User Controls
Freewill
-
2015-12-11 at 11:57 PM UTC
There are a lot of kinds of dualist, a majority propose some sort of casual interaction between material and non-material (the canonical example being Descartes thinking the pineal gland was the way that the non-material soul controlled the body). There are problems with that approach too, the largest would probably be conjuring evidence for dualism in the first place but then there's also the issue that if we admit interaction of non-material mind with the physical world we seem to face the same dilemma with the non-material world as we faced with the material one, either it behaves deterministically or non deterministically (that seems pretty exhaustive of the options here) and neither really affords room for libertarian free will.
That's right. However I am more interested in the discussion you and I were having above. -
2015-12-13 at 2:05 AM UTC
That sounds like a pretty useless thing to believe. If their "free will" is unable to affect the real world, how is it really free will?
What makes you think the dualist conception of free will can't affect the real world? Like Lanny said, most dualists actually do make this claim. Besides, the point just serves to demonstrate that there is more than one way to approach the topic of free will, whereas the OP seemed to suggest there is only one. -
2015-12-13 at 4:08 AM UTC
What makes you think the dualist conception of free will can't affect the real world?
As I understand dualism it is at its core the conceptual separation or division of body and mind, or the material and the immaterial. I do not think body and mind can actually be separate. Rather they are just two conceptual aspects of the same thing, my existence. They affect each other, are mutually dependent on each other. While they can be conceptually divided into contrasting aspects of my existence, they are ultimately united as one thing. Therefore the mind is not an independent force in this world, and so it cannot possibly have free will.Like Lanny said, most dualists actually do make this claim.
A lot of people claim ridiculous things. The question is are they true? I cannot see how the mind and body could be separated beyond a conceptual separation. Therefore I cannot see how free will could magically exist in the mind, I cannot understand how a mans will would remain uninfluenced by the world he lives in. If you do understand how that would work I would appreciate your explanation.Besides, the point just serves to demonstrate that there is more than one way to approach the topic of free will, whereas the OP seemed to suggest there is only one.
I admit you are right about that. There are probably many ways to approach this topic. I just haven't learned any other way that makes any sense. If you know a way to approach free will that makes more sense than my approach, let me know. -
2015-12-13 at 7:16 AM UTC
As I understand dualism it is at its core the conceptual separation or division of body and mind, or the material and the immaterial. I do not think body and mind can actually be separate. Rather they are just two conceptual aspects of the same thing, my existence. They affect each other, are mutually dependent on each other. While they can be conceptually divided into contrasting aspects of my existence, they are ultimately united as one thing. Therefore the mind is not an independent force in this world, and so it cannot possibly have free will.
A lot of people claim ridiculous things. The question is are they true? I cannot see how the mind and body could be separated beyond a conceptual separation. Therefore I cannot see how free will could magically exist in the mind, I cannot understand how a mans will would remain uninfluenced by the world he lives in. If you do understand how that would work I would appreciate your explanation.
I admit you are right about that. There are probably many ways to approach this topic. I just haven't learned any other way that makes any sense. If you know a way to approach free will that makes more sense than my approach, let me know.
Whether you personally accept the premise of dualism or not is sort of beside the point. The dualist conception of freewill, as espoused by actual dualists, clearly maintains that it can affect the real world. That said, I understand where you're coming from. -
2015-12-13 at 11:55 AM UTCWithout free will, all you are is a machine. With it, you are much more than just a machine.
-
2015-12-13 at 6:18 PM UTC
The dualist conception of freewill, as espoused by actual dualists, clearly maintains that it can affect the real world.
Unless that can be shown to be true it's sort of irrelevant what dualists claim. Who cares about their ridiculous fantasy?That said, I understand where you're coming from.
That's great. -
2015-12-14 at 3:57 AM UTC
Unless that can be shown to be true it's sort of irrelevant what dualists claim. Who cares about their ridiculous fantasy?
It's not irrelevant at all. You claimed there is only one perspective on freewill, which is clearly wrong regardless of the weight of evidence behind dualism.
-
2015-12-14 at 5:29 AM UTC
It's not irrelevant at all. You claimed there is only one perspective on freewill, which is clearly wrong regardless of the weight of evidence behind dualism.
Of course there is more than one perspective on free will. I never claimed that there is only one perspective on free will, you are wrong about that. I even mentioned another perspective on free will in the OP. The relevant detail to take from this is that unless you are defining free will as the freedom to do what you will, it doesn't make any sense. Whether we are talking about free will from a dualistic perspective or a materialist perspective is irrelevant because it doesn't make any sense either way. -
2015-12-15 at 2:32 AM UTC
Of course there is more than one perspective on free will. I never claimed that there is only one perspective on free will, you are wrong about that.
Then why not simply say what the other perspective was instead of ducking around the point? Given the language you used it seems pretty obvious you were coming purely from a materialist standpoint. If you disagree then either explain how I misinterpreted your OP or acknowledge that it wasn't clear. You don't have to insist that the OP was perfect and unable to be critiqued like some sort of egotist.
-
2015-12-15 at 3 AM UTC
Then why not simply say what the other perspective was instead of ducking around the point? Given the language you used it seems pretty obvious you were coming purely from a materialist standpoint. If you disagree then either explain how I misinterpreted your OP or acknowledge that it wasn't clear. You don't have to insist that the OP was perfect and unable to be critiqued like some sort of egotist.
I don't insist the OP is perfect and unable to be critiqued, you're wrong on that. I also never claimed that there is only one perspective on free will. However I do think that my approach to free will is the only one that makes any sense at all other than redefining free will to mean the freedom to do what you will, like the definition used in court. Unless you can demonstrate a way to approach free will that is better than this, you seem to just be making irrelevant complaints.
