determinism versus indeterminism

[Purple Rabbit]

Come on, that's not critical thinking, challenge yourself.

I don't think its really critical thinking if I criticise something just for the sake of it. I don't know what to criticise? Dennett is using a different definition of free will. He just means evitability if I have understood him correctly. Whether we have a choice in that evitability, or not.

It seems to me that there is a lot to criticise on changing words as a means to solve a philosphical dilemma. If you go by the authority of Dennett alone, then for sure it's not critical thinking.

Known by who? Do we need to have knowledge about existence of an all-knowing agent first?

Well we can't absolutely know whats going to happen at all can we? We can only make predictions. And how can we predict what we are going to do before we have done it? If we are going to do something no matter what and we have no choice in the matter whatsoever. How do we know what that thing we are going to HAVE to do IS? I'm talking about IF we don't know. If no one can KNOW what our next action will be for sure - then yes there is obviously going to be a future. But since we don't know what it is. We can still of course avoid things. Whether we have any choice in the matter or not. Because we don't know what we are going to do. We might think we are going to do one thing and then change our mind. Whether we did the changing on purpose or not. Even if we had no choice in the matter we still didn't know what we were going to do.

We can still avoid things even if we don't have a choice in the matter. Maybe not free to choose but its not like we're powerless in the sense we still have all the freedom that we've always had since we were born. I mean whether I believe in free will or not I'm still just as free. Whether thats free or not. I can still do things and 'make decisions' even if I have no choice in the matter.

It is not needed to know the future in detail to make decisions. Decisions can be in the form of IF-scenarios, IF this happens I'll act in THAT manner. If avoiding is going to happen anyway then what freedom is there in the act itself? With an afterwards interpretation of an action in terms of 'avoiding' you merely show that you afterwards play a film in your head with you in the lead role and considering other possible courses of action that aren't there in reality. If things just happen, there is nothing but that what happens, ergo there is no avoidance.

If your body lies itself on the floor you can do nothing about it.

Yes. But I might get up might I?

All I mean is whether I believe in free will or not it doesn't make me any more or less free. if my body lies on the floor and I don't believe in free will I can get up. If I do believe in free will I can get up.

A snail can go from A to B, a fly can land on your nose, a stone can fall, does that mean they have free will?

If I'm lying down it doesn't mean I can't get up.

If you get up you afterwards can rightfully say you got up, but you can't claim that you decided to get up and that your decision made you do so.

If I don't believe in free will I'm just as free as if I do. So If I'm lying on the floor I can get up just as easily if I don't believe I have free will as I can if I do believe I have free will. Because there is evitability whether I have free will or not.

Evitability is a word Dennett introduces which on the one hand suggests that an agent in advance can decide to take some action and on he other hand Dennett only uses it to interpret action after it took place. Don't let yourself get fooled by redefinition of terms. You can get up from the floor and afterwards say that you decided so but you cannot say that it is independent decision prior to the act that made your body do so.

Even if there is no 'free will', no 'free' evitability - there is still evitability. Because we avoid stuff, right? We may have had 100% to avoid it. But we still avoided it.

Avoiding stuff is a story we tell ourselves after things have happend.

Even if I HAD to dodge something. IF I didn't, hypothetically speaking I may have got hit by it - because I didn't move out of the way.

So if I HAVE to avoid something. I still avoided it whether I did it or not. Its not like I have to stand still. It I DO have to stand still I do.

But if I don't believe I have to then I won't do it. If I do believe I have to. that isn't determinism. Because evitability is still there. If I didn't believe I had to then I wouldn't have to do that.

You only have shown that you can use 'avoid' in past tense.

What I mean is: If the future is determined that doesn't mean nothing can be avoided. Because you don't know whats going to happen. Determinism of course, doesn't mean you HAVE to believe that you are powerless, you have no freedom. No free will or whatever.

Because there is evitability anyway. There is avoidability. THE future isn't avoidable, but A hypothetical future is avoidable because we don't know which future is going to happen because we don't know for sure which future WILL happen. I think? What do you think?

Well, I am not sure either EvF, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. I think there is something wrong with Dennett's stance. It at the moment really seems a word trick to me. Free will becomes 'evitability' and Dennett underwater changes to past tense wherever evitability and avoidance pop up. I hope Freedom Evolves is to become the first selected book for the Bookclub. Then we might get to the bottom of Dennett's stance.

You think you are free, but how do you know it?

I don't. Did I ever claim I knew?

You do when you claim you can intentionally avoid things. You don't when you claim that avoidance is that what happened in a situation where afterwards you see other possible continuations of the situations you could have steered towards if mind to body interaction would have been possible.

Yeah as a robot who thinks he has free will.

I believe I am a biological robot. I don't know whether I have any choice to do things or not.

Then what is consciousness about? Is it merely a word?

Most people, me included, find that very disturbing. Wouldn't you like to know if you are something other than a robot?

I don't find it disturbing. Because if humans don't have free will guess what - they never have! What's changed? Nothing.

There are numerous consequences, for instance on the accountability of behaviour.

Sounds like you believing in free will no matter what facts might tell you. That's a belief for sure.

I believe I have free will as in evitability. Not really as in 'free will'. Different definition. The future will happen. If I have no choice in dodging a ball rolled at me very slowly, or not - that doesn't mean I can't! I can just as easily as before whether I believe in free will or not! There is still just as much evitability whether I have any choice in dodging the ball or not! If I wanted to dodge it I'm pretty sure I could lol. Whether I had any choice in wanting to dodge it and then dodge it or not!

I'm just as free without free will as with 'free will'. I'm still responsible for my actions without 'free will'. Heck if I shouldn't take responsibility who the hell should? There is still free will as in evitability. We have as much 'free will' as those who believe in 'free will' even if it isn't free will. Whether we believe in 'free will' or not.

We still have freedom as in evitability. I can still 'dodge' (lol) a very slowly moving ball rolled at me whether I have any choice in the matter or not.
Evf

It's becoming kind of repetitive but changing the words just does not do the trick for me.