that, but it's truly embarrassing when they use it on someone who actually knows a little bit about natural rights.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:34:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Most advocates of libertarian free-will highly get on my nerves when trying to prove their position, though there are some that are alright. For example, many think all they need to do is refute determinism as a metaphysical principle to prove libertarianism and thus point to quantum physics as evidence for libertarian free-will. Michio Kaku, for example, outright says quantum physics solves the free-will debate. The problem is, the indedeterminism of quantum mechanics is due to randomness and how could randomness possibly be an argument for free-will? Religious ones often just say the soul solves the issue and that all they need to do is argue the mind is immaterial and thus isn't bound by the constraints of the natural world. The problem with this is it doesn't escape issues such as how the mind can operate with free-will while escaping both causality and randomness and what type of system it could possibly operate on and how the mere fact that it's immaterial proves it has libertarian free-will. The other brand of advocates are the most pseudo-philosophical and laugh at hard-determinism as intuitively absurd. They think it's just intuitively obvious that we have free-will. Hard determinists who can't give a fair thought to compatiblism also get on my nerves.

There are allot of theories whose proponents tend to pseudo-philosophize allot, but just to clarify, I'm not necessarily calling the theory itself pseudo-philosophy, just that much of the followers can't make a proper philosophical argument for it, or are too ignorant of philosophy to give ground to their reasons. To list some examples, logical positivism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, Randians, Nietzscheans (I like Nietzsche by the way), neo-atheists and those who are so eager for science to take over philosophy.

Scientists make some of the worst philosophers in my opinion, with the exception of Einstein.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:45:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
conventional arguments against God's existence like PoE irritate me because they're so weak and idiosyncratic. They try to find uncompelling logical rifts in theistic positions rather than scrutinizing the proof, or most often lack thereof, for those positions.

Supporters of moral realism that think if they feel something deeply enough and can embellish it with enough rhetorical stimulants, it will somehow magically become universally true. To justify a proposition, it has to be rooted in a logical axiom. Moral axioms don't exist. You're arguing in the medium of logic, now find the tenets of logic that justify your case.

I totally agree with phantom of the libertarian point. I disagree on his compatibilism point. If you're a hard determinist, most likely you're questioning the incoherence of the concept of freewill. So forget about testing whether or not freewill is true, the issue at hand is whether the word "freewill" even has any cogent, logically binding meaning that we can test the truth of. From this perspective, compatibilism is as ludicrous as libertarianism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 2:25:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:45:00 PM, 000ike wrote:

I totally agree with phantom of the libertarian point. I disagree on his compatibilism point. If you're a hard determinist, most likely you're questioning the incoherence of the concept of freewill. So forget about testing whether or not freewill is true, the issue at hand is whether the word "freewill" even has any cogent, logically binding meaning that we can test the truth of. From this perspective, compatibilism is as ludicrous as libertarianism.

Compatiblism is no where near as bad as libertarianism and I don't really get your point. The main issue in the compatiblist debate is defining free-will. The way compatiblists define it usually fits with physical reality, which is why most hard-determinists disagree with compatiblists based mainly on semantics rather than ontological issues; whereas libertarian definitions, even if correct in terms of definition, couldn't be true in the real world. I can't possibly see how you think compatiblism is no better than libertarianism when the concept of free-will is the main question for you. Compatiblist definitions are far more coherent than libertarians since they don't require absurd things like transcending cause and effect while remaining non-random. Libertarians can't even usually explain their concept of free-will. Now, you think identity is an illusion, so I can see why you can't accept free-will in any sense of the word, but that belief itself is quite controversial, so I can't see where the strength of your objection stands.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 2:46:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 2:25:12 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:45:00 PM, 000ike wrote:

I totally agree with phantom of the libertarian point. I disagree on his compatibilism point. If you're a hard determinist, most likely you're questioning the incoherence of the concept of freewill. So forget about testing whether or not freewill is true, the issue at hand is whether the word "freewill" even has any cogent, logically binding meaning that we can test the truth of. From this perspective, compatibilism is as ludicrous as libertarianism.

Compatiblism is no where near as bad as libertarianism and I don't really get your point. The main issue in the compatiblist debate is defining free-will. The way compatiblists define it usually fits with physical reality, which is why most hard-determinists disagree with compatiblists based mainly on semantics rather than ontological issues; whereas libertarian definitions, even if correct in terms of definition, couldn't be true in the real world. I can't possibly see how you think compatiblism is no better than libertarianism when the concept of free-will is the main question for you. Compatiblist definitions are far more coherent than libertarians since they don't require absurd things like transcending cause and effect while remaining non-random. Libertarians can't even usually explain their concept of free-will. Now, you think identity is an illusion, so I can see why you can't accept free-will in any sense of the word, but that belief itself is quite controversial, so I can't see where the strength of your objection stands.

Compatibilists redefine freewill to the exclusion of the necessary powers of freewill - and as a result their whole argument is absolutely moot. For example, those that would say that freewill is the ability to choose one course of action among a set of options, have completely dodged the issues of culpability and self-control. What I mean is that a necessary aspect of freewill is the ability to say "I caused myself to do this and I am therefore responsible for this action." If your definition of freewill doesn't address this (i.e what caused you to choose what you did among those options?) then you're not defining anything consequential.

You're berating the hard determinists that dismiss compatibilits, yet also preemptively dismissing their dismissal.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:28:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:13:45 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Post every stupid or incoherent philosophical argument or idea here that you can't take anymore.

I, for one, am completely sick of libertarians smugly using the terms "positive" and "negative" rights, as if it gives them an edgier philosophical tone, while not condescending to actually explain the "reasoning" that they purportedly did in order to come to their sweeping conclusion. This essentially their de facto "argument." I don't understand how they don't see the scriptural undertones in that, but it's truly embarrassing when they use it on someone who actually knows a little bit about natural rights.

i get fed up of "rights" as a concept. It's not that I don't believe in rights - it is that they are abused to justify arbitrary actions as immoral or unjust, ignoring the sound arguments.

I'm also confused of "positive rights" and "negative rights". Unless they spring from Berlin in some form, I've never came across any professional philosopher use them.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:32:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 2:46:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 2:25:12 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:45:00 PM, 000ike wrote:

I totally agree with phantom of the libertarian point. I disagree on his compatibilism point. If you're a hard determinist, most likely you're questioning the incoherence of the concept of freewill. So forget about testing whether or not freewill is true, the issue at hand is whether the word "freewill" even has any cogent, logically binding meaning that we can test the truth of. From this perspective, compatibilism is as ludicrous as libertarianism.

Compatiblism is no where near as bad as libertarianism and I don't really get your point. The main issue in the compatiblist debate is defining free-will. The way compatiblists define it usually fits with physical reality, which is why most hard-determinists disagree with compatiblists based mainly on semantics rather than ontological issues; whereas libertarian definitions, even if correct in terms of definition, couldn't be true in the real world. I can't possibly see how you think compatiblism is no better than libertarianism when the concept of free-will is the main question for you. Compatiblist definitions are far more coherent than libertarians since they don't require absurd things like transcending cause and effect while remaining non-random. Libertarians can't even usually explain their concept of free-will. Now, you think identity is an illusion, so I can see why you can't accept free-will in any sense of the word, but that belief itself is quite controversial, so I can't see where the strength of your objection stands.

Compatibilists redefine freewill to the exclusion of the necessary powers of freewill - and as a result their whole argument is absolutely moot. For example, those that would say that freewill is the ability to choose one course of action among a set of options, have completely dodged the issues of culpability and self-control. What I mean is that a necessary aspect of freewill is the ability to say "I caused myself to do this and I am therefore responsible for this action." If your definition of freewill doesn't address this (i.e what caused you to choose what you did among those options?) then you're not defining anything consequential.

You're berating the hard determinists that dismiss compatibilits, yet also preemptively dismissing their dismissal.

I'd be happy to debate you on the meaningful nature of compatibilism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:35:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, and the radical essentialist feminists, especially the political lesbians.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:47:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 3:32:52 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 2:46:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 2:25:12 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:45:00 PM, 000ike wrote:

I totally agree with phantom of the libertarian point. I disagree on his compatibilism point. If you're a hard determinist, most likely you're questioning the incoherence of the concept of freewill. So forget about testing whether or not freewill is true, the issue at hand is whether the word "freewill" even has any cogent, logically binding meaning that we can test the truth of. From this perspective, compatibilism is as ludicrous as libertarianism.

Compatiblism is no where near as bad as libertarianism and I don't really get your point. The main issue in the compatiblist debate is defining free-will. The way compatiblists define it usually fits with physical reality, which is why most hard-determinists disagree with compatiblists based mainly on semantics rather than ontological issues; whereas libertarian definitions, even if correct in terms of definition, couldn't be true in the real world. I can't possibly see how you think compatiblism is no better than libertarianism when the concept of free-will is the main question for you. Compatiblist definitions are far more coherent than libertarians since they don't require absurd things like transcending cause and effect while remaining non-random. Libertarians can't even usually explain their concept of free-will. Now, you think identity is an illusion, so I can see why you can't accept free-will in any sense of the word, but that belief itself is quite controversial, so I can't see where the strength of your objection stands.

Compatibilists redefine freewill to the exclusion of the necessary powers of freewill - and as a result their whole argument is absolutely moot. For example, those that would say that freewill is the ability to choose one course of action among a set of options, have completely dodged the issues of culpability and self-control. What I mean is that a necessary aspect of freewill is the ability to say "I caused myself to do this and I am therefore responsible for this action." If your definition of freewill doesn't address this (i.e what caused you to choose what you did among those options?) then you're not defining anything consequential.

You're berating the hard determinists that dismiss compatibilits, yet also preemptively dismissing their dismissal.

I'd be happy to debate you on the meaningful nature of compatibilism.

I've already engaged myself with another debate. But if you object to the above, I'd like to see what those objections are.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:02:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 3:28:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:13:45 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Post every stupid or incoherent philosophical argument or idea here that you can't take anymore.

I, for one, am completely sick of libertarians smugly using the terms "positive" and "negative" rights, as if it gives them an edgier philosophical tone, while not condescending to actually explain the "reasoning" that they purportedly did in order to come to their sweeping conclusion. This essentially their de facto "argument." I don't understand how they don't see the scriptural undertones in that, but it's truly embarrassing when they use it on someone who actually knows a little bit about natural rights.

i get fed up of "rights" as a concept. It's not that I don't believe in rights - it is that they are abused to justify arbitrary actions as immoral or unjust, ignoring the sound arguments.

I'm also confused of "positive rights" and "negative rights". Unless they spring from Berlin in some form, I've never came across any professional philosopher use them.

I agree totally. The justifications for rights need to be questioned at every turn. If you don't understand the basis for them, then you shouldn't be talking about them.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:05:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It has been done a lot. In fact, it is done so much that it gives credence to Bentham's claim "rights are nonsense, and natural rights are nonsense on stilts".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:13:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 4:05:32 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It has been done a lot. In fact, it is done so much that it gives credence to Bentham's claim "rights are nonsense, and natural rights are nonsense on stilts".

lmao that's a wonderful quote
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:45:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.

that's...not a valid response. You didn't answer any of my questions. when you say that "the self caused x action" that's like saying, I don't know, "the rain caused the rainbow"... It's an ambiguous statement that makes very little sense and doesn't communicate any kind of binding idea. How did the rain cause the rainbow. And please address the causality issue concerning what caused the self to cause the action. If your answer is nothing...well then the resultant action is random and unfree. If your answer is something, then the self was compelled to caused the action and therefore unfree.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:46:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 4:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.

that's...not a valid response. You didn't answer any of my questions. when you say that "the self caused x action" that's like saying, I don't know, "the rain caused the rainbow"... It's an ambiguous statement that makes very little sense and doesn't communicate any kind of binding idea. How did the rain cause the rainbow. And please address the causality issue concerning what caused the self to cause the action. If your answer is nothing...well then the resultant action is random and unfree. If your answer is something, then the self was compelled to caused the action and therefore unfree.

*random and unwilled.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:07:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 4:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.

that's...not a valid response. You didn't answer any of my questions.

That's because it's an invalid question.

when you say that "the self caused x action" that's like saying, I don't know

When the weather vane spins, it is determined by two things:
1) Experience. This is past events, which is both the conscious decision making and subconscious decision making.
2) The Self. No matter what the experience of a weather vane is, it cannot drink water. Otherwise, it's not a weather vane. I cannot be entirely irrational, or I'd stop being a person.

When I act, I am determined by two things:
1) Experience.
2) The Self. The nature that makes me a person.

To act determined by both my experience and my nature, is to have free will. To be internally causing an act, rather than solely externally being caused, is to have free will.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:29:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:07:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.

that's...not a valid response. You didn't answer any of my questions.

That's because it's an invalid question.

when you say that "the self caused x action" that's like saying, I don't know

When the weather vane spins, it is determined by two things:
1) Experience. This is past events, which is both the conscious decision making and subconscious decision making.
2) The Self. No matter what the experience of a weather vane is, it cannot drink water. Otherwise, it's not a weather vane. I cannot be entirely irrational, or I'd stop being a person.

When I act, I am determined by two things:
1) Experience.
2) The Self. The nature that makes me a person.

To act determined by both my experience and my nature, is to have free will. To be internally causing an act, rather than solely externally being caused, is to have free will.

That is... tremendously absurd. Alright, let me grant that experience and "the self" (whatever that means) exert causal pressure on the action the agent produces. You're still not addressing or understanding what I'm asking of you. Cause is a necessarily regressive force, and an action at any point in the chain is only as free as the prime mover of the chain. This would mean that either the chain is infinite, and there is no identifiable first cause (infinity precludes primacy), or the first cause of the chain was itself uncaused, in which case the chain as a whole is uncaused. Both cases lack origin, yet origin is necessary to establish responsibility and blame...and therefore FREEWILL. No matter WHAT you establish the origin of the action to be (the self for example or whatever) through establishing that origin you're establishing a break in the causal chain, more specifically, an initiation of it, which means that the whole chain was uncaused, and the whole chain was therefore random, including the final action. This is not freewill is ANY sense of the word. Just because you had a desire and acted on that desire doesn't mean you were in control of said desire & final action occurring to and appearing prudent before you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:33:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
tl;dr - S_H, the things you said you were determined by (the self and experience) are themselves determined by other things if not utterly random in occurrence. You've simply chosen to ignore all that which precedes it. Cut the chain short and call it deterministic freewill.

It's absurd.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:47:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:13:45 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Post every stupid or incoherent philosophical argument or idea here that you can't take anymore.

I, for one, am completely sick of libertarians smugly using the terms "positive" and "negative" rights, as if it gives them an edgier philosophical tone, while not condescending to actually explain the "reasoning" that they purportedly did in order to come to their sweeping conclusion. This essentially their de facto "argument." I don't understand how they don't see the scriptural undertones in that, but it's truly embarrassing when they use it on someone who actually knows a little bit about natural rights.

The Fool: You have "knowledge" of Natural Rights? You know I have never been able to figure out what they were exactly, I have heard many TERMs, but I could never make any connection to what they referred too, or how they were Right, and or what relation they had to Nature.
I can't seem to differentiate them from Religious threats towards toward Humans and other life forms.

When somebody says I have a right, or don't have one. IT translates to me, that they are letting me know when they will and or will want to hurt me in some way, if they Recognize me acting to myself, out of line with there Ideological Regime.

I am open to the possibility that I may be ignorant to other aspects, that is, the Natural, the Right, The Free and the philosophic. I would much obliged to know more about your Cult-Nat-ure. So what do you know about such entities? what is the metaphysical Glue under pinning the TERMs that you have use thus far?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 7:45:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 3:28:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:13:45 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Post every stupid or incoherent philosophical argument or idea here that you can't take anymore.

I, for one, am completely sick of libertarians smugly using the terms "positive" and "negative" rights, as if it gives them an edgier philosophical tone, while not condescending to actually explain the "reasoning" that they purportedly did in order to come to their sweeping conclusion. This essentially their de facto "argument." I don't understand how they don't see the scriptural undertones in that, but it's truly embarrassing when they use it on someone who actually knows a little bit about natural rights.

i get fed up of "rights" as a concept. It's not that I don't believe in rights - it is that they are abused to justify arbitrary actions as immoral or unjust, ignoring the sound arguments.

The Fool: They Are Ancient noble lies which have been forgotten as lies, mostly stemming from religion, I think they had a good intention and they served as a bridge to get to where we are, but we know more now, and they are just not longer intelligible. There are good rational universal moral arguments to be made. We don't need to have implausible if not impossible "Ghostly" Entities that some how exist in peoples nature, And yet they don't know about it. That can be pretty manipulating.

And we are suppose to believe that they begin to exist when one group of people vote them into existence into our and our nature AND other people across the globe as well. That does't make any sense. They are not justified.

There not in our minds there not in our bodies. There nonsense. They have nothing to do with Humans or nature.
They use to be called Natural Rights. And people complained that they were man made and not natural, So they renamed them to Human Right. And people actually BIT on that.

I couldn't believe in that if I want to. I can't even make that make sense to myself. I believe in rational universal morals, reasonable ought and obligations. Just not Via Ideological And Fallacious entities. And I think Moral Principles should be able to Evolve, over time In relation to new knowledge. Not Eternal Commandments, that can't change with the times.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 11:04:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:07:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.

that's...not a valid response. You didn't answer any of my questions.

That's because it's an invalid question.

when you say that "the self caused x action" that's like saying, I don't know

When the weather vane spins, it is determined by two things:
1) Experience. This is past events, which is both the conscious decision making and subconscious decision making.
2) The Self. No matter what the experience of a weather vane is, it cannot drink water. Otherwise, it's not a weather vane. I cannot be entirely irrational, or I'd stop being a person.

When I act, I am determined by two things:
1) Experience.
2) The Self. The nature that makes me a person.

To act determined by both my experience and my nature, is to have free will. To be internally causing an act, rather than solely externally being caused, is to have free will.

Your view does not seem coherent to me. You say that to act determined by both one's experience and nature is free will. However, how can that which is determined be free? That which is determined embodies the very essence of not being free. This view is bizarre, and seems to be rooted in semantics rather than substance. Free-will intuitively refers to reasonably unconstrained conscious choices. It seems you are defining the body as part of the "self", but this seems like a rather dodgy equivocation. "Self" in the context of free will refers to ones conscious being. If something is determining my conscious states internally, then I am baffled as to you how you can claim that action truly free. My consciousness is essentially a slave to causally prior neural activity. The internal biological mechanisms pertaining to my body are all interacting in a way which makes any type of freedom within this process extremely improbable. It is as if you need an unnecessarily counter-intuitive definition to derive your compatibilist conclusion. Free-will usually means conscious free-will. Maybe I am missing something...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:17:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 11:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:07:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.

that's...not a valid response. You didn't answer any of my questions.

That's because it's an invalid question.

when you say that "the self caused x action" that's like saying, I don't know

When the weather vane spins, it is determined by two things:
1) Experience. This is past events, which is both the conscious decision making and subconscious decision making.
2) The Self. No matter what the experience of a weather vane is, it cannot drink water. Otherwise, it's not a weather vane. I cannot be entirely irrational, or I'd stop being a person.

When I act, I am determined by two things:
1) Experience.
2) The Self. The nature that makes me a person.

To act determined by both my experience and my nature, is to have free will. To be internally causing an act, rather than solely externally being caused, is to have free will.

Your view does not seem coherent to me. You say that to act determined by both one's experience and nature is free will. However, how can that which is determined be free? That which is determined embodies the very essence of not being free. This view is bizarre, and seems to be rooted in semantics rather than substance. Free-will intuitively refers to reasonably unconstrained conscious choices. It seems you are defining the body as part of the "self", but this seems like a rather dodgy equivocation. "Self" in the context of free will refers to ones conscious being. If something is determining my conscious states internally, then I am baffled as to you how you can claim that action truly free. My consciousness is essentially a slave to causally prior neural activity. The internal biological mechanisms pertaining to my body are all interacting in a way which makes any type of freedom within this process extremely improbable. It is as if you need an unnecessarily counter-intuitive definition to derive your compatibilist conclusion. Free-will usually means conscious free-will. Maybe I am missing something...

You're throwing "free will" about, as I've said to others, in the libertarian sense, which by its definition is incompatible with determinism. The purpose of free will is to be able to grant moral responsibility. Someone is morally responsible if, when in complete control of your action (reacting to external events that take place around you), you act (or don't act).

When you have a car, its movement is wholly dependent on someone outside it making it move in certain ways. No matter what happens, it of course cannot suddenly "stop itself from working". It may do so, again from external events, but the car itself cannot stop itself working.

Humans are unique because of our faculty to reason. To be able to reason means we have the faculty needed to make moral decisions, just as having eyes means we can see, or having ears means we can hear. However, to point to any specific part of the body as the cause of being rational is illogical: it would be like pointing to the part of the body that gives us animation: there is no specific body part that does this. In fact, if you had all the bits and bobs of a human, no faculty would be functional. You need it to be in a certain arrangement - you need a certain formal aiton - otherwise, you cannot see, you cannot hear, you cannot reason.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:37:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:17:52 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 11:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:07:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.

that's...not a valid response. You didn't answer any of my questions.

That's because it's an invalid question.

when you say that "the self caused x action" that's like saying, I don't know

When the weather vane spins, it is determined by two things:
1) Experience. This is past events, which is both the conscious decision making and subconscious decision making.
2) The Self. No matter what the experience of a weather vane is, it cannot drink water. Otherwise, it's not a weather vane. I cannot be entirely irrational, or I'd stop being a person.

When I act, I am determined by two things:
1) Experience.
2) The Self. The nature that makes me a person.

To act determined by both my experience and my nature, is to have free will. To be internally causing an act, rather than solely externally being caused, is to have free will.

Your view does not seem coherent to me. You say that to act determined by both one's experience and nature is free will. However, how can that which is determined be free? That which is determined embodies the very essence of not being free. This view is bizarre, and seems to be rooted in semantics rather than substance. Free-will intuitively refers to reasonably unconstrained conscious choices. It seems you are defining the body as part of the "self", but this seems like a rather dodgy equivocation. "Self" in the context of free will refers to ones conscious being. If something is determining my conscious states internally, then I am baffled as to you how you can claim that action truly free. My consciousness is essentially a slave to causally prior neural activity. The internal biological mechanisms pertaining to my body are all interacting in a way which makes any type of freedom within this process extremely improbable. It is as if you need an unnecessarily counter-intuitive definition to derive your compatibilist conclusion. Free-will usually means conscious free-will. Maybe I am missing something...

You're throwing "free will" about, as I've said to others, in the libertarian sense, which by its definition is incompatible with determinism. The purpose of free will is to be able to grant moral responsibility. Someone is morally responsible if, when in complete control of your action (reacting to external events that take place around you), you act (or don't act).

When you have a car, its movement is wholly dependent on someone outside it making it move in certain ways. No matter what happens, it of course cannot suddenly "stop itself from working". It may do so, again from external events, but the car itself cannot stop itself working.

Humans are unique because of our faculty to reason. To be able to reason means we have the faculty needed to make moral decisions, just as having eyes means we can see, or having ears means we can hear. However, to point to any specific part of the body as the cause of being rational is illogical: it would be like pointing to the part of the body that gives us animation: there is no specific body part that does this. In fact, if you had all the bits and bobs of a human, no faculty would be functional. You need it to be in a certain arrangement - you need a certain formal aiton - otherwise, you cannot see, you cannot hear, you cannot reason.

You can't redefine freewill to the exclusion of the necessary powers of freewill. Yes you deliberated x action and then executed it, but where is the freedom if said deliberation and said execution were both precipitated by determinants?? This whole redefinition business dodges the issue at hand in attempt to weld two mutually exclusive principles. It's ludicrous.

If you want to do a debate on this "Freewill and determinism are compatible" I'll take con.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:51:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:37:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:17:52 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 11:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:07:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.

that's...not a valid response. You didn't answer any of my questions.

That's because it's an invalid question.

when you say that "the self caused x action" that's like saying, I don't know

When the weather vane spins, it is determined by two things:
1) Experience. This is past events, which is both the conscious decision making and subconscious decision making.
2) The Self. No matter what the experience of a weather vane is, it cannot drink water. Otherwise, it's not a weather vane. I cannot be entirely irrational, or I'd stop being a person.

When I act, I am determined by two things:
1) Experience.
2) The Self. The nature that makes me a person.

To act determined by both my experience and my nature, is to have free will. To be internally causing an act, rather than solely externally being caused, is to have free will.

Your view does not seem coherent to me. You say that to act determined by both one's experience and nature is free will. However, how can that which is determined be free? That which is determined embodies the very essence of not being free. This view is bizarre, and seems to be rooted in semantics rather than substance. Free-will intuitively refers to reasonably unconstrained conscious choices. It seems you are defining the body as part of the "self", but this seems like a rather dodgy equivocation. "Self" in the context of free will refers to ones conscious being. If something is determining my conscious states internally, then I am baffled as to you how you can claim that action truly free. My consciousness is essentially a slave to causally prior neural activity. The internal biological mechanisms pertaining to my body are all interacting in a way which makes any type of freedom within this process extremely improbable. It is as if you need an unnecessarily counter-intuitive definition to derive your compatibilist conclusion. Free-will usually means conscious free-will. Maybe I am missing something...

You're throwing "free will" about, as I've said to others, in the libertarian sense, which by its definition is incompatible with determinism. The purpose of free will is to be able to grant moral responsibility. Someone is morally responsible if, when in complete control of your action (reacting to external events that take place around you), you act (or don't act).

When you have a car, its movement is wholly dependent on someone outside it making it move in certain ways. No matter what happens, it of course cannot suddenly "stop itself from working". It may do so, again from external events, but the car itself cannot stop itself working.

Humans are unique because of our faculty to reason. To be able to reason means we have the faculty needed to make moral decisions, just as having eyes means we can see, or having ears means we can hear. However, to point to any specific part of the body as the cause of being rational is illogical: it would be like pointing to the part of the body that gives us animation: there is no specific body part that does this. In fact, if you had all the bits and bobs of a human, no faculty would be functional. You need it to be in a certain arrangement - you need a certain formal aiton - otherwise, you cannot see, you cannot hear, you cannot reason.

You can't redefine freewill to the exclusion of the necessary powers of freewill. Yes you deliberated x action and then executed it, but where is the freedom if said deliberation and said execution were both precipitated by determinants?? This whole redefinition business dodges the issue at hand in attempt to weld two mutually exclusive principles. It's ludicrous.

If you want to do a debate on this "Freewill and determinism are compatible" I'll take con.

You are just a glutton for punishment, you keep getting your @ss kicked so hard you can't even find it with this inane freewill argument of yours, and yet, you just keep on regurgitating Sam Harris' inane argument without even understanding the subject.

Hawkins will run roughshod over you, like everybody else has on this subject, and afterwards I'm sure you will just resort to insulting him and declare yourself the winner, yet again.

You really ought to drop that stale old routine one of these days, it's embarrassing to you and boring as hell to the rest of us, why don't you get some new material?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:56:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:51:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:37:26 AM, 000ike wrote:

You can't redefine freewill to the exclusion of the necessary powers of freewill. Yes you deliberated x action and then executed it, but where is the freedom if said deliberation and said execution were both precipitated by determinants?? This whole redefinition business dodges the issue at hand in attempt to weld two mutually exclusive principles. It's ludicrous.

If you want to do a debate on this "Freewill and determinism are compatible" I'll take con.

You are just a glutton for punishment, you keep getting your @ss kicked so hard you can't even find it with this inane freewill argument of yours, and yet, you just keep on regurgitating Sam Harris' inane argument without even understanding the subject.

Hawkins will run roughshod over you, like everybody else has on this subject, and afterwards I'm sure you will just resort to insulting him and declare yourself the winner, yet again.

You really ought to drop that stale old routine one of these days, it's embarrassing to you and boring as hell to the rest of us, why don't you get some new material?

wow, that's,...that's very mature.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 12:51:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:17:52 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 11:04:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:07:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:21:33 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:18:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 4:01:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Free will is when an action is determined by an internal cause. To be free means to be able to be in charge of your own actions, as that makes you wholly responsible. However, it is still being determined by a cause.

The formal aiton (explanation/cause) of the human being includes the explanation that we have 'free will', or the ability for our actions to be caused by the self. Animal actions are different from us because our formal aiton includes the fact that we moreover have the unique nature of being rational creatures: or, we can make long term plans, explain them through language, and other signifiers of our nature.

Compatibilism is best explained through Sober's analogy of the weather vane.

Sober"s "weather vane" theory says that free will is analogous to a "free"weather vane. Farmers distinguish free from stuck weather vanes. With both, the vane"s "behavior" is caused by its set-up and the environment. But when it"s "free," it"s functioning the way it"s supposed to. When it"s "unfree" or stuck, it"s malfunctioning. Sober proposes that analogously, we have a free will when our mind is functioning properly when we are making choices.

"caused by the self" is a meaningless phrase that expresses no coherent idea. What part of the self is causing this action, how is it causing the action, and for heaven's sake what caused it to cause the action? Dropping ambiguous phrases like that is what makes so many absurdities in philosophy appear reasonable. It is in these details that we establish blame and control. Compatibilism subsists in avoiding these details.

Category error. It's like going around to all the Oxford colleges, but asking "I've seen all the colleges, but where is the university?" It's like after watching a game of football, saying "Yes, I've seen all the players, but where is the team spirit?" It's like saying "Yes, I've seen all the trees in Dartmoor, but where is Dartmoor Forest?"

It is not trapped in anywhere in particular - there is no material aiton, or explanation - but instead it has a formal aiton, or explanation. It is explained by the form of the human being: we are rational beings, evident by our ability to use complex language, our ability to make long term planning, etc.

that's...not a valid response. You didn't answer any of my questions.

That's because it's an invalid question.

when you say that "the self caused x action" that's like saying, I don't know

When the weather vane spins, it is determined by two things:
1) Experience. This is past events, which is both the conscious decision making and subconscious decision making.
2) The Self. No matter what the experience of a weather vane is, it cannot drink water. Otherwise, it's not a weather vane. I cannot be entirely irrational, or I'd stop being a person.

When I act, I am determined by two things:
1) Experience.
2) The Self. The nature that makes me a person.

To act determined by both my experience and my nature, is to have free will. To be internally causing an act, rather than solely externally being caused, is to have free will.

Your view does not seem coherent to me. You say that to act determined by both one's experience and nature is free will. However, how can that which is determined be free? That which is determined embodies the very essence of not being free. This view is bizarre, and seems to be rooted in semantics rather than substance. Free-will intuitively refers to reasonably unconstrained conscious choices. It seems you are defining the body as part of the "self", but this seems like a rather dodgy equivocation. "Self" in the context of free will refers to ones conscious being. If something is determining my conscious states internally, then I am baffled as to you how you can claim that action truly free. My consciousness is essentially a slave to causally prior neural activity. The internal biological mechanisms pertaining to my body are all interacting in a way which makes any type of freedom within this process extremely improbable. It is as if you need an unnecessarily counter-intuitive definition to derive your compatibilist conclusion. Free-will usually means conscious free-will. Maybe I am missing something...

You're throwing "free will" about, as I've said to others, in the libertarian sense, which by its definition is incompatible with determinism. The purpose of free will is to be able to grant moral responsibility. Someone is morally responsible if, when in complete control of your action (reacting to external events that take place around you), you act (or don't act).

When you have a car, its movement is wholly dependent on someone outside it making it move in certain ways. No matter what happens, it of course cannot suddenly "stop itself from working". It may do so, again from external events, but the car itself cannot stop itself working.

Humans are unique because of our faculty to reason. To be able to reason means we have the faculty needed to make moral decisions, just as having eyes means we can see, or having ears means we can hear. However, to point to any specific part of the body as the cause of being rational is illogical: it would be like pointing to the part of the body that gives us animation: there is no specific body part that does this. In fact, if you had all the bits and bobs of a human, no faculty would be functional. You need it to be in a certain arrangement - you need a certain formal aiton - otherwise, you cannot see, you cannot hear, you cannot reason.

You did not address my concerns. What you are talking about is an ad hoc definition to get you free-will. That is not what people mean by free-will. Your idea seems fruitless, and based on semantics. If my all conscious states are caused, I don't have free-will. This should be self-evident.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 12:55:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reasonably unconstrained conscious choices is only rational definition of free-will. "Will" specifically refers to a conscious stats, it does not refer to my body parts. If my conscious states are all deterministically caused. Free-will is impossible.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 2:51:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:33:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
tl;dr - S_H, the things you said you were determined by (the self and experience) are themselves determined by other things if not utterly random in occurrence. You've simply chosen to ignore all that which precedes it. Cut the chain short and call it deterministic freewill.

Free Will is only meant as the justification for personal responsibility. The three positions are:

1) Libertarianism. That moral responsibility and being wholly determined by antecedent causes are impossible, and we are morally responsible beings.

2) Soft Determinism / Compatibilism. That we are morally responsible, and that we are determined.

3) Hard Determinism. That moral responsibility and being wholly determined by antecedent causes are incompatible, and we are determined.

To be morally responsible means we are in control of our actions. To be in control of our actions means we are rational. To keep explaining backwards is redundant: unless we see a reason for reason itself to disappear, we don't see a reason for moral responsibility to disappear.

You can claim that this is "not what people mean by free will", but this is not just a well respected and accepted definition and exposition of free will among philosophers, but probably the majority understanding of the term, and certainly was for the early 20th century. The only meaningful part of Free Will which must be retained regards responsibility. When we do something by following our reason, we are responsible for that act. All environmental factors go through the function of "reason" to determine the resulting action. Environment + reason = action, or determinism + Free Will = Action.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...