|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 12, 2014 18:29:55 GMT -5
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. Sure there is.Don't you notice any difference between cases where you personally could have chosen otherwise and those where you fell compelled? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2014 6:46:45 GMT -5
"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. Sure there is.Don't you notice any difference between cases where you personally could have chosen otherwise and those where you fell compelled? Bob Assuming the consequent. We have no established that there are cases where I personally could have chosen otherwise. If you mean that there is a difference between feeling that you have a choice, and feeling that you don't, then you've already answered your own question - the difference between the two cases is your own personal feeling on the matter.  |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 13, 2014 15:46:55 GMT -5
Sure there is.Don't you notice any difference between cases where you personally could have chosen otherwise and those where you fell compelled? Bob Assuming the consequent. We have no established that there are cases where I personally could have chosen otherwise. If you mean that there is a difference between feeling that you have a choice, and feeling that you don't, then you've already answered your own question - the difference between the two cases is your own personal feeling on the matter. Do you have any evidence that this feeling is not accurate? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2014 9:21:59 GMT -5
Assuming the consequent. We have no established that there are cases where I personally could have chosen otherwise. If you mean that there is a difference between feeling that you have a choice, and feeling that you don't, then you've already answered your own question - the difference between the two cases is your own personal feeling on the matter. Do you have any evidence that this feeling is not accurate? Bob Do you believe that your personal feelings are sufficient evidence to infer a universal law of nature from them? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 14, 2014 20:26:35 GMT -5
Do you have any evidence that this feeling is not accurate? Bob Do you believe that your personal feelings are sufficient evidence to infer a universal law of nature from them? Sorry, I should not have said "feelings." Personal experience would be a better term. And no, that is still not evidence to infer a universal law of nature. But it is a starting point. We frequently experience a sensation of free will and believe that we could have chosen otherwise on many occasions. Is there any evidence that this sensation is wrong? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 12:23:31 GMT -5
Do you believe that your personal feelings are sufficient evidence to infer a universal law of nature from them? Sorry, I should not have said "feelings." Personal experience would be a better term. And no, that is still not evidence to infer a universal law of nature. But it is a starting point. We frequently experience a sensation of free will and believe that we could have chosen otherwise on many occasions. Is there any evidence that this sensation is wrong? Bob We also frequently experience a sensation of being determined by forces we cannot control, do we not? Why do you believe that the sensation of being the master of your fate is any more accurate than the reverse? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 15, 2014 15:16:44 GMT -5
Sorry, I should not have said "feelings." Personal experience would be a better term. And no, that is still not evidence to infer a universal law of nature. But it is a starting point. We frequently experience a sensation of free will and believe that we could have chosen otherwise on many occasions. Is there any evidence that this sensation is wrong? Bob We also frequently experience a sensation of being determined by forces we cannot control, do we not? Why do you believe that the sensation of being the master of your fate is any more accurate than the reverse? But I don't! Both experiences are accurate. This shows we are able to distinguish being in control from not being in control. According to determinism, the experience of being in control is an "illusion" while the experience of not being in control is accurate. But once again, where is the evidence? Bob Marks |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2014 6:37:37 GMT -5
"The evidence" is that we know that our brain works based on chemical and bio-electrical processes that are themselves not freely chosen by us. Note that I do not agree that humans are absolutely determined by natural processes, but as far as these processes are deterministic, so are we.
In order to make a case for free will that has similar strength, you need to produce at the very least some empirical evidence of free choice that cannot be explained simply by deterministic chemical/biological/electrical processes.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 16, 2014 18:06:55 GMT -5
"The evidence" is that we know that our brain works based on chemical and bio-electrical processes that are themselves not freely chosen by us. Note that I do not agree that humans are absolutely determined by natural processes, but as far as these processes are deterministic, so are we.In order to make a case for free will that has similar strength, you need to produce at the very least some empirical evidence of free choice that cannot be explained simply by deterministic chemical/biological/electrical processes. Not really. We know that our bodies are made of atoms that are not alive. Does that mean we cannot be alive? That conclusion here would be a Fallacy of Combination, as is the conclusion that we don't really choose because our chemical and bio-electrical processes don't choose. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 3:13:02 GMT -5
I just have one thing to say about this. If there is truly no free will, then there is no way in hell anyone could tell it is not so. No amount of "feelings" one way or another will tell you that it is not. It's only common sense that if the first cause caused every other cause throughout time, that even "feeling" that one is compelled or not compelled about any action is also predetermined from the first cause. In other words, you would have been predetermined to think that. Thinking one is freely thinking would be nothing but an illusion. How can it not be? Feelings are caused by other causes and proves nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 12:04:57 GMT -5
"The evidence" is that we know that our brain works based on chemical and bio-electrical processes that are themselves not freely chosen by us. Note that I do not agree that humans are absolutely determined by natural processes, but as far as these processes are deterministic, so are we.In order to make a case for free will that has similar strength, you need to produce at the very least some empirical evidence of free choice that cannot be explained simply by deterministic chemical/biological/electrical processes. Not really. We know that our bodies are made of atoms that are not alive. Does that mean we cannot be alive? That conclusion here would be a Fallacy of Combination, as is the conclusion that we don't really choose because our chemical and bio-electrical processes don't choose. Bob [br The former is a fallacy because we have a definite set of qualities that distinguishes living organisms from unliving matter, and these qualities can be observed in physical reality. The latter is not a fallacy because we cannot observe a difference between free choice and deterministic behavior. My conclusion is not a fallacy of combination, but simply the application of Occam's Razor - if our brain chemistry is sufficient to explain our behavior, then there is no need to introduce an unobservable, unprovable principle just because. If you want to demonstrate the existence of free will, you need to do one of two things: * produce empirical evidence that humans do in fact choose freely, or * demonstrate that in order to explain human behavior, it is logically necessary to assume free will by your definition. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 12:08:57 GMT -5
I just have one thing to say about this. If there is truly no free will, then there is no way in hell anyone could tell it is not so. No amount of "feelings" one way or another will tell you that it is not. It's only common sense that if the first cause caused every other cause throughout time, that even "feeling" that one is compelled or not compelled about any action is also predetermined from the first cause. In other words, you would have been predetermined to think that. Thinking one is freely thinking would be nothing but an illusion. How can it not be? Feelings are caused by other causes and proves nothing. Very deftly observed, Lily! If we assume that physical reality is deterministic, then we can't actually prove the existence of free will via evidence from physical reality. (Of course, the whole chain of causality is itself problematic because we can't assume a first cause without contradicting ourselves...  ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 13:56:24 GMT -5
Exactly. Anything we might think we freely think would be invalided from that opinion from the get-go. Which includes the opinion about the first cause. We would actually be robots, wouldn't we? By the way, mcans, how about choosing a name that would that make you appear more human...such as maybe Wolfgang? or maybe Helmut? Something like that. Huh? You can still keep mcans at the same time for membership. P.S. I'm not just making up those names. They're names of a couple of Austrian friends and family of mine. I'm not making fun, if anyone thinks that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 14:41:32 GMT -5
You can just call me Markus if you feel like it, Lily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 14:51:02 GMT -5
You can just call me Markus if you feel like it, Lily. Actually, I would like that a lot. Thanks, Markus. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 17, 2014 16:01:07 GMT -5
Not really. We know that our bodies are made of atoms that are not alive. Does that mean we cannot be alive? That conclusion here would be a Fallacy of Combination, as is the conclusion that we don't really choose because our chemical and bio-electrical processes don't choose. Bob [br The former is a fallacy because we have a definite set of qualities that distinguishes living organisms from unliving matter, and these qualities can be observed in physical reality. The latter is not a fallacy because we cannot observe a difference between free choice and deterministic behavior. My conclusion is not a fallacy of combination, but simply the application of Occam's Razor - if our brain chemistry is sufficient to explain our behavior, then there is no need to introduce an unobservable, unprovable principle just because. If you want to demonstrate the existence of free will, you need to do one of two things: * produce empirical evidence that humans do in fact choose freely, or * demonstrate that in order to explain human behavior, it is logically necessary to assume free will by your definition. But we can make a distinction. A heroin addict, for example, has no choice about whether or not to get their next fix. They can, however, decide which movie they are going to see next, or even if they are going to a movie at all. Are you claiming that people cannot distinguish a difference between deciding to go to a movie and being addicted? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 10:42:38 GMT -5
[br The former is a fallacy because we have a definite set of qualities that distinguishes living organisms from unliving matter, and these qualities can be observed in physical reality. The latter is not a fallacy because we cannot observe a difference between free choice and deterministic behavior. My conclusion is not a fallacy of combination, but simply the application of Occam's Razor - if our brain chemistry is sufficient to explain our behavior, then there is no need to introduce an unobservable, unprovable principle just because. If you want to demonstrate the existence of free will, you need to do one of two things: * produce empirical evidence that humans do in fact choose freely, or * demonstrate that in order to explain human behavior, it is logically necessary to assume free will by your definition. But we can make a distinction. A heroin addict, for example, has no choice about whether or not to get their next fix. They can, however, decide which movie they are going to see next, or even if they are going to a movie at all. Are you claiming that people cannot distinguish a difference between deciding to go to a movie and being addicted? Bob I am claiming that to an observer, free choice is indistinguishable from deterministic choice. If you "decide" to go to a movie, your decision is based on how much you like the movie, how much you enjoy watching movies in general, whether you would prefer anything else, how you like the person you're going with etc. And those, in turn, are based on your memories, how you feel at the time, how you feel with regards to the person you're going out with etc. in other words, chemical processes in your brain. But you aren't going to "choose" what you don't prefer, and you won't make a choice that you're not (at least subconsciously) favoring over the alternatives. The very act of choosing "freely" is industinguishable from the act of going along a deterministic process. There is simply no area where you can insert a "free will" that would make any difference at all here. Your belief in free choice is based on your subjective conviction that you could have chosen otherwise, but there is no indication to an observer that you ever would have chosen otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 18, 2014 21:30:42 GMT -5
But we can make a distinction. A heroin addict, for example, has no choice about whether or not to get their next fix. They can, however, decide which movie they are going to see next, or even if they are going to a movie at all. Are you claiming that people cannot distinguish a difference between deciding to go to a movie and being addicted? Bob I am claiming that to an observer, free choice is indistinguishable from deterministic choice. Then you are claiming that there is no noticeable difference between normal choices and that of a heroin addict? Then all human choices are in principle 100% predictable and psychology is an exact science, like physics. Is that your claim? No. It's based on direct introspective perception. And if the observer believes that no one can choose otherwise, let the observer predict human choices with 100% accuracy. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 4:21:40 GMT -5
Why would lack of free will lead to 100% predictability?
Besides, it's possible for you to have free will and still be 100% predictable.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 23, 2014 21:09:23 GMT -5
Why would lack of free will lead to 100% predictability? Not quite. Determinism makes predictability possible, and determinism precludes free will. How? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2014 0:18:32 GMT -5
100% preidctiable you will remain a cheap-don't-care-about-anybody-but-your-self Libertairian. That wasn't so difficult, now was it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2014 3:16:47 GMT -5
Why would lack of free will lead to 100% predictability? Not quite. Determinism makes predictability possible, and determinism precludes free will. So you claim it's impossible to predict human behavior, then? By being a rational egoist. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 24, 2014 3:23:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 24, 2014 10:13:40 GMT -5
Not quite. Determinism makes predictability possible, and determinism precludes free will. So you claim it's impossible to predict human behavior, then? With 100% accuracy like the physical sciences? Yes. But how does being a rational egoist make 100% predictability possible? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2014 20:50:43 GMT -5
So you claim it's impossible to predict human behavior, then? With 100% accuracy like the physical sciences? Yes. Where do you get the idea from that the physical sciences are 100% accurate? A rational egoist will always follow the objectively optimal strategy in his decisions. So once we have laid out which strategy is objectively optimal, we can accurately predict his decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 24, 2014 21:46:12 GMT -5
With 100% accuracy like the physical sciences? Yes. Where do you get the idea from that the physical sciences are 100% accurate? Did you ever take classes in physics or chemistry? This assumes that, in every case, there will be only one optimal strategy. Is that your claim? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 11:56:46 GMT -5
Where do you get the idea from that the physical sciences are 100% accurate? Did you ever take classes in physics or chemistry? I know of no physicist or chemist who would be capable of measuring things with absolute 100% accuracy. Do you? There cannot be more than one optimal strategy. There can only be one optimum, just like there can only be one first place. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 25, 2014 14:06:07 GMT -5
Did you ever take classes in physics or chemistry? I know of no physicist or chemist who would be capable of measuring things with absolute 100% accuracy. Do you? You added the word "absolute", which I never said. I ask again, did you ever take classes in physics or chemistry? Wrong. Remember the case of the donkey that is placed exactly between two equal piles of hay? There is no reason for the donkey to choose one over the other, so it starves to death. In real life, there are frequently choices with more than one "optimal" strategy. Example: You have a choice between a lower paying job in a large city with many cultural and social activities and a higher paying job in a small town with fewer activities. Logic won't help here because logic depends on premises and it's the competing premises that are the problem. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 7:26:01 GMT -5
I know of no physicist or chemist who would be capable of measuring things with absolute 100% accuracy. Do you? You added the word "absolute", which I never said. Okay. Then let me change the wording: Are the predictions and measurements made by physicists and chemists 100% accurate? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 7:30:54 GMT -5
In real life, there are frequently choices with more than one "optimal" strategy. Example: You have a choice between a lower paying job in a large city with many cultural and social activities and a higher paying job in a small town with fewer activities. Logic won't help here because logic depends on premises and it's the competing premises that are the problem. One of those are clearly optimal depending on how much you value cultural and social activities vs. having money. The only true case of choices that are both equally "optimal" would be two choices that are literally equivalent, i.e. where the risks, drawbacks, and benefits are of exactly equal value. And that works only when the two choices are exactly the same. |
|
)