-->
@Bones
Because what your willing to choose and your reason as to why you chose it are two separate narratives regardless of your eagerness to conflate the two.
The determinism syllogism
Posts
Total:
151
-->
@3RU7AL
Although, you CAN know that each of your actions is necessarily (EITHER) caused (OR) uncaused.
I think free will exists because I am "free". I think habitual actions driven by habit or reflex are not "free". I'm assuming you're not talking about them and I'm assuming you're talking about actions that are performed with intent. Imho, let's assume that all actions are caused and that these causes are beyond my control. Let's assume that I retain my ability to reflect on my caused actions. My reflections are the results of my inner-self. They are free in the sense that they are capable of dreaming contrary results. So long as I continue to possess my ability to reflect, I can declare myself "free".
-->
@Tarik
Because what your willing to choose and your reason as to why you chose it are two separate narratives regardless of your eagerness to conflate the two.
Nope. If can't even tell me why you chose to do what you did, then how can you say that you "commanded" it. That's like me saying that I commanded an earthquake to happen on Mars without knowing why I did it or how I did it.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
My reflections are the results of my inner-self.
The "reflections" are either "caused" or "uncaused".
For example, an echo from a cave is not "free".
The echo is a function of the shape of the cave.
And the cave did not create itself.
-->
@Bones
That's like me saying that I commanded an earthquake to happen on Mars without knowing why I did it or how I did it.
Well stated.
-->
@3RU7AL
The "reflections" are either "caused" or "uncaused".For example, an echo from a cave is not "free".The echo is a function of the shape of the cave.And the cave did not create itself.
Fair enough. Here's another hypothetical example: prisoners in solitary confinement. I think they're not physically "free" but their reflections are still the productions of their mind. I'd argue that they are "free" in the sense that they have free will.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
prisoners in solitary confinement.
Do these hypothetical prisoners have any conscious and or subconscious memories of their lives before their confinement ?
Is it possible that these pre-existing memories are the features of the cave on which the echo is shaped ?
-->
@Bones
If can't even tell me why you chose to do what you did, then how can you say that you "commanded" it.
Because knowing why has no bearing on the command itself.
If there was a demon with perfect knowledge of all matter and energy in the present, that demon should necessarily be able to perfectly predict the future and perfectly reconstruct the past
-->
@Sum1hugme
If there was a demon with perfect knowledge of all matter and energy in the present, that demon should [hypothetically] necessarily be able to perfectly predict the future and perfectly reconstruct the past
Not if indeterminism is true.
-->
@Tarik
Because knowing why has no bearing on the command itself.
Excellent argument for QUALITATIVE (emotional) free-will.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Also, have you seen DEVS ?
-->
@Bones
Your determinism syllogism, like most of your syllogisms, fails on P1.
I have never smoked. My past offers nothing by way of influence to begin smoking. Therefore, my decision to smoke, if I made such a decision, is entirely based on my free will to do so. On what past experience would influence a change?
-->
@fauxlaw
Thanks for the compliment.
Well using your example, I would ask why did you smoke? Why didn't you go and vape, do weed or use a bong? Why did you "choose" to smoke? Obviously you don't know.
-->
@Bones
What part of
I have never smoked.
went over your head? So, using what example of mine, since you totally misunderstood "I have never smoked?" Never vaped, toked, or bonged, either. I decided at 10 I would never do drugs, never smoke, never drink liquor. Why? Because I chose, and till do, by my free agency, to remain in control of my words and actions. Is it impossible? No, not with making the commitment, and following through. Didn't have sex until I was married, either. Yes, abstinence is not impossible; and that applies to abstaining anything else, as well. My generation, and yours, laughs at "Just say 'no.'" But, it does work, and I'm much better off for it. At 71, I have the heart, lungs, liver and kidneys of a 20 year-old, at least one who has also abstained. And you claim free agency is a myth. Living proof, here, bud. Living proof.
-->
@fauxlaw
At 71, I have the heart, lungs, liver and kidneys of a 20 year-old, at least one who has also abstained. And you claim free agency is a myth. Living proof, here, bud. Living proof.
Again, you encounter the same issue. Why did you, at ten, decide never to drink or smoke? I recommend you read Sam Harris's book on free will.
-->
@Bones
Premise 1 Every human choice or action is driven by past events.Premise 2 We do not control past events.Conclusion 1 Human free will does not exist.
Good setup. I agree with the general validity, but disagree with the soundness of the ultimate conclusion.
"Driven by" does not necessarily equal perfect predetermination. Even with my available set of choices being driven by past choices (usually a complex series made by others), I still choose from what options occur to me. This does not equal strong free will, but it denies the total absence of it.
As a real world example: I was raised by a neo-Nazi Odinist cult. As a little kid without any noteworthy outside interference, I choose to reject the genocidal hatred in which I was brainwashed to believe.
Granted, many people (perhaps most), would choose to not exercise their free will, and opt for the path of least resistance. Even then, making no choice, is a choice in it of itself.
-->
@fauxlaw
Therefore, my decision to smoke, if I made such a decision, is entirely based on my free will to do so.
Do you think perhaps you would perform a COST to BENEFIT ANALYSIS ?
-->
@Barney
"Driven by" does not necessarily equal perfect predetermination.
PREDETERMINATION is NOT the "conclusion".
INDETERMINISM is the "conclusion".
It's TAUTOLOGICAL.
EVERY EVENT IS (EITHER) CAUSED (OR) UNCAUSED
(IFF) CAUSED (THEN) NOT "FREE"
(IFF) UNCAUSED (THEN) NOT "WILL"
-->
@Barney
"Driven by" does not necessarily equal perfect predetermination. Even with my available set of choices being driven by past choices (usually a complex series made by others), I still choose from what options occur to me.
Interesting. However you do concede that actions can only be acted upon after they occur to you. By virtue of it's definition, something which "occurs to you" is outside of your control, you do not choose to suddenly remember where you left your keys. Moreover, there is the paradox of choice which still needs to be addressed. You state that though I do not control the options of actions which I can initiate, I can choose from the ones which do occur to me. Though admittedly this cuts out a huge amount of what free will is, I still have problems with it. How can you make a choice, if your will to make a choice is driven by unconscious states of the mind? How can you decide between sushi or a burger when you are at a food court? The so called decision is driven by factors which you are neither aware of or control.
-->
@3RU7AL
I did that when I was 16 for a chain-smoking neighbor, 2 packs daily, showing him the money he could devote to a favored pastime - hunting. He quite cold turkey. He wanted to quit, and he was already aware of the health benefits, but couldn't quit on that basis. I nailed it by the cost benefit to him. Since I don't smoke anyway, that's of no benefit to me.
-->
@Bones
You want to know my first inclination? It just didn't make sense to me to suck in the smoke from a burning tube. Seeing the hacking smokers went through did not impress me as something that was good for me. Then, I noted the stupidity of smokers tossing their butts out car windows. The litter at curbs was disgusting. I disdained smokers for their carelessness of not using ashtrays except in their own homes. Very inconsiderate. I didn't want to be one of them. Fire hazard, too. When I started driving, I honked whenever someone threw their butt out the window. Even if it was not a personal health hazard, I'd be opposed to smoking.
-->
@Bones
I recommend you read Sam Harris's book on free will.
That 100-page wonder is the epitome of the brain tumor he proposes as cause of a serial killer’s attitude, and that, therefore, he is victim of his own killer propensity. Absurd hogwash. We are what we consume, by our choices. We consume all kinds of toxins easily avoided just by the preference [guided by free will, by the way] to eat fresh food, and not all the processed junk congregated in the middle aisles of grocery stores. I shop the perimeters, by my choice, where fresh foods are marketed. And, I also grow my own. Let alone all the other junk we should not consume at all: smoking, liquor, drugs. Or an excess of anything. Even water kills, if consumed in too great a quantity. It’s called drowning.
Well, the brain consumes, as well. There’s a lot of brain junk food out there, such as provided by Sam Harris, just to tell me I don’t make my own decisions of my own volition? I am not a trained dog. I am a sentient human, able to think and act for myself on my own choices thought through and developed by critical thinking, even before I knew what that was. Sam Harris is a buffoon who never figured out he didn’t need to pee his pants as a toddler. He pees his brain on a constant, adult basis.
Shame on you for believing the stain.
The best argument I ever heard against the limitations of determinism [or any other limitations on human potential] was offered by Richard Bach, who said, "Argue for your limitations. They're yours."
-->
@fauxlaw
The Brain and the Law by David Eagleman
-->
@3RU7AL
Right, but there can be an event caused by multiple things, no?
The existence of x does not preclude the existence of y.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, still another who says aberrant behavior is at the root of all bad actors. Sure, but what is the cause of aberrant behavior? A tumor in the brain, says Eagleman, as if he can stop at that. But, the tumor is not root cause. Tumors can develop for a variety of reasons, some of which we cannot control. So, we control what can be controlled and take out some of the root cause that can be rooted out. How? By controlling our consumption. No, what we consume is not the only cause of tumors that can cause bad behavior, but why not eliminate the potential of that which we can control? Have a care for what goes in the pie hole, or is that out of your control, too? Does mommy still feed you? I trust not. So, decide to control what YOU put in your body, and not just in the pie hole. Why don't more of these eggheads figure that out? Mommy still feeding them, too?
-->
@Bones
something which "occurs to you" is outside of your control
Limited free will, does not equal free will absolutely does not exist. If you said chocolate does not exist, but I showed a single chocolate chip, that would negate. However, if you instead argued there was a chocolate shortage, that single piece of evidence would be a poor counter.
How can you make a choice, if your will to make a choice is driven by unconscious states of the mind?
Considering it is my unconscious state of mind in question, lack of perfect knowledge doesn't mean I don't still make any decisions (limited as they may be).
How can you decide between sushi or a burger when you are at a food court?
I suspect what your getting at is the absence of sushi carts? I live in a city with a thriving food cart industry, including a pretty good sushi cart just a couple miles from my house... However, if you mean my free will isn't linked to omnipotence to magically create whatever I want wherever I want it; that's just life within constraints of reality. I also cannot spontaneously sprout wings and fly to the moon; I can however choose to walk anywhere my feet will take me. Limited choice, doesn't equal no choice at all.
Similarly if I am sailing a boat, my freedom isn't linked to omnipotence to create whatever weather I desire to be sailing within. I can however choose to steer the boat however I see fit given the conditions. If I sail into a storm, the freedom of consequences will most likely kill me, but that does not negate that I influenced which path the boat took.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well we have every inductive reason to believe that my statement about the demon is true.