determinism versus indeterminism

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Well its all I know of so far. I am only recently much more interested in science than before (the past few months). And I'm of course open to alternatives. What's your alternative(s)?

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.

Well to me, so far at least, it means that if we are convinced that no 'free will' - as in not being able to purposefully make decisions - means no evitability as in not choosing to avoid things means we don't avoid things (as in we have to just 'give up' since this is just a misunderstanding of what no free will means - if you don't have free will you can still do things!). This belief could compel us to be more close minded and 'give up'. So the effect is we would be less free as in less open to possibilities. Whether we have any choice in the matter or not. So its good to know that no free will does not mean we have no evitability as in we are incapable of avoiding things.

So yes - perhaps if we avoid something we HAD to avoid it. Maybe there was no choice in the matter! But that doesn't require us to believe that will compel us to behave 'less free' as in 'give up' even if we're not free anyway. Because I think to believe so is just a cartoon of what 'no free will' actually is. It does not mean you HAVE to 'give up' because you are 'power less' it means whether you have no free or not. Thats a fact! No free will would be a science I think not a philosophy. If we can't choose to do things that doesn't mean we HAVE to be more close minded and 'act' less free.

So evitability I think is like a new definition of free will to show that no 'free will' doesn't mean you don't have free will as in evitability. As in you can still avoid things whether you have a choice in the matter not. The abscence of belief in free will does not mean you are any less free than you have ever been! Because if you have no 'free will' - you've always had no 'free will'. So if in the past you believed you had free will you were no more free than you are now!

So not believing in free will does of course not imply you have to adopt a belief of the meaning of 'no free will' that compels you to 'give up' as it were.

If you have no free will and you BELIEVE that it DOES compel you to adopt that. Then it does. But if you happen to hear explanations that explain you do not HAVE to believe that... - then that might help you change your mind.

And that is what I am trying to explain whether you or whoever agrees or disagrees or not - and I am of course - open to the criticism and alternatives.

Because it certainly doesn't imply that you have to adopt that belief.

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?

No. It doesn't mean they have 'free will'. But it doesn't mean they don't have evitability. If I try to swat a fly and it moves out the way - it of course didn't decide to move out of the way. But it still moved out of the way.

My point is that I MIGHT get up. That's what I said. Whether I have any choice in the matter or not. I might. Who knows?

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.

Yeah. Pretty much correct I think. I don't think I choose my thoughts and I think my thoughts just happen in the brain. And so I don't think I choose my decisions either.

But I can say in ordinary conversation that I decided to do something whether I had any choice in the matter or not.

Have I claimed that I can intentionally and consciously make my own decisions? Have I claimed that I believe in free will in that sense?

I hope not. Because I believe it would be a mistake because it would misrepresent what I actually believe.

And I'm kind of agnostic on the matter but choosing your thoughts and making your own decisions literally when you are a biological organism doesn't really gel with me.

I don't believe I have 'free will' but I don't believe that compels me to feel any worse than if I did believe it. I still believe I have evitability.

If its not me doing the choice - it doesn't really matter because I still have just as much freedom as in the past when I was sure that I had 'free will'.

Because if I have no freedom in the sense I have no 'free will'. Its the same as before when I was younger! And I didn't feel helpless then!

I still have exactly the same evitability. Whether I have choice in the matter or not. I can still do and not do the same things! Who cares if its me doing it or my brain just has thoughts and my body just does things?

I would like to know the answer for sure but it certainly doesn't worry me. It doesn't make any practical difference to me! Its just interesting science!

I do wonder if it would make a difference if we could know our whole future and have to follow it! Because then included in that future would be our reaction to seeing that future. Which I think perhaps could change our beliefs drastically in a negative way - or perhaps not.

I'm not sure. I find that idea interesting.

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.

I'm not 100% certain but I do agree.

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

As above. I'm not 100% sure because I haven't looked into free will much. But I do agree and that does make a lot of sense to me.

I mean I do not believe we can choose to decide to do things, deliberately, consciously, on purpose, etc.

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

Yes and that's pretty much my point. Not believing in 'free will' does not have to make us feel any less free. Because if there is no free will - we are just as free as we have never been - with our no 'free will'!

We do avoid things and if we believe we can and should we are more likely to try to do so.

Not believing in free will shouldn't make us have to believe that we are any more helpless than we actually are.

It can. But its not required! We are just as free with no free will as with free will! No free will is just as free. Because we have been exactly the same as we ever have whether we believed in free will or not?

What's the difference other than interesting speculation?

And what would happen if we knew the whole future absolutely and could see exactly what we were going to do and we could do nothing about it?

If we don't know what we are going to do and we have no 'free will' - how are we practically any less free than we have ever been? We're the same person as before! If we have no 'free will' now, we had no 'free will' back then when we believed we DID have 'free will' - when we didn't.

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.

I think free will becomes evitiability because there very probably isn't really any 'free will' as in what most people think of as free will.

Because if we are going to do something in the future. Then whatever that is -we are going to do it!

Does that mean we are any less free than we have ever or never been? No. We can still do the same things!

Unless that because of our misunderstanding of 'no free will' the belief that there is 'no free will' compels us to be more close minded and 'act' or behave more helpless than we actually are.

The belief in no 'free will' certainly does not require that. Once again, the belief that I have 'no free will' doesn't make me any less free than I have ever/never been!

So evitability used to mean free will just means we have the same free will that we always have even if it wasn't really 'free will'.

We are just as free as we ever/never were!

You do when you claim you can intentionally avoid things.

Did I? when? If I did then I am sorry because I do not believe that.

Probably a semantics thing. If I say I make decisions it doesn't mean I have any choice in the matter. Its just that I'm not really sure what else to say?

When I decide to do something what should I say instead to describe it?

When I am choosing a certain flavour of a packet of crisps should I say: I am compelled to pick up this flavour of crisps because I want it - but I have no choice in the matter of wanting to pick up that flavour. And I have no choice in whether my desire, or whatever, to pick up that particular flavour of crisps - compels me and makes me pick it up or not. Its all entirely automatic but I am picking it up nevertheless. Put simply I guess its because I want it - but I have no choice in wanting it or whether the want is strong enough to make me pick that packet up.

Lol probably could put it a bit simpler than that! But its tricky! I'd rather just say I decide or choose even if I have no choice in the matter of my decisions and choices. Unless there's another alternative?

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

I don't think there's anything special about it. Perhaps its just the thoughts I'm conscious of? Or you? or whoever's conscious.

Dennett has described consciousness as 'the fame in the brain'.

I find it interesting because I have intuitively thought simular before I ever knew about Dennett. I thought - perhaps my consciousness is just what's 'winning'.

If I have understood correctly?

And if you have any alternative views or explanations then I'm more than willing to hear them (or see them rather).

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

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

Could you elaborate on that? I used to 100% believe in 'free will'. Now I don't believe 'free will' exists but I am not 100% certain.

I don't feel any less free at all. Why should I? I'm the same as I was before either way!

Either its me making these 'decisions' or I'm just doing stuff. Either way I can still do stuff! And if I believe I can I am more likely to try.

And I believe I can do stuff because that's bloody obvious - I've been doing stuff all my life. Whether I believe in free will or not doesn't really make ANY practical difference for ME at least.

If there is no free will then I never had it. I did stuff then. I do stuff now. And I am no more limited than before because I was just as limited then!

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

I don't believe in 'free will'. I believe I can avoid stuff whether I have a choice in the matter or not! I still can avoid stuff!

If I am going to do something in the future then that will happen! So I think the usual meaning of 'free will' is perhaps - rather silly.

The future is going to happen because - that's what the future is right? What happens in the future? The future is what happens in the future lol! And if I will do something in the future then I will do that something in the future.

So I think because some/many people seem to think we are less free than we have ever/never been if we don't believe in free will.

I think that its good that 'free will' should be defined as evitability because why worry about something that makes no difference!

We have just as much freedom with free will as without it. If I make decisions consciously then I don't feel or behave any more free than if I don't believe in free will!

If I believed in 'free will' now - I wouldn't be any more free than I AM.

What exactly would making decisions be? If I am choosing to type this it doesn't make any difference than if I'm not does it?

I am still doing it and I still have the evitability to type: monkey fish omelette. Whether I had a choice in the matter - or not. What's the diffence? I believe there are interesting scientific differences - because the truth is damn interesting!

But I am interested in hearing practical differences. Because I used to believe in free will and now I don't. As in - how the hell can you change the future? The future is going to happen. And whatever I do in the future I will do in the future! Whether I like it or not!

Because I am NOT separate from reality!

But - it has made no practical difference to my life that I no longer believe in 'free will'. I only believe in evitability. I may not CHOOSE to avoid things but I still avoid them and try to do so if I believe I can and should.

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

Well I think the thing is if you can't change the future because the future is the future and whatever happens to you will happen to you. Because its the future. Whether you are a determinist or INdeterminist - then the 'free will' thing is kind of a points thing to think about.

But since so many people are 'hung up' about it when they shouldn't be. I think the point of the redefiniton of 'free will' is that you have just as much 'free will' as you ever (or rather never) have whether you believe in free will or not! So what are you worrying about?

So if you have just as much freedom as ever whether you believe in free will or not. I think the point is that you still have the 'free will' that you may or may not have thought you had in the past. So if back then you had no 'free will' but you thought you have. Well you still have the same 'free will' that you thought you had then - as in, you're just as free! Because if you aren't free now then you weren't free then! But back then you felt free - as in, you thought you had free will.

Hypothetically speaking.

If you get my drift
evf