A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

As stated up thread, much of what Lessans claims are based on absolutes, in that the world operates in black and white but this is not the case. In Lessans world we either have free will in all cases or we do not. It is much more likely that our will is partly determined and partly random and not all or nothing of either. His claim of greater satisfaction, while being somewhat empty, is also claimed to be absolute but this is not the case in the real world. For myself there are often times when an activity of lessor importance or satisfaction, will take precedence over one that would be much more satisfying. People often engage in activities that are habit, and not satisfying at all. I would find it much more satisfying to drive at a higher speed that allowed but stay reasonably close to the speed limit, not because it is satisfying to do so, I just don't like paying fines. Lessans even admits that satisfaction is not absolute but conditional, not black and white, so because greater satisfaction is grey and not absolute, it doesn't prove what he thought it did. These same ideas that the world operates in the grey can be applied to conscience in that not everyone will respond to a no blame environment the same way. Lessans world requires everyone to react the same way to a given situation and that is not the case in the real world. Individuals do not always react the same way in the same situation at different times.

Thedoc, you are getting more and more in a hole. The more you speak, the more you expose your ignorance. This knowledge of no free will is a universal law. It is black and white; there are no in betweens; so whatever you are trying to use to discredit this claim is false, period. Do you hear me, or are you going to continue on with deaf ears?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unless you listen to Sam Harris and others who show the flaws in this line of reasoining, I have nothing more to say to you. I'm sorry

LOL, yes, listen to others to form your own opinions, Spacemonkey. Specifically listen to the bigot and rape apologist Sam Harris!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But we can't. We can't even control what thoughts come to mind, so how can we be a cause of our own chain of causation? We are always making choices in reaction to some feeling or thought which we use to determine what our choice will be, but we can't say we are doing this of our own free will.

Actually we can, to a degree, control the thoughts in our mind. In my last post I was part way through and thought of something I wanted to include, but when I got to where I wanted to include it, the thought had slipped away and I had to concentrate to remember what it was. I was successful thus was able to control that thought. When I play piano, I need to concentrate and keep my thoughts on the music or I can loose my place and if I let a lot of random thoughts distract me I will not play it correctly, actually I will just loose my place and stop. Only occasionally can I pick up again where I stopped. When I was a draftsman I had to keep my thoughts on the drawing and not be distracted by other thoughts, I was controlling the thoughts in my mind. Some forms of meditation stress the practice of controlling the thoughts in your mind, and many are successful at that practice. In some of these practices the aim is to quiet the mind of thought, and allow an awareness (not a thought) to be realized.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually we can, to a degree, control the thoughts in our mind. In my last post I was part way through and thought of something I wanted to include, but when I got to where I wanted to include it, the thought had slipped away and I had to concentrate to remember what it was. I was successful thus was able to control that thought. When I play piano, I need to concentrate and keep my thoughts on the music or I can loose my place and if I let a lot of random thoughts distract me I will not play it correctly, actually I will just loose my place and stop. Only occasionally can I pick up again where I stopped. When I was a draftsman I had to keep my thoughts on the drawing and not be distracted by other thoughts, I was controlling the thoughts in my mind. Some forms of meditation stress the practice of controlling the thoughts in your mind, and many are successful at that practice. In some of these practices the aim is to quiet the mind of thought, and allow an awareness (not a thought) to be realized.

Determinism does not state that you are at the mercy of any thought that comes into your mind. All it states is that we don't always have control over what thought enters our mind at any given moment. When a thought does appear, you can ignore it (as you did when you wouldn't let yourself get distracted), or you can pay attention to it. But the fact remains that our thoughts often come uninvited and appear random.

[Dragar]

peacegirl, when most people talk about free-will, all they mean is that choices are made for reasons that are best articulated as internal values or mental states. That's it. They don't care where the internal values came from - if they were chosen or handed to the person in question or chosen recursively over an infinite number of choices.

You may not like their definition of free-will, but that's your problem. They mean something very different to what you are talking about. You are tilting at windmills.

[peacegirl]

What point am I missing?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The point that we can self-cause some things in that chain. You can then say "Ah, but the decision to self-cause was caused!" And yet those decisions can in certain circumstances be self-caused too - in a limited way.

In that way, we have a limited control over what we will. It is not the kind of free will were we are seperate from causation, but as was already pointed out, that is hardly the issue here: only some sort fo supernatural being could ever have that kind of "free will".

But a limited amount of power over our will seems possible, or at least it is not disproven in your philosphy.

I am not arguing that we don't have this kind of freedom. Lessans states clearly that what we do of our own free will or volition (or initiative) does not make our will free. Just because we have the ability to choose and in so doing influence the outcome (as agents in our own destiny) does not mean we have freedom of the will.

p. 44 We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

So what are you trying to say? Be clear. The fault for my lack of understanding is not with me, so stop putting the blame on me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Am am not so sure about that: willing ignorance seems to be something you indulge in regularly.

Now you're just being snarky.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Am I really? We will see. If I am right you will soon revert to repetition, selective focus on details to divert attention, and generalizations. I will have to repeat my point over and over, not to explain certain aspects, but merely because you will refuse to even consider them because they do not sit well with your world-view.

So if I disagree, it's just my inability to accept the fact that you are right. Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look at the example: we can call the act of training yourself to grow used to heights as an act of self-determination. You can then call that act determined in turn

You're conflating the terms again. Self-determination means that you are consciously choosing to do something of your own volition; of your own desire, which means that all of the antecedent environmental factors are compelling, or pushing you, in the direction of a particular choice. You are no more free than the man in the moon. There is no free will involved in your choice whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, that is not what that means at all. I get the feeling you are sticking your head in the sand.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

, and start an infinite regression right up to the point where we first become conscious - but the same limited ability to self-determine could apply to every step along the way. We could inculcate ourselves with a generalized desire to overcome obstacles, for instance. You can then call THAT determined, perhaps by your upbringing. But people can decide to follow upbringings or revolt against them... etc. etc. etc.
That would give us a *limited* amount of influence over the things we "will" - at least within the framework of what we can actually experience.

Not at all.
Determinism does not remove the influences that we use in making decisions, but that influence is not authored by us; these are thoughts that come to mind which are not in our direct control. Our decision to follow our upbringings or revolt against them is also determined by antecedent events and circumstances that lead us to making a choice, all within a causal chain. You cannot make a case for free will anywhere if you look closely enough. When you say "we could inculcate ourselves with a generalized desire to overcome obstacles", who is giving you the desire to do this inculcating? Even though you are making the decision, this is not self-authored. You are not the ultimate author of your desires without input from your environment and genetics. Your desires are formed out of your experiences, which in turn, compel you to choose certain behaviors. None of your choices are free.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I just gave you an example of someone authoring a decision. You are merely taking another step in the regression without showing why we would not have similar limited control over that.

Once again, I am not disagreeing that we can initiate or author a decision, but the decision is not free. Regression would show why there was only one choice that could have been made, rendering that choice unfree.

So what is the point?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

See above.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is clearly possible. Your response is "Ah, but that decision is determined too!"

That is also true, whatever choices were made, we can theoretically take those choices all the way back to when we first became conscious. Where does this change the fact that our choices are anything but free?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You miss the point. There is a limited amount of flexibility there that we cannot say, for sure, is all determined.

Flexibility only means that there is more than one way of doing something, but the choice, once made, is determined by causal factors that push aside one choice in favor of another. Your decision to overcome a phobia pushes aside the notion of choosing to give into it, which is a compulsion beyond your control.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now you are drifting off into the mystical. A choice is caused only after it is made but not before?

That's true. The choice that someone makes is subject to flexibility up until the point of selection. This has happened to me many times. For example, I make a decision to go straight home instead of stop to get something to eat, but as the restaurant comes into view, I suddenly change my mind. My sudden change of mind could not have been otherwise. When people say I could have gone straight had I wanted to, that is true, but I didn't want to, rendering that option an impossibility at that moment because it gave me less satisfaction in comparison. Yes, I am repeating myself, and I will continue to do so if I feel it's pertinent.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am well aware of what Harris says, and I have pointed out the essential flaw in his thinking by making it bold. Harris oversimplifies, pretends all free will must be Jovian free will. Free Will, to him, means the ability to completely determine everything, and if we do not have that, then "one's desires are the product of prior events that one is completely unaware of and had no hand in creating". But as I have shown, we can clearly see examples from real life where this simply is not the case.

All of our desires are traced back to a feeling of dissatisfaction with the present position. For example, I am in the mood for ice cream. This desire isn't coming out of nowhere. It is coming from the workings of my biology that is prompting this thought, desire, and possible action. That does not mean I have no choice to resist this desire, but it has entered my thoughts and I will either reject it because the desire is not that strong, or else I will get in the car to fulfill that desire. In either case I will be fulfilling a law of my nature from which I cannot extricate myself, not even for a nanosecond. Let me repeat this important point; the choice that is ultimately made is the choice that could have only been made based on all of the determinants that were in place at that moment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You miss the point again. Because at any moment I can choose not just to influence the outcome of a "this or that" kind of decision, but have much, MUCH more flexibility including adjusting my desires for future stimuli this kind of simplistic point of view is not really relevant. It is arguing against a strawman.

There is no strawman here. You are the one offering a strawman because we all know that we can adjust our desires for future stimuli, but this has no relevance when it comes to whether our desires and choices are determined by causal factors that lead us in one direction.

I never heard of Jovian free will. I looked it up and can't find anything on it. Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

That is because it is a term I made up to describe the kind of all-powerful definition of free will that Harris argues against. It is essentially a strawman: such free will could only exist for 1 creature in any given universe.

There is only one kind of free will. You are trying to bring free will down to size where we can have a little free will; the kind that allows us to exert influence over our choices. But this kind of freedom is a given. Lessans is so clear about this. Here is this passage again. Maybe one of these times it will sink in.

p. 53 The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’

Harris is right, our choices are fully caused.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure he is right. Just like I am right when I say "we don't breathe oxygen!"
The problem is that that is a rather silly thing to say. No-one ever claimed we just breathe oxygen.

It's not a silly thing to say because the statement, "we are fully caused" means there is no room for even a little bit of free will, although, as agents, we are participants (not just passive recipients) in how our life unfolds.

We are determined beings (in keeping with all of nature), although the agent is a part of the process when it comes to human beings. We are different than animals in this respect because we are able to contemplate before making a choice, but this in itself does not exempt us from being part of nature itself. Remember, the fact that we have options does not take away from the fact that we can only move in one direction, just like animals do. We don't think they have free will to choose other than what they choose, do we? The fact that we can contemplate has muddled the waters but the same principle applies. The irony is that this position is the most scientific. You're actually fighting against your own worldview that science is the most reliable way to find truth.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I don not really see much difference between us and animals in this respect, except that language makes it easy to detect the kind of behaviors we are talking about. But the limited ability to influence our will makes us, ourselves, part authors of our causative chain.

We are not the ultimate authors of our fate, which is the very point of this discussion.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You can't prove determinism empirically which is what you are asking of me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You use the word empircal as if you do not know what it means. i am not asking for empirical evidence. Logical evidence would do as well.

Good. Harris has a lot of logical evidence. Did you listen to his lecture?

But you can prove it through observation and empirical testing of the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Highly debatable. We are nowhere near close enought o being able to interpret what we measure when we look at brain tests. Harris is jumping the gun in a massive way with his claims on this front.

No he isn't. His conclusion as to why will is not free, based on his understanding of the brain at the neuronal level, is on target.

We are not responsible for how our organs work to keep us alive. By the same token, we are not responsible for being born, nor are we responsible for our genetics or the environment we come from. All of this leads to our making certain choices that appear free because we can say we didn't have to choose that if we didn't want to. But based on our genetics and environment they are finally coming to understand that it is not the case that we could have chosen otherwise. This opens up the door for this discovery to be recognized for it's authenticity, maybe even in our lifetime.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All beside the point I am afraid - see above.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What they think about is the ability to make limited choices, which themselves may be determined, but which nevertheless allow a certain amount of flexibility in how we express our determined heritage.

Free will implies that we as humans have a capability different from all other species, which does not fly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Strawman - free will implies no such thing.

Of course it does. It means that we believe we can do what no other species can do, and that is to choose freely.

None of our choices are self-caused.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Simply not true as we have seen above. You are doing what I predicted: simple repetition to avoid things you do not like.

No Vivisectus. Your comment "as seen above" has done nothing to prove that man actually has free will, and I'm entitled to repeat where I think you're wrong.

From moment to moment we are being pushed in a particular direction, which we have absolutely no control over. The determinant can be as simple as being uncomfortable and desiring to change positions. We are not creating the desire to change positions; something is prompting us due to a feeling of discomfort.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And more repetition of the Rote learnings. It seems to comfort you in the present of difficult ideas you do not like.

Just because I'm repeating this concept doesn't make it wrong. There are only so many ways to explain it, which you obviously are not getting.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What if we can, in a limited way, be a cause in our own chain of causation?

But we can't. We can't even control what thoughts come to mind, so how can we be a cause of our own chain of causation? We are always making choices in reaction to some feeling or thought which we use to determine what our choice will be, but we can't say we are doing this of our own free will.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have demonstrated how we could (and do) achieve just that, albeit in a limited way.

Initiating a thought or action does not mean that we are actually free in the sense of being completely independent of the antecedent circumstances leading up to it.

I am not confused. You are shifting the blame for your lack of understanding onto me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have never used the word "determination" in the same way as one could use "grit" in this entire conversation, and yet you keep mixing the two meanings.

But he's on the right track, as well as many others. Thank goodness neuro-scientists are beginning to open this field up to new possibilities, as the solution to all war and crime lies behind the door of determinism.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Neurology is going to be a very interesting field indeed, but for far more complex reasons that you seem to realize at the moment. Hopefully it will shed some light on the problem of consciousness.

As for the end of war and crime, I do not believe it will be found there. In order for that to happen you need to find a reason why we should believe conscience is homogenous, and that it works as the book described. So far that is conspicuous in it's absence.

I am trying to find a recent article that I read. It says they have found that children have a fundamental moral compass even before they are taught right and wrong by their guardians.

I don't consider 30 years of study and thought a simple solution. It is the most perplexing debate, which is why the solution has taken so long to discover.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is indeed amazing that after so much study, the only result is such a muddle.

The muddle is not with the book; it's with your faulty reasoning.

It works exactly as Lessans described. But your skepticism is getting in the way, so you'll just have to wait and see...

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed. Just like I will be sorry when Jesus returns. I rather go with what I see a reason to believe for, in stead of trying to hedge my bets against every possibility, no matter how little reason there is to believe it.

And you have every right to do so.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes, I have heard that sort of remark from many believers in many different systems. Too bad it generally involves putting some very selective filters in place to filter out any inconvenient facts.

I have listened to the free will and the compatibilist argument. I am not closing myself off to hearing other points of view.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are already trying to drown out my arguments by repeating your dogma. This will continue, mixed with emotional pleas, pleas to beneficial consequences, willing ignorance... anything you can to retain your belief. You have always been very reliable like that.

I am listening intently on your reasoning, and it's not sound. The kind of free will you keep referring to is not the kind of free will that deems determinism a false ideology. Just because we don't know all of the factors that lead someone to initiate an idea does not mean that they were not pushed in this direction by antecedent events and circumstances. As far as being emotional, yes, I have gotten emotional at times, but that has nothing to do with the validity of my presentation.

The truth is we cannot separate ourselves from the chain of events that we call our lives. It would be like a billiard ball suddenly causing itself to change direction when the trajectory toward the left pocket has already been set in motion.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...and more repetition, without actually incorporating what I said.

Our billiard ball is not a solid ball. It has internal moving parts, that move according to a programming that we assume is deterministic in nature, since it's program runs on physical, programmable parts, but that we cannot determine.

It shifts weights internally, thus altering it's course and balance, according to a feedback loop in which it observes it's surroundings and compares outcomes of different movements. It can alter it's preferences. It has some goals we can infer from observing it: it seems to like food, and it seems to like shelter, and the company of other balls. But there are also myriads of unexplainable behaviors that it seems to initiate itself for reasons we do not understand and that we cannot tie down to chains of causation that we understand. We assume these are also deterministic in nature - but we cannot determine them.

The fact that we cannot pinpoint what the underlying factors are does not mean there aren't factors involved. There may be unexplainable behaviors that seem to initiate themselves, but that does not mean they actually do.

[LadyShea]

There is only one kind of free will.

That's just an opinion. Everyone has one and so it means nothing....isn't that what you always say?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's just an opinion. Everyone has one and so it means nothing....isn't that what you always say?

I believe it has been pointed out on this thread that there are several flavors of 'free will' and so far no-one has given absolute proof for any particular one. And, Yes, I know absolute proof is probably not possible, so I would add that compelling arguments for any particular flavor are few and far between, and Lessans version has completely fallen flat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, when most people talk about free-will, all they mean is that choices are made for reasons that are best articulated as internal values or mental states. That's it. They don't care where the internal values came from - if they were chosen or handed to the person in question or chosen recursively over an infinite number of choices.

You may not like their definition of free-will, but that's your problem. They mean something very different to what you are talking about. You are tilting at windmills.

Dragar, that's the very purpose of this discussion; to show that it's an important topic because underneath this apparent conundrum is a very important truth which can lead us to peace on earth. Superficially it seems to not matter how we come to our decisions, or whether we actually have a free choice, but it matters very much since this knowledge impacts our lives in a very fundamental way. Our entire justice system is based on the belief that man's will is free. Without this belief, how could we justify punishment? If this discussion didn't hit such a deep nerve, people wouldn't be so wound up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's just an opinion. Everyone has one and so it means nothing....isn't that what you always say?

I will say this again for the last time. It is impossible to have free will and no free will at the same time. They are complete contradictions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, that's the very purpose of this discussion; to show that it's an important topic because underneath this apparent conundrum is a very important truth which can lead us to peace on earth. Superficially it seems to not matter how we come to our decisions, or whether we actually have a free choice, but it matters very much since this knowledge impacts our lives in a very fundamental way. Our entire justice system is based on the belief that man's will is free. Without this belief, how could we justify punishment? If this discussion didn't hit such a deep nerve, people wouldn't be so wound up.

People are wound up over your willful ignorance and that you and Lessans are just wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

People are wound up over your willful ignorance and that you and Lessans are just wrong.

You are way too audacious for a meaningful give and take discussion, so for that reason I'm going to put you on ignore once again. Bye bye.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, that's the very purpose of this discussion; to show that it's an important topic because underneath this apparent conundrum...

But there is no conundrum. People make choices for reasons; those reasons often include mental states or values. There's no conundrum with this practical definition most people have.

Our entire justice system is based on the belief that man's will is free.

No, it's based on the belief people make choices, for reasons, which can include reasons like 'there is a justice system' and all that entails.

Moral and ethical systems are more complicated, and are often based on the idea that people make choices which include reasons best described as values or internal mental states.

Those choices may still be deterministic, but it's what they are determined by that makes a justice or moral system make any kind of sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But there is no conundrum. People make choices for reasons; those reasons often include mental states or values. There's no conundrum with this practical definition most people have.

But that is not at issue here. The issue is whether those actions are caused or whether they are free of any constraints. In a practical discussion most people say I have free will; I can choose one thing or another; but that is a superficial observation. If you examine more closely you will see that free will, the type that you are describing, is an illusion, which has major ramifications.

Our entire justice system is based on the belief that man's will is free.

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, it's based on the belief people make choices, for reasons, which can include reasons like 'there is a justice system' and all that entails.

Our entire civilization is based on the premise of free will and all that entails; blame, punishment, revenge, retribution, etc.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Moral and ethical systems are more complicated, and are often based on the idea that people make choices which include reasons best described as values or internal mental states.

And these internal mental states are the antecedent conditions of which I speak. Whether conscious or unconscious, these internal mental states (which comprise our values) drive our behavior.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Those choices may still be deterministic, but it's what they are determined by that makes a justice or moral system make any kind of sense.

But if they have no choice because their will is not free, that means they could not have done otherwise. This is the big impasse, for if a person could not do otherwise, how can we hold him responsible? And if we can't hold him responsible, he will be free to hurt others again.

[peacegirl]

Added to previous post:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But a limited amount of power over our will seems possible, or at least it is not disproven in your philosphy.

We have a certain amount of control over what we choose to do, but this does not make for freedom of the will. If I want to do something, I have the power or ability to do it, but the choice to do it is not a free one. If you understood anything about this discovery, you would know that the choices we make are not of our own free will because we are moving in a direction we have absolutely no control over. For example, I take a bath and begin to feel discomfort so I am compelled to get out of the tub. I have the power to do this. My will cannot go against what I choose to do, as if my will is something separate and apart from me. Therefore I am able to initiate this movement but this movement is based on antecedent conditions. If my will was free, I could have stayed in the tub which is an impossibility as long as my option to get out gives me greater satisfaction, which it does because now I'm beginning to feel weak from the hot water. Theoretically I could have stayed in the tub (anything is possible in theory), but not in actuality since doing other than what I did would not have been possible given those exact circumstances. Of course, a new set of conditions may arise changing what I may do. For example, I am trying to prove that I don't have to get out of the tub (the modal fallacy thrown at me) as the only possible choice so I am going to stay in the tub even though I'm feeling faint and my fingers are turning to prunes. But can't you see that this changes the circumstances under which I am now choosing, consequently changing my preference? This is still causal, and does not negate the fact that we never are given a free choice.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say this again for the last time. It is impossible to have free will and no free will at the same time. They are complete contradictions.

You really don't know what you are talking about, it is possible for some segments of your life to be determined and others to be your free will choice. Black and white absolutes are just not part of reality, it is grey with a lot of questions that have no absolute answer.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you examine more closely you will see that free will, the type that you are describing, is an illusion, which has major ramifications.

No, it isn't. I make choices, for reasons (what else would a choice be? It's not random selection, so it must be for reasons...). Those choices are because of values, or mental states, which are themselves determined by earlier events. That doesn't make it not a choice. In fact, that's what does make it a choice. And that's also what makes it, for most people, free-will. That's not an illusion. It's not what you are arguing against, but tough: let's call it free-will* instead of free-will. And all we need for a sensible justice/ethical/moral system is free-will*, not free-will.

Our entire civilization is based on the premise of free will and all that entails; blame, punishment, revenge, retribution, etc.

No it isn't. I don't know how you expect this argument to go: as usual, you're blindly asserting without any thought or backing. As I said, you're not capable of having this sort of conversation.

And these internal mental states are the antecedent conditions of which I speak. Whether conscious or unconscious, these internal mental states (which comprise our values) drive our behavior.

Of course they do. That's why it's called a choice, not a random selection or a (simple) programmed outcome. That's what makes us different to clocks: mental states drive us, not (simple) gears and pendulums.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if they have no choice because their will is not free...

Bzz! Wrong! That's not what determines what a choice is. A choice is a selection of one option from many, for reasons. Those reasons, for people, can be described in terms of mental states and values. And for most people, that is why they say they have free-will. But it doesn't even matter, like most of Lessan's ramblings: free-will is irrelevant here. What matters is that people do make choices (see above definition) due to mental states and values, and this is what lets us have a justice system.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Added to previous post:

We have a certain amount of control over what we choose to do, but this does not make for freedom of the will. If I want to do something, I have the power or ability to do it, but the choice to do it is not a free one. If you understood anything about this discovery, you would know that the choices we make are not of our own free will because we are moving in a direction we have absolutely no control over. For example, I take a bath and begin to feel discomfort so I am compelled to get out of the tub. I have the power to do this. My will cannot go against what I choose to do, as if my will is something separate and apart from me. Therefore I am able to initiate this movement but this movement is based on antecedent conditions. If my will was free, I could have stayed in the tub which is an impossibility as long as my option to get out gives me greater satisfaction, which it does because now I'm beginning to feel weak from the hot water. Theoretically I could have stayed in the tub (anything is possible in theory), but not in actuality since doing other than what I did would not have been possible given those exact circumstances. Of course, a new set of conditions may arise changing what I may do. For example, I am trying to prove that I don't have to get out of the tub (the modal fallacy thrown at me) as the only possible choice so I am going to stay in the tub even though I'm feeling faint and my fingers are turning to prunes. But can't you see that this changes the circumstances under which I am now choosing, consequently changing my preference? This is still causal, and does not negate the fact that we never are given a free choice.

Peacegirl, do you ever tire of just throwing words and phrases together at random. What kind of dressing do you put on your 'word salad'?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, it isn't. I make choices, for reasons (what else would a choice be? It's not random...). Those choices are because of values, or mental states, which are themselves determined by earlier events. That doesn't make it not a choice. In fact, that's what does make it a choice.

I never said it's not a choice; it's just not a free choice.

Our entire civilization is based on the premise of free will and all that entails; blame, punishment, revenge, retribution, etc.

Originally Posted by Dragar

No it isn't. I don't know how you expect this argument to go: as usual, you're blindly asserting without any thought or backing. As I said, you're not capable of having this sort of conversation.

Oh really, and you're any better? You don't even have an argument that I can respond to. All you keep saying is I am blindly asserting this, which is not true. Free will is at the heart of our justice system, for if a person couldn't have done otherwise, how could we justify punishing him? We couldn't. We have to believe he didn't have to do what he did. Even the compatibilist notion that we punish in order to deter future behavior uses punishment as a form of retribution or "just desert." If a person cannot help being anything other than what he is, how can he be blamed for being what he is?

And these internal mental states are the antecedent conditions of which I speak. Whether conscious or unconscious, these internal mental states (which comprise our values) drive our behavior.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course they do. That's why it's called a choice, not a random selection or a programmed outcome. That's what makes us different to clocks: mental states drive us, not (simple) gears and pendulums.

This understanding does not remove our ability to choose. We're not talking about being robots with no input in our decisions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if they have no choice because their will is not free...

Originally Posted by Dragar

Bzz! Wrong! That's not what a choice is. A choice is a selection of one option from many, for reasons (that include reasons best described as mental states or values). And for most people, that is why they say they have free-will.

I already told you that this is a superficial understanding. Choice is actually an illusion because it implies we can pick one thing or another equally, which is impossible as long as there are meaningful differences between those options. For purposes of discussion though, I use the term choice which is the ability to pick from a selection, one of those options. Who is arguing with this? If you ask a child are you free to choose, he would say yes. Most people haven't even given this issue much thought, let alone understand why this issue is so significant. This video addresses what we are discussing. Maybe it will help clarify what I am trying to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1NRmvWSeL0#t=13

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have a certain amount of control over what we choose to do, but this does not make for freedom of the will. If I want to do something, I have the power or ability to do it, but the choice to do it is not a free one. If you understood anything about this discovery, you would know that the choices we make are not of our own free will because we are moving in a direction we have absolutely no control over.

That we have control over what we choose to do is free will. You and Lessans can assert anything you want and change definitions for your own use but this does not change reality and the world we live in. Lessans assertions and claims in the book are outside of reality. My wife and I did not fall in love with each others genitals and we are still together, not because of sex or children, we have both freely chosen to stay together for reasons that really are none of your business. You wouldn't understand them anyhow.

I can choose what I believe and over that I have free will and I choose to not believe Lessans. If what Lessans said was true, I would have no choice but to believe what he has written.

If I exercise my free will and choose to move in a certain direction, you and Lessans have simply defined that move as being in the direction of greater satisfaction, regardless of my motives or the reasons for my choice, and then you assert that it proves that my will is not free, even though the choice was freely made by me. Your reasoning and arguments are all circular and meaningless.

[Dragar]

Free will is at the heart of our justice system, for if a person couldn't have done otherwise, how could we justify punishing him?

For a number of reasons: because it protects society; because it influences his future behavior; because it influences the future behavior of others ; because revenge feels good (and it's only recently this became considered a bad reason).

And finally, because because a person could (would!) have done differently if his values and internal mental states were different. Because he made a choice based on those things. If he didn't make his choice based on those things (i.e. he chose that way because he was mentally ill, or he had a gun to his head), we treat him differently. Exploring those nuances is a fun discussion, but again it's not a discussion you're even capable of understanding - I suspect because it doesn't match anything Lessans rambled about.

If a person cannot help being anything other than what he is, how can he be blamed for being what he is?

What else would you blame someone for? That's what blame is: associating responsibility of a person's choices on their mental states or values.

Choice is actually an illusion because it implies we can pick one thing or another equally...

No, it doesn't. A choice means one option is selected from many, for reasons. Change the reasons, change the resulting choice. That's what makes it a choice. Your definition is weird and nobody uses it; I don't care your incoherent 'free choices' don't exist any more than I don't care four sided triangles don't exist.

Look, I see what your point is: we should be more compassionate because there but for fortune, etc. And I agree (particularly as I think mental states and values are folk-psychology myths most of the time). But it's hardly a novel notion, nor is it one that requires fighting against this straw-man concept of free-will and choices. People have written about this sort of thing for decades if not centuries, and your (and Lessan's) bumbling around in ignorance on the literature while claiming it's a revolution is rather arrogant behaviour, to say the least.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you are compatibilist and you are defending this worldview with your life. Unless you listen to Sam Harris and others who show the flaws in this line of reasoining, I have nothing more to say to you. I'm sorry.

So why are you saying you won't respond to me if I don't have more to say... while also saying you won't respond to me anyway even if I do say more?

Were you lying when you said above that you wouldn't respond?

BTW, Sam Harris does not show any flaws in compatibilism.

And LOL at me defending compatibilism with my life.

[LadyShea]

And these internal mental states are the antecedent conditions of which I speak.

Well yeah duh, so are the rest of us speaking of them. What I don't understand is why you think that acting in accordance with our internal mental states and desires represents some kind of limitation on our freedom rather than a manifestation of it.

[Dragar]

Exactly. It's not clear to me what anyone could expect freedom to look like, other than that.

[Vivisectus]

Are there instances when we can say that a mental state causes another mental states without needing another cause? And that this new, mentally-caused mental state can then be said in turn to cause the physical brain-state that goes with it?