Yes, what you quoted is untestable. But its reasonable.Arguments that free will does not exist? Do you mean the untestable OP assertion above? Or the other assertion, also untestable, "if you were me, you'd have done the same thing." Those aren't arguments. I haven't seen any arguments. Bye.
Actually I think youve come closest to summarizing the reality of the issue here. As I said earlier: too soon to tell. Maybe someday we'll know enough about human consciousness to come down reliably on one side or the other of this question.Personally, I don't assume we fully know the essence (or nature) of either free-will or determinism. But, that's just me being a skeptical heel since I have a difficult time accounting for and calculating the interactive probability of the whole of all of the interconnecting determinants within Reality. One might wonder as to why I'd have such a difficult time with that endeavor. Hopefully, no one will hold me responsible for my failure here.
If one understands what knowledge is, then they see the necessary truth that determinism cannot be known. For someone to know that determinism is true would be like someone knowing the Kantian noumenal, which is impossible. This creates insuperable problems, such as the fact that what we call "determinism" could never be true. If it were true then it would at best be an analogous reality. Then again, it's not at all clear that truth itself could exist on determinism.Maybe someday we'll know enough about human consciousness to come down reliably on one side or the other of this question.
Clearly I have a little homework to do before I can decide if I even agree with this.If one understands what knowledge is, then they see the necessary truth that determinism cannot be known. For someone to know that determinism is true would be like someone knowing the Kantian noumenal, which is impossible. This creates insuperable problems, such as the fact that what we call "determinism" could never be true. If it were true then it would at best be an analogous reality. Then again, it's not at all clear that truth itself could exist on determinism.
More simply, my suggestion is that if we are careful with what we mean by "true" or "knowledge," then I do not think we will be able to say that determinism is true or can be known. What is likely happening with those who promote determinism is that they are adverting to somewhat strange views of truth or knowledge.Clearly I have a little homework to do before I can decide if I even agree with this.
You have either completely misunderstood the point that was being made or you are deliberately avoiding having to address it. I think most people will conclude the latter.Changes in my physical or mental states do not make me any more or less of a human being.
Sin is a religious concept.Nor was my post a theological question but a moral question which bears on the existence of free will.
There have been so many put forward. I can see you might want to disagree with them. But to say none have been presented is bizarre.Yes, that's correct. And we are still looking for an argument that free will in human beings does not exist.
All correct except for the last part. Whether you accept it or not doesn't concern me. It doesn't really change anything. Hell, I have difficulty in changing my own behaviour. If there's one practical aspect of the matter it's that we should look closer at retributive punishment and address the cause of the problem rather than problem itself.Your position seems to be that free will is but an illusion. We may think we are free; it may look like we are free; it may sound like we are free; we certainly feel like we are free; our common sene tells us we are free but all that is just an illusion. Hard determinists just want the rest of us to deny the obvious.
I think there are only two arguments for free will.I'm sad that you are departing prior to presenting any reasoning that would overturn the determinist position. All you offer are assertions that, basically, "we just obviously have free will".
I say this as a free will believer who's looking for reasoning that will overturn the specific arguments Ive offered on the determinists behalf, and so far not finding it.
To be clear, there is no connection between the two concepts. You are just saying that you consider determinism to be unproveable.If one understands what knowledge is, then they see the necessary truth that determinism cannot be known. For someone to know that determinism is true would be like someone knowing the Kantian noumenal, which is impossible.
Yet again I'll have to ask you to give me an example of something that you think might not be determinate. To keep saying 'it might not exist' isn't exactly advancing the discussion.This creates insuperable problems, such as the fact that what we call "determinism" could never be true.
Then let's stick with one that you do have a clear perspective on.
Determinism: All outcomes are determined by prior circumstances. In other words, all effects have causes.
Again, you are free to dismantle that position with any example you care to give. I hope it's not along the lines of 'Well, I can make a free will decision'.
It's not that we must. It's that we automatically do. I certainly do. Even those that have spent no little time trying to convince that it doesn't exist (Sapolski and Harris have been mentioned) still live their lives as if it exists. Except there are practical aspects which we can all address. The main one being retributive punishment.Simpler: we must act as if free will exists. This does not prove that free will exists, but it does show that there is something farcical or "academic" in claiming that free will does not exist. If someone cannot act on their belief then I am left to wonder whether they actually believe it.
For or against free will? No. For or against determinism? Yes, of course examples can be given. I broke my guitar string, I had croissant for breakfast. There was a direct connection between the two. If determinism isn't true then there must be examples of non causal events.Bradskii, I think you know that I don't believe a demonstration for determinism or for free-will can be given...
For or against free will? No. For or against determinism? Yes, of course examples can be given. I broke my guitar string, I had croissant for breakfast. There was a direct connection between the two. If determinism isn't true then there must be examples of non causal events.
For or against free will? No. For or against determinism? Yes, of course examples can be given. I broke my guitar string, I had croissant for breakfast. There was a direct connection between the two. If determinism isn't true then there must be examples of non causal events.
Actually I think youve come closest to summarizing the reality of the issue here. As I said earlier: too soon to tell. Maybe someday we'll know enough about human consciousness to come down reliably on one side or the other of this question.
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.I'm sort of confused by your insistence here since I've already cumulatively stated what I've stated in this thread.
Are you trying to suggest that just one single empirical, a posteriori example would be sufficient to establish free-will?
You'll have to if you want to address the validity of the claim 'The universe is determinative'.I mean, so far, I've said nothing about "non-causal events"...
Quite rightIn my opinion, If we can't account for all of the factors in a given scenario---i.e. in a more or less normal scenario---, and we can't identify which Praxis HAS to take the operative lead in that accounting, then I think it's a bit odd to apply a term [like determinism] that implies that we actually can do so without having done so. And yes, I know, my saying it like this seems to undercut the good ol' notion of Uniformitarianism that we all assume is present in the sciences.
We have the things we take as evidence and then we have the conclusions we draw from that evidence. In the ancient world the primary evidence was taken to be volition (will), for humans obviously act from volition and our worlds are full of humans. Volition was then attributed to other things (or to the forces underlying them), such as thunder and lightning.
In the modern world the primary evidence is taken to be mechanistic interaction (efficient causality). Focusing on efficient causality is helpful to the scientific enterprise, and given the way we prize the scientific enterprise we are prone to favor efficient causality. Thus in the modern world the opposite move occurs. Instead of saying that lightning is a consequence of volition, modern people say that volition is a consequence of lightning (electricity, or efficient causality more generally, or abiogenesis etiologically).
Aristotle noted the obvious fact that volitional and non-volitional realities both exist, and are different. Reducing one to the other is irrational, and betrays bias. The corrective to idealism is to note that matter and its interactions do exist and do count as evidence. The corrective to determinism is to note that volition and its interactions do exist and do count as evidence. Only by superficially reducing one to the other does one arrive at these extremes.
That's like saying that accepting the fact of gravity is dogma. The term is simply not appropriate.In my view, for Determinism to become Dogma...
No, you wouldn't. Even I don't know all the factors. It's not possible. They are literally without limit. The fact that an ancient ancestor of mine turned left instead of right when he left his cave might well have been one, as he didn't then walk into a pride of lions. If he'd turned right then I wouldn't have broken that guitar string as I wouldn't be here....I'd have to actually be able to comprehensively identify and know ALL of the causative factors involved in any one instance, such as when you broke your guitar string and ended up at the croissant shop.
See the above post.Quite right.
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?