|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4874 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:But if determinism is true, then what are you deciding between? It can't be two possible futures, because if determinism is true there is only one possible future (although it is unpredictable).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4874 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:What are the options? Two different futures states?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4874 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I still cannot see how determinism and free will are compatible. The options must be different future states. In order for a future state to be to be considered an option it must be possible for that future state to come about. Determinism states that there is only one possibility for the future, one option. Given that there is one option, there can be no choice. Can you explain why it would be wrong to say "the moon chose to orbit the earth" and it makes sense to say "I chose to write this post" if determinism is true? In both cases the previous states are responsible for the present state. Humes Fork: Either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the random, in which case we are not responsible for them. Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4874 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:And sorry for being pedantic about your pedantic comment, but Hume's Fork is used to describe both those ideas (though my definition is sometimes called Hume's Fork II). For instance, it is the definition used in Blackburn's Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4874 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I'm denying free will (for arguments sake), so saying that the other option (an element of randomness) cannot be considered free will does nothing to help your point. quote:I thought you'd say this, but now you are just begging the question. I asked: Why doesn't it makes sense to say "The moon chose to orbit around the earth" and it does make sense to say "I chose to write this post." Your reply: Because people have the ability to choose. Don't you see how that is kind of a vacuous answer? The question is: what definition of "choose," "decide," "option," etc. are you using so as to make the one sentence nonsensical and the other make sense?
quote:Until you can satisfactorily answer the question above (which you may be able to, though I'm not yet convinced) then you are responsible for your actions in the same way the moon is. Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4874 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I think the problem has to do with the vague notion of free will. If I give you an argument that x is incompatible with y, and the only reply you make is that ~x is also incompatible with y, then the most obvious solution is that there is a problem with the idea of y. You have to find a flaw in my argument, not just offer a counterargument. Maybe there is a flaw, I just want it explicitly pointed out.
quote:Maybe thought and consideration, but did I have a choice? I don't know, maybe its just an illusion. quote:And are these options future states. Yes or no. Are you claiming that two different future states are compatible with the present state? And "select one" is basically synonomous with "choose", which seems to make your definition circular. And to clarify, I don't know how to define it without it being circular.
quote:And I would argue that determinism has nothing to do with "selecting" since the idea seems to be incompatible with an immutable future state. The future state was determined even before you were born according to determinism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4874 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
I didn't explicitly make an argument, no. So here is a rough idea of what my thoughts are.
Premises i. Free will, defined by the ability to decide between options (Paul K, not verbatim). ii. What are the options? The options can be viewed as future states. For instance, I have a choice to go to grad school or not to go to grad school. I am choosing between two future states of the world, namely one where I am in grad school and another where I am not in grad school. All options can be viewed as future states. iii.In order for something to be considered an option, it must be possible for it to be chosen. Conclusion: From 1, there must be more than one option (options is plural). From two, these options are future states. From three, each option must be possible. So i. becomes: Free will, defined by the ability to decide between possible future states. Determinism: The state of of time 2 is completely determined by the state at time 1. Therefore, only one state is possible at time 2, i.e., the state dictated by time 1. There is only one possible state for each time, so therefore there is only on possible future. There is only one possible future according to determinism. That is obviously incompatible with free will as defined in the conclusion of the previous argument. I know you disagree with 2 (atleast), so I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Edited by JustinC, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4874 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:It seems my example would be precluded by iii. then, since it is not possible to choose for some event to occur that far ahead in the future. So maybe the choice would be an immediate action, i.e., how one should act. In that case, you are still choosing between atleast two future states: 1.) where you act in x manner, and 2.) where you act in ~x manner. Or even if the choice is entirely mental, you are still choosing between two different states of mind for the future (if you believe in a materialist notion of the mind then your mind would have to be physically different depending on the choice).
quote: quote:I don't quite see the equating. Can you be more explicit in the two different senses in which it is being used. But I'll try and reword it.
quote:and quote: Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024