|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2339 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
I don't think its very hard for someone to accept that they have desires and inclinations, and that they act upon these feelings, but that these desires and inclinations are not self-caused but have occurred as a result of external stimulii - or rather for reasons external to the concious or unconcious will. Doesn't this offer a way of reconsiling what appears to be an individual's act of choosing with the fact that I don't believe there is room for free will in the world? Your position here and in your own thread seems to be closer to a compatibilist position than a hard determinist position to me. So let me try to explore the difference a bit more: 1. Both the hard determinist position and the libertarian position depend on the same definition of freedom, i.e. as uncaused randomness. If you belive that human actions can be uncaused ('attached to nothing' as Dominion Seraph describes it lower down), then you're a libertarian; if you accept this definition of freedom and don't believe human actions can be uncaused then you're a hard determinist. A compatibilist, on the other hand, believes that this definition is meaningless, so doesn't accept either position. 2. The problem with the hard determinist model is that it leads to all kinds of misleading descriptions about human nature, e.g.: (a) You often hear hard determinists talking about man being an automaton. However, an automaton is a thing that follows a pre-programmed set of instructions, and any organism with a brain works in quite a different way. Note that my objection here is not that I think it's morally wrong to talk about man as an automaton, but that it is scientifically misleading. (b) The hard determinist model fails to distinguish between organisms that can make choices and those that can't. The brain is an organ designed to make choices, to separate the organism from immediate stimulus-response mechanisms. If your model of determinism doesn't allow you to make such fine distinctions, then is it very useful? Edited by JavaMan, : typo Edited by JavaMan, : No reason given. 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2339 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
The problem I have with hard determinism is that we do not know anywhere near enough of many variables to come close to tweaking out the deterministic paths -- we don't know what we don't know (ala mr obvious Rumsfield), so we can't know whether determinism applies or not. Yes, it's very easy to say that an event is inevitable after it has occurred. I'm much more impressed by someone predicting the inevitable outcome before it occurs. 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Although there is much I like about compatibilism, let me put indeterminism into the mix.
While many people are persuaded by the arguments for determinism, I find them quite unconvincing. As best I can tell, there is no evidence to support determinism, and there could be no such evidence. It is mere dogma. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1260 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
If free actions are uncaused then one is not responsible for them.
This is a hole of indeterminism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If free actions are uncaused then one is not responsible for them.
That's not particularly relevant. Avoid being trapped into black-and-white thinking. Events can be largely caused, but with a random component. If an event is largely caused by an actor, then the actor is substantially responsible. If it is not completely caused then the chain of determinism is broken, such that the future is not fixed by the past. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1260 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
If "a random component" contributed to the decided outcome and if this "random component" did not exist then there would have been a different outcome?
A good example of this would require much ingenuity and creativity.I could provide one. In summation I find there being no responsibility if a "random component" contributed to the ouutcome and it is a variable that would change the outcome if removed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
In summation I find there being no responsibility if a "random component" contributed to the ouutcome and it is a variable that would change the outcome if removed.
That is still rigid black and white thinking. You need to get beyond that. A drunk driver hits and kills a child. Maybe a slight change in a random component could have resulted in him just clipping the child for minor scratches. That such a change in random components is possible, does not in any way alter the fact that the driver was drunk, was acting irresponsibly, and acting in ways that are very likely to cause injuries. The possibility of a slight change in random components, that could have affected the outcome, does not in any way relieve the driver of responsibility. But that possibility does eliminate the idea that the future is completely and unalterably determined. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1260 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I agree with you now. I appreciate your example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Whatever optiosn are available to you in the situation. Which does not, of course, guarantee that the future would be signfiicantly different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: (a) You often hear hard determinists talking about man being an automaton. However, an automaton is a thing that follows a pre-programmed set of instructions, and any organism with a brain works in quite a different way. But the way in which we work only makes us more so. We learn automatically -- our programming changes on-the-fly. For the things normally referred to as 'automatons', this is not automatic.
JavaMan writes: (b) The hard determinist model fails to distinguish between organisms that can make choices and those that can't. The brain is an organ designed to make choices, to separate the organism from immediate stimulus-response mechanisms. If it is nothing but a conglomeration of immediate stimulus-response mechanisms, why make a distinction? The only difference between a single-step and multiple-step is that the increased complexity of the multiple-step can result in you losing track of exactly what's going on in the middle, so you'd fill the middle in with a question mark -- which gives the concept wiggle room. But your concept of the system including wiggle room doesn't mean the real system has any.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: I'm much more impressed by someone predicting the inevitable outcome before it occurs. In my next viewing of Episode IV, the Rebels will blow up the Death Star. If I un-blow-up it using the << button, the Rebels will just blow it up again. Edit: Did it 6 times. (It's chapter 47, BTW.) Rebels done blown it up every time. Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: The possibility of a slight change in random components, that could have affected the outcome, does not in any way relieve the driver of responsibility. The problem is that your random component isn't anywhere in the driver's mental system (which consists of inputs and configuration.) Change it so that it is, and watch what happens: One of the drunk driver's inputs is changed. Instead of the driver being sent an input consistent with that of light reflecting off a child, the universe randomly outputs the image of a school bus in his path. He swerves to miss it (something that wouldn't have happened if the universe wasn't fucking around with his inputs), and he hits the child. If the universe sent him bad data, is he responsible for the result? Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Are you arguing that if he has a delirium as a result of his drinking, that would somehow relieve him of responsibility? Surely not.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Isn't the question here as to whether the driver has any responsibility for the death of the child effectively the question as to whether the driver had any choice in being drunk, driving, the chosen route home or anything else in his life that set him on the path to that tragic moment? To only consider a random component not directly related to the driver and only at the point of the accident itself is to miss the fundamental point of the question of free will.
Were the drivers and the childs actions both predetermined from the point that the physical universe was set in motion? Are their inherently random components to every physical possibility? If either of these extreme positions are true can we hold peopleaccountable for either predermined actions or totally random fluctuations over which they have no control? Even determinists would accept that there is at least the illusion of free will and it seems to me that detrminism is too dependant on the idea of clockwork cause and single effect universe which modern physics would seem to fundamentally preclude.There has to be a random component. The real question I think is how we reconcile our intuitive notion of free will with a random component over which we seem to have no control.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If free actions are uncaused then one is not responsible for them. Don't you have this 180o backwards? If free actions are uncaused then nothing is responsible for them except the person choosing to make them. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024