LovePrevails Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Before concluding this section on the Rogers AT hypothesis I want to lead one more critique of his views. A central principle of the theory is that the actualizing tendency, while being a constructive drive, can bring imperfect outcomes - but that all organisms, including persons, persist, develop and function as best they can, given their capacities and their circumstances.[1] Here I must diverge in view. Stating that all people everywhere are "doing the best they can" is to negate free will, by definition. No personal responsibility is possible without free will: firstly because there is nothing to take responsibility for because you didn't do it of your own volition, and secondly you do not have the capacity to choose whether or not you take responsibility since you are predetermined. The idea of counselling or helping people change becomes meaningless under these conditions. A determinist would be as well to counsel a set of kitchen towels as a human being. The mechanistic view of the universe could be true (and at present it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable) but If we admit determinism and at the same time fail to behave as though we have no free will, then to preach determinism is meaningless it has literally no impact on our lives. No mechanist acts in congruence with their beliefs as it is impossible to do so, thus determinism is self-fasifying, as in the statement, “language is meaningless.” It seems to me that Carl Rogers was not a determinist, indeed, client-centred therapy promotes freedom of choice.[2] Yet holding the view that all organisms are doing the best they can under the circumstances they are in is not compatible with a nondeterministic viewpoint – as I think I have demonstrated. Do my conclusions follow from my premises or have I missed any steps?
Kevin Beal Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 This topic is against the forum guidelines http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/16582-i-am-closing-down-the-topic-of-determinism/
greekredemption Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 'If we admit determinism and at the same time fail to behave as though we have no free will, then to preach determinism is meaningless it has literally no impact on our lives. No mechanist acts in congruence with their beliefs as it is impossible to do so, thus determinism is self-fasifying, as in the statement, “language is meaningless.”' If I understand this correctly, you're saying that hypocrisy negates the truth value of a claim? Tu quoque?
Kevin Beal Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 If I understand this correctly, you're saying that hypocrisy negates the truth value of a claim? Tu quoque? Nothing to do with this particular subject, but actually, yes. If the negation is a performative contradiction, it can be proof of the proposition. More here.
greekredemption Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Nothing to do with this particular subject, but actually, yes. If the negation is a performative contradiction, it can be proof of the proposition. More here. Perhaps I should expand this to say that acting as if you have free will doesn't necessarily mean you have free will. The contradiction is superficial, and still doesn't refute (even if it appears to contradict) the original claim.
Kevin Beal Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Perhaps I should expand this to say that acting as if you have free will doesn't necessarily mean you have free will. The contradiction is superficial, and still doesn't refute (even if it appears to contradict) the original claim. That doesn't make it "superficial" simply on the basis: "not necessarily". It's significant that it requires this assumption. Not proof, but syllogistic proof doesn't exist for or against the proposition. Failing that, we have to acknowledge what we know to be true, and work from there.
CptArcher Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Perhaps I should expand this to say that acting as if you have free will doesn't necessarily mean you have free will. The contradiction is superficial, and still doesn't refute (even if it appears to contradict) the original claim. I think I understand your point. Nothing to do with this particular subject, but actually, yes. If the negation is a performative contradiction, it can be proof of the proposition. More here. Doesn't it beg the question to argue that "determinism is a performative contradiction?" Such an argument pre-supposes that actions are willed. Surely the determinist would reject an argument that presumes that actions result from free will. If you try to tell a determinist "you are using free will to argue against free will" they will say "How do you know I am using free will? you have not proven any such thing - I believe that everything I am saying to you is determined." Therefore, I don't think the performative negation argument discredits determinism, since it begs the question. However, there is lots of recent science increasingly giving more evidence that we do in fact have free will. Without the evidence, I am not sure it is possible to discredit determinism exclusively from first principles.
Kevin Beal Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Doesn't it beg the question to argue that "determinism is a performative contradiction?" It pre-supposes that actions are willed. Surely the determinist would reject an argument that presumes that actions result from free will. If you try to tell a determinist "you are using free will to argue against free will" they will say "I disagree with that assertion - I think everything I say to you is determined." However, there is lots of recent science increasingly giving more evidence that we do in fact have free will. His actions beg that question, so to make the argument is simply acknowledging what has already been begged.
CptArcher Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 His actions beg that question, so to make the argument is simply acknowledging what has already been begged. How do you conclude that his actions beg that question, without you presupposing his actions result from free will?
greekredemption Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 That doesn't make "superficial" simply on the basis: "not necessarily".It's significant that it requires this assumption. Not proof, but syllogistic proof doesn't exist for or against the proposition. Failing that, we have to acknowledge what we know to be true, and work from there.A performative contradiction doesn't necessarily make the original claim untrue. The inclusion of the 'superficial' is merely to say all may not be as it appears. If there is a contradiction, perhaps there is an unresolved question beyond appearances. Perhaps we are using the wrong definitions, or perhaps perception and reality do not immediately reconcile. Perhaps we can use more formal logic on free will, or, indeed, determinism. P1: all observed stuff in the universe partakes in the principle of cause and effectP2: humans are stuff in the universeC: humans partake in cause and effect P1: humans partake in cause and effectP2: free will definitionally exists outside of cause and effect C: humans cannot have free willOf course this all comes with the important caveat that randomness may be built in to the universe. Any thoughts?His actions beg that question, so to make the argument is simply acknowledging what has already been begged.You assume first that the response is the result of free will. You have not yet established this, therefore you cannot conclude that it establishes free Will on the basis that it establishes free will. As CptArcher says, it's begging the question.
Kevin Beal Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Determinism isn't an acceptance of cause and effect. If it were, no one would believe in free will except the most insane. But I'm going to just stop there since this topic is against the forum guidelines. Go ahead and message me if you really want and we can set up a skype convo or something. Having a debate about determinism thru text has repeatedly proved to be less than unproductive. It just leads to endless frustration. Go ahead and search "determinism"
dsayers Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 A performative contradiction doesn't necessarily make the original claim untrue. It does if the claim is that the behavior cannot exist, or claims that which the behavior renders internally inconsistent, or if the claim accepts that which the behavior rejects, or the claim rejects that which the behavior accepts. That last one in particular is important here. The moment you argue against free will, your action of making that claim accepts free will as you are attempting to change that which you claim cannot be changed.
Pepin Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 P1: all observed stuff in the universe partakes in the principle of cause and effectP2: humans are stuff in the universeC: humans partake in cause and effectP1: humans partake in cause and effectP2: free will definitionally exists outside of cause and effectC: humans cannot have free willOf course this all comes with the important caveat that randomness may be built in to the universe.Any thoughts?. Imagine a different universe. If we could call our universe objective, this one would be unobjective. It is difficult to imagine what this would entail exactly, but it likely could not be mathematically described. In this universe, would free will be possible? If free will would be impossible in an unobjective universe and an objective universe, then claiming freewill doesn't exist because of the universe's determinism is a little misleading. It might be possible to say that it isn't possible due to different reasons, but it makes more sense to say that freewill can't exist regardless of determinism or not.. Forgetting all the reasons about why free will doesn't exist in both universes, if free will does exist, what universe would it make more sense for it to exist in? If we answered the same, then what is the difference the objective and subjective universe that makes it more likely for the objective universe to contain free will? I would say that it is because a will can only exist in an objective universe after 3.5 trillion years of evolution, and freedom is a consequence of the consistency of nature. If nature changed constantly and unpredictably, a consciousness would have no freedom to act its own will out in reality. It is only because of the stable state of physics that the whim of the will can be enacted. The will is a conscious desire, and freedom is the ability act in relation with the will. The will is a concept, which means it doesn't' exist in reality. A desire and a dream are pretty similar in their relation to reality. This doesn't mean that the will doesn't exist, rather that no physicist could derive the information from the structure alone. It is like information on a hard disk, a purely physical description will not describe the data that is on it, it needs a precise reading of particular points and the application of many concepts such as binary, encoding, language, file types, and so on to gain meaning of the data. Granted the above, a semi-paradoxical statement can be made. Concepts don't exist in reality, but they affect reality. Or, the will does not exist in reality, but affects reality. If we take this as true having a decent understanding the evolution of concept formation, then it can be said that the the will and its ability to act in reality can only exist in an deterministic universe and operates through concepts. I can write a lot more about this as I am in a rather long article. The argument is not as good condensed and without the sections on perception and concepts, but it may still be convincing without.
greekredemption Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 That last one in particular is important here. The moment you argue against free will, your action of making that claim accepts free will as you are attempting to change that which you claim cannot be changed.Yet this simply is not true. The act of arguing against a free will position - that is to say, having any kind of position - does not necessitate the existence of free will. It may well be that this or any other discussion was causally determined to occur. Indeed, this seems a more likely scenario given the paucity of evidence that the human brain is capable of existing outside of the universe, which is effectively what a free will argument claims.
dsayers Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Yet this simply is not true. The act of arguing against a free will position - that is to say, having any kind of position - does not necessitate the existence of free will. It may well be that this or any other discussion was causally determined to occur. If that were the case, people would also be making the case to their toothbrush, clock, and a loaf of bread because these things too would not experience free will. That the person recognizes the difference is their acceptance of that which they claim to reject.
greekredemption Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 If that were the case, people would also be making the case to their toothbrush, clock, and a loaf of bread because these things too would not experience free will. That the person recognizes the difference is their acceptance of that which they claim to reject. ...right, but that still does not mean the thing "that...they claim to reject" actually exists. Believing something to be so does not necessarily lead to that thing being so. This is a very basic point, and I'm surprised at the weight being given to apparent performative contradictions; this account of free will seems to me to lack rigour.
LifeIsBrief Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I want determinism to be true, so I can get hammered and eat junk food all day. Thus, I choose to side with the people who believe free will is a myth. We must begin convincing toothbrushes immediately
dsayers Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I'm surprised at the weight being given to apparent performative contradictions; this account of free will seems to me to lack rigour. How can you protest? It's not like we have a choice
greekredemption Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 How can you protest? It's not like we have a choice Well, quite. It is an uncomfortable case of cognitive dissonance. I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said, "I have free will because I have no other choice." It's a nice summary of the apparent contradiction between reality and perception. However, the proponent of free will has all her work ahead of her. Demonstrating that the human brain exists outside of the universe is quite a task.
dsayers Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 You've moved the goalposts. My only input in the thread thus far has been to refute your claim that, "A performative contradiction doesn't necessarily make the original claim untrue." Something you accept I have done when you say, "right, but that still does not mean the thing "that...they claim to reject" actually exists." With that, you accept my refutation, but gloss over it to provide a different point of contention. Now you're taking it so far as to say that to prove free will, one would have to prove a brain outside of the universe. I don't know for sure that I understand what you mean by that. I know that life itself is an emergent property. If I was trying to be obtuse or obfuscate the truth, I could argue that life exists outside the universe. Life is a requisite for free will, eh? You're just playing the god card in that there's no null hypothesis. Anything anybody could (or has) say, you just respond with, "well you don't know that that was chosen. Therefore free will doesn't exist."
greekredemption Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 You've moved the goalposts. My only input in the thread thus far has been to refute your claim that, "A performative contradiction doesn't necessarily make the original claim untrue." Something you accept I have done when you say, "right, but that still does not mean the thing "that...they claim to reject" actually exists." With that, you accept my refutation, but gloss over it to provide a different point of contention. Now you're taking it so far as to say that to prove free will, one would have to prove a brain outside of the universe. I don't know for sure that I understand what you mean by that. I know that life itself is an emergent property. If I was trying to be obtuse or obfuscate the truth, I could argue that life exists outside the universe. Life is a requisite for free will, eh? You're just playing the god card in that there's no null hypothesis. Anything anybody could (or has) say, you just respond with, "well you don't know that that was chosen. Therefore free will doesn't exist." Nowhere did I accept your refutation. My point still stands that a performative contradiction does not necessarily mean that the original claim is untrue. And I'm not playing 'the god card', I'm merely attempting to demonstrate that your apparent performative contradiction regarding free will does not tally with the observed facts of the universe, which ergo means that performative contradictions alone cannot show a thing to be an untruth. On the one hand you say that if a person says 'There is no free will' they are demonstrating it and therefore it is real. On the other hand, I'm showing that free will cannot exist within the universe barring some specific mechanism which allows it to exist outside the laws of reality as we know it. I gave a syllogism further up the thread to show this. The contradiction is not a performative one, but rather a clash between reality and perception. And I submit that perception - in this context, believing something is so - does not override reality.
LovePrevails Posted March 3, 2014 Author Posted March 3, 2014 Ah I see why this topic is banned lol, I was only asking if my arguments were logically consistent, - valid - not if they were sound per se since its unverifiable
Kevin Beal Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Ah I see why this topic is banned lol, I was only asking if my arguments were logically consistent, - valid - not if they were sound per se since its unverifiable It's inevitable. The pull to debate this topic is too strong,... unless it's over skype. Then it's crickets. I just wish that people actually acquainted themselves with what the actual debate is about, and to treat it like the complex issue that it is. There are extremely intelligent people on both sides of this issue. People don't know that they don't know. And that's kinda frustrating.
LovePrevails Posted March 3, 2014 Author Posted March 3, 2014 . People don't know that they don't know. And that's kinda frustrating. yes exactly, I always find people "not knowing that they don't know" frustrating when I talk to statists who are into politics and they say stupid things liek waht about roads or regulating the banks it's like : please don't insult my intelligence - if you don't even know anarchism 101 then don't pretend you're qualified to debate it go back and learn the basics - then come with some serious objections of course if you point that out you sound pompous and arrogant but actually it's arrogant to assume someone who claims to be an anarchist has never thought of these pedestrian objections HA pedestrian objections - who will build the roads! - I crack myself up
Recommended Posts