[MD] Indeterminism

[david buchanan]

Steve said:
It is a quite common mainstream philosophical position called "compatiblism" to assert that free will and determinism ought not be thought of as mutually exclusive.

dmb says:
I know what compatibilism is and I have been saying all along that the MOQ is a form of compatibilism. Its says we are free to some extent and controlled to some extent. But you are not saying that. You're describing compatibilism as a position that maintains two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time. That is nonsense. By analogy, a thing can be warm but it cannot be rightly described as hot and cold at the same time because one rules out the other. It says there are determining factors but not to the exclusion of all freedom. It simply doesn't make any sense to say we are 100% determined and also say that we are free. To be a compatibilist, you cannot embrace determinism too. To be a compatibilist, you cannot deny freedom but that's exactly what the determinist does. And you are misreading the "real contemporary philosopher heavy-weights" you bring up to support this idea and you are oblivious to the fact that they are predicating their views on the metaphysical baggage you keep saying we ought to get rid of. 


Steve said:
...Your version of determinism here is the old metaphysical one with mechanistic laws "out there" controlling the universe in spite of appearance to the contrary.

dmb says:
The traditional version of determinism, as Pirsig explains, is based on extending the laws of causality from physics to human action. Other than Pirsig and James, is there anyone else who rejects causality without also rejecting science. Is there a determinist in this world who doesn't predicate his views on causality? If you drop the metaphysical baggage, then what reason is there to deny freedom as we actually experience it? Without some kind of metaphysical baggage, you just can't arrive at such a drastic conclusion, a conclusion that defies empirical reality. It's easy to acknowledge the idea that restraints are known and felt in experience. That's just an empirical claim that involves no trans-experiential entities or laws or principles. That's what the scholars said in all those quotes you have totally ignored, by the way. Charlene Siegfreid says that, Martha Nussbaum says that, David Granger says that, James and Pirsig say that. So once again you are asking questions long after they've been answered. At this point, I could probably reply to any of your posts by simply cutting and pasting the things I already said. 

Steve said:
If we are [dropping the metaphysical baggage], then we don't have to worry about whether choices or causes are what is really real. Explaining behavior in terms of human will doesn't mean that causes are illusory when we don't have an interest in the appearance-reality game. Causal explanations don't make choices illusory. 


dmb says:

What's real is experience. Freedom and restraint are names for what's actually experienced. Causality, as Hume famously pointed out, is not known in experience. The resistences felt in experience are the real thing and causality - not to mention substance- is a metaphysical posit that is supposed to explain that empirical fact. And it's not that causal explanations make our choices illusory. That idea works if you're talking about billiard balls or rocket science. The problem is using causality to deny human freedom, which is exactly what the causal determinists does. And it's no accident that both our favorite pragmatists - James, Dewey and Pirsig - all reject this idea because, pragmatically speaking, that is one of the worst ideas in the history of ideas. Morally speaking, it's a total disaster of an idea. It produces a hopeless nihilism. It's an idea so bad that James wanted to kill himself because he was afraid that it might be true. It's an idea that says morality and freedom are meaningless illusions that have nothing to do with the way things really are. If you think this "can be admired and appreciated on their own merits like paintings in a gallery," then you are the worst art critic of all time.