Is libertarianism the key to individual freedom and societal prosperity?

[moving finger]

Moving finger, it's still unclear to me how you are concluding there can be free will in a purely deterministic universe, though I agree with you that the UP doesn't help explain it.

Whether “free will” is compatible with determinism or not depends crucially on one’s definition of free will.

My suggested definition is :
Free will is the ability of an agent to anticipate alternate possible outcomes dependent on alternate possible courses of action and to choose which course of action to follow and in so doing to behave in a manner such that the agent’s choice appears, both to itself and to an outside observer, to be reasoned but not consistently predictable.

Do you agre with this definition? If not, would you care to propose your preferred definition?

There is nothing in my definition of free will which is incompatible with a deterministic world (if you think there is, please do explain what you think it is).

If the choices I make every day are a result of deterministic forces- for example, I decided to go to the gym instead of the cafe today because neuron A fired (because of the potato chip I ate last night), instead of neuron B- then that choice was not made by some by a "me" but by the fact that I ate the potato chip, which was further caused by some other biochemical existing conditions.

The truth of your statement depends on how “me” is defined. A physicalist would say that neuron A and neuron B, and the causes of these neurons firing, are all integral parts of “me”, therefore whether neuron A fires or neuron B fires is a choice made by “me”.

I think the normal idea of free will is that there is a "me" inside of my body that, despite the fact that the potato chip will cause neuron A to fire in a deterministic biochemical chain, the "me" inside causes neuron B to fire because that's what "me" wanted to do at that time.

As I said, a physicalist would say that the neurons and the causes of these neurons firing are all tied up as an integral part of “me”. If you wish to say there is in addition to this another part of “me” which causes neurons to fire then with respect all you have done is to replace one deterministic process with another – all you are saying is that it is this other part of “me” which causes neuron B to fire, instead of something else causing neuron B to fire. “Me” is still part of the deterministic chain.

Furthermore, this "me" would probably not be identifiable using an assay, through interferometry, x-ray diffraction, or other known methods.

Whether “me” is identifiable or not is not really the issue (this relates to epistemology). What is the issue is whether “me” operates deterministically or not.

I guess if you redefined freewill the way you did, it would be consistent with a deterministic universe, but I always thought the only relevant definition of free will was that in terms of a spiritual material being its agent that was distinct from the physical material that was purely deterministic. You know, the soul controlling the physical body kind of stuff.

Again, “the soul controlling the human body” does not eliminate determinism, it simply places the “soul” (whatever that is) in the deterministic chain of events.

This is not to say that I can prove nor agree that free will exists in the latter sense, only that this is the definition that has more political consequences. Of course since we haven't succeeded in building a conscious computer, free will under your definition is also not empirically justified.

Why does a definition need to be empirically justified? A definition is simply that – a definition.

Once free will has been defined in a particular way, one can then ask questions such as “is this definition compatible with determinism?” and “is this definition such that free will could actually exist?” and “what kind of free will is this anyway?”.

One can argue about the merits of a particular definition in this sense, but I do not see that it needs to be empirically justified.

MF

 

[Royce]

Agreed. But my point is this is a limit to our epistemic ability, it says nothing about the true (ontic) nature of the particle.

No, that's my point and the point of Quantum Mechanics. What I'm describing is the ontic properties and behavior of quantum particles. It has nothing to do with epistemic ability or knowledge. It even defies common sense or human experience.

How do you know this? This seems to be a matter of unjustified faith. Where is the experimental evidence to support this statement?

Epistemicly speaking, I don't know this. I only know what I've read in a number of different books by a number of different authors. They all agree and state the same thing. The quantum world is ruled by pure chance and probability. It is not deterministic ontically or epistemicly.

This is related (once again) to our epistemic abilities. It says nothing about the true (ontic) nature of the particle’s behaviour.[/QOUTE]

This has nothing to do with our epistemic ablities and everything to do with ontic reality. That is a common misconception of those who don't really understand quantum mechanics and electro-dynamics.

Again, “the best that can be done” reflects an epistemic limit, not an ontic limit.

Wrong! See above. Quit making assumption about something that you are not familiar with. Look it up for yourself.

Epistemology again.

With resepct, this statement is incorrect. You have not shown this, neither has it been shown (IMHO) in any experiment, ever. Many people “assume” that epistemic indeterminability necessarily implies ontic indeterminism, but this is at best a “belief” or a “faith” and not an experimentally verified fact.


With respect, you are wrong - it has not been proven even once. If you think it has, please provide an example where you think ontic indeterminism, as opposed to epistemic indeterminability, has been “proven”.


Incorrect. There are quantum physicists who believe the same as you, and they are mistaken.

Please see "QED" by Richard Feynman. There are others. You just keep digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself make assumption about that which you are obviously unfamiliar with. This is not epistemical knowledge but ontic experiements and knowledge about ontic quantum particle behavior.

 

[Royce]

Once again this discussion has reduce to physicalist vs non-physicalist and a deterministic vs nondeterministic universe. It is no longer about free will nor Libertarianism.
I have been an active participant in this forum for over two years and these positions have been discussed to exhaustion time and time again. Facts and science have nothing to do with the subjects and it is a matter of belief and faith which side one chooses.
There is no logic, no reason, no scientific fact nor experiment that will change the mind of one whose mind is made up; nor, is there any real solution to the dilemma. This discussion has been going on for centuries and the more we learn and know the more we realize that we know so little, there is so much more to know.
To me it is simple and obvious, just as simple and obvious to you that I am wrong and you are right. If a system contains paradoxes and contradictions it cannot be complete and completely correct. There are no paradoxes nor contradictions in reality only in our philosophies and sciences. This should tell us all something but it apparently doesn't tell us enough to change our minds or way of thinking.
My only suggestion is to get your head out your books written by people that know no more than you do and look around you. look at yourself and your own mind. Learn how and what you think and why you think what you do.
Look at reality and believe and trust what you see and experience as that is your only true touch with reality.
I am using the collective "you" here and am not pointing or talking to any specific person. Once again I am willing and anxious to discuss Libertarianism politically or philosophically with anyone who cares to do so. I will no longer discuss nor respond to any other topic in this thread.

 

[Billy T]

No, that's my point and the point of Quantum Mechanics. What I'm describing is the ontic properties and behavior of quantum particles. It has nothing to do with epistemic ability or knowledge. It even defies common sense or human experience ...

I hope that you don't cease to participate (as indicated in your post 38) - Philosophers should not be unwilling to examine things physicist report as facts. IMHO MF has done a better job of this that you. You are only asserting that the UP of QM proves the universe is nondeterministic without even acknowledging, much less answering, MF's argument that it could be deterministic with the UP providing only a limit (epistemic) on determinability.

Certainly your argument that "It even defies common sense or human experience" is an extremely weak one even by your own standards of experimental tests/evidence. For two examples:

(1)Single photon interfering with itself by traveling two different path is also a defiance of common sense and human experience but none the less true.
(2)Quantum entanglement (also well confirmed by experiment) is so strongly in conflict with "common sense" and "human experience" that they can be discarded as any reliable standard with which to judge wether or not the universe is fundamentally deterministic or non deterministic.

Why not try to defend your assertions rather than leave?

 

[moving finger]

Once again this discussion has reduce to physicalist vs non-physicalist and a deterministic vs nondeterministic universe. It is no longer about free will nor Libertarianism.

I fail to see how one can have a meaningful discussion about free will without discussing the determinism vs indeterminism issue. Can you suggest how this could be done?

Facts and science have nothing to do with the subjects and it is a matter of belief and faith which side one chooses.

If you really believe this then (with respect) what is the point of raising the topic for discussion in the first place?

There is no logic, no reason, no scientific fact nor experiment that will change the mind of one whose mind is made up;

Especially if one is not an open-minded or rational thinker.

This discussion has been going on for centuries and the more we learn and know the more we realize that we know so little, there is so much more to know.

There will always be people who insist on clinging to emotion and intuition, and who refuse to think rationally and logically, I agree.

To me it is simple and obvious, just as simple and obvious to you that I am wrong and you are right.

It is not a question of it "being simple and obvious", it is a question of being able to defend one's beliefs with rational argument.

If a system contains paradoxes and contradictions it cannot be complete and completely correct.

This seems a tautology to me - of course a system containing contradictions is not correct - by definition!

There are no paradoxes nor contradictions in reality only in our philosophies and sciences.

Do you have paradoxes & contradictions in your philosophy? That's a shame. I don't have any in mine.

This should tell us all something but it apparently doesn't tell us enough to change our minds or way of thinking.

Yep, it tells me there is something wrong with your philosophy.

My only suggestion is to get your head out your books written by people that know no more than you do and look around you. look at yourself and your own mind. Learn how and what you think and why you think what you do.
Look at reality and believe and trust what you see and experience as that is your only true touch with reality.

With respect I suggest you follow your own advice.

Some of us would do better to become more rational and more open-minded, and to stop simply believing in naive intuitions.

Again with respect, Royce, it seems IMHO that you are upset that others should dare to question and challenge your beliefs, and you are then unwilling in the face of questions and challenges to defend those beliefs. That's a pity, but it's your loss rather than ours.

May your god go with you.

MF

 

[Billy T]

Note to Royce

I read your essay in the first post this thread, and liked it very much - Essentially agree with your views there totally. But the things you say there about free will do not seem to me to be in conflict with what MF is saying on the same subject or his views on determinism.

I don't want to come off as an apologist for MF. I am hoping I can find a logically acceptable way to support idea that a free will, of a more libertarian variety, can exist.

For more than two decades, I thought this clearly impossible for any system governed by physics (UP of QM does not provide anything more than coin flipping does for FW.) Thus I was surprized to find a genuine free will possibility might fall out of a revision I made in understand how perceptions works and no longer completely agree with MF, but I can not refute his logic. :grumpy:

See thread "what price free will" for our (MF's and mine) discussion and separate positions, if interested. Also in attachment to first post of that thread you can read, again if interested:
(1) Three proofs as to why the generally accepted ideas about perception are wrong (but no proof that mine are correct. :grumpy: ) and
(2) the new view of what I think we are and how we perceive, which may permit a more libertarian free will than MF's logic permits. Unfortuantely I can not rule out the possibility that this more preferred FW ( than what MF is offering) is anything more than an illusion, very universally shared. Again :grumpy:

 

[Royce]

I fail to see how one can have a meaningful discussion about free will without discussing the determinism vs indeterminism issue. Can you suggest how this could be done?

No, not really but, there is no solution. You for instance don't agree that QM supports indeterminism where I do. I don't believe that our choices or our universe are deterministic and you can offer no support other than a physicalist belief. As I said this same argument has been going on for centuries and nothing has been decided nor concluded yet.

If you really believe this then (with respect) what is the point of raising the topic for discussion in the first place?

It is not that I believe is as stated but that this is apparently the case as no amount of logic, reason or science has yet to convince anyone, at least here at the PF's to change their mind or stance.

Especially if one is not an open-minded or rational thinker.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you and other physicalist/ determinist. If fact my first impulse was to tell you not to be so hard on yourself. This is after all just a, sometimes not too, friendly discussion.

Do you have paradoxes & contradictions in your philosophy? That's a shame. I don't have any in mine.

Yep, it tells me there is something wrong with your philosophy.

With respect I suggest you follow your own advice.

Some of us would do better to become more rational and more open-minded, and to stop simply believing in naive intuitions.

Again with respect, Royce, it seems IMHO that you are upset that others should dare to question and challenge your beliefs, and you are then unwilling in the face of questions and challenges to defend those beliefs. That's a pity, but it's your loss rather than ours.

No I'm not upset, though admittedly it could appear that I am. It is just that we who have been here for the last couple of years have gone over all of this time and time again. It does become frustrating that even when I try to bring up new topics it digresses back down to the old same stuff.

As far as QM and QED are concerned it again seems to be insolvable. We may have read the exact same words and got two completely different opposing understandings from it. This is a case where I know that I am right as it took years of reading and studying to come to my understanding of the subject and it is supported by a number of prominent authors in this field. Yet you do not accept it as support and say that I have a closed mind, a naive belief rather than careful logical reasoning to come to an understanding that is in agreement with that of other far more expert and knowledgeable people in the field than I am. Look back in the archives for some of these threads. there are numerous references and links to sites supporting vertually every topic and every viewpoint.
You do not offer any support for your views but resort to putting mine down and claiming that I am closed minded and naive. As I read this I was thinking that he obviously has no support so must negate the support that I offer. I was thinking that he is closed minded and naive so the natural choice is to accuse me of being such.
Yes I am naive, naive enough to believe that most people here discuss their topics in good faith and naive enough to believe words have common usage meanings that everyone knows and accepts. I am also knowledgeable and worldly enough to know when a discussion has become a hopless interminable argument. I'm just not smart nor strong enough to let it drop and die the death that it deserves.

 

[Royce]

I read your essay in the first post this thread, and liked it very much - Essentially agree with your views there totally. But the things you say there about free will do not seem to me to be in conflict with what MF is saying on the same subject or his views on determinism.

Thank you, Billy T. I agree that I don't think that he and I disagree much at all about free will or responsibility. Our disagreement stems from his and my stands on determinism. As MF said deterministic free will is not incompatible with libertarianism.

 

[moving finger]

I agree that I don't think that he and I disagree much at all about free will or responsibility. Our disagreement stems from his and my stands on determinism. As MF said deterministic free will is not incompatible with libertarianism.

With respect, I do not think that I ever said deterministic free will is not incompatible with libertarianism? I think that depends on how one defines libertarianism. Granted the "Royce definition" of libertarianism may not be incompatible with deterministic free will, but I humbly suggest that most libertarians would in fact say they believe their "free will" does NOT operate deterministically.

Added later :

The following adapted from a website suggested by loseyourname in another thread :

Compatibilism is the doctrine that determinism is logically compatible or consistent with what is said to be a single idea of freedom that really concerns us and with a related kind of moral responsibility -- the freedom in question being voluntariness.

Incompatibilism is the doctrine that determinism is logically incompatible with what is said to be the single idea of freedom that concerns us and with another kind of moral responsibility -- the freedom in question being origination or origination as well as voluntariness.

Strictly speaking, Compatibilism does not assert the truth of determinism, but only the consistency of this doctrine with our idea of freedom and moral responsibility. What is called 'soft determinism', in contrast, does take determinism to be true, and take our actual freedom to consist in no more than what is consistent with it -- voluntariness. What is called 'hard determinism' also takes determinism to be true, but takes freedom to consist in what is incompatible with it and cannot exist with it -- origination as well as voluntariness.

Strictly speaking, Incompatibilism does not claim the reality of either determinism or the freedom with which it is concerned. As just remarked, some Incompatibilists take determinism to be a fact and hence draw the conclusion we are unfree. The common breed, however, take their freedom to be a fact, and hence draw the conclusion that determinism is false. These Incompatibilists have been known as Libertarians .

Based on the above, I humbly suggest that "deterministic free will" is incompatible with "Libertarianism"

MF

 

[moving finger]

I fail to see how one can have a meaningful discussion about free will without discussing the determinism vs indeterminism issue. Can you suggest how this could be done? .

No, not really but, there is no solution. You for instance don't agree that QM supports indeterminism where I do.

Incorrect. I do not agree that QM implies the world is necessarily (ontically) indeterministic. My argument is based on the fact that the most we can conclude from QM is that the world is epistemically indeterminable, which is not the same as ontically indeterministic. If you wish to conclude that epistemically indeterminable equates to ontically indeterministic then, with respect, you need to show why (or accept that this is a matter of faith and not science).

I don't believe that our choices or our universe are deterministic and you can offer no support other than a physicalist belief.

Support for what? I am not saying that the world is necessarily deterministic. All I am saying is that there is no evidence that the world is NOT deterministic. If you think there is such evidence, then please do present it.

The important point is that I do not need to “believe” in determinism in order to validate my philosophy. My philosophy does not rest on either determinism or indeterminism. My concept of free will is independent of these assumptions.

However, it seems to me that your concept of free will is incompatible with determinism, therefore your philosophy assumes the world must be indeterministic, and yet can you show how your concept of free will is compatible with indeterminism?

As I said this same argument has been going on for centuries and nothing has been decided nor concluded yet.

And your point is….. that we should give up? Surely not.

If you really believe this then (with respect) what is the point of raising the topic for discussion in the first place? .

It is not that I believe is as stated but that this is apparently the case as no amount of logic, reason or science has yet to convince anyone, at least here at the PF's to change their mind or stance.

As I said, especially if one is not an open-minded or rational thinker.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you and other physicalist/ determinist.

You misunderstand. I am not a determinist. As I have said, my philosphy and my definition of free will does not assume either determinism or indeterminism, it is compatible with both. I’m not sure about your philosophy, however.

If fact my first impulse was to tell you not to be so hard on yourself. This is after all just a, sometimes not too, friendly discussion.

Yes, I agree sometimes I do take it too seriously. Must get out more.

No I'm not upset, though admittedly it could appear that I am. It is just that we who have been here for the last couple of years have gone over all of this time and time again.

And you still keep coming back for more?

It does become frustrating that even when I try to bring up new topics it digresses back down to the old same stuff. .

Maybe because there are fundamental issues that need to be resolved before one can move on.

As far as QM and QED are concerned it again seems to be insolvable. We may have read the exact same words and got two completely different opposing understandings from it. This is a case where I know that I am right as it took years of reading and studying to come to my understanding of the subject and it is supported by a number of prominent authors in this field.

Sorry, Royce, in what do you think that “you are right”? Can you be specific please?

Yet you do not accept it as support and say that I have a closed mind, a naive belief rather than careful logical reasoning to come to an understanding that is in agreement with that of other far more expert and knowledgeable people in the field than I am.

I have never said that there are others more expert and knowledgeable in the field than you are. I am NOT the kind of person who feels the need to "seek the support of authority" – the only authority I recognise is reason and logic – anyone who purports to be authoritative but shuns reason and logic, I reject.

You do not offer any support for your views but resort to putting mine down and claiming that I am closed minded and naive.

With respect, Royce, I try to justify everything I say from a rational point of view, and I am not the one making “claims” in this thread that need to be supported. I have all along simply been offering constructive criticism of the claims that others have made. But if you think that I have made my own statements without adequate support then please do tell me what they are and I will support them.

As I read this I was thinking that he obviously has no support so must negate the support that I offer. I was thinking that he is closed minded and naive so the natural choice is to accuse me of being such.

Support for what? Again, if you consider that I need to support anything that I have said then please just say so.

Yes I am naive, naive enough to believe that most people here discuss their topics in good faith and naive enough to believe words have common usage meanings that everyone knows and accepts.

With respect, I think we both know that “common usage” meanings can be different for different people, and it does not harm to clarify exactly what one means, in the interests of common understanding. I cannot see why you would have a problem with clarifying your meanings.

I am also knowledgeable and worldly enough to know when a discussion has become a hopless interminable argument. I'm just not smart nor strong enough to let it drop and die the death that it deserves.

We each have a choice.

Regards

MF

 

[moving finger]

I say, okay, you are what you are. What you are is a criminal and if you do a criminal act you go to jail.

Do you not think there are other possible solutions?

Aberrant social behaviour, of which the class of criminal acts is a subset, is indeed something that society needs to address and to try to control and minimise, but "go to jail" is not the only way to address the problem.

I do not accept that everyone can be put into a box of either "you are OK, you can go free" or "you are not OK, you must go to jail".

Jail and other forms of punishment can be seen as a deterrent to potential offenders, and it can be seen also as a way of "removing the problem from society", but there are sometimes more constructive ways to help offenders to become more socially responsible individuals.

MF

 

[Billy T]

...Jail and other forms of punishment can be seen as a deterrent to potential offenders, and it can be seen also as a way of "removing the problem from society", ...

It may be a little off thread, so I'll be brief:
I'm not a fan of capital punishment and doubt the deterrent value of the typical prison term. Seems more like a school on how not to get caught next time in many cases. Unfortunately, I can no longer document what I read many years ago about the period when England hung pick-pockets in the public square. In one streak of "pick-pocket hangings", (four in a row as I remember) the crime had taken place in the crowd assembled to watch the last hanging of a pick-pocket!

 

[Royce]

Do you not think there are other possible solutions?

Aberrant social behaviour, of which the class of criminal acts is a subset, is indeed something that society needs to address and to try to control and minimise, but "go to jail" is not the only way to address the problem.

I agree that literially jail is not the only way to address the problem. Nor did I mean it literally. The position of Libertarianism, or at least my understanding of it is that if one violates the rights of another then one own rights are forfited. If the violater has emotional or psychological problems that can be successfully treated then that treatment becomes manditory. Unfortunately there has been very little success in treating crimminal or anti-social behavior. Very simply if a person cannot responsibly live and produce in his society then he cannot live in that society. It is a contract after all that has to be maintained by both parties. Nor should responsible productive members of that society be punished or fined because of anothers behavioral problems. They should not have to pay for the crime(s) of another.

I do not accept that everyone can be put into a box of either "you are OK, you can go free" or "you are not OK, you must go to jail".

Jail and other forms of punishment can be seen as a deterrent to potential offenders, and it can be seen also as a way of "removing the problem from society", but there are sometimes more constructive ways to help offenders to become more socially responsible individuals.

No, everyone cannot and should not be put in a box. Only if someone breaks the law, violates the rights of another, does a criminal act should the society become involved. Society, the state, has no right or need to pass judgement on any of its members, citizen, unless that citizen becomes or is a criminal.

There are of course civil conflicts of rights and interests where intentional criminal behaviour is not involved and the state may have to become involved or be requested to become involved to arbitrate or resolve the issue.

It is not the responsiblity of the state to treat or rehabilitate habitual criminals at the expense of the rest of its citizens. This of course is an idealist view point and not practical in real life. Unlike Cuba we do not have the luxery of shipping our convicted criminals to the United States to get rid of them and simply exiling them is not a viable solution either as this only passes the problem to someone else. What does the state do it they keep coming back. Prison does take the out of society for a while but does not cure the problem either and cost the citizens of the state a small fortune for every person in prison. I do not have a better solution. It is a dilema. I just know that I nor the rest of society don't owe them anything.