Determinism vs Free Will

Author: Crocodile
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 161
#61
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Without some sort of quantification, how can they claim that "freewill" EXISTS?
By claiming that it exists.

What is the evidence for "freewill"?
Evidence isn't required. How does one demonstrate to another an intrinsic quality? For example, if I were to ask you: prove that you're intelligent, how would you go about doing this? I can administer to you an "I.Q." Test but would that really gauge your intelligence, or testing discipline? What if the test is nothing more than a gimmick (and yes I would argue that the "I.Q." is nothing more than a gimmick) what then would you have "quantified"?

What is the central premise, what is the PRIMARY AXIOM?
That's the crux of the matter.

I am I.
I begin with I.
I end with I.

How does "freewill" violate (or comply with) CAUSE AND EFFECT?
Elaborate further: are you asking what causes free will? Or in  what capacity is one the cause of who they are and their decisions?

How can you tell if a child, or a dog, or a cat, or a car has "freewill"?
If they tell me, I'd be able to tell. My being able to tell however doesn't qualify their capacity for free will.

As far as I can tell, "freewill" is just a FEELING you get when YOU make a "decision".
Given the nature of this discussion, I understand it begs for more latitude. But I ask: what is "free-will" supposed to be other than a "feeling"?


#62
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
By claiming that it exists.
EXISTENCE demands empirical verifiability and or LOGICAL NECESSITY.
#63
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Evidence isn't required. How does one demonstrate to another an intrinsic quality?
Are you asserting that "freewill" is QUALIA?

Because I will agree with you 100% on that.
#64
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
EXISTENCE demands empirical verifiability and or LOGICAL NECESSITY.
Logical necessity for what? What does free-will posit which requires confirmation outside its subject?

Are you asserting that "freewill" is QUALIA?
Of course.
#65
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
That's the crux of the matter.

I am I.
This claim is indisputable (circular logic).

I begin with I.
This claim is provably false.

I end with I.
This claim is provably false.
#66
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Are you asserting that "freewill" is QUALIA?
Of course.
Do you also agree that "freewill" is simply a FEELING we experience (QUALIA)?

Do you also agree that "freewill" is logically incoherent (if defined as a violation of cause-and-effect)?
#67
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Given the nature of this discussion, I understand it begs for more latitude. But I ask: what is "free-will" supposed to be other than a "feeling"?
It's supposed to make an individual "morally responsible for their actions".

It's specifically tailored to take away any "excuses" a person might present in order to argue that they are merely a collection of ever-changing reactions to their environment.

It traps people into disproportionately "blaming" and "hating" any proximate, apparent human "cause" to the exclusion of all other factors.

That's the ONLY reason we've been infected with the concept in the first place.
#68
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
This claim is provably false x2
Please supply this proof of falsehood x2.

Do you also agree that "freewill" is simply a FEELING we experience (QUALIA)?
Yes.

Do you also agree that "freewill" is logically incoherent (if defined as a violation of cause-and-effect)?
How can free will be defined as a violation of cause-and-effect?

It's supposed to make an individual "morally responsible for their actions".

It's specifically tailored to take away any "excuses" a person might present in order to argue that they are merely a collection of ever-changing reactions to their environment.

It traps people into disproportionately "blaming" and "hating" any proximate, apparent human "cause" to the exclusion of all other factors.

That's the ONLY reason we've been infected with the concept in the first place.
"Human-cause"? What would be an example?




#69
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
"Human-cause"? What would be an example?
If the person who pulled the trigger was held 100% (morally) responsible (to the exclusion of all other factors) for the death of another individual.
#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Do you also agree that "freewill" is logically incoherent (if defined as a violation of cause-and-effect)?
How can free will be defined as a violation of cause-and-effect?
"freewill" is primarily used to argue that a human "could have acted otherwise".

This claim is "unfalsifiable" (empirically, but not logically) and is therefore a naked appeal to ignorance.

This claim is also a gross violation of cause-and-effect.
#71
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I begin with I.
This claim is provably false.
"I" begins with the dawn of time.

I end with I.
This claim is provably false.
"I" ends with the heat death of the cosmos.
#72
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,241
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
There MAY exist a "dawn"  of time but not of occupied space.

There MAY come a heat death of Universe, but NOT the annihilation of occupied space

We need to make the distinction between,

Metaphysical-3, Gravitational Space (  ), Metaphysical-4  Dark Energy Space )( and,

Sine-wave /\/\/ patterned frequency of Observed Time aka Physical Reality aka fermions and bosons i..e that which we can and have quantised and quantified occupied space.

Why do we nee to make that distinction?  Because that is what humans do.  Winnow out truth and facts from all of the seeming disorder and misleading narratives around us.    Think about it.  All pushing-out forces of Universe are a resultant of pulling-in forces.

Gravity is always on the outside ---outside positive convex outer surface of all Space tori---    pulling-in to cohere Universe as an integralwhole.

As result of pulling-in, something must eventually get pushed out, as expansion of space { Daark Energy }, EMRadiation { stars }, babies { pushed out of womb } via contractions of muscles.

The brain only sends one kind of signal to the muscles, and that is to contract INward.  When the signal stops, the muscles relax and expand back to their normal state.

Fuller once said ---in Critcal Path--- that the normal state of Universe is the speed-of-raditation.  To flow freely, but Gravity { mass-attraction } says NO! We can only flow freely for a limited time and distance, before we must we must curve back INward.  This is the integrity of pull and push.   This is the integrity of the only perpetual motion machine in existence, the finite, occupied space Universe.

There are facny mind games to try and avoid these truths ---maybe someday facts--- but rational, logical common sense pathways of thought will always lead to the same conclusion eventually if ego does not get in the way.






#73
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
DAWN OF TIME = EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS

HEAT DEATH OF THE COSMOS = EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS
#74
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,241
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
1st law f thermodynamics ----physical cosmic law ergo eternally existent absolute truth--   is observation based science of what is known ergo there is no "dawn" of time, as defined, and subsequently associated with eternity.

Heat death does not mean the end of "time", tho it may depending on how we define the "time" and "heat".

A very long wave ergo cold Universe is not the end of occupied space ---again 1st law--  Universe, only end hotter temperatures.

If youve not seen Roger Penroses Conformal Cyclic Universe video, you may find a great mans scenario interesting to consider.

#75
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
f the person who pulled the trigger was held 100% (morally) responsible (to the exclusion of all other factors) for the death of another individual.
How is a person who pulls a trigger resulting in the death of another individual not held completely responsible? What are these factors that you believe are being excluded?

"freewill" is primarily used to argue that a human "could have acted otherwise".

This claim is "unfalsifiable" (empirically, but not logically) and is therefore a naked appeal to ignorance.

This claim is also a gross violation of cause-and-effect.
Let's entertain the claim that it's primarily used to argue that one "could have acted otherwise," how does that impute an appeal to ignorance? Are you alleging that the claim's lack of falsifiability is being used to inform its veracity? Who has done this?

And, how is it a gross violation of cause and effect?

"I" begins with the dawn of time.

"I" ends with the heat death of the cosmos.
How do you know?
#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
How is a person who pulls a trigger resulting in the death of another individual not held completely responsible? What are these factors that you believe are being excluded?
Well traditionally, we (quite feebly) attempt to weigh QUALIA.

We call this "motive", we call this "circumstance".

Was the shooter legitimately afraid for their life?

Did the shooter intend to kill the victim?

Did the weapon malfunction?
#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Let's entertain the claim that it's primarily used to argue that one "could have acted otherwise," how does that impute an appeal to ignorance?
How do you demonstrate that any individual "could have acted otherwise"?

Do you have a time-machine?

We find it easy to IMAGINE that someone "could have acted otherwise", but it is IMPOSSIBLE TO "PROVE" SUCH A CLAIM.

It is therefore unfalsifiable, and is therefore, an appeal to ignorance.
#78
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
And, how is it a gross violation of cause and effect?
Because, according to cause-and-effect, the collective causes, spawning from that individual's childhood, and their parent's childhood, and their grandparent's childhood, lead to a series of events that includes the shooting.

To claim otherwise violates cause-and-effect.
#79
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
"I" begins with the dawn of time.

"I" ends with the heat death of the cosmos.
How do you know?
Because cause-and-effect is empirically verifiable and logically demonstrable.

The parameters denote our epistemological limits.
#80
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Well traditionally, we (quite feebly) attempt to weigh QUALIA.

We call this "motive", we call this "circumstance".

Was the shooter legitimately afraid for their life?

Did the shooter intend to kill the victim?

Did the weapon malfunction?
That is far more a reflection of the moral--well, "legal"--framework than it is of free will. I do not contest that the "moral" frameworks of western commonwealths are inconsistent.

How do you demonstrate that any individual "could have acted otherwise"?

Do you have a time-machine?

We find it easy to IMAGINE that someone "could have acted otherwise", but it is IMPOSSIBLE TO "PROVE" SUCH A CLAIM.

It is therefore unfalsifiable, and is therefore, an appeal to ignorance.
By scrutinizing all possible courses when confronting an event. Case in point: I'm wearing a blue shirt. I could've worn a red or grey one. I could've worn no shirt at all. Hence, I could've acted otherwise. Now, when it comes to the involvement of firearms, there are at least two possible courses of action: pull the trigger or don't pull the trigger--factors notwithstanding. Perhaps, the claim would be better made if we exchanged "could" for "would." Now if we were to state one "would have acted otherwise," that would be unverifiable.

Because, according to cause-and-effect, the collective causes, spawning from that individual's childhood, and their parent's childhood, and their grandparent's childhood, lead to a series of events that includes the shooting.

To claim otherwise violates cause-and-effect.
So cause-and-effect is necessarily transitive?

Because cause-and-effect is empirically verifiable and logically demonstrable.

The parameters denote our epistemological limits.
You were able to empirically verify your own beginning at the dawn of time, as well as prospectively observe your end at the heat death of the cosmos?

#81
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Case in point: I'm wearing a blue shirt. I could've worn a red or grey one.
It's easy for you to IMAGINE acting differently, but you cannot go back in time to test that hypothesis.

With the exact same inputs, you will get the exact same outputs.

Anything else violates cause-and-effect.
#82
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,241
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
This imaginary ' I " { eye } exists as concept only, whereas the occupied space body i.e. feelings, emotions,  etc are directly asssociated with cause > effect > resultants, that are in constant dynamic change.

The ' I ' { eye } remains the same and exists as a complement to an occupied space entity { whole integral }.

Or as Fuller would say,...' I am not the person I was yesterday'....., and I certainly am not the same person I was when I was a fetus, baby, infant, child, teenager, 20's, 30' etc.

The person I call ' I ' today is a collective of changes over many years.  The occupied space patterned-entity-whole dies, and access to the imaginary ' I ' { eye } is no more.

 Some would like to believe there continues on, a Gravitational (  ) patterned-entity-whole, called a soul ( * I * ).  Searching for a way or place to reincarnate into another
patterned-entity, whole-soul. 

Wholey moley Batman!   You are a collection of bat souls, formed into human soul-whole.   Where does the wild trip go to and come from?


Dance to the funky music Robin! 'Take a Free Ride' Edgar Winter and leave the driving to us { cosmic greyhound now leaving terminal }







#83
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Yep,
#84
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
It's easy for you to IMAGINE acting differently, but you cannot go back in time to test that hypothesis.
One need not go back in time; one need only indulge retrospect and analyze the prospects and possibilities. And since one "could've acted otherwise" is a fragmented conditional statement, testing the hypothesis is unnecessary. Inductive reasoning suffices. So, for example, it suffices to state that had one not pulled the trigger, the projectile known as a bullet could not have been discharged from the firearm, at the moment of one's possession, resulting in that particular method of bodily harm. So then, is it possible to make a decision between pulling and not pulling the trigger, thereby presenting two courses of action? Yes. So then the statement, "one could've acted otherwise," even when made in retrospect, stands especially in that context.

With the exact same inputs, you will get the exact same outputs.

Anything else violates cause-and-effect.
Except we're not scrutinizing that which "will" happen or "would've" happened. We're scrutinizing that which "could've" happened. But I must ask again: is cause-and-effect necessarily transitive?
#85
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
So then, is it possible to make a decision between pulling and not pulling the trigger, thereby presenting two courses of action?
NO.

there are only four forces in the universe: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear; I'm not aware of any evidence that anything happening in one's mind can influence those forces.
#86
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
But I must ask again: is cause-and-effect necessarily transitive?
Please explain.

I don't understand your question.
#87
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
NO.

there are only four forces in the universe: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear; I'm not aware of any evidence that anything happening in one's mind can influence those forces.
How is any of that pertinent to pulling a trigger?


Please explain.

I don't understand your question.
Is causality necessarily transitive?

A causes B,
B causes C,
C causes D;
Therefore, A causes D?

#88
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Is causality necessarily transitive?

A causes B,
B causes C,
C causes D;
Therefore, A causes D?
Your example answers your question.

that would be a "yes".
#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
there are only four forces in the universe: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear; I'm not aware of any evidence that anything happening in one's mind can influence those forces.
How is any of that pertinent to pulling a trigger?
These are 100% of the factors involved.

Unless you can suggest something else?
#90
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Your example answers your question.

that would be a "yes".
Read what I asked again:

Is causality necessarily transitive?
The only way we establish the necessity of this transitivity is by establishing that the condition of the first premise is sine qua non. Where is dependency necessarily established?