- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,162
- 15,781
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hey, this might be interesting. Give an example of such a circumstance and we'll investigate it.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hey, this might be interesting. Give an example of such a circumstance and we'll investigate it.On the other hand if determinism is true... but with limitations, than there may be circumstances that fall outside of the normal deterministic framework.
And that's a problem because...?Hey, do you see the signpost on the route you're heading? It's says 'Warning. Dualism Ahead'.
Not being able to explain it isn't really an issue, since I see no reason to suspect that all of the mysteries of reality are accessible to explain. I can just take both at face value and worry about the ramifications.So consciousness isn't a result of the physical operation of the brain. So can you then explain how consciousness comes to be? Where is exists? How it interacts with physical matter? How it makes decisions with no influences from...what was the term...antecedent conditions?
This is good. Now you have to contribute something positive to the discussion.
It can't be explained.And that's a problem because...?
It's why I asked all those questions - to indicate all the aspects of it that can't be explained. It's not possible. So just give an example of this dualism that is able to make decisions on your behalf.Not being able to explain it isn't really an issue...
You've danced around with preferences and other minutiae that doesn't actually address the causal relationships except by way of assumption.I've given enough examples. You asked, yet again, for proof. It cannot be proved. Shall I count the number of times that you have been told?
Under determinism its trivially true that free will is an illusion, because determinism requires no introduced causes.Determinism is a trivial fact built into the definition of determinism? You are not making any sense at all.
You haven't given reasons for the assertion, you've given your model of decision making from that assertion. You don't seem to understand the question of warrant and argue like a lawyer arguing from a conclusion rather than an investigator trying to find the best fit no matter what uncomfortable truths it requires. If your only recourse is assertion, then all I need to do is offer a counter assertion.Again, you are not making any sense. I have made an assertion. And then given reasons for it. Saying 'if you can't give a reason beyond the assertion' is nonsensical English. It literally makes no sense.
If you say so.I have absolutely no idea what you're doing in this thread. Honestly. You've added nothing to the conversation whatsoever.
And that's a problem because...?It can't be explained.
Make decisions on my behalf? What kind of nonsense statement is that? Seems to me it would apply more to your position claiming the physical is all that matters in decision making, since my view of myself includes as basic necessity my free will. I'd rather have no explanation but accept reality as it presents itself to me than have a bad explanation that forces me to accept absurdities like the notion that free will is an illusion.It's why I asked all those questions - to indicate all the aspects of it that can't be explained. It's not possible. So just give an example of this dualism that is able to make decisions on your behalf.
What on earth does that mean? What does 'determinism requires no introduced causes'. It makes no sense. It's like you're stringing words together at random. Determinism is cause and effect. What 'introduced causes' can you possible mean. Explain that.Under determinism its trivially true that free will is an illusion, because determinism requires no introduced causes.
It means that determinism requires an unbroken chain of historic causes to explain every future event. So there can't be new causes that are not fully explained by the historic causes. On the other hand, free will agency requires the ability for novel causes, even if there are still historic influences. So introduced causes just means new causes independent from the historic causal chain. And the shell game you play talking about rational considerations in decision making is contrary to physical determinism, because the semantic content isn't relevant to our "choices" except coincidentally if physical determinism is true. Unless you believe that meaning is physical, that is.What on earth does that mean? What does 'determinism requires no introduced causes'. It makes no sense. It's like you're stringing words together at random. Determinism is cause and effect. What 'introduced causes' can you possible mean. Explain that.
You repeat "make decisions on your behalf" as if I'm proposing something other than myself that is making the decisions. And it bears repeating I'm not a dualist, I'm partial to either hylomorphism or neutral non-physical monism. But those kinds of questions aren't really all that relevant to the question at hand, the only thing that matters is that if an assertion is good enough for determinism then an assertion is good enough for free will.And then you can give me an example of this dualism that is able to make decisions on your behalf. No need to explain how it works if it's beyond you. An example will do just fine and we'll investigate.
You are obviously conscious so what you said above plainly means that you think that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain.If the physical operations are the whole story, then consciousness makes no contribution.
Well, someone is making the decisions. Presumably your conscious self. And you have just said that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain. So who is making the decisions? The physical operation of the brain or something else?Make decisions on my behalf?
I'm not looking for one. It seems to be beyond you, so let's not go there. But I want an example from you to understand exactly what you are talking about. If making a decision is not part of the physical operation of the brain, then give me an example of what you mean and we'll investigate it to see where and how it does occur.I'd rather have no explanation...
Everything is cause and effect, but suddenly we have a 'new' cause? I have no idea what that means. An uncaused cause? An impossibility. One that we didn't know existed? Whether we know about them or not is irrelevant. So what on earth is a new cause. An example please.It means that determinism requires an unbroken chain of historic causes to explain every future event. So there can't be new causes that are not fully explained by the historic causes.
Yes, you said that. So give me an example. I literally have no idea what you are talking about.On the other hand, free will agency requires the ability for novel causes, even if there are still historic influences. So introduced causes just means new causes independent from the historic causal chain.
So the process of making a decision is purely the operation of the brain itself (despite barely 2 posts ago you were implying that consciousness is more than the physical operation of the brain). So that process is the 'you' who is deciding what to do. There is no other 'you' which is not part of the process. Good.You repeat "make decisions on your behalf" as if I'm proposing something other than myself that is making the decisions. And it bears repeating I'm not a dualist...
Uh huh....You are obviously conscious so what you said above plainly means that you think that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain.
My will, not "for me" but me. And I don't believe that my physical body is something distinct from myself, but I don't believe that it has ontological priority either. The operations of my brain play a distinct part in my being, but does not tell the whole story.Well, someone is making the decisions. Presumably your conscious self. And you have just said that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain. So who is making the decisions? The physical operation of the brain or something else?
First, I'm not proposing something detached from my physical body. But if you'd like to give me an exhaustive explanation of what the physical causes that led to you responding to me in the words that you chose to use and how it wasn't the result of your own deliberative actions but instead nothing but random interactions of physical particles be my guest. For me, whether I can explain it or not I'm going to stick with believing that belief in physical determinism reduces to absurd conclusions that can only be hidden through semantic games.I'm not looking for one. It seems to be beyond you, so let's not go there. But I want an example from you to understand exactly what you are talking about. If making a decision is not part of the physical operation of the brain, then give me an example of what you mean and we'll investigate it to see where and how it does occur.
Seems to me the onus is on you to show how the decisions I make, any decision, is the result of unconscious physical operations that lead to me having the illusion of making decisions with my free will.I mean, you do make decisions. Just give me an example.
This is nothing but an assertion, cause and effect is a model. But reality seems to include intentionality, not just mechanical relationships.Everything is cause and effect, but suddenly we have a 'new' cause? I have no idea what that means. An uncaused cause? An impossibility. One that we didn't know existed? Whether we know about them or not is irrelevant. So what on earth is a new cause. An example please.
I decided to respond to this post, of my free will. It was not an inevitable result of previous physical causes, but a conscious decision on my part.Yes, you said that. So give me an example. I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
Never said that, the brain is involved but decisions do not reduce to brain activity. Consciousness is more than the physical operation of the brain, which is obvious because consciousness contains things like meaning and deliberation is not fully explainable purely by describing what is happening chemically and electrically. "I" am not just a composite of physical parts, and "I" cannot be reduced to physical being. I maintain my initial position, you just don't seem to understand what my position is. Because in no way have I claimed that consciousness is nothing but brain activity.So the process of making a decision is purely the operation of the brain itself (despite barely 2 posts ago you were implying that consciousness is more than the physical operation of the brain). So that process is the 'you' who is deciding what to do. There is no other 'you' which is not part of the process. Good.
Your posts are all over the place up to this point so how about you confirm that.
That was in response to me asking if you think that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain. I get a thumbs up. Yes, you do. Yet immediately after, I get this:Uh huh....
You want to play both side. This is not credible...The operations of my brain play a distinct part in my being, but does not tell the whole story.
But it's more than the brain. As you literally just said: 'your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain'. But now it's not detached from your body. Any clue where this might be? Nah, none. Any idea how it operates? Nah, none. Any explanation whatsoever? Nah, none.First, I'm not proposing something detached from my physical body....For me, whether I can explain it or not...
The are determined by antecedent conditions. They most definitely aren't uncaused. Which we will now examine.Seems to me the onus is on you to show how the decisions I make, any decision, is the result of unconscious physical operations that lead to me having the illusion of making decisions with my free will.
I'll just repost the definition of free will, then I'll ask you a question:I decided to respond to this post, of my free will.
Now we'll look at what you said you did while you ponder the last question. The definition of respond is:I decided to respond to this post...
'...to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.'
Bit late for that. You should have debated the point 3,394 posts ago. In any case, the thread is not 'Do you agree with this definition?' The thread is 'Here is the definition of free will - do you have a problem with determinism as a basis for rejecting it'. If you start debating the latter then it's reasonable to assume that you accept the former. Which is, in any case, a pretty standard definition.I vehemently disagree with this definition...
The ability to freely make decisions. That is, without coercion. 'It is my will that I'll go to the gym as opposed to the pub'. We can all agree that we can do that.Do people have a will?
If so, then what does that will consist of?
The ability to freely make decisions. That is, without coercion. 'It is my will that I'll go to the gym as opposed to the pub'. We can all agree that we can do that.
Well, I'm feeling a little dense now. Didn't I just tell you?Call me dense, but...
Do people have a will... yes or no
What does that will consist of?
The ability to freely make decisions.
I put freely in to distinguish it from coerced. It also implies a conscious decision as opposed to an unconscious one.Why did you include the word 'freely' in there? Wouldn't it have been sufficient to simply say that it's the ability to make decisions? And then to have opposed that with 'free will', which would be the ability to freely make decisions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?