Misconception about free-will?

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's one way I used to think of free-will... I still think it has some truth to it but I'd like to get input from others. Perhaps many others who aren't familiar with philosophy and science might think along these lines, as well.

When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs. So if thoughts/beliefs determine my action, then that is till the same as the individual (myself) determining actions. An example of a decision or behavior without free-will would be when my girlfriend gets upset with me in the car, and it's because it's hot and the AC is not working. Basically, only external influences don't count as free-will.


Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?

[fredonly]

I lean toward physicalism, primarily rooted in the metaphysics of David Armstrong. I recognize it's an unproveable theory, but it seems the simplest, so it provides a basis for comparison to other metaphysical theories.

[William]

I lean toward physicalism, primarily rooted in the metaphysics of David Armstrong. I recognize it's an unproveable theory, but it seems the simplest, so it provides a basis for comparison to other metaphysical theories.

Does the following summary accurately sum up David's metaphysics?

David Malet Armstrong was an influential philosopher known for his work in metaphysics. He advocated for a particular brand of metaphysical realism known as "truthmaker theory." Here's a bullet point summary of his metaphysical ideas:

Truthmaker Theory: Armstrong proposed the "truthmaker" theory, which asserts that for every truth, there exists a corresponding entity that makes that truth true. He aimed to ground truths in the world rather than relying solely on language or concepts.

Universals and Particulars: Armstrong distinguished between universals (general qualities or properties that can be instantiated by multiple particulars) and particulars (individual objects or instances). He argued for a realistic view of universals.

Nominalism Critique: He criticized nominalism, the belief that only particular objects exist and that universals are merely names or concepts. Armstrong believed that universals have a genuine existence, grounding the similarity among particulars.

States of Affairs: Armstrong introduced the concept of "states of affairs" as truthmakers. A state of affairs is a combination of particulars and their properties that accounts for the truth of a proposition. For example, the state of affairs of a red apple's existence explains the truth of "There is a red apple."

Laws of Nature: He proposed a necessitarian view of laws of nature, suggesting that the laws aren't just regularities but are metaphysically necessary relationships between universals. He believed that the laws govern how universals are related and instantiated in the world.

Causation: Armstrong's view on causation aligned with his views on laws of nature. He argued that causation involves the transfer of powers from the cause to the effect. This power transfer is governed by the laws of nature.

Determinates and Determinables: He explored the relationship between determinates (specific properties) and determinables (general properties). Armstrong believed that determinates were more fundamental than determinables and that the latter were "built" from the former.

Critique of Dispositionalism: Armstrong criticized dispositionalism, an approach that emphasizes an object's inherent dispositions or tendencies. He believed that such dispositions couldn't exist independently of their manifestation.

Ontology of Mind: Armstrong's ideas extended to the ontology of mind. He advocated for the view that mental states can be identified with brain states, aligning with physicalism and rejecting dualism.

Naturalism: Armstrong's metaphysical stance was naturalistic. He sought to ground metaphysical claims in empirical observations and scientific principles, rejecting supernatural explanations.

Holism: He emphasized the importance of a holistic approach to metaphysics, considering the interrelations between various aspects of reality and the need for a comprehensive worldview.

Criticism and Influence: Armstrong's views sparked debates and discussions in metaphysics, particularly about the nature of universals, causation, and laws of nature. His work has had a lasting impact on contemporary metaphysical thought.

Overall, Armstrong's metaphysical system centered around the idea of truthmaking and sought to provide a robust and realist foundation for understanding the structure and nature of reality.

[The Tanager]

When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs. So if thoughts/beliefs determine my action, then that is till the same as the individual (myself) determining actions. An example of a decision or behavior without free-will would be when my girlfriend gets upset with me in the car, and it's because it's hot and the AC is not working. Basically, only external influences don't count as free-will.


Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?

By this do you mean that you didn’t consider any outside factors or just that the determining factor was your thoughts/beliefs?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #6]

In Christianity, the Bible, the view emerges that God is free will, God is will and that will is the most fundamental aspect of reality not determinism. Determinism itself - if it does exist - is impossible to explain deterministically too, I mean what caused cause and effect to exist?

God's will causes but is not caused, will can create determinism but is not subject to it, we too have will it seems.

It appears that all this is saying is that God is the source of determinism and that will is not subject to it...unless it wants to be.

"Will" is an aspect of Intentional Thinking Agents and it appears in the above quote that the argument is that Gods will = determinism.