Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

asaris · 10-12-2005, 05:16 AM

10100 etc: I agree with you to the extent that I think the ability to act otherwise is necessary for free will. But I don't think it's the essence of free will. I come to free will through morality. We tend to believe, and I think rightly, that we are morally responsible for some of our actions but not for others. So my most basic definition of free will is "whatever it is, the presence of which makes us responsible for some actions and the absence of which makes us not responsible for others". As a note, this is all I want to stipulate to when talking about free will. I claim to have arguments for the rest. Anyway, given this, it seems clear that the essence of free will must be that our actions are up to us.

Francisco: I mentioned that difference just to elucidate the necessity for a theoretical, rather than a fact based, approach to free will. The fact that the law, which of necessity uses the fact-based approach, is so clearly inadequate in discerning free will, is at least evidence that a fact-based approach would be inadequate.

You keep saying that you don't think we can argue about this, but I've in fact given arguments for my position which you've never adressed. Perhaps you should try arguing, and not asserting that it's impossible.

You seem to misunderstand the article. It's not saying that, at some point, we have to choose P and not-P. It's saying that, given that we chose P, we could have chosen not-P.

Zyr: you're begging the question. Your answer to the thought experiment presupposes we don't have free will. In any case, I want to maintain that even if we always do the same thing given the same set of circumstances, we can still be free. Remember that free will just means that something is up to us. It's hard to see without further argument, how just because we always do the same thing, that that's not up to us.

10-12-2005, 05:16 AM	#125 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	10100 etc: I agree with you to the extent that I think the ability to act otherwise is necessary for free will. But I don't think it's the essence of free will. I come to free will through morality. We tend to believe, and I think rightly, that we are morally responsible for some of our actions but not for others. So my most basic definition of free will is "whatever it is, the presence of which makes us responsible for some actions and the absence of which makes us not responsible for others". As a note, this is all I want to stipulate to when talking about free will. I claim to have arguments for the rest. Anyway, given this, it seems clear that the essence of free will must be that our actions are up to us. Francisco: I mentioned that difference just to elucidate the necessity for a theoretical, rather than a fact based, approach to free will. The fact that the law, which of necessity uses the fact-based approach, is so clearly inadequate in discerning free will, is at least evidence that a fact-based approach would be inadequate. You keep saying that you don't think we can argue about this, but I've in fact given arguments for my position which you've never adressed. Perhaps you should try arguing, and not asserting that it's impossible. You seem to misunderstand the article. It's not saying that, at some point, we have to choose P and not-P. It's saying that, given that we chose P, we could have chosen not-P. Zyr: you're begging the question. Your answer to the thought experiment presupposes we don't have free will. In any case, I want to maintain that even if we always do the same thing given the same set of circumstances, we can still be free. Remember that free will just means that something is up to us. It's hard to see without further argument, how just because we always do the same thing, that that's not up to us. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche Last edited by asaris; 10-12-2005 at 05:33 AM..