Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Dilemma of Determinism

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:24:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?

Yes.... logic is fun to manipulate.

For example:

IF A then B.
A.
>B

If not A then not B.
not A.
>not B.

etc.

IF only A and B were always true premises... the possibilities would be endless.
Tsar of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:38:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?

Yayyy. ^_^
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:40:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?

Oh, and to approach your argument -- just because you chose something, does not mean that it was inevitable that you chose it. It simply means that there is some degree of likelihood that you would have made another choice, given one does not know enough about the situation to make a concrete determination.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:41:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

This is where everything goes wrong, right here.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 7:48:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

Combatabilists beg to differ. Not that I am one, I'm undecided but P2 definitely has a large burden of proof.

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

Free will could be seen to be an emergent property amongst higher-order physical constructs such as consciousness. For instance, though a rock falling off a cliff has no free will, that could be simply because it has no self awareness or consciousness.


C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?

Personally I'm undecided on free will but this argument itself seems faulty.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 11:11:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My main quibble is with three. Determinism could be false in two possible worlds: one in which you have indeterminism, and one in which you have free will. I think you're assuming, because you're attempting to disprove free will, that it's okay to exclude "free will exists" outside of determinism.

I think your argument has to be restructured to say something like this:

To say we have "free will" is to say that we have acausal agency (i.e., we have a will not constrained by cause and effect). Apart from the obvious contradiction (will being a faculty that decides for reasons + freedom from the influence of reasons on outcomes), the only kind of action you can get that isn't a result of reasons is a random action, at which point you're maybe metaphysically free, but you aren't willing anything, assuming you're using the typical philosophical lexicon for "free will".
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:27:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Premise 3 is flawed. Just because actions are not predetermined does not mean they are random. They can be a result of free will and were not selected ahead of time.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:49:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:40:18 PM, Ren wrote:
Oh, and to approach your argument -- just because you chose something, does not mean that it was inevitable that you chose it. It simply means that there is some degree of likelihood that you would have made another choice, given one does not know enough about the situation to make a concrete determination.

No that's not true at all.

Attn everyone: I will debate anyone in favor of determinism. Don't all jump at once.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:50:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:27:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Premise 3 is flawed. Just because actions are not predetermined does not mean they are random. They can be a result of free will and were not selected ahead of time.

I don't believe in free will but this is the correct flaw in the OP's argument.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:13:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:49:52 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:40:18 PM, Ren wrote:
Oh, and to approach your argument -- just because you chose something, does not mean that it was inevitable that you chose it. It simply means that there is some degree of likelihood that you would have made another choice, given one does not know enough about the situation to make a concrete determination.

No that's not true at all.

Attn everyone: I will debate anyone in favor of determinism. Don't all jump at once.

I thought you used to be a hard determinist? I even read your debate with Geo twice. Why the change?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 2:17:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:13:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2012 7:49:52 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:40:18 PM, Ren wrote:
Oh, and to approach your argument -- just because you chose something, does not mean that it was inevitable that you chose it. It simply means that there is some degree of likelihood that you would have made another choice, given one does not know enough about the situation to make a concrete determination.

No that's not true at all.

Attn everyone: I will debate anyone in favor of determinism. Don't all jump at once.

I thought you used to be a hard determinist? I even read your debate with Geo twice. Why the change?

Isn't that the same thing? She's a determinist who isn't a compatibilist. Isn't that the same thing?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 2:36:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 2:17:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:13:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2012 7:49:52 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:40:18 PM, Ren wrote:
Oh, and to approach your argument -- just because you chose something, does not mean that it was inevitable that you chose it. It simply means that there is some degree of likelihood that you would have made another choice, given one does not know enough about the situation to make a concrete determination.

No that's not true at all.

Attn everyone: I will debate anyone in favor of determinism. Don't all jump at once.

I thought you used to be a hard determinist? I even read your debate with Geo twice. Why the change?

Isn't that the same thing? She's a determinist who isn't a compatibilist. Isn't that the same thing?

When she said she'll debate anyone in favor of determinism, I thought she meant that she'll debate anyone who supports determinism, implying she doesn't.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 2:39:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 2:36:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2012 2:17:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:13:36 AM, 000ike wrote:

I thought you used to be a hard determinist? I even read your debate with Geo twice. Why the change?

Isn't that the same thing? She's a determinist who isn't a compatibilist. Isn't that the same thing?

When she said she'll debate anyone in favor of determinism, I thought she meant that she'll debate anyone who supports determinism, implying she doesn't.

Nah, she seems to be pretty adamant about hard determinism. I can't make up my mind though. It all appears to be contingent on the definition of free will. Like compatabilists and hard determinists are using different definitions of what counts as free and their definition is what fits into the philosophy. Confuses the hell out of me.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 4:44:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:49:52 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:40:18 PM, Ren wrote:
Oh, and to approach your argument -- just because you chose something, does not mean that it was inevitable that you chose it. It simply means that there is some degree of likelihood that you would have made another choice, given one does not know enough about the situation to make a concrete determination.

No that's not true at all.

Attn everyone: I will debate anyone in favor of determinism. Don't all jump at once.

You're kidding. You want to debate me on determinism?

Lol.

I'm not sure even your bombers will help you there, but they probably still might.

But, in any case...

...just to let you in on a little secret, there's no such thing as a physicist that's a determinist.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 4:46:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:50:17 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 7:27:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Premise 3 is flawed. Just because actions are not predetermined does not mean they are random. They can be a result of free will and were not selected ahead of time.

I don't believe in free will but this is the correct flaw in the OP's argument.

Lol, she literally posited the same argument I did.

"Just because actions are not predetermined does not mean they are random" = "just because you chose something, does not mean that it was inevitable that you chose it."

Hrm. :\
debatestrength
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 4:49:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?

The notion that if something is not determined by someone else it is random. Are the words coming out of my mouth random if they're not determined by someone else? Hardly.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 4:49:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know what... forget that... nothing excites me more, really, than to think of another dance, eye to eye, toe to toe, chest to chest, with the alluring Danielle.

So, send the challenge. I'll accept.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:03:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:50:17 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 7:27:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Premise 3 is flawed. Just because actions are not predetermined does not mean they are random. They can be a result of free will and were not selected ahead of time.

I don't believe in free will but this is the correct flaw in the OP's argument.

Really? I find it difficult to see what other options there are than determination or randomness. There's probability: i.e. you have a 30% chance of standing up from your chair, but that doesn't seem like free will either.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:07:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:03:13 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/25/2012 7:50:17 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 7:27:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Premise 3 is flawed. Just because actions are not predetermined does not mean they are random. They can be a result of free will and were not selected ahead of time.

I don't believe in free will but this is the correct flaw in the OP's argument.

Really? I find it difficult to see what other options there are than determination or randomness. There's probability: i.e. you have a 30% chance of standing up from your chair, but that doesn't seem like free will either.

Of course, consciousness.

The decision-making process that exists separate of the physical laws that govern the reality we perceive around us.

Then, of course, theres the fact that we're relying on perception to navigate reality, rather than reality itself... which means that, for all intents and purposes, although things may be deterministic from a macrocosmic sense, it's impossible from a personal vantage, given our perceptions do not abide by physical laws. They abide by interpretations.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:20:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 4:49:19 PM, debatestrength wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?

The notion that if something is not determined by someone else it is random. Are the words coming out of my mouth random if they're not determined by someone else? Hardly.

Can you name an example of something has no cause, but isn't random?

Speaking has several neural causes.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
debatestrength
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:23:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:20:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2012 4:49:19 PM, debatestrength wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?

The notion that if something is not determined by someone else it is random. Are the words coming out of my mouth random if they're not determined by someone else? Hardly.

Can you name an example of something has no cause, but isn't random?

Women bitching at you when they're on their periods.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:29:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:20:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2012 4:49:19 PM, debatestrength wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?

The notion that if something is not determined by someone else it is random. Are the words coming out of my mouth random if they're not determined by someone else? Hardly.

Can you name an example of something has no cause, but isn't random?

Speaking has several neural causes.

The Universe, having only one overall outcome, but no conceivable cause, may be one.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:30:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:29:12 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/25/2012 5:20:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2012 4:49:19 PM, debatestrength wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
The Argument follows:
P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

To me, it seems foolproof, but I know that can't be true. What holes could you poke in this logic?

The notion that if something is not determined by someone else it is random. Are the words coming out of my mouth random if they're not determined by someone else? Hardly.

Can you name an example of something has no cause, but isn't random?

Speaking has several neural causes.

The Universe, having only one overall outcome, but no conceivable cause, may be one.

Unrequited love at first sight is, perhaps, another.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:31:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:49:52 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 7:40:18 PM, Ren wrote:
Oh, and to approach your argument -- just because you chose something, does not mean that it was inevitable that you chose it. It simply means that there is some degree of likelihood that you would have made another choice, given one does not know enough about the situation to make a concrete determination.

No that's not true at all.

Attn everyone: I will debate anyone in favor of determinism. Don't all jump at once.

I will take that challenge.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:31:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:07:53 PM, Ren wrote:
The decision-making process that exists separate of the physical laws that govern the reality we perceive around us.

Then, of course, theres the fact that we're relying on perception to navigate reality, rather than reality itself... which means that, for all intents and purposes, although things may be deterministic from a macrocosmic sense, it's impossible from a personal vantage, given our perceptions do not abide by physical laws. They abide by interpretations.

I have no idea how that answers what I said. Adding spirit stuff into the problem doesn't provide an alternative option to the ones I just gave you. It just adds another layer of spookiness into the original dilemma.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:33:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:31:38 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/25/2012 5:07:53 PM, Ren wrote:
The decision-making process that exists separate of the physical laws that govern the reality we perceive around us.

Then, of course, theres the fact that we're relying on perception to navigate reality, rather than reality itself... which means that, for all intents and purposes, although things may be deterministic from a macrocosmic sense, it's impossible from a personal vantage, given our perceptions do not abide by physical laws. They abide by interpretations.

I have no idea how that answers what I said. Adding spirit stuff into the problem doesn't provide an alternative option to the ones I just gave you. It just adds another layer of spookiness into the original dilemma.

What?

Lol, what?!

Why have people been speaking to me like this, lately?

I derive my perspectives about reality from studies of reality -- physics.

What I said wasn't spookiness, it's fact.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as far as we know, is also fact.

In reality, we know nothing at all accept what we all agree we know.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:38:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We have to define what "free will" is. If you ask Kant he's like "yeah, free will can exist even in if we accept causal determinism in the world of phenomenon (the world of the senses) because we are also members of a noumenal world that's not subject to the same types of laws." What does it mean to choose freely? If my choices are not causally related but I'm basically forced by situation or society to choose between two undesirable options can that be called "free will?"
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:39:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:33:30 PM, Ren wrote:
What?

Lol, what?!

Why have people been speaking to me like this, lately?

Whoa, sorry dude. I talk to everyone like that - especially on this website -, don't take it personally. I'm responding to your argument, not you personally.

I derive my perspectives about reality from studies of reality -- physics.

What I said wasn't spookiness, it's fact.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as far as we know, is also fact.

In reality, we know nothing at all accept what we all agree we know.

And, since there is literally nothing that everyone agrees with (name one thing), we don't know anything?