Hi dmb,
dmb says: You're asking how the denial of determinism is helpful in making room for free will?!? Are you really that lost? Do you really not understand that determinism leaves no room for freedom, that it denies any such freedom? After all this time, apparently, you're still confused about all the basic concepts involved in this issue. Your thickness is just incredible. It's unbelievable. Steve: It is a quite common mainstream philosophical position called "compatiblism" to assert that free will and determinism ought not be thought of as mutually exclusive. It says that a meaningful version free will depends on a version of determinism. You are not just calling _me_ "thick" in lambasting this position, but you are also making this claim about some real contemporary philosopher heavy-weights. > dmb says: > Wow. You are totally lost. Again, determinism says we have no choice, that > our acts are determined by mechanical laws and therefore they are not chosen. > In order for there to be choices, there first has to be undetermined > alternative possibilities. Steve: I thought we had agreed that we ought to drop the metaphysical baggage from the traditional free will/determinism debate? Your version of determinism here is the old metaphysical one with mechanistic laws "out there" controlling the universe in spite of appearance to the contrary. If we are talking about free will and determinism as traditionally defined--as metaphysical views--then neither I nor the MOQ can support them, but if we are going to drop the metaphysical baggage from "free will," then we ought to do the same for "determinism." And if we do, I see no reason why I can't endorse both. dmb: To assert freedom, you have to deny determinism. If your act is determined by your choice, then you aren't just being pushed around by mechanical laws, which can be conceived as external if you're a causal determinist or internal if you're a neurological determinist. Steve: Again, I thought we were dropping such metaphysical baggage and being good pragmatists. If we are, then we don't have to worry about whether choices or causes are what is really real. Explaining behavior in terms of human will doesn't mean that causes are illusory when we don't have an interest in the appearance-reality game. Causal explanations don't make choices illusory. Both sorts of explanations for behavior can be used for whatever purposes they are most useful for. They can be admired and appreciated on their own merits like paintings in a gallery without any need to decide which is the REAL painting. dmb: Either way, you are denying that our acts are the result of choice. If you say that our actions are determined or decided by choice, then you are denying determinism. You might have reasons for making that choice, but reasons are not "causes" in the sense of law-like cause and effect. Steve: Once we drop the metaphysical baggage from both free will and determinism, "laws" are an epistemological concern about our ability to make predictions. dmb: You're also equating "determined by choice" with "determinism", which totally denies that we can make choices. Once again, you have equated positions that are opposite from each other. Steve: What I think you need to try to grasp is that there is substantial nuance to the use and understanding of these terms. If James's "chance" can mean free will rather than randomness, if a physicist can assert indeterminism over determinism while simultaneously asserting determinism over free will, if free will and determinism can be evaluated with and without their associated metaphysical baggage, if some philosophers assert that free will is compatible with determinism while others insist that they are incompatible, then it behooves you to take the time to understand what people mean by the terms they use as they use them rather than insisting that there are simply basic definitions and usages that everyone must adhere to (which just happen to be your way of doing it). It's like refusing to discuss estate taxes unless your conversational partner will use the term "death tax" or insisting that anyone discussing abortion with you must call themselves "anti-life." Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
