I know this has been discussed before, but I have read Sam Harris' book Free Will and Michael Shermer's book The Believing Brain, and I must say that I agree with both authors. Studies show that our brains make a decision on an unconscious level three tenths of a second and sometimes more before we even consciously know we're going to act. To take a short quote from Shermer's book: "The neural activity that precedes the intention to act is inaccessible to our conscious mind, so we experience a sense of free will. But it is an illusion, caused by the fact that we cannot identify the cause of the awareness of our intention to act".
Well, in eastern philosophy, it refers specifically to duality. As Ramesh would put it, the principle refers to every conceivable duality. So, I'm not sure if the question "what is the opposite of a dog?" registers as a part a duality. Perhaps a biologist might have an answer to that question. There is, however, the duality of male and female. The male dog and the female dog. After all, in simply saying "what is the opposite of a dog?" you don't specify gender. The question is vague. So, there's innumerable ghosts in the semantical structure of our language, as Alan Watts would put it, that lead to these strange avenues of thought.
The compatibilist type of definitions sidesteps these problems altogether.
I don't think it sidesteps the problem. Obviously, if you tell people they're "completely determined, there is no free will," this, in a way, is misleading. I'm sure you've seen people react to this in a certain way. They view it pessimistically. They find it a dreadful thought. It's the sort of philosophical muse that could send someone into an existential crisis and give 'em a whole "what's the point of it all?" kind of attitude.
Did you by any chance get to take a listen to that link in my last post? If not, here's the link once again. Because I really agree with this eastern principle. In other words, in the compatibilist view, it's in this very moment in our conscious experience that we at once freely choose while at the same time being determined. Because we can entertain even the subset of these potentially infinite outcomes, and at the same time be determined, if not completely determined as hard determinism. A compatibilist might say we freely choose determined possibilities. It may just come down to perspective or semantics.
It's a duality. In one aspect, you have free will; in another, you have determinism. To see only one would be, in a way, to only consider the yin without the yang or the yang without the yin while failing to see both at once.
I'm sure you've seen people react to this in a certain way. They view it pessimistically. They find it a dreadful thought. It's the sort of philosophical muse that could send someone into an existential crisis and give 'em a whole "what's the point of it all?" kind of attitude.
I agree it's very important that we educate people on these things, as there is an important and distinct difference between fatalism and defeatism, and determinism that understands that our consciousness is part of any deterministic process. Most people also aren't aware of the dangers that the belief in free will impose.
What's important is the "free will" ability most people feel they possess. The one that allows them to place blameworthiness on themself and others. The one that allows them to place themself or others on pedestals above others. And so on.
I started watching the vid but I'm often turned off by new-agey type of presentation. I'll try to watch it though.
Yeah, I'd try and get past the "new-agey" pre-conceived notion, because it truly has its basis in Buddhism which by no means is New Age, of course, it's come to be intertwined nowadays with New Age-type conceptions, but prior to watching that particular video, I held a purely deterministic view. It was strange how it happened, too. This played in a playlist in the background, and I was barely even paying attention, but subconsciously I was somehow listening and understood it. As Steven Gray (Adyashanti) says, "It's a subtle realization."
I'll post it one more time so you don't have to scroll to find it. I mean, if I may make a suggestion, I invite you to take a step back and clear your mind of any 'new age' association you may attach to it, and pay close attention to what is being discussed.
I am a proponent of semantics, which I think is the single most important branch of philosophy. It is underrated, and could get to the root of a lot of problems that are being discussed. I think that a lot of what is being attributed to "Eastern philosophy" arises from these semantic ghosts, as Alan Watts puts it. Such as opposites, which only truly makes sense in a strictly logical context, as opposed to empirical. It is not normally a significant proposition to say that men are the opposites of women, dogs are the opposites of cats, or anything of that nature. These are cultural, linguistic structures, not facts. Then there is the question of "self", as is referred to in your video: the idea that self exists and doesn't exist simultaneously is a logical contradiction. Yet, people are finding a way to make sense of it--how? It is not as much a deeper state of thought as it is a semantic ghost in the problem of multiple definitions per one word. The statement "no free will is absolute free will" is not contradictory, per se, because the first instance of "free will" does not refer to the same concept as the second. However, it is intentionally phrased this way to give it a paradoxical, and because it sounds impressive and cannot be easily explained, a platitudinous dimension.
Did you, by any chance, take a listen to the clip, Jonathan Chang? Just out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on it?
Technically if there is indeterminism (acausal events) X could lead to Y or an acausal event could come into existence that would move it to Z instead. In other words, given some interpretations of QM, there is multiple potential. But you are correct, such wouldn't be in control of any entity either.
If there is some metaphysical soul that is also outside of logical rules, then yes...it can't be argued for or against because it's basically incoherent. In such a realm nothing can even be discussed as all language break down as words have no identity. :)
...within the laws of physics.
Do folks who say that in discussions such as this one consider themselves as acting within (or without or around) the laws of the state?
BTW, the term "state" above refers to any level of government: international, national, state, or local.
I think we act within the laws of physics, but I think the free will idea logically incoherent even "outside" of physical laws.
I also think I act within the laws of the state for the most part - why do you ask? :)
Trick, I ask because ten years after I graduated college my political activism showed me a world much larger than the world I had studied in the required philosophy courses and the chosen physics classrooms and laboratories.
After I retired I started taking art courses and glimpsed a world with no boundaries.
Try either or both of those.
I think boundaries are important. ;o)
Even if our lack of true free will meant that things were somehow determined or predestined, it would make no difference. We do not know the future, and therefore we don't know what will really happen despite our plans tomorrow. If each of us, and all of us as a collective, have our way somehow fixed, it would be no different than if we did, indeed, have free will, at least for the most part. So, whatever the case (and it may never be answered to everyone's satisfaction), it doesn't matter about determinism or free will. I do not believe in free will, but I live just like a person who does believe in it. We all do. Go with it.