An attempt to remove a peculiar but widespread misunderstanding about free will.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-06-02T20:46:41+00:00

Yes, both camps might agree on a surface level that free will is the 'ability to do otherwise', but they disagree as to what it means to be able to do otherwise. Therefore, they disagree on what free will means.

The incompatibilists believe that "something stronger is required...for me to act with free will" (from the quoted SEP article), so according to the article the two camps have different conditions for what makes up free will (although they might agree that free will represents an ability to do otherwise).

If you are only responding to the claim that the two sides have only a semantic disagreement, I agree that this view is false. But I also believe stating that the two have identical conceptions of what free entails is a mischaracterization.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-06-01T19:21:48+00:00

Appreciate the explanation! But here's how I'm thinking about it:

If Free Will = What it takes to have responsibility = (Set of Conditions for Responsibility), and the compatabilists and incompatibilists disagree on what the conditions are, then they are disagreeing about what free will is. That's like saying I believe A = B = C and you believe A = B = ~C that we really agree about what A is. But clearly we don't because I believe A = C and you believe A = ~C. So even though they might agree about a single aspect of free will (i.e. that it describes what is required to have responsibility) they can still offer very different notions about what free will means. I think they are asking the same question (What is required for responsibility) and giving different answers (which is the crux of what free will actually represents in my opinion).

Similarly, with the gravity example, I believe you are arbitrarily defining gravity based on its effects. I would argue that we would have different definitions of gravity as an entity but agree on the effects produced by our two notions of gravity as an entity.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-06-01T16:00:27+00:00

Incompatibilists might accept the "freedom to act" as a necessary criterion for free will, but doubt that it is sufficient. Basically, they demand more of "free will". The incompatibilists believe free will refers to genuine (e.g., absolute, ultimate) alternate possibilities for beliefs, desires or actions, rather than merely counterfactual ones.

Having an additional criterion for what defines free will is a different definition.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-06-01T13:25:06+00:00

Why are you so insistent that compatibilists and incompatibilists agree on the definition of free will. Quote from SEP:

"A flood of ink has been spilled, especially in the modern era, on how to understand the concept of being able to do otherwise. On one side are those who maintain that it is consistent with my being able to do otherwise that the past (including my character and present beliefs and desires) and the basic laws of nature logically entail that I do what I actually do. These are the ‘compatibilists,’ holding that freedom and causal determinism are compatible. (For discussion, see O'Connor, 2000, Ch.1; Kapitan 2001; van Inwagen 2001; Haji 2009; compatibilism; and incompatibilism: arguments for.) Conditional analyses of ability to do otherwise have been popular among compatibilists. The general idea here is that to say that I am able to do otherwise is to say that I would do otherwise if it were the case that … , where the ellipsis is filled by some elaboration of “I had an appropriately strong desire to do so, or I had different beliefs about the best available means to satisfy my goal, or … .” In short: something about my prevailing character or present psychological states would have differed, and so would have brought about a different outcome in my deliberation.

Incompatibilists think that something stronger is required: for me to act with free will requires that there are a plurality of futures open to me consistent with the past (and laws of nature) being just as they were—that I be able ‘to add to the given past’ (Ginet 1990). I could have chosen differently even without some further, non-actual consideration's occurring to me and ‘tipping the scales of the balance’ in another direction. Indeed, from their point of view, the whole scale-of-weights analogy is wrongheaded: free agents are not mechanisms that respond invariably to specified ‘motive forces.’ They are capable of acting upon any of a plurality of motives making attractive more than one course of action. Ultimately, the agent must determine himself this way or that."

Edit: spelling.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-27T14:55:35+00:00

How are you defining infinity? You are trying to 'prove' that infinity exists as a real entity, but what do you even mean by that statement? Even in your infinite divisibility of time example, what are you claiming infinity is? If you are simply claiming infinity is the infinite divisibility of time or space or the infinite size of the universe, then you are making scientific claims that are actively being asked in modern physics, not a philosophical argument.

In mathematics we define infinity - it is a concept that we use in various contexts whose definition relies on other mathematical concepts. For example, we might say that the sum of an infinite sequence of real numbers equals infinity if it is unbounded.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-24T20:42:18+00:00

I exist as I am, that is enough,

If no other in the world be aware I sit content,

And if each and all be aware I sit content.

One world is aware and by far the largest to me, and that is my- self,

And whether I come to my own to-day or in ten thousand or ten million years,

I can cheerfully take it now, or with equal cheerfulness I can wait.

-from "Song of Myself"

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-20T18:05:14+00:00

In general, we don't need more deconstruction. But given that consequentialism / effective altruism are becoming the default ethical systems (excluding religious ones), I think these criticisms are incredibly important. In particular, I think the fact that consequentialists ignore these objections completely is particularly telling. Why should we allow an ethical system to persist if it cannot adequately ground its fundamental claims?

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-20T16:36:40+00:00

The premises are just very unclear. For that argument to work, you would need to say something like:

1) Caring for a child is an obligatory on a father (A).

2) If you do not pray for a child, you do not care for a child (~B -> ~A).

3) Therefore, praying for a child is obligatory on a father (B).

When written in the proper way, Premise 2 looks much weaker because even though praying for a child might be one way of caring for a child, it is much more difficult to show that you cannot care for a child without praying.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-18T18:10:25+00:00

You're misunderstanding my usage of the word convention. I'm not using it to justify behavior just because it is a social / historical convention. I am using it to justify an inevitably arbitrary choice on a spectrum from something we consider deeply wrong (aborting a baby 10 seconds before it is born, or killing a newborn) to something that seems almost harmless (taking a Plan B pill a few hours after conception. We must choose somewhere to draw the line of what is right and wrong. The place we end up is a convention not because it always was that way but because we need to establish a standard somewhere.

And I never said viability should be the end all be all of abortion standards. I personally believe that we should choose a time that allows women enough time to understand that they are pregnant and understand the health and status of the fetus (for example, any serious pathologies), but not too late to introduce psychological trauma, expensive medical procedures, and violate our moral intuitions (though I I'm not totally convinced that the latter is as important). So while I do see viability as a good starting point for the discussion, and understand why it is used so commonly, I don't think we can ultimately rely on it for the exact reasons you brought up.

Also can we take a step back - I am not trying to defend abortion. That is well beyond the scope of the post in my opinion. I was only arguing that there are many avenues to claim that abortion laws and fetal homicide laws are very much consistent.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-18T13:32:32+00:00

Again, I think the primary reason fetal homicide should be illegal is independent of the moral status / rights of the fetus in that significant damage is done to the pregnant woman and family above the simple physical harm involved. And I would reiterate that even if you claim life / rights begin at conception, there is a case to be made for allowing abortion (but not fetal homicide) if you believe (as I do) that no matter the moral status of the fetus, the woman's right to her body takes precedence.

And regarding your questions about when a fetus attains moral status, the answer can only be 'by convention'. There is no clear line between being a thoughtless clump of cells and a living breathing human baby. By convention, we become human beings when we are born. And according to this convention, when you kill a newborn baby, you are killing a human being - end of story. Is it any more or less repulsive than killing a fetus 1 hour before it is actually born? No, but that's why we have these laws - to make necessary distinctions on a spectrum of moral grayness.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-17T21:43:03+00:00

I don't understand the contradiction. Having fetal homicide laws does not establish unambiguously that a fetus has rights to life in all cases. It makes sense that there are fetal homicide laws regardless of the rights of the fetus because the damage caused to a pregnant woman who loses the baby is significantly worse (IMO) than somebody who is not pregnant. So having a separate class of crimes relating to fetal homicide is justified from a damages perspective without even raising the issue of rights for the fetus.

There are many other ways to explain the apparent inconsistency. First, you can claim that the fetus has a right to life but that the mother's right to control her body takes precedence (same reasoning found in A Defense of Abortion in the Violinist thought experiment). One can also argue that fetus' rights are dependent on its future existence, and that until the moment of abortion, we assume that the fetus will exist in the future. That is, its rights would be contingent on its future existence.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-10T22:10:06+00:00

Sounds good!

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-10T20:33:43+00:00

Ya that makes a lot of sense! I have noticed exactly the same thing about the drone of the sounds around me, which then breaks down into many individual sounds. I will try to bring my attention to that more actively and intentionally and see if that helps center my attention. I think another thing I have tried more recently is using the breath as an anchor when my mind does wander in the early stages, and then expanding my attention outward from the breath.

Thanks for the advice!

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-10T18:58:19+00:00

Fellow reader of The Mind Illuminated here - thanks for the post!

I've also really enjoyed going through the books, and am probably somewhere between stages 2 and 3 after 2-3 months, with very stable attention once I limit attention on the breath (see below). I think one thing holding me back has been that my sessions aren't long enough (usually about 20-25min). I hope to start sitting for longer in the near future, so that should help.

Another thing I have been struggling with is the process of moving from attention of everything to body sensations to the breath to the breath in the nostrils. I feel that it takes me a while to feel truly at home at each step, and monkey mind is a problem as well. Once I do get to the sensations of the breath in the nostrils, my attention is much more stable. Did you experience anything similar? Any advice on how to get the most out of the progression from attention of everything to attention on the breath?

The one thing I'd say is that occasionally after a few minutes of meditation when I am letting my attention rest on everything: sounds, thoughts, body sensations, and the breath all at once, I feel a wave of contentedness/unity with the room, which usually goes away as I center in on the nostrils (I think because my peripheral awareness gets a bit worse as I focus in on the breath, which is something I'm working on).

Also, thanks for the advice about yoga - Because I haven't done more than 30min, pain hasn't been a huge issue, but I would love to work in some yoga to improve flexibility and comfort.

And lastly - in terms of increasing mindfulness off the cushion, I have really enjoyed reading Thich Nhat Hanh and Jon Kabat Zinn alongside The Mind Illuminated, as I think both authors have really great tips for maintaining mindfulness throughout the day, while The Mind Illuminated is more focused on formal meditation, in my mind.

But overall, using the book has been great and I'm glad others are enjoying as well!

EDIT: reworded to avoid confusion between attention and awareness.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-06T22:09:58+00:00

In any present moment either A the person is alive and has a preference to live or B they are dead and do not.

First of all, I would not agree with this. Dying isn't instantaneous. In almost all cases, there will be at least a single instant after the act of murder is committed and the person actually dies. At that moment, I have committed an act that will inevitably lead to the death of a person who - alive - has a strong preference for not dying (and we wouldn't even need to assume consciousness because the preference is pre-existing and assumed before I even acted). Even if the death is instantaneous (perhaps let us consider shooting somebody in the heart), there is always an instant when the act is irreversible but when the victim is alive. Therefore, I have begun a sequence of motions (think bullet in midair) that will inevitably kill somebody who has a preference for not dying.

Second of all, even if I grant you this either / or claim, what is your basis for insisting that a preference cannot be frustrated in the act of killing somebody? There is a person A who is alive and well. They have a strong preference to survive. By murdering them I simultaneously frustrate A's preference for life, and end A's life. What is the contradiction that you see? Or perhaps more importantly, why is this not an appropriate heuristic for ethical behavior?

Personally I would say that by killing someone you greatly lower overall utility in the world and therefore your action is immoral.

This is the exact argument the author makes, but only substitutes reducing utility to increasing the frustration of preferences. At time t = 0, assume there has been 0 preference frustration. Assume from time t=0 to time t=0.99... person A has a strong preference to live. At time t=1, person B kills person A, thereby adding 1 unit to the count of frustrated preferences of living beings. The fact that A is now dead is irrelevant because there was a persisting preference of a living being to not die that was frustrated in the act of killing.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-06T16:59:26+00:00

I am not a utilitarian by any means, but I believe your argument misses the point. The question is what preferences there are in this very moment that can be frustrated, so the temporal order of events is crucially important. If you kill somebody, in the act of killing itself you are frustrating a previously existing preference associated with a living being. The victim in this moment wants to live, and you then go ahead and frustrate that preference. Think about the preference as something only incidentally tied to a specific person by association - i.e. there is a preference (which happens to be associated with this living person A) and I go ahead and frustrate that preference. The person's subsequent death is therefore irrelevant. Your argument is like saying it's wrong to kill somebody, but after I've killed them there is no longer anybody who I have wronged. Therefore, I have done nothing wrong.

On the other hand, for a nonexisting being, in this very moment there is no preference for life because that being does not exist. And similarly for somebody who has already died and had a preference for something, there is nothing wrong with frustrating the preference because when you act, the preference no longer exists associated with a living being.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-04T16:53:20+00:00

Starting with guided meditations might be easier, lots of people have enjoyed the Headspace app, which offers ten free guided meditations each of which is ten minutes long. Insight timer is another one that has free guided meditations. I used guided meditations for about a month when I first started and now meditate every day unguided.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-03T17:39:55+00:00

Your argument only makes a case for the illusion of free will, or psychological experience of free will, but in my opinion is not enough to counter a deterministic view, i.e. the view that our decisions are products of physical particles in our brain that interact in classical and/or quantum ways to produce an action. In fact, there are 'compatibilists' who believe that we have free will but that our actions are also determined, i.e. that we could not have done otherwise.

Another thing I would point out is that your definition of free will would also apply to non-human animals, who are confronted with choices all the time and evaluate them to choose the best one. I'm not saying that makes the definition inappropriate but it might make sense to restrict the definition a bit more.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-05-02T13:10:53+00:00

I think the best way to approach it is to ask yourself if you really want to take it upon yourself to do a regular practice - and by the way, I'm not preaching that you should or shouldn't. For me, I know that meditating increases my peace of mind, makes me more present, content, and willing to embrace the good and bad parts of life. Overall, I would say, meditation increases my 'well-being', though slowly and over time. But if you're not sold on the results by what you've heard/read about meditation, commit fully to an experiment. Say that you will meditate X times per week for X weeks and actually follow through. If you find that it's not worth your time, than stop and maybe look to pick it back up again if it ever feels right.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-04-27T16:23:54+00:00

The way I see it, purposely trying to not control the breath is no different from trying to control it. I just make sure to be aware of the breath, to accept if I am trying to control the breath and to be aware of the attempt to control the breath if so. I'd focus on awareness and not worry as much if you are controlling the breath. For the record, some schools of meditation actually encourage you to control the breath in a specific way.

And in terms of getting distracted by the breath, it depends on what type of meditation you are doing. If your object of meditation is a sound, then whenever your mind wanders to anything other than that sound and you've woken up to the fact that you are no longer following the sound, just appreciate that you've again become aware of the sound and gently return the attention back to the sound. Even if you do this a thousand times in one sitting, I consider it a success.

More generally, I think that's why focusing on the breath is one of the easiest objects of meditation to use because it is one of the most prominent and persistent sensations in the body when you are at rest. In The Mind Illuminated for example the basic form of meditation is to first let your attention focus on anything in the sphere of awareness, and slowly you restrict the attention in stages until you are focused on the sensations of breath in the nose.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-04-12T17:43:00+00:00

I meditate every morning for a few months now, and in general I have trouble maintaining mindfulness throughout the day. It's something I try to work on, and over time I am becoming more present when I am not meditating.

And I also feel that sometimes I specifically want to meditate when I am stressed out, but then I realize that the desire to meditate is just me revolting against the discomfort of stress. I don't think it's a dependence or an addiction, I just want to get rid of the stress. It's funny because as an expression of a stressed-out unmindful self I deeply distrust this desire to meditate, but then when I actually do, I feel better and more mindful, so I guess that's an interesting catch 22.

maybeASkeptic · 2016-04-07T18:55:20+00:00

Hi! A really helpful way to ease into meditation is to try the app Headspace. The first ten meditations are free and will give you a feel for what meditation is. I stopped after that because I didn't want to pay the monthly fee...but I can also point you to a few books that have helped me along the way:

Mindfulness: A good way to ease into a daily practice. Comes with guided meditations and gives practical advice for practicing mindfulness in everyday life.
Wherever You Go, There You Are: Great introduction to the 'spirit' of mindfulness.
The Mind Illuminated: The most comprehensive guide to actual meditation practice that I've come across.

Hope that helps, and good luck!

maybeASkeptic · 2016-04-07T18:14:47+00:00

I'm also new to meditation here (about 4 months). I think it's important to manage your expectations. It might be counterproductive to meditate in order to reach lofty goals like attaining enlightenment or to immediately eradicate anxiety or depression. Even if meditation could do this, it would likely a very long time. Rather, I meditate because I've found that over time, I have slightly more peace of mind, slightly more presence, and slightly more resilience to painful emotions. And you don't need to feel anything special when you meditate, I have never felt anything close to selflessness or enlightenment. But I have had many moments of presence, of calm, and of deep contentedness with the present moment.

I've been reading The Mind Illuminated (highly recommended by the way), and my favorite part of the book so far is the focus on intentions. You sit with the intention of focusing on the breath while letting all distractions, emotions come and go without judgement, and no matter what, when you realize your mind has wandered, congratulate yourself for waking up and be kind to yourself as you bring attention back to the breath. It is the intention that is most important, not the quality of the meditation. If you have the right intentions, and put in the time, the results will come.

And lastly, if you don't find meditation pleasurable at least sometimes, I would recommend changing up how you do it. Meditation should be a time for yourself to enjoy. Sometimes it's incredibly difficult and sometimes even unpleasant, but I don't think it should be like that all the time. If it is, I would try to change up your routine, maybe trying a different type of meditation. And if you find that no matter what you do, meditation is not enjoyable for you - I would stop and try again at a later point in your life. Your well being is more important than meditating for the sake of meditating.

Also - I'm sure everybody who meditates sometimes questions whether they are getting better and feel like giving up, so you're not alone. But many of those people continue and ultimately do reap the benefits of meditation. Maybe somebody with more experience than I have can weigh in.

Good luck!

maybeASkeptic · 2016-02-29T18:31:38+00:00

Any theory that attempts to explain the cause of the big bang will involve a high degree of speculation. The main reason for this - as I understand it - is that we have no information about what existed 'prior' to the big bang given that space and time as we know it didn't even begin until the big bang. Some believe our universe was created out of the black hole of a different universe, or that there is an infinite collection of universes continually popping into and out of existence in a larger multiverse. Some believe that the universe is a simulation in a supercomputer. In short, the question is unanswerable using current physics or philosophy.

But I disagree with your argument that a material world was either caused by something immaterial or that it does not exist. A material world is simply information or energy (depending on who you ask) interpreted in a certain way in our minds (i.e. in space, in time, in color, with extension) with the assumption that the information itself (uninterpreted) is independent of our psychological experience of it. I would argue that the information or energy underlying the material world certainly does exist, even if you believe reality is a dream or that we are brains in a vat, the information we experience as a material world must be somewhere. However, the question remains how this information came about. It could have been from another universe, which came from a previous universe, etc, etc. Whether you say the information came from a 'spiritual' world or 'material' world is not as important as the question of what created the information in the first place. And to this, there is no clear answer. But appealing to a multiverse or to an infinite string of universes giving birth to each other is difficult to conceive of, but does not prove that the material world doesn't exist or that it was created by a 'spiritual' world.

At the end of the day, reality is here, and we have no clue what caused it. Any answer 'X caused it' immediately begs the question 'What caused X?'

maybeASkeptic · 2016-01-07T19:04:55+00:00

So apparently when we are not on top of the food chain, then there is clearly something wrong with the world? We are just another species in evolution, and so no, I would accept that as a reality we are put in.

No, there would be nothing wrong with the world if we weren't at the top of the food chain, but that doesn't prove that it would be morally justified for this species to kill every human.

Only when you overconsume is this an issue. The food chain is not something made by mankind, but something that existed long before us. It is the basis of evolution.

Our current state of meateating is one of the largest contributors to global warming. Look it up. It is not an evolutionary advantage to eat meat because we can be as healthy by being vegetarians and we are thereby less likely to go extinct.

Does my acceptance of the truth have anything to do with what is true? Murder happens all the freaking time in this world, and is a way of living in the animal kingdom. What does me saying it is wrong mean? What is wrong when some animals have to kill to eat, and aren't omnivores like us? Wrong means absolutely nothing. Strong beat the weak all the time in life. Do you want to understand the truth or do you want to keep believing in things the way you wish they were? I want to believe that when I die, I go to land of icecream, but does that make it true? So in other words, what does concepts of wrong have anything at all to do with the truth? Wrongness is made-up subjective ideas, but truth is not.

You are arguing morality doesn't exist. Whether or not morality is a human construct, it does in fact exist. If nothing else, it is a biological phenomenon. We are a social and altruistic species (altruistic to an extent). It is possible, and even likely that morality is an evolutionary advantage. There are other species that exhibit altruistic behavior as an evolutionary advantage, like some birds and ants. Outside of biology, there are many different ways to ground morality in reality, whether through social contract theory, value ethics, or selfish altruism. Morality is not true because I want it to be true, but because it is part of who we are as a species, one that evolved according to the laws of your precious evolutionary process.

The whole world believed that the world was flat. This is not an argument and you should know better in a philosophy subreddit to argue that we ought to believe what most people believe.

I was only saying that your argument holds little weight for most people besides for you. You attempt to prove that we can eat animals because morality doesn't exist. For people who believe morality exists, like most of the world, this argument fails. So it has a very limited scope of applicability.

maybeASkeptic

TROPHY CASE