-->
@simplybeourselves
(P1) To have Libertarian FW one has to originate oneself(P2) One can't originate oneself.(C1) Therefore, one can't have Libertarian FW.
Well stated.
The Standard Argument Against Free Will (TSAAFW)
Posts
Total:
114
-->
@3RU7AL
It's really easy to choose short term and temporary gratification over eternal life.
It is not something that comes without effort.
Desire prioritization certainly can be said to imply choice.
But what it comes down to is this. Rationally you can make sense of the clockwork universe. Experientially, we have choice. It is psychologically maladaptive to say, "I have no choice as it pertains to my actions."
-->
@Mopac
Desire prioritization certainly can be said to imply choice.
Not really.
The "outcome" of a "decision point" (like a cross-roads) is simply a MEASURE of which DESIRE is stronger.
It's like a cage-match for your emotions (even your thoughts are unwitting slaves, sycophants to your subconscious goals).
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't make it any less of a choice as far as I am concerned.
-->
@Mopac
Why is that your definition of "free"? Indistinguishable from random?
Free of determinism.
Free of influence.
Free of predictability.
Free of history.
Even a little bit free.
Say an action is 1% FREE of influence. That 1% is still indistinguishable from random and incompatible with WILL. The part of your actions that are FREE cannot be influenced by "your will".
This renders your FREEDOM counterproductive (unpredictable, out of your control).
-->
@3RU7AL
Literally nobody actually believes in what you call free will.
Except maybe schizophrenics.
-->
@Mopac
How would you personally define "free will"?
-->
@3RU7AL
The experience of having choice.
-->
@Mopac
The experience of having choice.
So, just the feeling you get?
-->
@3RU7AL
If you equate all experience as being a feeling.
Certainly people feel like they have no control over their actions.
I would say that for one to deny that they have choice is maladaptive. I believe that people can reprogram their minds.
-->
@Mopac
Certainly [some] people feel like they have no control over their actions.
Of course. But what I'm looking for is LOGICAL NECESSITY.
I would say that for one to deny that they have choice is maladaptive.
I would say that for one to deny LOGIC is maladaptive.
I believe that people can reprogram their minds.
I agree, but the (prerequisite) DESIRE to "reprogram" their minds is not "uncaused" (by previously existing events).
We "feel free" when we can fulfil our desires, but we do not intentionally choose our desires (we are slaves to our impulses).
-->
@3RU7AL
I have no problem with logic. Reason itself is a good thing.
However, an over reliance on logic can very easily lead to absurdities. It in itself can be maladaptive.
All one has to do is observe how so many people have used reason to place themselves into an epistemological black hole. Even becoming solipsists. When you get to the point to where all action must be reasoned out or understood logically, it can put a very real freeze on a person.
-->
@Mopac
All one has to do is observe how so many people have used reason to place themselves into an epistemological black hole. Even becoming solipsists. When you get to the point to where all action must be reasoned out or understood logically, it can put a very real freeze on a person.
This is all very lovely and interesting, but it seems to side-step the subject.
Is "free will" logically coherent?
You seem to be suggesting that it doesn't need to be logically coherent.
And I would agree with you, "free will" is merely an emotion.
-->
@3RU7AL
I wouldn't call it an emotion.
If logic contradicts experience, is it really logical?
What happens when reason is used to override reality? You end up with nihilism. Absurdism. At the pretense of being reasonable, this type of worldview actually undermines reason itself, and is the embrace of anti-intellectualism. No matter the pretense to the country.
If logic contradicts experience, is it really logical?
What happens when reason is used to override reality? You end up with nihilism. Absurdism. At the pretense of being reasonable, this type of worldview actually undermines reason itself, and is the embrace of anti-intellectualism. No matter the pretense to the country.
-->
@Mopac
If logic contradicts experience, is it really logical?
Science often contradicts "common sense".
If "common sense" was reliable, we wouldn't even need logic or science at all.
-->
@Mopac
What happens when reason is used to override reality?
Logic never contradicts reality.
It only contradicts your OPINIONS about reality.
-->
@3RU7AL
Then it seems to me that the opinion that we do not exercise choice is illogical, as it contradicts reality.
Besides that it is a harmful belief. Both being maladaptive to the individual that holds it, and as having potentially sinister applications in the case of social engineering.
Besides that it is a harmful belief. Both being maladaptive to the individual that holds it, and as having potentially sinister applications in the case of social engineering.
-->
@Theweakeredge
To continue on, my argument of determinism could be summed up as thus:P1: The only two reasons to do anything is because you are forced or because you want to
I'd restate P1 as,
Every action is (EITHER) the result of a previous event (or combination of events) (OR) NOT the result of a previous event (or combination of events) in other words, the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (OR) some combination of BOTH caused and uncaused events (some percentage that is caused and some percentage that is uncaused (indistinguishable from random noise), the exact ratios are immaterial because any combination results in the same logical outcome, some part determined and some part indistinguishable from random, resulting in ZERO "freewill").
P2: You do not choose what you want and don't want
I'd restate P2 as,
(IFF) you choose to NOT act according to a particular desire (THEN) you are STILL acting on a DESIRE to NOT act on a particular desire. You are (EITHER) automatically deferring to a hierarchy of personal desires (OR) acting as the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (indistinguishable from random noise, completely outside of your ability to control).
C: Therefore you do not choose your actions, [your actions are the result of an automatic desire hierarchy and or some combination of desire hierarchy and uncaused, uncontrollable random noise] Free Will doesn't exist.
I'd restate C as,
Any action you take that is "WILLFUL" (intentional) is the direct result of some DESIRE which is the result of the causal chain (NOT isolated from "external-causes"). A "WILLFUL" action is a caused action. A "WILLFUL" action cannot ever be considered "FREE".
Any action you take that is "FREE" cannot ever be intentional. In order for it to be "FREE" it must be free from all previous events. Any action you take that is "FREE" from all previous events is, by definition, indistinguishable from random noise.
NO COMBINATION OF "FREE" AND "WILLFUL" CAUSES CAN EVER GENERATE A "MORAL" "CHOICE".
My argument for science could be summed up as follows:P1: Scientists are capable of predicting behavior before a decision is madeP2: Scientists make this prediction solely on the basis of subconscious brain activityCon: Therefore the person does not choose their actions, Free will doesn't exist
This is a very seductive argument that I avoid like the plague.
The "freewillers" always take refuge in an "appeal to ignorance".
They love to claim that since humans are "unpredictable", that means they have "freewill" (quantum mechanics).
You can never "win" this battle because there are (probably) always going to be "unpredictable" human actions.
It's a lot like the familiar "gods in the gaps" argument (you don't know what happened "before" the "big-bang"???? therefore god$).
Of course they DON'T argue that since dogs and spiders (and automobiles and tornados for that matter) are not "perfectly predictable" that they must ALSO possess the magic-fairy-dust of "freewill".
Anyway, arguing that humans ARE predictable simply plays to their (perceived) "strengths".
Your best argument isn't for DETERMINISM, it's for INDETERMINISM.
DETERMINISM precludes the existence of "freewill".
INDETERMINISM ALSO precludes the existence of "freewill".
And if they say they know for certain that they have "freewill" because they FEEL like they have a "real" "choice", then try and gently point out to them that what they call "freewill" is simply an emotion.
If you can FEEL something, but can't logically justify it, then what you are experiencing is an EMOTION.
If you can FEEL god($) love, that in-and-of-itself is NOT evidence for the existence of god($).
-->
@Mopac
Then it seems to me that the opinion that we do not exercise choice is illogical, as it contradicts reality.
It does NOT contradict "reality".
It only contradicts your EMOTION.
Your internal emotional state is not "reality".
-->
@3RU7AL
I would agree to all of this, I just don't think that was Undefeatable's main point, it was partially, just not all of it. Regardless thank you for your input.
-->
@Mopac
Besides that it is a harmful belief.
This is a naked appeal to consequence.
Description: Concluding that an idea or proposition is true or false because the consequences of it being true or false are desirable or undesirable. The fallacy lies in the fact that the desirability is not related to the truth value of the idea or proposition. [**]
-->
@Theweakeredge
I remember when I first heard, "randomness does not equal freewill".
I couldn't even comprehend it.
It made absolutely no sense.
My whole mindset was "unpredictable means free".
There are a million things that are "unpredictable" but that does not mean they all have "freewill".
-->
@Mopac
...having potentially sinister applications in the case of social engineering.
It's actually WAY EASIER to manipulate (socially engineer) people who believe in "freewill".
When the puppets can see the strings, they start asking about the puppeteer.
When the puppets CAN'T see the strings, they just blame themselves and the puppeteer can act with impunity.
35 days later
-->
@3RU7AL
Rather, it reduces mankind to cattle.
Not being able to blame oneself is maladaptive.
-->
@Mopac
When the puppets CAN'T see the strings, they just blame themselves and the puppeteer can act with impunity.
-->
@Mopac
Rather, it reduces mankind to cattle.
Cattle have less/fewer options as resultant of their lack of access to Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts, that, are inherent in the more complex human.
More complex does not = free will. More complex means the resultants of cause and effect are more varied and subsequently more complex and will tgenearlly take more time and effort to grasp/comprehend/understand;
1} numerically complex, --ergo lines-of-relationship--, and,
2} synergetically complex ---synergy is often time and unpredicted resultant, but sometimes is predictable---.
Hesignbergs pricinple only states that two specific kind sphenomena cannot be known at the same time ergo we can know location or speed at two differrent times, just not simultaneously, at the quantum scales of existence.
So reality is logical, but can we ascertain { apprehend } the logic for the above, and other physical/reality paradoxes?
Mamy seem to have answer to this paradox or another and often those answers may differ from anothers.
-->
@ebuc
More complex does not = free will.
Well stated.
-->
@3RU7AL
Whether the string are visible or not, the puppet master acts with impunity.
-->
@ebuc
To say that you do not have free will is to blame God for making you do evil.
This is a very impious way of going about things. It is also not the correct attitude one should have in their relationship with God, who gives grace to the humble and resists the proud.