Free will and determinism

[Fervent]

I did.

Not using the quote function. What was the context of the statement? What's the post #?

You don't know why you chose something? You must know how ridiculous thatsounds.

I choose what I choose, sometimes there's no apparent reason. Sometimes there's a reason. But we're not just talking about having a reason for doing things, we're talking about whether the choice is a free will decision or a product of cause and effect relationships. Why do you avoid talking about simple cause and effect relationships, and instead focus on higher order issues like reasoned decision making?

You decided to believe something without being convinced by the evidence? This will be a first in human history. You have to tell us what it was.

Oh? Where do you think faith begins?

I'm just pointing our that the only example you have given of a decision being made actually included the reason why you made it. If that's the only one that you're prepared to give then...you've dismantled your own position.

Still with this circular argumentation and attacking strawmen? A reason is not a cause in the sense of cause and effect reatonships. What informed my choice did not cause my choice.

 

[Bradskii]

Not using the quote function.

Yes, I literally quoted it.

I choose what I choose, sometimes there's no apparent reason.

Then it's apparently random.

Sometimes there's a reason.

Then that reason determined your choice.

But we're not just talking about having a reason for doing things, we're talking about whether the choice is a free will decision or a product of cause and effect relationships.

The cause will be the reason you chose. Rather obviously.

Why do you avoid talking about simple cause and effect relationships, and instead focus on higher order issues like reasoned decision making?

It's raining today. Therefore I won't go to the beach. I want to go to the pub but I prefer to go to the gym because I need to lose a few k's. I'm bringing these up constantly. All cause and effect. And I made a reasoned choice. I chose the option I preferred. Really, what on earth is the problem in understanding this? (Edit: It's actually a lovely day today so we might head down there for a walk later. And we might go to the pub as well).

Oh? Where do you think faith begins?

With evidence. What Christianity comprises, what it means to some people, who Jesus was, what the bible says etc etc was all explained to you over some period of time. And you thought at some point 'Hey, I don't know about you, but all that has convinced me'. You can't believe in God if you don't know about God. And what you know about Him is the evidence that has been presented to you.

You accepted the evidence and therefore you believe. I didn't, so therefore I don't.

Still with this circular argumentation and attacking strawmen? A reason is not a cause in the sense of cause and effect reatonships. What informed my choice did not cause my choice.

Well, we have the definition of free will. And you gave an example of a choice you made. And it didn't match the definition. That example failed to prove your position (you can prove yours). So unless you want another go, then it's still 0 for 1.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, I literally quoted it.

You quoted a snippet without the surrounding context.

Then it's apparently random.

Nope. It's deliberate, on purpose, intentional. But it doesn't always have a clear reason, but again reasons are not causes in the sense that determinism requires.

Then that reason determined your choice.

Not in the sense of deterministic causation.

The cause will be the reason you chose. Rather obviously.

Except it's not. The cause isn't the reason I chose, the cause is my act of choosing.

It's raining today. Therefore I won't go to the beach. I want to go to the pub but I prefer to go to the gym because I need to lose a few k's. I'm bringing these up constantly. All cause and effect. And I made a reasoned choice. I chose the option I preferred. Really, what on earth is the problem in understanding this? (Edit: It's actually a lovely day today so we might head down there for a walk later. And we might go to the pub as well).

It's not a problem in understanding, it's that you are reasoning circularly.

With evidence. What Christianity comprises, what it means to some people, who Jesus was, what the bible says etc etc was all explained to you over some period of time. And you thought at some point 'Hey, I don't know about you, but all that has convinced me'. You can't believe in God if you don't know about God. And what you know about Him is the evidence that has been presented to you.

Oh? That's not my experience.

You accepted the evidence and therefore you believe. I didn't, so therefore I don't.

Nope, not my experience.

Well, we have the definition of free will. And you gave an example of a choice you made. And it didn't match the definition. That example failed to prove your position (you can prove yours). So unless you want another go, then it's still 0 for 1.

You defined free will in a way that is ridiculous, and then unsurprisingly the definition of free will that you insisted upon that doesn't match the definition I'm using faied. So you beat a strawman you built with your circular reasoning. Congrats.

 

[Bradskii]

You quoted a snippet without the surrounding context.

Ah, you found it...

Nope. It's deliberate, on purpose, intentional. But it doesn't always have a clear reason...

Nothing worth commenting on here.

Oh? That's not my experience.

Nope, not my experience.

So you became a Christian with no evidence of Christianity having been provided to you. Interesting. Maybe you can explain how that happened.

You defined free will in a way that is ridiculous...

You're three thousand, four hundred and sixty three posts too late for that.

 

[Fervent]

Ah, you found it...

Nothing worth commenting on here.

So you became a Christian with no evidence of Christianity having been provided to you. Interesting. Maybe you can explain how that happened.

Not evidence that I found convincing. I was open to the possibility, and wanted to believe it. Now I have conviction of belief because of evidence, but I came to believe because I wanted to believe not because I was convinced by arguments.

You're three thousand, four hundred and sixty three posts too late for that.

That's not the first time I pointed out that your definition of free will is not reflective of what the majority of people affirm when we affirm free will.

 

[Bradskii]

Not evidence that I found convincing. I was open to the possibility, and wanted to believe it. Now I have conviction of belief because of evidence, but I came to believe because I wanted to believe not because I was convinced by arguments.

Then it's lucky I wasn't talking about you wanting to believe.

That's not the first time I pointed out that your definition of free will is not reflective of what the majority of people affirm when we affirm free will.

Now it's three thousand, four hundred and sixty four posts too late. But yes, the dictionary definition and the one found in philosophical discussions doesn't necessarily align with what Joe and Jane Public think it is. You're a perfect example. It's why the definition was put in the very first post so that we'd all know what the thread was about. Including you.

 

[Fervent]

Then it's lucky I wasn't talking about you wanting to believe.

Sure, but you said it's not possible to make yourself believe something. My experience is that it's entirely possible, because I willed myself to belief and once I believed the arguments that satisfied my cynical/critical self came. So your statement that you can't make yourself believe something is contrary to my experience.

Now it's three thousand, four hundred and sixty four posts too late. But yes, the dictionary definition and the one found in philosophical discussions doesn't necessarily align with what Joe and Jane Public think it is. You're a perfect example. It's why the definition was put in the very first post so that we'd all know what the thread was about. Including you.

The philosophical definition fits just fine for me, but that is not the definition you attacked. You attacked a straw version of it that doesn't fit. Free will is defined as a negation of determinism, not as choice entirely removed from ordinary reality.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, but you said it's not possible to make yourself believe something.

That's right. If it was possible then you could do it. So pick something that you now don't believe and for 24 hours, your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to make yourself believe it. Let me know how you get on

The philosophical definition fits just fine for me...

Good. Because that's the one that we've been using from Day one. And since day one I've been asking you for an example which contradicts it. You've only given me one. Which doesn't. Anytime you're ready to give it another go, I'll be here to check it out.

 

[Fervent]

That's right. If it was possible then you could do it. So pick something that you now don't believe and for 24 hours, your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to make yourself believe it. Let me know how you get on

Nah, because I already gave a counter example.

Good. Because that's the one that we've been using from Day one. And since day one I've been asking you for an example which contradicts it. You've only given me one. Which doesn't. Anytime you're ready to give it another go, I'll be here to check it out.

Every decision I've ever made contradicts determinism. If the question is whether or not determinism is true, we can't begin by assuming it to be so and then looking for counter examples while denying the reality of our basic experience of defying it. It's up to you to prove determinism is true, not for those of us who take our basic experience as a given to disprove your assumed model of reality.

 

[Bradskii]

It's up to you to prove determinism is true...

You're still making these basic mistakes...

 

[Fervent]

You're still making these basic mistakes...

It's not a mistake, you can't just beg the question and assume that the obvious exceptions to determinism in our everyday experiences are not counterexamples. The only epistemic mistake in this thread is your usage of circular reasoning. Not my expecting you, who claims that free will is an illusion, must prove your claim and not just take it as a starting assumption.

 

[partinobodycular]

It's raining today. Therefore I won't go to the beach.

I'm having a problem with this line of reasoning, because rain isn't the proximate cause for your not going to the beach, it's your dislike of going to the beach in the rain that's the proximate cause. The rain isn't a necessary cause either, because there are lots of reasons why you won't go to the beach. It's also not a sufficient cause, because lots of people actually do go to the beach in the rain.

So for rain to be a cause for your not going to the beach is completely dependent upon how you feel about going to the beach in the rain. On its own the rain has no causal power whatsoever. Whereas the causal power behind how you feel about going to the beach is absolute. If you prefer to go to the beach then you will. If you prefer not to, then you won't.

Yet you're claiming that the thing with no causal power is the determining factor over the thing with absolute causal power. How does this make sense?

 

[Bradskii]

...my expecting you, who claims that free will is an illusion, must prove your claim...

Same mistake again. Are you doing it intentionally?

 

[Fervent]

Same mistake again. Are you doing it intentionally?

What's the supposed mistake?

 

[Bradskii]

I'm having a problem with this line of reasoning, because rain isn't the proximate cause for your not going to the beach...

Yes, it's the proximate cause. Why am I not going? Because it's raining. Period. That would be explanation enough for anyone. Now if you want to go a step deeper you can ask why again. It's like your kids when they kept asking why to everything. They're not interested in the proximate cause. They want to keep going to find the ultimate cause.

I'm not going to the beach.
Why?
Because it's raining.
Why?
Because the clouds are letting the water fall out of them.
Why?
Because the temperature has dropped.
Why?

Etcetera, etcetera. Or...

I'm not going to the beach.
Why?
Because I don't like going when it's raining.
Why?
Because I'll get my clothes wet.
Why?

Etcetera, etcetera.

It's like asking why I'm going to Bondi beach.
Why?
Because I live up the road.
Why?
Because it's where I bought a house.
Why?
Because we like that it's close to the beach.
Why?
Because I grew up on the coast.
Why?
Because that's where my parents lived.

Etcetera, etcetera. Meaning that it's cause and effect all the way back. You can ask why after each answer and there'll be another one to give. It doesn't stop. It's determinism.

 

[Bradskii]

What's the supposed mistake?

Good grief...

 

[Fervent]

Good grief...

Enlighten me. You claim I'm making a mistake, so what mistake am I making?

 

[Bradskii]

Enlighten me. You claim I'm making a mistake, so what mistake am I making?

I want you to do this. I want you to go back through the last few pages and note when I'm telling you that you are making the same mistake. Keep working backwards and it will become crystal clear to you. You'll get to one of the very many times that I've told you why.

You might even get back 3,000 posts or so to 336 where it was discussed. Do NOT ask me again.

 

[Fervent]

I want you to do this. I want you to go back through the last few pages and note when I'm telling you that you are making the same mistake. Keep working backwards and it will become crystal clear to you. You'll get to one of the very many times that I've told you why.

You might even get back 3,000 posts or so to 336 where it was discussed. Do NOT ask me again.

You mean

No. One example is simply that. An example of what is being discussed. An example of how two seemingly unconnected events are linked, one literally causing the other. If the universe is determinate then there is no proof available. Just the opportunity to show that any given event is caused by a prior one. That's it. There is nothing more.

If that's what you mean, it's you who's making an epistemic mistake since the question we are discussing is whether or not our experiences of free will are genuine counterexxamples to determinism. You mistake the issue as being one of determinism vs indeterminism, but it's not. It's determinism or intentional action. via free will.

So as I said, you're the one making an epistemic mistake by begging the question. And then assuming the only options are indeterminism or determinism, while admitting that determinism has been demonstrated to likely be false through physics but saying that doesn't matter because of the scale.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean...

I've nothing to add because you're not adding anything.