free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
#391
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
And this is a topic about free will, not the existence of God.
If people insist that god gave them freewill, then you're really just begging for it.

It should be clear that whether or not the cogency of evidence compels one into acceptance of the truth of free will, it cannot be said that there is no evidence.
Does a spider have freewill?

After all, if one says there is no evidence, they are in denial of the fact that they had to ignore their perception of making the choice to make such an obviously false assertion.
I'd say that if you believe any human can make a decision that is neither caused, nor uncaused, (or some combination of the two) then you are the one making an obviously false assertion.
#392
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
That perhaps more useful than discussing the veracity of free will would be to discuss the effects and utilization of the belief itself.
Ah, so, now you're advocating for the noble lie. [LINK]

In other words, it doesn't matter if freewill is "true" or not, it only matters if the belief generates positive social outcomes.
Topic's author
#393
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I reject both hypotheses based on their untestable nature.
I submit you reject neither, not both.
#394
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
When you are ready to provide a defintion of the pasta monster we'll be able to proceed.

#395
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Did all things originate from an eternal consciousness or not? That's about as simple as the distinction between theism and atheism gets. 
#396
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL

No one claims that our ability to make choice is free from causal influence.


What is claimed is that we have the ability to choose, even choose to do things that defy expectations, like say, choose to be tortured to death rather than give the enemy the access codes. Or even to choose to not be seduced by someone very desirable. To choose to help someone rather than leave them to suffer. To make an active effort to change one's own situation in life. To grow up.

We certainly experience the ability to choose and that alone is reason enough to operate as if it is reality. Whether we are ultimately led around like clockwork is an absurd question because it is impossible to establish this beyond a reasonable doubt. The elephant in the room is certainly that we can choose.

And it is a very dangerous thing to reduce people to simply being cogs in a machine. This dehumanizing mentality can, has been, and will be used to justify all manner of evils committed by the powers thst be in the world. When humankind is reduced to the level of cattle, or even spiders. Sand.




#397
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
What are the distinctly different practical implications between (A) an intelligent creator and (B) a mindless creator and (C) no creator at all?

(1) a designed universe with a beginning
(2) a non-designed universe with a beginning 
(3) a non-designed universe with no beginning
#398
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Did all things originate from an eternal pasta monster or not? That's about as simple as the distinction between pastaism and apastaism gets. 


#399
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
I submit you reject neither, not both.
The distinction is meaningless. I disbelieve both.

#400
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Ah, so, now you're advocating for the noble lie. 
No, I am recognizing that the question will never be settled beyond reasonable doubt. I am acknowledging that the debate is absurd.


That isn't at all the same thing. 




#401
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The pasta monster violates the law of identity as a physical but non-physical entity. 

#402
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Well if you disbelieve two options where one option must be correct then you're guaranteed to be wrong.
#403
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
But you don't see any distinction between non-belief and dis-belief so by misunderstanding what disbelief means I can see where you're coming from.
#404
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
What does it mean to you personally if you do not have free will?
It means that my actions are the consequence of a vast and complex chain of cause and effect, possibly contaminated with some uncaused and fundamentally unpredictable noise.

What does it mean personally if you do have free will?
It would mean that my decisions are not influenced by previous events (information and or biology) and can magically supersede the wills of other humans who either have no freewill or have less freewill than I do.

Which brings up another interesting point.  Do you believe that all humans have an equal measure of freewill?
#405
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
The best argument for free will is that it's impossible to rationally accept that free will does not exist.

It's not impossible to rationally accept that free will DOES exist.
Please explain.

Can you imagine a sophisticated AI that is indistinguishable from a human?

Would this sophisticated AI necessarily have freewill?
#406
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
The pasta monster violates the law of identity as a physical but non-physical entity. 
Oh, you mean like god?
#407
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I think its possible to define 'free will' in a way that it does exist and in another away that it doesn't exist.
Freewill is a feeling you get when you don't consciously know all of the causes that lead you to make a particular decision.

Freewill is an emotion.
#408
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The pasta monster violates the law of identity as a physical but non-physical entity. 
When did I ever claim it was a physical pasta monster?

#409
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Well if you disbelieve two options where one option must be correct then you're guaranteed to be wrong.

A conscious creator and the universe beginning with the big bang are hardly the only options. 

Also how is disbelief not simply a belief? And if it is just a belief and beliefs do not require a burden of proof why do you claim that disbelief does. And if it is not a belief what the hell is it?
#410
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
If all is determined by physics and chemistry then as soon as you explain how physics and chemistry can rationally accept beliefs I'll concede the point.
#411
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
No, because "consciousness" doesn't assign any physical attributes like "pasta" does.
#412
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If it's not physical then it isn't pasta. Either way, the proposition fails. I continue to await your defintion.
#413
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Because belief means to accept that something is true or exists. Disbelief means mentally rejecting something to be untrue or false. Disbelief *logically entails* the affirmed negation of the claim.
#414
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
If it's not physical then it isn't pasta
Please disprove the existence of non physical pasta.

#415
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Disbelief means mentally rejecting something to be untrue or false.
Please explain how this is not a belief.

#416
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay, the word "pasta" refers to something comprised of physical properties. Therefore, something that is not comprised of physical properties cannot also be "pasta."
#417
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Is it accepting that something is true or exists? If no, it's not a belief.
Topic's author
#418
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
Fallaneze wrote:

To make it short and sweet, you either believe the claim is untrue after hearing it or you don't believe it's untrue after hearing it. If you believe it's untrue, this is referred to as disbelieving it. If you don't believe the claim is untrue, but still don't believe it, then you neither believe nor disbelieve it. This is called mere non-belief.
To me it seems Fa defined disbelief of X as belief in not-X, so which is the belief and which is the disbelief depends how a proposition is worded.
#419
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Okay, the word "pasta" refers to something comprised of physical properties. 
Clearly if nonphysical pasta exists it also refers to the non physical sort. Please disprove the existence of non physical pasta.

#420
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
All free will means is that you have some measure of control over mind.


Which we all do. We can even reprogram our minds if we wanted to!


Choice. That what it is.