Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So you can't answer whether it feels like we have free will or not?
I don't see how without having knowingly experienced both states and whether freewill exists and whether or not I possess it I have only ever experienced one of these states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Without an example of the feeling of both having and the feeling of not having freewill to compare we cannot say that it does seem this way but even if we could my fingernail seems to be all one contigious surface while in reality it is a collection of particles held together by elctromagnetic fields. The way things seem does not inform what things actually are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The point of paradise is to act as the carrot and eternal torment is the stick .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I am engaged in questioning my assumptions right now (or rather I am employing the help of others on the site to question them for me) and I would very much like to believe in freewill. So if you have a (logically coherent) method of determining whether freewill exists and indeed what it even is please let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Also the question of whether we have a self is immaterial to the question of whether or not we possess freewill since the self is either subject to cause and effect or its actiins/decisions are indistinguishable from random.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Intuition can lead equally to true or false conclusions which makes it a poor pathway to truth. Your "intuition" that there must be a self leaves us still not knowing the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Without a rigorous agreed upon definition we cannot be certain we are even having the same conversation. I'm afraid the definition must come first. Also I am no more claiming that a leaf does not have a self than I am claiming that you do. I am only saying that there is no particular reason to suspect that either you or a leaf has freewill.a self, an immaterial, ethereal 'thing' I won't try to define yet
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What make you believe "reasons" are deterministic? You're conflating immaterial causes with material causes and concluding that all causes have material explanations.
It actually does not matter whether the cause is material or immaterial ANY cause makes the subject under discussion subject to cause and effect. Suggesting a nonmaterial cause does not resolve this issue but it does require you shoulder a burden of proof for your claim that there are immaterial causes.
Created:
Posted in:
can't we surmise a non-physical component is involved?
We could but it would be an untestable (nul) hypothesis.
I prefer to think
What we prefer to think is immaterial to what can be supported through the evidence.
operating alongside ordinary physical cause and effect
This side by side force is either subject to cause and effect (deyerminism) or is not subject to any reason or purpose (both would be causes and so cause and effect) in which case we have indeterminism which is indistinguishable from random chance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't know is often the answer but I have never observed anything with desires that was not at least partly physical. We can therefore surmise that desire has a physical component. Anything beyond this would have to be demonstrated before we could accept it our ability to disprove a nul hypothesis aside.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you have a reason for doing something then the reason is the cause so in order for your 'choices' to be causeless (at any step in the causal chain) there can be no reason for them and I cannot distinguish between a causeless event and a random one indeed I cannot distinguish between a causeless event and one whose cause is simply not apparent to me.
Unless we disagree on the definitions being used this is all definitionaly true.
Do you have a method for distinguishing between a causeless event a random eventbamd an event which has a cause which is not evident?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Your mental causation is either subject to cause and effect or it is indistinguishable from random.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you can make 'choices' then these choices are either come to based on our circumstances/preferences in which case they are caused (determinism) or we are doing things without a cause and since a reason or a rational would be a cause borne of your circumstances/preferences. Indeterminism demands that you have neither. This is indistinguishable from random.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If determinism is true then it undercuts freewill and even if one can make 'choices' you are still either making determinations based on your current circumstances (making ypur 'choices' according to cause and effect or throwing the metaphorical dice (doing something for no reason since a reason is a cause.).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What makes you think mental causation is immaterial? And in any case why would mental causation not be subject to the causal chain? And if random is not the right word for what I mean then help me find the right one. Indeterminism is not compatible with freewill and determinism is not compatible with freewill. What third option am I missing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What a gish gallop you have presented me with.
Why don't we just cut to the heart of it then. How do people determine morality without god(s)? In my case the promotion of wellbeing and the minimizing of harm. So if we are to use this standard (wellbeing vs harm) then the god described in the bible does and commands some pretty harmful (and therefore immoral) things.
Including but not limited to
Genocide
Slavery
Murder
Torture
Discrimination
Infanticide
Regicide
and
Mysogyny
I would like to think your morals are rather better than your god(s) my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Thanks for the honesty, at least it didn't take you too long to get there.- Get where? In case you are too slow to get it, this is completely irrelevant to my answer, Creator God = Specific God in Islam, for the 'Specific God' is defined -in the Quran- as the Singular Transcendent Absolute 'Creator God' ; once belief in the latter is established, so is belief in the former, BY DEFINITION.
I'm pretty sure this,wasn't my post but I would be happy to respond with a question.
Do you Yassine know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive language?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
it is through preponderant evidence & proof.
Odd we have discussed the Quran before and I do not recall your ever meeting your burden of proof of the existence of any god(s) let alone Allah specifically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I only know that I have no sufficient evidence for any god(s) and that I cannot maintain a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence. This is the totality of my atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
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'?
It is irrelevant if the causal chain is material. Dualism does not solve the conundrum. A metaphysical thing/being/force would still be either subject to cause and effect or behave randomly.
No clever mix of the two brings us to freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
God doesn't exist.
If true this does rather invalidate devine command theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
As an atheist I can see one slight problem with DCT.
Please share your thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A desire is a physical thing in that it is a brainstate and brainstate would seem to be achieved through chemical and electrical means. Since electricity and chemical compounds are both physical things desires must also be considered so. The question remains irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Indeed it may prove an inroad to discussing Devine command theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
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."
This is irrelevant unless you choose your preferences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Do you have evidence for your claim that "mental causation is either subject to cause and effect or it is a random event"?
Can you suggest a (logically coherent) alternative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Perhaps we can look at what is being affected in this 'cause and effect'.Let's say the effect is a desire for tea rather than coffee. What is a desire? A desire can only be the effect of prior physical casuses if it is itself something physical. So is a desire something physical?
This question is irrelevant unless you choose your desires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
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.
Are you arguing that cause and effect is insufficient to explain this process? What you refer to as mental causation is either subject to cause and effect or it is a random event.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Cause and effect is compatible with free will.
Very well please demomstrate/explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I didn't. I demonstrated that it does not violate cause and effect.
How have you demonstrated that? And assuming you do/did demonstrate such a thing you do realize that this leaves us with evidence for cause and effect and only speculation of freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
This is not what I am saying. I am saying that cause and effect are sufficient to explain human agency. You are the one claiming this extra unnecessary undemonstrable thing called freewill.Opponents seem to be saying that having reasons for making a decision means a lack of agency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
In what way have you demonstrated that the phenomenon you refer to as choice is not governed by cause and effect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
This is the same false dichotomy repackaged.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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Having mechanistic "qualities" is much different than being a machine. Are you able verify or demonstrate that what every single human being experiences is incorrect? Are you able to verify or demonstrate that the human mind is just an organic machine that is incapable of independent agency?
Don't shift the burden of proof. You're better than that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The 'Socratic method' is to explore issues through dialogue to bring out meaning where it is not initially clear.
Very well then proceed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
This is a false dichotomy. It is not either or unless you can demonstrate that rational thought is not subject to cause and effect. Cause and effect is sufficient, which is to say that any extraneous thing (such as freewill) must be demonstrated or we have no rational reason to believe in it.You cannot rationally meta-analyze rational arguments without also presupposing you are a non-rational agent by accepting that no free will exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I think that the only way you can look at choice as an illusion is if you believe that the human mind is a purely mechanistic device that has no ability to direct thoughts to an unpredictable outcome. I don't see it that way.
That the human mind has mechanistic qualities is verifiable. That there is more to the human mind is something that we (may) feel intuitively. Intuition can as easily lead to wrong conclusions as correct ones. It would seem that how you see things and what you can demonstrate are two different things (at least in this case)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
That is both a logical and semantic distinction that I disagree with.
Then please provide a (logically coherent) alternative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Unless self is definable I'm not sure how we can have a serious conversation about it.
Also
I still think you're hung up on free will having to be causeless,
If there is a cause then cause and effect if no cause then random happenstance. NEITHER is compatible with the idea of freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
which causes me me to take an action "C".
If something caused you to do something you have been compelled you did not choose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you are looking to rational arguments to make determinations then these rational arguments can be considered a cause and since you have no personal control over what is rational you can hardly point at this as an argument for freewill.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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If it is caused then it is subject to cause and effect. Cause and effect is not compatible with freewill.Random does not mean uncaused. Random just means that the timing of the effect cannot be predicted.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't often "bump" a thread but this was a brilliant one that never really got the chance it deserves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Any supporters of Jesus clearly feel that in at least one instance punishing someone for a crime he did not commit was both moral and necessary. Otherwise their god has a lot to answer for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
And under my stated goal you would generally be correct. But my stated goal is not universal. Mother Teresa believed that suffering brought us closer to god and felt that she was behaving morally when she promoted suffering. Considering all morality as if objective is like asking the capitol of a country without telling you which country I mean. Suddenly there are many 'right' answers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
While I am inclined to leave that up to you I would say, if pressed, that in that case driving the getaway car is a crime and the man being described is not innocent.Does "a crime they didn't commit" include things like giving a getaway driver in a stick up that ends in murder? In the US you can be charged for murder under that pretense. Technically, he didn't commit murder but he does bear culpability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Morality isn't like the capitol of a nation. What is moral changes situationally even if you agree with my stated goal of maximizing wellbeing.
For example it would generally be wrong (under this stated goal) to cut someone but a surgeon might be behaving immorally if he refuses to cut someone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Either or any. This is your made up society go nuts.Meaning of ( To Punish ) someone ? From Go to your room to execution
Meaning of ( A Crime )
For the sake of argument we could use the laws enforced in your region.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A causeless choice would be a random event (in fact not a choice at all) and that is incompatible with freewill. If whatever you are calling freewill is a cause it must still itself either have a cause or be a random event both are incompatible with freewill. Keith I would like to believe in freewill I really would! The idea sounds so nice. I get to decide my own fate? Sign me up! Sadly it seems nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So you are of the opinion that morality is subjective?Of course it is moral. Everything is moral. The question is not about whether it is moral, but about whose morals are we talking about?
Created: