Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:44 pm
@north,
north;145001 wrote:
Freewill is change



No it isn't. Free will is the idea that change can happen apart from the causal laws of the universe.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:48 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;144999 wrote:
No in other words you can't make a math equation for it, because the equations existance and the knowledge of that equations results are intoducing variables that the previous equation did not account for. This would go for eternity, so the equation you have presented is self contradicting.
Not at all. There are only two possibilities, you fall off or you dont, and as you're human, you can only change your mind a finite number of times before tomorrow 3:00am. Whereas, in principle, the calculation can be performed an infinite number of times in a finite period, by supertasking.
 
north
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:50 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;145002 wrote:
No it isn't. Free will is the idea that change can happen apart from the causal laws of the universe.


exactly

so Freewill is change

and causal laws are determined
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:50 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;144991 wrote:
I think I understand your position now but this is why I don't agree. As a human being we never do anything that contradicts our identity if we do something than it came from our identity. If we could arbitraily choose our identity than we would have free will. But our identity is something that cannot be changed in a absolute way (even if it could it be determined by what the current identity wanted to be and the identity would want a certain identity because of previous events). It can slightly changed by the enviroment (determinism). Hence no free will.


But this conception of free will seems closer to omnipotence. One doesn't say "If we could arbitrarily choose how tall we are then we would have free will". So why define free will as you have here?

We do things in accordance with our inner self. Having a self and having conscious control are what gives us free will in my opinion.
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:53 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;145009 wrote:
Not at all. There are only two possibilities, you fall off or you dont, and as you're human, you can only change your mind a finite number of times before tomorrow 3:00am. Whereas, in principle, the calculation can be performed an infinite number of times in a finite period, by supertasking.

Infinites only exist in concept. An infinite number of finite things is literally impossible. Yes I can only change my mind a finite number of times but the results of the equation you present to me would never be accurate so it would meaningless. All we would know is that I either never get on the of bicycle or that I get on and then fall or that I get on and then get off in a finite amount of time.


---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 12:54 AM ----------

north;145011 wrote:
exactly

so Freewill is change

and causal laws are determined

..... This makes no sense
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:55 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;145012 wrote:
But this conception of free will seems closer to omnipotence. One doesn't say "If we could arbitrarily choose how tall we are then we would have free will". So why define free will as you have here?

We do things in accordance with our inner self. Having a self and having conscious control are what gives us free will in my opinion.
It's an illucid definition of free will. Free will is the ability and exercise of conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives, so free will requires at least three things:
1) an agent
2) a set of realisable alternatives
3) a means of evaluating the alternatives.
 
north
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:56 pm
@Jebediah,
the essence of determinism for life entities is instinct

freewill for life entities is the evolution of life
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:57 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;145012 wrote:
But this conception of free will seems closer to omnipotence. One doesn't say "If we could arbitrarily choose how tall we are then we would have free will". So why define free will as you have here?

We do things in accordance with our inner self. Having a self and having conscious control are what gives us free will in my opinion.



It is funny that you say omnipotence is needed for free will because i could not have said it better myself!! Omnipotence is needed to escape the causal laws of the universe. To have free will existance would either have to be the projection of your consciousness as an omnipotent being or you would have to be outside of existance (This is self contradictory)
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 10:58 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;145014 wrote:
Infinites only exist in concept
If hypercomputation is viable, you're mistaken, and in any case, we're talking about things that are possible in principle.
OntheWindowStand;145014 wrote:
the results of the equation you present to me would never be accurate
I've just explained to you why the result would be accurate.
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:01 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;145017 wrote:
It's an illucid definition of free will. Free will is the ability and exercise of conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives, so free will requires at least three things:
1) an agent
2) a set of realisable alternatives
3) a means of evaluating the alternatives.


4) knowledge of the alternatives
5) A way to attain this knowledge with no outside or inner source.
(inner workings of the brain or essentially chemical and electrical impulses dictated by determinsm.) With no outside of inner source providing the knowledge it would have to completly innate without genetic instinct being the cause. Because this too is determined

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 01:02 AM ----------

ughaibu;145021 wrote:
If hypercomputation is viable, you're mistaken, and in any case, we're talking about things that are possible in principle.I've just explained to you why the result would be accurate.


No actually you didn't. you are disregarding what I said. Even if 3 am came the Equation would still be computing and it would be for eternity. So the equation would never be predicting anything.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:08 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
ughaibu;145017 wrote:
It's an illucid definition of free will. Free will is the ability and exercise of conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives, so free will requires at least three things:
1) an agent
2) a set of realisable alternatives
3) a means of evaluating the alternatives.


I agree with these three. Causal determinism is a requirement for 3 (along with consciousness). 2 is often used as an argument against free will (the idea that if your actions were caused, you had no alternative), but I don't think it's a good one. What was caused was my choosing between alternatives. But that's just a description of what happened, not a claim that I was forced.

OntheWindowStand;145020 wrote:
It is funny that you say omnipotence is needed for free will because i could not have said it better myself!! Omnipotence is needed to escape the causal laws of the universe. To have free will existance would either have to be the projection of your consciousness as an omnipotent being or you would have to be outside of existance (This is self contradictory)


I think you have to say why you are defining free will in that way. Because that is not how it has been debated; your definition is unusual. You needn't have invoked determinism or offered proofs for it if all you had to say was "we are not omnipotent; therefore we do not have free will".
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:08 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;145022 wrote:
5) A way to attain this knowledge with no outside or inner source.
Nonsense. I can demonstrate free will, that's to say I can demonstrate my ability to perform two actions and I can demonstrate a conscious choice of one of those actions. If this world is determined, then there is a fact about which choice I will make on all future occasions. There's also a fact about whether a tossed coin will show heads or tails. Nobody seriously doubts that I can decide to coordinate my choice with the result of a tossed coin, according to any arbitrarily chosen system of matching, and that I can do this for an indefinite number of consecutive choices. This entails that the probability of determinism being true is infinitely small and the probability of free will being true is infinitely large.
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:12 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;145029 wrote:
I agree with these three. Causal determinism is a requirement for 3 (along with consciousness). 2 is often used as an argument against free will (the idea that if your actions were caused, you had no alternative), but I don't think it's a good one. What was caused was my choosing between alternatives. But that's just a description of what happened, not a claim that I was forced.



I think you have to say why you are defining free will in that way. Because that is not how it has been debated; your definition is unusual. You needn't have invoked determinism or offered proofs for it if all you had to say was "we are not omnipotent; therefore we do not have free will".


I think the only way to attain free will is to be omnipresent and omnipotent and omniscient. Basically I think you would have to be God. if you analyze my proofs they actually point to this indirectly. The reason is simple it is the only way to escape the causal laws of the universe and all the proofs I have given. I however can also so say this isn't very probable because the only way I could this god manifesting without contradicting itself is if the whole universe was a projection of the god's consciousness.
 
north
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:12 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
Quote:
Originally Posted by ughaibu http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
If hypercomputation is viable, you're mistaken, and in any case, we're talking about things that are possible in principle.I've just explained to you why the result would be accurate.

Quote:

No actually you didn't. you are disregarding what I said. Even if 3 am came the Equation would still be computing and it would be for eternity. So the equation would never be predicting anything.


agreed

change

which is what I was trying to tell you in my above couple of posts
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:14 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;145030 wrote:
Nonsense. I can demonstrate free will, that's to say I can demonstrate my ability to perform two actions and I can demonstrate a conscious choice of one of those actions. If this world is determined, then there is a fact about which choice I will make on all future occasions. There's also a fact about whether a tossed coin will show heads or tails. Nobody seriously doubts that I can decide to coordinate my choice with the result of a tossed coin, according to any arbitrarily chosen system of matching, and that I can do this for an indefinite number of consecutive choices. This entails that the probability of determinism being true is infinitely small and the probability of free will being true is infinitely large.



That isn't nonsense... the only choices you have knowledge are the choices that have been made apparent through the means of determinsm. Your ability to choose among the choices is limited by it.
And what you claim to be a choice are just chemical and electrical impulses in a brain that developed through evolution (cause and effect) and the processes are also determined by genes and enviromental conditioning.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:16 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;145022 wrote:
No actually you didn't. you are disregarding what I said.
Yes I did and I pointed out why what you said was incorrect. If you dont know what supertasking is, look it up.
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:17 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;145035 wrote:
Yes I did and I pointed out why what you said was incorrect. If you dont know what supertasking is, look it up.

I know what it is and it isn't logically coherent.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:19 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;145034 wrote:
the only choices you have knowledge are the choices that have been made apparent through the means of determinsm.
The most irritating thing about self professed determinists is their ignorance of determinism. Why dont you read up about this stuff? You really aren't saying anything coherent.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:19 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;145034 wrote:
That isn't nonsense... the only choices you have knowledge are the choices that have been made apparent through the means of determinsm. Your ability to choose among the choices is limited by it.
And what you claim to be a choice are just chemical and electrical impulses in a brain that developed through evolution (cause and effect) and the processes are also determined by genes and enviromental conditioning.


Let me ask you then, what is the different between something that is alive and something that's dead? Is there a difference?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:20 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;145036 wrote:
I know what it is and it isn't logically coherent.
Of course it is! It's mathematically well defined.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2023 at 05:56:36