Paul Thyry (Baron D'Holbach / Mirabaud) - French / German Sympathizer With Some Epicurean Ideas

Onenski

“Free will” can be a fraught concept. What is generally called “libertarian free will” (which might be what most people mean) is incoherent.

The term I learned in economics is “constrained choice” – which I suspect is closer to another version of free will called “compatibilism”: Yes we choose. But our choices are constrained by our resources, by circumstances and our own abilities – some of which are determined (e.g. by evolution), and some of which result from our own (past) choices.

And strict determinism would mean that our (under that principle, illusory) perception that we do choose is also determined. So it would seem to be a vicious circle: “Why do you think it’s all determined?” “Because I believe determinism is correct.” “Why do you think that?” “Because it’s determined …”

Thank you, Cassius.

Quote from Pacatus

“Free will” can be a fraught concept. What is generally called “libertarian free will” (which might be what most people mean) is incoherent

That's exactly the epicurean point of view, so far as I know, right?

I mean, Epicurus was not a compatibilist, he believed that we are free because the world is undetermined.

Quote from Onenski

That's exactly the epicurean point of view, so far as I know, right?

I mean, Epicurus was not a compatibilist, he believed that we are free because the world is undetermined.

I think Epicurus thought that some things are determined and some are not (e.g. the "swerve"). Some things are up to us and some are not. If nothing at all is causally determined, then it all becomes random.

Just thinking "out loud" here, but strict determinism and strict randomness would have the same problems (both epistemologically and ethically).

I recall some old philosophical discussions of compatibilism that scrambled my brain.

Basically, I take its foundation to be that although some things are determined beyond our control (and affect the range of available choices in any situation), we are still ethically responsible for our choices because – within those constraints – we do choose (even if those constraints can be mitigating factors, ethically speaking).

Cassius

That’s a good post, and I generally agree. But –

Just like Epicurus’ natural physicalism, a fundamental understanding of how (let alone if) we choose seems basic. Under strict determinism, those who (for example) follow Epicurus and those who follow (say) the Stoics are simply determined to do so – without any actual choice based on study and reflection.

The same for strict randomness: those who are Epicureans and those who are Stoics are just so – randomly (even if they think they have reasonably chosen).

So I do think these are important philosophical questions. (And, as I hope I have made clear, I reject both those polar extremes.)

Cassius

Yes! I only want to add that VS40 is employing deductive logic (here a kind of reductio ad absurdum) in a way that illustrates one of the things deductive logic is good at: illustrating incoherent thinking. However, it is possible to construct a valid deductive syllogism that leads to an empirical falsity (i.e. the syllogism is valid, but not sound).

Empirical arguments (e.g. from the senses, feelings and prolepseis) depend largely on inference from revealed facts: inductive logic. Although none of that was formalized in Greek thinking of the time, Epicurus seems (to me at least) to have been a kind pf precursor on that path.

Thank you for your great comments, Cassius and Pacatus .

I recognize that one of the theses that Epicurus would not have renounced is precisely free will. And to deny it would be to move away from Epicurean philosophy.

Skepticism about free will, I think, is a personal position of mine, and it is perhaps the one that makes me wonder things like: if the study of nature pointed out that we do not have free will, would Epicurus accept it? Or couldn't it be that Epicurus was wrong about this question just as he was wrong about the size of the Sun? Or also, if what matters is practical life for ordinary people, then would it be valid for us to accept things like biases just because we feel it although they are unjustified?

There is a conflict (apparent or real), which D'Holbach recognized, between the study of nature and the belief in an exclusive capacity of human beings not to be subject to prior events, or just those that are convenient for attributing moral responsibility.

I recognize, Cassius, that for the moment it would be very hard for people to live without that belief. The same was said about the belief in God: that people would behave immorally, that one cannot trust in an atheist, or that life would become meaningless. One of my personal projects consists in thinking about a possible way of life that integrates free will skepticism and epicurean philosophy.

In any case, I don't want to be heterodox enough to say that Epicurus was wrong, or anything like that. I know that the purpose of the forum is to discuss Epicurean philosophy as closely as possible to its original sources, and that does not involve a defense of free will skepticism.

What may possibly be pertinent is to seek, over time, a stronger and more robust understanding of Epicurus' position vis-a-vis this kind of skepticism.

Quote from Onenski

Skepticism about free will, I think, is a personal position of mine, and it is perhaps the one that makes me wonder things like: if the study of nature pointed out that we do not have free will, would Epicurus accept it?

Can I assume that if I were to say: "There is no such thing as free will" that this means that I am not actually choosing anything and that everything always is predetermined by forces outside of my conscious mind? Such that we are saying that what appears to be free will is just an illusion? Or can we say "free will" = an individual's ability to choose.

Quote from Cassius

In the case of free will, Epicurus is being very clear that some things are determined while others are not. Both are affirmed to be true.

Here is an example: I drink a large cup of tea. I then need to go pee. There is something in my mind which is registering pleasure and pain sensations throughout my body, and it is also balanced by my awareness of mental thoughts. Perhaps I am sitting with friends and I want to hear someone finish a story so I sit and wait till the end, and then excuse myself. But maybe I am fed up with hearing a story, so I leave before the end. There are millions of insignificant events that can't possibly be predetermined. As we become more aware of how to skillfully deal with pleasure and pain, it actually increases our ability to freely choose.

I have more thoughts on this but perhaps I will add more later

Quote from Kalosyni

Can I assume that if I were to say: "There is no such thing as free will" that this means that I am not actually choosing anything and that everything always is predetermined by forces outside of my conscious mind?

Including believing and saying “There’s no such thing as free will.” Or that there is. Or believing that Epicureanism is a better philosophy than Stoicism, and why; or vice versa.

Quote from Kalosyni

Or can we say "free will" = a individual's ability to choose.

For me, that’s just what it is -- even in the face of constraints that limit our choices and how we are able choose.

Quote from Kalosyni

There are millions of insignificant events that can't possibly be predetermined.

The predetermined nature of all our choices is exactly what the current crop of the "no free will" crowd says. Their contention is that if we knew the position of every atom and the physical laws that pertained to them, it would be possible to accurately know what would happen next ad infinitum. Just because we don't know how to do that yet doesn't negate the "fact" that there's no free will.

Here are some videos to react to...

Quote from Don

Their contention is that if we knew the position of every atom and the physical laws that pertained to them, it would be possible to accurately know what would happen next ad infinitum.

Would that entail that there is no randomness in the system? That every event is perfectly predictable?

Now I want to hear from Martin!

Aren't emergent properties a form of randomness? Or do they fall under the idea of "if we knew enough about everything, we would see how they actually emerged"?

Does "if we knew enough about everything, then we would see how x" mean that as we learn more we will have more free will?

Quote from Kalosyni

Can I assume that if I were to say: "There is no such thing as free will" that this means that I am not actually choosing anything and that everything always is predetermined by forces outside of my conscious mind?

For me, another way to see it, Kalosyni ,

is that the fact that you believe in free will has an explanation that goes beyond your control. It means that you grew up in a certain context, with some genes, certain hormones, that you've had certain experiences, live in a certain cultural context, etc. that explain why you have that belief.

It doesn't mean that your are like a puppet that it's controlled by someone else, it means that even your desires and beliefs are the product of a chain of events prior to you. It also means that there's not a Self above your body who can make choices: you are your body and this body it's immerse in a natural world with laws and different levels of explanation.

It also means that we, human beings, don't have a very special ability, which suspiciously other animals don't have, to make choices out of nothing. Even our small choices have their context and explanation.

Unfortunately, debate on free will tends to focus on very local choices, not in the history of how your intention was formed. For some people is more important to prove that I made certain choice freely, without see any context of my history, than to see what brought me here to choose that thing.

Quote from Pacatus

Would that entail that there is no randomness in the system? That every event is perfectly predictable?

There's an important nuance to make. There can be unpredictability even under deterministic processes. In chaotic systems, which can be understood under deterministic functioning, we can't predict the results, but that doesn't mean they are random.

Quote from Godfrey

Aren't emergent properties a form of randomness?

That also apply to emergent complexity.

For relevant purposes randomness present in quantum mechanics it's not strong enough to produce relevant consequences to the functioning of neurons (which can be the first level of explanation of human behavior).

I've read these things in Sapolsky's book Determined (another recent book about this is Kevin Mitchell's Free Agents, this was suggested by Godfrey last Wednesday).

As I said up, I think this neuroscientific discussion can be enriching for epicurean philosophy, because as it's understood in the debate, Epicurus was a libertarian about free will. That means that, arguably, Epicurus thought that a deterministic world is incompatible with free will. But between those two options he defends the existence of free will, which imply that we live in an indeterministic world (that's why he defends the swerve).

Kevin Mitchell defends that the brain has evolved to work in an indeterministic way so that it can make choices that permits an adaptation to a very changeable world (like a quantum computer). Sapolsky, on the other side, defends that human behavior works in a deterministic way, so we're not morally responsible of what we do.

See you later, guys!