home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!psgrain!ee.und.ac.za!shrike.und.ac.za!pc13.superbowl.und.ac.za!spurrett
- From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
- Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
- Subject: FREE WILL 1: Compatibilism sucks!
- Message-ID: <spurrett.22.720960371@superbowl.und.ac.za>
- Date: 5 Nov 92 10:46:11 GMT
- Article-I.D.: superbow.spurrett.22.720960371
- References: <spurrett.15.720882192@superbowl.und.ac.za>
- Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
- Lines: 80
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pc13.superbowl.und.ac.za
-
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 13:03:12 GMT
- FREE WILL 1: Compatibilism sucks.
-
- o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o
- | This posting is part of a series of monomaniac diatribes. Please |
- | email if you want to follow anything up. |
- o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o
-
- [I posted this to talk.Philosophy.misc, and didn't cross post. Sorry, I'm
- still getting into this.]
-
- Compatibilism (the thesis that free will and determinism are com-
- patible, ie. that both can be simultaneously true) is crud. If we
- define determinism as:
-
- `The theory that the state of a system at some time and the rela-
- tions governing the time development of the system determine, un-
- ambiguously, the state of the system at any later time. (In time
- reversal invariant theories, the state of the system at some time
- and the relations governing time development give the state of the
- system at _any_ time.)'
-
- And further is we define voluntarism (the thesis that we have `free
- will') as:
-
- `The theory that a person is free with respect to same act if they
- both can perform it and refrain from performing it.'
-
- Then the conflict is manifest. The fact is that determinism holds
- that there is _one_ actual future, the properties of which are already
- fixed. Voluntarism hold that our ability to choose means that there
- are a number of possible futures, only one of which will eventually be
- the case. Determinism and Voluntarism are only compatible if 1 = x
- where x > 1. [one is equal to a number greater than one.]
-
- At the risk of labouring the point, the issue can be represented
- diagrammatically:
-
- o----------------------------------------------o
- | Determinism: |
- | |
- | Past ------------------ Actual Future |
- | |
- | |
- | Voluntarism: |
- | |
- | _________ Possible Future `a' |
- | / |
- | Past -------< |
- | \_________ Possible Future `b' |
- | \ |
- | \_______ etc... |
- o----------------------------------------------o
-
- To quote William James:
-
-
- To [the indeterminist] view, actualities seem to float in a wider
- sea of possibilities from out of which they are chosen; and, some-
- where, indeterminism says, such possibilities exist and even form
- part of truth.
-
- Determinism, on the contrary, says they exist _nowhere_, and that
- necessity on the one hand, and impossibility on the other are the
- sole categories of the real. Possibilities that fail to get
- realised are, for determinism, pure illusions: they were never pos-
- sibilities at all.
-
- The question, therefore, is _which_ of the two is true. The prob-
- lem, therefore, is to look into the credentials of each doctrine. I
- suggest that determinism is rather unattractive, but that voluntarism
- is difficult to make intelligible. Any thoughts? [especially a really
- _good_ `proof' of compatibilism, or reflections on which of the two is
- true.]
-
- o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
- | David Spurrett, department of Philosophy | `I have seen the truth, and |
- | University of Natal, Durban | it makes no sense.' |
- | email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za | - OFFICIAL! |
- o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
-