Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mosesquine]

People who have not died may think to experience death. However, merely thinking to experience death is not the same as really experiencing death.

Of course. What did you think I meant to say?

Maybe, I thought that someone discussed topic related to OP.

[Consul]

People who have not died may think to experience death. However, merely thinking to experience death is not the same as really experiencing death.

You can experience your dying, but you certainly cannot experience your being dead.

[Mosesquine]

People who have not died may think to experience death. However, merely thinking to experience death is not the same as really experiencing death.

You can experience your dying, but you certainly cannot experience your being dead.

No one can report his/her death. It's because no one can report his/her death after he/she died.

[ThomasHobbes]

You can experience your dying, but you certainly cannot experience your being dead.

No one can report his/her death. It's because no one can report his/her death after he/she died.

Is this the thread where everyone paraphrases everyone else?

[ThomasHobbes]

For example: Dead men tell no tales.

[chewybrian]

First of all, "'[f]ree will' is the conventional name of a topic that is best discussed without reference to the will. Its central questions are 'What is it to act (or choose) freely?', and 'What is it to be morally responsible for one's actions (or choices)?' These two questions are closely connected, for freedom of action is necessary for moral responsibility, even if it is not sufficient."

A will not free is not a will at all, so I don't understand the distinction. Any act fully caused by instinct and environmental pressures is not a free act, and labeling it as such can't change the fact. Putting the controls in my hand while the plane is on autopilot does not make me a pilot. And how is freedom of action not sufficient for accountability, and how does one have freedom of action if one's will is not free to determine the course of the action?

No, my point is that "free will" is a misnomer insofar as you cannot freely choose what you want or desire. Your wants and desires are just there in your mind, where you find them ready-made. Of course, there can also be meta-wants and meta-desires, such as the desire not to have the desire to drink alcohol; but these aren't freely chosen by you either. It hasn't ever been up to you to decide whether your will (to change) is strong or weak. Nobody has ever chosen to be strong-willed or weak-willed, and whether or not a person manages to overcome her/his weakness of will is itself something depending on factors and circumstances that aren't determined by her/him.

You can decide to desire that things happen as they happen, and remove much anger, anxiety and disappointment from your life. You can learn to limit your desires and aversions to those things inside your control, so that you can get what you want, and avoid what you don't. You can find great freedom in reconstructing your view of the world, of others and of events in this rational way. You *CAN* choose what you want or desire. I've done it, and others have done it. It's not a switch to be flipped on, but a process of hard work, yet it can be done.

No leap of faith or acceptance of any irrational position is required to take this journey, unless you don't think you have a will to form in the first place. Anyone who takes that stance misses a great opportunity to improve themselves and live in tranquility instead of turmoil. Your attitude, desires, aversions, opinions, and interpretations of events are truly the only things which are always in your control. You are not only wrong, but precisely, completely and tragically wrong. You are carrying out the most extreme case of "Emperor's New Clothes" imaginable, jettisoning the only things of true value and permanent usefulness you possess in favor of an abstract, unproven theory of no value.

"Indeed, no one can thwart the purposes of your mind--for they can't be touched by fire, steel, tyranny, slander or anything." Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"

"You may be unconquerable, if you enter into no combat in which it is not in your own control to conquer." Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"

[Mosesquine]

No one can report his/her death. It's because no one can report his/her death after he/she died.

Is this the thread where everyone paraphrases everyone else?

Your point has not been clear. Say anything clearly.

[ThomasHobbes]

Is this the thread where everyone paraphrases everyone else?

Your point has not been clear. Say anything clearly.

Gawd!
Go back and slowly review the thread.
It could not be simpler.

[Consul]

A will not free is not a will at all, so I don't understand the distinction. Any act fully caused by instinct and environmental pressures is not a free act, and labeling it as such can't change the fact. Putting the controls in my hand while the plane is on autopilot does not make me a pilot. And how is freedom of action not sufficient for accountability, and how does one have freedom of action if one's will is not free to determine the course of the action?

Freedom of action is not the same as freedom of volition. Your will is unfree in the sense that you cannot freely choose or determine your wants or desires. Through introspection and self-reflection you can find out what you really want or desire, but you cannot freely create your wants or desires.

You can decide to desire that things happen as they happen, and remove much anger, anxiety and disappointment from your life. You can learn to limit your desires and aversions to those things inside your control, so that you can get what you want, and avoid what you don't. You can find great freedom in reconstructing your view of the world, of others and of events in this rational way. You *CAN* choose what you want or desire. I've done it, and others have done it.

No, you haven't, because you can't. You just cannot freely choose your wants or desires (including your meta-wants and meta-desires).

A free agent…

1. can do what s/he wants to do.
2. can refrain from doing what s/he wants to do.
3. can do what s/he doesn't want to do.
4. can refrain from doing what s/he doesn't want to do.

But s/he cannot freely choose her/his wants (desires).

For instance, if you want to play football, you can freely decide to do so or not to do so; but you cannot freely decide to want to do so or not to want to do so.

No leap of faith or acceptance of any irrational position is required to take this journey, unless you don't think you have a will to form in the first place. Anyone who takes that stance misses a great opportunity to improve themselves and live in tranquility instead of turmoil. Your attitude, desires, aversions, opinions, and interpretations of events are truly the only things which are always in your control. You are not only wrong, but precisely, completely and tragically wrong. You are carrying out the most extreme case of "Emperor's New Clothes" imaginable, jettisoning the only things of true value and permanent usefulness you possess in favor of an abstract, unproven theory of no value.

The degree of your self-control is itself something that you haven't freely chosen—it's given to you! The strength of your ability to change yourself, your capacity for self-enhancement/-improvement, your ability to change your attitudes, beliefs, or habits are themselves factors that you haven't freely chosen—they're given to you! Your willpower, your intelligence and your capacity for learning are all factors which you haven't freely chosen—they are given to you!

There are always (past or present) factors which heteronomously determine or influence your mind and your behavior that haven't (and couldn't have) been autonomously determined or influenced by you.

[Felix]

JamesOfSeattle: The bottom line, Felix, is that even though you don’t see a difference between teleology and teleonomy, a lot of scientists and philosophers do see a difference. I’m going with them.

The difference is merely semantic, describing a process in a different way and giving it a new name, i.e., teleonomy rather than teleology, does not explain it. They have no explanation for the evolutionary process they've labeled teleonomy. Biologically, random mutation, genetic variations and selection have been proposed as it's modus operandi but the problem with that thesis is that the first primeval organisms had no genes (DNA) to mutate and select, i.e., no "program" to replicate and augment.

ThomasHobbes: Is this the thread where everyone paraphrases everyone else?

Yes, but only while they are alive, after their death they're allowed to paraphrase themselves.

Consul: The degree of your self-control is itself something that you haven't freely chosen — it's given to you!

I choose it constantly, from moment to moment.

The degree of your self-control is itself something that you haven't freely chosen — it's given to you! The strength of your ability to change yourself, your capacity for self-enhancement/-improvement, your ability to change your attitudes, beliefs, or habits are themselves factors that you haven't freely chosen — they're given to you!

Ditto, I choose them from moment to moment.

Your willpower, your intelligence and your capacity for learning are all factors which you haven't freely chosen — they are given to you!

Do tell, at one point in one's life are these capacities "given to you"? After that age, whenever it is (at birth?), can they no longer be developed? Your definitive answer to this question could save us a ton of money on education.

[JamesOfSeattle]

The difference is merely semantic, describing a process in a different way and giving it a new name, i.e., teleonomy rather than teleology, does not explain it. They have no explanation for the evolutionary process they've labeled teleonomy. Biologically, random mutation, genetic variations and selection have been proposed as it's modus operandi but the problem with that thesis is that the first primeval organisms had no genes (DNA) to mutate and select, i.e., no "program" to replicate and augment.

Oh, I get it. You’re denying evolution. Okay, nevermind.

*

[Felix]

Oh, I get it. You’re denying evolution.

I am not denying evolution, I'm just saying that if you're going to propose that teleonomy occurs, you'll have to explains how it operates, what drives it, rather than just saying it's the byproduct of some mysterious program.

You quoted this definition of it, “A teleonomic process or behavior is one which owes its goal-directedness to the operation of a program." What is the program and what is it's nature?

[Consul]

Your willpower, your intelligence and your capacity for learning are all factors which you haven't freely chosen — they are given to you!

Do tell, at one point in one's life are these capacities "given to you"? After that age, whenever it is (at birth?), can they no longer be developed? Your definitive answer to this question could save us a ton of money on education.

My point is that you cannot freely create and determine your own basic mindset (mental abilities, attitudes, and dispositions), which is beyond your voluntary control because it was formed by your nature and nurture. This includes your capacity for self-change. The absolutist sort of personal autonomy postulated by the believers in libertarian free will doesn't exist, because you don't have the freedom to determine your fundamental personality. How much you can change and how much you can learn depend on your basic mindset.

[JamesOfSeattle]

.You quoted this definition of it, “A teleonomic process or behavior is one which owes its goal-directedness to the operation of a program." What is the program and what is it's nature?

Fair enough. The program is natural selection. Natural selection creates a kind of goal-directedness, the goal being fitness or survival. Thus, transduction of red photons by a cone cell in an eyeball into a glutamate inhibition signal is a behavior which owes its goal-directedness to the operation of natural selection. If not for natural selection, there would be no cone cells.

*

[chewybrian]

Do tell, at one point in one's life are these capacities "given to you"? After that age, whenever it is (at birth?), can they no longer be developed? Your definitive answer to this question could save us a ton of money on education.

My point is that you cannot freely create and determine your own basic mindset (mental abilities, attitudes, and dispositions), which is beyond your voluntary control because it was formed by your nature and nurture. This includes your capacity for self-change. The absolutist sort of personal autonomy postulated by the believers in libertarian free will doesn't exist, because you don't have the freedom to determine your fundamental personality. How much you can change and how much you can learn depend on your basic mindset.

Sometimes these limitations make certain choices nearly impossible, but more often, they simply mean the relative difficulty varies between individuals. I'm certain I will never be a world class athlete, yet I managed to complete some endurance cycling events that most people would think outside their capacity. If you saw me at the beginning of my 'journey', you would have certainly believed these things were beyond my reach. In fact, almost anyone could complete these same events, but unless or until they believe they can, and decide to put in the time and effort to do it, their feeling of being unable will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.



There is a difference between conceding the impact of nature and nurture and pretending these things control all outcomes. I doubt anyone denies their influence, but some seem to want to overstate it.



People can and do change their tendencies. Face your fear of heights and you can overcome it, for example. People quit drinking or quit smoking all the time because they made the choice and the effort, not because they were born with genes that predisposed them both to smoke for 20 years and also to quit, or because they were born with both a weak and a strong will.



Denying any and all ability for someone to form their own destiny seems as far-fetched as denying any influence from nature or experience.



Genetics and environmental influences and free will coexist in reality. How or why they do is something we may never resolve. If you are born deaf, use your sight. If you lose your legs, use your arms. If you develop ptsd, go to therapy. You are dealt a hand, but you play it. Don't fold. It's less important that you have to work within the framework of reality than that you have the freedom to do the work.