|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 29, 2014 21:47:17 GMT -5
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2014 15:32:24 GMT -5
"Do human beings ever freely choose, etc. in the sense that they could have done otherwise even if all the antecedent conditions up to the point of the choice, etc. were the same?"
Even if they could, would we ever be able to tell the difference?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 31, 2014 18:41:29 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 14:54:29 GMT -5
But the question whether any given person believes that is independent of the question whether that belief is based on facts, isn't it? The articles say nothing about whether these people's beliefs are correct or incorrect, so just based on that evidence we cannot tell whether actually having free will has an observable effect.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 4, 2014 23:31:38 GMT -5
But the question whether any given person believes that is independent of the question whether that belief is based on facts, isn't it? The articles say nothing about whether these people's beliefs are correct or incorrect, so just based on that evidence we cannot tell whether actually having free will has an observable effect. Right. All this article says is that people who believe in free will be happier, healthier,and live longer and more productive lives. That was the only point I was making here. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 17:12:44 GMT -5
And my point is that this is true *even if they are wrong*.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 5, 2014 17:29:47 GMT -5
And my point is that this is true *even if they are wrong*. Determinists have yet to demonstrate that the experience of free will is an illusion. Their claim is similar to the Zeno's "proof" that motion is an illusion. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 17:34:41 GMT -5
And my point is that this is true *even if they are wrong*. Determinists have yet to demonstrate that the experience of free will is an illusion. Their claim is similar to the Zeno's "proof" that motion is an illusion. Bob But isn't the existence of free will the positive claim in this argument? Until there is actual evidence for a "free will" that is separate from the underlying biological/neurological/sociological processes, you cannot assert that free will is proven to exist. Also, note that I am not a determinist. But I don't believe that there is a free will as per the definition of Maverick Philosopher et al. The entire argument of free will vs. determinism is based on unproven and unprovable assertions.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 6, 2014 0:05:41 GMT -5
Determinists have yet to demonstrate that the experience of free will is an illusion. Their claim is similar to the Zeno's "proof" that motion is an illusion. Bob But isn't the existence of free will the positive claim in this argument? Until there is actual evidence for a "free will" that is separate from the underlying biological/neurological/sociological processes, you cannot assert that free will is proven to exist. No. It's the default position for people to believe that in many of their decisions that they could have acted otherwise. The determinists have to prove their case. Fine. Then you must believe in free will because those are the only two options here. Did Maverick Philosopher give a definition of free will? I thought he was just arguing against some assertions of determinists. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 3:26:47 GMT -5
But isn't the existence of free will the positive claim in this argument? Until there is actual evidence for a "free will" that is separate from the underlying biological/neurological/sociological processes, you cannot assert that free will is proven to exist. No. It's the default position for people to believe that in many of their decisions that they could have acted otherwise. The determinists have to prove their case. Fine. Then you must believe in free will because those are the only two options here. I don't have to. Free will is NOT the opposite of determinism. The opposite statement to "I can prove that human beings are determined" is "I cannot prove whether human beings are determined", and the opposite statement to "I can prove that human beings are free-willed" is "I cannot prove the existence of free will". Strong determinism asserts that that human beings are determined to behave in one particular way. Strong free will asserts that that human beings are always able to choose from a set of different behaviors at will. But both assertions have, so far, been shown to be unprovable by logic or empiry. I don't have to believe in pink unicorns just because there is no proof for the existence of white ones. Right at the top of the article: "Do human beings ever freely choose, etc. in the sense that they could have done otherwise even if all the antecedent conditions up to the point of the choice, etc. were the same? Call this the libertararian sense of 'free' and distinguish it from the compatibilist sense of the word. To refine Coyne's thesis, he is claiming that libertarian freedom of the will is an illusion."
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 12:09:21 GMT -5
No. It's the default position for people to believe that in many of their decisions that they could have acted otherwise. The determinists have to prove their case. Fine. Then you must believe in free will because those are the only two options here. I don't have to. Free will is NOT the opposite of determinism. The opposite statement to "I can prove that human beings are determined" is "I cannot prove whether human beings are determined", and the opposite statement to "I can prove that human beings are free-willed" is "I cannot prove the existence of free will". Strong determinism asserts that that human beings are determined to behave in one particular way. Strong free will asserts that that human beings are always able to choose from a set of different behaviors at will. But both assertions have, so far, been shown to be unprovable by logic or empiry. If free will is true, then determinism is false. If determinism is true, free will is false. They are as opposite as can be. We are talking about human actions which, unlike unicorns, can easily be observed. Oops. Right, I missed it. Thanks. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 14:36:15 GMT -5
If free will is true, then determinism is false. If determinism is true, free will is false. They are as opposite as can be. Prove it. We are talking about claims about the reason behind human actions, not the actions themselves. I am either typing these words on my keyboard because I will it freely, or because I was determined to do so, but that does not change the observable action of me typing those words on my keyboard: We cannot observe free will or determinism directly because they are not empirical phenomena, they are explanations for empirical phenomena.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 16:34:40 GMT -5
If there is no free will, there would be no way to prove it. Same if there is free will and there could have been different actions than the actions that occurred. There is no way to prove that, either. You cannot go back and re-do an action. It cannot be proven no matter in what convoluted manner one might try to do it.
So...basically, the point of choosing one or the other is really only to back up one's chosen life philosophy, right? Otherwise, what is the point of the argument? No one is going to change their minds, anyway, correct? What could be a more useless waste of time?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 17:53:17 GMT -5
If there is no free will, there would be no way to prove it. Same if there is free will and there could have been different actions than the actions that occurred. There is no way to prove that, either. You cannot go back and re-do an action. It cannot be proven no matter in what convoluted manner one might try to do it. So...basically, the point of choosing one or the other is really only to back up one's chosen life philosophy, right? Otherwise, what is the point of the argument? No one is going to change their minds, anyway, correct? What could be a more useless waste of time? You don't have to go back in time to prove free will. Let's say you are in a restaurant and the waiter comes over to take your order. Do you ever say "I will have to wait for the impersonal natural forces to make this decision for me"? If there is no free will, why wouldn't you do that? But nobody ever does that. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 18:10:44 GMT -5
If there is no free will, there would be no way to prove it. Same if there is free will and there could have been different actions than the actions that occurred. There is no way to prove that, either. You cannot go back and re-do an action. It cannot be proven no matter in what convoluted manner one might try to do it. So...basically, the point of choosing one or the other is really only to back up one's chosen life philosophy, right? Otherwise, what is the point of the argument? No one is going to change their minds, anyway, correct? What could be a more useless waste of time? You don't have to go back in time to prove free will. Let's say you are in a restaurant and the waiter comes over to take your order. Do you ever say "I will have to wait for the impersonal natural forces to make this decision for me"? If there is no free will, why wouldn't you do that? But nobody ever does that. Bob First of all, I never said there was or wasn't free will. My argument is if there is or isn't, there's no way to prove it either way. As far as your question, that doesn't even make sense. Whatever anyone might say including the words "I will have to wait for the impersonal natural forces to make this decision for me", could be by free will or not, because free will or no free will can never be proven. I'm not arguing the veracity of either side; I'm arguing against the argument itself. It's useless. And you didn't answer why it isn't a complete waste of time, because no one is going to be convinced either way. The choice to believe either way depends on one's life philosophy. It is a choice, pure and simple. For myself, my decision is for free will. That makes more sense to me than the non-free-willers who poo-poo free-will but want to act as if there is free will and judge other people as if there is free will. For instance, if Mcans wants to live no-free-will, then why in the world is he arguing with you?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 7, 2014 21:59:44 GMT -5
You don't have to go back in time to prove free will. Let's say you are in a restaurant and the waiter comes over to take your order. Do you ever say "I will have to wait for the impersonal natural forces to make this decision for me"? If there is no free will, why wouldn't you do that? But nobody ever does that. Bob First of all, I never said there was or wasn't free will. My argument is if there is or isn't, there's no way to prove it either way. As far as your question, that doesn't even make sense. Whatever anyone might say including the words "I will have to wait for the impersonal natural forces to make this decision for me", could be by free will or not, because free will or no free will can never be proven. I'm not arguing the veracity of either side; I'm arguing against the argument itself. It's useless. And you didn't answer why it isn't a complete waste of time, because no one is going to be convinced either way. The choice to believe either way depends on one's life philosophy. It is a choice, pure and simple. For myself, my decision is for free will. That makes more sense to me than the non-free-willers who poo-poo free-will but want to act as if there is free will and judge other people as if there is free will. For instance, if Mcans wants to live no-free-will, then why in the world is he arguing with you? Okay Lily. As long as you are for free will we have no argument here. As for never being able to prove it, well science has made a lot of great advances proving things that no one thought could ever be proved. Maybe someday science will solve this problem, but probably not anytime soon. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 22:16:43 GMT -5
But, Bob. Again, I get partial answer. Why is this argument even warranted? Even logical? Same question for Mcans.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 8, 2014 0:20:25 GMT -5
But, Bob. Again, I get partial answer. Why is this argument even warranted? Even logical? Same question for Mcans. It's warranted because people have to know things for sure. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 21:34:38 GMT -5
Okay, give me an example of how one would know for sure that free will is true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 21:42:16 GMT -5
If there is no free will, there would be no way to prove it. Same if there is free will and there could have been different actions than the actions that occurred. There is no way to prove that, either. You cannot go back and re-do an action. It cannot be proven no matter in what convoluted manner one might try to do it. So...basically, the point of choosing one or the other is really only to back up one's chosen life philosophy, right? Otherwise, what is the point of the argument? No one is going to change their minds, anyway, correct? What could be a more useless waste of time? You don't have to go back in time to prove free will. Let's say you are in a restaurant and the waiter comes over to take your order. Do you ever say "I will have to wait for the impersonal natural forces to make this decision for me"? If there is no free will, why wouldn't you do that? But nobody ever does that. Bob Come on Bob, this is a strawman argument. You know full well that this is not what determinists claim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 21:53:59 GMT -5
If there is no free will, there would be no way to prove it. Same if there is free will and there could have been different actions than the actions that occurred. There is no way to prove that, either. You cannot go back and re-do an action. It cannot be proven no matter in what convoluted manner one might try to do it. So...basically, the point of choosing one or the other is really only to back up one's chosen life philosophy, right? Otherwise, what is the point of the argument? No one is going to change their minds, anyway, correct? What could be a more useless waste of time? It's not just that. People who believe in free also tend to use that position to deflect the idea of social responsibility. For example, conservatives like to use the position of free will to reject the notion that poverty drives people to commit crimes, or that poverty is in any way the result of social factors beyond an individual's control. Another example would be free market advocates using free will to deflect the argument that outside circumstances can and will direct economic behavior. The economist Friedrich Hayek even argued that free will makes predicting economic development impossible. Of course this has nothing to do with how human behavior actually works - the Libertarian notion of free will that Maverick Philosopher (and Bob) are defending here is basically an article of faith. There is little, if any, empirical support for it - but the idea that your comfortable life is the result of your own superior will and abilities is really, really comforting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 23:30:05 GMT -5
But, Bob. Again, I get partial answer. Why is this argument even warranted? Even logical? Same question for Mcans. It's not a logical problem, as such. That what I've been trying to point out - the question of free will in the way Maverick Philosopher posits it cannot be answered, because it's based on premises that have to be taken on faith alone. There are notions of free will that do not fall into that trap, but they are not "free will" in the classical liberal sense that Bob would prefer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 23:31:17 GMT -5
Gee, it was easier than I thought, to prove that the argument of free will vs. no free will, is simply due to one's philosphy of life, politicaly or otherwise. Your and Bob's debate is all about that, and nothing about proving or disproving the actual reality of whether each side of the question of free will or no free wlll is true or not. Because of course, there is no way that can be proved. All each of you is debating is which point of view is better than the other for human society as far as each of you seeing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 23:38:47 GMT -5
Gee, it was easier than I thought, to prove that the argument of free will vs. no free will, is simply due to one's philosphy of life, politicaly or otherwise. Your and Bob's debate is all about that, and nothing about proving or disproving the actual reality of whether each side of the question of free will or no free wlll is true or not. Because of course, there is no way that can be proved. All each of you is debating is which point of view is better than the other for human society as far as each of you seeing it. You're misreading me. When Bob created this thread, my first response was this: "Do human beings ever freely choose, etc. in the sense that they could have done otherwise even if all the antecedent conditions up to the point of the choice, etc. were the same?" Even if they could, would we ever be able to tell the difference? I don't care about "free will" in the way Bob uses the term, because as far as I'm concerned it's a matter of faith, not a subject of debate. Although there's something else I want to say: I think you have a bit of a overly high opinion of what we're doing here. Nobody here is going to unveil the secrets of reality by shooting the breeze on the internet. Not you, not me, not Bob, nor anybody else. We're killing time by talking to each other about subjects we find interesting. No more, no less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 23:50:06 GMT -5
So, not serious at all. I don't think Bob feels this way at all. Do you, Bob? That's exactly what I said, so you're wrong when you say I'm taking this too seriously. But, come on now. You're were taking it seriously as far as debating it. Maybe not in real life, but no one who argues for no-free-will ever takes it serioulsy in real life. So you're not telling me anything new.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 9, 2014 13:35:46 GMT -5
You don't have to go back in time to prove free will. Let's say you are in a restaurant and the waiter comes over to take your order. Do you ever say "I will have to wait for the impersonal natural forces to make this decision for me"? If there is no free will, why wouldn't you do that? But nobody ever does that. Bob Come on Bob, this is a strawman argument. You know full well that this is not what determinists claim. Really? What do you say they claim? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 9, 2014 13:39:11 GMT -5
It's not a logical problem, as such. That what I've been trying to point out - the question of free will in the way Maverick Philosopher posits it cannot be answered, because it's based on premises that have to be taken on faith alone. What are these premises that "have to be taken on faith alone?" What are they? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 9, 2014 13:43:49 GMT -5
Nobody here is going to unveil the secrets of reality by shooting the breeze on the internet. Not you, not me, not Bob, nor anybody else. We're killing time by talking to each other about subjects we find interesting. No more, no less. I don't believe we are just "killing time." For one thing, we are keeping our brains active and that is good for the health. For another, we it never hurts to get into a subject in depth and to clarify one's opinions. And it never hurts to talk to people with contrary opinions. This keeps the mind fresh. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 2:21:25 GMT -5
So, not serious at all. I don't think Bob feels this way at all. Do you, Bob? That's exactly what I said, so you're wrong when you say I'm taking this too seriously. But, come on now. You're were taking it seriously as far as debating it. Maybe not in real life, but no one who argues for no-free-will ever takes it serioulsy in real life. So you're not telling me anything new. I'm taking it "seriously" because that's what you do in a debate. Also, it's what I've been taught at university when I studied philosophy, as you can't really do philosophy without at least making a token effort at taking differing opinions at face value.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 2:25:59 GMT -5
It's not a logical problem, as such. That what I've been trying to point out - the question of free will in the way Maverick Philosopher posits it cannot be answered, because it's based on premises that have to be taken on faith alone. What are these premises that "have to be taken on faith alone?" What are they? Bob "Could have chosen otherwise". This is a literally unprobable premise. There is no possible empirical evidence from which you can infer this statement, and it is not a necessary conclusion from a self-evident premise.
|
|