Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@EmperorNero,

Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof. If I say "God exists", I'm making a claim and I have to back it up. If I say "God doesn't exist", I'm also making a claim and I have to back it up. The default position is on the fence, not asserting the existence or nonexistence of anything.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;154551 wrote:

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.

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.

When someone is a guest at a wedding, he might say to another guest, "I hear the Harry (the groom) had to marry Zelda. She was in her third month". And the guest might reply, "No. Harry really loves Zelda. He married her of his own free will". Is the second guest expounding a theory?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;154825 wrote:

Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof. If I say "God exists", I'm making a claim and I have to back it up. If I say "God doesn't exist", I'm also making a claim and I have to back it up. The default position is on the fence, not asserting the existence or nonexistence of anything.

That is not true. The default position is always skepticism, i.e. nonexistence. "God doesn't exist" is not making a claim. If existence and nonexistence had equal value, it would have ridiculous implications.

---------- Post added 04-21-2010 at 07:53 PM ----------

You didn't answer my question:
Testability is a necessary condition for an explanation to be science?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;154902 wrote:

That is not true. The default position is always skepticism, i.e. nonexistence. "God doesn't exist" is not making a claim. If existence and nonexistence had equal value, it would have ridiculous implications.

---------- Post added 04-21-2010 at 07:53 PM ----------

You didn't answer my question:
Testability is a necessary condition for an explanation to be science?

In fact, the default position is always with those whose position is the more initially probable (Bayes Theorem). If that cannot be decided, then no side has the burden of proof (unless, of course, it is stipulated as it is in law). In fact, in the instance we are discussing, it is clear that those who allege that people do not make choices and decisions who have the burden of proof, since it is prima facie clear that people do make choices, and decisions. Why should skepticism be the more initially probable, or on the assertor? In that case, if I asserted that I have parents, and was not hatched from an egg, the burden of proof would fall on me because I just asserted it, and you are skeptical.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

the default position is always with those whose position is the more initially probable

Yes, precisely.

kennethamy wrote:

Why should skepticism be the more initially probable

Because it is usually impossible to prove a negative. If inability to prove nonexistence proves existence, we could easily prove the existence of practically everything, such as cats that shoot lasers out for their eyes.
You are asking me to prove that humans do not have free will, and if I can't, that proves that they do.

Okay, let's reset. This is about free will, not about the burden of proof and argumentation theory.
I think we simply mean something different by 'free will'. You mean the ability to choose, as distinguished from 'not having a choice'. And we both agree that we have free will in that sense. We are not zombies.
What I mean is that choices are causally determined, that things could not have happened otherwise. We could not have responded in any other way to the stimuli that we were confronted with. If you had a good enough computer, and knew the exact properties of all molecules in your brain, you could calculate what someone will choose before they do, even before they are asked the question. Actually, they did something very similar.

Certainly we do 'make decisions'; we have two options and pick one, and have the genuine feeling that we could have picked the other one. Or we might actually change our minds and pick the other one. In fact, we make lots of choices without consciously choosing. But what is the difference? After all, if we repeat a conscious action often enough it becomes unconscious, driving the same road for years you suddenly don't have to think about it any more. The only difference is that we think we make a choice, which might merely be a sensation created by our treacherous nervous system. What if we all have OCD, but our brain constantly lies to us and tells us that we have a choice?

This is my favorite quote to show determinism, at least in human decisions:

Quote:

THIS IS A CONUNDRUM CERTAINLY, said Death. Once they prayed, he thought. Mind you, he'd never been sure that prayer worked, either. He thought for a while. AND I SHALL ANSWER IT IN THIS MANNER, he added. YOU LOVE YOUR WIFE?

"What?"

THE LADY WHO HAS BEEN LOOKING AFTER YOU. YOU LOVE HER?

"Yes. Of course."

CAN YOU THINK OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, WITHOUT YOUR PERSONAL HISTORY CHANGING IN ANY WAY YOU WOULD AT THIS MOMENT PICK UP A KNIFE AND STAB HER? said Death. FOR EXAMPLE?

"Certainly not!"

BUT YOUR THEORY SAYS THAT YOU MUST. IT IS EASILY POSSIBLE WITHIN THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE, AND THEREFORE MUST HAPPEN, AND HAPPEN MANY TIMES. EVERY MOMENT IS A BILLION, BILLION MOMENTS, AND IN THOSE MOMENTS ALL THINGS THAT ARE POSSIBLE ARE INEVITABLE. ALL TIME SOONER OR LATER, BOILS DOWN TO A MOMENT.

"But of course we can make choices between-"

ARE THERE CHOICES? EVERYTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN, MUST HAPPEN. YOUR THEORY SAYS THAT FOR EVERY UNIVERSE THAT'S FORMED TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR 'NO', THERE MUST BE ONE TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR 'YES'. BUT YOU SAID YOU WOULD NEVER COMMIT MURDER. THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS TREMBLES BEFORE YOUR TERRIBLE CERTAINTY. YOUR MORALITY BECOMES A FORCE AS STRONG AS GRAVITY. And, thought Death, space certainly has a lot to answer for.

Perhaps even if Determinism doesn't exist as a universal force, it's not that there's only one thing you CAN do, it's that there's only one thing you WILL do. Alternatively, we could just be a super-complex biological computer that can have only one outcome.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

"God doesn't exist" is not making a claim.

Yes it is. It's asserting a proposition.

@Sentience,

Sentience wrote:

This is my favorite quote to show determinism, at least in human decisions:

Quote:
THIS IS A CONUNDRUM CERTAINLY, said Death. Once they prayed, he thought. Mind you, he'd never been sure that prayer worked, either. He thought for a while. AND I SHALL ANSWER IT IN THIS MANNER, he added. YOU LOVE YOUR WIFE?

"What?"

THE LADY WHO HAS BEEN LOOKING AFTER YOU. YOU LOVE HER?

"Yes. Of course."

CAN YOU THINK OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, WITHOUT YOUR PERSONAL HISTORY CHANGING IN ANY WAY YOU WOULD AT THIS MOMENT PICK UP A KNIFE AND STAB HER? said Death. FOR EXAMPLE?

"Certainly not!"

BUT YOUR THEORY SAYS THAT YOU MUST. IT IS EASILY POSSIBLE WITHIN THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE, AND THEREFORE MUST HAPPEN, AND HAPPEN MANY TIMES. EVERY MOMENT IS A BILLION, BILLION MOMENTS, AND IN THOSE MOMENTS ALL THINGS THAT ARE POSSIBLE ARE INEVITABLE. ALL TIME SOONER OR LATER, BOILS DOWN TO A MOMENT.

"But of course we can make choices between-"

ARE THERE CHOICES? EVERYTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN, MUST HAPPEN. YOUR THEORY SAYS THAT FOR EVERY UNIVERSE THAT'S FORMED TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR 'NO', THERE MUST BE ONE TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR 'YES'. BUT YOU SAID YOU WOULD NEVER COMMIT MURDER. THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS TREMBLES BEFORE YOUR TERRIBLE CERTAINTY. YOUR MORALITY BECOMES A FORCE AS STRONG AS GRAVITY. And, thought Death, space certainly has a lot to answer for.

Perhaps even if Determinism doesn't exist as a universal force, it's not that there's only one thing you CAN do, it's that there's only one thing you WILL do. Alternatively, we could just be a super-complex biological computer that can have only one outcome.

Just as long as there is no one thing I must do, so I could have done something else if I had chosen to, I have free will. Whatever I do, I do. But that is an empty tautology. What is not an empty tautology is, whatever I do, I must do. But, there is no reason to believe that.

@Sentience,

Sentience wrote:

Perhaps even if Determinism doesn't exist as a universal force, it's not that there's only one thing you CAN do, it's that there's only one thing you WILL do.

If I flip a random coin, there's only one side it WILL land on. That doesn't change the fact that it's random.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
the default position is always with those whose position is the more initially probable

Yes, precisely.

kennethamy wrote:
Why should skepticism be the more initially probable

Because it is usually impossible to prove a negative. If inability to prove nonexistence proves existence, we could easily prove the existence of practically everything, such as cats that shoot lasers out for their eyes.
You are asking me to prove that humans do not have free will, and if I can't, that proves that they do.

Okay, let's reset. This is about free will, not about the burden of proof and argumentation theory.
I think we simply mean something different by 'free will'. You mean the ability to choose, as distinguished from 'not having a choice'. And we both agree that we have free will in that sense. We are not zombies.
What I mean is that choices are causally determined, that things could not have happened otherwise. We could not have responded in any other way to the stimuli that we were confronted with. If you had a good enough computer, and knew the exact properties of all molecules in your brain, you could calculate what someone will choose before they do, even before they are asked the question. Actually, they did something very similar.

Certainly we do 'make decisions'; we have two options and pick one, and have the genuine feeling that we could have picked the other one. Or we might actually change our minds and pick the other one. In fact, we make lots of choices without consciously choosing. But what is the difference? After all, if we repeat a conscious action often enough it becomes unconscious, driving the same road for years you suddenly don't have to think about it any more. The only difference is that we think we make a choice, which might merely be a sensation created by our treacherous nervous system. What if we all have OCD, but our brain constantly lies to us and tells us that we have a choice?

Why, if I chose to do A, could I not have chosen to do B? Suppose there are two things, neither of which I do. For instance, I do not jump 3 inches up into the air, and I also do not jump 50 feet into the air. Now, I could not have jumped 50 feet into the air. I am not physically capable of doing that. I could not have done it, even if I had chosen to do it. But what about jumping three inches into the air? Are you also telling me that I could not have done that even if I had chosen to to it? On what grounds? Just because I didn't do it? What sort of reason is that? And besides, to give that as a reason that I could not have done it, just begs the question. It just assumes that I could not have done something I did not do, and that is exactly what is at issue. Could I have jumped three inches into the air? Why not?

1 - When I will, whatever I chose in order to will, I chose with a good reason, but of course I could chose something else, if, and only if, I had a similar good reason to it, which obviously was not the case given the choice was made...
To say that I could have done differently actually it is very clear...it states I did n´t ! What else can be said ?

2 - As for randomness on this matter...I lack the words to comment it further.
What kind of will can be random based ? "bullshit" !

3 - To chose freely only can mean choosing according with my needs...and if my choice is conditioned for my needs, necessarily it cannot be free, thus a contradiction in terms. As simple as it reads !

To say that this kind of pseudo freedom is the only one it makes sense believe in is just dragging the handicap around... Mr. Green

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

2 - As for randomness on this matter...I lack the words to comment it further.
What kind of will can be random based ? "bullshit" !

The problem is that you think "random" means without structure or patterns. It doesn't mean that at all.

@Night Ripper,

Hi N.R. !
we are all back in business...glad we can do that ! Wink

Maybe you are right...maybe that ´s the problem.
I don´t really get along with so so patterns... Mr. Green

@Fil Albuquerque,

There's no way around it, you're 100% right. I was thinking about that the other day in regard to people I see at work... I work in a hospital. You can deny necessity while you and your loved ones are intact. When something bad happens, it's going to be a different story.

You know necessity when you're hungry, when you're driven by a question or inspiration has taken you over while painting a mural. One can become non-verbal in that state... as if one never learned to speak. Don't we all know what it means to feel that the force that animates us is the same as that which makes thunderstorms and spring fog? And it's not a bad thing.

Until you know that the force that animates you is the same as the one that made the genocide in Ruwanda. So it wasn't wrong. There's nothing to grieve.

Wanna bet? Call it illusion, it's something you know as profoundly as you know necessity.

The whole is in each of the parts, right?

@Night Ripper,

Ahh... Perhaps I described this wrong. What I meant to say is, even if you did have the ABILITY to perform an action, you would not have the will, and thus would not, making it effectively impossible for you to perform that option.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof. If I say "God exists", I'm making a claim and I have to back it up. If I say "God doesn't exist", I'm also making a claim and I have to back it up. The default position is on the fence, not asserting the existence or nonexistence of anything.

That is not true. If I claim that it is raining hard, and it is raining hard for all to see, if someone disputes me, do I have the burden of proof? Of course not. The person who is disputing me (or doubts me) has the burden of proof to show I am wrong when it is obvious that I am right.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Could I have jumped three inches into the air? Why not?

You ask "why not". That is expecting me to prove a negative. It even is a formal fallacy. I don't want to make this about argumentation theory again, but it is impossible to prove a negative. You have to ask "why", and not "why not".

Certainly you could have jumped into the air. But if you had done that, you couldn't not have done it, and vice versa. Regardless whether you jump or not, it was the only response to the stimuli that you were confronted with. If you jumped, then to prove a point, because we talked about free will. If we had talked about cooking, maybe you would have cooked something instead of jumping.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Could I have jumped three inches into the air? Why not?

You ask "why not". That is expecting me to prove a negative. It even is a formal fallacy. I don't want to make this about argumentation theory again, but it is impossible to prove a negative. You have to ask "why", and not "why not".

Certainly you could have jumped into the air. But if you had done that, you couldn't not have done it, and vice versa. Regardless whether you jump or not, it was the only response to the stimuli that you were confronted with. If you jumped, then to prove a point, because we talked about free will. If we had talked about cooking, maybe you would have cooked something instead of jumping.

I did not ask you that. I expected that you knew I could jump three inches into the air. And I certainly did not ask you to prove a negative (not that there is anything wrong with asking that. I am perfectly happy to prove that there is no elephant in the room with me anytime you want me to do so). Are you seriously saying that I could not have jumped three inches into the air just because I did not jump three inches into the air. Have you an argument for that assertion? Or do you simply expect me to take your word for it?

If you are saying that I could not both have jumped 3 inches into the air and also not jumped 3 inches into the air, I agree with you since it is necessarily false that I could both do something and not do that something. But what has that to does with saying that if I did not do something I could not have done that something? Nothing at all that I can see.

You are confusing two different propositions:

1. Necessarily, if I do X then I do X, with,
2. If I do X then I necessarily do X.

Those are not the same propositions. The first is true. The second is false. You think that because the first is true, the second is true. But that is because (as I just pointed out) you are confusing them. By the way, that confusion is so common that it has its own name. It is called,"the modal fallacy". It is particularly common on this forum. So, you need not feel alone.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

If I claim that it is raining hard, and it is raining hard for all to see

You made claim "it is raining hard" therefore you have the burden of proof. You satisfied the burden of proof by pointing at the facts, namely, that it is actually raining hard. You've satisfied your burden of proof. You still had a burden since you made a claim.

kennethamy wrote:

The person who is disputing me

What do you mean dispute? If they say "I don't believe you" then they don't have any burden of proof because that's not a claim about the world. That's a claim about their psychology and it's something we can just assume is true. They don't believe you. Of course, having pointed out the facts and them not accepting them means that you can honestly dismiss that person's objections as unsubstantial.

Now, if they say "it is not raining" then they have an equal burden of proof. Obviously, since they can't point at the facts, since the facts are on your side, they lose the argument.

None of this removes your burden of proof but I'm sure you knew that.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
If I claim that it is raining hard, and it is raining hard for all to see

You made claim "it is raining hard" therefore you have the burden of proof. You satisfied the burden of proof by pointing at the facts, namely, that it is actually raining hard. You've satisfied your burden of proof. You still had a burden since you made a claim.

kennethamy wrote:
The person who is disputing me

What do you mean dispute? If they say "I don't believe you" then they don't have any burden of proof because that's not a claim about the world. That's a claim about their psychology and it's something we can just assume is true. They don't believe you. Of course, having pointed out the facts and them not accepting them means that you can honestly dismiss that person's objections as unsubstantial.

Now, if they say "it is not raining" then they have an equal burden of proof. Obviously, since they can't point at the facts, since the facts are on your side, they lose the argument.

None of this removes your burden of proof but I'm sure you knew that.

Why do I have the burden of proof if I made the claim that it is raining hard? Because you say so? Very well then, you just claimed that whenever someone makes a claim, he has the burden of proof. So, it follows from that, that you have the burden of proving that whenever someone makes a claim, he has the burden of proof. So, prove that whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof. Your turn. The burden of proof is on you. Do something! Like, prove it.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know