-->
@Fallaneze
This is the same false dichotomy repackaged.If our thoughts and beliefs are predetermined by physics, we are not thinking and believing rationally because physics is not capable of rationally thinking and believing.
What do you believe?
Posts
Total:
495
-->
@secularmerlin
That is not a dichotomy. You should try reading it again and understand what I'm saying.
-->
@secularmerlin
Don't shift the burden of proof. You're better than that.
I am merely pointing out what every human being on the planet experiences. You are making the claim that the phenomenon is an illusion. There is no burden of proof with my claim unless you are going to deny that every human on earth experiences the phenomenon of making choices. Otherwise, you are the one making a claim that defies the experience of every human being. The burden of proof is with you.
Twoman I thought you were an advocate of no free will?
-->
@Fallaneze
Twoman I thought you were an advocate of no free will?
No. I am an advocate of the term as it is defined: "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."
Opponents seem to be saying that having reasons for making a decision means a lack of agency. I disagree with that for both logical and semantic reasons.
-->
@TwoMan
In what way have you demonstrated that the phenomenon you refer to as choice is not governed by cause and effect?
-->
@TwoMan
This is not what I am saying. I am saying that cause and effect are sufficient to explain human agency. You are the one claiming this extra unnecessary undemonstrable thing called freewill.Opponents seem to be saying that having reasons for making a decision means a lack of agency.
-->
@secularmerlin
I didn't. I demonstrated that it does not violate cause and effect.In what way have you demonstrated that the phenomenon you refer to as choice is not governed by cause and effect?
-->
@TwoMan
I didn't. I demonstrated that it does not violate cause and effect.
How have you demonstrated that? And assuming you do/did demonstrate such a thing you do realize that this leaves us with evidence for cause and effect and only speculation of freewill.
-->
@secularmerlin
Cause and effect is compatible with free will.
-->
@Fallaneze
Cause and effect is compatible with free will.
Very well please demomstrate/explain.
-->
@secularmerlin
Mental causation is the idea that intentional thoughts or intentional mental states are causes of intentional actions. The cause is mental and the effect manifests into actions.
-->
@Fallaneze
Mental causation is the idea that intentional thoughts or intentional mental states are causes of intentional actions. The cause is mental and the effect manifests into actions.
Are you arguing that cause and effect is insufficient to explain this process? What you refer to as mental causation is either subject to cause and effect or it is a random event.
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you have evidence for your claim that "mental causation is either subject to cause and effect or it is a random event"?
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
Perhaps we can look at what is being affected in this 'cause and effect'.
Let's say the effect is a desire for tea rather than coffee. What is a desire? A desire can only be the effect of prior physical casuses if it is itself something physical. So is a desire something physical?
-->
@keithprosser
Desires may in fact have physical causes. Our ability to choose not to act on those desires, however, shows that our behavior is not foremost controlled by our desires.
-->
@Fallaneze
If you go against a desire it can only be because you desire something else even more.
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think so. If someone were held at gunpoint and asked if they be shot or the kid next to them be shot, they may choose to sacrifice themselves in the belief that the kid will be saved, but choosing this isn't "desirable." I think the word you're looking for is "preferable."
-->
@keithprosser
Perhaps we can look at what is being affected in this 'cause and effect'.Let's say the effect is a desire for tea rather than coffee. What is a desire? A desire can only be the effect of prior physical casuses if it is itself something physical. So is a desire something physical?
This question is irrelevant unless you choose your desires.
-->
@Fallaneze
Do you have evidence for your claim that "mental causation is either subject to cause and effect or it is a random event"?
Can you suggest a (logically coherent) alternative?
-->
@Fallaneze
If someone were held at gunpoint and asked if they be shot or the kid next to them be shot, they may choose to sacrifice themselves in the belief that the kid will be saved, but choosing this isn't "desirable." I think the word you're looking for is "preferable."
This is irrelevant unless you choose your preferences.
-->
@secularmerlin
Do I detect a reluctance to answer the question?This question is irrelevant unless you choose your desires.
But what'sthe point? We both accept that free will is incompatible with determinism. I think that if people want non-illusory free will they have to adopt a dualistic view, which I don't and you clearly don't either, despite my best eforts to play devil's advocate!
But it is undoubtedy a strong illsuion, and closely bound up with the notion of 'self', which I also think is an illusion.
-->
@keithprosser
A desire is a physical thing in that it is a brainstate and brainstate would seem to be achieved through chemical and electrical means. Since electricity and chemical compounds are both physical things desires must also be considered so. The question remains irrelevant.
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure. Perhaps no material causation precedes mental causation. Since that is within the realm of possibility, and therefore logically coherent, what's your justification of your claim that 'mental causation is subject to cause and effect or is a random event'?
-->
@Fallaneze
Sure. Perhaps no material causation precedes mental causation. Since that is within the realm of possibility, and therefore logically coherent, what's your justification of your claim that 'mental causation is subject to cause and effect or is a random event'?
It is irrelevant if the causal chain is material. Dualism does not solve the conundrum. A metaphysical thing/being/force would still be either subject to cause and effect or behave randomly.
No clever mix of the two brings us to freewill.
-->
@secularmerlin
The dichotomy is either cause/effect or not cause/effect. The dichotomy is not between cause/effect or random.
It seems to matter to me. If something is immaterial, like mental causation, then how is it subject to deterministic processes? If it isn't, then there's nothing logically incoherent about free will co-existing in a material cause/effect universe.
-->
@Fallaneze
What makes you think mental causation is immaterial? And in any case why would mental causation not be subject to the causal chain? And if random is not the right word for what I mean then help me find the right one. Indeterminism is not compatible with freewill and determinism is not compatible with freewill. What third option am I missing?
-->
@Fallaneze
If determinism is true then it undercuts freewill and even if one can make 'choices' you are still either making determinations based on your current circumstances (making ypur 'choices' according to cause and effect or throwing the metaphorical dice (doing something for no reason since a reason is a cause.).
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not saying it is, but it might be.
Mental causation would be the beginning of the causal chain. You can't have an infinite regress of causes.
Acausal, uncaused, not caused.
Why would indeterminism be incompatible with free will? I agree determinism is incompatible with free will if free will means the ability to choose between alternative realities.
-->
@Fallaneze
If you can make 'choices' then these choices are either come to based on our circumstances/preferences in which case they are caused (determinism) or we are doing things without a cause and since a reason or a rational would be a cause borne of your circumstances/preferences. Indeterminism demands that you have neither. This is indistinguishable from random.