Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 08:06 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;154455 wrote:
Yes, it seems that he either has to argue that we would feel different, which obviously we don't, or that we wouldn't feel different and therefore have no reason to care if we are free or not. It's a lose-lose argument.


There is a reason to care, for as Kant pointed out, without free will, ethical judgments are a sham. As he wrote, "Ought implies can".
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 08:11 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;154456 wrote:
There is a reason to care, for as Kant pointed out, without free will, ethical judgments are a sham. As he wrote, "Ought implies can".


That doesn't address the assumption that we wouldn't feel any different. That's the context in which I said we wouldn't care.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 08:18 am
@kennethamy,
Night Ripper;154447 wrote:
It sounds like you're saying that I don't have free will and if someone tapped me with a magic wand to give me free will I wouldn't feel any different at all. If that's the case, why would I even care? What good is a new pair of glasses that look and feel exactly like the old pair?


Yes. It feels the same. Are you saying if we all were in a dream machine, it would not be worth knowing because it would feel the same?

kennethamy;154449 wrote:
But what has any of that to do with it? Why should I have to convince you of anything? I just gave you an argument. Deal with it.


It's just an argumentative technique, kennethamy. As I said before, I am not trying to convince you of anything. So far you have been saying "I must have free will, because I feel I have free will." And I have been saying "How do you know that what you feel is accurate?". I wanted you for the sake of the argument argue for a position where what we feel is true isn't in fact true. That would mean I have to argue that it is in fact true. We would both argue the others side and therefore try to explore errors in our own thinking.

kennethamy;154449 wrote:
If I did not have free will I would feel (I guess) that I was compelled to do things I did not want to do. Perhaps like an obsessive compulsive. I don't feel that way. Do you?


Why would you know that you are not compelled to do these things? Maybe you are just not aware that you are compelled to do them. Imagine a obsessive compulsive who does not know he is obsessive compulsive.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 08:25 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;154462 wrote:
Yes. It feels the same. Are you saying if we all were in a dream machine, it would not be worth knowing because it would feel the same?


What could I do differently with this knowledge? Could I escape it? Could I fly around like Neo? Could the knowledge have any possible observable implications at all? If not, then aside from a bit of trivia, it's irrelevant. It's about as worth knowing as how many grains of sand are on the beach. Interesting but pointless.

It's like telling me that the money in my pocket is counterfeit but done so in a way that is physically impossible to detect. If that's the case, aside from questions of how you could possibly know that, if I can still spend the money and not get in trouble, why would I care? What has changed?
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 08:34 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;154466 wrote:
What could I do differently with this knowledge? Could I escape it? Could I fly around like Neo? Could the knowledge have any possible observable implications at all? If not, then aside from a bit of trivia, it's irrelevant. It's about as worth knowing as how many grains of sand are on the beach. Interesting but pointless.


I agree. But this would be the case for most of science. It's trivia. What are the implications of string theory for your life? Why does the government take our money, which we would have used to buy things that we do want, and uses it to produce explanations about the universe which we do not care about?

Night Ripper;154466 wrote:
It's like telling me that the money in my pocket is counterfeit but done so in a way that is physically impossible to detect. If that's the case, aside from questions of how you could possibly know that, if I can still spend the money and not get in trouble, why would I care? What has changed?


For you, nothing. And in the sense that you think you have free will, you do have free will. You can think about a course of action and take it, for you it is real. That once you did, it it couldn't have happened otherwise, and that a strong enough computer could have predicted what you decide, even if you change your mind, is a philosophical notion.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 08:37 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;154471 wrote:
I agree. But this would be the case for most of science. It's trivia. What are the implications of string theory for your life?


String theory isn't science yet. Bad example. Take general relativity instead. In fact, I depend on it everyday. The GPS satellites that my car uses to figure out my position would give me incorrect times if they didn't apply general relativity. That's not just trivia. That's something I need to get around quickly.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 08:41 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;154459 wrote:
That doesn't address the assumption that we wouldn't feel any different. That's the context in which I said we wouldn't care.


But whether or not we would feel any different, and I think we would, as I already said, it would still matter because of Kant's point, wouldn't it? What difference would it make if we didn't care if we ought to care?
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 08:49 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;154472 wrote:
String theory isn't science yet. Bad example. Take general relativity instead. In fact, I depend on it everyday. The GPS satellites that my car uses to figure out my position would give me incorrect times if they didn't apply general relativity. That's not just trivia. That's something I need to get around quickly.


Hmmm... What do you mean by string theory isn't science yet? If it isn't a working theory yet, it's not science? Then all that money that governments spend on science which never ends up being a theory isn't science? That's a bit of a convenient way to define away wasted money and only have successes count as science.
If this seems off-topic I will explain the connection in a minute.

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 04:56 PM ----------

It's a bit like saying that McDonalds isn't real food because it is so unhealthy, therefore your daily meals there don't count as diet, ergo you diet is really healthy.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:07 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;154462 wrote:



Why would you know that you are not compelled to do these things? Maybe you are just not aware that you are compelled to do them. Imagine a obsessive compulsive who does not know he is obsessive compulsive.



I was answering your question as to now would I feel any different. I told you. I would feel like an obsessive-compulsive. Your question, how would I know I was not OC is answered by my question, why would you think I was if you had no evidence that I was. How would you know that you are not an Extra-terrestrial from outer space? I guess the answer is that you have no good reason to suppose that you are. You are committing the fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance). It does not follow from the fact that you don't know that you are not an ET, that you might be an ET. That is just a fallacious argument.

1. A does not know he isn't an alien from outer space.

Therefore, 2. He might be an alien from outer space.

Fallacy. Argument from ignorance.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:11 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;154477 wrote:
Hmmm... What do you mean by string theory isn't science yet? If it isn't a working theory yet, it's not science? Then all that money that governments spend on science which never ends up being a theory isn't science? That's a bit of a convenient way to define away wasted money and only have successes count as science.
If this seems off-topic I will explain the connection in a minute.

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 04:56 PM ----------

It's a bit like saying that McDonalds isn't real food because it is so unhealthy, therefore your daily meals there don't count as diet, ergo you diet is really healthy.


Most scientists don't consider it science because it hasn't made any testable predictions. It might be science one day but it's not fair to hold it up as an example of something that isn't relevant to my life specifically because of the fact that it hasn't made anything we can test for. There's no evidence to support it rather than alternatives. It would be dishonest to make an argument based on string theory rather than quantum mechanics or relativity.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:19 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;154485 wrote:
I was answering your question as to now would I feel any different. I told you. I would feel like an obsessive-compulsive. Your question, how would I know I was not OC is answered by my question, why would you think I was if you had no evidence that I was. How would you know that you are not an Extra-terrestrial from outer space? I guess the answer is that you have no good reason to suppose that you are. You are committing the fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance). It does not follow from the fact that you don't know that you are not an ET, that you might be an ET. That is just a fallacious argument.

1. A does not know he isn't an alien from outer space.

Therefore, 2. He might be an alien from outer space.

Fallacy. Argument from ignorance.


I would argue that it's the other way around.
Stones don't have free will, therefore free will has to be explained, not the absence of it.

1. A does not know he does not have free will.

Therefore, 2. He has free will.

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 05:22 PM ----------

Night Ripper;154486 wrote:
Most scientists don't consider it science because it hasn't made any testable predictions. It might be science one day but it's not fair to hold it up as an example of something that isn't relevant to my life specifically because of the fact that it hasn't made anything we can test for. There's no evidence to support it rather than alternatives. It would be dishonest to make an argument based on string theory rather than quantum mechanics or relativity.


But the methods by which it is reached are scientific. In that sense it is science. How can you say that the 'knowledge' that free will isn't real is just trivia, yet string theory is valuable?
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:30 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;154491 wrote:
But the methods by which it is reached are scientific. In that sense it is science. How can you say that the 'knowledge' that free will isn't real is just trivia, yet string theory is valuable?


There is no evidence to support string theory simply because it hasn't made any testable predictions. There are mountains of evidence for relativity and quantum mechanics. As I said, it's dishonest to use string theory as an example.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:31 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;154491 wrote:
I would argue that it's the other way around.
Stones don't have free will, therefore free will has to be explained, not the absence of it.

1. A does not know he does not have free will.

Therefore, 2. He has free will.

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 05:22 PM ----------





I don't understand that stone argument. Why if stones have no free will, do we have to explain why people do? That seems to me just a non sequitur. It's like saying that since snakes have no fingers, we have to explain why people do have fingers. I would not know what to make of that argument.

The other argument, as I pointed out, commits the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Look it up.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:33 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;154497 wrote:
There is no evidence to support string theory simply because it hasn't made any testable predictions. There are mountains of evidence for relativity and quantum mechanics. As I said, it's dishonest to use string theory as an example.


Testability is a necessary condition for an explanation to be science?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:36 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;154501 wrote:
Testability is a necessary condition for an explanation to be science?


It is one of the criteria that distinguishes science from religion or from metaphysics.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:42 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;154500 wrote:
I don't understand that stone argument. Why if stones have no free will, do we have to explain why people do? That seems to me just a non sequitur. It's like saying that since snakes have no fingers, we have to explain why people do have fingers. I would not know what to make of that argument.

The other argument, as I pointed out, commits the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Look it up.


You are misunderstanding the argument from ignorance. It's not a fallacy to assume the non-existence of something, such as that of free will. It is a fallacy to assume the existence of something, like free will, unless there is an argument against it. That argument is from ignorance, not mine. You are saying, that you are not a obsessive compulsive (i.e. have free will), because if you were, you would know. - "I would feel like an obsessive-compulsive."
But how do you know that you would know? Because you know?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 09:54 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;154507 wrote:
You are misunderstanding the argument from ignorance. It's not a fallacy to assume the non-existence of something, such as that of free will. It is a fallacy to assume the existence of something, like free will, unless there is an argument against it. That argument is from ignorance, not mine. You are saying, that you are not a obsessive compulsive (i.e. don't have free will), because if you were, you would know. - "I would feel like an obsessive-compulsive."
But how do you know that you would know? Because you know?


No. I am saying that for you to argue that I may be an obsessive-compulsive because there is no evidence that I am not, is committing the ignorantium fallacy. If I did not know, then others would know, and they could tell me, because there would be evidence that I was. Unless there is evidence that I am, it is just gratuitous to say that I may be OC anyway. That simply would mean that it is not impossible that I am not. But the argument, it is not impossible that you are not OC therefore you may be OC is preposterous. Ir is not impossible that you are an ET, therefore you may be an ET is also preposterous.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 10:24 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;154509 wrote:
No. I am saying that for you to argue that I may be an obsessive-compulsive because there is no evidence that I am not, is committing the ignorantium fallacy. If I did not know, then others would know, and they could tell me, because there would be evidence that I was. Unless there is evidence that I am, it is just gratuitous to say that I may be OC anyway. That simply would mean that it is not impossible that I am not. But the argument, it is not impossible that you are not OC therefore you may be OC is preposterous. Ir is not impossible that you are an ET, therefore you may be an ET is also preposterous.


No it's not. Arguing that you have free will because there is no evidence that you do not, is committing the ignorantium fallacy.
"Having OC" is just another way of saying "not having free will", just as a positive. Assuming the non-existence of something through ignorance is not a fallacy, even if you formulate it as a positive. Assuming the existence of something is a fallacy, even if you formulate it as a negative.

Here's an analogy of what you are doing: The existence of "God" is the opposite of the existence of "no God".
There is no evidence for the existence of "no God".
Therefore assuming the existence of "no God" is an argument from ignorance.
Since "no God" does not exist, God must exist.

You can see, just formulating something as a positive does not mean that assuming the nonexistence of that positive is an argument from ignorance.
Stones don't have free will, therefore free will is something that has to be argued for, not the absence of it, even if you call it "having OC".
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 11:27 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;154523 wrote:
No it's not. Arguing that you have free will because there is no evidence that you do not, is committing the ignorantium fallacy.
"Having OC" is just another way of saying "not having free will", just as a positive. Assuming the non-existence of something through ignorance is not a fallacy, even if you formulate it as a positive. Assuming the existence of something is a fallacy, even if you formulate it as a negative.

Here's an analogy of what you are doing: The existence of "God" is the opposite of the existence of "no God".
There is no evidence for the existence of "no God".
Therefore assuming the existence of "no God" is an argument from ignorance.
Since "no God" does not exist, God must exist.

You can see, just formulating something as a positive does not mean that assuming the nonexistence of that positive is an argument from ignorance.
Stones don't have free will, therefore free will is something that has to be argued for, not the absence of it, even if you call it "having OC".


Why would you think that I would argue about God in that way? I would not assume that God doesn't exist, or that God does exist. And if there is no evidence for God, I would not conclude that God did not exist unless I also supposed that it God existed, that there would be evidence that God existed.

Clearly, if I am an OC, then I do not have free will (at least to the extent that I do things because I am OC). But if you allege that I am OC, don't you think that you should have some reason to make that allegation. My view is analogous to the view that the accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. And that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Of course, that does not mean that the accused is innocent unless there is evidence that he is guilty. Obviously not. But it does mean that the accused should not be found guilty unless there is (sufficient) evidence to do so. Now, in the same way, if you allege that I don't have free will when I do seem (at least) to make choices, and change my mind, then don't you think that the burden of proof is on you to show that despite appearances, I do not have free will, and that I cannot make choices and change my mind. It is not evidence that I don't have free will, that it is possible that I don't have free will, anymore than that the possibility that the accused is guilty is evidence that the accused is guilty. Don't you agree. My general view is that what clearly seems to be true, is true, unless there is some good reason to think it isn't true. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Remember, though, I said "presumed". I didn't omit that very important word. (People often do.They say, "innocent until proven guilty", which is, of course, preposterous).
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 11:50 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;154541 wrote:
Why would you think that I would argue about God in that way?


I do not think that you argue about God that way. I say you argue about free will that way, and I tried to make that clear through an analogy about God.

kennethamy;154541 wrote:
Clearly, if I am an OC, then I do not have free will (at least to the extent that I do things because I am OC). But if you allege that I am OC, don't you think that you should have some reason to make that allegation. My view is analogous to the view that the accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. And that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Of course, that does not mean that the accused is innocent unless there is evidence that he is guilty. Obviously not. But it does mean that the accused should not be found guilty unless there is (sufficient) evidence to do so. Now, in the same way, if you allege that I don't have free will when I do seem (at least) to make choices, and change my mind, then don't you think that the burden of proof is on you to show that despite appearances, I do not have free will, and that I cannot make choices and change my mind.


But you are mistaken about who the defendant is, and who the accuser is on the issue of free will. The defendant is the the skeptic. And the accuser, the one with the burden of proof, is the one having a theory. "Free will" is a theory, not the default position. (Feeling it to be the case does not make it the default that has to be disproven.) Me saying we do not have free will is not having a theory, that I have to back up, it is being skeptic of your theory. Thus you are the accuser, and I am the defendant. I am the one who can expect you to back up your theory. You can't sit back and expect me to prove a negative; that your theory is not true.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 07:09:46