Free Will And Free Choice

[The AntiChris]

And yet another non-answer.

It's becoming quite apparent that neither you nor FDI understand compatibilism, despite it being the approach adopted by the majority of academic philosophers.

Be that as it may, I have asked you to describe what you believe compatibilism to be....

If you don't understand compatibilism now (after, as far as I'm aware, over 15 years discussing free will) with the wealth of freely available information on line, then it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to be able to enlighten you.

 

[DBT]

And yet another non-answer.

It's becoming quite apparent that neither you nor FDI understand compatibilism, despite it being the approach adopted by the majority of academic philosophers.

Be that as it may, I have asked you to describe what you believe compatibilism to be....

If you don't understand compatibilism now (after, as far as I'm aware, over 15 years discussing free will) with the wealth of freely available information on line, then it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to be able to enlighten you.

I'll take it that you can't or won't explain your reasoning, nor your argument for compatibilism.

Nothing new, you repeat 'you don't understand' over and over but never actually explain or offer an argument.

What you have done here is all you have ever done.

If you have an argument for compatibilism, just present it for once.

 

[The AntiChris]

If you don't understand compatibilism now (after, as far as I'm aware, over 15 years discussing free will) with the wealth of freely available information on line, then it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to be able to enlighten you.

I'll take it that you can't or won't explain your reasoning, nor your argument for compatibilism.

Why should I? I'm not arguing "for compatibilism". I'm simply saying your arguments appear to demonstrate ignorance of compatibilism.

Nothing new, you repeat 'you don't understand' over and over but never actually explain or offer an argument.

But this is exactly what I've been trying to do.

If you believe compatibilist free will entails the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't.

Done.

 

[DBT]

Why should I? I'm not arguing "for compatibilism". I'm simply saying your arguments appear to demonstrate ignorance of compatibilism.

You should offer something more than you have. As it is, you are merely making vague remarks and asserting ''you don't understand compatibilism'' without explanation.

Without supporting what you assert, what you say has no merit. You need to explain your case to the readers.

But this is exactly what I've been trying to do.

Asserting ''you don't understand compatibilism'' is neither an explanation or an argument. I have asked you to explain your case, but you never do.

I have asked what is free will without the ability to have chosen otherwise in any given circumstance? I didn't say that compatibilism rests upon this principle.

Now are you able to give a rational description or argument for compatibilism or not?

 

[The AntiChris]

If you believe compatibilist free will entails the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism.

Now are you able to give a rational description or argument for compatibilism or not?

All you need to know about compatibilism is available online and has been for the 15+ years that I'm aware you've been discussing free will.

I'll take this as an admission that you don't understand compatibilism. I think that's about all I'm going to get out of this.

Thanks for the chat.

 

[fromderinside]

The naysayer, AntiChris, has left the field.

 

[DBT]

If you believe compatibilist free will entails the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you fundamentally misunderstand compatibilism.

Now are you able to give a rational description or argument for compatibilism or not?

All you need to know about compatibilism is available online and has been for the 15+ years that I'm aware you've been discussing free will.

I'll take this as an admission that you don't understand compatibilism. I think that's about all I'm going to get out of this.

Thanks for the chat.

I know that information on compatibilism is readily available. I have read it over and over again for years. Just as I have pointed out the failings of compatibilism time and again.

Freedom of action is not free will for all the given reasons.

Random quantum events do not allow freedom of will for all the given reasons.

Absence of coercion does not equate to free will for all the given reasons.

The absence of external constraints does not equate to free will for all the given reasons.

None of which you have attempted to address.

Your whole case rests on the assertion: ''you don't understand compatibilism'' - never attempting to explain.

Which, of course, is not a valid argument.

Did you believe the result would be different this time around?

 

[The AntiChris]

Did you believe the result would be different this time around?

Not really.

I had the unrealistic hope that this time round you just might actually respond directly and unambiguously to my questions and that we might have a useful exchange of views

I'm guessing that you really do think you're giving me direct and unambiguous answers but from my perspective it looks as though you're being evasive. Different styles I guess.

 

[DBT]

Did you believe the result would be different this time around?

Not really.

I had the unrealistic hope that this time round you just might actually respond directly and unambiguously to my questions and that we might have a useful exchange of views

I'm guessing that you really do think you're giving me direct and unambiguous answers but from my perspective it looks as though you're being evasive. Different styles I guess.

I have responded directly, clearly explaining the problems with a number of definitions of free will, including compatibilism.....which you merely ignore or dismiss, only to repeat ''you don't understand compatibilism'' without any attempt at further explanation.

So, on the contrary, it is you who does not engage in a reasonable manner. It is you who declines to explain or address the questions being asked of you.

You merely rinse and repeat versions of the above.

I didn't expect you to address what is being said. You have never done it before, so why would it be different this time around.


Meanwhile:

Why Compatibilism Is Mistaken.

here are some major difficulties in compatibilism, which I think damage it irreparably.

Take Hobbes’ claim, largely accepted by Hume, that freedom is to act at will while coercion is to be compelled to act by others. This does not give us a sure reason to choose this ‘freedom’.

Imagine that you were a free-floating spirit, equal to God in your capacity to choose. God gives you the unwelcome news that shortly you are to be placed on Earth, and that you will be endowed with a range of fundamental passions, chosen entirely at the caprice of God. Would you choose to be free, in Hobbes’sense of acting at will, or might you consent to being coerced?

It is very far from clear that you would automatically choose to be free. Much would depend on the nature of the coercion. If you did not know what your fundamental desires were going to be, you might well decide to hedge your bets and back the field. It might be far better to be coerced by others (perhaps most people are good) than to be free to pursue un-chosen but possibly dubious desires. A free-floating ethically-minded spirit that feared an imminent endowment of psychopathic desires would certainly wish for an alert constabulary and swift incarceration: this spirit would wish to be coerced.

This thought experiment makes it clear why coercion by others might be morally preferable to being caused to act upon one’s desires. It seems very odd, though, that we might have good reasons to choose what compatibilists define as coercion, and reject what they claim to be freedom.

Nor is it obvious that if we were on Earth with a range of un-chosen passions, we would choose to have the intellectual ability which Dennett thinks characterises human freedom, as opposed to the mindless behaviour of the Sphex wasp for instance. Imagine that, rather than for laying eggs, one had a disposition for random acts of extreme violence. Is one better off by having the wit to see that the .357 Magnum is overrated and that the 9mm is similarly effective, but with more shots? If one had the murderous impulses of an Eichmann or a Himmler, is one’s situation necessarily improved by being able to flexibly respond to the logistical problems of machine-gunning large numbers of people? Is the murderous intelligence involved in industrialising genocide ever a gain? Similarly, if we knew that we were going to have passions that we have not chosen, is it obvious that we would ask for the ability to pursue these passions flexibly and imaginatively? Perhaps if we knew that we were to have unknown passions and be held responsible for our actions, we would choose to be incompetent. Perhaps the priority would be first to do no harm: one could not risk being good at being bad.

It is not obvious then that we would choose to be caused by our own desires rather than coerced by others; and nor is it obvious that we would choose to be able to successfully pursue our desires if we did not know what those desires were to be.



As to Dennett’s claim that the planet has evolved ‘evitability’, it seems obvious that if strict determinism is true then human evolution is also one event after another, and the destruction of asteroids by humans follows inevitably from cause and effect, given the first composition of the universe. If we destroy an asteroid, for the strict determinist it was inevitable that we would. Indeed it is quite conceivable that humans are minor characters in a game played by the gods, involving striking planets with asteroids. Perhaps one of the moves in the game is to seed a target planet with humans to prevent your opponent successfully striking it with his asteroid. It is hard to think of an absolute reason why determinism might not be our lot. There seems to be no meaningful distinction to be drawn between what happens and what might have happened, on which we can hang some third theory of human existence to sit alongside determinism and libertarianism.

It seems that we are either caused, and our actions are caused events, or we are free. The middle, compatibilism, is excluded''

 

[The AntiChris]

Did you believe the result would be different this time around?

Not really.

I had the unrealistic hope that this time round you just might actually respond directly and unambiguously to my questions and that we might have a useful exchange of views

I'm guessing that you really do think you're giving me direct and unambiguous answers but from my perspective it looks as though you're being evasive. Different styles I guess.

I have responded directly,

I know you think you have.

The problem is that you seem to interpret my attempts at critical examination of your anti-free will claims as positive advocation of compatibilist free will. They are not the same thing.

The result is that I don't get direct answers to my questions because you are more intent on discrediting compatibilist free will (most of your latest post is taken up with this despite the fact that I stated quite clearly earlier that "I'm not arguing for compatibilism").

 

[none]

What's free? I want in on this.

 

[fromderinside]

Compatibilists need not apply.

Moot.

 

[DBT]

I have responded directly,

I know you think you have.

The problem is that you seem to interpret my attempts at critical examination of your anti-free will claims as positive advocation of compatibilist free will. They are not the same thing.

The result is that I don't get direct answers to my questions because you are more intent on discrediting compatibilist free will (most of your latest post is taken up with this despite the fact that I stated quite clearly earlier that "I'm not arguing for compatibilism").

You offer no 'critical examination' - you only repeat ''you don't understand compatibilism.'

Which is an expression of opinion rather than a critical examination. It's certainly not an argument. When asked, you decline to explain.

This, not only in relation to what I say, but the articles I have cited and quoted from.

It seems that nobody understands Compatibilism, including you.

 

[DBT]

What's free? I want in on this.

Still waiting for someone to actually explain. It may be a long time waiting. Perhaps tea and scones while we wait......

 

[The AntiChris]

I have responded directly,

I know you think you have.

The problem is that you seem to interpret my attempts at critical examination of your anti-free will claims as positive advocation of compatibilist free will. They are not the same thing.

The result is that I don't get direct answers to my questions because you are more intent on discrediting compatibilist free will (most of your latest post is taken up with this despite the fact that I stated quite clearly earlier that "I'm not arguing for compatibilism").

You offer no 'critical examination' - you only repeat ''you don't understand compatibilism.'

This is simply not true.

I've asked you quite specific questions regarding the claims you make and I still haven't had a straightforward response to any of them.

 

[The AntiChris]

What's free? I want in on this.

Still waiting for someone to actually explain.

This looks like an unequivocal admission that you really don't understand compatibilist free will.

 

[WAB]

What's free? I want in on this.

Still waiting for someone to actually explain.

This looks like an unequivocal admission that you really don't understand compatibilist free will.

AntiChris:

You probably recall the epic threads on the subject of free will here many years ago? I believe they are in the archives. Do you remember kennethamy? I argued for my version of what free will meant to me at that time (I have since modified my views), and kennethamy would walk all up and down my ass. I resented him for a long time. Until we finally got through to one another. I will never forget when it happened. We were misunderstanding one another, burning straw, talking past one another, until we finally made headway. Shortly after, he and I exchanged a few very cordial private messages. He was a wonderful man. He was a compatibilist, and I believe an academic, though I've never been able to learn his name. I believe he has passed (though I could be wrong - I remember hearing news of it, but I could be mistaken.)

Maybe open a thread about compatibilist free will?

 

[The AntiChris]

AntiChris:

You probably recall the epic threads on the subject of free will here many years ago? I believe they are in the archives. Do you remember kennethamy?

I remember them well. kennethamy could be a little eccentric but he was very knowledgeable and well worth reading.

Maybe open a thread about compatibilist free will?

Not a chance!

In my experience people (other than believers in libertarian free will) either 'get' compatibilism or they're ideologically incapable of conceiving of free will as anything other than the foolish belief of the ignorant masses.

I don't know why there are so many hard incompatibilists on philosophy discussion boards when compatibilism is the dominant view in academic philosophy.

 

[WAB]

AntiChris:

You probably recall the epic threads on the subject of free will here many years ago? I believe they are in the archives. Do you remember kennethamy?

I remember them well. kennethamy could be a little eccentric but he was very knowledgeable and well worth reading.

Maybe open a thread about compatibilist free will?

Not a chance!

In my experience people (other than believers in libertarian free will) either 'get' compatibilism or they're ideologically incapable of conceiving of free will as anything other than the foolish belief of the ignorant masses.

I don't know why there are so many hard incompatibilists on philosophy discussion boards when compatibilism is the dominant view in academic philosophy.

Well....(voice in my head: no WAB, don't! DON'T DO IT!!! You fool!!!!!!)

There are people hereabouts who just don't like the word 'free' at all. Or the very idea of people being free. In either sense: philosophical (liberty versus necessity, and/or determinism versus free will), or political.