Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@ughaibu,

What happens to the (free) will in case of ill-nesses like Alzheimer ? Would you call the "will" still free ?

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

What happens to the (free) will in case of ill-nesses like Alzheimer ? Would you call the "will" still free ?

As far as there is will, yes. What's the relevance of your question?

@ughaibu,

I just wonder if will exists. When does will cease ?

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

I just wonder if will exists. When does will cease ?

I dont know, and I dont see why it matters.

@ughaibu,

Legally it is very important.

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Legally it is very important.

The legal notion of free will and the metaphysical notion, are quite different. Free will exists in law according to how it's defined by lawmakers, that's all.

@ughaibu,

Can you legally proof the existence of a free will ?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

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.

Here's my latest stance on the matter.
If you don't feel like demonstrating it again, feel free to just link to your previous posts in which you did.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
I would like to know what you have invested in denial
Here's my latest stance on the matter.

I dont understand, from that post, what your argument for denial is. And it doesn't tell me what you have invested in denial.

EmperorNero wrote:

If you don't feel like demonstrating it again, feel free to just link to your previous posts in which you did.

http://able2know.org/topic/148805-1#post-4150094

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

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.

Most people have a misunderstanding of causation. They think causes make their effects necessary. If X causes Y and X obtains then Y follows necessarily. But, there's no evidence for that. All we know is that Y follows X, always. We don't know that Y has to happen. All we know is that Y does happen. So, if you think free will means that we cause our actions which in turn aren't caused by anything else then we don't have free will because nothing is ever caused.

The universe is completely random. Luckily, for me, I don't require causation for morality. I don't require people to cause their behavior. I only require that they can predict it. Again, luckily, that's exactly what we can do. It's not actually luck. It's the fact that if our will to move our arms wasn't randomly followed by our arms moving then we wouldn't be here, evolution couldn't get us this far.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
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.

Most people have a misunderstanding of causation. They think causes make their effects necessary. If X causes Y and X obtains then Y follows necessarily. But, there's no evidence for that. All we know is that Y follows X, always. We don't know that Y has to happen. All we know is that Y does happen. So, if you think free will means that we cause our actions which in turn aren't caused by anything else then we don't have free will because nothing is ever caused.

The universe is completely random. Luckily, for me, I don't require causation for morality. I don't require people to cause their behavior. I only require that they can predict it. Again, luckily, that's exactly what we can do. It's not actually luck. It's the fact that if our will to move our arms wasn't randomly followed by our arms moving then we wouldn't be here, evolution couldn't get us this far.

If all you are saying is that it is logically possible for the cause to occur and for its effect not to occur, of course that is true. All causal truths are contingent truths, and that was Hume's point. But, on other hand, if you are saying that it is just a matter of chance, that it is an accident, that when, for example water freezes at a temperature of 0 C, that is a matter or chance, and that for all we know, it may freeze at a much higher temperature, that is clearly false. We know perfectly well that it will not freeze at a temperature of the boiling point of water. So, to say that it is not logically necessary that the effect follow the cause is true. But to say that there is no connection between cause and effect is clearly false.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

The universe is completely random. Luckily, for me, I don't require causation for morality. I don't require people to cause their behavior. I only require that they can predict it. Again, luckily, that's exactly what we can do. It's not actually luck. It's the fact that if our will to move our arms wasn't randomly followed by our arms moving then we wouldn't be here, evolution couldn't get us this far.

If the universe is completely random, it is irrational to believe that we can continue to predict it successfully, however predictable it has been in the past. You should not use induction if there is no basis for it. Of course, we unthinkingly use induction as a habit; but if you conclude after careful thought that it is unfounded, it is then irrational to continue to use it.

If I am marooned on an island with no source of food, why should I believe (if the universe is random) that lack of food will kill me? Why should I make the effort of leaving the island if I find it pleasant to stay there indefinitely?

You seem to believe in a non-random kind of randomness.

@ACB,

ACB wrote:

If the universe is completely random, it is irrational to believe that we can continue to predict it successfully, however predictable it has been in the past. You should not use induction if there is no basis for it.

You need to read up on Hans Reichenbach's vindication of induction. There are two possibilities. Either the regularities we've seen will continue into the future, randomly of course, or they will not continue into the future. If they do continue into the future, induction, which is taking past regularities and extrapolating them into the future, is the absolute best method for predicting the future. If the regularities do not continue, induction is no better and no worse than any other method, including random guessing. So, either induction is the best method we can use or it's just as good as anything else we can use. That makes induction the most rational choice.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

ACB wrote:
If the universe is completely random, it is irrational to believe that we can continue to predict it successfully, however predictable it has been in the past. You should not use induction if there is no basis for it.

You need to read up on Hans Reichenbach's vindication of induction. There are two possibilities. Either the regularities we've seen will continue into the future, randomly of course, or they will not continue into the future. If they do continue into the future, induction, which is taking past regularities and extrapolating them into the future, is the absolute best method for predicting the future. If the regularities do not continue, induction is no better and no worse than any other method, including random guessing. So, either induction is the best method we can use or it's just as good as anything else we can use. That makes induction the most rational choice.

Yes. Reichenbach is arguing that if anything will work to predict the future, induction will work. Induction is not our only shot, but it is certainly our best shot. But that makes it sound as if induction is what the French call, "faute de mieux" (for want of something better). But then the question is, what would be better than induction (only we don't or cannot have it)? What is it that we don't have that would do the job that induction just limps along at doing? What would be better than induction, if only we could have it?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

I dont understand, from that post, what your argument for denial is. And it doesn't tell me what you have invested in denial.

Ah, "denial". You got that from global warming?
Yeah, we call people "deniers" now if they advocate skepticism... on any subject. You know, like holocaust deniers, it makes it seem bad.
Now I'm going to debate a God-denier, and later I'm going to debate a Unicorn-denier. My girlfriend denies that we should eat hot-dogs today, oh those damn hot-dog-deniers, they just don't want to accept scientific truth.

ughaibu wrote:

Free will is conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.
I can type 01, and I can type 10. It is thereby established that I have two realisable alternatives, my option set {01,10}.
A choice is the construction of a set with exactly one element and that element is a proper subset of an option set.
I am conscious.
I have consciously considered the consequences of my choice.
{01}
I have constructed a set with exactly one element, which is a proper subset of my option set. In fact, I have demonstrated free will.

This seems like a fancy way - with big words - of saying "I have two options and I pick one of them, thus I have free will". Nobody denies that we pick a single option out of two options. The question is whether you could have picked the other one out of internal variability, or whether your choice was the only reaction to the stimuli you were confronted with. A stone does "choose" one out of many options when you place it on the top of a hill, it rolls down one or the other side. Thus it has free will?

@EmperorNero,

...you are losing your time with this guy´s...they are hard determined to reply the way they do... Smile

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

The question is whether you could have picked the other one out of internal variability

As I demonstrated my ability to perform both actions, I see no reason to imagine that I was incapable of performing either. Do you have a reason?

EmperorNero wrote:

A stone does "choose" one out of two options when you place it on the top of a hill, it rolls down one or the other side.

Are you claiming that stones are conscious?

EmperorNero wrote:

Thus it has free will?

If you think that stones have free will, that's your affair.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...you are losing your time with this guy´s...they are hard determined to reply the way they do...

So you deny that everyone on the internet is capable and intellectually honest, eh? You denying denier. Smile

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

A stone does "choose" one out of many options when you place it on the top of a hill, it rolls down one or the other side.

I notice you put "choose" in scare quotes. Is that because you couldn't do so otherwise without feeling completely ridiculous? A stone doesn't choose anything. You have to be deep in theory not to get red in the face after letting that rip.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

I notice you put "choose" in scare quotes. Is that because you couldn't do so otherwise without feeling completely ridiculous? A stone doesn't choose anything.

I am going to respond to your other post in a minute, I just wanted to give it the attention it deserves.

Yes, we do not use the term choose when we speak about objects, because we understand why it happens, i.e. we know if we place a stone on the top of a hill it will roll down one side, and not the other, because of it's mass and where exactly it is placed and such. It's a physical motion. But when humans perform a motion, it is called a "choice", because we do not understand the exact physical properties of it, so there is room for "free will". If you (for the sake of the argument) think of people as robots, that merely react to physical stimuli they are confronted with, their motion is the same as the motion of a stone rolling down one side of a hill if placed on the top, just much more complicated. Therefore the term choose in quotes.
The point was that if making a "choice", or physical motion, proves free will, then stones have free will. Argumentum ad absurdum.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know