# Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

kennethamy

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:21 am
@TuringEquivalent,
What I said was that although it was obvious that apples fell to the ground and did not soar upward, Newton still believed that required explanation. Therefore, what is obvious still requires explanation.

ughaibu

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:23 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
You said " i will choose", or "i can choose the alternative", but in both cases, you are presupposing that you do have a "choice". No, you don` t have a choice, and you choice is an illusion of the deep reality that it is only math in the sky. You argument don` t work, since you are supposing the very thing you are trying to show, namely, choice.
Piffle. Explain why I cant choose 01 if your maths says I'll choose 10.

TuringEquivalent

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:30 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
You said " i will choose", or "i can choose the alternative", but in both cases, you are presupposing that you do have a "choice". No, you don` t have a choice, and you choice is an illusion of the deep reality that it is only math in the sky. You argument don` t work, since you are supposing the very thing you are trying to show, namely, choice.
Piffle. Explain why I cant choose 01 if your maths says I'll choose 10.

You are doing the same thing as before, and you obvious did not understand my explanation. What you say here is NOT an argument of any sort.

TuringEquivalent

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:34 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

What I said was that although it was obvious that apples fell to the ground and did not soar upward, Newton still believed that required explanation. Therefore, what is obvious still requires explanation.

You use the example of an apple falling, but an apple falling is not obvious. Thus, you don ` t have an example of something that is obvious, and requires explanation.

You might say "apples always fall", but the frequency of how much it occurs has no bearing on it being obvious.

kennethamy

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:43 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

What I said was that although it was obvious that apples fell to the ground and did not soar upward, Newton still believed that required explanation. Therefore, what is obvious still requires explanation.

You use the example of an apple falling, but an apple falling is not obvious. Thus, you don ` t have an example of something that is obvious, and requires explanation.

You might say "apples always fall", but the frequency of how much it occurs has no bearing on it being obvious.

Of course it is obvious that apples fall and do not soar. It was just because people never gave it a thought, and never thought it needed explanation, that Newton was a genius, for he saw that what ordinary people did not believe needed explanation did need explanation.

TuringEquivalent

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

What I said was that although it was obvious that apples fell to the ground and did not soar upward, Newton still believed that required explanation. Therefore, what is obvious still requires explanation.

You use the example of an apple falling, but an apple falling is not obvious. Thus, you don ` t have an example of something that is obvious, and requires explanation.

You might say "apples always fall", but the frequency of how much it occurs has no bearing on it being obvious.

Of course it is obvious that apples fall and do not soar. It was just because people never gave it a thought, and never thought it needed explanation, that Newton was a genius, for he saw that what ordinary people did not believe needed explanation did need explanation.

Why is apples falling, obvious? Give me one strong case, and i give up. Can you do that?

ughaibu

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:48 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
You are doing the same thing as before, and you obvious did not understand my explanation. What you say here is NOT an argument of any sort.
Right, another determinist with no argument, unable to meet the in your face obvious objection. I just cant be bothered. If you want to believe absurd nonsense, that's your affair.

wayne

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:49 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

TuringEquivalent

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:56 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
You are doing the same thing as before, and you obvious did not understand my explanation. What you say here is NOT an argument of any sort.
Right, another determinist with no argument, unable to meet the in your face obvious objection. I just cant be bothered. If you want to believe absurd nonsense, that's your affair.

You are not being rational for a person who likes to demand "arguments" a lot.

You objective is to show that there is free will. What you need to do is to show that there is choice. You cannot have "choice" in you conclusion, while you have "i will choose" in your premise. Get it? You are presuppose the very thing you are trying to show!

TuringEquivalent

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:59 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

ughaibu

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:00 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
You objective is to show that there is free will.
Full blown nonsense. Your objective is to support the claim that biology is fully mathematisable. As that claim is obviously false and the only support you've offered for it is "it's obvious", all you have is a faith based bunch of supernatural bollocks. I can not be bothered with any more of this crap from determinists, today. It is so unredeemedly teenaged.

wayne

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:08 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

OK , that works fine, I can't say whether or not most people think that, but it doesn't matter. It is true that freewill must exist within the framework of laws governing existence, if it exists at all. I feel the same about miracles.
So far as I can see, though, there is no reason freewill cannot exist within those restrictions as a limited ability, relative to choice.

TuringEquivalent

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:17 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
You objective is to show that there is free will.
Full blown nonsense. Your objective is to support the claim that biology is fully mathematisable. As that claim is obviously false and the only support you've offered for it is "it's obvious", all you have is a faith based bunch of supernatural bollocks. I can not be bothered with any more of this crap from determinists, today. It is so unredeemedly teenaged.

You are not following. I said is obvious, and demanded you to give me an explanation of why it is not obvious. My position is "there is no choice", and you said "it is obviously falses". Thus, you think there is a choice. What is you argument? The pathetic shit:

paraphrasing you: " If you compute o1, i will choose 10"

This answer presuppose the very thing you are trying to show!

Does this make sense to you at all? It is not that complex.

TuringEquivalent

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:22 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

OK , that works fine, I can't say whether or not most people think that, but it doesn't matter. It is true that freewill must exist within the framework of laws governing existence, if it exists at all. I feel the same about miracles.
So far as I can see, though, there is no reason freewill cannot exist within those restrictions as a limited ability, relative to choice.

Perhaps you agree with this "John is not free, but john thinks he is free".

wayne

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:51 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

OK , that works fine, I can't say whether or not most people think that, but it doesn't matter. It is true that freewill must exist within the framework of laws governing existence, if it exists at all. I feel the same about miracles.
So far as I can see, though, there is no reason freewill cannot exist within those restrictions as a limited ability, relative to choice.

Perhaps you agree with this "John is not free, but john thinks he is free".

That is a broad statement, I think.
John may not have complete freedom, but John is free to walk to the store and back if he chooses to do so.
Is it necessary that freewill be an absolute power?

ACB

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 06:18 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
Can you explain why this is not obvious? Explanation is needed when something is not obvious. since it is so obvious, thus, no explanation is needed.
On the contrary, it's quite obviously false. If you produce a piece of mathematics that states which of a given pair of numbers I will choose, I can choose the alternative, thus demonstrating that your mathematical determinism fails. If there is any serious philosopher who supports your position, link me to their publications page.

You said "i will choose", or "i can choose the alternative", but in both cases, you are presupposing that you do have a "choice". No, you don` t have a choice, and you choice is an illusion of the deep reality that it is only math in the sky. You argument don` t work, since you are supposing the very thing you are trying to show, namely, choice.

Very well, replace the word "choose" with "pick", so as not to presuppose choice. Is there a possibility that you will pick one number if you know that the math states you will pick the other? (If you think "pick" still implies choice, you can use another word or phrase, such as "say" or "point to".)

kennethamy

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 06:40 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

OK , that works fine, I can't say whether or not most people think that, but it doesn't matter. It is true that freewill must exist within the framework of laws governing existence, if it exists at all. I feel the same about miracles.
So far as I can see, though, there is no reason freewill cannot exist within those restrictions as a limited ability, relative to choice.

Perhaps you agree with this "John is not free, but john thinks he is free".

Well, it would depend on the circumstances. John might think he was free to marry Esmeralda or not, as he chose. But he really might be under the power of a powerful hypnotist, who is making him want to marry Esmeralda. In that case, he is not marrying Esmeralda freely.

But, on the other hand, if John met Esmeralda at a ball, and fell in love with her because of her beauty and her kindness (and the fact that her father is the CEO of Walmart's ) then he is marrying Esmeralda freely, because he wants to, and he is not compelled, then if John thinks he is free to marry Esmeralda (or not) he is (of course) right.

So, as I say, it depends.

TuringEquivalent

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 08:08 am
@ACB,
ACB wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
TuringEquivalent wrote:
Can you explain why this is not obvious? Explanation is needed when something is not obvious. since it is so obvious, thus, no explanation is needed.
On the contrary, it's quite obviously false. If you produce a piece of mathematics that states which of a given pair of numbers I will choose, I can choose the alternative, thus demonstrating that your mathematical determinism fails. If there is any serious philosopher who supports your position, link me to their publications page.

You said "i will choose", or "i can choose the alternative", but in both cases, you are presupposing that you do have a "choice". No, you don` t have a choice, and you choice is an illusion of the deep reality that it is only math in the sky. You argument don` t work, since you are supposing the very thing you are trying to show, namely, choice.

Very well, replace the word "choose" with "pick", so as not to presuppose choice. Is there a possibility that you will pick one number if you know that the math states you will pick the other? (If you think "pick" still implies choice, you can use another word or phrase, such as "say" or "point to".)

Don` t someone have to pick something, and does that not no imply choice?

TuringEquivalent

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 08:14 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

OK , that works fine, I can't say whether or not most people think that, but it doesn't matter. It is true that freewill must exist within the framework of laws governing existence, if it exists at all. I feel the same about miracles.
So far as I can see, though, there is no reason freewill cannot exist within those restrictions as a limited ability, relative to choice.

Perhaps you agree with this "John is not free, but john thinks he is free".

Well, it would depend on the circumstances. John might think he was free to marry Esmeralda or not, as he chose. But he really might be under the power of a powerful hypnotist, who is making him want to marry Esmeralda. In that case, he is not marrying Esmeralda freely.

But, on the other hand, if John met Esmeralda at a ball, and fell in love with her because of her beauty and her kindness (and the fact that her father is the CEO of Walmart's ) then he is marrying Esmeralda freely, because he wants to, and he is not compelled, then if John thinks he is free to marry Esmeralda (or not) he is (of course) right.

So, as I say, it depends.

This is gold! Why can ` t you replace the demon with the laws of physics? If you do, then by the very reasoning you use here would suggest, John is not free at all.

ughaibu

Sun 18 Jul, 2010 08:22 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
ACB wrote:
Is there a possibility that you will pick one number if you know that the math states you will pick the other?
Don` t someone have to pick something, and does not no imply choice?
Which has nothing to do with it. Mathematics is independent of reality, the burden is on you to show that any relevant mathematical truth is an actual truth.
If there is no possible mathematical proof which will exactly specify, in advance, which number the subject will say, then your claim of biological determinism is unsupported.
My challenge to you, support your contention with a plausible degree of rigour.