Free will

[Maxmars]

here is blob post that is interesting about stoicism and freewheel
https://classicalwisdom.substack.com/p/f...-free-will

you can read it or not as you like

I  had trouble not reading that and inserting an Irish accent...
(my brain is definitely broken)

I tend to hesitate when it comes to stoicism...
Many people simply regurgitate the word of the idea without thinking about them... 
and most importantly, the rationale that gives it weight...

When I mention the word amongst those I would call younger people,
they seem to think of it as dating bait, fodder for your dating app profile.
"Women" find that attractive...

... but I often wonder,
Do they not see anything negative about Stoicism?  Do they think about that?
Or do they just absorb the pabulum of fad media coverage?

Stoicism is as much a social label now as could be possible...

I suppose it's all good... more words to dissect out there... "stoicism" is a
new one for many.

I just think the contrast of the idea must be better explored...
"Stoicism" is a conceptual construct... manifesting more as a behavior,
not a lifestyle... sort of like "being demure."
It's just one way...out of an infinity of just as adequate approaches to life.

There's actually perfect one for each individual human.
It's not always "stoicism," but to listen to the gushing now, some might
mistakenly think it is.

No such defects in the referenced text which aren't normal...
but I was biased going in.

[quintessentone]

here is blob post that is interesting about stoicism and freewheel
https://classicalwisdom.substack.com/p/f...-free-will

you can read it or not as you like

As I usually do, I did a little research on the source, that being, Chrysippus. I went back to his teacher, and his teacher's teacher, and that teacher's teacher and the philosophical wisdoms from all those teachers go out in all directions, so is that free will of thought or were they philosophical products of their time and environments, and their debates and paradoxes?

[UltraBudgie]

Yes I think that is true @Maxmars. Stoicism, as the current cultural 'fad', has the interesting property of both encouraging an inner strength, which is attractive alternative to a culture of dependence, while at the same time making that context essentially values-free, ensuring an applicability with coherence that doesn't extend beyond the individual. It is thus 'socially safe', a philosophy that has been distilled into a titrated single-serving dose.

But to the meat of it, and the topic of 'free will' and 'fate', I found the blog post's mention of the Lazy Argument (no action matters if every event is fated) interesting, and it's deconstruction. Complete enumeration of all fated events is indistinguishable from reality itself, as no system can contain its complete description. Thus, our reality's 'fatedness', as it were, will always be limned by the necessary incompleteness of our perception or observation, necessitating at the very least the perception of free will -- multiple manners in which fate may fulfill itself, and our autonomy navigating therein.

A note from kati sg in the comment section of the blog illustrates this:

This reminds me of an islamic story ,that mirrors this thought. A man went to pray and asked someone to watch over his horse. While praying, he thought, “I’ll give him ten coins as a reward.” But when he came out, the man ,and the horse,were gone.Later, he found the same man in the market, selling the horse for ten coins.

It was written that this man would get ten coins from . He could’ve taken em, Instead, he took the horse and sold it for that same amount. The fate was fixed ,the only difference was how we got meaning We can’t control what’s destined, but we do control how we meet it

I think the mentioned Chrysippus is worth reading; he seems to have walked the walk:

Chrysippus of Soli (c. 279-206 BC) was a prolific and influential Stoic thinker who systematized the doctrines of Zeno and Cleanthes. He wrote on logic, ethics, physics, and fate, and died from laughter or wine.

[quintessentone]

Yes I think that is true @Maxmars. Stoicism, as the current cultural 'fad', has the interesting property of both encouraging an inner strength, which is attractive alternative to a culture of dependence, while at the same time making that context essentially values-free, ensuring an applicability with coherence that doesn't extend beyond the individual. It is thus 'socially safe', a philosophy that has been distilled into a titrated single-serving dose.

But to the meat of it, and the topic of 'free will' and 'fate', I found the blog post's mention of the Lazy Argument (no action matters if every event is fated) interesting, and it's deconstruction. Complete enumeration of all fated events is indistinguishable from reality itself, as no system can contain its complete description. Thus, our reality's 'fatedness', as it were, will always be limned by the necessary incompleteness of our perception or observation, necessitating at the very least the perception of free will -- multiple manners in which fate may fulfill itself, and our autonomy navigating therein.

A note from kati sg in the comment section of the blog illustrates this:

I think the mentioned Chrysippus is worth reading; he seems to have walked the walk:

What's this now? Chrysippus died from either laughter or wine? Or both? Is that the path he chose after all is said and done philosophically?

[Ignorant]

I am not dismissing the evolutionary predisposition along with knowledge gained along one's life, with influence added in there too where our choices could be considered as being 'steered' rather than free will.

"Thou shalt not kill", but kill those people over there and you will get a medal."

What do people get out of being moral/kind/generous etc. - there must be a driving factor. Follow God's laws and get the promise of salvation/heaven, be generous and help others and feel less guilty about something else? or get something in return?, be kind to others/treat others the way you want to be treated and hope that others will validate and not harm you (?). Could these be all seen as selfish/steered behaviours, or behaviours being influenced by other factors?

It makes sense that humans would have evolved to be moral/kind/generous [1]. We are social animals, evolved to live in groups, and when you live in a group and you're empathic, you're more likely to do well in the social hierarchy and maximize your chances of reproduction. So of course we are instinctually averse to hurting others, and even acts of kindness can be explained by evolution. There is no need for any external moral truths.

More complex moral standards that only apply to today's society are learned. Humans evolved to be adaptive and are exceptionally suited to learn behavior, more so than any other species. It's why we can grow up today with practically hundred thousand year old genes and still function.

There is no reason, as far as I can see, to believe that our morals come from anywhere but our brains. You may say that makes us all selfish but I don't think that's fair. People who find it very rewarding to help others are, by that standard, just as selfish as people who exploit others for personal gain. That feels intuitively wrong. Sure, they are both maximizing their personal happiness in the end, but the means by which they do this matters. When we say someone is selfish, in my view we are talking about the means by which they try to achieve their own happiness. We are saying they tend more towards exploiting than helping others. We are ultimately making a statement about their internal reward system.

[1] The most basic morals like "don't kill your children" are even common in other species.

[UltraBudgie]

What's this now? Chrysippus died from either laughter or wine? Or both? Is that the path he chose after all is said and done philosophically?

hey, at age 73. not bad for those days.

i wonder if he was laughing at his wine or drinking to his laughter. maybe both.

[Maxmars]

What's this now? Chrysippus died from either laughter or wine? Or both? Is that the path he chose after all is said and done philosophically?

A clear testimonial to disassociate the human behavior, from the ideal.

People probably are simply incapable of being exemplars anymore...
makes you wonder if the exemplars of the past might be a lot of hype...

(Recent media behavior proves the ease of it....)

[Bootless]

So to clarify, you would say we have moral agency because choices we make are not deterministic? If they were deterministic, we wouldn't have moral agency?
 

To me this is a rather outlandish claim. The laws of physics apply to everything except life? Why would that be the case? What evidence do we have to suggest that our brains are anything more than very complex machines that run on food instead of electricity?

Physics is just a collection of observations about the world. Life is one such observation. Biology is (applied) physics.

Depends on the definition. I'm probably getting burned out on this debate. I don't think it matters in the least what I say one way or the other. 

As far as the machine-ness of the brain goes. Iain McGilchrist says there is a big difference.



Once upon a time when I was 11 or 12, I was in a fist fight with a guy a couple years older than me. He tackled me to the ground and was on top of me. His face was close to mine. He was leering quite obnoxiously. My right hand was free so I swung a mighty blow right into his face.

At that instant, I awoke to discover that my right fist had just hit the wall next to my bed. Where are the physics of dreams? Fists and walls just don't seem to be of the same substance as dreams or imagination.

[Ignorant]

Depends on the definition. I'm probably getting burned out on this debate. I don't think it matters in the least what I say one way or the other.

I don't think this is a debate. I barely even understand where your head is at, hence the questions. Can't it just be a discussion, where people give their perspectives and they are scrutinized by everyone else? I find that this sort of discussion helps me flesh out my thoughts. I'm hoping "what you say one way or the other" matters in that way, at least.
 

As far as the machine-ness of the brain goes. Iain McGilchrist says there is a big difference.
[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q16ARIpxlPQ]

There's only a bit around 45 mins where they talk about this. When McGilchrist says the brain is not a machine, he seems to only compare current machines with current brains, and lacks completely the imagination to envision what futuristic machines might look like. Alex pushes back on this and asks the intelligent question (paraphrasing): "Sure, but if we gave machines billions of years to develop (as our brains took that long to evolve), is it impossible that they will, say, become conscious?" McGilchrist answers that he's not sure, and nobody can be sure. He says that we have no reason to believe that they could become conscious. I would turn it around: We have no reason to believe they couldn't.

I think his are the answers of someone who understands biological brains very well, but has very limited understanding of modern machines (e.g. LLMs) and their potential. They're also the answers of someone who intuitively feels, as many do, that there's something "magical" about brains. That there's something about them that makes them so special they could never be replicated. I think that's wishful thinking, and it's disappointing from a psychiatrist as well as ironic from someone who made the point that theism is just the left brain flattering itself. It's the same sort of philosophical suicide people commit when they face the meaninglessness of life and "retreat" back to their God for solace. It's looking the truth in the face and turning away from it.

The truth, we have every reason to believe, is that human brains are decision-making entities that respond to external stimuli in predetermined ways. That consciousness, among other things, "emerges" when a neural network gets complex enough. If there is convincing evidence that this is not the case, McGilchrist didn't mention it.
 

Where are the physics of dreams?

My basic understanding, and I could be off here, is that dreams are semi-random streams of consciousness, essentially our brains in "freestyle". I'm no neurologist, but even if I were, I wouldn't be able to fully explain them. We simply don't understand our brains well enough. I'm not saying you're doing this, but just for the record I'll note that it's unfair and intellectually lazy to expect me to explain everything that goes on in our brains and then when I can't, to go "aha! so there must be something supernatural going on!". Thousands of years ago people couldn't explain the yellow ball in the sky, so they assumed something supernatural was going on. We now know it's just the sun.

[Bootless]

I don't think this is a debate. I barely even understand where your head is at, hence the questions. Can't it just be a discussion, where people give their perspectives and they are scrutinized by everyone else? I find that this sort of discussion helps me flesh out my thoughts. I'm hoping "what you say one way or the other" matters in that way, at least.

Okay. My problem is in the established framework of the definitions.

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.

-wikipedia

So in order to be a compatibilist, one must first understand what determinism is. Right off the bat determinism is a metaphysics term. If I don't accept the metaphysic definition then I have no place in the compatibilist camp.

What if there is no label that fits a person who accepts physics of cause and effect while maintaining that people can make choices? Why must metaphysics even come into it? What if I've never even studied metaphysics in any rigorous way?

I can only conclude that I don't want to choose any of the choices offered to me at this time.
But wait!!!

Compatibilists believe that freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.[sup][3][/sup] In other words, that causal determinism does not exclude the truth of possible future outcomes.

 Well that sounds good to me.

Can one be a compatibilist and not a compatibilist at the same time?

I think that's wishful thinking, and it's disappointing from a psychiatrist as well as ironic from someone who made the point that theism is just the left brain flattering itself. It's the same sort of philosophical suicide people commit when they face the meaninglessness of life and "retreat" back to their God for solace. It's looking the truth in the face and turning away from it.

  I noticed the poker face that Alex had during the whole interview, quite uncharacteristic, he's usually quite relaxed and easy going conversationally during interviews.

 I'm not saying you're doing this, but just for the record I'll note that it's unfair and intellectually lazy to expect me to explain everything that goes on in our brains and then when I can't, to go "aha! so there must be something supernatural going on!". Thousands of years ago people couldn't explain the yellow ball in the sky, so they assumed something supernatural was going on. We now know it's just the sun.

I don't think I'm trying to do that. More an exhibition of my own frustration.

About a year ago I got into a conversation with a flat earther. Yeah. Because I couldn't verbally reconcile classical mechanics with relativity theory, therefore the Earth is flat. Sucks!

I accept real gods. Back when people didn't have a working theory of heliocentric system, they noticed that the star positions were totally predictable. The planets weren't, so they figured that they had the power and the will to reposition themselves. Those were the gods. The stories people made up used these gods as characters.

The gods(planets) are there, visible, predictable, real. The stories don't quite comport with reality though.

Speaking of bad framing of arguments: The theists start out with the abstract idea of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. That's just plain out of whack. There is zero evidence for omnibenevolence. "This verse says so." but, as anyone can point out "that verse is in the midst of stories that illustrate quite the opposite."