Total Posts:100|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

what is freewill anyway?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:07:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm going to try to make the case against freewill one more time, so please keep an open mind and really consider this argument.

What is freewill? This question is so great because it is a case in point. Any attempt to define freewill reduces to absurdity, as in, they didn't really define anything!

1. Freewill: made or done freely or of one's own accord (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Ok, so what is your own accord? What makes you "want" things? Your desire to have it. What makes you have that desire to have it? In attempting to define freewill we enter an infinite regress of explanations. At some point you are FORCED to concede that something came from nothing, which is a logical absurdity! Now I know the counter to this will be that determinism also eventually leads to the same problem, ... however, this is an irrelevant rebuttal because something from nothing under determinism, does not make the philosophy defeat itself. However, something from nothing under Freewill defeats itself because in order for you to have freewill, you must have had control over your decisions. If your decisions inevitably came from nothing, then you had no means of controlling those decisions, since having control would mean that the decision did in fact come from something.

Freewill is impossible to logically define because it is a logical absurdity...a reference to magic. And so when we try to define free will, there's an unsatisfying gap in reasoning...a missing plank, as if nothing was defined at all. And given that we can't even get passed the clear description stage, How can we proceed to believe in it? What we're believing in, really, is magic.
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:16:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ike, you seem to look at free will in an all-or-nothing light. Clearly absolute free will is absurd--it gets defeated once we recognize that it necessitates unchangeable changers.

However, a midway understanding is entirely possible.

Our desires are indeed influenced and changed by our environment. However, the FREE in free will comes from the ability to change our world according to our desires. Those desires need not be of our choosing. All that is needed for an agent to have free will is the ability to change something else according to his wants.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:28:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:16:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Ike, you seem to look at free will in an all-or-nothing light. Clearly absolute free will is absurd--it gets defeated once we recognize that it necessitates unchangeable changers.

However, a midway understanding is entirely possible.

Our desires are indeed influenced and changed by our environment. However, the FREE in free will comes from the ability to change our world according to our desires. Those desires need not be of our choosing. All that is needed for an agent to have free will is the ability to change something else according to his wants.

In a certain perspective I would agree with you, but you're not seeing the belief system that I'm trying to knock down and really want to see removed from common perception. I'm trying to destroy objective moral responsibility, the idea that we punish for vengeance rather than for positive deterrence, a counter influence in the causal chain toward desirable behaviors.

In your argument you admit that desires are determined, but that's not what most people believe. They never wonder where their desires come from, they ignore that gap of explanation. Your view is perfectly rational, the vast majority of humanity's is not.
"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
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:04:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Free-will is such a strong illusion because there are at least thousands of tiny unseen determined factors blended in to why we do what we do. Any one can recognize genetic, cultural influences and such. When we look only at the self-evident and easily detected influences, it doesn't seem to alleviate choice at all. That's why the concept that choice doesn't exist is so hard for people to believe. People don't take into account everything that determines your actions. The vast vast majority of determined reasons to our actions are impossible to detect thus creating an illusion of choice.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:53:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't really know what to think about free will honestly. I'm generally apathetic to the idea since I admit that our entire conceptual understanding of the world necessitates that we act on our own accord. So even if I were to intellectually decide that free will doesn't exist, it wouldn't influence my actions.

That being said, I think one of the problems that the point Ike is making (that we act on desires that we don't choose) stems from a misconception of self and personal identity. To say that "I" have no choice over what I desire is akin to saying that my desires aren't a part of my actual identity. But that's clearly an absurd notion. I'm not sure whether free will exists or not but that specific point doesn't hold weight I don't think.
: 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
8/29/2012 9:17:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think evidence of free will lay in those moments when you're taken to your limit.

How much experience do you have with very rigorous exercise, Ike?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:17:03 PM, Ren wrote:
I think evidence of free will lay in those moments when you're taken to your limit.

How much experience do you have with very rigorous exercise, Ike?

Are you serious?....This is what convinces you that you have freewill? You're not looking deep enough. Consider the last movement you just made however small (ex. you just put your hands on the keyboard to type a response). Given your mental state prior to putting your hands on this keyboard, given the fact that your visual discriminations allowed you to read and interpret this paragraph, is there any other possible thing you could have done other than put your hand on the keyboard? I want to FULLY investigate you "MENTAL STATE" prior to typing putting your hands on your keyboard. If you're doing it correctly and considering everything, freewill should seem a little doubt-worthy by now.
"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
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 6:28:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 10:59:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/29/2012 9:17:03 PM, Ren wrote:
I think evidence of free will lay in those moments when you're taken to your limit.

How much experience do you have with very rigorous exercise, Ike?

Are you serious?...

He's seriously a dummy.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 6:31:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:17:03 PM, Ren wrote:
I think evidence of free will lay in those moments when you're taken to your limit.

Explain yourself!

I kind of already regret saying this :/
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 6:35:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:17:03 PM, Ren wrote:
I think evidence of free will lay in those moments when you're taken to your limit.

How much experience do you have with very rigorous exercise, Ike?

If anything, in my experience, when I'm keyed in.. Most alert, most on point..

Playing football or rugby.. My actions happen practically at the same time as my thoughts..
I don't Consider things for any length of time.. My actions happen practically simultaneously with my thoughts.
If anything I should think these heightened states should better demonstrate that our actions have causes..
As I don't even get any time to decide in such a state, my actions just flow forth.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 6:36:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 6:35:24 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
As I don't even get any time to decide in such a state, my actions just flow forth.

At least when I'm Really keyed in.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 8:08:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 8:53:40 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't really know what to think about free will honestly. I'm generally apathetic to the idea since I admit that our entire conceptual understanding of the world necessitates that we act on our own accord. So even if I were to intellectually decide that free will doesn't exist, it wouldn't influence my actions.

That being said, I think one of the problems that the point Ike is making (that we act on desires that we don't choose) stems from a misconception of self and personal identity. To say that "I" have no choice over what I desire is akin to saying that my desires aren't a part of my actual identity. But that's clearly an absurd notion. I'm not sure whether free will exists or not but that specific point doesn't hold weight I don't think.

This
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:51:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 7:07:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm going to try to make the case against freewill one more time, so please keep an open mind and really consider this argument.

What is freewill? This question is so great because it is a case in point. Any attempt to define freewill reduces to absurdity, as in, they didn't really define anything!

1. Freewill: made or done freely or of one's own accord (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Ok, so what is your own accord? What makes you "want" things? Your desire to have it. What makes you have that desire to have it? In attempting to define freewill we enter an infinite regress of explanations. At some point you are FORCED to concede that something came from nothing, which is a logical absurdity! Now I know the counter to this will be that determinism also eventually leads to the same problem, ... however, this is an irrelevant rebuttal because something from nothing under determinism, does not make the philosophy defeat itself. However, something from nothing under Freewill defeats itself because in order for you to have freewill, you must have had control over your decisions. If your decisions inevitably came from nothing, then you had no means of controlling those decisions, since having control would mean that the decision did in fact come from something.

Freewill is impossible to logically define because it is a logical absurdity...a reference to magic. And so when we try to define free will, there's an unsatisfying gap in reasoning...a missing plank, as if nothing was defined at all. And given that we can't even get passed the clear description stage, How can we proceed to believe in it? What we're believing in, really, is magic.

Irony.

Let's assume determinism. What caused me to write this? Let's call that Cause1, or C1. What caused C1? C2. What caused C2? C3. And this is an infinite regress. Eventually, you have to posit something coming from nothing.

Let's assume free will. What caused me to write this? Free will, let's say F1. What caused F1? Now that is a logical absurdity: you don't "cause" free will, otherwise it becomes determinism. If Free Will is from something else's accord, it is no longer free will.

So you've essentially found the problem of determinism, except you're shifting it to be free will's problem for no substantiated reason.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:21:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:51:17 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Irony.

Let's assume determinism. What caused me to write this? Let's call that Cause1, or C1. What caused C1? C2. What caused C2? C3. And this is an infinite regress. Eventually, you have to posit something coming from nothing.

Let's assume free will. What caused me to write this? Free will, let's say F1. What caused F1? Now that is a logical absurdity: you don't "cause" free will, otherwise it becomes determinism. If Free Will is from something else's accord, it is no longer free will.

So you've essentially found the problem of determinism, except you're shifting it to be free will's problem for no substantiated reason.

With all due respect S_H, that's not accurate at all. You ended the freewill question with, "nothing caused freewill"...however the problem with that statement is that it is self-defeating. Something without a cause cannot be controlled, because control is derived from the manipulation of causes. So if freewill has no cause, how can we control such a will? In other words, how can we control our "wants"? The infinite regress problem exists everywhere. The difference is that when it exists in determinism, it doesn't destroy determinism....it just means that a first cause from nothing is necessary. But a first cause from nothing under freewill destroys the element of control that supposedly makes the will free! So it defeats itself.
"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
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:24:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand why everyone strawmans free-will and claims that it means complete freedom from external influences . . .
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:28:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even if I can't control my wants, that doesn't mean I don't have freewill. I want a jet ski but I don't buy one. I want to cheat on my spouse but I don't.
#BlackLivesMatter
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:28:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:24:45 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why everyone strawmans free-will and claims that it means complete freedom from external influences . . .

It isn't a strawman because freewill has no logical definition that doesn't leave explanatory gaps or defeat itself. Define freewill royal
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:31:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:28:47 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Even if I can't control my wants, that doesn't mean I don't have freewill. I want a jet ski but I don't buy one. I want to cheat on my spouse but I don't.

That's because your brain is balancing several desires and one inevitably outweighs the others. Your desire to buy a jet ski is outweighed by your desire to save money or something, your desire to cheat on your wife is outweighed by your desire to be moral. Your wants are still in 100% control of your actions
"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
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:40:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:31:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:28:47 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Even if I can't control my wants, that doesn't mean I don't have freewill. I want a jet ski but I don't buy one. I want to cheat on my spouse but I don't.

That's because your brain is balancing several desires and one inevitably outweighs the others. Your desire to buy a jet ski is outweighed by your desire to save money or something, your desire to cheat on your wife is outweighed by your desire to be moral. Your wants are still in 100% control of your actions.

OK but I can go against my better judgement and still buy said jet ski. But maybe I don't buy the jet ski just because. Basically what I'm asking is are you saying that every human action is predetermined and therefore predictable? We should be able to know when someone is going to do something based on what has happened before? This is an honest to god question.
#BlackLivesMatter
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:41:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:21:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:51:17 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Irony.

Let's assume determinism. What caused me to write this? Let's call that Cause1, or C1. What caused C1? C2. What caused C2? C3. And this is an infinite regress. Eventually, you have to posit something coming from nothing.

Let's assume free will. What caused me to write this? Free will, let's say F1. What caused F1? Now that is a logical absurdity: you don't "cause" free will, otherwise it becomes determinism. If Free Will is from something else's accord, it is no longer free will.

So you've essentially found the problem of determinism, except you're shifting it to be free will's problem for no substantiated reason.

With all due respect S_H, that's not accurate at all. You ended the freewill question with, "nothing caused freewill"...however the problem with that statement is that it is self-defeating. Something without a cause cannot be controlled, because control is derived from the manipulation of causes.

Which is observed from our manipulation of events, or other things without free will manipulating events which were themselves caused. That's the problem: the only comparison we have is with things certainly without free will, which doesn't make a massively strong case. Control stemming from our actions are self-evident, and our actions are only limited by physical necessity.

So if freewill has no cause, how can we control such a will? In other words, how can we control our "wants"? The infinite regress problem exists everywhere. The difference is that when it exists in determinism, it doesn't destroy determinism....it just means that a first cause from nothing is necessary.

But if the first cause is free, then firstly it is completely random and thus has to be contingent by your previous argument. But even if we ignore this, if the first cause is necessary, and causes necessarily lead to an event (e.g. if I drop a pen and gravity is in place, then the pen hits the floor and cannot suddenly stop hitting the floor unless the causes change, like gravity disappearing or I don't let go of the pen), then all events are necessary and thus saying the first cause is necessary is a null-value statement. Further, the first cause making events occur without causation of its own accord stops any impossibility of causeless events from being existent.

But a first cause from nothing under freewill destroys the element of control that supposedly makes the will free! So it defeats itself.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:47:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:40:41 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:31:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:28:47 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Even if I can't control my wants, that doesn't mean I don't have freewill. I want a jet ski but I don't buy one. I want to cheat on my spouse but I don't.

That's because your brain is balancing several desires and one inevitably outweighs the others. Your desire to buy a jet ski is outweighed by your desire to save money or something, your desire to cheat on your wife is outweighed by your desire to be moral. Your wants are still in 100% control of your actions.

OK but I can go against my better judgement and still buy said jet ski.

That would mean that given your mental state, the desire for the jet ski outweighed the desire for saving money.

But maybe I don't buy the jet ski just because.

The desire to buy the jet ski weakened

Basically what I'm asking is are you saying that every human action is predetermined and therefore predictable? We should be able to know when someone is going to do something based on what has happened before? This is an honest to god question.

Yes to the first question. No to the second. It is implausible (not impossible) to predict every single human behavior because the influences that cause you to act in certain ways are so complex, numerous, and often undetectable that it evades any kind of extremely precise human or mechanical prediction. If you look at something like Laplace's demon, which knows everything about the universe from start to finish, then human action would be predictable...but that's just theoretically, something like that can't actually exist.
"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
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:57:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:47:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:40:41 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:31:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:28:47 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Even if I can't control my wants, that doesn't mean I don't have freewill. I want a jet ski but I don't buy one. I want to cheat on my spouse but I don't.

That's because your brain is balancing several desires and one inevitably outweighs the others. Your desire to buy a jet ski is outweighed by your desire to save money or something, your desire to cheat on your wife is outweighed by your desire to be moral. Your wants are still in 100% control of your actions.

OK but I can go against my better judgement and still buy said jet ski.

That would mean that given your mental state, the desire for the jet ski outweighed the desire for saving money.

But maybe I don't buy the jet ski just because.

The desire to buy the jet ski weakened
How?

Basically what I'm asking is are you saying that every human action is predetermined and therefore predictable? We should be able to know when someone is going to do something based on what has happened before? This is an honest to god question.

Yes to the first question. No to the second. It is implausible (not impossible) to predict every single human behavior because the influences that cause you to act in certain ways are so complex, numerous, and often undetectable that it evades any kind of extremely precise human or mechanical prediction. If you look at something like Laplace's demon, which knows everything about the universe from start to finish, then human action would be predictable...but that's just theoretically, something like that can't actually exist.

Why not?
#BlackLivesMatter
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 12:12:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:41:33 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Which is observed from our manipulation of events, or other things without free will manipulating events which were themselves caused. That's the problem: the only comparison we have is with things certainly without free will, which doesn't make a massively strong case. Control stemming from our actions are self-evident, and our actions are only limited by physical necessity.

So if freewill has no cause, how can we control such a will? In other words, how can we control our "wants"? The infinite regress problem exists everywhere. The difference is that when it exists in determinism, it doesn't destroy determinism....it just means that a first cause from nothing is necessary.

But if the first cause is free, then firstly it is completely random and thus has to be contingent by your previous argument. But even if we ignore this, if the first cause is necessary, and causes necessarily lead to an event (e.g. if I drop a pen and gravity is in place, then the pen hits the floor and cannot suddenly stop hitting the floor unless the causes change, like gravity disappearing or I don't let go of the pen), then all events are necessary and thus saying the first cause is necessary is a null-value statement. Further, the first cause making events occur without causation of its own accord stops any impossibility of causeless events from being existent.

I agree that the first cause is causeless. However, causeless (aka random) events, still invalidate freewill. I'm more concerned with repudiating freewill than upholding determinism.
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 12:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:57:22 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:47:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:40:41 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:31:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:28:47 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Even if I can't control my wants, that doesn't mean I don't have freewill. I want a jet ski but I don't buy one. I want to cheat on my spouse but I don't.

That's because your brain is balancing several desires and one inevitably outweighs the others. Your desire to buy a jet ski is outweighed by your desire to save money or something, your desire to cheat on your wife is outweighed by your desire to be moral. Your wants are still in 100% control of your actions.

OK but I can go against my better judgement and still buy said jet ski.

That would mean that given your mental state, the desire for the jet ski outweighed the desire for saving money.

But maybe I don't buy the jet ski just because.

The desire to buy the jet ski weakened
How?

You're basically asking me to be La place's demon here...I don't know, maybe some chemical change in your brain altered your mood, reducing your excitement about having a jet ski....I don't know. Something like that

Basically what I'm asking is are you saying that every human action is predetermined and therefore predictable? We should be able to know when someone is going to do something based on what has happened before? This is an honest to god question.

Yes to the first question. No to the second. It is implausible (not impossible) to predict every single human behavior because the influences that cause you to act in certain ways are so complex, numerous, and often undetectable that it evades any kind of extremely precise human or mechanical prediction. If you look at something like Laplace's demon, which knows everything about the universe from start to finish, then human action would be predictable...but that's just theoretically, something like that can't actually exist.

Why not?

because it's so improbable that 1 thing knows literally everything....but not impossible
"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
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 1:15:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In attempting to define freewill we enter an infinite regress of explanations
False. Defining and explaining are two different things. You defined it just fine.

"You can't explain it so it must be false" is the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 1:18:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:51:17 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Let's assume determinism. What caused me to write this? Let's call that Cause1, or C1. What caused C1? C2. What caused C2? C3. And this is an infinite regress. Eventually, you have to posit something coming from nothing.

or.. Just that something exists... You don't need to explain how existence came to exist..
It just does.

Let's assume free will. What caused me to write this? Free will, let's say F1. What caused F1? Now that is a logical absurdity: you don't "cause" free will, otherwise it becomes determinism. If Free Will is from something else's accord, it is no longer free will.

Everyone will grant that you can do as you wish.. Determinists suggest that there's reasons why you wish what you do.

"Free will" that simply stops at "you do as you wish" isn't contested.. and is compatible with determinism.

"Free will" that explicitly denies any Solid connection between choices and cause is uncompatible for that reason.. but if that's what you're saying "let's assume" I say: let's not assume that... As what people care about is Regular and predictable, suggesting underlying causes, and how people act definitely seems caused by what they care about.

So you've essentially found the problem of determinism, except you're shifting it to be free will's problem for no substantiated reason.

nope.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 1:21:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 1:15:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In attempting to define freewill we enter an infinite regress of explanations
False. Defining and explaining are two different things. You defined it just fine.

"You can't explain it so it must be false" is the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

The entire OP was centered explaining that statement you cut out of it. Really, you haven't actually responded to anything since you ignored the rest of what I was saying. Your response here is a cut-throat misrepresentation.
"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
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 1:26:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:24:45 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why everyone strawmans free-will and claims that it means complete freedom from external influences . . .

Free-will supporters grant that things can influence decisionmaking but hold that Ultimately decisionmaking stands apart/can remain unaffected from such things.

They don't/can't say how the process of decisionmaking happens though.. can't say Why/how it sometimes is affected by external influences, and sometimes not, b/c if they were to give a method by which decisionmaking happens, it would necessarily be relating some Nature of decisionmaking, and due to that nature of things, couldn't happen otherwise... Thus proving decisionmaking necessarily happens the way that it does.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."