Predestination and Free Will

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
While the reasons may occur to some extent without any input from my will, they can also occur with input.


So how does your will come up with those reasons? Are they caused or do they simply appear out of nowhere? There is no third choice.

There is a third choice. My will comes up with those reasons by using my brain.

Quote:
Also the reasons being caused does not mean the reasons are the sole cause of my decision. My decision may have many causes and there may be many reasons behind or supporting my decision including reasons to have done otherwise which I chose to reject.


That's right. Your choices have causes which have causes that have causes, which have causes that have causes, which . . . . . . . . Just where does this freedom you speak of insert itself into the train of cause-effect?

One of the places this occurs is in my decision which causes I run with and which I ignore.

Quote:
Your removal of me from the process of my decisions is not reality, not reasonable, and not what I observe to be the way things are.


I'm not removing you from the process at all. In fact, you're pretty integral to it all. You're the link in the machinery that permits cause A to produce effect M. That we seldom, if ever, consider that we are nothing put part of a sequence of causes and effects is not at all unusual. We, myself included, go through life acting AS IF we actually had some kind of free will. We almost always consider the decisions of others as freely made (and in one sense they are) and don't bother to consider that such decisions could not be anything other than what they are. "Choice" B was never an actual option. Choice A was inevitable. It's a illusion we all live within. The notion of free will is simply a psychological ploy we use to retain a sense of personal identity and control. It also functions as a means for assigning responsibility and justifying our actions. The Christian notions of original sin, moral responsibility, forgiveness, and redemption would fall to pieces if it wasn't for the notion of free will, which is why Christians fight so hard to retain it. They know the consequences of acknowledging a deterministic world. The one they actually inhabit.

No that is not the world I inhabit. I inhabit the world where I am part of the chain of causes. You said: "We almost always consider the decisions of others as freely made (and in one sense they are)" Explain how others have free will to make decisions --what sense are you talking about this being true? Not only would Christianity be unworkable in your dream world of no ability on our part to make alternate decisions, but our justice system would and should collapse. If the murderer had no free will and could have done nothing other than what he did, he is not guilty of murder under our laws. If you go to discipline your child, remember the child could have not done different. If you regret mistakes you made in the past, get over it, you could not have done any different. That world is entirly yours, not the one I live in.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Again, what evidence do you have, or can it be proven, by some evidence or sound convincing logic, people's decision making process is DETERMINED by prior factors. Let's not assume decisions are DETERMINED by prior factors and ASSUME prior factors exist, as you apparently have a proclivity to do, but make an argument, evidence, logical reasoning, and show the veracity of these assumptions.

I can prove that decisions are either random or determined. Will that do?

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.

What is "volition?" Who are "themselves"?

This is precisely the problem with this topic; we've used content-free terms carelessly for so long that we simply assume they must have meaning.

 

[Washington]

Well, I did not ask for proof, I just asked if it could be proven.

Which is why I said, "It all depends on the event and the evidence."

Your false dilemma above assumes free will is not even an option, it is non-existent. Merely assuming the truth of your claim is flaw underlining your entire position.

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.

You seem inclined to want to assume the veracity of your claims, without suffering the burden of introducing some evidence or compelling sound logic in support of your claim.

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.

Again, what evidence do you have, or can it be proven, by some evidence or sound convincing logic, people's decision making process is DETERMINED by prior factors.

It's a 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.

Let's not assume decisions are DETERMINED by prior factors and ASSUME prior factors exist, as you apparently have a proclivity to do, but make an argument, evidence, logical reasoning, and show the veracity of these assumptions.

The argument is as given above. There are two operational options: determined and random. 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. 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. 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.

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.

Well, that is indeed crudely speaking. But what you are now talking about is compatabilistic free will, which isn't what we have been talking about. You can't change horse in mid stream, ND. We were talking about incompatibilistic free will, which says all decisions are undetermined. That aside from coercive elements, one is free to choose whatever they wish. That choosing A over B is not determined by prior conditions. That the "free" in "free will" means absolutely free. The determinist says this is false. That choosing is never absolutely free, not just those that are coerced.

 

[Washington]

There is a third choice. My will comes up with those reasons by using my brain.

And just how does your will come up with those reasons? What is it doing when it does this. What kind operations or processes is it doing to arrive at those reasons. There must come a point when your will decides, "Okay, this is what we are going with elman." So then the question becomes, what convinced your will of that particular response? The actual answer is irrelevant, but what is important is that it was caused (determined) by something. If it wasn't, then whatever its response it can't be a decision, but a random occurrence. And I'm sure you don't want to claim that your brain is nothing but a random thought generator.

One of the places this occurs is in my decision which causes I run with and which I ignore.

So where in the train of cause-effect does this freedom to decide occur?

No that is not the world I inhabit. I inhabit the world where I am part of the chain of causes.

???????

You said: "We almost always consider the decisions of others as freely made (and in one sense they are)" Explain how others have free will to make decisions --what sense are you talking about this being true?

When I said "We . . . consider" I meant in the sense of "take for granted," rather than deem as fact. So, others don't have free will. The context in which "in one sense they are freely made" is in compatitibilism. There, free will means free of coercion. One is not pressured by outside forces to decide something.

Not only would Christianity be unworkable in your dream world of no ability on our part to make alternate decisions, but our justice system would and should collapse. If the murderer had no free will and could have done nothing other than what he did, he is not guilty of murder under our laws. If you go to discipline your child, remember the child could have not done different. If you regret mistakes you made in the past, get over it, you could not have done any different. That world is entirely yours, not the one I live in.

Absolutely and undeniably true (not the part about you not living in it, however). And this is where the quirks of the human mind come into play. It denies determinism to keep itself mentally healthy. AND, it does so because it cannot do otherwise. Moreover, it is a very functional quirk in that serves to keep civil order and instill the illusion we have control: we are more than just automatons. Our self deception, a seemingly foolish enterprise, actually fosters a sense of worth and gives meaning to reason, and, of course, does have utilitarian value. Although I know the criminal couldn't help but rob the store, I see the value in treating him as if he could, and therefore is subject to the rules of law that require mental competence for adjudication. On the other hand, we, as wholly determined beings, can't help but think and do otherwise. We have no option but to hold such a criminal to the rule of law.

 

[levi501]

So far as has been determined the only absolutely and utterly random events are those occurring at the quantum level.

From what I can understand at that level the events aren't random but rather probablistic suggesting we have a lot more to learn about what's going on there.

 

[Washington]

From what I can understand at that level the events aren't random but rather probablistic suggesting we have a lot more to learn about what's going on there.

From Page 21 of The Quantum Zoo by Marcus Chown. (emphases mine)

Nothing in the everyday world is fundamentally unpredictable; nothing is truly random. The reason we cannot predict the outcome of a game of roulette or the toss of a coin is that there is simply too much information for us to take into account. But in principle---and this is the key point---there is nothing to prevent us from predicting both.​

Contrast this with the microscopic world of photons. It matters not the slightest how much information we have in our possession. It is impossible to predict whether or not a given photon will be transmitted or reflected by a window [an example of randomness given earlier]---even in principle. A roulette ball does what it does for a reason---because of the interplay of myriad subtle forces. A photon does what it does for no reason whatsoever! It is truly something new under the Sun.​

 

[levi501]

From Page 21 of The Quantum Zoo by Marcus Chown. (emphases mine)

Nothing in the everyday world is fundamentally unpredictable; nothing is truly random. The reason we cannot predict the outcome of a game of roulette or the toss of a coin is that there is simply too much information for us to take into account. But in principle---and this is the key point---there is nothing to prevent us from predicting both.​

Contrast this with the microscopic world of photons. It matters not the slightest how much information we have in our possession. It is impossible to predict whether or not a given photon will be transmitted or reflected by a window [an example of randomness given earlier]---even in principle. A roulette ball does what it does for a reason---because of the interplay of myriad subtle forces. A photon does what it does for no reason whatsoever! It is truly something new under the Sun.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Generally, quantum mechanics does not assign definite values to observables. Instead, it makes predictions about probability distributions; that is, the probability of obtaining each of the possible outcomes from measuring an observable.

The outcome of each event is random and can't be determined, but over time the pattern is probabilistic.

 

[Washington]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Generally, quantum mechanics does not assign definite values to observables. Instead, it makes predictions about probability distributions; that is, the probability of obtaining each of the possible outcomes from measuring an observable.

The outcome of each event is random and can't be determined, but over time the pattern is probabilistic.

Yes, that is one of the things the science does.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
There is a third choice. My will comes up with those reasons by using my brain.

And just how does your will come up with those reasons? What is it doing when it does this. What kind operations or processes is it doing to arrive at those reasons. There must come a point when your will decides, "Okay, this is what we are going with elman." So then the question becomes, what convinced your will of that particular response? The actual answer is irrelevant, but what is important is that it was caused (determined) by something. If it wasn't, then whatever its response it can't be a decision, but a random occurrence. And I'm sure you don't want to claim that your brain is nothing but a random thought generator.

I always have reason for deciding as I do. Usually I also had reasons for diciding some other way.
Some of the reasons may have been created by me using my brain. My brain is more than a random thought generator but it is not operating without me being involved.

Quote:
One of the places this occurs is in my decision which causes I run with and which I ignore.

So where in the train of cause-effect does this freedom to decide occur?

In the part of the train that I and my brain occupy.



Quote:
No that is not the world I inhabit. I inhabit the world where I am part of the chain of causes.

???????

??????????



Quote:
You said: "We almost always consider the decisions of others as freely made (and in one sense they are)" Explain how others have free will to make decisions --what sense are you talking about this being true?

When I said "We . . . consider" I meant in the sense of "take for granted," rather than deem as fact. So, others don't have free will. The context in which "in one sense they are freely made" is in compatitibilism. There, free will means free of coercion. One is not pressured by outside forces to decide something.

I am not arguing anyone including myself is free from outside forces to decide anything. I agree we are influenced and effected by our environment and our dna and who knows what other things we are unaware of, but I am saying when you add all those things up you will not have a 100% description of the cause of my decision. Whatever per centage is mine is still there.


Quote:
Not only would Christianity be unworkable in your dream world of no ability on our part to make alternate decisions, but our justice system would and should collapse. If the murderer had no free will and could have done nothing other than what he did, he is not guilty of murder under our laws. If you go to discipline your child, remember the child could have not done different. If you regret mistakes you made in the past, get over it, you could not have done any different. That world is entirely yours, not the one I live in.

Absolutely and undeniably true (not the part about you not living in it, however). And this is where the quirks of the human mind come into play. It denies determinism to keep itself mentally healthy.

An interesting comment. Are you saying we are not mentally healthy if we understand we don't have free will?

AND, it does so because it cannot do otherwise.

You are demonstrating you can do otherwise.

Moreover, it is a very functional quirk in that serves to keep civil order and instill the illusion we have control:

Why is it so functional if it is untrue and just an illusion?

we are more than just automatons.

Another very interesting comment. How can you have no free will but be more than just an automaton? If we have no free will, in what sense are we more than just automatons?

Our self deception, a seemingly foolish enterprise, actually fosters a sense of worth and gives meaning to reason, and, of course, does have utilitarian value. Although I know the criminal couldn't help but rob the store,

You see that is where we diverge. I am equally sure the criminal could have chosen to not rob the store.

I see the value in treating him as if he could,

Please explain this value in treating the Criminal as a criminal when in fact he is not a criminal and also explain how we decide how we are going to treat the criminal when we are unable to decide anything.

and therefore is subject to the rules of law that require mental competence for adjudication. On the other hand, we, as wholly determined beings, can't help but think and do otherwise. We have no option but to hold such a criminal to the rule of law.

So we are forced to punish ciminals who are innocent of any wrong doing. This is the world you believe you live in?

 

[Washington]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
There is a third choice. My will comes up with those reasons by using my brain. . . . . . . . .

I think we are at loggerheads and any further discussion would be fruitless.

Take care.

 

[NotreDame]

I can prove that decisions are either random or determined. Will that do?

What is "volition?" Who are "themselves"?

This is precisely the problem with this topic; we've used content-free terms carelessly for so long that we simply assume they must have meaning.

Then by all means, demonstrate to me by some evidence or reasoning how decisions are either random or determined. Then, if you are making the claim neither allows for free will, then support your assumption randomness and free will are incompatible by some evidence/logic.

Next, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand the meaning of "volition" or "themselves," especially when one takes the context of my post into consideration. Essentially, the individual, his brain, is making a decision and then his brain is also deciding how to act.

In other words, "I" decided to repy to your post, and nobody or nothing else made this decision for me, nothing and nobody else coerced me to make this reply. No aliens from outerspace, no demons, no angels, no fairies or magical unicorns, no leprechauns, no mystery dust, no chemical, or spells compelled me, coerced me, or forced me to make reply to your post. "I" made the decision to log onto this website, "I" made the decision to click on this thread, "I" made the decision to read your post, and "I" made the decision to post this reply.

I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate to me something other than "I," "my brain," "myself," made a decision to act.

 

[NotreDame]

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.

It's a default position.

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.

 

[Washington]

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.

Not at all. It's a method used by most everyone when confronted by an unsubstantiated claim: "Show me the beef." Where is your evidence that free will exists.

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.

So if I told you that flying pink elephants existed you'd take that as a serious claim worthy of such possibility that it would be perverse to say they did not. Therefore, you're obviously ready to admit the real possibility of anything I or anyone else suggests: even that Jesus had green skin and twelve toes. I understand. In the face of a lack of concrete evidence you're willing to grant any absurdity possible existence. Gotcha. So, because you claim there is a third operant in the universe besides determinism and randomness, something you call free will, I should agree it may have existence. And I might, IF there were evidence pointing to it. But just like flying pink elephants, which are a real stretch of the imagination, so to is free will. Therefore, I take the position that until it can be substantiated I won't agree to its existence. However, IF you have evidence, I'm willing to listen.

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.

Even if I cared to, what would it prove?

It's a default position.

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?

The difference is that the free will advocate has yet to produce any e v i d e n c e it exists. And until that happens the default position necessarily consists only of determinism and randomness. So far they are the only operants found to exist in the universe. EVERY event can be attributed to one or the other, so there's no need to postulate free will---no more need than to postulate invisible faeries---other than the fact that most religions require it. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.

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?

Would you agree that besides determinism, randomness, and free will, that invisible faeries were also behind events? Assuming you would not then you should understand the logic in not granting free will, also a concept without evidence, consideration. As I've said, determinism and randomness are the only two operants supported by evidence. Free will is not. But if you have evidence that it exists please share.

There are two operational options: determined and random.

According to what evidence or sound logical reasoning?

See above. And if you have evidence free will exists please share.

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.

Don't equivocate. Just show us the evidence that free will exists. It's YOUR claim, so the burden is yours to back it up.

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.

Washington is heard Laughing at his desk and thinking to himself, "Boy if that sorry excuse for a retort isn't given a quick burial pretty soon it's going to become the mantra of everyone who can't come up with a reasonable reply. ''well, I don't think peanut butter is good for you!' ' STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!' 'But your tie doesn't go with that shirt dear.' ' STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!' 'But I'm not old enough to vote.' 'STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!'"​

Please---give it a break.​

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]

That's the "standard characterization of determinism" is it. Something I assume you've determine after carefully comparing a slew of such "characterizations." Please excuse me if I question your certitude. Of course, if it WAS the "standard characterization of determinism" just think how many have got it wrong, because, as quantum physics has shown us, not every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events.

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 argument into something it is not is a an attempt to make a strawman argument.

I know your position. There are billions of operants in the universe: determinism, randomness, and 6.6 billion others on earth just like yourself. What I find telling is that you're still unable to explain what this free will thing is. All you can do is label what it is: the person. "Free will is a person doing stuff." Not very scientific or even philosophical, is it. And this is what you expect me and everyone else to put on the same level as determinism and randomness: two operants that HAVE been shown to exists and have been explained. Sorry, but your free will just doesn't measure up. However, IF you have e v i d e n c e, I'm willing to listen.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Then by all means, demonstrate to me by some evidence or reasoning how decisions are either random or determined. Then, if you are making the claim neither allows for free will, then support your assumption randomness and free will are incompatible by some evidence/logic.

Very well, though I can't take credit for development. Around here, I know David Gould has used a form of it before.

1. An event is either caused or uncaused.
2. A caused event is determined; an uncaused event is random.
3. A decision is an event.
4. Therefore, a decision is either determined or random.

Next, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand the meaning of "volition" or "themselves," especially when one takes the context of my post into consideration. Essentially, the individual, his brain, is making a decision and then his brain is also deciding how to act.

That is a supremely superficial analysis. Philosophers haven't been concerned with such triviality for more than 500 years.

In other words, "I" decided to repy to your post, and nobody or nothing else made this decision for me, nothing and nobody else coerced me to make this reply. No aliens from outerspace, no demons, no angels, no fairies or magical unicorns, no leprechauns, no mystery dust, no chemical, or spells compelled me, coerced me, or forced me to make reply to your post. "I" made the decision to log onto this website, "I" made the decision to click on this thread, "I" made the decision to read your post, and "I" made the decision to post this reply.

What is "I"? How does it make decisions?

I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate to me something other than "I," "my brain," "myself," made a decision to act.

What do you expect? You have barely progressed beyond a rudimentary understanding of terminology, let alone causality.

 

[Washington]

I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate to me something other than "I," "my brain," "myself," made a decision to act.

What do you expect? You have barely progressed beyond a rudimentary understanding of terminology, let alone causality.

And this is NotreDame's basic problem, thinking that as long as he can paste a label such as "I," " my brain," or "myself" on the carrier of free will that he has addressed the issue. Heck, I could use the same argument, "I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate to me something other than determinism has made a decision to act." Pretty lame argument. No need to explain the nature of determinism: how it works and when, or its logic. No evidence needed. Just say "I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate . . . . "

 

[elman]

And this is NotreDame's basic problem, thinking that as long as he can paste a label such as "I," " my brain," or "myself" on the carrier of free will that he has addressed the issue. Heck, I could use the same argument, "I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate to me something other than determinism has made a decision to act." Pretty lame argument. No need to explain the nature of determinism: how it works and when, or its logic. No evidence needed. Just say "I have not read any compelling logic or evidence to indicate . . . . "

So it is a proven fact that no one has any free will and our decisions are not our decisions but simply illusions? I don't think the majority of philosphers would agree this fact has been proven. It is not simply proven by your saying free will does not exist and it is not proven by fogging the defintion of I, myself, and my decisions and demanding to know exactly how decisions are made.

 

[Washington]

So it is a proven fact that no one has any free will and our decisions are not our decisions but simply illusions?

Other than in math, logic, and court rooms, "proven" is a very dangerous term I think everyone should try to stay clear of. My position is that, lacking a scintilla of evidence, as with flying pink elephants, free will has absolutely no standing. Therefore I feel just as secure in stating that free will does not exist as I do stating that flying pink elephants do not exist. As a note, it should be understood that like all such declarations, this is based on a complete lack of evidence, subject to whatever may turn up in the future, which is why I have said, Until it can be substantiated free will remains a nonexistent entity. And, as I asked NotreDame, if you have evidence that it exists please share. Mere declaration is hardly enough.

I don't think the majority of philosphers would agree this fact has been proven.

Think what you will. It doesn't change the lack of evidence.

 

[elman]

=Washington;43583311]Other than in math, logic, and court rooms, "proven" is a very dangerous term I think everyone should try to stay clear of.

I agree, but stating something as a fact would imply it was a proven reality, not a debated theory.

My position is that, lacking a scintilla of evidence, as with flying pink elephants, free will has absolutely no standing.

I would agree if I did not have sixty seven years of experiencing making decisions that had consequences. This is more than a scintilla of evidence.

Therefore I feel just as secure in stating that free will does not exist as I do stating that flying pink elephants do not exist. As a note, it should be understood that like all such declarations, this is based on a complete lack of evidence, subject to whatever may turn up in the future, which is why I have said, Until it can be substantiated free will remains a nonexistent entity.

That is your position. Mine of course, is that until it can be substantiated that my observations and experiences have all been incorrect, not what they appear and are illusions, I find the evidence there is no free will or no ability for me to make decisions not credible.

And, as I asked NotreDame, if you have evidence that it exists please share. Mere declaration is hardly enough.

I agree mere declaration is hardly enough. Just telling me I am fooling myself is no evidence at all.

Think what you will. It doesn't change the lack of evidence.

I certainly agree with that.

 

[Washington]

would agree if I did not have sixty seven years of experiencing making decisions that had consequences.

Which is what I and everyone else have come to recognize: decisions do indeed have consequences. The question is, what is the genesis of those decisions? Either they are determined or utterly random. Yet you suggest a third operant. One that so far only has a label: Free Will, which translates as, "the will is free." In other words, it is free of cause, uncaused. So if the will is not caused and is not utterly random, then how does it operate?

This is more than a scintilla of evidence.

I await whatever you have to offer.

Just telling me I am fooling myself is no evidence at all.

I agree, and it's certainly not something I've done.

 

[elman]

: Free Will, which translates as, "the will is free." In other words, it is free of cause, uncaused. So if the will is not caused and is not utterly random, then how does it operate?
.

When I use the term free will I am saying I have some ability to control what I do. I am not saying I have unlimited ability to do anything I can think of; nor am I saying what I do and what I decide is free from all influences from the environment and other factors. I have said this many times and it remains ignored. My decisions are caused and one of those causes is me deciding to do what I do. What evidence have you provided that I do not decide what I do? As far as I can tell you presented no evidence I am not one of the causes of what I decide to do. You merely stated it as if it were a fact.