Fallaneze

Deterministic processes do affect our environment but hasn't been determined to be the cause of any human behavior.

(1) human behavior is in direct contrast to how deterministic processes behave.

(2) quantum mechanics shows that reality is indeterminate unless observed. This, if true, proves that determinism is wrong.

(3) people prima facie have free will.

(4) determinism can't be a rationally held belief if it's in fact true. We would all be pawns of mindless forces, installing thoughts and behaviors into us as chemical reactions. Mindless forces that are doing all of the controlling are not rational and possess no understanding.

(5) if determinism is true, people have no moral culpability. Prima facie people have moral culpability.

(6) cause and effect are not violated if free will exist due to mental causation.

Hidden variables:

"Indeterminacy in measurement was not an innovation of quantum mechanics, since it had been established early on by experimentalists that errors in measurement may lead to indeterminate outcomes. However, by the later half of the eighteenth century, measurement errors were well understood and it was known that they could either be reduced by better equipment or accounted for by statistical error models. In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance."

Determinism hasn't been demonstrated to the cause of all human action either. 

You can once you eliminate the hidden variables. In quantum mechanics, it is not possible to eliminate the hidden variables because the physical system is indeterminate without observer participation. 

I'm not arguing that free will hinges on indeterminism being true but you're arguing that no free will exist because determinism is true. So I see how indeterminism in quantum systems is problem for your viewpoint but not mine.

Never mind, most definitions of determinism are incompatible with free will. But it depends on which defintion of determinism and free will is being used.

If there is indeterminism that means determinism is false. Your conclusion that free will does not exist hinges on determinism being true.

But I don't see a problem with determinism or indeterminism being true when it comes to free will. Mental causation is still cause but it's immaterial. So in that sense cause and effect is not violated. Even if reality is indeterminate until observed, cause and effect is still not violated. 

Here is the definition of determinism: "the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will." Here is another defintion: "Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes." As you can see, "every effect has a preceding cause" does not affirm determinism.

Indeterminism: "the doctrine that not all events are wholly determined by antecedent causes."

So even under indeterminism, every effect can have a preceding cause. It is just the distinction that not every event is determined by a preceding causal chain.

No, not as far as we know.

So is a universe with libertarian free will.

No, because the behavior of particles is indeterminate until observed.

Indeterminism is indicated in quantum mechanics.

An event can't be uncaused. An 'event' would mean that the conditions prior to it were different but uncaused would mean eternally existent or non-existent.

What differences would you expect to see between determinism and indeterminism? Clearly they are not one in the same. 

If we have no direct experience of being "remote-controlled" by external forces then determinism is false.

I'm not certain of anything except the fundamental laws of logic, math, and experience of my existence.

Have you changed your views on whether it's futile to prove a negative?

It depends on what you mean by "prove." You can "prove" something scientifically. You can "prove" something mathematically. You can "prove" something in court based on the preponderance of evidence. None of these things are the same.

No, I don't. That's also pretty good evidence that I'm not!

I can prove that a square isn't a triangle or that there isn't a one square-mile building in my front pocket.

Are you saying there is no imaginable difference between the feeling of being remote-controlled by external forces versus having control of yourself?

Discoveries in quantum mechanics indicate that reality is indeterminate unless "measured." Maybe we are the players in a participatory universe.

It would feel like something else was remote-controlling you.

It feels like the self, not external forces, controls us.

Good post.

Another chemical reaction.

A chemical reaction occurred.

There would be no point since your thoughts are not rational - they are just predetermined by physics and chemistry. I am arguing with physics and chemistry. When you accept that premise, there is no rational discussion to be had.

Your beliefs can't change and were determined during the Big Bang. You can't make rational statements, just automated responses determined by physics and chemistry.

I cannot accept your responses as rational. They are predetermined effect of chemistry and physics. Once you regain control of your thoughts and behaviors we can have a rational discussion. 

Cause and effect is not equal to hard determinism. Even if everything had a cause and effect this is still compatible with free will. Mental causation. It's prima facie true that we can choose between different courses of action. We notice a stark contrast between human behavior and deterministic laws.

Hard determinism is also subjected to the rationality problem.

P1) deterministic laws are not rational

P2) deterministic laws cause human thoughts and behaviors

C) human thoughts and behaviors are not rational

The logical implication is that hard determinism, if true, can't rationally be believed.

Determinism hasn't been determined to be the cause of human behavior. The laws of the physical universe are deterministic. We find ourselves in an environment that has deterministic laws. We aren't totally unaffected by our environment. Human behavior, however, is in stark contrast to deterministic laws. People at least have the strong illusion that they have free choices. The prima facie conclusions is that we can choose between different courses of action unless shown otherwise.

We were discussing whether reasons or will is more fundamental in causing human behavior. We didn't agree that hard determinism is the best explanation. If anything, how *different* human behavior is from determinism is evidence of non-determinism. 

Cause and effect and free will aren't mutually exclusive. Hard determinism and free will are mutually exclusive. 

What do you mean by that?

I think it has less explanatory power than the primacy of will.

Even if every person you spoke with had a reason for doing whatever they were doing, how did you determine the reason wasn't after the fact? It's easier to argue that our will comes prior to what we do than it is to argue that our reasons come prior to what we do. Again, when you're moving through a crowd do you need to clearly reason in your head that "I must move in between people so I don't bump into them" or do just do that without thinking about it? If you do that without thinking about it, then your will is more fundamental in your actions than your reasons are.

You can't observe reasons. How did you determine that reasons always precede will and not vice versa? People are on autopilot all the time. Like walking through a crowd. Getting out of people's way is more of an automated response than deliberately planning it. To say that people don't need reasons to react is more accurate than saying that they don't need will to react. Will causes us to act while our motives set our intentions.

A person's motives (reasons) sets their intentions but their will is what drives (or causes) their actions towards that goal.

Yes, because the will is what drives the action. The reason is the marker on the map.

Reasons don't automatically make us do something. We can consider the reasons for and against something and then make a decision. The cause for doing something is our will, not the reasons.

Your character forms your intentions and your intentions form your character. We have the ability to direct our intentions away from our natural inclinations. Our intentions become choices and our series of choices helps define our character. 

Your intentions are a product of your character. There's a feedback loop between your innate dispositions and your intentions which then lead to choices.  

Sure, intentionality.

Yes.

I disagree that no other force is evidenced. People don't feel as though their choices are being forced by something beyond their will. People feel as though their choices are made in accordance with their will. This places control within the individual, not with external deterministic forces. So determinism is not sufficient to explain why we experience control over our will but free will, however, does. Free will is prima facie rather than determinism.

I agree that our thoughts and behaviors are affected by deterministic forces. I disagree that our thoughts and behaviors are produced by deterministic forces.

Okay.

Without stating whether you agree or disagree with the premises that serve as the foundation of your belief that human beings have no free will there is no sense in trying to reach an endpoint in the discussion.

Anyone up for debating your beliefs about the existence of God?

Your statement coincides with mine which states: "Human thoughts and behaviors, as far as we know, are produced by deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics. Agree or disagree?"

Why not just say "agree" and follow it up with your explanation as to why you think that? 

I cannot make a demonstration simpler than making statements, one at a time, and asking whether you agree or disagree with it. If you aren't willing to do that then we'll leave this as is.

Okay, so do you agree with the statement then?

Human thoughts and behaviors, as far as we know, are produced by deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics. Agree or disagree?

I have though, many times.

If you're up to it, I'll send you one statement at a time, let me know if you agree or disagree with it, then at the end we'll look at your responses and notice a contradiction.

No. I'm asking you to consider the incompatibility of determinism and rational human beings per the defintion of rational.