Okay /lit/, I have consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol

If you believe in a locus of agency, that locus of agency would need to operate somewhere "outside" of the physical and biological properties that are governed completely by laws of action-reaction.

So to believe in free will is to believe in a non-physical part of the person (e.g., soul). So to believe in free will goes against naturalism and materialism. But to NOT believe in free will goes against humanism and in fact our general understanding of personality.

So it's a choice between naturalism or humanism.

And no, there is no compatiablism, because your view of reality either allows for a non-physical Thing (i.e., the locus of agency) to exist OR NOT.

>>9995164
If I understand what you mean, then you are saying that the laws of action and reaction leave no room for freedom of the will in the conventional notion of the term (freedom of the will). As in "the events which unfold could have been different."

We must ask at this point, what does it mean to be "free?"

Could we preserve some of this "freedom of the will" in a politically libertarian sense? I mean to say that it only makes sense to be free from some force. Does the human decision making capability imply freedom from foreknowledge of impulsion?

To be clear, in a deterministic universe does it make sense to say that someone is free from the "coercion" of other people?

Does it make sense that people do not have ultimate freedom, but posses freedom from a countable set of phenomenon?

>>9995248
>We must ask at this point, what does it mean to be "free?"
Forget all that political coercion stuff, until you have at least solved freedom from physical and biological laws of action-reaction. Unless you are willing to grant some part of a person that is "free" from the grip of natural laws (i.e., a non-physical part of the person), then all power-plays are just collective unfolding of the one enormous, physically determined human machine.

>Does it make sense that people do not have ultimate freedom, but posses freedom from a countable set of phenomenon?
The dichotomy is first between DEFINITELY NO freedom and MAYBE SOME freedom. Sure, if you are willing to grant freedom from physical and biological laws then you might start asking how much control etc. But first, are you willing to say that there exists some locus of agency that is essentially non-physical? I.e., a soul that can influence physical reality while remaining separate from it?

this thread is shit and should die quickly

File: 2010-11-04 at 03-33-58.jpg (30KB, 340x578px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 340x578px

>>9995286
Pseud.

>>9995266
So, is it true that you are saying that there exists no difference between a human and a golf-ball by decision making?

I am only granting freedom of an extremely specific type namely, the freedom from some some physical constraints. I am saying that freedom of the will would make sense in the context of your being free from some physical constraints on your writing a response, ultimately determined by physical causes, but free from the constraints of handcuffs.

You were not coerced, I hope, into responding to this post, so why can I not say that you have freedom from coercion when responding to my post?

>>9995286
fuck off

>>9995142
>is there a difference between a man and a golf ball
I got an answer that's really gonna blow ur puny brain op:
>yes

>>9995328
>So, is it true that you are saying that there exists no difference between a human and a golf-ball by decision making?
It depends on whether you are willing to believe in some kind of transcendental part of a person that is beyond the influence of physical laws. Are you?

>>9995352
Honestly, no.

>>9995349
Dude, I know that there are physical and aesthetic differences, but please read the fucking question.

>>9995358
Then like the golf ball, your actions are the result of a bunch of physical/chemical reactions playing out without influence of any kind of agency that could direct the process.

>>9995361
I know this is true Anon. but the more fundamental question that I am asking is this: is it true that there are physical phenomenons which are independent of other physical phenomenon?

Is the freedom of the will able to be understood in the context of independence of other physical phenomena?

>>9995391
>is it true that there are physical phenomenons which are independent of other physical phenomenon?
Good question. There is evidence to support both the yes and no answers to that question.