What is Free Will?

@fast,

fast;113800 wrote:

We cannot infer that you were compelled by the fact there was a cause.

why not? It's proven by the weather station reports for that day and time. It was in the right direction, and I felt the compelling. It was definitely pushing in his direction. That much is scientific fact

@fast,

memester wrote:

The problem you are encountering is that you are failing to stop at correct cause. You are groping back unjustifiably.

Groping is a specialty of mine.

fast wrote:

We cannot infer that you were compelled by the fact there was a cause.

Which is why I asked the questions I asked. I do not know the proper way to infer a compeller. How do we make distinct a cause from a compeller?

memester wrote:

why not? It's proven by the weather station reports for that day and time. It was in the right direction, and I felt the compelling. It was definitely pushing in his direction.

So, then, can all causes be compellers (things which compel)?

@fast,

fast;113800 wrote:

We cannot infer that you were compelled by the fact there was a cause.

But a cause can compel. Of course, it need not. I may be caused by my friend's suggestion that I visit a certain restaurant. But suggestions do not compel.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;113804 wrote:

But a cause can compel. Of course, it need not. I may be caused by my friend's suggestion that I visit a certain restaurant. But suggestions do not compel.

why not ? the suggestion triggered a chain of reasoning that compelled you to got there vs. somewhere else. and even thinking about the suggested goodness there made you hungrier still, compelling you.

@memester,

memester;113807 wrote:

why not ? they triggered a chain of reasoning that compelled you to got here vs. somewhere else.

Why do you say that my "chain of reasoning" forced me to do something? I may have done something because I had a good reason to do it, but what makes you think I could not have chosen otherwise?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;113803 wrote:

Groping is a specialty of mine.

Which is why I asked the questions I asked. I do not know the proper way to infer a compeller. How do we make distinct a cause from a compeller?

So, then, can all causes be compellers (things which compel)?

the way you wanted it understood, was that any force acting on the subject, however tangentially, if it could be established to be forcing in the direction needed somehow, is a compeller.

Social status concerns could be a compelling force, by your definitions, as provided.

By other definition, it's overwheming force.

I would tend to think of it by example in this way; If I am standing braced resolutely against being pushed back, I might be all the more easily pushed sideways, off balance, with a fingertip - that fingertip supplying an overwhelming force under those conditions.

That is a cause. What could it be a cause of ? A cause of my sustaining an injury.
Or my falling on a baby and killing it.
Depends what the question is

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 12:32 PM ----------

kennethamy;113810 wrote:

Why do you say that my "chain of reasoning" forced me to do something? I may have done something because I had a good reason to do it, but what makes you think I could not have chosen otherwise?

It's not that you could have chosen otherwise, in that case, it's that you did not, so you COULD NOT have done otherwise. Depends on how you want to argue it.
A painter choosing one colour of paint over another, it was all determined since the Big Bang.

Failure to specify what field we are discussing things within ( e.g. Law, Physics, Psychology), failure to stop at correct cause - this makes the argument endless.

It's pretty easy to understand the errors; A Coroner is asked specific questions relating to his field of expertize.

Cause of Death, for instance. He needs to stop at the correct level of cause.

suppose these are facts
Psychotic killer by chance meets and kills "Fred". He stabs him to death. When found in the dumpster later on, Fred's corpse is sent to the lab.

The investigation would first determine cause of death..and this cause would not have anything to do with the killers childhood, as one example of a cause that is not part of the question being asked.

correct level of cause would be "stabbed to death", with some relevant particulars such as carotid artery slash.

@memester,

memester;113812 wrote:

It's not that you could have chosen otherwise, in that case, it's that you did not, so you COULD NOT have done otherwise. .

I think that is what logicians call a non-sequitur. Why could I not have done otherwise if I had chosen to do otherwise, and why do you think I could not have chosen otherwise? I have chosen otherwise many times in the past, and I expect to do so in the future. You must have some evidence that I could not have chosen otherwise besides some hand-waving about the Big Bang.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;113818 wrote:

I think that is what logicians call a non-sequitur. Why could I not have done otherwise if I had chosen to do otherwise

This is what they might call an unsupported premise. Every event has it's causes and conditions. The event was caused, under those conditions, not "done".

You could not, and can never choose to do "otherwise".

and that is the net result of failure to stop at correct cause. Everything is attributable to the initial event at the time of Big Bang.

@memester,

memester;113820 wrote:

This is what they might call an unsupported premise. Every event has it's causes and conditions. The event was caused, under those conditions, not "done".

You could not, and can never choose to do "otherwise".

and that is the net result of failure to stop at correct cause. Everything is attributable to the initial event at the time of Big Bang.

No. They do not call an unsupported premise a non-sequitur. Non-sequitur literally means, "does not follow", and many propositions may not follow from even a supported premise. One example is, "All dogs are mammals, therefore, all dogs have tails" That is a non-sequitur. Another non-sequitur is, "I visited Mom's Diner because Joe said I would like it. Therefore, I was forced to visit Mom's Diner".

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;113826 wrote:

No. They do not call an unsupported premise a non-sequitur. Non-sequitur literally means, "does not follow", and many propositions may not follow from even a supported premise. One example is, "All dogs are mammals, therefore, all dogs have tails" That is a non-sequitur. Another non-sequitur is, "I visited Mom's Diner because Joe said I would like it. Therefore, I was forced to visit Mom's Diner".

He meant that what you said we might call an unsupported premise. Not that non-sequiturs are unsupported premises.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;113826 wrote:

No. They do not call an unsupported premise a non-sequitur.

I was not saying my statement had an unsupported premise. I was saying that yours does.

We do know this: that the event happened, and had causes - but we do not know that you could have done otherwise.

That part you need to prove.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;113830 wrote:

He meant that what you said we might call an unsupported premise. Not that non-sequiturs are unsupported premises.

No non-sequiturs are premises. Supported or unsupported. Arguments can be non-sequiturs (or not). If the conclusion does not follow from a premise, we call that an ns. Like: The suggestion caused me to visit the diner; therefore the suggestion forced me to visit the diner.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;113835 wrote:

No non-sequiturs are premises. Supported or unsupported. Arguments can be non-sequiturs (or not). If the conclusion does not follow from a premise, we call that an ns. Like: The suggestion caused me to visit the diner; therefore the suggestion forced me to visit the diner.

Putting aside the argument about what a non sequitur is ( I haveno problem with your definition) and the argument of how my claim that you offered an unsupported premise should be dismissed due to your argument about non sequiturs and premises;

Have you not been arguing that a force applied, is by definition, a cause ?

@memester,

[QUOTE=memester;113832]I was not saying my statement had an unsupported premise. I was saying that yours does.

We do know this: that the event happened, and had causes - but we do not know that you could have done otherwise.

That part you need to prove.[/QUOTE]
Do you think that all events are necessary events? Everything that does happen, must happen? All because every event has an antecedent cause? That an event has an antecedent cause does not imply that every subsequent event is a necessary event.

Also, are you a hard determinist?

@memester,

memester;113838 wrote:

Putting aside the argument about what a non sequitur is ( I haveno problem with your definition) and the argument of how my claim that you offered an unsupported premise should be dismissed due to your argument about non sequiturs and premises;

Have you not been arguing that a force applied, is by definition, a cause ?

All forcings are causes. But many causes do not force.

@fast,

fast;113839 wrote:

Do you think that all events are necessary events?

No events occur that are not caused, and yet all lead back to the initial event, the start of the chronology, where this kind of evaluation ends.

[quote]Everything that does happen, must happen?[/quote] Must have happened. Anything else could not have happened. It makes no difference if it is a real straw or a quantum straw that breaks that camel's back.

[quote] All because every event has an antecedent cause? That an event has an antecedent cause does not imply that every subsequent event is a necessary event.[/quote]

Quote:

Also, are you a hard determinist?

Not necessarily..I'm merely pointing out what happens to discussion if you are one, what happens to the discussion if you do not stop at correct cause, and also mention what field of investigation you are speaking to. IOW, replying properly to "what the question is" - as determined by the field.

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 02:13 PM ----------

kennethamy;113841 wrote:

All forcings are causes. But many causes do not force.

Of course not. Only the relevant causes have the relevant force applied.

@Zetherin,

Even assuming that all events have causes:
Something Hume called into question as an argument by induction.
Events which appear to be the same, may have different causes and
The same causes may give rise to different events.
The only way to eliminate "free will" as the ability to do otherwise or to have done otherwise is to assume a strict form of hard determinism.
There is no reason in mental experience to make that assumption and even in nature. as far as we can tell. the same cause, experiment or observation can give rise to different results at the quantum level.
There is no pragmatic, experiential, scientific or even logical reason to abandon the notion of "free will" as the ability to do otherwise.
Free will is what we all assume and employ in practice in living, in our laws, in our morals and is a hard core common sense assumption (commonsensism). The burden of proof is necessarily on "hard determinism". Free will is existential experiential truth and the notion of free will violates no known scientific principle.

@prothero,

prothero;113867 wrote:

Even assuming that all events have causes:

I think it's helpful to stick with one or the other and follow along with the reasoning to a conclusion. So here we stick with "yes" all events have causes.

Quote:

Something Hume called into question as an argument by induction.
Events which appear to be the same, may have different causes

Then they were the same only in some aspect(s)...obviously not in others.

Quote:

The same causes may give rise to different events.

But not under same conditions. Under same conditions, did not - and has never - given rise to different events.

@memester,

[QUOTE=memester;113880] Then they were the same only in some aspect(s)...obviously not in others. . [/QUOTE] Well actually it is not so obvious. Your assumption is determinism and so that the same causes can not yield different events is only obvious to you. It is precisely hard determinism that is in question. In complex situations it is difficult some might say impossible to know all the potential causes and mental events are nothing if not complex.

[QUOTE=memester;113880] But not under same conditions. Under same conditions, did not - and has never - given rise to different events. [/QUOTE] And that is just wrong. As far as we can tell identical conditions give different results in the quantum world according to a probabilistic stochastic distribution. Again there are deterministic interpretations that postulate hidden or unknown variables but to assume that the same conditions invariably give the same results is not in keeping with modern science and experimental observations.

@prothero,

prothero;113885 wrote:

Well actually it is not so obvious. Your assumption is determinism and so that the same causes can not yield different events is only obvious to you. It is precisely hard determinism that is in question. In complex situations it is difficult some might say impossible to know all the potential causes and mental events are nothing if not complex.

knowing them is quite a different matter than what we were discussing.

Quote:

And that is just wrong. As far as we can tell identical conditions give different results in the quantum world according to a probabilistic stochastic distribution. Again there are deterministic interpretations that postulate hidden or unknown variables but to assume that the same conditions invariably give the same results is not in keeping with modern science and experimental observations.

Not just same conditions. Same conditions and causes. If the causes and conditions were actually same, they would not have been able to tell which was which....eh ?

there would have been only one event.

Perhaps you're confusing prediction with history.

Philosophy Forum

What is Free Will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know