Are you a determinist or a libertarian?
Neither: free will is simply the fact that one can think otherwise (and sometimes act on that thought).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Libertarian NO
Determnist NO
Humanist YES
The two are not mutually exclusive. You can still argue for individual sovereignty without relying on the religious concept of "free will".
I do not know if free will is an illusion but I treat coercion as if it was very real.
If I believe I can reason with a coercive actor, I might try. However, I believe I have every right in the world to oppose coercion with force regardless of whether the source of that coercion is animal, plant or mineral.
nibbler491: Are you a determinist or a libertarian?
I'm a compatibalist. This means that I accept both the existance of causality and the existance of purposeful action, and see no logical reason to create an absolute dichotomy between the two. Insofar as free will is used as a religious metaphysical concept, I reject it, but I do accept from common experience that people are generally resonsible for their choices. I don't believe causal factors means that people have no capacity for control over their lives.
Compatibalism is merely a nicer name for determinism. And as such you only believe and act according to your make up and is thus determined hence removing moral responsibility. Only a purposeful but uncaused will gives us the freedom and the responsibility which is so obvious.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Physiocrat: Compatibalism is merely a nicer name for determinism. And as such you only believe and act according to your make up and is thus determined hence removing moral responsibility. Only a purposeful but uncaused will gives us the freedom and the responsibility which is so obvious.
If you don't recognize the distinction between hard determinism and compatibalism, I don't know what to tell you. An indeterminist free will is nonsensical because it tries to deny causality in the name of saving moral responsibility, when it isn't necessary to deny causality to have moral responsibility. Moral responsibility, in fact, depends partially on causality to make sense, as you have to determine which people are causes for specific phenomenon. Hard determinism, on the other hand, is nonsensical because it tries to deny purposeful action in the name of saving causality, when it isn't necessary to deny purposeful action to have causality. Causality, when analizing human action, depends partially on purposeful action to make sense.
Brainpolice:This means that I accept both the existance of causality and the existance of purposeful action, and see no logical reason to create an absolute dichotomy between the two.
I don't really see how causality and purpose are two different concepts. Whether we call it a determined cause or a determined purpose doesn't seem so relevant to me.Or is it that you hold "purpose" to be self-imposed, in other words, you're arguing that sometimes we are driven by causes out of our reach and sometimes we are not? That's a nice position for not offending anyone, but how is it logically founded?
Suppose that the universe is fully deterministic. Whatever it is that happens to you, you process this information using the definite state of your mind and whatever decision you make is the only possible decision that you could make. But if there is no system of greater complexity than your mind, and no means of reproducing the exact information you acted upon, then how can anything predict your actions?
In that case, what would be the difference between determinism and free will?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:In that case, what would be the difference between determinism and free will?
The fact that you are not free to want whatever you want?I mean, by the same token you could say that a bunch of puppets are free because none of them realizes they have a puppet master. It also plays with the same notion that theists employ when they say "Science cannot disprove God, so there's always the chance that God exists". Imperfect understanding of a process or phenomenon doesn't mean it's a bad concept per se.
Sphairon:I mean, by the same token you could say that a bunch of puppets are free because none of them realizes they have a puppet master.
The puppet master knows because he is more complex than the puppets. But if there is nothing more complex than the human mind, there is no difference between determinism and free will.
Stranger:The puppet master knows because he is more complex than the puppets. But if there is nothing more complex than the human mind, there is no difference between determinism and free will.
Your reasoning is: as long as nothing has been found or invented to measure brain activity accurately, we cannot say whether there's a free will or not.Theists say: as long as science cannot disprove God, He may very well exist.But the burden of proof is on you to show how in an organism that consists of physical and chemical elements and processes, a non-physical, non-chemical, indeed transcendental ability such as free will exists. Do not try to dodge the burden of proof.
You're not getting it. I don't care if free will exists. It is an unknowable.
Libertarian. This is purely metaphysics, so I don't really give it much attention, and try not to let it taint methodological concerns for economics or ethics. I'm iffy on compatibilism, because it seems to redefine free will to get its way (all the literature I've seen on it does just this.) So one could say I take a pragmatic stance on this, much like Mises does, and assume for practical purposes, due to phenomenological considerations, a libertarian view of free will..
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Free will and determinism have no revelant impact on our little life. Even if free will is true, it doesn't make a difference in how we act.
It wouldn't excuse us from immoral and unethical behaviors anyway.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Epistemological and metaphisycal libertarianism, and hence the recognition of free will, is the only logical foundation on which to base ethical or political libertarianism. As well as a basic condition for it to be possible; how do you expect people to be responsible for their actions if they are (fully or to a large extent) determined by other forces???
Besides, you can't neglect the symbolic value of the concept... Can you imagine a meaningful life without free will?
I just can't; so definitely, libertarian all the way down to the basics-;)
What is an unfree will?
I tend to be very much a Stoic on the issue of free-will.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke