free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
#181
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
By independent agency I mean a faculty of consciousness that has room to rationally accept beliefs. 
When I claimed that determinism could not be rationally accepted if it was indeed true, you said you disagreed with that claim. Please explain how determinstic chemical reactions are a force that can rationally accept beliefs.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think It means...

Rational

  • adjective Having or exercising the ability to reason. synonym: logical.
  • adjective Consistent with or based on reason or good judgment; logical or sensible. [LINK]
#182
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
So you believe determinism that can be rationally accepted even though all beliefs would be installed by mindless, non-rational processes? How does that make any sense?
The cause of a rational thought does not need to have rational thoughts. That would make it a non rational force but not an irrational one. I  can accept the implications of non rational forces (such as gravity) because they behave in a way that can be rationally understood.I do not choose to accept that gravity exists it is simply the rational conclusion. Cause and effect.
#183
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Mopac
Why do you define "God" as "the ultimate reality" when clearly you're defending "Christian theology"?

This just tells me you lack the ability to rationally justify Christianity. Please include this as your signature:

"In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion."



#184
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I think this conversation is too nuanced. I 
#185
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't think nuance is the problem. I think rational thought can follow from non rational (not irrational but non rational) causes. Either that or there is no rational thought.

If that statement is to nuanced let me know and I will attempt to rephrase.
#186
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Why do you define "God" as "the ultimate reality" when clearly you're defending "Christian theology"?

This just tells me you lack the ability to rationally justify Christianity. Please include this as your signature:

"In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion."
Very well stated.

#187
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Under determinism, all beliefs that people accept would be the result of mindless forces and since mindless forces cannot rationally accept beliefs, our beliefs could not be rationally accepted. 
I love this game of words.

Yes, the "mindless forces" that cause a zygote to grow into an infant and that prepare your brain to accept input from your eyes and ears and skin are the same "mindless forces" that actually form your brain.  And the "mindless forces" that circulate your blood and digest your food and fire neurons inside your head are responsible for your "thoughts" (along with some measure of randomness of course).

Mindfulness or "consciousness" is merely the end result of a trillion "mindless forces" all working together.
#188
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
For someone who is so full of shit, I think it nbn is pretty obvious that I have the most reasonable approach to this topic.

#189
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Physics is the study of causality. If there is no causal relationship, it isn't a variable. It has zero effect and is therefore irrelevant. 

Instead I would say there are either local or non-local variables, the later being the harder to account for.

I am not quite as superstitious as the ones I am speaking to, thank you.





#190
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
For someone who is so full of shit, I think it nbn is pretty obvious that I have the most reasonable approach to this topic.
It is not obvious. Perhaps you should be less subtle.

#191
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Fallaneze
You should probably not speak about things you don't understand as if you had knowledge(My faith).




#192
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
An epistemological nihilist such as yourself should have no problem seeing the absurdity that I pointed out.
#193
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Since I am not a nihilist this does not logically follow.
#194
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
All-the-variables are (EITHER) causal (OR) non-causal (random).

We don't need to identify "every single variable" because we know with 100% certainty that they are inevitably in one of these two categories.
#195
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Chaos is simply the perception of disorder. This is not the same as saying something is random. It is impossible to prove that anything is truly random.

What appears to be chaos can in fact be so grand in its order that the order that constitutes it can no longer be perceived.


Anton Webern's music might sound random to some, but his compositions tended to be an extreme example of order.
#196
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Chaos is simply the perception of disorder. This is not the same as saying something is random. It is impossible to prove that anything is truly random.
What appears to chaos can in fact be so grand in its order that the order that constitutes it can no longer be perceived.
Anton Webern's music might sound random to some, but his compositions tended to be an extreme example of order.
Causal = logical progression = cause and effect = predictable

Non-causal = non-logical non-progression = no cause = unpredictable (essentially indistinguishable from random).

If you are arguing that "nothing is random", then you are a determinist.
#197
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Both "random" and "chaos" are mathematical terms with actual meanings, and they are different.

They look the same, but they are different.


You are right though, if I were to argue that "nothing is random" it could be said that I am a determinist. 

However, that isn't what I am arguing. I am arguing that it is impossible to prove conclusively the existence of anything random. 

And how that ties in to the topic at hand, I am saying that it is impossible to prove conclusively the veracity of either free will or determinism.

As the debate itself is absurd, I suggest examining the effect of belief in either of these two realities.


From my standpoint, belief in free will is far more beneficial in the healing process of an individual.













#198
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The problem is that the belief selection process would be determined, entirely, by non-rational forces.  

It wouldn't be a problem for something that causes a belief to be an inanimate object.

Imagine a hammer that hits nails on it's own volition. Now imagine a person who, on their own volition, uses a hammer to hit nails. In both instances the hammer is striking the nail so the cause is the same but the chain of events do not begin from the same place.



#199
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The problem is that the belief selection process would be determined, entirely, by non-rational forces.  
I don't see the problem with this.
It wouldn't be a problem for something that causes a belief to be an inanimate object.
That is correct. The only problem is with an inanimate object holding a belief not if it causes one. 
Imagine a hammer that hits nails on it's own volition. Now imagine a person who, on their own volition, uses a hammer to hit nails. In both instances the hammer is striking the nail so the cause is the same but the chain of events do not begin from the same place.
Ok. How does this preclude determinism or rational thought? How does this render the two mutually exclusive?
#200
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The problem is that the belief selection process would be determined, entirely, by non-rational forces.  
I don't see the problem with this.
It wouldn't be a problem for something that causes a belief to be an inanimate object.
That is correct. The only problem is with an inanimate object holding a belief not if it causes one. 
Imagine a hammer that hits nails on it's own volition. Now imagine a person who, on their own volition, uses a hammer to hit nails. In both instances the hammer is striking the nail so the cause is the same but the chain of events do not begin from the same place.
Ok. How does this preclude determinism or rational thought? How does this render the two mutually exclusive?
#201
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I am arguing that it is impossible to prove conclusively the existence of anything random. 
Which sounds like, "nothing is random".

And how that ties in to the topic at hand, I am saying that it is impossible to prove conclusively the veracity of either free will or determinism.
Well, cause and effect seem pretty conclusive.  I'm not sure why you would imagine it to be "impossible".

As the debate itself is absurd, I suggest examining the effect of belief in either of these two realities.
You haven't explained why you believe this subject is "absurd".

From my standpoint, belief in free will is far more beneficial in the healing process of an individual.
Do you think it is beneficial to believe something false if it makes you feel better?
#202
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
"it is impossible to prove conclusively the existence of anything random."
sounds like, "nothing is random".

But what it actually means is we can't know.


You haven't explained why you believe this subject is "absurd"
I sure have. Because..

"...it is impossible to prove conclusively the veracity of either free will or determinism."


Well, cause and effect seem pretty conclusive.  I'm not sure why you would imagine it to be "impossible".
Because..

"..science itself has conclusively proven that it is impossible to account for all variables. Given our experience, It would seem that the possibility of free will cannot be ruled out."


Do you think it is beneficial to believe something false if it makes you feel better?

No
#203
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You haven't explained why you believe this subject is "absurd"
I sure have. Because..

"...it is impossible to prove conclusively the veracity of either free will or determinism."
That's simply not true.  Freewill is logically incoherent.  Determinism is pure logic.  Indeterminism is a tautological apodictic fact.

An appeal to ignorance will not save freewill.

Well, cause and effect seem pretty conclusive.  I'm not sure why you would imagine it to be "impossible".
Because..

"..science itself has conclusively proven that it is impossible to account for all variables. Given our experience, It would seem that the possibility of free will cannot be ruled out."
Even if "it is impossible to account for all variables" it DOESN'T MATTER.  Because we know that all possible variables are 100% EITHER causal or non-causal.  It doesn't even matter what the ratio is.  This mix makes freewill impossible.

Do you think it is beneficial to believe something false if it makes you feel better?
No.
I'm glad we can agree on this.
#204
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Give me an example of a non-causal variable.

Also, how can you make the leap to call chaos "random"?

Also, maybe it would be a good thing for you to clarify what it is that you mean by determinism, because I don't see how random variables can exist if everything that ever happened and ever will happened has been determined. Determinism usually actually means "pre-determinism" or that the future has already been determined.

I also don't see how you could flat out reject freewill as being illogical when a concept such as "non-causal variable" seems like an opening for free will to be snuck in.







Topic's author
#205
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
@Mopac
@3RU7AL
Let me suggest it is useful to think of the brain as a lump of matter that changes its configuration over time.   'Anti free will determinists' point out that those changes are the result of the operation of physical and chemical laws which we cannot exercise any influence or control over; ergo, freewill is a myth, or an illusion.

I'd say a major assumption there is that there is a precise one-to-one relationship between 'brain states' and 'mind states'.  


#206
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
If their is a difference between brain and mind then both are still either causal or indeterminate. This does not magically make freewill logically coherent.
Topic's author
#207
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I'd say that (if free will exists) free will is a cause which has its effect upon the mind.
#208
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
I would say that if freewill is part of the causal chain then it is deterministic and if it is deterministic there is nothing free about it.
Topic's author
#209
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
'Free will' is only a label!   I'd hope when we say 'free will' we are talking about the same thing - essentially our [apparent] power to choose - but just ecause that power is called 'free will' doesn't mean it has to be free in any sense.   Snow leopards can't exist because you can't make a leopard from snow!


#210
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
If you want to call it that but I would consider it a misnomer and it certainly does not qualify as freewill as most people who believe in freewill seem to mean it.