Submitted by CryptoTrader1024 t3_zwqxxb in philosophy
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j1z3cua wrote
Reply to comment by tokmer in An Argument in Favour of Unpredictable, Hard Determinism by CryptoTrader1024
> this is a different concept than what determinists and free will believers are talking about.
I argue that you have it backwards. What you are talking about doesn't exist and is just an incoherent idea. But what people really mean is the coherent compatibilist free will.
People have incoherent views around free will, but if you properly probe you'll see that people have compatibilist intuitions.
​
>In the past decade, a number of empirical researchers have suggested that laypeople have compatibilist intuitions… In one of the first studies, Nahmias et al. (2006) asked participants to imagine that, in the next century, humans build a supercomputer able to accurately predict future human behavior on the basis of the current state of the world. Participants were then asked to imagine that, in this future, an agent has robbed a bank, as the supercomputer had predicted before he was even born. In this case, 76% of participants answered that this agent acted of his own free will, and 83% answered that he was morally blameworthy. These results suggest that most participants have compatibilist intuitions, since most answered that this agent could act freely and be morally responsible, despite living in a deterministic universe.
>
>https://philpapers.org/archive/ANDWCI-3.pdf
>Our results highlight some inconsistencies of lay beliefs in the general public, by showing explicit agreement with libertarian concepts of free will (especially in the US) and simultaneously showing behavior that is more consistent with compatibilist theories. If participants behaved in a way that was consistent with their libertarian beliefs, we would have expected a negative relation between free will and determinism, but instead we saw a positive relation that is hard to reconcile with libertarian views
>
>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221617
Then when it comes to philosophy professors most are outright compatibilists.
[https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all)
There is a saying that that philosophers are mostly compatibilists, most laypeople have compatibilist intuitions, but amateur philosophers don't think free will exists.
So it's amateur philosophers like you that are talking about something completely different to what people really mean.
tokmer t1_j1z61av wrote
Id have a hard time calling myself any kind of philosopher,
But i think we are making the same point determinists and people who believe in free will are talking about a different thing than what compatibalists are talking about when they say free will.
When a determinist is talking about free will they are talking about the ability to make independent choices.
When someone who believes in free will is talking about it they are talking about the same.
When a compatibalist talks about it they are talking about something different. (Just learned that today)
Why this has happened im not sure and i cant speak on why professionals are more inclined to compatibalism than others.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j1z7jy5 wrote
>But i think we are making the same point determinists and people who believe in free will are talking about a different thing than what compatibalists are talking about when they say free will.
>
>When a determinist is talking about free will they are talking about the ability to make independent choices.
I'm not really familiar with your terminology. I would say a determinist simply states the world is deterministic, rather than making any comment of free will.
When you say "independent choices" independent from what? If it's independent from some external coercive influence, then yeh, that's what I think most people are talking about. If you are saying "independent" from the laws of physics, then no, I don't think that's what most people mean.
>When someone who believes in free will is talking about it they are talking about the same.
I would say people talking about free will are talking about making decisions in line with their desires free from external coercion/influence.
Which is what a compatibilist is saying.
tokmer t1_j1z81he wrote
Free will to most people would be you come to two doors you have a choice to use either door or none.
A determinist would say you do not you are destined to choose whatever you end up choosing based on your preceding life.
A compatibalist would say you are destined to choose what you choose but it feels free enough as you arent being coerced to choose.
This is my current understanding of the differences
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j1zanx1 wrote
>Free will to most people would be you come to two doors you have a choice to use either door or none.
So how do you define choice.
Let's use a simplistic system of a thermostat. That system will make the choice to turn off the heating once it gets to a certain temperature.
Choice is just about a deterministic system being what causes an action.
>A determinist would say you do not you are destined to choose whatever you end up choosing based on your preceding life.
That's what a compatibilist will say also.
>A compatibalist would say you are destined to choose what you choose but it feels free enough as you arent being coerced to choose.
It's got nothing to do with how they feel. It's about whether in fact you are being coerced or not.
Is someone holding a gun making you do an action or did you do it because you wanted to. There is a matter of fact here, it's nothing to do with how they feel.
tokmer t1_j1zb9cy wrote
But you are being coerced, by the chemicals in your head and all youve grown up to become.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j1zbplx wrote
>But you are being coerced, by the chemicals in your head and all youve grown up to become.
That's dualistic thinking. Your brain isn't something separate to you. You are a body, which has a brain that has conscious activity.
Those chemical are you, they aren't something separate coercing you.
tokmer t1_j1zc6yt wrote
You can be coerced by chemicals in your head, imbalances exist and can be adjusted to change things. You are coerced constantly by these chemicals you are not them
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j1zee8x wrote
>You can be coerced by chemicals in your head, imbalances exist and can be adjusted to change things. You are coerced constantly by these chemicals you are not them
This makes zero sense to me. You are basically saying, "you" are being coerced by your brain. That you are not your brain.
What do you mean by "you" how are your defining it? How is any definition of "you" coherent if it doesn't include your brain the chemicals in it. How is any definition of "you" coherent if it treats the brain and chemicals as some external coercive influence.
tokmer t1_j1zgt52 wrote
No you are your brain. you are not your endocrine system, you are not psychedelics you consume, you are not an addiction you have. All of these thing effect your brain but they do not become it
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments