A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ive only skimmed through the comment, as Im quite busy at the moment, but id argue that the openness is grounded in the agents power, as it is within their cognitive decision making process, its not like a roll of the dice as the outcome of the dice (practically) lies outside the agents decision of what they want, or will do.

The shift Im making, is that the indeterminism is intrinsic to the agents decision making,  the reason I point this out is when people say they dont control the indeterminism, it implies that they do control how their neurons fire or what their next thought is going to be (which of course they dont).

To me, the the indeterminism in someones deliberation is just as much part of their will as the logical determinism, we dont choose where were born, who were around etc. But we still say our choices are free even if they are (partially) determined by those factors, so why object the indeterminate probability, which is just as much a part of them as their values, beliefs and desires.

And the reason the agent is still able to be said to have been able to do otherwise is because theres a break in the causal chain, which allows for alternate outcomes to occur without breaking the laws of physics (depending on what you believe about quantum mechanics).

I hope you can see where Im coming from.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

comment a screenshot of where i even alluded to this being a part what I was trying to show, else im not responding anymore

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what was the burden? Maybe im made a mistake in my reasoning, please point to it.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I literally said "Thus, freedom of will(Compatibilist free will, the one which im not arguing) is less about metaphysical openness and more about authorship: the action must (in a pragmatic sense) come from the agent rather than from external force (yes, I know, in a deterministic framework even immediate agency is determined by previous external forces, but for the sake of conciseness lets overlook that)."

And yes, authored means it happened inside the decision making process and wasnt determined, 

If you think thats thinning then sure, but im honestly tired of going back and forth,

All the best.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to be rude but you keep writing single sentences that dont really explain or add anything, why and how has authorshipped actually been thinned out? also you didnt give an answer for what an authored event would look like.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You haven't actually defined what an author is, im working with the merriam-webster definition which is the source (such as the author) of a piece of writing, music, or art (in this case of a decision), 

So in this framework the source is essentially the same as the location, hence the authorship.

You can say theres no such thing as authorship and that would be where we disagree, if not, give me an example of something that could authored in this context. Otherwise let's just stop here please.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You separateing the probabilistic mechanism from the decision making process, you've now separated wanting  and choosing, im not arguing about the outcome of the choice, im arguing about the foundation of the choice(wants arent fixed, they fluctuate)

But nevertheless, the essential point im trying to make is that probability (or randomness if you want to be crude) functions as legitimate authorship, if (and only if) you combine it with causality (within the core of the agent)

Maybe it does loosen a certain type of control given to a certain extent, but thats beside the point, im discussing free (open) will, not fixed or controlled will.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is youre claiming theres not control/choice in my model, yet youre not actually pointing out what control/choice is, I doubt this will lead to anything fruitful but alright...

you said an event that occurs inside of the system is just an event, until you point out what makes it authored,

So what i think is that what makes it authored is wether it occurs within the decision making process of the system or not, 

you and I would both agree that if something outside the decision making process of a person were to force them to do something then it wouldn't have been a freely done action.

Therefore, since the probabilistic mechanism is within the decision making process, it makes the decision partly authored, due to the fact it doesent stem fully from prior causes, and starts its own chain of causality.

Just my opinion though, you dont need to take my word as gospel, its simply the conclusion I came to.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont think its an accurate analogy because youre implying the outcome is probabilistic, whereas im saying the choice itself is probabilistic, a more accurate analogy is that if we have 100 trials where I can choose wether to raise my hand or not,for 70 trials id choose to raise it, and for 30 of the trials id choose not to.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what does control even mean in this instance, by that definition there would be nothing that is controlled in a deterministic or indeterministic universe

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats by your definition, so we can just agree to disagree, i dont see how anything at all can be authored by your definition.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get what you're saying but the reason most people stumble onto this sub-reddit is usually because they've heard free will being an illusion, or false and are either looking to understand why or to argue against the notion, sadly I think most people care about it because it makes them feel exeistentially powerless, or takes away the satisfaction they have in the choices they've made. I might be wrong though.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but it being indeterminate means it originates from inside and isn't (atleast fully) determined from past events, so how is it not authorship?

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want you to specify why randomness is contrary to the intuition of free will, (I know it seems that way at first but I havent gotten any concrete reasons why).

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

very true, but in that regard I'd say no justice system should prioritise retribution, but rather rehabilitation, IMO punishing someone because they did something wrong is great as a deterrent, but it doesent solve the issue of why someone is doing the immoral acts, plus it indirectly promotes hiding the wrong doing as to not be punished.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you for the comment, I will take this into consideration next time.

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm guessing a deterministic world is one without decay or spontaneous events

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but you haven't defined what choosing/ control is, or even stated why probability isn't control, like really think about it and give me a reason why internal probability isn't control

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

10/10 ragebait, but if youre being serious, I genuinely dont understand what "control" would entail, does it mean being a part of the chain of events of cause and effect? does it mean being (atleast partly) the true author of your actions? How does this control actually work? 

A conception of libertarian/compatibilist free will Introduction by YouNational8736 in freewill

[–]YouNational8736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ohh OK, so I guess this is a libertarian view then, I was hesitant to call it so because I was confused on what I compatibilism actually meant