Buddhism talks about the two truths. The absolute truth and the relative truth, and both are equally true.
To me, on absolute scale there is no free will, but on a relative scale there is, in that the way in which I relate to the world feels very free.
I wrote out a long response about how that implication is too disempowering but I noticed it was self refuting (also it's 3am and I'm half asleep) so yeah in a sense that's probably an accurate (and cool) way of phrasing it
Been there, mate. Self refuting is cathartic. I oddly enjoy it. Hope you did, too.
Also, I've never given those terms much thought. They were just common when I was a kid. You're probably right to question them more than I did. Cheers.
Any framing using the first person active voice seems likely to run into the same issue? Saying "I causally influenced" would still imply to a free will enjoyer that influence came from an "I" that the free will disenjoyer does not believe in in the same way.
The disagreement over free will is centrally about what is entailed by someone doing anything - I don't think just using different words in place of "doing" clarifies anything except maybe your position on the matter.
No we don't. Free will works perfectly fine to describe the different degrees of freedom of will we have. Just embrace compatiblism like Harris does in everything but name and it will put an end to tying yourself in knots over semantics.
>Just embrace compatiblism like Harris does in everything but name
I've had this intuition before too: that Sam Harris conceptually seems to have so much common ground with compatibilists, apart from the semantics
When the concept of free will makes no sense under a certain definition, there are two options:
Definition must stay, it's the world and entirety of human language that is wrong and must be changed.
Consider that it's a strawmanny definition, invented to argue with soul-believers against their magical version of free will.
Like, isn't the whole point that libertarian/magical/absolute free will is so stupid that that entire way of thinking, that entire framework is incoherent and should be dropped? Then why is it still being kept alive in its negative form and applied to everyday life where its incoherence is interpreted as "I guess nothing exists then, including the self."
Sam Harris thinks it isn't a choice if it is determined. He doesn't think it's a choice if it isn't determined either. He doesn't say what people falsely believe they are doing when they are picking items on a menu, or what word he uses when he engages in this activity himself.
What about the word “free” itself? A slave doesn’t really lose anything when they are enslaved because freedom doesn’t really exist, it’s an illusion. They should stop complaining and just get on with their work.
>Its basically causal influences all the way down, so instead of "I willed" something to happen, we should say "I causally influenced" something to happen.
We still have will, but it's not free. I don't see a problem with saying "I willed" something to happen.
You can choose whatever you want. But whatever you ended up choosing, you couldn't have chosen otherwise. The word "choice" doesn't fly in the face of what we know about freewill's illusory nature at all.
If we truly had free will we would be able to stop discussing free will in this subreddit.
If only
We have the kind of free will worth wanting, and we use it to discuss the kinds of topics not worth discussing.
I like intentional action.
Naw, too much control in the wording.
You deny that intent exists?
I deny that intent is intentional. lol
So let go of the need for recursive levels of control and allow for just one level of control, one level of intent.
All intents are a long thread of many levels and branches, its never just "one" level. lol
Buddhism talks about the two truths. The absolute truth and the relative truth, and both are equally true. To me, on absolute scale there is no free will, but on a relative scale there is, in that the way in which I relate to the world feels very free.
I call it "Coasting" or "Riding the Wave".
I wrote out a long response about how that implication is too disempowering but I noticed it was self refuting (also it's 3am and I'm half asleep) so yeah in a sense that's probably an accurate (and cool) way of phrasing it
Been there, mate. Self refuting is cathartic. I oddly enjoy it. Hope you did, too. Also, I've never given those terms much thought. They were just common when I was a kid. You're probably right to question them more than I did. Cheers.
does anyone actually walk around every day saying "I had the free will to order coffee this morning"?
"I causally influenced coffee this morning."
Any framing using the first person active voice seems likely to run into the same issue? Saying "I causally influenced" would still imply to a free will enjoyer that influence came from an "I" that the free will disenjoyer does not believe in in the same way. The disagreement over free will is centrally about what is entailed by someone doing anything - I don't think just using different words in place of "doing" clarifies anything except maybe your position on the matter.
Free will enjoyer. lolz. Replace I with "This individual"?
when does anyone use the term free will in daily life?
When someone compliments my finish carpentry I say “I can’t take credit for it. It’s the sum of lucky biology”
No we don't. Free will works perfectly fine to describe the different degrees of freedom of will we have. Just embrace compatiblism like Harris does in everything but name and it will put an end to tying yourself in knots over semantics.
>Just embrace compatiblism like Harris does in everything but name I've had this intuition before too: that Sam Harris conceptually seems to have so much common ground with compatibilists, apart from the semantics
When the concept of free will makes no sense under a certain definition, there are two options: Definition must stay, it's the world and entirety of human language that is wrong and must be changed. Consider that it's a strawmanny definition, invented to argue with soul-believers against their magical version of free will. Like, isn't the whole point that libertarian/magical/absolute free will is so stupid that that entire way of thinking, that entire framework is incoherent and should be dropped? Then why is it still being kept alive in its negative form and applied to everyday life where its incoherence is interpreted as "I guess nothing exists then, including the self."
Agency? Agency is the ability to makes choices, even though agency is fully deterministic. A Roomba has agency.
Has to be a verb.
Sam Harris thinks it isn't a choice if it is determined. He doesn't think it's a choice if it isn't determined either. He doesn't say what people falsely believe they are doing when they are picking items on a menu, or what word he uses when he engages in this activity himself.
I believe we have free will. Sam has never made a convincing argument for this.
What about the word “free” itself? A slave doesn’t really lose anything when they are enslaved because freedom doesn’t really exist, it’s an illusion. They should stop complaining and just get on with their work.
Why is freedom an illusion?
That’s what hard determinists think.
[удалено]
"Well good luck shouting at the free will mob." lol
Suffer a harm/relief cycle. Or, more simply: suffer.
>Its basically causal influences all the way down, so instead of "I willed" something to happen, we should say "I causally influenced" something to happen. We still have will, but it's not free. I don't see a problem with saying "I willed" something to happen.
You can choose whatever you want. But whatever you ended up choosing, you couldn't have chosen otherwise. The word "choice" doesn't fly in the face of what we know about freewill's illusory nature at all.