Fallaneze

You can phrase it that way if you'd like, but it doesn't change the mutual exclusivity of P2 and P3.

Because P2) is preceded by P1). 

P1) deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics, do not possess reason or understanding.

"Rational" is defined as "having reason or understanding." Deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics, therefore, are not rational.

P2) deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics, produce human thoughts and behaviors.

P3) Human thoughts and behaviors are rational.

You need to either accept P2 or P3 but not both since that would result in a contradiction. If you accept P3, determinism must be false. If P2 is true, P3 must be false.

I'm asking how we can have reason and understanding if our thoughts and behaviors are produced by forces that do not possess reason or understanding.

Here is the Merriam definition of "rational":

"having reason or understanding."

I'm showing a logical implication of determinism.

I am not trying to show whether determinism or indeterminism is true.

Let me put it this way. Here are a series of statements that will make the problem more clear. Try not to skip anything.

[1] Physics, chemistry, and other forces that control human thoughts and behaviors are probably deterministic. Agree or disagree? 

[2] Physics, chemistry, and other forces that control human thoughts and behaviors are probably not rational. Agree or disagree? 

If you accept [1] and [2], then the conclusion that human thoughts and behaviors are not rational automatically follows.

Wrong, because rationality is incompatible with deterministic processes. If human beings are rational then their behaviors must not be controlled by deterministic processes.

It is incompatible. If you agree that human beings are rational, they cannot be controlled by deterministic processes. If human beings are controlled by deterministic processes, they cannot be rational because deterministic processes are not rational.

We did not. It was an IF/THEN statement. If human thoughts are purely the result of deterministic processes like physics and chemistry, then human beings are not rational because the forces that control human behavior are not rational.

If thought processes are the product of material cause and effect, a deterministic process, then these thought processes are not rational.

You are not able to reconcile the existence of rational human beings with your beliefs on free will. 

Why are you assuming that an immaterial cause must be linked to a prior immaterial cause? There is no basis for asserting that mental causation must have a prior immaterial cause unless you want to explain how you've observed immaterial causes acting upon immaterial causes. 

Again, "random" does not mean uncaused. Radioactive decay happens randomly. Radioactive decay is not causeless. Random does not mean what you think it means.

I repeat: explain how human behavior is rational if the forces that control human behavior are not rational.

Explain how human behavior is rational if the forces that control human behavior are not rational.

Well if human behavior is determined by physics and chemistry, and neither one are rational, then human behavior can't be rational.

Computers recognize logic but they are not rational. Furthermore, all of our decisions are made by mindless forces beyond our control, mindless forces that cannot act rationally (unless you want to argue that physics is rational).

Random does not mean uncaused. The universe is either deterministic or not deterministic. 

That only makes sense in the context of free will. There is no "more" or "less" rational decisions if everyone is merely a pawn of mindless forces. Rationality entails the ability to choose between competing courses of action. Under determinism that would not be possible.

I reiterate: assuming free will does not exist, nobody is rational. If nobody is rational, our reasons for believing in the non-existence of free will aren't rational. Therefore, nobody can rationally believe that free will does not exist if free will doesn't exist. 

Exactly. Everything is pre-determined to occur. So lie down on the floor and do nothing all day and believe the outcome would've been the same.

This is just silliness. If you're telling me you aren't capable of lying down and doing nothing then don't simultaneously try to convince me that your position on free will is the more rational one.

Even if there's a difference in likelihood that I'll follow through with my decision once I've made up my mind about doing something would disprove hard determinism.

People who argue that free will doesn't exist should just lie down on the floor and do nothing all day and trust that the outcome would've been the same had they decided not to do that. If you aren't willing to put yourself to that test, you don't really believe what you're arguing.

Yes, because choosing not to do something is a choice. If you decide not to leave the house 5 minutes from now, that's a choice made in the present moment but affects future behavior.

Right, but that only applies to decisions that have already been made. What about future decisions? If I'm thinking about whether to leave the house in 5 minutes has that decision already been made? Under hard determinism, yes, under free will, no.

Can we choose otherwise? If yes, free will. If not, no free will.

Free will isn't a "feeling" it's an intellectual "seeming" that we have control over our decisions. So is there any difference between the way humans make decisions and the way robots or computers make decisions?

Do you observe any difference in decision-making between yourself and a computer or robot?

So you can't answer whether it feels like we have free will or not?

Let's start here. 

It seems like we have free will. Agree or disagree?

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

"Caused" not equate to determinism. Mental causation.

I'm not saying it is, but it might be. 

Mental causation would be the beginning of the causal chain. You can't have an infinite regress of causes. 

Acausal, uncaused, not caused. 

Why would indeterminism be incompatible with free will? I agree determinism is incompatible with free will if free will means the ability to choose between alternative realities. 

The dichotomy is either cause/effect or not cause/effect. The dichotomy is not between cause/effect or random. 

It seems to matter to me. If something is immaterial, like mental causation, then how is it subject to deterministic processes? If it isn't, then there's nothing logically incoherent about free will co-existing in a material cause/effect universe.

Sure. Perhaps no material causation precedes mental causation. Since that is within the realm of possibility, and therefore logically coherent, what's your justification of your claim that 'mental causation is subject to cause and effect or is a random event'?

I don't think so. If someone were held at gunpoint and asked if they be shot or the kid next to them be shot, they may choose to sacrifice themselves in the belief that the kid will be saved, but choosing this isn't "desirable." I think the word you're looking for is "preferable."

Desires may in fact have physical causes. Our ability to choose not to act on those desires, however, shows that our behavior is not foremost controlled by our desires.

Do you have evidence for your claim that "mental causation is either subject to cause and effect or it is a random event"?

Mental causation is the idea that intentional thoughts or intentional mental states are causes of intentional actions. The cause is mental and the effect manifests into actions.

Cause and effect is compatible with free will. 

Twoman I thought you were an advocate of no free will?

That is not a dichotomy. You should try reading it again and understand what I'm saying.

If our thoughts and beliefs are predetermined by physics, we are not thinking and believing rationally because physics is not capable of rationally thinking and believing. 

You cannot rationally meta-analyze rational arguments without also presupposing you are a non-rational agent by accepting that no free will exists.

Sure it is. Mental causation.

It is fruitless to argue against free will because doing so would implicate you as a non-rational agent  If you're a non-rational agent then you can't make rational arguments any more than debris falling on a keyboard can.

Random does not mean uncaused. Random just means that the timing of the effect cannot be predicted.

Here's my take.

(1) It's normative but how one ought to treat another individual is specific to that individual's circumstances. Usually, normative theories are based on generalizable rules that apply to everyone regardless of anyone's social identity (i.e. consequentialism). Under the ethics of care, however, underserved individuals, like minorities and women, are owed increased care. The level of care they deserve is further determined by their circumstances.

It is its own distinct moral theory.

"Care" is a conglomeration of 'good behaviors' like "attentiveness", "responsibility", "competence", and "responsiveness." The wiki page quickly explains what each one means.

(2) it prescribes increased care to underserved individuals such as minorities and women.

(3) the advocation of special care for groups, such as minority women, for the advancement and protection of feminist virtues. Gender discrimination still exists and is why the ethics of care was developed.

That's what I believe it means.

No need to throw insults. This is the last bit of attention I'm giving you so savor it.