-->
@ebuc
Home owner who knows nothing about wiring looks in service panel and sees disorganized mess ---especially in days prior to 80's--- and calls electrician.electrician find the order after 2, 5 10 or so minutes.
Great example.
The Standard Argument Against Free Will (TSAAFW)
Posts
Total:
114
-->
@3RU7AL
.."great example"...
So was yours in message #29
We can reliably prediect change will continue to happen in future, based on past knowledge and that knowledge provides us with since of order, pattern etc.
We can reliably predict that occupied space, ---as energy--- will never be created nor destroyed and knowledge of this pattern has been in place since late 1880's.
-->
@zedvictor4
You and I are essentially the same...Just slightly different programming, resulting in slightly different biased data sequences, that's all.
OK Polly. I'm just glad most people aren't as nihilistic as you. The world would have remained in the dark age.
You will not be able to use it now, but remember for the future, your opinion is not fact or reality, no matter how clear to you it seems inside your head.
-->
@3RU7AL
Your first pass at it....
UNPREDICTABILITY =/= FREEWILLUNPREDICTABILITY =/= RANDOM
Your amended equation...
APPARENT UNPREDICTABILITY =/= RANDOMAPPARENT UNPREDICTABILITY = PSEUDO RANDOM
I'm talking about randomness and unpredictability, not what seems random and unpredictable to people. It is accepted the some people assume randomness and unpredictability when it is not so. I thought this so obvious it did not need to be said.
Now I fail to see a reason for a disagreement between us. I haven't a clue, given what you've said, why you would think free will is nonexistent.
-->
@ethang5
I haven't a clue, given what you've said, why you would think free will is nonexistent.
Because, (EITHER) your "freewill" "decisions" are CAUSED (OR) UNCAUSED (or some clever mix of the two).
(IFF) your "freewill" "decisions" are CAUSED (THEN) they are not "free".
(IFF) your "freewill" "decisions" are UNCAUSED (THEN) they are not acts of your will.
Therefore, "freewill" is logically incoherent.
-->
@3RU7AL
Which then brings us back to...
Your dichotomy is false.
(2) your thoughts (and actions) are random (uncaused by any previous experiences).
Just because thoughts may be uncaused by any previous experiences, does not necessarily make them random.
Your argument was built on an incorrect definition of "random". Random does not mean "uncaused by previous experiences". You are attempting to re-argue a point already debunked!
I just noticed too, that you're using the word "caused" differently in in your two premises.
But I will grant you that IF your dichotomy was true, your argument would be sound.
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) an action or event is uncaused (100% free of cause and effect) (THEN) it must necessarily be INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM
-->
@3RU7AL
You need to let go of your dogma and think 3RU7AL.
(IFF) an action or event is uncaused (100% free of cause and effect) (THEN) it must necessarily be INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM
First, because two things are indistinguishable from each other BY US does not necessarily mean they are identical. It is an unwarranted logical leap to assume so.
Second, an event free of cause does not mean it is necessarily free of effect.
Third, "random" is not necessarily related to cause. You have shown no correlative relationship between the two.
You are confusing actions with our ability to chose them. For example, even if a particular action is caused, that did not necessarily negate our ability to chose it.
Observe this experiment: Say we tell you to chose the red, or the blue pill, and you freely chose the blue pill, not knowing that there was no red pill. We used a hologram to fool you.
There was no red pill, so you could not have chosen it. Was your choice of the blue pill hampered in any way? What was not free about your choice? Your argument has a false premise, and thus your conclusion is also false.
-->
@ethang5
Second, an event free of cause does not mean it is necessarily free of effect.
(IFF) an action or event is uncaused (100% free of HISTORICAL cause and effect) (THEN) it must necessarily be INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM
Third, "random" is not necessarily related to cause. You have shown no correlative relationship between the two.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." [POST#25]
"without method or conscious choice"
By this definition, every action taken by an animal (lacking a pre-frontal cortex) is RANDOM.
By this definition, every event, geological and or meteorological, is RANDOM.
By this definition, the movements of every plant and every insect and every bacterium are RANDOM.
(IFF) this is truly your preferred definition of RANDOM (THEN) please explain to me what word you would use to describe something that is epistemologically and fundamentally UNPREDICTABLE.
Observe this experiment: Say we tell you to chose the red, or the blue pill, and you freely chose the blue pill, not knowing that there was no red pill. We used a hologram to fool you.
This example is the very definition of surreptitious COERCION.
This example is the very definition of a FALSE CHOICE.
Try this example.
Someone puts a loaded gun to your head and tells you to murder one of your family members with a knife, or else they'll shoot you.
This is obviously COERCION.
bUT, does the loaded gun magically strip you of your "ability to make a choice"?
NO.
The coercion "works" precisely because humans will PREDICTABLY choose to save their own skins.
ANd people are quick to feel guilt for their "choices" even when those "choices" are obviously COERCED (deflecting guilt from their oppressors).
This makes the "forced choice" (false choice) an extremely effective tool for CON-ARTISTS and MOBSTERS.
Someone's "decision" to "choose the blue pill" is highly constrained. Is the subject free to walk away and choose neither the red nor blue pills? Has the subject been contaminated with any enticements or vague threats regarding their choice? Does the subject have a natural attraction or repulsion to pills in general? Has the subject acquired a natural preference for one of these colors over the other? Is the subject seeking your personal approval and thus more sensitive to your overall tone and body-language?
All of these are just a glimpse into the complex chain of (conscious and subconscious) events that lead you to your "choice".
They are not fundamentally intractable. They are not epistemologically unknowable. They are not ultimately unpredictable.
-->
@3RU7AL
..."All of these are just a glimpse into the complex chain of (conscious and subconscious) events that lead you to your "choice"."...
They are pre-awareness --subconcious?--- until enough umph, cause the signal to contract { pull-in ] the muscle ergo an action at substantial muscular level to pull a trigger, or chang position of the weapon.
Yes, stuff is going on ultra-micro, and micro, ---subconscious? pre-medio awareness-- and then medio levels of conscious occur with action > reactions > resultants.
It is always ember to remmeber that there isi nterering sets of cause > effect and resutlants occruing i.e. there is never one tori of occupied space that is whole scenario.
It takes at a minimum, two too tango ---interference-----. And then, as Jackie Gleason would say, ..' and away we go'....
-->
@ebuc
It takes at a minimum, two too tango ---interference-----. And then, as Jackie Gleason would say, ..' and away we go'....
Well stated.
If an action or event is uncaused (100% free of HISTORICAL cause and effect) (THEN) it must necessarily be INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM
Our inability to distinguish does not change reality. Things do not change based on whether we can distinguish them. Random still does not mean uncaused.
Third, "random" is not necessarily related to cause. You have shown no correlative relationship between the two.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." [POST#25]"without method or conscious choice"
None of this has anything to do with causation.
By this definition, every action taken by an animal (lacking a pre-frontal cortex) is RANDOM.
But not uncaused.
By this definition, every event, geological and or meteorological, is RANDOM.
But not uncaused.
By this definition, the movements of every plant and every insect and every bacterium are RANDOM.
But still not uncaused. You are wrong in your judgement about the definition's effect on animals, insects, and geology too, but as it doesn't affect my argument, I can ignore it.
(IFF) this is truly your preferred definition of RANDOM (THEN) please explain to me what word you would use to describe something that is epistemologically and fundamentally UNPREDICTABLE.
None of the things you used as examples are unpredictable.
The coercion "works" precisely because humans will PREDICTABLY choose to save their own skins.
The human didn't choose. The criminal with the gun to his head did. In my example, there was no coercion to choose one pill over the other.
Someone's "decision" to "choose the blue pill" is highly constrained.
How?
Is the subject free to walk away and choose neither the red nor blue pills?
Yes.
Has the subject been contaminated with any enticements or vague threats regarding their choice?
No.
Does the subject have a natural attraction or repulsion to pills in general?
Who knows? It is still his choice.
Has the subject acquired a natural preference for one of these colors over the other?
Who knows? It remains his choice.
Is the subject seeking your personal approval and thus more sensitive to your overall tone and body-language?
Who knows? It remains his choice. These things affect choice, but not our freedom to make choices.
They are not fundamentally intractable.
How do you know this?
They are not epistemologically unknowable.
For sentient beings, how do you know this?
They are not ultimately unpredictable.
Again, how do you know this?
Your initial position of denying free will has locked you into the untenable position of having to claim that human thought is predictable, when nothing in our long history has proven less predictable than human thought.
Bad premise = bad conclusion.
-->
@ethang5
None of the things you used as examples are unpredictable.
Awesome.
Would you describe yourself as a DETERMINIST?
-->
@ethang5
Your initial position of denying free will has locked you into the untenable position of having to claim that human thought is predictable, when nothing in our long history has proven less predictable than human thought.
Are you perhaps unfamiliar with the work of Edward Bernays?
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you describe yourself as a DETERMINIST?
No, you described the behaviour of plants and animals. None of the things you used as examples were unpredictable.
Are you perhaps unfamiliar with the work of Edward Bernays?
No, but it is obvious I understand it better.
-->
@ethang5
Would you describe yourself as a DETERMINIST?No, you described the behaviour of plants and animals. None of the things you used as examples were unpredictable.
Have you ever tried to train a dog?
Even animals and plants and weather patterns are difficult (if not impossible) for an individual human mind to predict.
-->
@ethang5
Are you perhaps unfamiliar with the work of Edward Bernays?No, but it is obvious I understand it better.
Please demonstrate.
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you ever tried to train a dog?
We are able to train dogs because their behavior IS predictable.
Even animals and plants and weather patterns are difficult (if not impossible) for an individual human mind to predict.
?? As opposed to the human hive mind?
Are you perhaps unfamiliar with the work of Edward Bernays?
No, but it is obvious I understand it better.
Please demonstrate.
I just did.
-->
@ethang5
We are able to train dogs because their behavior IS predictable.
100%? Can you predict when your dog is going to get lost?
Can you predict when your dog is going to get sick (with 100% accuracy)?
If you could predict your dog's behavior 100%, then you'd never lose it.
-->
@ethang5
Even animals and plants and weather patterns are difficult (if not impossible) for an individual human mind to predict.?? As opposed to the human hive mind?
As opposed to a collection of humans using shared resources such as computerized data collection.
It's just like predicting the weather.
Better data = Better prediction
-->
@ethang5
Are you perhaps unfamiliar with the work of Edward Bernays?No, but it is obvious I understand it better.
Perhaps it seems obvious to you, but I remain unconvinced.
-->
@3RU7AL
Your last 3 posts should convince anyone with a cursory knowledge of Edward Bernays.
I like you, so I think I'll stop here. Thanks.
-->
@ethang5
Your scathing critique is requested.
27 days later
(P1) To have Libertarian FW one has to originate oneself
(P2) One can't originate oneself.
(C1) Therefore, one can't have Libertarian FW.
88 days later
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Standard Argument Against Free Will (TSAAFW)
An intentional (willed, goal oriented) action cannot be "free" (AND) a free action (indistinguishable from random) cannot be intentional (willed, goal oriented).
We "feel free" when we can fulfil our desires, but we do not intentionally choose our desires (we are slaves to our impulses).
"Free Will" is merely an emotion, not a logically coherent FACT.
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem with denial of free will from an orthodox perspective is that it is in effect blaming God for everything. It may be related even to the ancient heresy of monoenergism.
The problem with this is it leaves very little room for spiritual development, even giving us the wrong attitude. That is, blaming God rather than blaming oneself.
But even the word "free will" is misleading, because I certainly cannot jump to the moon and back if I wanted to. But what I do have is the ability to choose, and that is what is important here, and that is what we are really talking about when it comes to "free will".
Our entire spirituality is contingent on this understanding that we can choose. Even choosing NOT to be a slave to our desires, to not fulfill them. Certainly, in being controlled by one's impulses and desires one become a slave to them. However, free will, that is, the ability to choose, is made more manifest when someone chooses rather to act against their impulses and desires.
It is very important, especially for those who may suffer from drug or alcohol addiction, for them to understand that they are making the choice to enslave themselves. That there actually is a way out. That unless they choose to suffer for the sake of freedom, they will continue to be in bondage. Fatalistic thinking does not lead to good psychology.
-->
@3RU7AL
free will is a fact
-->
@Dr.Franklin
free will is a fact
A fact must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary (everything else is OPINION).
Please demonstrate the logical necessity of free-will (with a syllogism).
-->
@Mopac
The problem with denial of free will from an orthodox perspective is that it is in effect blaming God for everything.
BINGO.
-->
@Mopac
Even choosing NOT to be a slave to our desires, to not fulfill them.
How is this even conceivable unless you DESIRE to deny yourself short-term satisfaction (in exchange for the promise of increased future satisfaction).
Isn't that just DESIRE prioritization?
Can you (freely) choose to NOT desire a "good" life and eternal salvation?