[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The whim itself has to be caused by something and that something cannot be self-generated without being random.
[/quote]
Why not?
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
No. I’m talking about the notion of being able to decide to do something, apropos of nothing - to create action, as a result of desire to do so, and that desire being the fundamental will - the root, uncaused cause.
[/QUOTE]
Give an example from real life, please. I can’t extrapolate what you mean, because “fundamental will - the root, uncaused cause” is not a coherently explained concept to me.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Why not?
[/QUOTE]
Because if it’s not random it creates an infinite regression. If you’re making yourself want to do something, you first have to want to want to make yourself do something. In order to want to want to make yourself do something, you first have to want to to want to want to make yourself do something. And it’s turtles all the way down.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Give an example from real life, please. I can’t extrapolate what you mean, because “fundamental will - the root, uncaused cause” is not a coherently explained concept to me.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure it would even be possible to provide such an example in either case. What are you looking for?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Because if it’s not random it creates an infinite regression. If you’re making yourself want to do something, you first have to want to want to make yourself do something. In order to want to want to make yourself do something, you first have to want to to want to want to make yourself do something. And it’s turtles all the way down.
[/QUOTE]
Unless there is a fundamental, indivisible unit called ‘will’, and it has the property of volition.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Unless there is a fundamental, indivisible unit called ‘will’, and it has the property of volition.
[/QUOTE]
Will and volition are definitionally the same thing (“volition” comes from the Latin word for “will”). Will cannot be a property of will.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I’m not sure it would even be possible to provide such an example in either case. What are you looking for?
[/QUOTE]
I’m looking for some ‘hook’ with which to hang your theory to reality, so that I might be able to understand and discuss it. I mean, if there are no possible examples of it, then it’s clearly not actually happening, right?
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Unless there is a fundamental, indivisible unit called ‘will’, and it has the property of volition.
[/QUOTE]
But we are back to the same question: what decides the nature of the volition (i.e., what one chooses)? Not the nature of the will: if the nature of the will determines its volitions, then that is a form of determinism. And not other mental states, for the same reason. So on the libertarian account, the will acts–intelligently–but guided by nothing, since the will can have no fixed (or temporary!) nature that determines its volitional outputs. That doesn’t make sense. I don’t see any way around this problem for the libertarian.
No, because you’re just asking what causes a primary cause, which makes no sense
[QUOTE=begbert2]
I’m looking for some ‘hook’ with which to hang your theory to reality, so that I might be able to understand and discuss it. I mean, if there are no possible examples of it, then it’s clearly not actually happening, right?
[/QUOTE]
I would prefer to rearrange ‘clearly not’ to ‘not clearly’.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I would prefer to rearrange ‘clearly not’ to ‘not clearly’.
[/QUOTE]
Fine by me. But what frustrates me about so much libertarian literature (Robert Kane is the worst offender) is that they too often say, “Well, this is how it *could * happen” and then act as though their job is done. No, it’s not done. Show us examples of things actually actually working this way, and displaying this sui generis type of causation. Then I’ll take a serious look at what you have to say.
Not trying to be snarky or bitchy, and I apologize if I come across that way. But even if you can show that libertarianism is conceivable, that is no argument for the truth of libertarianism.
I don’t even agree that it’s conceivable.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I don’t even agree that it’s conceivable.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I don’t either. But even if it were, that’s no argument for its existence. Unicorns are conceivable, but since nobody has ever observed one, it’s a good bet there aren’t any. Ditto with libertarian-type causation.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Fine by me. But what frustrates me about so much libertarian literature (Robert Kane is the worst offender) is that they too often say, “Well, this is how it *could * happen” and then act as though their job is done. No, it’s not done. Show us examples of things actually actually working this way, and displaying this sui generis type of causation. Then I’ll take a serious look at what you have to say.
Not trying to be snarky or bitchy, and I apologize if I come across that way. But even if you can show that libertarianism is conceivable, that is no argument for the truth of libertarianism.
[/QUOTE]
You’ll please note that I did make that pretty clear when I joined the thread though - I don’t really see how this can be discussed in anything but the abstract, initially, at least.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I don’t even agree that it’s conceivable.
[/QUOTE]
But I wonder if that might be a consequence of the system of operation you seem to insist it would have to observe, if it did exist - that is, one that is reducible down to little binary switches. I’m more than happy to concede that you guys are all very much smarter and well-read about this that I am or could ever be - and I’ll reiterate that I am not here to try to assert that it is thus, only understand whether and why it can or cannot be thus.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
You’d have to weigh factors anyway; that’s how humans decide things. Absent the illusion, you’d just recognize that your opinions on things don’t change until you encounter external stimulai or complete some internal, conscious or subconscious mental processing that effects the deciding factors, and that your whims don’t occur until some similar shift of thought predicates them.
[/QUOTE]
OKay. Can we judge how the external stimuli or internal thought process came about? Can we say with any certainty whether it is random or determined?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Because if it’s not random it creates an infinite regression. If you’re making yourself want to do something, you first have to want to want to make yourself do something. In order to want to want to make yourself do something, you first have to want to to want to want to make yourself do something. And it’s turtles all the way down.
[/QUOTE]
Couldn’t something we are as yet unaware of is creating a certain want?
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
You’ll please note that I did make that pretty clear when I joined the thread though - I don’t really see how this can be discussed in anything but the abstract, initially, at least.
[/QUOTE]
That’s true; you have made that clear.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Couldn’t something we are as yet unaware of is creating a certain want?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but then it wouldn’t be autonomous, i.e. it wouldn’t be “free.”
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Sure, but then it wouldn’t be autonomous, i.e. it wouldn’t be “free.”
[/QUOTE]
Right.
Yet the want may be there but we appear to have some choice over what we do with the want.
I want to enjoy the taste of ice cream. I don’t want the calories because I know the consequences.