Free will in philosphy and science

[GdB]

PS
I looked a bit preciser:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Disturbing Argument - Google Books

Do you want to impress me that you can search in Google books with 'Parfit' and 'categorical'?

Oh, correction, you just googled 'Parfit' and 'categorical'.

Why, you silly girl, don't you read the document I provided here, in which you find how Parfit uses the concepts hypothetical and categorical, and how this is relevant for the free will discussion.

Bah... argument per Google search.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said I used the wrong term. That does not mean I don't understand the concept.

You did not simply use the wrong term. You used the wrong content of the term too, which has nothing to do with what I wrote. NOTHING. And I wrote that already.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And there you go again belittling me because I'm not a big wheel in the scientific or philosophical arena? Ian that an appeal to authority? I will not let you get away with that.

Oh? Are you going to stalk me because I have a better understanding of philosophy and science than you have? Now that is a threat...

And get your posting straight. It is a mess in which it is not clear what is your text or what is my text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

No, I don't stop with that. You are not using simply the wrong word, you are using a concept ('imperative') about which I am not even talking.

I already said I used the wrong term. That does not mean I don't understand the concept. And there you go again belittling me because I'm not a big wheel in the scientific or philosophical arena? Ian that an appeal to authority? I will not let you get away with that.

Originally Posted by GdB

Look, this whole stuff you wrote here has nothing, but really nothing to do with what I wrote:

Originally Posted by GdB

And this is the second time you do this, so you are not even capable to learn.

What about you? You seem to think you are the only one who has something to teach.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I was wrong, correct me but don't keep belittling me GdB, as if to say my comments don't hold a candle to yours.

Originally Posted by Gdb

Why should I correct you again. No peacegirl, you really do not play in the same league as philosophers and scientist. You really ARE a little girl.

This is the second time you're patronizing me. Is that all you can do rather than man up and admit you can't win an argument that is nonsensical unless you close yourself off and keep repeating the same old mantra?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't want to continue because I'm not agreeing with your side of the argument, then let it rest.

Originally Posted by GdB

No, I do not want to continue discussing with somebody who cannot learn new concepts, believes she knows everything better than many philosophers who do understand new concepts, and even thinks she know things better than established science. Yes, for all means, leave the thread.

I don't have to leave this thread. Just don't engage with me if that's your preference IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. Do you realize you're using an appeal to authority to make it seem as if I am just a peon with nothing of value to share?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Btw, I have given arguments and they're sound. The free will you keep referring to does not address the free will definition that most people use. You evade and skirt around it because don't have an answer. It is not enough to say as Dennett does: This is a free will worth having.

Originally Posted by GdB"

You have not shown that you even understand what relevant arguments against compatibilism would be. So we cannot even get that far to discuss if they are valid or true.

You can't be serious. I have shown you that the conditional proposition "could have done otherwise" has no place in the real world. You're using this idea to justify that a person can be punished for making a similar choice in the future given his ability to reason and to know the consequences if he chooses wrongly. This IS our present system of justice. You're not telling me anything new. Was the person in his right mind when he pulled the trigger? Did he know right from wrong? Were his actions premeditated? Were there mitigating circumstances involved? Was he capable of thinking through the consequences of his actions? If he could do these things, then he can be charged and would be subject to criminal prosecution. We know that threats of punishment are a partial deterrent. But our present system does nothing to prevent people from hurting others even with these threats, if their choice to have their desires fulfilled outweighs the fear of punishment. When I tell you there is a better way, you could care less. You're just interested in defending your position at all costs.

I feel just like you do. You don't even understand my position. We have not discussed why a no blame environment will create the very thing that all of the punishment in the world could never achieve. You're not curious in the slightest as to how this can be accomplished.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Disturbing Argument - Google Books

Originally Posted by GdB

Everything clear:

It worked for me. Normative truth cannot prevent individual desire (based on one's circumstances) to rear its ugly head.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You did not simply use the wrong term. You used the wrong content of the term too, which has nothing to do with what I wrote. NOTHING. And I wrote that already.

So correct me and move on. Stop using an appeal to authority as your reason to ignore what I have to say.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And there you go again belittling me because I'm not a big wheel in the scientific or philosophical arena? Isn't that an appeal to authority? I will not let you get away with that.

Originally Posted by GdB

Oh? Are you going to stalk me because I have a better understanding of philosophy and science than you have? Now that is a threat...

And get your posting straight. It is a mess in which it is not clear what is your text or what is my text.

I have no desire to stalk you. Where did that come from? I will defend my position. You do not have a better understanding of this topic than I do. Sorry.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the second time you're patronizing me. Is that all you can do rather than man up and admit you can't win an argument that is nonsensical unless you close yourself off and keep repeating the same old mantra?

Drawing attention to your ignorance is not patronizing. It is just being accurate and honest, two things you know nothing about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you realize you're using an appeal to authority to make it seem as if I am just a peon with nothing of value to share?

Drawing attention to the fact that you are just a peon with nothing of value to share is not an appeal to authority. It is just being accurate and honest, two things you know nothing about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Drawing attention to your ignorance is not patronizing. It is just being accurate and honest, two things you know nothing about.

Calling me a little girl who can't compete with the big wheels is condescending and patronizing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you realize you're using an appeal to authority to make it seem as if I am just a peon with nothing of value to share?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Drawing attention to the fact that you are just a peon with nothing of value to share is not an appeal to authority. It is just being accurate and honest, two things you know nothing about.

Oh be quiet Angakuk. You're very quick to judge and condemn (without a shred of real evidence that I'm being dishonest or inaccurate) considering that you're a man of the cloth. I'm ready to put you on ignore.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel just like you do. You don't even understand my position. We have not discussed why a no blame environment will create the very thing that all of the punishment in the world could never achieve. You're not curious in the slightest as to how this can be accomplished.

Because this is a thread about free will in philosophy and science, not about your book.

Believe me, as academic qualified philosopher with physics and astronomy background, I know you are spouting nonsense.

• If I must explain something I already explained twice, then it is over.
• If you contradict established science, on which already many technologies are based, then it is over.
• If you just want to win an argument, without showing understanding, then it is over.

Call it an argument from authority (which it isn't actually, I don't do a call to some other authority). But think about it (if you can): an argument from authority is not necessary invalid. Especially for you, where half of humanity (oh, sorry, 98%) understands more about these topics than you do.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by davidm

I am somewhat confused by Parfit. He outlines the compatibilist view of freedom and I think sucsessfully refutes Kant. Yet it seems clear he rejects moral desert, which puts him in the same camp as the hard incompatibilist Pereboom. Perhaps I've misunderstood something?

Hi David,

It is holiday time. I think I have the same problems as you have. Until now I did not give this part of Parfit enough attention. I hope I will come back to this, but it will be a few weeks later. It needs some close reading, and that does not fit consuming IPA-like beverages, or other free chosen (none-)activities...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

No, I don't stop with that. You are not using simply the wrong word, you are using a concept ('imperative') about which I am not even talking.

I already said I used the wrong term. That does not mean I don't understand the concept. And there you go again belittling me because I'm not a big wheel in the scientific or philosophical arena? Ian that an appeal to authority? I will not let you get away with that.

Originally Posted by GdB

Look, this whole stuff you wrote here has nothing, but really nothing to do with what I wrote:

Originally Posted by GdB

And this is the second time you do this, so you are not even capable to learn.

What about you? You seem to think you are the only one who has something to teach.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I was wrong, correct me but don't keep belittling me GdB, as if to say my comments don't hold a candle to yours.

Originally Posted by Gdb

Why should I correct you again. No peacegirl, you really do not play in the same league as philosophers and scientist. You really ARE a little girl.

This is the second time you're patronizing me. Is that all you can do rather than man up and admit you can't win an argument that is nonsensical unless you close yourself off and keep repeating the same old mantra?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't want to continue because I'm not agreeing with your side of the argument, then let it rest.

Originally Posted by GdB

No, I do not want to continue discussing with somebody who cannot learn new concepts, believes she knows everything better than many philosophers who do understand new concepts, and even thinks she know things better than established science. Yes, for all means, leave the thread.

I don't have to leave this thread. Just don't engage with me if that's your preference IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. Do you realize you're using an appeal to authority to make it seem as if I am just a peon with nothing of value to share?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Btw, I have given arguments and they're sound. The free will you keep referring to does not address the free will definition that most people use. You evade and skirt around it because don't have an answer. It is not enough to say as Dennett does: This is a free will worth having.

Originally Posted by GdB"

You have not shown that you even understand what relevant arguments against compatibilism would be. So we cannot even get that far to discuss if they are valid or true.

You can't be serious. I have shown you that the conditional proposition "could have done otherwise" has no place in the real world. You're using this idea to justify that a person can be punished for making a similar choice in the future given his ability to reason and to know the consequences if he chooses wrongly. This IS our present system of justice. You're not telling me anything new. Was the person in his right mind when he pulled the trigger? Did he know right from wrong? Were his actions premeditated? Were there mitigating circumstances involved? Was he capable of thinking through the consequences of his actions? If he could do these things, then he can be charged and would be subject to criminal prosecution. We know that threats of punishment are a partial deterrent. But our present system does nothing to prevent people from hurting others even with these threats, if their choice to have their desires fulfilled outweighs the fear of punishment. When I tell you there is a better way, you could care less. You're just interested in defending your position at all costs.

I feel just like you do. You don't even understand my position. We have not discussed why a no blame environment will create the very thing that all of the punishment in the world could never achieve. You're not curious in the slightest as to how this can be accomplished.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Disturbing Argument - Google Books

Originally Posted by GdB

Everything clear:

Did you read it? Normative truth cannot prevent individual desire (based on one's circumstances) from rearing its ugly head. I agree that categorical reason may be necessary in today's world, but that is only because we must judge the actions of others when hurt is involved. When hurt is removed, there will be no need to judge behavior using this normative standard.

The Mutual Disturbance of Categorical Reason

There is a mutual disturbance at work in moral argumentation: Scholars continue to try to disturb the concept and processing of categorical reason, and categorical reason continues to disturb scholars. There are shifts in categorical reason's status, namely from its hegemony in antiquity to its destabilization in the Enlightenment to its dismantling post-Enlightenment. These shifts are due to a number of factors, but Toulmin (1964) was keen to note a key underlying factor: rhetoric. While there is always an element of rhetoric in logical argument, the shifts are less about logical establishment or critique than they are about finding "some argument which would replace the current feelings against reform by others in favor of it" (Toulmin 1964 p. 196). The contemporary moment is perhaps best characterized as having a disturbed feeling toward categorical reason: It is something from which one recoils and, simultaneously, something which one also requires, if not demands, when considering and evaluating human action.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Because this is a thread about free will in philosophy and science, not about your book.

My father's book is based on the very important debate of free will versus determinism. It couldn't be more relevant.

Originally Posted by GdB

Believe me, as academic qualified philosopher with physics and astronomy background, I know you are spouting nonsense.

• If I must explain something I already explained twice, then it is over.
• If you contradict established science, on which already many technologies are based, then it is over.
• If you just want to win an argument, without showing understanding, then it is over.

Call it an argument from authority (which it isn't actually, I don't do a call to some other authority). But think about it (if you can): an argument from authority is not necessary invalid.

You can say that again.

Originally Posted by GdB

Especially for you, where half of humanity (oh, sorry, 98%) understands more about these topics than you do.

You're just peeved because you resent his claim that the eyes aren't a sense organ. Even if you think he's wrong it shouldn't stop you from grasping all that he has to say. You're the one missing out.

And if you don't want to converse with me anymore, then don't. I can still answer posts that I feel have relevance to me, even if my knowledge comes directly from my father's book. You're using books as references, aren't you? It's no different. Half of humanity believes in free will. The fact that he used a percentage that may not be perfectly accurate doesn't take away from the fact that the majority of society believes in free will; the belief that we could have done otherwise.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm ready to put you on ignore.

Not again

I know why you don't like me. It's because I don't call you nasty names isn't it?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said I used the wrong term. That does not mean I don't understand the concept. And there you go again belittling me because I'm not a big wheel in the scientific or philosophical arena? Ian that an appeal to authority? I will not let you get away with that.

You said that already. Are you drunk or so?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What about you? You seem to think you are the only one who has something to teach.

No, no, I am not all-knowing. But compared to you being all-knowing or having some basic knowledge about philosophy and science are virtually the same.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the second time you're patronizing me.

Yes, and I will continue to do that until you show you have some real understanding about philosophy and science.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you realize you're using an appeal to authority to make it seem as if I am just a peon with nothing of value to share?

Yes, I do. Compared to you everybody having some basic knowledge about philosophy and science is an authority.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have shown you that the conditional proposition "could have done otherwise" has no place in the real world.

And I have shown that such propositions can be true or false. But as you do not understand what Parfit in this context explains by distinguishing between the categorical and hypothetical reading of 'could have done otherwise', you think you have a case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I tell you there is a better way, you could care less.

Indeed. A nitwit as you are has nothing to say about this topic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just interested in defending your position at all costs.

At all costs you try to avoid that you are exposed as a nitwit.
At all costs you try to sell some stupid ideas of your father as the solution of all human problems.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you read it? Normative truth cannot prevent individual desire (based on one's circumstances) from rearing its ugly head. I agree that categorical reason may be necessary in today's world, but that is only because we must judge the actions of others when hurt is involved. When hurt is removed, there will be no need to judge behavior using this normative standard.

'Categorical Reason'?? What are you talking about? This is what you googled with 'Parfit' and 'categorical', isn't it? It has nothing to do with what I was discussing. You are polluting this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You said that already. Are you drunk or so?

No, no, I am not all-knowing. But compared to you being all-knowing or having some basic knowledge about philosophy and science are virtually the same.

Yes, and I will continue to do that until you show you have some real understanding about philosophy and science.

Yes, I do. Compared to you everybody having some basic knowledge about philosophy and science is an authority.

And I have shown that such propositions can be true or false. But as you do not understand what Parfit in this context explains by distinguishing between the categorical and hypothetical reading of 'could have done otherwise', you think you have a case.

Indeed. A nitwit as you are has nothing to say about this topic.

At all costs you try to avoid that you are exposed as a nitwit.
At all costs you try to sell some stupid ideas of your father as the solution of all human problems.

'Categorical Reason'?? What are you talking about? This is what you googled with 'Parfit' and 'categorical', isn't it? It has nothing to do with what I was discussing. You are polluting this thread.

Yes, categorical reason. If you think I'm polluting this thread, you're a wimp. Deal with it.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, categorical reason. If you think I'm polluting this thread, you're a wimp. Deal with it.

No.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

No.

You're a coward. Go back to your moderated threads where they can throw someone out who disagrees with them. It won't happen here, and for this I am grateful.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by GdB

'Categorical Reason'?? What are you talking about? This is what you googled with 'Parfit' and 'categorical', isn't it? It has nothing to do with what I was discussing. You are polluting this thread.

I must admit it is refreshing to read GbD's exchanges with Davidm and others on this forum, who seem to have a good understanding of philosophy and logic, though my study of philosophy was a long time ago and I have either forgotten it, or it never sank in in the first place. And then there is Peacegirl, who can only parrot the incorrect ideas in her fathers book, believing that he knew something about the subjects he was expounding on. The exchanges that actually address the topic of free will and determinism, have been quite informative, and I do want to thank Peacegirl for injecting a bit of levity into an otherwise serious discussion, and GbD's responses have given information to correct her mistaken ideas.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I tell you there is a better way, you could care less.

I doubt that it is possible for him to "care less". Did you maybe mean "couldn't care less"?

[davidm]

Here is my reading of Parfit.

In the linked paper, he describes compatibilist free will in the sense of compatibilism about choice. He seems to think that compatibilism about choice is fine.

However, compatibilism about choice is not the only issue, particularly, it seems, in current philosophy. The real question, implicit in the paper’s title, is whether we can have compatibilism about desert — the philosophical notion that we genuinely deserve praise for our good actions, and blame for our bad actions; or more extensively, whether it can be said that anyone deserves to suffer for bad or even evil actions. Parfit seems to deny compatibilism about desert. If desert is the most important thing about free will, then Parfit joins Pereboom in rejecting free will.

The rebuttal to compatibilism is that while it is necessary to ground free will, it is not sufficient — at least when it comes to desert. Parfit seems to be an incompatibilist about desert and determinism.

If anyone has a contrary reading of the paper I’d like to hear it.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by davidm

In the linked paper, he describes compatibilist free will in the sense of compatibilism about choice. He seems to think that compatibilism about choice is fine.

However, compatibilism about choice is not the only issue, particularly, it seems, in current philosophy. The real question, implicit in the paper’s title, is whether we can have compatibilism about desert — the philosophical notion that we genuinely deserve praise for our good actions, and blame for our bad actions; or more extensively, whether it can be said that anyone deserves to suffer for bad or even evil actions. Parfit seems to deny compatibilism about desert. If desert is the most important thing about free will, then Parfit joins Pereboom in rejecting free will.

I do not completely agree, however it might just be terminology.

First, I think the term 'compatibilism' should only be used for free will and determinism.
Second, the concept of free will of a compatibilist is a different one than that of a libertarian incompatibilist. So the question is, if this different view on free will has consequences in our thinking about moral desert. Parfit is clear about this: yes, it has. We do not deserve to suffer.

However, I am still not clear about his argument. This needs more time from me than I want to give now. The weather is too beautiful now... I am going to enjoy it, out of pure free will. I am acting so according the principle of greater satisfaction... Feels good! A taste of freedom!

Originally Posted by davidm

The rebuttal to compatibilism is that while it is necessary to ground free will, it is not sufficient — at least when it comes to desert.

I do not understand this phrase. Is free will something to be grounded? So I neither understand your contrast between necessary and sufficient ground here.

Originally Posted by davidm

Parfit seems to be an incompatibilist about desert and determinism.

This I think I understand, and agree with, even if I would express it differently.

[GdB]

OK, after reading and rereading Parfit, I am slowly (yes, slowly) getting to understand what he is aiming at.

First: the names of the chapters are of course a clue: The Freedom that Morality Requires and Why We Cannot Deserve to Suffer. He defends (see my short summary here, the text is there also as attachment) based on the fact that for free will we need the hypothetical reading of 'could have done otherwise', and this is compatible with determinism.

On the other side, to say that somebody deserves to suffer is a different claim than that we are morally responsible. He illustrates this with an argument he borrows from Kant (the enumeration with letters is from Parfit):

(I) For it to be true that some act of ours was wrong, we must be morally responsible for this wrong act in some way that could make us deserve to suffer.

(J) If our acts were merely events in time, we could never be responsible for these acts in this suffering-deserving way.

(E) If our acts were merely events in time, none of our acts could be wrong, so morality would be an illusion.

(F) Morality is not an illusion.

Therefore:
(G) Our acts are not merely events in time.

Now Parfit argues against several of these propositions:

Against (I): we can distinguish between people who are morally responsible and those who aren't, based on our understanding we got in the chapter before: if people are able to act on their beliefs, they are morally responsible. With that we also get (F) 'for free'. On the other side, Parfit rejects (G): we know our acts are merely events in time.

But Parfit accepts (J). In arguing why we did something, we always get at a point, where we are not actively involved, whatever way we see where our acts are grounded, even in views that Parfit in itself does not agree:
- in determinism (Parfit agrees with that of course),
- uncaused (or random) events as we know them from quantum physics,
- the fact that we act for reasons (because if we ask for reasons of the reasons etc, we always get at a point that cannot be further motivated),
- and even agent causality (because in event causality our actions are at least also events in time).

Now we can reshuffle the arguments that are still standing, and put them in the right order (page 270):

(J) If our acts were merely events in time, we could never deserve to suffer.
(T) Our acts are merely events in time.
Therefore:
(U) We cannot deserve to suffer.

However, because of our morality, this does not mean we should not act on the moral dimensions of somebody's action.
Parfit (page 272):

We can deserve many things, such as gratitude, praise, and the kind of blame that is merely moral dispraise. But no one could ever deserve to suffer. For similar reasons, I believe, no one could deserve to be less happy. When people treat us or others wrongly, we can justifiably be indignant. And we can have reasons to want these people to understand the wrongness of their acts, even though that would make them feel very badly about what they have done. But these reasons are like our reasons to want people to grieve when those whom they love have died. We cannot justifiably have ill will towards these wrong-doers, wishing things to go badly for them. Nor can we justifiably cease to have good will towards them, by ceasing to wish things to go well for them. We could at most be justified in ceasing to like these people, and trying, in morally acceptable ways, to have nothing to do with them.

So in the end, davidm, you were completely right . But I was missing (the structure of) Parfit's argument. To understand what he thinks is one thing. To understand why he thinks this way another. As a philosopher I am only content when I understand both.

I think, as I more or less stated in my previous posting, that we should not wonder about this argument. The concept of free will of the libertarian and the compatibilist are not the same, neither are therefore their concepts of moral responsibility. In Parfit we have an example of a compatibilist who explicitly argues that, even if we are moral responsible, we do not deserve to suffer.

BTW, I started reading another book about free will: Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn't Matter, by Kadri Vihvelin.
She argues even more formally than Parfit, and from another angle. I am not very far yet, but it is very interesting. She even gives a sneer to Swartz, when she mentions for a correct understanding of determinism it doesn't matter what analysis one has of laws of nature:

This claim about entailment relations is neutral between different accounts of lawhood, ranging from the so-called naive regularity accounts¹⁰ to broadly Humean or Best System accounts, to various kinds of none-Humean (so called necessitarian) accounts.

The note 10 refers to Swartz...

But later in the book she gives exactly the same refutation of logical determinism as Swartz does. So they might not differ too much...

Edit: I sometimes write too fast, and don't know how I started the sentence when I end it... Changed the sentence about agent causality

[davidm]

Welcome back, GdB

Now we an have a nice, normal, satisfying intellectual conversation without peaccegirl, who has left the house for now. But she'll be back!

[GdB]

Originally Posted by davidm

Welcome back, GdB

I was never really away. Just took some time to find the right moment to struggle through the argument. Parfit writes beautifully, but in simply build, and smooth sentences, some complex philosophical arguments are formulated...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Welcome back, GdB

Now we an have a nice, normal, satisfying intellectual conversation without peaccegirl, who has left the house for now. But she'll be back!

What chutzpah!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by davidm

But she'll be back!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What chutzpah!

Leave it to Peacegirl to spoil things. Definitely take a bow DavidM.