[B said:
Washington[/b];43459193] Which is why I said, "It all depends on the event and the evidence."
Not only do I seem, but I, in fact, DO. I take my claims as valid because they were born of the evidence and logic that support them. I would assume you do the same: Assume your claims are true because they are supported by the burden of evidence and logic you found. I assume, like me, you too "introduced" evidence and compelling logic to your considerations.
Free will is NOT an option. It IS nonexistent. The same way flying pink elephants are nonexistent. Until either can be substantiated they remain nonexistent entities.
Well, I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking for evidence to demonstrate something, other than myself, is making me act, behave, or think a particular way at a particular time within a particular situation. This is something you have failed to demonstrate in prior posts and again in this post.
Furthermore, your logical reasoning fallacy of the argment from ignorance above is something to be avoided. When you assert "until either can be substantiated" you are essentially asserting there is a lack of evidence or no evidence at all. Then on this basis you conclude they are non-existent entities. Sorry, but this conclusion does not follow. It is a non-sequiter because of the fallacy of the argument of ignorance. A lack of evidence or the non-existence of evidence for X does not mean, and nobody should conclude, X is false or does not exist.
A parallel example is the fallacious form of reasoning employed by atheists. "
There is either a lack of evidence for God or no evidence for God. Therefore, God does not exist." Well, the conclusion does not follow. This parallel argument, as your own, rests upon a very faulty assumption of lack of evidence or no evidence for something means the something is false or non-existent. This parallel argument makes the same reasoning error as your argument, and the reasoning error is the argument from ignorance.
There was a time when there did not exist any evidence, or there was a lack of evidence, to support the Greek notion all things were made up of tiny but invisible particles, called atoms. Yet, this lack of evidence did mean atoms did not exist or such a claim was false.
When Alfred Wegner proposed the notion of "continental drift," it was not widely accepted in the scientific community, primarily because of the lack of evidence to support the notion. Yet, this lack of evidence did not render the claim of continental drift false or demonstrate continental drift was non-existent.
So, it is illogical to conclude, as you do, a lack of evidence/no evidence means the claim of free will is either false/non-existent.
I take my claims as valid because they were born of the evidence and logic that support them.
Good...now suffer the luxury of divulging this logic and evidence and actually meeting your burden of proof in this exchange, as opposed to dodging it.
No...you just want to assume your position is the default position but why not make the default position free will? An advocate of free will could just as easily assert, "Free will is the default position," as you do, and then proceed forward. Yet, this does not make any sense. It does not make any sense to assert, "My position is the default position." Why is it the default position? Why should it be the default position as opposed to something else being the default position?
Events only happen for one of two reasons: They are caused or they are absolutely and utterly random. So far as has been determined the only absolutely and utterly random events are those occurring at the quantum level . If an event is not random then it is caused (determined) by some prior event. If the brain decides X, then there must be a reason (cause) for doing so. If not, the decision had to have simply popped into existence out of thin air.
Okay this is not evidence or any compelling logic to support your claim. This is quite simply you regurgitating your argument, your claim, essentially your conclusion. You are just making more bald assertions here but where is the evidence, the logic, to support the assertions above?
For example
: If an event is not random then it is caused (determined) by some prior event. If the brain decides X, then there must be a reason (cause) for doing so. If not, the decision had to have simply popped into existence out of thin air.
What evidence have you submitted to demonstrate the existence of a reason (cause) for the brain deciding to do something? Well, you have not provided ANY evidence. Rather, you make a false dilemma argument of, "either it is random or caused" and in doing so, assume there is not a third option, free will. In the process of making this false dilemma argument, you provide no evidence or sound reasoning to demonstrate there must be a reason for brain to decide X, much less identify what the "reason" or "cause" may be.
Regurgitating and repeating your conclusions is not evidence for your conclusions. Rather, it is an example of a certain type of fallacious reasoning called begging the question.
There are two operational options: determined and random.
According to what evidence or sound logical reasoning? You cannot just assume AS TRUE there are two operational options of determined and random. You have the burden of DEMONSTRATING, through some logical reasoning, evidence, or combination of both, there are TWO operational options and those TWO operational operations are determined and random. Assuming the validity of your argument just begs the question. At this time you have a circular argument.
So far, aside from those quantum level events, everything else in our universe is considered to exist because it is caused (no need to get into first cause entanglements) except for the claimed existence of free will.
Well, the fact something caused my existence does not lead to the conclusion my decisions are the result of something other than free will.
And because free will emerges as the exception to the rule (we can disregard quantum randomness)---everything else is caused---the burden of "proof" falls to those who claim the exception: free will is a third mechanism.
No, you have assumed it is an exception to the rule by first assuming THERE IS A RULE. You cannot assume as true there is a rule for the purpose of then asserting free will is the exception to it. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a rule exists and to further demonstrate the content of the rule, this you have not done.
You are not going to get anywhere with this smoke and mirrors argument and this is precisely all you have right now, well along with some logical reasoning fallacies of begging the question, circularity, and argument from the fallacy of ignorance.
Therefore, the proper conclusion IS that determinism (events are determined by prior events) runs the universe. And, until someone can demonstrate that one's decisions are uncaused, free will has no more validity than flying pink elephants.
Well, whether or not it is the "proper" conclusion is one thing but I am correct in asserting your argument has not demonstrated, not even come close to demonstrating the "properness" of the conclusion. An argument plagued with the many reasoning fallacies as your argument commits here is an argument I do not find persuasive and is not likely to be considered persuasive by any measure of sound logic on this earth.
You have not demonstrated at all decisions are "caused." Now, relying upon your fallacious argumentation of appeal to ignorance, since your argument has not demonstrated, by evidence or sound logical reasoning, decisions are caused, then the claim decisions are caused has no more validity than flying pink elephants.
But what you are now talking about is compatabilistic free will
Thanks for attempting to tell me what I am talking about but spare me the strawman argument. I am not talking about compatabilistic free will
. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. I cannot plausibly be talking about such a concept since I have expressed, rather explicitly, my skepticism for determinisim. Hence, if I am skeptical, indeed doubtful, determinism exists, then it makes no sense for me to argue compatibilism and therefore, I am not arguing compatibilism. Thanks for the offer of introducing a strawman argument but I think I will adhere to my argument.
We were talking about incompatibilistic free will, which says all decisions are undetermined.
Yes, so am I and which part of the following did you fail to understand? "
Free will, crudely speaking, is defined as the individual coming to or arriving to a decision on their own volition, i.e. they are not coerced or forced into making a decision but the decision is arrived to by themselves and themselves alone." This definition of free will is not in and of itself compatibilistic free will. In fact, this definition of free will is very incompatibilistic, in the sense the decision is "DETERMINED" by the decision maker, as a result of their own liberty, and NOTHING ELSE. If the decision maker is arriving to some decision on their own, and not the result of coercion, force, or from something else, then nothing else DETERMINED this decision for them, i.e. the determinism part of "compatibilism" is absent from my definition.
What definition of determinism am I relying upon? This allows me to address your next remark in providing an answer.
The determinist says this is false. That choosing is never absolutely free, not just those that are coerced.
Determinism goes further than your characterization of it here.
A standard characterization of determinism states that every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events.[4] Within this essay, we shall define determinism as the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time. Notice that an implication of determinism as it applies to a person's conduct is that, if determinism is true, there are (causal) conditions for that person's actions located in the remote past, prior to her birth, that are sufficient for each of her actions. http://http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#1.3
Well, my definition of "free will" denies anything is the "CAUSE" for a decision OTHER THAN the person itself as the "CAUSE." Consequently, I am not arguing compatibilisitic free will and your attempts to transform my arugment into something it is not is a an attempt to make a strawman argument.
Quite simply put, you have not met your burden something CAUSES us to decide a particular way, in a particular situation, at a particular time, other than the person reaching this decision on their own. I am not denying something may "influence" the decision maker but "influence" and "cause" are two different things.
You have not met your burden.