What do you believe?

Author: Discipulus_Didicit

Posts

Total: 495
Topic's author
#151
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@keithprosser
I get that... but first we have to identify the process people actually use, not the process they think or say they use!

Certainly, but the first step in the dialectical method is to identify what a person says [such as what they say their method is]. Only after that is it possible to investigate whether what they say is true [such as whether that is actually the method they use].

It isn't always the fastest process but I think it is an important step in order to avoid potential misunderstandings later in the converaation.
#152
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Certainly, but the first step in the dialectical method is to identify what a person says...
I'll get my coat.

#153
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Either your 'choices' are subject to cause and effect (which is incompatible with the idea of freewill) or they are random (which is incompatible with the idea of freewill). 

#154
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@keithprosser
@Discipulus_Didicit
keithprosser is right. People experience and observe (the illusion of) free will through a subjective lens. 
I'm trying to come from an objective materialistic point of view.  
#155
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@secularmerlin
@keithprosser
@Discipulus_Didicit
Merlin gets it. 

#156
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
YAIDAFW (yet another inevitable debate about free will)
#157
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Either your 'choices' are subject to cause and effect (which is incompatible with the idea of freewill) or they are random (which is incompatible with the idea of freewill). 
I think people would have picked up on such a simple idea before now if it was that easy!

Free will is a cause.  That is to say what goes on in a mind is the result of all the usual physical 'causal factors' plus this mysterious additional 'causal factor' of free will.


#158
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Let us assume for a moment you can do whatever you like. Now thus still does not comport with freewill unless

A) you have complete control over your likes/dislikes

And

B) the process by which you evaluate how to exert this control is not dependent on cause and effect or random.
#159
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@keithprosser
What you call "free will", I call will.


#160
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Reece
What you call "free will", I call will.
What is your interpretation of the term 'free will'?


#161
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@keithprosser
An uncaused cause. 

"Free will" is on par with the cosmological argument.
#162
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Reece
The definition from Wikipedia...

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Says nothing about an uncaused cause.
#163
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
@Reece
I think defining free will as absolutely causeless is too strong.  It makes free will an uninteresting topic because it is clearly nonsensical for the reasons pointed out.
#164
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@keithprosser
@TwoMan
TwoMan, would you consider the conclusion of a decision deterministic? If not, it sounds like you're arguing for an uncaused cause

keithprosser, what reasons?
#165
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Reece
keithprosser, what reasons?
secmer wrote:
Either your 'choices' are subject to cause and effect (which is incompatible with the idea of freewill) or they are random (which is incompatible with the idea of freewill). 

#166
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@keithprosser
I think it's getting a bit boring too.

Want to pick an argument that you reckon you'll win?

#167
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Reece
Regarding choices, I'm saying that a cause may produce more than one possible effect which is "determined" through the process of reasoning. I think the human mind is not bound by "hard determinism".
#168
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@TwoMan
And I would still argue your reasoning is deterministic. 

I'm technically a compatibilist even though I think "compatibilism" is just for convenience. 

I think of compatibilism in the same light as I do agnosticism. 

#169
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
@Reece
I'd say the idea is that even if you could measure everything physical within and affecting a brain, it would still be impossible to predict the choice it will make because there is a non-physical element - free will - that also contributes to the process of decision making.

You could say that 'free will' is an aspect of 'self' so the self is involved (and perhaps dominant) in making decisions.  I don't subscribe to that, but I think it is a good argument that if free will exists it must be dualistic.    
#170
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Reece
I think of determinism as "this must lead to that". I don't think of human thought that way.
#171
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@TwoMan
Wait, nvm. I think their definitions have changed. "Hard-determinism" used to be apposed to morality while compatibilism was for it.
#172
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
I think of determinism as "this must lead to that". I don't think of human thought that way.
I assume you accept determinism occurs at the physical level in brains.  So do you think physics works differently in brains?  Are you a dualist?

#173
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@keithprosser
We're sort of delving into "consciousness".  

In the 13.8 billion years the universe has existed, when did we as carbon based entities first gain free will?
#174
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
I don't accept that determinism is always in effect in the material world. Indeterminism has been widely accepted. I am not a dualist but simply think that thought "A" does not necessarily lead to thought "B". It could possibly lead to thought "C" instead. That just means "choice" is real, not an illusion.
#175
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@TwoMan
The first argument I made about free will on this thread:

Choice =/= free will

Choice is merely an act of choosing between multiple possibilities.
The act says nothing about whether free will is occurring.


#176
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Reece
As I stated earlier, choosing between multiple possibilities is the definition of free will.
#177
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
As I stated earlier, choosing between multiple possibilities is the definition of free will.
But suppose I built a robot that, when presented with multiple options, rolled a dice to select what to do.  According to that definition that robot has free will. 
 

#178
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
Rolling dice would be considered random. Reasoned thought is not random. I suppose technically, free will could be thought to include randomness based on it's definition but that isn't how it is generally regarded.
#179
Reece
Reece's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
0
1
2
Reece's avatar
Reece
0
1
2
-->
@TwoMan
How about neural network computers. Do they have free will?
#180
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Reece
How about neural network computers. Do they have free will?
Again, based on the strict definition, I suppose they could be thought of that way however that is not how free will is generally regarded. Terminology can always be twisted to mean something that was not intended. Free will is generally considered a human phenomenon.