If there is an illusion, how do I know it is an illusion? Why would I think there is an illusion?
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Free Will
- Thread starter Opethian
- Start date
If there is an illusion, how do I know it is an illusion? Why would I think there is an illusion?
There is this strawman, once again!
I never said your actions are totally contled by anyone. Please!!
Then pray tell what is this "me", and what is included in it. Your genetic code, your body, your experiences, your dreams...?
Upvote
0
When you say I have no choice or part in my decisions, then you are saying they are controled by someone or something other than me.
That is part of me.
Upvote
0
Not by one particualr single controlling factor, as your wording time and again suggests.
Well, if that means that you call that which is determined e.g. by your genetic code "your choice", so be it.
I would not say that these things are within my control or my choice. In fact they are factors that limit and control me.
Upvote
0
So for us to be happy we would not need "freewill", but merely the illusion of "freewill". We can´t tell the difference, anyways.
Upvote
0
I have never claimed I am the only controling factor, just one of them.
I agree. I never said I was the only factor in my decision, just one of them. You seem to be saying I am not one of them, correct?
Upvote
0
That's because there is an illusion.
Kant came to the conclusion that you can't prove the existence of free will, but that we should act as if we have it anyway. Maybe someone will find that useful.
Upvote
0
That's because there is an illusion.
Kant came to the conclusion that you can't prove the existence of free will, but that we should act as if we have it anyway. Maybe someone will find that useful.
Why should I believe that?
Upvote
0
No, at this point I was trying to get another point across. We started from my statement that the "me" is very complex, and I wouldn´t know how it could be considered a single factor. We were discussing what the "me" even is and includes. If, as you say, not only outside factors but also parts within this "me" (like genetics, for example) control you, the idea that this "me" is a free determining agent is out of the window.
Upvote
0
Of course you don´t see it. You would think you make decisions if you would really make decisions, and you would think you make decisions if they would be an illusion. That was exactly my point: It´s the nature of an illusion that the one having it thinks it is real. Having "freewill" and having the illusion of having "freewill" aren´t distinguishable and the same effect on you.
Thus, just as much as "freewill" could make us happy, the mere illusion of it could.
Upvote
0
I see you aren't familiar with the problems posed by philosophical skepticism. There is no reasonable way to justify a belief in free will, that's the thing. If you're asking me why you should believe in Kant's conclusions then I would recommend reading Kant. If you're asking me why you should believe that free will is an illusion, then you might as well ask me to prove that God doesn't exist or something.
Upvote
0
Upisoft
CEO of a waterfal
I do believe that we have free will (in your current definition), but not because I belive in supernatural.
You define "free will" by taking a snapshot of the universe at some moment, say t0, then make an exact copy of it and then run two of them in parallel and see if there are differences.
Yes, there will be differences just because our universe is not deterministic.
You define "free will" by taking a snapshot of the universe at some moment, say t0, then make an exact copy of it and then run two of them in parallel and see if there are differences.
Yes, there will be differences just because our universe is not deterministic.
Upvote
0
Lifesaver
Fides et Ratio
Free will is a basic datum of experience, on which our mind bases itself in order to comprehend reality; to deny this is to deny the mind.
And those same who deny free will in theoretical debate accept it wholeheartedly on every other sphere of their lives; this complete adhesion is manifested through their actions and daily life, which is lived as if choices are being made.
Without free will, there ceases to be even the possibility of rationally grounding any human action.
To maintain in discussion what one does not truly believe to be the case is dishonesty with oneself.
The argument against the possibility of free will starts by denying the possibility of free will; it is circular, convincing only to those who already accept its conclusion.
Here it is, briefly stated:
All events are either deterministic or randomic.
Acts of choice are events.
If the mind (or mental acts) behaves in a deterministic or randomic way, either way its choices cannot be said to be free.
-Therefore, free will does not exist.
In accepting the first premise, one has already defined voluntary choice out of existence. One has already denied that there is a categorical difference between the falling of a rock or the movement of an electron and a rational, conscious action.
In reality, our mind cannot escape the clear evidence of experience: voluntary, along with randomic and mechanically caused, constitutes an unanalyzable category of reality, the denial of which leads to absurd conclusions, and to the blinding of our own intellects.
The materialist who denies free will behaves similarly to the metaphysician who denies mechanical causality (every event would be, to him, the manifestation of someone's intention). However, whereas the latter was only left with a goofy way of thinking about nature, the first reaches conclusions that should have, were he consistent, the most disastrous consequences to his and other people's lives.
And those same who deny free will in theoretical debate accept it wholeheartedly on every other sphere of their lives; this complete adhesion is manifested through their actions and daily life, which is lived as if choices are being made.
Without free will, there ceases to be even the possibility of rationally grounding any human action.
To maintain in discussion what one does not truly believe to be the case is dishonesty with oneself.
The argument against the possibility of free will starts by denying the possibility of free will; it is circular, convincing only to those who already accept its conclusion.
Here it is, briefly stated:
All events are either deterministic or randomic.
Acts of choice are events.
If the mind (or mental acts) behaves in a deterministic or randomic way, either way its choices cannot be said to be free.
-Therefore, free will does not exist.
In accepting the first premise, one has already defined voluntary choice out of existence. One has already denied that there is a categorical difference between the falling of a rock or the movement of an electron and a rational, conscious action.
In reality, our mind cannot escape the clear evidence of experience: voluntary, along with randomic and mechanically caused, constitutes an unanalyzable category of reality, the denial of which leads to absurd conclusions, and to the blinding of our own intellects.
The materialist who denies free will behaves similarly to the metaphysician who denies mechanical causality (every event would be, to him, the manifestation of someone's intention). However, whereas the latter was only left with a goofy way of thinking about nature, the first reaches conclusions that should have, were he consistent, the most disastrous consequences to his and other people's lives.
Upvote
0
I think I´ll make it a habit to not even read long posts that already start with an ad hominem.
Upvote
0
Lifesaver
Fides et Ratio
I did not commit an ad hominem fallacy.
Had I argued: "People who don't believe in free will are liars, therefore you ought not to believe them", I would have been guilty of it.
However, what I did was state that, in denying free will contrary to their most basic perception of reality, and on top of that living life in blatant contradiction of their belief, deniers of free will are dishonest, mainly with themselves, but also with others, when they try to persuade them of something they themselves do not adhere to.
Still, I have erased the bit which offended you.
Had I argued: "People who don't believe in free will are liars, therefore you ought not to believe them", I would have been guilty of it.
However, what I did was state that, in denying free will contrary to their most basic perception of reality, and on top of that living life in blatant contradiction of their belief, deniers of free will are dishonest, mainly with themselves, but also with others, when they try to persuade them of something they themselves do not adhere to.
Still, I have erased the bit which offended you.
Upvote
0
Er, more directly:
P1) all physical events appear to be causally determined
P2) there is no good reason to think that the mind is not identical with or a consequence of the physical organ it is associated with
C) there is no good reason to treat the mind differently, and thus no good reason to believe in free will
I think you're confusing determinism with fatalism. I don't see how arguing against free will is "denying the mind". Free will is about the ability to have chosen something that you didn't choose. The claim is that you are equally able to take any course of action available to you, regardless of possible consequences or personal inclinations. It's pretty meaningless. I don't know about you, but I don't live in an identity of indiscernibles thought experiment. The concept of free will doesn't intrude upon my life very often. I simply deliberate and then do things. Any attitudes that I have about my own mind are irrelevant to the way it actually works.
And by the way, your bit about the "metaphysician denying mechanical causality" is a little inaccurate. The Schopenhauerian World Will is a blind striving force, for example. It doesn't intend anything.
Upvote
0
Lifesaver
Fides et Ratio
This is a weaker version of the argument against free will, for it rests on the materialist assumption that all there is is physical events, and that the mind therefore is nothing but the product of physical processes.
To realize the absurdity of this view (which is not corroborated or even evidenced by any observation; it is assumed a priori and then facts are interpreted according to it), I urge you to read this:
In all actions the human mind considers different possibilities and chooses one.
This perception is inseparable from conscious action, and without it all action would become meaningless, with no possibility of a rational basis. It would, in short, lose the very character of action as it is understood and experience at every conscious moment.
There are a thousand versions of mechanic causality denying theses. From the animistic belief that every rock wants to touch the ground, and the clouds want to move about the sky, to the islamic belief that each and every event is a direct intervention of Allah, whose reasons are beyond human comprehension and who could change his mind at any moment and intervene in completely different ways.
Perhaps my wording was clumsy, but there have been many views which fit my description of an illegitimate intrusion of metaphysics and finality in the sphere of the natural sciences.
Upvote
0
You are being dishonest...
...is an ad hominem. It doesn´t address the argument, it addresses the person.
Thanks!
Now, if you would give an argument for the existence of "freewill" (beyond the "my experience suggests its existence") the discussion could begin.
Upvote
0
I don't see how it could be weaker if the argument you proposed is circular, as you claimed.
If you mean weaker in terms of the claims it makes, then I should point out that I rewrote it because your "stronger" version left out too many key facts to be valuable. Were you trying to suggest that determinists believe that all supernatural events are determined? It is essentially a materialist philosophy. I'm not sure what else you want it to do.I mean, don't you think it is a little silly to attack determinism by saying that "it rests on the materialist assumption that all there is is physical events, and that the mind therefore is nothing but the product of physical processes" when that is basically the definition?
This is not compromised by determinism. Choices continue to be made. They are just made in the way that they are by necessity.
Well yeah, I was just pointing out that your characterization of occasional causation et all was faulty. But now I have to point out that your belief in the illegitimacy of those theories is equally as irrelevant to the truth, whatever that happens to be.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
