Free Will or Determinism is a false dichotomy. Determinism is the Passive feeling raised to the level of philosophy. Free Will is the Active feeling. Determinism, being Passive, implies the Active. It is the feeling of being acted upon. All Action logically implies Passion, and all Passion logically implies Action. This is not a form of compatibilism, because compatibilism asserts the validity of the original false dichotomy of Free Will & Determinism.
Some ad hoc thoughts. Lets assume Free Will exists. It exists not just in human minds but in all life forms. How come humans even exist? How come we look alike? Why did more simple cells all choose the same path? If they had an endless possibility of action the likelihood of humans, animals, species appearing and continuing to appear would be zero? I consider it reasonable to assume Wills exists due to a deterministic system.
Or maybe it is really simple. Can You choose to set your foot in Africa right now, if You presently are standing in Siberia? No. Your range of possible actions are determined.
I don't know. These are new thoughts I just had.
I been thinking about this question for years and never reached any comfortable level of view on this matter.
[ - ] Goatboy 1 point 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 14:25:41 ago (+1/-0)*
Like quantum physics, the correct answer is both. Our minds construct our consciousnesses from sensory data that takes time to transmit and process. That information is a record of something that already happened. In other words, we exist in the past, whether it be 300 ms or 300 million years (in the case of observing star light) the reality we percieved is gone by the time our minds make meaning of the data and assemble it into our perceptions. Existing in the past is determinism. We cannot change it. Our subconsious minds make probablistic fight/flight/freeze stimulus response actions to the data- regardless of the transmission delay error.
At the same time, our minds can construct probablistic futures using that same consciousness mechanism. We can project a kind of fight/flight/freeze probablistic reality into the future. This projection into the future can impact short term objectives (i.e. run from predator) or long term impactful actions (i.e. choose not to cheat on spouse). This can be free will and not fight/flight/freeze.
Quantum physics is bullshit though, ITs not how the universe actually works, ITs how we think it works based on our understanding of the universe and that is very limited, There is almost certainly other mechanisms at play that happen in dimensions that we don't understand.
I like your take on what 'Determinism' is. I think you're right in highlighting the sensations and perceptions of the 'agent'. Free Will and Determinism as they're discussed in philosophy books seem to me to be external frameworks, which is why they contradict one another. I think the correct approach is to look at those feelings and sensations of the 'agent' as predominantly Passive or Active, which is what we're both doing. In the end though, time doesn't play as important a part, because the predominant feeling of Action (Free Will) or Passion (Determinism) exists just the same, whether one has acted or been acted upon in the past, or whether one is currently acting or being acted upon.
You have to explain the terms within a consistent model. Free-will vs determinism as in objective versus subjective, depends upon the model used to describe both physical and mental entities. We explain physical entities like orbits of particles in an atom with 'models' as we do with the orbits of planetary bodies using another model. We do have a 'subjective' model to accurately explain the 'mental' entities that are part of the 'objective' model that we recognize that also exist in other people's minds.
As our minds as well (which exist only as a mental entity, that is described as having both objective and subjective parts, this 'subjective' model has to be explained with a consistent model of the 'mind-body' problem. Not impossible, it just requires being consistent with definitions.
The model which is also part of our 'subjective' experience is also producing the model as well as part of the objective model, needs to be described so that the model both represents the experience in one mind that may also exist in another mind.
Then after you've made a consistent model that points to all parts of the mind-body problem then you have essentially an entity called agreement, that agreement is essentially what we would say is money, as it successfully validates and legitimizes all the requirements of 'existing', being 'real, and having passed all the thresholds of 'agreements' between minds.
And all the sub-aspects of agreement are currencies.
Yeah no yeah we have will. We have agency. I'm saying our take on things is a reflection of strong and active or weak and passive our wills are. I bet if you briefly explained the issue to normies and NPC, they would largely enforce Determinism; whereas goats here would largely endorse Free Will.
a) Philosophy is interested in every discipline. No area of study is beyond the proper scope of philosophy.
b) Psychology is the study of emotion. I'm not studying emotions in this post. I'm considering sensations and the emotional charge of those sensations to inform a metaphysical debate.
Maybe I'm not understanding you. How is internal vs. external locus of control 'completely separate' from Free Will vs. Determinism?
As for dissembling, the principle of philosophical method, going all the way back to Socrates, is that in a philosophical inquiry, what we are trying to do is not to discover something of which until now we have been ignorant, but to know better something which in some sense we knew already; not to know it better in the sense of coming to know more about it, but to know it better in the sense of coming to know it in a different and better way, ie. actually instead of potentially, or explicitly instead of implicitly. When you say 'Free Will vs. Determinism is not able to be proven', you are talking about measurable facts, which is to 'know more about it'. I'm trying to know it Ina better way, explicitly. It is the exact opposite of dissembling. It's not the case that any time someone talks about feelings or emotions or inner states they are just talking about psychology. Psychology doesn't begin where measurable facts end. The arguments for or against Free Will or Determinism fall flat or are unconvincing in the face of one another precisely because of the appeal to measurable facts and trying to 'know more about it' rather than trying to know what we already know but in a better, more explicit way.
What are you talking about? Why are you talking about whether agents can exist? And you accuse me of dissembling! Talking about 'Determinism is exclusive to its alternative, it is a binary set.' That's begging the question. If you're having trouble with the terms I use, I can recommend a dictionary. You don't understand the issue at all if you think Free Will implies chaos. If anything, Free Will is the opposite of chaos. If anything, Chaos & Determinism is the binary set, and Free Will intercedes. The universe, either chaotic or deterministic, is without agency. Agency consists in active & passive elements.
That's compatibilism and it doesn't work. The dichotomy is such that the positions of Free Will and Determinism contradict one another and cannot be reconciled without redefining terms, which is disingenuous, or ignoring the obvious contradiction, as I think you have done. Just because an act is not random, does not mean it is therefore predictable.
Even randomness is to a certain extent predictable. Like the weather. But everything that isn't random is fully predictable. Everyone acting under their free will can be observed as determinism.
Because when it comes down to it, people don't make their choices by rolling dice. They have free will to do what they want. As long as you have a deep understanding of someone, you will know his choices before he has to make them. This can be described as determinism. That's why free will and determinism are essentially the same thing viewed from two different perspectives.
People usually are uncomfortable with the concept of determinism, because they think it robs them of their agency. But that's backwards. Their very agency is the reason for determinism.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 21, 2021 22:47:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Phatboi
[ - ] Phatboi 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 3, 2021 19:49:31 ago (+0/-0)
Or maybe it is really simple. Can You choose to set your foot in Africa right now, if You presently are standing in Siberia? No. Your range of possible actions are determined.
I don't know. These are new thoughts I just had.
I been thinking about this question for years and never reached any comfortable level of view on this matter.
[ + ] Goatboy
[ - ] Goatboy 1 point 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 14:25:41 ago (+1/-0)*
At the same time, our minds can construct probablistic futures using that same consciousness mechanism. We can project a kind of fight/flight/freeze probablistic reality into the future. This projection into the future can impact short term objectives (i.e. run from predator) or long term impactful actions (i.e. choose not to cheat on spouse). This can be free will and not fight/flight/freeze.
[ + ] whostolemyusername
[ - ] whostolemyusername 1 point 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 15:09:12 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 16:09:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 15:01:52 ago (+0/-0)
Free Will and Determinism as they're discussed in philosophy books seem to me to be external frameworks, which is why they contradict one another. I think the correct approach is to look at those feelings and sensations of the 'agent' as predominantly Passive or Active, which is what we're both doing. In the end though, time doesn't play as important a part, because the predominant feeling of Action (Free Will) or Passion (Determinism) exists just the same, whether one has acted or been acted upon in the past, or whether one is currently acting or being acted upon.
[ + ] donutbakery
[ - ] donutbakery 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 23:02:28 ago (+0/-0)
As our minds as well (which exist only as a mental entity, that is described as having both objective and subjective parts, this 'subjective' model has to be explained with a consistent model of the 'mind-body' problem. Not impossible, it just requires being consistent with definitions.
The model which is also part of our 'subjective' experience is also producing the model as well as part of the objective model, needs to be described so that the model both represents the experience in one mind that may also exist in another mind.
Then after you've made a consistent model that points to all parts of the mind-body problem then you have essentially an entity called agreement, that agreement is essentially what we would say is money, as it successfully validates and legitimizes all the requirements of 'existing', being 'real, and having passed all the thresholds of 'agreements' between minds.
And all the sub-aspects of agreement are currencies.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 15:03:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 16:13:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 16:43:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 18:34:26 ago (+0/-0)
b) Psychology is the study of emotion. I'm not studying emotions in this post. I'm considering sensations and the emotional charge of those sensations to inform a metaphysical debate.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 20:25:42 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 23:58:35 ago (+0/-0)
As for dissembling, the principle of philosophical method, going all the way back to Socrates, is that in a philosophical inquiry, what we are trying to do is not to discover something of which until now we have been ignorant, but to know better something which in some sense we knew already; not to know it better in the sense of coming to know more about it, but to know it better in the sense of coming to know it in a different and better way, ie. actually instead of potentially, or explicitly instead of implicitly. When you say 'Free Will vs. Determinism is not able to be proven', you are talking about measurable facts, which is to 'know more about it'. I'm trying to know it Ina better way, explicitly. It is the exact opposite of dissembling. It's not the case that any time someone talks about feelings or emotions or inner states they are just talking about psychology. Psychology doesn't begin where measurable facts end. The arguments for or against Free Will or Determinism fall flat or are unconvincing in the face of one another precisely because of the appeal to measurable facts and trying to 'know more about it' rather than trying to know what we already know but in a better, more explicit way.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 8, 2021 00:39:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 10, 2021 16:25:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 17:29:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 20:26:18 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Wahaha
[ - ] Wahaha 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 14:22:52 ago (+0/-0)
Your free will leads to a predetermined outcome.
More precisely, your choices ain't random. Since there's no randomness, everything is predictable, given sufficient knowledge. Meaning Determinism.
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 14:44:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Wahaha
[ - ] Wahaha 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 17:35:49 ago (+0/-0)
Because when it comes down to it, people don't make their choices by rolling dice. They have free will to do what they want. As long as you have a deep understanding of someone, you will know his choices before he has to make them. This can be described as determinism. That's why free will and determinism are essentially the same thing viewed from two different perspectives.
People usually are uncomfortable with the concept of determinism, because they think it robs them of their agency. But that's backwards. Their very agency is the reason for determinism.
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 18:22:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Wahaha
[ - ] Wahaha 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 18:46:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 7, 2021 14:06:43 ago (+0/-0)