Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

control without contra-causal free will

Expand Messages
  • twclark2002
    Steve, To my way of thinking, someone has control over things if they can act in such a way as to bring about what they want. I m in control of my fate
    Message 1 of 2 , May 16, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve,

      To my way of thinking, someone has control over things if they can
      act in such a way as to bring about what they want. I'm in control
      of my fate insofar as its my desires, not someone eles's, that I act
      on. Yes, I'm fully caused to desire what I want, but the
      distinction between acting on these desires rather than at the
      behest of someone else's desires still holds. The way we express
      this is to say that normally I'm in control of my life, not someone
      else.

      This sort of control can't ground the ultimate responsibility free
      willists want, so we don't have to worry that admiting such control
      will result in punitive practices based in contra-causal freedom.
      Nor is such control metaphysically incoherent the way libertarian
      free will is. It simply states the fact that human agents are often
      in a position of acting to fulfill their desires, and therefore are
      controlling outcomes to their liking.

      This is one example of how certain ordinary language distinctions
      still hold within a NFW, CNHDO view of things.

      Tom


      Steve wrote over at the Applied Naturalism group, May 15, 2005, msg
      1730:

      <Sonny,

      <I am having a hard time understanding what part of "for every act
      done the actor could not have done otherwise", you are NOT grasping
      as the truth, the absolute, no doubts about it, truth.

      <If people get the notion through NFW enlightenment that they have no
      control over their future, its for a very good reason, they don't
      have any control over their future. They never did before they were
      confronted with the realities of NFWism and of course they don't
      afterwards... and there is no way for them to get control over their
      life. To the extent that you have been misled to believe that control
      exists for the individual over their life, I am sorry.

      <It is true that new learning can alter a person, but to accept new
      learning, or to expose oneself to new learning, and the effect that
      new learning has on the individual is totally out of the control of
      the individual, so in reality new learning, like everything else that
      really controls what an individual does is outside any kind of real
      control of the individual.

      <CNHDO does not distract from NFWism, CNHDO is a logical conclusion
      from NFWism. And as Kan and I have been saying it is one of the
      fruits of the tree of NFWism. We want very badly for people to come
      to understand that CNHDO is true, and to adopt new attitudes
      accordingly. There is almost no sense sharing the secret of NFWism if
      we're going to hide CNHDO or allow others to pretend CNHDO is not
      true.

      Steve>
    • Will
      If you experience reality through a FW perspective, then NFW feels mechanistic because it as if Self (FW) is being controlled by something external to Self.
      Message 2 of 2 , May 16, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        If you experience reality through a FW perspective, then NFW feels
        mechanistic because it as if Self (FW) is being controlled by
        something external to Self. These external things are ones own
        emotions, unconscious, etc.
        These people do not experience self as and integrated whole of
        emotions, unconscious, AND self monitoring. The self monitoring
        function takes on the characteristics of a unitary and autonomous
        self. A center from which everything else is referenced.
        It is perfectly possible to reject FW intellectually and yet to still
        experience Self as this unitary center.

        Control - so control is having a mental architecture in place that
        allows you to act effectively in the world.


        --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "twclark2002"
        <twc@n...> wrote:
        > Steve,
        >
        > To my way of thinking, someone has control over things if they can
        > act in such a way as to bring about what they want. I'm in control
        > of my fate insofar as its my desires, not someone eles's, that I
        act
        > on. Yes, I'm fully caused to desire what I want, but the
        > distinction between acting on these desires rather than at the
        > behest of someone else's desires still holds. The way we express
        > this is to say that normally I'm in control of my life, not someone
        > else.
        >
        > This sort of control can't ground the ultimate responsibility free
        > willists want, so we don't have to worry that admiting such control
        > will result in punitive practices based in contra-causal freedom.
        > Nor is such control metaphysically incoherent the way libertarian
        > free will is. It simply states the fact that human agents are
        often
        > in a position of acting to fulfill their desires, and therefore are
        > controlling outcomes to their liking.
        >
        > This is one example of how certain ordinary language distinctions
        > still hold within a NFW, CNHDO view of things.
        >
        > Tom
        >
        >
        > Steve wrote over at the Applied Naturalism group, May 15, 2005, msg
        > 1730:
        >
        > <Sonny,
        >
        > <I am having a hard time understanding what part of "for every act
        > done the actor could not have done otherwise", you are NOT grasping
        > as the truth, the absolute, no doubts about it, truth.
        >
        > <If people get the notion through NFW enlightenment that they have
        no
        > control over their future, its for a very good reason, they don't
        > have any control over their future. They never did before they were
        > confronted with the realities of NFWism and of course they don't
        > afterwards... and there is no way for them to get control over their
        > life. To the extent that you have been misled to believe that
        control
        > exists for the individual over their life, I am sorry.
        >
        > <It is true that new learning can alter a person, but to accept new
        > learning, or to expose oneself to new learning, and the effect that
        > new learning has on the individual is totally out of the control of
        > the individual, so in reality new learning, like everything else
        that
        > really controls what an individual does is outside any kind of real
        > control of the individual.
        >
        > <CNHDO does not distract from NFWism, CNHDO is a logical conclusion
        > from NFWism. And as Kan and I have been saying it is one of the
        > fruits of the tree of NFWism. We want very badly for people to come
        > to understand that CNHDO is true, and to adopt new attitudes
        > accordingly. There is almost no sense sharing the secret of NFWism
        if
        > we're going to hide CNHDO or allow others to pretend CNHDO is not
        > true.
        >
        > Steve>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.