Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:45 am
As I suggested a few posts, and a few months ago, the term "free will" is essentially meaningless from my perspective. Aside from invixxtus' minimalist definition (which I've tentatively agreed to), I would challenge all those who visit this forum to bring more meaning to the phrase. With that, I'd like to adopt a new term to the thread, which better explains the phenomenon of making choices/taking actions. The term I'll be using from this point on will be "caused volition", replacing "free" with "caused" and "will" with "volition". I can think of no circumstance where volition isn't caused and the word "will" isn't precise enough, for me at least.
If we do not have any serious dissenters to the notion that volition appears to be caused in all cases, then I'd like to move on to the subject of; if and how much control can be exercised over individual volition.
Edit: There appears to be two basic types of volition. The first type would be instinctual in nature, like withdrawing your hand from a hot surface. This seems to be the type that drives most non-human, animal volition. The second type would be intentional, intelligently-driven volition. Humans seem to be predominately driven by this type of volition. As I think about this, the word "will" would seem to indicate willful or intentional volition, in the phrase "free will". Volition that is driven by instinct or is perhaps driven by random factors (if such exists) would necessarily be unintentional in nature.
_________________ Believing Yahweh could send someone to hell is just like believing Zeus could strike someone with a lightning bolt.
Religion: Born of human imagination, sustained by unapproachable dogma.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:52 pm
Next I'd like to offer this youtube video on the subject. It's not that I think this video is highly accurate on the subject, but at what state the author believes human volition becomes free.
I find it telling the author doesn't seem to grasp the obvious causal relationship between all the prior events (things he says we "don't choose/without free will") and the choices we make that place us in to the situations he believes we are 'free' to choose. It seems obvious to me all these things are an interrelated causal chain and no where in that chain does our volition become free from it. Am I wrong?
_________________ Believing Yahweh could send someone to hell is just like believing Zeus could strike someone with a lightning bolt.
Religion: Born of human imagination, sustained by unapproachable dogma.
invixxtus Confident Learner
Joined: Jul 28, 2009
Posts: 98
Posted:
Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:06 pm
MockingGods wrote:
As I suggested a few posts, and a few months ago, the term "free will" is essentially meaningless from my perspective.
I agree that the term is meaningless in the context of a naturalistic metaphysics. The problem is that few people, even those steeped in scientific reasoning, are thoroughgoing in their tendency to think in that context and our language has evolved to assume dualism. So it is maddeningly difficult to explain the view of determinism to someone disinclined to accept it, or otherwise uninitiated in more abstract modes of reasoning.
Similarly our language is shot through with anthropomorphic assumptions. Just try to explain the theory of evolution to someone without using language that implies intentionality. It's difficult.
So we have to contend with the fact that discussions of this kind require maybe an uncommon aptitude for abstract thought as well as the fact that we are, by necessity, using language already set up to accommodate a certain set of assumptions.
MockingGods wrote:
Aside from invixxtus' minimalist definition (which I've tentatively agreed to), I would challenge all those who visit this forum to bring more meaning to the phrase. With that, I'd like to adopt a new term to the thread, which better explains the phenomenon of making choices/taking actions. The term I'll be using from this point on will be "caused volition", replacing "free" with "caused" and "will" with "volition". I can think of no circumstance where volition isn't caused and the word "will" isn't precise enough, for me at least.
Well, I can't say that it is my definition. It is what I take to be the most acceptable definition of free will for those who defend the view of compatibilism. That said, I do agree with you that a better term would be useful and less misleading. I think "caused volition" is a very strong alternative concept.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5691
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:57 pm
invixxtus wrote:
I agree that the term is meaningless in the context of a naturalistic metaphysics.
Why didn't I see this before. Of course, I view our reality from purely a naturalistic perspective, which I believe is still rather uncommon if becoming more popular.
Quote:
The problem is that few people, even those steeped in scientific reasoning, are thoroughgoing in their tendency to think in that context and our language has evolved to assume dualism.
Indeed, language itself (not just English) was conceived when dualism was rarely if ever challenged. It's no wonder I find myself straining to pick words when discussing this topic.
Quote:
So it is maddeningly difficult to explain the view of determinism to someone disinclined to accept it, or otherwise uninitiated in more abstract modes of reasoning.
Which describes me perfectly when I was first exposed to these ideas. I'm somewhat still of the opinion that even if determinism isn't completely true, caused volition could be.
Quote:
Similarly our language is shot through with anthropomorphic assumptions. Just try to explain the theory of evolution to someone without using language that implies intentionality. It's difficult.
So we have to contend with the fact that discussions of this kind require maybe an uncommon aptitude for abstract thought as well as the fact that we are, by necessity, using language already set up to accommodate a certain set of assumptions.
So very true.
Quote:
Well, I can't say that it is my definition. It is what I take to be the most acceptable definition of free will for those who defend the view of compatibilism.
Perhaps my problem with understanding the position of compatibilism lies with my inability to discern any useful meaning from the term free will. I like your approach.
Quote:
That said, I do agree with you that a better term would be useful and less misleading. I think "caused volition" is a very strong alternative concept.
Thank you for the compliment and your incites. When I created this thread it was my intent to bring some clarity to this subject... it's an evolving effort.
_________________ Believing Yahweh could send someone to hell is just like believing Zeus could strike someone with a lightning bolt.
Religion: Born of human imagination, sustained by unapproachable dogma.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
