Total Posts:195|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free will cannot be proven or disproven.

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 9:59:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can't go back and retry actions, as time is constantly moving forward (apparent motion in black holes excluded). This has the effect such that you can never know what would have happened had you done something differently, so you just have to accept the consequences of your actions. It can therefore be asserted that you might just be under the control of fate, as who is to say whether you would act differently or not if put in the same situation without prior knowledge of having been in that situation?

The free will debate would therefore only be able to be ended by being able to go back in time in such a way that the time traveler is completely ignorant to the fact that they have just traveled back in time, and to them, everything that is going on is new. There would then have to be an outside observer record the time travelers' every movement, down to the spin of the particles in their body. If they acted exactly as they did when they were first in the situation, free will would therefore not exist. If they acted differently, it would therefore exist.

However, such time travel, ignorance included, is completely impossible, and therefore the debate can't be proven.

Thoughts?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 12:15:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
free will doesn't depend on what would have happened have you done things differently, it's just the ability of you to choose on your own without anyone forcing you to anything.

If you can sit or stand when you want, if you can obey and disobey , if you can choose to be whom you want to be, and do what you want to do ( as long as physically possible) then you have a free will.

If we didn't have free will we wouldn't have courts to judge people on their actions!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 1:12:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 12:15:20 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
free will doesn't depend on what would have happened have you done things differently, it's just the ability of you to choose on your own without anyone forcing you to anything.

If you can sit or stand when you want, if you can obey and disobey , if you can choose to be whom you want to be, and do what you want to do ( as long as physically possible) then you have a free will.

If we didn't have free will we wouldn't have courts to judge people on their actions!

How do you know that you are choosing to sit down, and not some higher being or fate is doing it for you?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 6:05:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 12:15:20 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
free will doesn't depend on what would have happened have you done things differently, it's just the ability of you to choose on your own without anyone forcing you to anything.

If you can sit or stand when you want, if you can obey and disobey , if you can choose to be whom you want to be, and do what you want to do ( as long as physically possible) then you have a free will.

If we didn't have free will we wouldn't have courts to judge people on their actions!

Actually, many scientists who believe free-will is false actually claim that the system is flawed. Just because we have a system that assumes free-will exists, that doesn't mean that free-will exists. When you make a conscious choice to sit, this is all "forced" by neural activity in the brain. Whenever you think you made a free choice, it was forced.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 6:10:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 12:15:20 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
free will doesn't depend on what would have happened have you done things differently, it's just the ability of you to choose on your own without anyone forcing you to anything.

If you can sit or stand when you want, if you can obey and disobey , if you can choose to be whom you want to be, and do what you want to do ( as long as physically possible) then you have a free will.

If we didn't have free will we wouldn't have courts to judge people on their actions!

If you watch the video, you see an experiment showing how brain activity causes conscious choices. So, its hard to say we have "free" will.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 6:39:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 6:10:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 12:15:20 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
free will doesn't depend on what would have happened have you done things differently, it's just the ability of you to choose on your own without anyone forcing you to anything.

If you can sit or stand when you want, if you can obey and disobey , if you can choose to be whom you want to be, and do what you want to do ( as long as physically possible) then you have a free will.

If we didn't have free will we wouldn't have courts to judge people on their actions!

If you watch the video, you see an experiment showing how brain activity causes conscious choices. So, its hard to say we have "free" will.

Not really. It's called compatibilism, which most philosophers accept;
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 6:41:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 6:39:08 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/31/2013 6:10:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 12:15:20 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
free will doesn't depend on what would have happened have you done things differently, it's just the ability of you to choose on your own without anyone forcing you to anything.

If you can sit or stand when you want, if you can obey and disobey , if you can choose to be whom you want to be, and do what you want to do ( as long as physically possible) then you have a free will.

If we didn't have free will we wouldn't have courts to judge people on their actions!

If you watch the video, you see an experiment showing how brain activity causes conscious choices. So, its hard to say we have "free" will.

Not really. It's called compatibilism, which most philosophers accept;

Well, like Dr. Craig says; this all depends on what you mean by "free will".
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:00:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 1:12:59 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/31/2013 12:15:20 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
free will doesn't depend on what would have happened have you done things differently, it's just the ability of you to choose on your own without anyone forcing you to anything.

If you can sit or stand when you want, if you can obey and disobey , if you can choose to be whom you want to be, and do what you want to do ( as long as physically possible) then you have a free will.

If we didn't have free will we wouldn't have courts to judge people on their actions!

How do you know that you are choosing to sit down, and not some higher being or fate is doing it for you?

They're both the same thing, per our definitions.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:10:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.

So is the assertion that free will doesn't exist. There is no de facto position.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:10:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 7:10:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.

So is the assertion that free will doesn't exist. There is no de facto position.

That's not a positive claim.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:20:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the three posts above me are a bit confused.

What I am asserting, is that it cannot be proven that free will either exists or doesn't exist, because the only way to prove one or the other is physically impossible.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 7:10:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.

So is the assertion that free will doesn't exist. There is no de facto position.

That's not a positive claim.

Claiming that free will doesn't exist implies a claim to the opposite, as there is only one alternative.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:22:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 6:27:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Why do you assume that the answer must come from inductive reasoning?

Wow... I can't really answer that question.

I am assuming that my inductive reasoning comes from the fact that I am asserting "since you can't prove that all specific events (instances) are due to free will or not free will, then free will can't be proven/disproven (generalization)."?

All I can really say to that is, how else could you look upon the problem?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:28:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Trying to justify freewill is like trying to find circular squares. Before we can proceed to argue its existence, we must first establish that such a thing is cogent and internally consistent, and can therefore possibly exist.... what cannot possibly exist need not be proven nor disproven.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 7:51:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 7:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Trying to justify freewill is like trying to find circular squares. Before we can proceed to argue its existence, we must first establish that such a thing is cogent and internally consistent, and can therefore possibly exist.... what cannot possibly exist need not be proven nor disproven.

What I mean is that there is no defacto defacto, if that makes sense.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:02:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 7:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Trying to justify freewill is like trying to find circular squares. Before we can proceed to argue its existence, we must first establish that such a thing is cogent and internally consistent, and can therefore possibly exist.... what cannot possibly exist need not be proven nor disproven.

In other words, to prove that free will doesn't exist, one must do so. Both sides are equals until and unless reasoning is provided.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:05:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:02:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Trying to justify freewill is like trying to find circular squares. Before we can proceed to argue its existence, we must first establish that such a thing is cogent and internally consistent, and can therefore possibly exist.... what cannot possibly exist need not be proven nor disproven.

In other words, to prove that free will doesn't exist, one must do so. Both sides are equals until and unless reasoning is provided.

The comment above wasn't in response to your conversation. I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned, the existence or inexistence of freewill is a nonissue. Where the debate lies is with the possibility or impossibility of freewill. Both sides do have a burden of proof.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:07:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:05:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:02:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Trying to justify freewill is like trying to find circular squares. Before we can proceed to argue its existence, we must first establish that such a thing is cogent and internally consistent, and can therefore possibly exist.... what cannot possibly exist need not be proven nor disproven.

In other words, to prove that free will doesn't exist, one must do so. Both sides are equals until and unless reasoning is provided.

The comment above wasn't in response to your conversation. I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned, the existence or inexistence of freewill is a nonissue. Where the debate lies is with the possibility or impossibility of freewill. Both sides do have a burden of proof.

For some reason I got notified of the comment, so I assumed it was.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:35:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 7:21:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.

So is the assertion that free will doesn't exist. There is no de facto position.

That's not a positive claim.

Claiming that free will doesn't exist implies a claim to the opposite, as there is only one alternative.

Regardless, it is a negative claim. Burden rests upon the party making the positive claim. Nothing you've said is relevant to my prior comments.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:38:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:35:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:21:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.

So is the assertion that free will doesn't exist. There is no de facto position.

That's not a positive claim.

Claiming that free will doesn't exist implies a claim to the opposite, as there is only one alternative.

Regardless, it is a negative claim. Burden rests upon the party making the positive claim. Nothing you've said is relevant to my prior comments.

I agree, but that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist if the burden is not met, as you claimed earlier.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:38:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:05:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:02:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Trying to justify freewill is like trying to find circular squares. Before we can proceed to argue its existence, we must first establish that such a thing is cogent and internally consistent, and can therefore possibly exist.... what cannot possibly exist need not be proven nor disproven.

In other words, to prove that free will doesn't exist, one must do so. Both sides are equals until and unless reasoning is provided.

The comment above wasn't in response to your conversation. I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned, the existence or inexistence of freewill is a nonissue. Where the debate lies is with the possibility or impossibility of freewill. Both sides do have a burden of proof.

You've made two points that do not support each other.

1) I agree that the a priori logic of the statement must be reviewed first.

2) That a priori review has nothing to do with whether or not someone taking a CON position has burden, which he does not. The PRO position must first provide that justification, and upon doing so, then and only then must CON make any assertions to counter.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:40:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:38:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:35:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:21:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.

So is the assertion that free will doesn't exist. There is no de facto position.

That's not a positive claim.

Claiming that free will doesn't exist implies a claim to the opposite, as there is only one alternative.

Regardless, it is a negative claim. Burden rests upon the party making the positive claim. Nothing you've said is relevant to my prior comments.

I agree, but that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist if the burden is not met, as you claimed earlier.

What you're essentially saying here is that a debate on the topic is inconclusive and therefore meaningless. To each his or her own then.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:43:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 7:20:25 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I think the three posts above me are a bit confused.

What I am asserting, is that it cannot be proven that free will either exists or doesn't exist, because the only way to prove one or the other is physically impossible.

In which case, free will cannot be proven, and so free will does not exist.

It's the same thing for religion. If one asserts God exists, burden of proof falls upon the one making the assertion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:43:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:40:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:38:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:35:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:21:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.

So is the assertion that free will doesn't exist. There is no de facto position.

That's not a positive claim.

Claiming that free will doesn't exist implies a claim to the opposite, as there is only one alternative.

Regardless, it is a negative claim. Burden rests upon the party making the positive claim. Nothing you've said is relevant to my prior comments.

I agree, but that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist if the burden is not met, as you claimed earlier.

What you're essentially saying here is that a debate on the topic is inconclusive and therefore meaningless. To each his or her own then.

I've said no such thing. I'm claiming that absent any valid reasoning, there is no de facto position. Therefore, your statement "If burden is not met, free will does not exist" is invalid.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:44:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:43:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:40:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:38:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:35:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:21:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.

So is the assertion that free will doesn't exist. There is no de facto position.

That's not a positive claim.

Claiming that free will doesn't exist implies a claim to the opposite, as there is only one alternative.

Regardless, it is a negative claim. Burden rests upon the party making the positive claim. Nothing you've said is relevant to my prior comments.

I agree, but that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist if the burden is not met, as you claimed earlier.

What you're essentially saying here is that a debate on the topic is inconclusive and therefore meaningless. To each his or her own then.

I've said no such thing. I'm claiming that absent any valid reasoning, there is no de facto position. Therefore, your statement "If burden is not met, free will does not exist" is invalid.

If there is no defacto position, then there is no free will, isn't there?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:45:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Logically:

A

Can you prove A? If you cannot, then [not A].

Replace A with "Free will exists".

It's that simple.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:56:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Existence is the defacto position. Spiritual and mechanical are the two proposed modes of existence, neither ever to be proven.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 9:01:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:44:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:43:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:40:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:38:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:35:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:21:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:10:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2013 7:07:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
The idea is that the assertion that there is free will is a positive claim, so the one asserting it has burden to prove that such exists. If burden is not met, free will does not exist.

So is the assertion that free will doesn't exist. There is no de facto position.

That's not a positive claim.

Claiming that free will doesn't exist implies a claim to the opposite, as there is only one alternative.

Regardless, it is a negative claim. Burden rests upon the party making the positive claim. Nothing you've said is relevant to my prior comments.

I agree, but that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist if the burden is not met, as you claimed earlier.

What you're essentially saying here is that a debate on the topic is inconclusive and therefore meaningless. To each his or her own then.

I've said no such thing. I'm claiming that absent any valid reasoning, there is no de facto position. Therefore, your statement "If burden is not met, free will does not exist" is invalid.

If there is no defacto position, then there is no free will, isn't there?
No, because that's arbitrary. In this context, non-X implies Y just as much as non-Y implies X.