Friday, 31 August 2012

Free will?

Free will...

The position that believes that we have Free will is known as libertarianism. As I have explained the idea is that we could have done otherwise.

What I find when I read literature about this kind of thing, is that there is no alternate/ parallel universe in which to tell that we could have done otherwise, so how could we possibly know?


It mentions in the linked article that with freedom it requires events of absolute chance. The unfortunate thing about this is there are many events that occur that may look like this, however they only look like this because of our... non-knowledge. If, we knew absolutely everything, not about the future, but about the past we would be able to show a series of event that have enabled said event..



Thursday, 30 August 2012

All about incompatibilists


Incompatibilists

So firstly we have Determinism. The jist of this idea is that everything, every action is predetermined that every action is preceded by an action that caused so to cause a chain of events that are all linked.


Secondly we have Free will, or libertarians. This is idea is that nothing is caused and everything that happens, does so because we choose to.

Incompatibilists look like this in a logical argument form

This is what Hard Determinism looks like

If D, then not F
D
­­­­____________
Not F

Or Free Will…

If F, then not D
F
____________
Not D

The idea with compatibilism is that if one is true then the other cannot exist.





Thursday, 23 August 2012

Compatibilists explained


Compatibilists

Compatibilists are also fondly known as Soft Determinists.

Hume (Mid 18th century Philosopher) believed that an action is free if the agent could have done otherwise, had the agent wanted to. But this means that the agents actions are caused by the agents beliefs and values.

So basically, that described action is free and caused.

In a philosophy class the argument of combatibilism looks like 
this

F (Free will)
D (Determinism)
________________
F and D are compatible.

There are two important objections to combatibilism, Firstly the nature of compulsive behaviors such as kleptomainia. Compulsive behavior such as this is an obsession that they believe is their desire. The problem here being is that they (by themselves) probably could not have done otherwise. I say by themselves simply because of the fact that I’m sure there is therapy for these kinds of behaviors, however it’s so heavily assisted, that you would say without them they would be the same.

And secondly, Locke’s locked room.
John Locke is a 17th Century philosopher, proposed this thought experiment.

A man goes into a room to talk to his friend, on his own accord. This would be considered a free action, however unbeknownst to him, the door has been locked behind him. He thinks he is free, staying in there is his free choice, but is he free?


Wednesday, 22 August 2012

Firstly



The general idea of this blog is the idea of combatibilism. 

This idea is an idea related to the philosophy topic of free will.

Now I do have to apologize a slight amount, as it turns out my readings that are linked to these posts can be quite dense at times, but it is an incredibly dense topic and the most basic summary you will get are these posts… 

Pretty sure..

I'll explain the two types of ideas that surround this argument; Compatibilist and incompatibilist. Then I can start explaining to you what free will is, then what Determinism is... and such.

I'll let you know about the problems that surround each of the positions and I'll finally let you know what I believe.

Thanking you



Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Okay real idea now.

A slight disclaimer I guess, what has happened is I found that these articles were supportive in a way, but using them as links throughout my blog would make for quite a hefty read so I want to leave these here for extra reading but have used separate links to help clarify certain phrases and words throughout the blog


http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/problem/

This link will give a brief overview as to what the basic problem of free will is. It sets up the main positions and gives a short summary about these positions. Each position has a link to a more in depth description of that position.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/moral_responsibility.html

This link shows us the problem that comes with determinism. This problem is such that if the universe is wholly determined then how can we be held morally responsible for our actions.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/compatibilism.html

This link is an overview as to my main position within the argument. The position is known as compatibilism. This means that two opposing ideas can become compatible in order to iron out the creases in each of the ideas aas individuals.

slideshow of a tutorial

This is a link to a slideshow that was used as lecture notes for Victoria University of Wellingtons philosophy paper that covers the topic. It outlines the subject as it is taught. I would call it raw philosophy that uses logical argument layouts which are taught in first year philosophy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528772.300-can-we-live-without-free-will.html

This is a link to an article in the NewScientist. This is a magazine that regularly produces literature about recent findings on different scientific topics. Philosophy included. This article is about findings that back up the lack of free will, but discuss whether or not we really need it in our lives.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/233206
Important

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01624156?LI=true#page-1

This is Peter Van Inwagen's article dismissing compatibilism as a possible theory for free will. He replies to the theories of another philosopher named Nowell-Smith

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048406112341111

1961 article written by R.L. Franklin, discussing free will

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h316702r6x532j2r/

This article is written by Jan Narveson and is a reply to Peter Van Inwagen's criticism of compatibilism.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2023833
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2185789

These two articles both discuss something called the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, the relation it has to moral responsibility.

account of the whole topic

This link is another Victoria University resource and are just the simple class notes from a philosophy class.

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Helpful information for myself



Baron d’Holbach:            Hard determinist; what we call free will is simply a modification of the physical brain. We necessarily seek to enhance/ensure our own existence.  As natural beings, we are wholly subject to laws of nature. In this sense, forces independent of us create desires/drives in us that determine what we do.

John Hospers:                 Soft determinist; character is formed by forces beyond our control (genetic, environmental, etc.) and our desires are formed as a product of that character.  We could choose to act otherwise if our desires were different, if we had the ability to overcome those external forces, but that ability itself (strong will) is itself formed by external forces.  Some of us do have this ability, so it would seem that having the ability to use self-control, be moral, strong will, is simply a matter of luck.  There are two levels of moral discourse: actions and the springs of actions.  Terms like ‘responsible’ only apply to the first level (actions) and not the springs of action.  We cannot be held responsible for our springs of action, because they are out of our control.

William James:               Indeterminist; there is always some ‘loose play’ among parts of the universe, multiple possibilities for how things can be.  Whatever does actually happen, happens because of chance, not out of necessity or natural laws. There are two types of posulates of rationality: either everything is determined, or everything is up to chance.  The pessimistic determinist is comfortable with the former, but the optimistic indeterminist is comfortable with, and finds more intelligible, the latter.

Richard Taylor:               Self determinism, theory of agency, free will: free acts must be those caused by the agent themself as a ‘whole being’.  This might seem like an odd exception when most of the events of the natural world seem to follow predictable, natural laws, but it fits how we understand our normal day-to-day experience.  Argument against soft determinism: even internally caused actions must have prior causes too, of the sort that are determined, so soft determinism really just collapses into hard determinism (all acts are determined).  Argument against indeterminism: acts from chance would be totally random and out of anyone or anything’s control. 

W. T. Stace:                  Soft determinism, for us to have free will things don’t have to be completely indeterminate.  In ordinary conversation we commonly talk of some acts being free and some acts being unfree.  Both acts have causes, just different: free acts have internal psychological causes and unfree acts have external physical causes.  Free will does exist and is compatible with determinism, as well as moral responsibility.

Nancy Holmstrom:          Soft determinism; with added consideration on the sources of the causes of acts.  An action is free only to the extent that the agent has control over the beliefs and desires that cause the performance of the action.  Control need not be all or nothing, it is often a matter of degree.  These degrees depend on the degree to which our desires and beliefs do not act on us against our will, the degree of our awareness that the sources of action are operating on us, and how and why the sources of action are operating on us.  Smoking/advertising.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan:             Karma sets certain limits but we are free within those limits.  The Hindu doctrine of karma, meaning ‘action’ or ‘deed’ says that all of our actions create a force that determines our destiny.  Moral actions in this life will affect our status in the next life.  Although karma links us with our past, we have the creative power to shape ourselves.  It also follows from this that we should have more compassion for those who are less fortunate than us, since we all share the same human frailties. 

The Pali Canon:                          The Buddha teaches that there is no self: what we call the self is simply a combination of bundles of five kinds of force or energy.  These are form (material shape), feelings, perceptions (sensations), formations (acts of will), and consciousness.  Nothing in any of these bundles is permanent or a self.  We cannot control these bundles.  Internal and external experience are both impermanent (object and base of consciousness), and so the resulting form of consciousness is also impermanent, and therefore painful.  When we eliminate ignorance, eliminates the sequence of ignorance—craving—suffering.

Daniel Dennett:                           The self is simply the product of the ongoing narrative that we use to describe our experience (stream of consciousness, train of thought).  The self is an abstraction that we create as we use language, tell stories about whom we are, and preserve ourselves. Biology begins in self-preservation.  This has implications for artificial intelligence machines that can report on their activities, and multiple personality disorder.