Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

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.

You are making this into something which it is not. We are talking about free will, not modal logic. Which is fancy, but not the topic at hand.
You could have decided to jumped three inches into the air. The question is not whether doing it excludes not doing it, that is pretty obvious, but not relevant.
The question is why you would jump into the air. Or rather, why you would decide to jump into the air. Your position is that you can decide to do anything you are physically able to do out of free will. But my point is that whatever you do is the result of the stimuli you were confronted with, not your internal choice.
There is no purpose for jumping into the air, it serves no purpose, except showing that you can decide to do it, proving that you have free will. The reason you would decide to jump into the air would be to prove that you can in fact decide to jump into the air, because you talked about jumping into the air and wanted to prove that you can. I.e. the stimulus that makes you jump into the air is you having talked about jumping into the air on the internet. Which means you didn't decide it out of "free will", but your action is a reaction to stimuli you were confronted with. Just as a stone that is dropped from a tower can not 'decide' to fall in any way different than is causally determined by it's mass, the wind direction etc. If you had not talked about free will on the internet, you would (could) not have jumped into the air, because you would not get the idea to do so. Just as you did not get the idea to make pudding today or write a letter to the president of Canada. Neither of these actions is a reaction to the stimulus you were confronted with.

As for your claim that it's not fallacious to expect me to prove a negative, I will for the sake of the argument take the extreme of your position; that free will exists and that even stones have free will. And I want you to prove that this is not the case. They do fall from towers, roll down hills, thus it is prima facie clear that stones make decisions and this they have free will. And you have the burden of proof that they do not.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Why do I have the burden of proof if I made the claim that it is raining hard?

Whoever makes a claim has a burden of proof. It's not a fact. It's a convention. This is simply because it's unfair to expect everyone else to do the legwork to disprove your claims. Whatever can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's basic philosophy.

kennethamy wrote:

So, prove that whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof.

By demanding that I prove my claim you're accepting my claim that the burden of proof is on whomever makes a claim. That's a stunning failure, even for you.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Why do I have the burden of proof if I made the claim that it is raining hard?

Whoever makes a claim has a burden of proof. It's not a fact. It's a convention. This is simply because it's unfair to expect everyone else to do the legwork to disprove your claims. Whatever can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's basic philosophy.

kennethamy wrote:
So, prove that whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof.

By demanding that I prove my claim you're accepting my claim that the burden of proof is on whomever makes a claim. That's a stunning failure, even for you.

I am merely asking you to put your money where your mouth is. I have not admitted anything. I stated the hypothetical that if you hold that it is necessarily the person who make the claim who is the person who carries the burden of proof, then, since you make the claim that the person who makes the claim carries the burden of proof, you should be prepared to shoulder that burden of proof, and prove it. I no more admit or accept your claim, than I would accept your claim (if you made it) that no arguments are fallacious, if I requested that you prove that claim. Why would you think that because I think that if your claim is that the person who makes the claim must carry the burden of proof, that implies that you should carry the burden of proving that claim. All I am doing is pointing out that if you think that claim is true, then you have the burden of proving that claim. No where do I accept your claim that the person who claims carried the burden of proof, by demanding that you prove your claim if you accept it. That you should think I am shows a fairly deep confusion about the difference between hypothetical and categorical propositions. One of several confusions.

That something is a convention (if it is) is a fact. The question is, of course, whether it is a fact that it is a convention. You have given no reason even to suppose that it is. Putting aside, of course, the question whether if it is a convention (and please note I am not admitting it is a convention by saying "if it is a convention", which from your previous error you might very well be doing) whether the convention is a good one. Let me point out that it is a legal convention that the accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and that the State carries the burden of proof. But that convention is not supported by the fact that the State is the one that makes the claim that the person is guilty. It is supported by the consideration that the accused needs that protection against the power of the State. So the justification of that convention that the State carries the burden of proof has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is the State that makes the accusation.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I am merely asking you to put your money where your mouth is.

Which I have. Which you ignored only to respond to the second half of my post.

Quote:

Whoever makes a claim has a burden of proof. It's not a fact. It's a convention. This is simply because it's unfair to expect everyone else to do the legwork to disprove your claims. Whatever can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's basic philosophy.

Anything else?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
I am merely asking you to put your money where your mouth is.

Which I have. Which you ignored only to respond to the second half of my post.

Quote:
Whoever makes a claim has a burden of proof. It's not a fact. It's a convention. This is simply because it's unfair to expect everyone else to do the legwork to disprove your claims. Whatever can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's basic philosophy.

Anything else?

When I asked you to put your money where your mouth is, what I meant is that you prove that your claim that it is a convention that the person who makes the claim carries the burden of proof. What you have just done is to try to justify that convention supposing that it exists. But I did not ask you to justify the convention (supposing that it exists). What I asked you to do is to justify your claim that it is an accepted convention. You have not done that. As I pointed out, it is not true that if it is pouring rain, and I remark to a companion that it is raining heavily, that there is any burden of proof that I have assumed that it is raining heavily. It would be silly, under those circumstances to think that was under the burden of proving that it was raining heavily. As I said, the burden of proof is on the claim that has the lower initial probability of being true, and not on who it is who happens to make the claim, which is clearly just an accident. This is a consequence of Bayes theorem which is partly about the notion of burden of proof.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

When I asked you to put your money where your mouth is, what I meant is that you prove that your claim that it is a convention that the person who makes the claim carries the burden of proof.

Are you really that ignorant of philosophy?

Quote:

Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 - “usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
When I asked you to put your money where your mouth is, what I meant is that you prove that your claim that it is a convention that the person who makes the claim carries the burden of proof.

Are you really that ignorant of philosophy?

Quote:
Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 - “usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”

Yes, I know that some logic books repeat what has become the conventional wisdom (because it keeps being repeated without thinking about it). Are you really under the impression that because I happen not to agree with some elementary logic book that means that I am ignorant of philosophy. You have a lot of confidence in writers of logic books, I have to say. An argument from authority is valid only if the authority really is an authority. Most elementary logic books are quite crappy (I know because I used to review a lot of them for prospective publishers). Many of them are written (in a hurry) because the writer is trying to get tenure at some educational institution or other, and needs a "tenure-book". Elementary logic books are the easiest to produce because they are largely cut-and-paste jobs, from previous logic books, Thus, the mistakes from one are transferred to the other. There are books and other writings on the notion of "the burden of proof" which are interesting studies of the notion. But you won't find those results in elementary logic books. Think about it: why should such a chance event as who it is who makes the claim, have the kind of logical consequences you ascribe to it? Isn't it intuitively clear that the question of who bears the burden of proof is tied to the probability of the claim, and not to who it is who happens to make the claim?. Bayes theorem is a mathematical attempt to assess the initial probabilities, which is the central issue in the notion of the burden of proof. Why don't you, if you are interested in the issue, do some serious research into it, rather than reply on an argument from an authority who is not an authority?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, I know that some logic books repeat what has become the conventional wisdom (because it keeps being repeated without thinking about it).

You asked for proof that it was a convention. I've done so. What you're saying is that it shouldn't be a convention. Which of course has nothing to do with the reality that it is a convention.

I'm not interested in arguing with you about this. You're free to make whatever silly claims you like and then stick your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA you haven't proven me wrong". I'll just ignore you because you're a waste of time.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Yes, I know that some logic books repeat what has become the conventional wisdom (because it keeps being repeated without thinking about it).

You asked for proof that it was a convention. I've done so. What you're saying is that it shouldn't be a convention. Which of course has nothing to do with the reality that it is a convention.

I'm not interested in arguing with you about this. You're free to make whatever silly claims you like and then stick your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA you haven't proven me wrong". I'll just ignore you because you're a waste of time.

But you have not proved it is a convention at all. Your evidence that it is a convention is a citation from some elementary logic book. How is that showing that it is a convention?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Your evidence that it is a convention is a citation from some elementary logic book.

How many sources do you need? What would prove that something is a convention? Maybe you think shaking hands upon meeting isn't a convention either?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Your evidence that it is a convention is a citation from some elementary logic book.

How many sources do you need? What would prove that something is a convention? Maybe you think shaking hands upon meeting isn't a convention either?

But that shaking hand is a convention is something that is known. That it is a convention that he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof is not something that is known. It is a theoretical claim, and it is something that requires argument and examination. Not citations from those who happen to think it is true, but have not examined it. That a number of people (like you) seem to believe it is true, doesn't make it true. How about arguing for the claim that whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof? I have already presented you with a counterexample to that claim. The counterexample was that someone who claims in the midst of a pouring rainstorm that it is raining, has no burden of proof. What is your reply to that counterexample? (On the former version of this forum, there was a fairly long thread which was on the notion of the burden of proof. As I recall it was between Emil and me. Early on in the thread, the view that the burden fell on the claimant was dismissed in the face of a number of counterexamples).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
what has become the conventional wisdom
You asked for proof that it was a convention. I've done so.
you have not proved it is a convention

This really is well beyond the ridiculous. Another thread derailed by Kennethamy trying to save his face about a matter in which everyone already knows that he is wrong.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

But that shaking hand is a convention is something that is known. That it is a convention that he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof is not something that is known.

Where do you get these silly ideas from? Of course it's known. It's known by me and the author of that book and several million other people. Are you in the grip of a theory again?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

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.

ken, the problem here is that we don't agree on what's "obviously right". If we did, we had no reason to debate in the first place. Obviously everybody thinks that their initial premise is right. That means that everyone thinks that those who disagree with them have the burden of proof.
Everyone simply tries to barricade himself behind not having the burden of proof. The debate is not about brain physiology, or behavior, or causality, or any such arguments relating to free will, but about fallacies, the burden of proof and logic conventions.

Why would it be initially likely that free will exists anyways? If anything, the default position is that it doesn't: If free will exists it only exists in a few organisms, and it evolved in the last half million or so years. If something hasn't existed initially, then why is it existing now more initially likely than it still not existing? Wouldn't it have to be explained how it came into being, as opposed to assuming that it does exist?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Why would it be initially likely that free will exists anyways?

We can demonstrate free will and there is no sensible reason to doubt its existence.

@Arjuna,

Necessity is redundant vanity upon phenomena...as Being dissolves its temporal circumstance.
Facts, plane as they are, they don´t need...they can´t even be settled apart !
To need which is to lack...if be aware to lack, is to have...the background is a shadow !

God...well God reigns a tomb...when there´s only silence in Noumena !
...The Mass of no awake Silent forms...
...The Silence of pure energy potentia !
...The between times, Time Silence...
...The silence of, to not Space the Silence !...

BEST REGARDS>Filipe de Albuquerque

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

We can demonstrate free will

How?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
We can demonstrate free will
How?

I'm thoroughly bored of free will denial and I have posted demonstrations dozens of times. Before I get involved, I would like to know what you have invested in denial, because I'm not going to waste my time if you're not open to rational persuasion.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
We can demonstrate free will

How?

Can you prove free will ?
An exemple does not prove free will to be general.

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Can you prove free will ?
An exemple does not prove free will to be general.

We're talking about default positions and the burden of proof. Demonstrations of free will put the onus, to make a case, on deniers .

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know