Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Ash · 12-03-2002, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zadok001:
Tron, I'm running on a different definition than you. I think we're actually in agreement on this point. Your definition of free will allows for determinism by using the EXPERIENCE of choosing as the relevant part of free will - i.e., you think about stuff, you make a choice. And that's free will under your definition.

My definition is simply that you can change the outcome a situation through rational choice.

Under your definition, predetermination doesn't matter. Under mine, it does.

Thus, under my definition (which SandSlice shares), this argument is distasteful. It's not particularly nice to know you don't have free will.

But Zadok, waht exactly is your definition of free will. I'm not even sure the incompatibilist determinist definition of free will is coherent.

xeren · 12-04-2002, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash:

I know Galen Strawson, BTW. He's a strong atheist.

Not to namedrop, or anything...

Well,you just did namedrop. You see Thomas, the great thing about message boards is you can delete name drops before you post them.

Quote:

But that's not compatibilism! (Hey, haven't I had this argument with you already on the thread 'REAL Free Will?') Compatibilism has nothing to do with whether you know what you're going to decide, or not. It could be as fully determined as incompatibilist determinism. It just gives a definition of free will that allows for both free will and determinism. This definition is that free will is simply the act of you making a choice without complete external coercion. Even if you can trace causes back to before your birth, it's still free will so long as you're a major part of the decision-making process.

You know Thomas, i really don't see how i'm going wrong here, or why you're attacking everything i say.

You just keep saying i'm misrepresenting compatibilism, so please, once and for all, just TELL me HOW i'm misrepresenting it!

For instance:

Quote:

Compatibilism has nothing to do with whether you know what you're going to decide, or not.

Could you please tell me where i said this!? (maybe i did, I'm honestly asking you!) Please enlighten me. Feel free to use the light that reflects off of you from Galen Strawson, whom you know so well, and i will humbly conced my error. Oops name drop.

-xeren

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]

Keith Russell · 12-04-2002, 07:33 PM

Beoran said:
"The rock-so-big-god-can't-lift-it paradox can also be resolved by true omnipotence. The omniponent being just has to redefine the meanings of the terms at it's will to make the paradox dissapear. Yeah, it's cheating and illogical, but that's omnipotence, and fully omnipotent beings "move in mysterious ways"."

Gosh, Beoran, is it so important for you to have 'God', that you'll dispense with logic to be able to do so--and you'll admit that that's what you've done?

Keith.

Thomas Ash · 12-05-2002, 12:29 AM

xeren, sorry to sound over critical. I didn't mean to. But here's the quote you asked for, where I think you are misrepresenting compatibilism...

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren:

So long as we have no knowledge of our decisions and their complete repercussions, we have free will
But of course, that is the compatibilist position that people have been speaking of. And i hate (wait no, i love) bringing religion into it, but for Christianity, the compatibilist position is not enough to warrant things like punishment for sins. Without the kind of "strong" free will that even compatibilists agree we don't have, the punishment/reward system of christianity makes little sense.

-xeren

(original post you were responding too by Zadok)

Beoran · 12-05-2002, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:

Gosh, Beoran, is it so important for you to have 'God', that you'll dispense with logic to be able to do so--and you'll admit that that's what you've done?

Sob... ;_; My japanese style smilies don't work here! Short explanation: ^_^ means I'm smiling happily. ;_; mean's I'm sad. ^_~ means I'm winking ironically. I was winking ironically.

So, no, I don't think that such a god exists, and I don't think it valuable to me. I'm an eclectic, but also an unbeliever. Tertullian's "credo quia absurdam" is irrefutable, but also not very practical or wise. And I'm looking for wisdom in philosophy, not words. "The Master said, "The study of strange ideas [doctrines] can hurt you!""

xeren · 12-05-2002, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash:
xeren, sorry to sound over critical. I didn't mean to.

Hey, no problem, I don't mind being wrong, i just like to know why someone thinks so. Thanks for the apology.

As for the quote, i now see what you mean, because i didn't pull enough of the quote i replied to. Here's the larger version of it:

Quote:

Thus, the *experience* of having free will IS free will in and of itself. So as long as we have no knowledge of our future decisions and their complete repercussions, we have free will.

I was more taking my position from the first part of the paragraph(which i didn't quote) than from the last (which i did quote). My whole point is that the compatibilist position is that although determinism is unfalsifiable(according to strawson), the compatibilist says that being unrestrained in his actions, and to be able to view his options is enough to have free will, so one could say that, to a certain extent, "the *experience* of having free will IS free will in and of itself."

Not EXACTLY the compatibilist position, but i figured for the argument it was close enough. But you are right that the compatibilist position has nothing to do with knowing the outcome of your actions. I hope Strawson forgives me.

-xeren

Thomas Ash · 12-06-2002, 01:53 AM

Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-04-2002, 07:33 PM	#63
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Beoran said: "The rock-so-big-god-can't-lift-it paradox can also be resolved by true omnipotence. The omniponent being just has to redefine the meanings of the terms at it's will to make the paradox dissapear. Yeah, it's cheating and illogical, but that's omnipotence, and fully omnipotent beings "move in mysterious ways"." Gosh, Beoran, is it so important for you to have 'God', that you'll dispense with logic to be able to do so--and you'll admit that that's what you've done? Keith.

12-06-2002, 01:53 AM	#67
Thomas Ash Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 820	Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.