Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism)
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 169 of 210 (362586)
11-08-2006 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by DominionSeraph
11-01-2006 1:15 PM


What universe...
Time is included in the universe.
What you will choose is already determined. Since its already included, there's no wait. (and what timestream would the universe be waiting in, anyway?)
What universe are you living in?
I don't know about you, but time is a one-way street for me. I can't go back into the past, and I can only go forward into the future one step at a time.

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-01-2006 1:15 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-14-2006 12:13 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 173 of 210 (363702)
11-14-2006 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Tusko
11-10-2006 5:31 AM


Re: Hard Determinism isn't Science
I haven't forgotten about our discussion. I'm mulling things over. I've also just got to the point in Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding where he's discussing free will, so I want to digest his arguments as well.

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Tusko, posted 11-10-2006 5:31 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Tusko, posted 11-14-2006 9:59 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 174 of 210 (363703)
11-14-2006 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by DominionSeraph
11-14-2006 12:13 AM


Re: What universe...
I don't know about you, but time is a one-way street for me. I can't go back into the past, and I can only go forward into the future one step at a time.
Your limitations are irrelevant.
Irrelevant to who?

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-14-2006 12:13 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 6:07 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 175 of 210 (363704)
11-14-2006 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by DominionSeraph
11-14-2006 12:39 AM


Re: Hard Determinism isn't Science
The fundamental flaw of hard determinism, as far as I'm concerned, is that it treats cognitive processes as a special case, purely as effects in a chain of cause and effect. In the real physical world, any phenomenon can have causal relations too.
You don't understand the difference between hardware and software?
Yes I do. What's your point?

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-14-2006 12:39 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 6:10 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 179 of 210 (363863)
11-15-2006 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by DominionSeraph
11-15-2006 6:07 AM


Re: What universe...
Irrelevant to who?
To who?
Don't even know the meaning of 'relevant', eh?
You're a bit rude, aren't you?
Do you want to engage in debate, or do you just want to make snide remarks?

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 6:07 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 8:08 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 180 of 210 (363865)
11-15-2006 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by DominionSeraph
11-15-2006 6:10 AM


Maybe you could explain
Yes I do. What's your point?
No you don't, or you wouldn't be asking that.
Maybe you could explain why your analogy with hardware and software is relevant to my argument? Here's the original argument for reference:
The fundamental flaw of hard determinism, as far as I'm concerned, is that it treats cognitive processes as a special case, purely as effects in a chain of cause and effect. In the real physical world, any phenomenon can have causal relations too.
You don't understand the difference between hardware and software?
Edited by JavaMan, : typo

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 6:10 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 8:47 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 181 of 210 (363869)
11-15-2006 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Tusko
11-14-2006 9:59 AM


Violent men
I consider people rational beings. I don't mean rational in an objective sense (I've done my fair share of really stupid things in my time), but rather rational in a subjective sense. That is to say, that every decision we make might not improve our lot, or the lot of others, but nonetheless it is enacted because some part of us believes, consciously or unconsciously that it is the most appropriate course of action at the time.
Some people -- very violent men for instance -- will believe that attacking others is the most appropriate course of action even when, in an objective sense, it is probably more dangerous in the short term and more likely to lead society's application of restrictive measures like prison in the long term.
However, they will persist in this behaviour until they die, unless that belief is changed. I can see how change might be precipitated from without - by a kind of societal reprogramming, to put it crudely. But for a person to change independently, I can only see this as possible if there is already a seed of the desire to live a more peacable life planted in them.
I would say that out actions are determined not so much by our beliefs as by our desires. When we do things it's either to pursue pleasure or to avoid pain. Without these motivations we don't tend to do anything very much.
Now imagine we have two violent men, one who is violent but suffers misery because of the social condemnation his violence brings down on him, and another who takes an unalloyed pleasure in his violence.
The first man will be motivated to seek ways of combating his violent tendencies because his actions cause him misery as well as pleasure. He may find religion, or he might start reading psychology and learn how to change his behaviour, possibly even taking a course of therapy to achieve this.
The second man, on the other hand, is unlikely ever to want to change his behaviour. He'll never seek out any kind of therapy, because he doesn't have the motivation to change.
So, I'd argue that we do have freedom to change our behaviour, that changing behaviour is no different to learning a language or learning how to drive a car. It's just a matter of re-programming ourselves.
To be honest, I don't think our model of how humans work is actually that different, Tusko. I think we're just approaching this subject from different angles. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that all our knowledge ultimately comes from outside, that we can't know anything that we haven't experienced. And I wouldn't disagree with that. But to you that means that we can't be free in any meaningful sense, because to be free one needs to act independently of those external influences. Is that a reasonable interpretation of your position?
To me, though, being free means doing what I want. The notion of being entirely free from my desires is meaningless to me. Now if my actions were entirely driven by my desires, that would be a different matter, I would accept that in such a case I couldn't be considered free. But what actually seems to happen, when I come to choose an action, is that I have the ability to suspend choosing while I judge the merits of following one course of action or another (the decision making that we talked about in a previous post). So, if I'm a smoker giving up cigarettes I have a choice between lighting up and not lighting up, between fulfilling my desire for nicotine and my desire to be free of the addiction. I'm driven by both desires, but it's not the desires themselves that determine my action, it's my choice between those desires.

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Tusko, posted 11-14-2006 9:59 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 9:36 AM JavaMan has replied
 Message 191 by Tusko, posted 11-16-2006 6:13 PM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 188 of 210 (363915)
11-15-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by DominionSeraph
11-15-2006 9:36 AM


Re: Violent men
Don't confuse motion for freedom.
What do you mean?
Did you choose to do that? If so, do you have the ability to suspend choosing whether or not you will suspend choosing while you judge the merits of following one course of action (suspending choosing) or another (not to suspend)?
If so, can you suspend choosing that?
And that?
And that?
Why do I need to be free to choose whether to suspend choosing or not? Again you're making the mistake of thinking that what people mean by freedom is freedom from any cause. It's enough that I can suspend my action and choose to fulfil one desire or the other. I don't need to prove some imaginary notion of freedom in some infinite regression of cause and effect.

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 9:36 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-20-2006 6:31 PM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 189 of 210 (363932)
11-15-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by DominionSeraph
11-15-2006 8:47 AM


Re: Maybe you could explain
Software is a representation of a segment of reality. You can leave the representation out without affecting anything, as it's not real. Software doesn't affect anything -- the physical state of the hardware does as it acts on itself.
So, software is a special case, as it wouldn't be integrated into a deterministic model. That doesn't mean that a deterministic model of a computer that only includes what's really there is flawed.
It depends what you want to model, DS. If you want to model the architecture of a computer, then, yes, it's quite reasonable to leave out the software. But if you want to model what the computer does, your model wouldn't be very useful if you left out the software (as software is just the instructions that tell a computer what to do).
That being said, I don't accept that your hardware/software analogy is particularly useful for understanding cognition. Our subjective experience isn't a set of instructions for running the brain or body. (Organisms can quite happily function without subjective experience, even without a brain at all). Rather, our subjective experience seems to emerge out of the physical hardware of the brain, in a sense to be caused by the neural activity that we can observe externally. But as well as being caused by that activity it also seems to exert effects. If I decide to move my finger, my finger moves; if I decide to slow down my breathing, my breathing slows. And my subjective experience of willing those acts plays an important role in initiating the brain activity that leads to the physical actions.
Using analogy is a useful way to reason about things, especially things like consciousness that are pretty much unique. Every explanation we provide employs analogy of some kind - it's the only way we can approach something novel, by comparing it with something we understand. But you should be wary of getting carried away - an analogy is always a simplification - the real thing is always far more complicated.

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-15-2006 8:47 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 192 of 210 (364269)
11-17-2006 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Tusko
11-16-2006 6:13 PM


Re: Violent men
While I accept that you have every right to call your ability to make choices unimpeded by the interference of say, axe-wielding psychopaths or the CIA, it still seems artificial to draw a distinction between external constraints that limit our choices (like people with guns and gravity) and internal ones - like our most uncomplicated desires and our learned behaviours. They all combine to reduce our choices. Now clearly, I'd rather that I didn't do something because I had the belief that it would be dangerous or counterproductive rather than someone was physically restraining me from doing it. But I don't think what I find more palatable has much bearing on the central issue - which is that either way I can't really choose. I can't choose not to be constrained by my beliefs and learned behaviours. In a similar way, I can't choose not to be constrained by a straightjacket if someone puts one on me.
Does that make sense?
Yes it does. And what I'm arguing, and what most compatibilists argue (I'm going over old ground now ) is that we have freedom in the sense we normally mean that word, i.e. we have freedom to choose between alternative courses of action. The fact that these choices are constrained by our desires and learned behaviour doesn't reduce our freedom, because without the constraints, the choices wouldn't be our choices.
But, to put my position into perspective, I don't believe in the kind of unattached freedom that philosophical libertarians argue for. My view of human behaviour is close to yours - the freedom we exercise is constrained by learned habits. Where I differ, I think, is that I believe we're hard-wired to seek out ways of changing our behaviour to cope with the environment better. That's what most of our extra cerebral processing seems to be designed for.
I'll get back to some of your other points in another post. I particularly look forward to discussing hedonism and masochism . (That smiley looks as though it's leering - maybe I should get rid of it...)

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Tusko, posted 11-16-2006 6:13 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Tusko, posted 11-18-2006 11:24 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 193 of 210 (364332)
11-17-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Tusko
11-16-2006 6:13 PM


Pain and pleasure
I think that if it was as clear cut that we were attracted to pleasure and repelled from pain, then we would all be uncomplicatedly hedonistic. And there's another apparent problem: pain can be pleasure and vica versa - and not just for masochists. I think these apparent problems - why aren't people always hedonistic? why do people sometimes choose to harm themselves? aren't problems any more if we consider peoples' actions as the result of learned behaviours... although desire - hardwired behaviour - has to play a part too.
This is an age old debate. You can find some of the best arguments in Cicero, who, though he was a Stoic himself, gave a good account of the Epicurean position (which is what I was describing in the previous post). Here's a good link to the relevant bit of Cicero's De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum:
On the Ends of Virtue
Here's my own take on the issues you raised:
Hedonism
The physical pleasures we associate with the word hedonism (drinking and sex mainly) are certainly pleasurable, and we do seek them out, but if they're overindulged they cause us pain and misery as well (as anyone who's had an affair or got slaughtered on a Saturday night will agree). We're as much driven by the avoidance of pain as by the pursuit of pleasure, so we tend to seek out a middle ground with these hedonistic pleasures.
Masochism
A masochist gaisn sexual pleasure from the physical pain. Do I need to say more?
Self-harm
This is different from masochism. There doesn't seem to be any sexual pleasure gained when people self-harm. So why do they do it? Our immediate question is: What do they get out of it? (Which effectively means: What pleasure do they get out of harming themselves?). And generally the answer is that it gives them a sense of control. They get an emotional pleasure out of having the power to cause pain to themselves, or possibly, they enjoy having the power to cut their skin and being able to withstand the pain. Whatever the exact motivation, the point is that they are getting an emotional pleasure from what seems to us a completely negative action.

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Tusko, posted 11-16-2006 6:13 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Tusko, posted 11-18-2006 11:45 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 201 of 210 (365100)
11-21-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Tusko
11-18-2006 11:24 AM


Re: Christ is a rambler
Someone supporting the first instance argues that If you do something without being compelled by external forces, then you are content at some fundamental level, even if the act is self-destructive, because you are in control of your own destiny. On the other hand, if you do something because external forces compel you, you cannot be content on that same fundamental level - even if the act is pleasurable - because you aren't in control of your destiny.
But I don't think the fundamental level is very fundamental at all - I think it is merely something that we have learned - i.e. that we should all seek to be in control of our destiny - that makes us feel uncomfortable when factors beyond our control take over. My whole argument is that there probably never is a circumstance when we are anything other than a passenger.
And this is one place where we disagree. I think our wanting our own way is pretty fundamental. It's not something learned. It's an instinct, apparent from the moment a baby first cries for food.
To me, this seems directly analogous to someone who says that they want to have children so they can pass on "their" genes. Actually, you don't own your genes. You didn't choose your genes. You inherited them. So you are not an owner, merely a vessel.
Similarly, I don't see myself as an owner or author of my beliefs, or if I am, it is only in such a limited sense as to be effectively meaningless. I see myself as a vessel for my beliefs: beliefs that I have collected like a saucepan left outside will rain.
I don't know whether you've noticed, but here, and elsewhere in the post, there's an implicitly dualistic model of the human psyche. You talk about you not being the owner of your beliefs, or of being a passenger, as though 'you' and the thing with beliefs and desires are two separate things. Is that really the way you view yourself?
If so, that's another difference in our positions. For me, my beliefs and desires are me, they're not something external to me.
As we know, there are a whole load of learned behaviours that can make us very unhappy - just look to the alcoholics, paedophiles, or people with OCD. Acting on these preferences, though probably unavoidable if they are sufficiently strong, will most likely result in less contentment, despite the fact that they come from within.
As I've suggested elsewhere, you can't really begin to understand behaviours like these until you ask the question, What do they get out of behaving like that? i.e. What pleasure do they get out of it?
Let me ask you a few questions, to flesh out what the practical differences between our two positions:
(a) What is your attitude to therapy? If I were an addict and you were my therapist, do you think it would be possible to help me change my behaviour? How would you do it if you could?
(b) Do you think it would be possible for me to change my behaviour on my own?
(c) If my addictive behaviour were dangerous to others, do you think it would be OK to change my behaviour against my will? Would it possible?
Edited by JavaMan, : subtitle
Edited by JavaMan, : typo

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Tusko, posted 11-18-2006 11:24 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Tusko, posted 11-25-2006 7:23 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 202 of 210 (365106)
11-21-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Tusko
11-18-2006 11:45 AM


Re: Pain and pleasure
The reason I brought this up was because I thought, erroniously, you were offering an explanation of human behaviour on a hedonistic model rather than the model I favour of learned and biologically hard-wired behaviours.
My difficulty with the notion of learned behaviour is that it is rather a static, passive model of human behaviour. If we only act out the behaviour we've learned, how can behaviour change? In order to understand the dynamic aspects of behaviour, I think you need to understand what motivates people to do things - and I think at the root of motivation you always find the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
oh, and for some reason I can't go to the links that you gave for Cicero.
That's strange. The server seems to have gone down since I put the link up. Hopefully it's only temporary. The link wasn't particularly important - it was just a good exposition of the Epicurean position on pleasure and pain. Cicero himself was a Stoic, believing that Virtues like Wisdom, Courage and Temperance were ends in themselves. The Epicureans, on the other hand, argued that virtues like these are never sought as ends in themselves, but only as a means to gain happiness or to avoid pain.
Also - was Locke enlightening?
Very. I think his Essay Concerning Human Understanding is going to become one of those books I keep going back to for inspiration. It's not a weekend read - it's over 400 pages long - but he writes in a very clear prose style, and he doesn't go in for obfuscation like some philosophers. It's a bit like reading some 17th century English Buddha clearing away the dead wood of centuries of delusion.
Edited by JavaMan, : typo

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Tusko, posted 11-18-2006 11:45 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Tusko, posted 11-25-2006 7:36 AM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 205 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-25-2006 8:28 PM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 206 of 210 (366447)
11-28-2006 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by DominionSeraph
11-25-2006 8:28 PM


Learned behaviour and motivation
Learned behavior encompasses the motivation(s).
What do you mean?

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-25-2006 8:28 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-29-2006 12:55 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 207 of 210 (366450)
11-28-2006 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by DominionSeraph
11-20-2006 6:31 PM


Freedom of action
If one must change, one is not free to stay the same. If one must change in a particular way, one is not free to change in any other.
Moving doesn't mean you're free -- it just means you're moving.
When I say I have freedom of action, I don't mean that I can do anything I like. I have to respond to environmental change, and most of my choices are to do with things changing around me. So, no, I don't have any choice in that - I have to respond some way. But does the fact that I have to do something mean that I don't have any choice at all?

'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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by DominionSeraph, posted 11-20-2006 6:31 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024