The concept of subjective opinion solves the problem of free will
There are alternative futures A and B available, A is made the present meaning A is chosen.
Then there is the question "What was it that made the choice turn out A instead of B?
Then the answer is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing a personal opinion on what it was.
Then the common objection of professional philosophers that free will is random, and therefore meaningless, is refuted. Because if we choose a personal opinion that the choice was made out of fear, then that is a meaningful choice.
Or we might choose an opinion that the same choice was made out of an emotional emptiness, and that it was in our opinion, indeed a meaningless choice. The logic still functions, regardless of what opinion is chosen.
This solution to the problem of free will, also solves the problem of how subjectivity works. All subjective opinion, like an opinion that something is beautiful, or that a choice is made out of fear, is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.
Any refutation of this solution should also offer a competing account of how subjectivity works.
From a purely objective perspective any choice is random, in the sense that in the moment it can turn out either A or B. There may be reasons offered for choosing either option, but reasons are not agency. Only the subjective spirit making the choice is agency.
The term "spirit" is appropriate to denote the wholy subjective nature of agency. As distinct from material, which is objective.
It is therefore proven that there is a spiritual domain, constituting the agency of choices, from which is decided how the material domain ends up. But proof of the spiritual domain in this sense, only means proof that an opinion that fear exists, or God exists, is proven to be logically valid. Just as long as fear and God are defined in terms of being agency of choices. Ofcourse the opinion that fear does not exist is also proven to be logically valid.
Then there is the question "What was it that made the choice turn out A instead of B?
Then the answer is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing a personal opinion on what it was.
Then the common objection of professional philosophers that free will is random, and therefore meaningless, is refuted. Because if we choose a personal opinion that the choice was made out of fear, then that is a meaningful choice.
Or we might choose an opinion that the same choice was made out of an emotional emptiness, and that it was in our opinion, indeed a meaningless choice. The logic still functions, regardless of what opinion is chosen.
This solution to the problem of free will, also solves the problem of how subjectivity works. All subjective opinion, like an opinion that something is beautiful, or that a choice is made out of fear, is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.
Any refutation of this solution should also offer a competing account of how subjectivity works.
From a purely objective perspective any choice is random, in the sense that in the moment it can turn out either A or B. There may be reasons offered for choosing either option, but reasons are not agency. Only the subjective spirit making the choice is agency.
The term "spirit" is appropriate to denote the wholy subjective nature of agency. As distinct from material, which is objective.
It is therefore proven that there is a spiritual domain, constituting the agency of choices, from which is decided how the material domain ends up. But proof of the spiritual domain in this sense, only means proof that an opinion that fear exists, or God exists, is proven to be logically valid. Just as long as fear and God are defined in terms of being agency of choices. Ofcourse the opinion that fear does not exist is also proven to be logically valid.
Comments (80)
Is this spirit supernatural? Or is it just your personal opinion of what the subconscious should be called.
I have never heard the argument that free will is random. Which professional philosophers make this claim?
Well, here it talks about not being in control. Other times the objection against randomness is that without a preceding cause forcing the result, the choice is meaningless.
Standard argument against free will.
"Second, if indeterminism and real chance exist, our will would not be in our control, we could not be responsible for random actions. we call this the Randomness Objection."
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/standard_argument.html
Ok, well that appears to be one person's summary. And even if there is such a thing as randomness, how does this imply that the will is subject to randomness?
I think you have overstated the case. Besides which, the evidence of free will is manifest. Free will doesn't require justification, it most obviously is. It is the denial of free will that needs proof.
I did read your post. I just don't believe free will is a problem, it is a phenomenon.
People knew that massive objects fall to earth millenia before Isaac Newton explained "how it works."
It is self-evident that people have free-will. Whether or not anyone can explain "how it works" is another whole issue.
Another totally bizarre argument of someone about free will.
Alternative futures, one is made the present. What the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion. That's how it works.
The only thing bizarre is your failure to follow a simple example. Gravity works. We knew that millenia before we knew what gravity was. Free-will is as self-evident as gravity. I choose to do x, x happens.
If you think I don't have free-will, then the burden of proof is on you.
That's correct.
Why can't anybody be normal about free will?
That is not a standard definition of free-will. A typical definition of free-will looks like this:
free will
/?fr? ?wil/
noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
I'm not sure what it is that you are describing, but it isn't what most of the rest of the world thinks of as free-will.
The logic of free will does not function, when agency is asserted to be a factual issue. That is why it is essential for comprehension of free will to know that what the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion.
Sorry. Maybe english is not your first language?
@Pfhorrest I agree with Popper that the burden of proof rests with the determinists. Personally, I think anyone who seriously wants to deny free-will is just funny. I guess some people were just pre-destined to be comedians.... :)
Also, more of your bizarre attitude where you have no critical understanding of free will whatsoever. And obviously you don't want to understand how it works. This is the most insane attitude about the issue I have ever come across.
What's to understand? I will...I do. It's not rocket science. It's an empirical fact.
Also, I think everyone in this thread agrees that free will exists. Syamsu just wants to talk about what it's like.
That is why I asked,
Quoting Sir2u
to try and find out what the hell you are talking about. Shame you never bother to answer questions.
Quoting Syamsu
Quoting Syamsu
I am pretty sure that you will find more of those professional philosophers that will agree that opinions, the choice of one thing over another, are made subconsciously. Most people decide that they are scared of something without really being able to explain why, or to explain why they decided that something is beautiful and not ugly.
And I never defined the subconscious as being agency of choices, but because I do not know what the fuck your spiritual realm might be I asked if that was what you meant. Lots of believers think that their soul is spiritual, while other people think that it is all in the brain which is mostly subconscious.
[quote=Wiki]"One's agency is one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. This ability is affected by the cognitive belief structure which one has formed through one's experiences, and the perceptions held by the society and the individual, of the structures and circumstances of the environment one is in and the position they are born into. Disagreement on the extent of one's agency often causes conflict between parties, e.g. parents and children. "[/quote]
Yes, I know Syamsu believes in free will, I would never post to argue it. I don't think he realized I also endorse it, which is why I wondered if he were not a native english speaker.
As far as both free-will and determinism being true, Systems Theory nicely sorts that out, without much fuss. I suppose it is compatiblist, in that sense.
I believe, with Descartes, that free will is an essential component of thought, so the idea of eliminating free will, for me, is the same as eliminating thought.
The spiritual is defined as what did this job of making the choice turn out A. It can only be identified with a chosen opinion. That is, choose an opinion that a choice was made out of fear, joy, etc.
You should focus on the logic of it. While what you do is, you have an associative understanding of the word spirit, and then you proceed to use all the different understandings associated to the word spirit.
It doesn't fucking matter what to call it, it's about the logic. You want to give the words supernatural and subconscious the logic that it is agency of choices, and it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, go ahead. You are merely playing with words, and not constructing a logical conceptual scheme.
And then you have the compatibilists, as pfhorrest pointed out, who use a totally different and wrong understanding of free will. An understanding of free will which obliterates the idea of emotions, subjective opinion.
It is important to have the correct understanding of free will.
I find that different people are motivated by different objectives which can result in differing perspectives on the same thing, or differing uses of the same thing.
That being the case, I believe it makes rather more sense to focus on areas of core agreement than to quibble about peripheral areas which may not be actual disagreements, but simply areas in which our objectives do not overlap.
@Syamsu Could you provide a positive statement of your conception of the role or significance of free will (rather than a refutation of what to me is an illusory problem)?
Because emotions, as being agency of choices, are validated, together with free will.
And the reverse is also true, that denial of the proper concept of free will, leads to all these things going down.
So what is the proper definition of "free-will" which you are suggesting?
Free-will equals the power to choose?
But maybe it should be understood in terms of having a pepsi, or not having a pepsi.
That is to say, that basically any choice is either conservative or progressive, to keep things as they are, or to actualize a possibility. I have not made up my mind what the proper basic understanding is.
I would agree that there is some kind of a "gradient" applicable to the choices of free-will. It seems that you might be operating in a framework of meliorism, which is definitely my own orientation.
Ok, let's try this. I chose a hamburger for lunch instead of a hotdog, A instead of B. What exactly did the spiritual do? Did the job of making the decision not come about because of the workings of my unconscious/subconscious reasoning abilities processing the knowledge that I have acquired in my life?
Quoting Syamsu
Please point out where that part is.
Quoting Syamsu
If it does not matter why are you ranting on about it?
Quoting Syamsu
You are the one using spirit, not me. I only asked if it was super natural because from what you are saying the agency of choice is apparently not part of a human.
Having alternate futures is acceptable, making them today is ridiculous.You can decide to do something today that will change what tomorrow might be, but it is impossible to make that today.
So what led to today being today instead of an alternate today was the choice you made yesterday.
And what was that agency then?
[quote=Wiki]One's agency is one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. This ability is affected by the cognitive belief structure which one has formed through one's experiences, and the perceptions held by the society and the individual, of the structures and circumstances of the environment one is in and the position they are born into.[/quote]
Where does your spirit fit into the picture?
Wrong, all choice are between any available options. They do not have to be either conservative or progressive. I am going to eat a sandwich, do I want it with butter or mayo? How can either one of those be progressive or conservative when I usually have neither or both.
The world is getting along just fine, actually much better without us humans right now so I think that is sort of a nonsensical idea.
Having either neither or both would be conservative and choosing one or the other would be progressive?
Help me out here, OP. :razz:
So then you have many subdecisions to the decision which to eat. And then you are choosing it in your imagination or mind first, and then choosing it physically.
The spirit in this case are the emotions, the appreciation for eating the hotdog and burger.
When you are talking about people's decisionmaking, then from a physics point of view, those are hypercomplex decisionmaking processes. But the fundamental logic of choosing still holds true.
You are exploiting the complexity of people's decisionmaking processes to argue for ignorance on how decisionmaking works. I mean you don't offer a competing understanding, instead you just set out to make a conceptual mess. Probably in order to avoid dealing with emotions, because that is a common theme.
The alternative futures available in a choice, should be considered as physical properties of an object. The object has a present state, and then it anticipates alternative futures on some parameter, for instance velocity . So anticipation in this sense is not as that the object has a mind in which mind is a picture of the future results of having made a choice, but instead anticipation is the relation of the present state of the object to it's alternative future states.
Basically I imagine this as like the objects has 2 lines stetched out into the future. So then mathematics crap describes the present state, and mathematics crap also describes these possibilities coming out of the object. It is just physics with alternative values for time now + 1, for a parameter like for instance velocity.
Why would you eliminate humanity from the equation? That was never part of the discussion. The human species is as much a part of the world (universe) as everything else, and so deserves the benefit of melioration. Unless you are an anti-meliorist.
The [s]world[/s] universe does not need us to be here. Why would anyone think that anything we do would make the place better.
Quoting Pantagruel
Would you care to explain why we "deserve" anything? Is it a part of nature, a natural right? a universal rule maybe? Based on what do come to the conclusion that humans deserve to construct principals such as this?
I think that it is rather preposterous to think that humans can be anything more than humans and therefore they will always act like humans. Most of human improvement has been accidental, coincidental or genetic, while the world has just gone about it ways trying to ignore us.
We can through effort make the universe less shitty by looking after it better, but make it better how?
Quoting Pantagruel
I don't wear labels, thank you. Stereotyping, name calling are lame ways to to make yourself feel better.
meliorist = A disputant who advocates reform
anti-meliorist = a non disputant who advocates reform
or
anti-meliorist = A disputant who advocates no reform
Not even you know how decision making really works.
Quoting Syamsu
If you had read what I wrote, I asked for explanations of your theory to understand what you were talking about. Without understanding how can I propose a competing idea?
Quoting Syamsu
So it is what I thought it was, the subconscious. I did say from the beginning that you were just adding fancy names to things.
Choices made can lead to positive or negative results, but the choice itself is neither. Do all changes have to be progressive or conservative.
I have seven shirts, one for each day of the week, how could it be counted as either progressive or conservative if I choose which one to wear randomly each day?
Quoting Outlander
Don't hold your breath there mate. It seems he thinks you need a dictionary, not an explanation.
Quoting Syamsu
And he uses a rather deficiente one as well.:lol:
As I said, the human race is as much a part of the universe as anything else, so your premise, or rather, your objection to my premise, is flawed.
You just make a conceptual mess, where now you have obliterated the idea of emotions and subjective opinion. You have also undermined the concept of choosing and free will, because the concept of choosing does not function, when the question of what the agency of a choice is, is regarded as a factual issue.
All the definitions of the words must be consistent with each other, without contradictions. Locking into each other to make a functional conceptual scheme.
There are alternative futures A and B available, and A is made the present, meaning A is chosen,
Then there is the question "what was it that made the choice turn out A?"
Then the answer is a choice between X and Y.
Where either answer X or Y is equally valid.
But a forced answer X or Y is invalid.
Where X and Y are subjective words like beautiful, fear, God.
An opinion that a painting is beautiful is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. To choose the opinion that the painting is ugly, would be equally logically valid. To be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion.
Not necessarily invalid, merely arbitrary.
This appears circular, although I can't really tell, because it is so confusing.
Quoting Pantagruel
Seems like what you do is determined by what you will, but what determines what you will?
Quoting Syamsu
Am I understanding that Syamsu's explanation is that spirits determine what you will?
Free-will is the idea that you could have chosen some other course simply because you thought of it at the moment when your were contemplating the best course of action. But when the decision is made the others end up being imaginary futures had you chosen otherwise. The fact that you can think of imaginary futures is no indication that any of them are possible simply because you think of them. You have to make the decision to act to realize them. Even then, sometimes that isn't enough.
It's like running through an IF-THEN-ELSE statement in your head. Every IF statement can only be true if the conditions are met, if not then the instructions are never executed and it passes down to the next IF or ELSE statement. You could only execute the instructions if the actual conditions met the conditions of the statement.
Speak plain English and give an example that is valid in everyday life, I do not know anyone that has to chose between A and B except in game shows. So either explain the process clearly or give up and read a book on human psychology.
And don't tell me that it cannot be done, because that would mean that your theory does not apply to reality.
Yes we are a part of the universe, but if our atoms where rearranged into stones we would still be here but in a different form.
meliorism - The belief that the world can be made better by human effort
Mother Nature will take care of fixing herself, like she is doing now while the humans are locked up.
No matter how much effort humans make they cannot repair the damage that they have done.
The easiest way to make the world better would be to remove the humans.
Not counting try to repair damage, exactly what about the world could we actually improve?
The best we could do would be to make conditions better for humans, making the world more to our liking would be an improvement. But how much more damage would be done to others because of out efforts?
"You imply disparity where none exists"
Defining any choice as by definition being for the "best", that is mixing your opinion of optimism with the facts of how things work.
Trump has alternative futures available, like closing travel from China, or not closing it. That is called anticipation of alternative futures. Then he chose to ban travel from China, meaning he made the alternative future of closing travel from China the present.
Then there is the question what emotions in his heart made the decision turn out the way it did. Some might say it is a xenophobic hate for China, others might choose the opinion it is a care for the people he is responsible for.
These chosen opinions are all equally logically valid. Some opinions may be said to be generous, mean, or unfair, but being generous, mean or unfair is not logically invalid.
What is a wrong answer is to say that there would be a fact of what emotions were in his heart, which made the decision turn out the way it did.
So where are is emotions, more importantly what are emotions?
How so?
And there is the key question. A brighter future for whom or what?
It's just the difference between optimism and pessimism really, isn't it?
No actually it is a valid question. Do you have an answer?
In what way?
In the way that you just rejected meliorism, which I endorse. I think that is pretty straightforward.
So yu doing that is going to improve the world. Endorsing meliorism is all fine and dandy, but saying that makes no difference to the world at all.
What effort are you going to make to improve the world?
Well, my efforts at understanding have culminated in the discovery and embrace of a lot of highly "social" philosophies (like Mead, Marx, Habermas) which are oriented primarily around the notion of a communal good and a communal mind. And I am endeavouring to live my life according to principles conformant with those philosophies. And I feel that this is working, in my own life and in what I am able to give back to my community....Including rationalizing this activity.
Side stepping the question does not help. I asked what EFFORT you are making to improve the world, not which books you are reading.
Conforming to the principles of long dead philosophers, or even many living ones for that matter, is not going to make the world any better.
Thinking like or thinking about everyone else in the hood is not necessarily a good thing. Conformists are usually a bad thing in the end.
From what I’ve gleaned of seeing him here and elsewhere (I first saw him editing the wikipedia article on free will, where I learned he is also kind of a notorious creationist on talk.origins), it seems like he divides the world up into two kinds of things:
- creators, including God and human souls,
- and their creations, which are everything else.
The creators are also “subjects” in the sense that they have a first person, subjective perspective; unlike their creations, which are mere objects.
Things to do with those creators or subjects are subjective, and exist entirely in the minds that those subjects/creators are; while things to do with their creations, objects, are objective, and exist in the material world.
Subjective things in the minds of creators are “opinions”, and are freely chosen; while objective things in the created material world are “facts”, and are determined (ultimately by the choices, or opinions, of the creators, including the laws that God chose to put in place).
That’s about all I’ve gleaned. I pretty much disagree with the whole picture of it but it’s kind of a fascinating study in someone else’s system of philosophy.
That seems familiar somehow, where did I hear it before? :chin:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi
I'm conforming to my own system, thank you very much. And the standard to which I hold that conformance is the currency of my own happiness and the happiness of those around me. And I very much feel I am living up to my personal philosophy every day. I stand by my philosophy and I make every effort to live by it every day, as anyone who knows me personally will vouchsafe I am sure.
So apart from following your own philosophy and trying to live a happy life you are doing nothing to make the world a better place.
Endorsing meliorism and practicing it are apparently two very distinct things then. Much better to not endorse something if you cannot practice it.
I think attempting to live by a set of universalizable rules is the most practical way to make the world a better place, expressing itself in one's every action.
You have absolutely no grounds for saying I am doing nothing to make the world a better place and are essentially offering me personal insult. That does not say much for your own philosophy.
If the truth hurts, you have three options
Take an aspirin
Grin and bear it
Change the truth
There is no insult intend. The questioning of beliefs is something that is commonly done here.
You know nothing of my philosophy, except that I ask a lot of questions, I have made no mention of my beliefs and your assumption that I believe in anything could be mistaken for an insult.
Yo were the one that brought up the topic of meliorism, the belief that the world can be made better by human effort, and your belief in its virtues. But you have failed to defend your opinion in any way at all. The burden is on you to provide evidence of the benefits of that belief to convince others that you are correct.
Who are you to pronounce truths about my life? That is black letter ad hominem and I am offended. It is certainly a commentary on you.
Let me go back a bit.
Quoting Pantagruel
I did not even try to pronounce anything about your life. All I did was to say that you have not presented anything to make me think that you practice what you preach.And that is the truth to which I refer.
I have absolutely no grounds for thinking that you are doing something for the world either.
A simple explanation of the effort you are making to make the world a better place would be sufficient.
Quoting Pantagruel
Oh dear, I had no idea that there were levels to that.
ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason)
I had no idea I was appealing to anything, I thought that I was simply stating the fact that you have failed to present any evidence of your belief in meliorism.
Quoting Pantagruel
I have decided that you insulted me here and taken it upon yourself to judge the truths of my life without even knowing me.
Last chance, why is the human deserving of the benefits of melioration? How do you reason this out?
If there is no answer then I could quite easily come to the conclusion that the rest is just melodramatics to cover that fact.
People are not in the habit of justifying their lives to one another. That is what life is for. My life speaks for itself, as do my words. If I say I live by my philosophy and that has positive benefits in my life then that is true.
Please don't bother answering anything I say here, because it is obvious that you have nothing to say.
You stated quite clearly that you endorsed meliorism and that it was obvious that I did not.
I asked you to give some evidence that there was a way to make the world a better place, which you did not do.
I then asked for you to at least give me an idea of the way you practice meliorism, what you do to make the world a better place.
You have failed on all counts to show that meliorism has any more value as a way of life that stroking cats.
Thank you for your time.
Re. your first point, I have made it quite clear this is a choice and assumption. I don't have to prove meliorism to you, only to my self. I embrace meliorism because I believe it is possible to act melioristically and because I believe it is better to do so than not to do so. As I said, it appears we have a fundamental disagreement in this respect.
Re. your second point, I gave you an exhaustive and detailed description of what it means to me to act melioristically. I did. Reread my posts. I described how my philosophical position is socially orientated, making it suitable for guiding melioristic choices. And then I said:
"I think attempting to live by a set of universalizable rules is the most practical way to make the world a better place, expressing itself in one's every action."
That is specifically an elucidation of the mechanics of an act-meliorism: formulate a suitable philosophy to guide your motives, and enact that philosophy at every opportunity. I never asked you to agree, but I most certainly did explicate my position.
All you have done is disputed whether I live by my own philosophy, and that is insulting. Every person here represents a certain unique philosophy, which is in a sense a personal ideal. You can dispute the cogency of a someone's propositions, but not whether they believe in their own propositions. If I say that I believe I am acting melioristically you have no right to dispute that. You are calling me a liar, with no justification. And that is a commentary on you, not me.
Of course, I suspect Syamsu would object vehemently to all of those caveats, so we really don’t agree at all, but I found it interesting to identify those exact differences between us, and that they are so small and simple and kind of beautifully symmetrical, when on the surface his views look like incoherent nonsense to me that are so drastically different from my own.