Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@Pepijn Sweep,

...Q.M. would be perfect for Bi-polar disorders ! Laughing

@ughaibu,

I thought so...you were bluffing ! YOU HAVE Nothing...

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Were did I said that I can prove Completeness ??? I empathise with the concept, just that ! Shhhh...
On the other hand I am still waiting for your enlightened explanation...(please address it politely, as so far I am being respectful to you.)

Are you utterly fucking braindead?

Are you acquainted with any other adjectives, or is that the only one you know? If you are acquainted with others, it would be a relief. Remember, as the Bard said, variety is the spice of life. And, in any case, there is a point of diminishing returns when the repetitive use of the same adjective begins to lose any effect it might once have had. Try something different for a change. If you are at a loss there is always the Thesaurus to turn to.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Are you acquainted with any other adjectives, or is that the only one you know?

You've known me for four and a half years but dont remember any of the adjectives I've used. I suggest a course of meclophenoxate.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque./, wrote:

...Q.M. would be perfect for Bi-polar disorders !

I think it's not thât easy...>O<

@ughaibu,

Perhaps he is referring to the Standard Model.

A friend of mine who doesn't believe humans have free will always uses that as the cornerstone for his argument. He says that according to the SM, all matter is reducible. That is, given the proper mathematics, every physical phenomena can be determined. And this, he says, leaves no room for any outside forces (like that proposed by free will). Matter interacts in a determined manner, and we have no influence over it.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Perhaps he is referring to the Standard Model.

A friend of mine who doesn't believe humans have free will always uses that as the cornerstone for his argument. He says that according to the SM, all matter is reducible. That is, given the proper mathematics, every physical phenomena can be determined. And this, he says, leaves no room for any outside forces (like that proposed by free will). Matter interacts in a determined manner, and we have no influence over it.

But what does that imply? The abstraction overwhelms me. Does that mean that whatever I did, I was forced to do, and could have done no other than I did? He has no evidence for that, and I have overwhelming evidence that he is mistaken. Although I did not move my right foot a moment ago, all the evidence I have supports that I could have done so, and that I was not forced not to do so. What is his evidence that I could not have moved by foot a moment ago. Some abstract theory or other? The question is: what is it I am more justified in believing; that I could have moved my right foot, or whether his rather nebulous and unsupported theory that implies (if it does) that I could not have moved my foot is true. I think there is simply no contest. Why on earth should I believe that I could not have moved my foot when all the evidence I have is that I could have done so, while all he has is some abstract and ill-supported theory that implies (he claims) that I could not have move my foot? It would be unreasonable in the extreme to believe your friend.

Completeness in the sense that considering, every physical effect has a sufficient physical cause, cannot ultimately be proved or disproved, seams pretty straightforward for me, given nowadays Physical cause and effect have become hard to define or qualify properly...

What is the Nature of the substance that we call Physical ?
Are we up to Matter, Waves, Strings, or more radically, Information ?
At this light are objects and events finite or infinite actuality´s ? ...answering with clarity does matter if to establish objective causal chain pairings, or even for correlation purposes...

In spite of desirable, the suspension of judgement while incapable of prove either way would be not only anti-natural in essence as ultimately an act of desonesty concerning mental needs on belief...I assume that with ease...

...Yes Zetherin...to my view it is reducible ! But I cannot prove it !!!

My opinion goes exactly in the sense that mental phenomena are the result of "matter" interaction, and that you while aware (side effect), cannot in fact avoid but to react accordingly...

@kennethamy,

1 - Mind this...you could have move your foot right or left given you have had reasons critical mass to the weight in the balance fall to one side or another...not both ways !!!

Plus:

2 - You are not an actor but an REACTOR in the process !!!
(AWARENESS COMES A POSTERIORI !!!) (it is proved in Neuroscience !)

The problem lies that POSSIBILITY is an assumption !!!

You do what you want, quite allright...but WHY do you want it is the question ! You have reasons that you cannot avoid but have...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Does that mean that whatever I did, I was forced to do, and could have done no other than I did?

Hard determinists and the like do not use the same notions of "compel" and "free" as we have used here, and which are regularly used in matters of legality and morality. So, yes, they would say you were forced, but perhaps not in the same way you are thinking. When they say you are forced, they are saying that your actions were caused (yes, we're back to this). But the thing is, since they (hard determinists) do not believe humans have the ability to freely choose anything, they don't even consider the normal usage of "compel" or "free" in regards to choice-making. What this can cause is a confusion between the supporter of free will and the denier of free will, since the denier often times believes that how we characterize choices as "compelled" is flawed. The supporter of free will and the denier of free will must make sure they're even using the same sense of words like "forced" (I ran into this first-hand with that friend I spoke of, and man was that frustrating).

In an effort not to make this post too long, and to give you a little rope to respond to, this is the argument that Sandra LaFave uses to illustrate this sort of thinking:

P1: No action is free if it must occur.
P2: Human actions result from wants, wishes, desires, motivations, feelings, etc.
P3: Human wants, wishes, desires, motivations, feelings, etc. are caused in turn by specific antecedent conditions that ensure their occurrence.
C: Human actions are not free.

The problem here seems to be that despite the wants, wishes, desires, motivations, feelings, etc. being caused, that does not mean that they must occur. And it seems that hard determinists, and the people that speak for them (Sandra), make that mistake.

And this leads us to the word "necessary", and how it is involved with casual laws.

@Zetherin,

...Exactly, the word necessary is also an issue ! As I believe there´s no 2 equal things in this Universe...no exactly 2 equal reactions is the consequence...therefore what happens MUST happen !

There may be similar events with different causes...they are sufficient but of course not necessary...agreed not a problem ! As long there are no 2 exact equal events with different causation roots, what happens must happen still is true !!!

Why do you think Freedom is so well simulated by Nature ???
...similarities with different causes are the trick to the idea that there could be otherwise...

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Does that mean that whatever I did, I was forced to do, and could have done no other than I did?

Hard determinists and the like do not use the same notions of "compel" and "free" as we have used here, and which are regularly used in matters of legality and morality. So, yes, they would say you were forced, but perhaps not in the same way you are thinking. When they say you are forced, they are saying that your actions were caused (yes, we're back to this). But the thing is, since they (or at least the ones I've spoken to) do not believe humans have the ability to choose anything, they don't even consider the normal usage of "compel" or "free" in regards to choice-making. In my case, this led to me (being the supporter of free will) arguing that our actions were not always forced, when the person I was arguing against (the denier of free will) wouldn't even acknowledge that sort of "forced" exists!

In an effort not to make this post too long, and to give you a little rope to respond to, this is the argument that Sandra LaFave uses to illustrate this sort of thinking:

P1: No action is free if it must occur.
P2: Human actions result from wants, wishes, desires, motivations, feelings, etc.
P3: Human wants, wishes, desires, motivations, feelings, etc. are caused in turn by specific antecedent conditions that ensure their occurrence.
C: Human actions are not free.

Of course, the problem here seems to be that despite the wants, wishes, desires, motivations, feelings, etc. being caused, that does not mean that they must occur. And it seems that hard determinists, and people that speak for them (Sandra), make that mistake.

But this leads us to the word necessary, and how it is involved with casual laws.

But I wasn't forced not to move my right foot. And it is not open to anyone to say that although I was not forced not to move my right foot in any ordinary sense of "forced" they have some other sense of "forced" by which I was forced to do so. The question of free will originates in ordinary language. To change meanings in (as it were) in midstream is not to show that I was not free to move my leg. It is to change the subject. It is as if I were to order scrambled eggs, and the waiter were to tell me that I could not have scrambled eggs in the sense that I meant "scrambled eggs" but that I could have scrambled eggs in a different sense of "scrambled eggs", and then serve me waffles. It makes no sense. You cannot change the facts by changing words. Scrambled eggs don't become waffles by calling them waffles, and neither is it shown that I don't have free will by calling free will something else, and demonstrating that I don't have that. That I don't have that in no way shows that I don't have free will, since what I meant by free will was not, that in the first place. Why people think they can get away with this kind of bait-and-switch argument which is at home on used-car lots, I cannot imagine.

@kennethamy,

So you think that minority thinking should be dismissed concerning knowing...with that idea in mind we would still be in Stone Age ! Rolling Eyes

@kennethamy,

Well, they don't believe that our understanding of free will is correct. In other words, not only do they believe you are wrong for believing that you were free (using your sense of "free") to move your leg, but they don't even believe that "free" said in this respect makes any sense. And this is because they believe that science has demonstrated that everything operates by determined causal laws. It is a sort of necessitarianism, I think.

They believe that we are nothing more than computer programs (a popular analogy) and are completely physically reducible. We only think we can make choices (they call this the illusion of free will). Any choice we think we make, however, is only the result of matter operating in a certain, determined manner. Our consciousness gives us no consolation here. We're just a heap of matter running its course with no influence.

@Zetherin,

I really wish it could be otherwise ! That would be a relief for me ! A sort of regress to my infancy...free as I was in my childhood cosmogony, and allot more happier of course ! Rolling Eyes

So you, Ken, and others, do the bloody job of proving me wrong without doubt..

@Fil Albuquerque,

Well, even if you believe in what the hard determinists say, you have to believe that they're wrong on some level in order to even function in society and to not fall victim to severe complications. For instance, if everyone believed as the hard determinists do, our understanding of accountability (whether it be moral, legal, etc.) would have to be ignored. And that would just beckon madness. People could go around shooting people, and we would never have a good reason to put them in jail! It's not their fault, it's just the determined matter that has operated in such a manner, right?

@Zetherin,

Yes, its Madness...on that concern I was wondering why Moral and Ethics emerged everywhere with this sense of compassion for the less fortunate...
(edited)

@Fil Albuquerque,

What are you using to support your position, though? Are you using the Standard Model like I mentioned earlier, or what?

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know