Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 08:36 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
You are assuming that this distinction between determinism and causation makes sense (whether it is true or false). I don't.

It is not that I am assuming it does, it is just that I want to be certain that I am not mistaken about my understanding of determinism. The source that he cited is reputable. So, even if the author is incorrect, I want to know why he came to the conclusions he did, and why others peer-reviewed the work and approved it. It's very possible that this is a minority determinist camp, or something along those lines.

I'm just curious as to how popular this view is among philosophers, and what exactly the implications and distinctions they are making are.


As you yourself have pointed out, it is a minority view (or is it one held by only two individuals? That's pretty much a minority). I don't suppose you think that issues like this are decidable by a show of hands anyway. It doesn't concern me, as I have said, but if it does you, perhaps you will look into it further. There are philosophers who dissent just for the sake of dissenting. As I understood it, the dissent in the Stanford Encyclopedia was rather off hand, and a kind of footnote. I have not looked at it myself, but isn't that true?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 08:52 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
As I understood it, the dissent in the Stanford Encyclopedia was rather off hand, and a kind of footnote. I have not looked at it myself, but isn't that true?

No, it wasn't just a footnote. The author mentions causality being distinct from determinism several times in the article, and he even goes as far as to say, "More specifically, neither philosophers' nor laymen's conceptions of events have any correlate in any modern physical theory. The same goes for the notions of cause and sufficient cause". I'm not exactly sure what the author means by that, though. Do you?

That said, as of this moment, I cannot find any other sources that explain determinism in the manner that the author in the SE did. So, I must conclude that it is a minority view, and that determinism is, at least as far as I have researched, explained in terms of causality.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 08:57 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
1.) Regarding determinism: You believe all the other sources we have cited in this thread are mistaken, and the only source that is relevant and accurate is the one you keep citing. Is this correct?
1) Kennethamy has quoted a one-liner, without context, and which says "causal laws", it does not say "cause".
2) the quote from the IEP entry on free will says "laws of nature", it doesn't mention cause.
3) your sources were non-specialist general definitions. Did you search for them including the term "cause" or "causal"?
4) the article has an extensive bibliography, are you suggesting that the author is misrepresenting the views of his secondary sources?
kennethamy wrote:
I qualified that with, "so far as I understand them" which is, not much.
Kennethamy, by his own admission, does not understand determinism, neither apparently, do you. I suggest you read this again: http://able2know.org/topic/152015-88#post-4286797
Zetherin wrote:
If Ughaibu is really the only one here that understands the arguments, and we all have trouble understanding him, then it appears we have a problem. It doesn't help either that the author of that particular article is difficult to understand as well. We need another source that can more clearly explain the matter.
Determinism is one of the simplest claims, in philosophy, to understand, and that is an unusually non-technical article, it is very easy to understand. If it is beyond your abilities, then you really won't have anything interesting to say about the matter, will you?
Zetherin wrote:
It's very possible that this is a minority determinist camp, or something along those lines.
It's possible, but it's far more likely that you represent the layman, and just dont understand, isn't it?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 09:10 pm
ughaibu wrote:
It's possible... just dont understand, isn't it?

Oh, not only is that possible, it is true. And I have noted that several times. For some reason, whether it be my lack of intelligence or willpower, or the fault of your or the SE author's writing, I cannot understand.

This conversation is unproductive, as it is merely a playground for you and ken to bicker, and for every response to be unhelpful and brash.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 09:21 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

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.


Did you give up, or something, since i told you for the last 1,000 freaking times, that you are presuppose the very thing you are trying to show. If you want rigor, give me a premises conclusion formulation of your " if you give me 01, i give 10" one liner. Is that common decency to at least be fucking clear about what you say?


 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 09:22 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
And you're just a troll.
 
wayne
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 12:41 am
I've an observation concerning causation, in my consideration of causation ( not physical cause mind you) it appears that causation depends, must depend, on a reasonable assumption of the resulting effect of a decision or action. Necessarily resulting in an informed decision. The resulting informed decision is then entirely dependent upon available information forming the basis for the reasonable assumption, or expectation, of the result of a decision or action, which may, in fact, depend upon a value judgement.
If this is correct, then linking causation to determinism seems the equivalent of shooting one's self in the foot.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 12:47 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

And you're just a troll.



Yep, i guess the amount of time i waste here is just to fuck with Zetherin. You are so smart.
 
Razzleg
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 01:59 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

And you're just a troll.

Yep, i guess the amount of time i waste here is just to fuck with Zetherin. You are so smart.


i think that Zetherin's point is that you have added nothing substantive to either the free will or the determinist argument. i agree. i invite you to look at my last substantive post to this thread (on pg 71)...please pick it apart, and inform me of your reservations. i will address them as soon as I find time, which should be on either on Monday or Tuesday. If you feel that you have nothing substantive to add to the ongoing convo, other than pointless or snide remarks, feel free to vacate the premises.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 02:13 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

And you're just a troll.

Yep, i guess the amount of time i waste here is just to fuck with Zetherin. You are so smart.


i think that Zetherin's point is that you have added nothing substantive to either the free will or the determinist argument. i agree. i invite you to look at my last substantive post to this thread (on pg 71)...please pick it apart, and inform me of your reservations. i will address them as soon as I find time, which should be on either on Monday or Tuesday. If you feel that you have nothing substantive to add to the ongoing convo, other than pointless or snide remarks, feel free to vacate the premises.


If i made a remark, and someone reply. Why am i wrong? Again, very smart for a person i don` t know at all.
 
Razzleg
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 02:18 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

And you're just a troll.

Yep, i guess the amount of time i waste here is just to fuck with Zetherin. You are so smart.


i think that Zetherin's point is that you have added nothing substantive to either the free will or the determinist argument. i agree. i invite you to look at my last substantive post to this thread (on pg 71)...please pick it apart, and inform me of your reservations. i will address them as soon as I find time, which should be on either on Monday or Tuesday. If you feel that you have nothing substantive to add to the ongoing convo, other than pointless or snide remarks, feel free to vacate the premises.


If i made a remark, and someone reply. Why am i wrong? Again, very smart for a person i don` t know at all.


You've used several incomplete sentences in your reply...i'm not entirely sure how to respond. Please feel free to accept my invitation, and i will respond in a more meaningful way.

PS: What has the intelligence of my response to do with your being familiar with me?
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 02:32 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

And you're just a troll.

Yep, i guess the amount of time i waste here is just to fuck with Zetherin. You are so smart.


i think that Zetherin's point is that you have added nothing substantive to either the free will or the determinist argument. i agree. i invite you to look at my last substantive post to this thread (on pg 71)...please pick it apart, and inform me of your reservations. i will address them as soon as I find time, which should be on either on Monday or Tuesday. If you feel that you have nothing substantive to add to the ongoing convo, other than pointless or snide remarks, feel free to vacate the premises.


If i made a remark, and someone reply. Why am i wrong? Again, very smart for a person i don` t know at all.


You've used several incomplete sentences in your reply...i'm not entirely sure how to respond. Please feel free to accept my invitation, and i will respond in a more meaningful way.

PS: What has the intelligence of my response to do with your being familiar with me?



No, i am not going to read you damn post. If you want me to talk to you, you have you to read my post, and ask me your questions.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 02:38 am
Yada, yada, yada. This has become absolutely ridiculous. Just one brash remark after another, as we all attempt to save face or appear intellectually superior. This thread is a great example of how a philosophy thread shouldn't look.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 07:12 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
As I understood it, the dissent in the Stanford Encyclopedia was rather off hand, and a kind of footnote. I have not looked at it myself, but isn't that true?

No, it wasn't just a footnote. The author mentions causality being distinct from determinism several times in the article, and he even goes as far as to say, "More specifically, neither philosophers' nor laymen's conceptions of events have any correlate in any modern physical theory. The same goes for the notions of cause and sufficient cause". I'm not exactly sure what the author means by that, though. Do you?

That said, as of this moment, I cannot find any other sources that explain determinism in the manner that the author in the SE did. So, I must conclude that it is a minority view, and that determinism is, at least as far as I have researched, explained in terms of causality.


I agree, only it is not that I am not exactly sure. It is that I have no idea what he means by that. (Except, or course, he is denying that philosophers and laymen say about physics is true, but he is saying it in philosophese). But does he give any argument for that? ( Or another instance of the same thing: "It's possible, but it's far more likely that you represent the layman, and just dont understand, isn't it? " Ughaibu). But "determinism" is not a term from physics or ordinary vocabulary, it is a philosopher's term. And, once again, the two issues, how is "determinism" used by philosophers, and whether determinism has to do with causal law are being mixed up.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 07:16 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Zetherin wrote:
The author mentions causality being distinct from determinism several times in the article
does he give any argument for that?
You cant possibly be serious. Not only have I given two simple and transparent arguments but I have linked to the author's exposition very many times, in direct response to you and on, now, four internet discussion boards: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002071/
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 07:20 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Zetherin wrote:
The author mentions causality being distinct from determinism several times in the article
does he give any argument for that?
You cant possibly be serious. Not only have I given two simple and transparent arguments but I have linked to the author's exposition very many times, in direct response to you and on, now, four internet discussion boards: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002071/


"Transparent"? They aren't even translucent.
 
fast
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 07:33 am
What are the implications of the laws of nature? One view is that even though all events are caused, not all events are necessary events. Another view (albeit a wild and wacky view) is that because all events are caused, all events are necessary events. Since all events are not necessary events, the view that implies that all events are necessary events is wrong. Furthermore, the view that all events are necessary events is not only wrong, but obviously wrong as well—at least to those who aren’t too terribly open-minded.

However, let us suppose, as obvious as it is, that the correct view is wrong, and let us (open our minds and let spill what may) AND consider the implications of living in a world where all events are necessary events.

Does this mean that all events (and remember, all events are caused) are compelled? The answer is no, but it’s still true none-the-less that we could not have done other than we did. Yet, we chose to do what we did, didn’t we? Yes, we chose, but we did not choose between “realizable alternatives.” But how is that a choice? It seems like a choice, but it really isn’t a choice (and only seems like there is a choice), so the illusion (people speak of) is the belief that we have choices when we actually don’t.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 07:41 am
@fast,
fast wrote:
One view is that even though all events are caused, not all events are necessary events. Another view (albeit a wild and wacky view) is that because all events are caused, all events are necessary events.
As logics are independent of reality, nothing about your post makes sense.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 07:43 am
@fast,
fast wrote:

But how is that a choice? It seems like a choice, but it really isn’t a choice (and only seems like there is a choice), so the illusion (people speak of) is the belief that we have choices when we actually don’t.



But I don't understand how I can believe I made a choice but did not. Suppose I am in an ice-cream shop, and I point to the vanilla bin and say to the server, "I'll have a scoop of vanilla, please". How could it be that I merely believe I made a choice but I didn't. Isn't doing what I did just called, "making a choice"?
 
fast
 
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 07:44 am
@ughaibu,
Does the following make sense to you? Some events are necessary events? If not, does the following make sense to you? The proposition that some events are necessary events is true. Does any of this make sense to you?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 03:13:06