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.
Determined doesn't mean predictable. So in that sense nobody knew how the discussion would evolve. It's been interesting finding out. You might not read a book if you knew how the story unfolds and what the ending is going to be. But you wouldn't say that you're not going to read a book simply because it's already been written.
The issue isn't a matter of predictability, but that the discussion must be determined by external influences rather than the exchange of ideas if physical determinism is true. None of the semantic content of a discussion on free will matters if the universe is physically determined, only whatever physical forces precede the exchange. If you truly believe that the only role you play in the whole drama is that of an irrelevant observer(which must be the case if there is no genuine free will), there's no reason to engage in discussing in the first place. If you believe that you have a real impact on what occurs in the discussion and can change the course of the discussion by participating in it, that belief is inconsistent with physical determinism. Because what you're talking about there is not simply indeterminancy, but volition. Free will is a lived reality, so the question isn't truly whether we have free will or not but what it means for us to have free will and how it operates. Any worldview or philosophy that demands that something so universal to human experience must be relegated to "illusion" should be rejected, purely on the basis of free will being a fundamental human experience as much as physical sensation.
It's a fair point you are making. I'll address it below.
The fact that it's an illusion cannot be a good reason to deny it. The fact that it is an illusion means that we don't. As I've said a few times, even those who are convinced that free will doesn't exist still act as if it does (with some discussion on apportioning of blame and judicial considerations).
That inconsistency is exactly why I say that any philosophy or worldview that concludes that free will is an illusion must be rejected. It's impossible to actually live as though free will doesn't exist, so any profession of it being illusion is denied by those who claim to believe it to be the case. It's as absurd as someone claiming the external world is an illusion, and should be treated as such.
The whole thought experiment makes no sense, because how could "we" hold anyone responsible for anything if everyone lacks free will? You seem to presuppose that the entire thing is explained physically, which is a major part of the point of contention.
This argument only makes sense in a hypothetical state, where we're describing actions of a third party rather than actually engaging in them. Both decisions only work as an act of volition, or else no decision is being made. And there's no way to extricate ourselves from the internal experiences that are involved in the deliberative process or insert ourselves into a hypothetical scenario where we lack those capacities, so your hypothetical is nothing more than a massive assumption on your part built on a false presumption of there existing an objective frame of reference for us to address the question.
I suppose, but there's no reason to take arguments that it doesn't exist seriously. If free will doesn't exist, then we can't change our beliefs on whether free will exists or not. Only an external influence can change those beliefs. So all of the complicated efforts to argue that it doesn't vanish simply because we have every reason to want it to exist, and no reason to seriously consider the possibility that it might not because if it doesn't we're going to behave as if it does anyway. The only reason to take the notion that free will is an illusion seriously is in service of a worldview that can't adequately accomodate reality as we experience it.
I just spend a large chunk of my last post explaining that hardly anything changes whether you realise that we have free will or not. It's not inconsistent to say that the illusion that it exists is all but impossible to emotionally discard. As I just explained.
We can't. Which was the purpose of the hypothetical. If some mad scientist determines how our brain develops and functions then we absolve someone of culpability. If a determined universe does the same, then we don't. I guess it makes sense you. It doesn't to me.
Yep. Arguments opposed to that are welcome. Unless they are theological, in which case I'll excuse myself.
That's right. Whether it's a third party or whether we are making decisions based on internal experiences (aka antecedent conditions), the result is the same.
You don't have to. It's an interesting exercise in discussing it. If you are convinced that it doesn't exist then contemplate that and see how it may change how you view the world. If you are not then...carry on as before. Not much will change at all.
You're right that you can't change your mind. But you can have your mind changed. It's a difference without much of a difference, but important nevertheless. And there's no reason to want it to exist. But there is a need for the illusion to exist because it's how society works. It's how we work. We need to feel that we can blame someone and we need to feel that we deserve praise. It greases the wheels of civilisation. Maybe at some point we'll be able to manage without it. At present we can't.
Explaining, or rationalizing? You presented a thought experiment that is impossible to actually engage with. If we have free will, we can't imagine what it would be like to not have it. If we don't have it, we can't imagine what it would be like to have it. Your "explanation" didn't explain anything it just asserted that whether we have free will or not nothing changes because...so if you want to offer some explanation how did you determine that to be the case? How did you turn free will on and off to see that nothing changes? The thought experiment you presented is meaningless fluff.
Both situations absolve a person of culpability, but the whole notion of assigning culpability implies that someone is making free will decisions to assign blame.
Why would I argue with your presuppositions? If you're just going to beg the question, then it's a fool's exchange to argue. It's just faith.
Uh huh..which you determined how exactly?
I'm not simply speaking of personal preferences. There simply is no rational basis from which to coherently doubt the existence of free will, so there's no point entertaining the notion that it doesn't exist. Contemplating its existence or non-existence involves its operation.
Sure, but it seems a 2x4 would be more effective than trying to have a rational discussion. It seems to me that pretty much the entirety of rational discourse depends on the existence of free will, since the premise of rational discourse is that we can weigh the various arguments presented to us and then freely decide which one makes the most sense. But if you want to believe you're just a passenger being carried through your life, observing the action of some machine with no affect on the outcome that's your perogative. I just really don't see the point.
A lot of people seem to have problems with hypotheticals in this forum. I can't help you with that.
You aren't responsible for how your brain develops and what prompts the release of certain chemicals which determines certain actions. The point was that if it's done artificially by a third person then you are absolved of responsibility. But if it happens naturally you are not. That makes no sense because in neither case are you in control of the antecedent conditions.
You're arguing against them in this post. I presume that you know why. What I was asking for was another explanation from you for free will that is somehow external to us.
If conditions in the brain are exactly the same in both cases, then nothing changes. There's no way to tell if the decisions you make are the result of an artificial or natural process.
It starts with the premise that the universe is determinate. On that basis there can be no effect without a cause. Every decision you make is based on antecedent conditions (this has been gone into in a lot of detail earlier in the thread). If that is not the case, then you'll need to show me an effect without a cause and a decision made that wasn't based on antecedent conditions. I've asked that question a few times and no-one has attempted to give an answer yet. You could be the first...
Close. We obviously make choices on the options we have. But you'll always choose the one that you prefer even if it's one that you don't necessarily like. And I mean always. And that always depends on antecedent conditions.
You seem to be content with contradictions in your case for determinism with your focus on deterministic driven decision making and how you value morality. It may be you've developed a comfort in the inconsistencies that you no longer challenge it like a Christian trying to explain a triune God, or a loss of interests to all things that aren't determinism so everything gets reshaped and fit into a deterministic mold (something else Christians enjoy doing).
It's not a problem with a hypothetical, it's that your only argument boils down to an assertion. Which is not an explanation.
If you truly are not in control, then you are absolved of responsibility. But since I don't believe the premise that you aren't in control, because I reject your ontological presuppositions that that lack of control is built upon, your point is moot. Whether the lack of control comes because of God, physical causes, or a mad scientist, a person would be absolved of responsibility.
I'm arguing against your claim that free will is an illusion and pointing out that the only reason to accept such an absurd proposal is if you embrace a presupposition that entails it. I'm of no obligation to propose an alternative explanation to conclude that yours insufficiently accounts for common experience. But what it all boils down to is you've made an assumption prior to any kind of investigation of what the world must be like and then organized the evidence to fit with that assumption, rather than examining the evidence and then coming to a conclusion.
Again, this all comes from your presuppositions. You've eliminated the most fundamental reality we operate in by rendering our thoughts ephemera. It's arguably more absurd than external-world skepticism.
A premise that is in agreement with neither science nor reason. So why should we accept the premise?
Without free will, there's no such thing as choice. Only an illusion of choice. You wouldn't say a droplet of water made a "choice" about which direction it flowed down a stone, would you? So why do you say we have a choice if you actually believe we're just executing a script?
I don't need an exception, since you're declaring something to be the case without any indication of how you came by that knowledge. Your argument is entirely circular in nature, because you assume that there are nothing but physical causes(which excludes free will) and then declare free will to be an illusion. And when pressed for why free will is an illusion, well it's because there are nothing but physical causes. Which you know, because you assumed it to be true.
Where is the contradiction? I have pointed out the implications of a deterministic world as regards morality. What does that contradict? You're not making yourself clear.
Goals and purpose are aspects of us that each of us have. Some people want to sit on the coach and watch TV. Others would prefer to read Shakespeare or learn a language. If you want to better yourself then that's the type of person you are. You can't deny your own personality. But neither can you construct it from within a vacuum. It's simply who you are.
Your character right at this moment is fixed. It may change. But everything that you are, everything that has happened to you has determined your character at this moment. Who you were born to, how you grew up, your experiences, your culture...everything has led you to this place. Give me a purpose that you have and tell me why you have it. The moment you tell me why is the moment you are giving me reasons why you have this purpose. You are telling what happened previously that determined you having this purpose. It had a cause. The purpose is the effect.
The assertion is that the world is determinate. And that is the explanation for there being no free will. The one leads directly to the other. We have A, therefore B. If you want to deny that rather simple logic statement then you have to show that A is not true. In which case (yet again) I'll ask you to present me an effect without a cause.
Yes. I agree.
Then show me that my 'presupposition' is wrong. Show me that the world is not determinate. And don't reference free will, as in 'we have free will so it cannot be determinate'. Let's deal with determinism first and then we can see if it's applicable to free will. You don't have to provide an alternative (although there is only one). Just dismantle the claim. You can give any effect at all, from whenever, from wherever, that didn't have a cause.
Because you haven't yet been able to reject it.
It's a problem with language. There's not other word for choice in this situation. 'Options' maybe? I'll still be saying things like 'You made a decision' when the correct way of saying it would be 'The decision was made for you'. But yes, it's an illusion of choice.
That's right. It's A, therefore B. Why B? Because of A. And I'm not assuming A. I'm not assuming that the world is determinate. I'm declaring that it is. Which is a pretty big call. Because all you need to do is give me an effect without a cause to prove me wrong. And please consider the macro, classical physical world. Quantum indeterminism is many magnitudes of levels below what we are discussing.
There's no need to show that anything isn't true, because what you've given is an assertion. So all it takes to refute your assertion is to reject it. Especially since the entire dispute is whether there are effects without cause in free will.
Again, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone's assumptions. If you're content to beg the question, that's your prerogative. But that's not an argument.
Since all you have in favor of it is an assertion, I don't need any cause to reject it. I can simply dismiss it unexamined.
It's not a "problem" with language, the fact that you have to contort statements in an unnatural way shows the weakness of the idea that free will is an illusion. It's so strongly implied by our very existence that it's basically impossible to avoid speaking in a way that affirms it.
I don't worry about it, because its quite clear to me that the claim that free will is an illusion is an absurd conclusion drawn from faulty presuppositions. And I have yet to meet someone who consistently affirms that they don't have free will, in the same way I have never known a person who consistently affirms that the external world is an illusion. I find it rather amusing that people who claim to be rational embrace such an absurdity in all seriousness, because it's among the most irrational claims that I've ever heard.
Considering we're debating whether an effect without a cause exists, all you're doing here is happily begging the question through a declaration. If you're happy with your fallacy, that's all well and good. But it's really not a compelling argument.
And you'll note that most of my responses point out that you've offered nothing in the way of argumentation, and seem to be quite content engaging in blatant circular reasoning. If you can assert that the world is determinant, therefore free will doesn't exist then it is just as valid for me to assert that free will exists, therefore the world is not determinant. As soon as you present something that goes beyond mere assertion, I will address it. Until then, there's nothing for me to address.
That would be libertarianism. From wiki: libertarianism is an incompatibilist position which argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe. Libertarianism states that since agents have free will, determinism must be false and vice versa.
You're obfuscating by philosophizing. But again, you've given no reason to accept the first premise beyond assertion. And since the first premise entails the rejection of the conclusion by definition it is a circular argument.
Yes, both arguments are circular arguments because the conclusion is present in the premises necessary for success.
All I need to do to reject the premise is to reject the premise, which I do. It is your responsibility to prove the premise is true, which you seem instead to be engaging in an attempt to shift the burden to me needing to disprove your premises. As I'm sure you've told many Christians, there is no burden of disproof. The burden rests on the claimant, which in this case is you. Especially since the very thing we are disputing is the existence of uncaused causes in free will, which your premise assumes do not exist thus being an entirely circular argument.
You seem to be confusing two different argument types here, conflating deductive argumentation with inductive argumentation. Since you're attempting to prove something to be universally true, an inductive argument is entirely inappropriate. You presented it in the form of a deductive argument, which means that you must prove that your premises are true. But once again, it's not up to me to disprove your claim, it's up to you to prove it.
Oh dear, we're not going to make any progress if you think that.
May I have your reasons for rejecting the first premise? As in: The world is not determinate because...' And don't you dare say 'because there is free will.' That's the possible conclusion of the argument. You can't use a conclusion to reject a premise. And I've already explained that there are those who think free will exists with a determinate world, so that argument is not valid anyway.
OK. But we haven't got to free will yet. That may be the conclusion. We're just talking determinism at this point. We need to clear this hurdle first. Is the world deterministic or not. If it's not, my argument goes no further. If it is, we continue.
Except we are, because when we discuss free will we are discussing the possible existence of uncaused causes. Which by definition don't exist under determinism, which means taking determinism as a premise sneaks the conclusion into the premises. And I agree your argument goes no further without the premise that determinism is true.
Again, you're trying to sneakily employ inductive reasoning , which can only make conclusions about generalities, in order to make a universal conclusion. It's your responsibility to prove your claim which must be universally true in order for us to proceed, since you are asserting it as a true premise in a deductive argument to try to tell me that my fundamental experience of deliberative control of my actions is nothing but an illusion.
No, we are discussing the first premise. You don't decide the validity of it based on what you think the conclusion is going to be. Stick with that first premise until it's accepted or rejected for reasons given. Then we move on.
No, you've rejected determinism because 'It's contrary to my primal experience of reality.' Then we need to examine that to see if it actually does. If it does then there is no determinism and the argument fails at that point. You'll be successful.
It's not a matter of what is thought the conclusion is going to be. When we reverse the argument, it's structure remains valid. Such:
That's not how arguments work. It's up to you to prove your premises are true premises, because once again there is no burden of disproof. It's up to you to make the case that your premise is true, and all you are doing is engaging in an attempt to shift the burden onto me.
Compatibilism is just an exercise in double speak, since it doesn't actually affirm the existence of free will since it doesn't recognize the real existence of deliberative control of our actions. More accurately called soft determinism. But again, you're trying to shift the burden and have me disprove your assertion rather than giving me any reason to accept your premise as true.
