Definition of free will

[Kevin Beal]

Sure, but if determinism is true, he "has" to correct you. Intentions are a part of the causal chain of events. If they are deterministic doesn't mean they are not real. If determinism is true we should ban criminals from participating in society, the same way we should run from a bear in the woods.

You are right, but we either will or we won't, no should 

 

That's why this debate is so cray cray.

[cynicist]

But the truth for me comes first, and, until now the only argument that conforms with the evidence available is determinism (Libet experiments being the most famous. Again, please correct me if i´m wrong about the evidence.) 

 

Even Libet himself doesn't say that his experiments contradict the idea of free will. There are also studies that say his results do not indicate that voluntary actions are initiated unconsciously. Science does not yet have an answer to this question.

[michaelfcp]

You are right, but we either will or we won't, no should 

 

That's why this debate is so cray cray.

Yeap, you are absolutely right Kevin... no should. My mistake.

 

What do you mean by cray cray?

[Rainbow Dash]

Then you have to extend me the same right and not correct me since I'm not intentionally making the arguments and statements that I am. I would then have no choice but to speak for you and everyone else. You cannot hold me responsible for anything.

Whether or not your arguments are intentional are irrelevant. Whether or not you had a choice is irrelevant. It is like when a dog poops in the house, you say something like "bad dog! don't do that" and perhaps give it some sort of punishment, not because the dog had free will and could have chosen not to poop in the house and is morally responsible for its actions, but because you want to correct its future behavior. I told you what to do in an attempt to improve your future behavior, regardless of whether or not you have free will.

[michaelfcp]

Even Libet himself doesn't say that his experiments contradict the idea of free will. There are also studies that say his results do not indicate that voluntary actions are initiated unconsciously. Science does not yet have an answer to this question.

Even if science does not yet have an ultimate answer to this question, it is somewhat disturbing that some scientist knows some seconds before I do, what I´m gonna do next. 

[cynicist]

Even if science does not yet have an ultimate answer to this question, it is somewhat disturbing that some scientist knows some seconds before I do, what I´m gonna do next. 

 

The links I posted say the opposite.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Whether or not your arguments are intentional are irrelevant. Whether or not you had a choice is irrelevant. It is like when a dog poops in the house, you say something like "bad dog! don't do that" and perhaps give it some sort of punishment, not because the dog had free will and could have chosen not to poop in the house and is morally responsible for its actions, but because you want to correct its future behavior. I told you what to do in an attempt to improve your future behavior, regardless of whether or not you have free will.

But you didn't tell them what to do to improve their future behavior because you can't change your OWN future behavior. So if you can't change your own behavior you can't change someone else's. 

[michaelfcp]

Saying "bad dog" and giving punishment doesn't require free will. If the dog bites me, and I give him a smack it´s the same thing

[Kevin Beal]

What do you mean by cray cray?

Cray cray means crazy. It might be a regional thing. Northern californians also apparently invented "hella".

 

It is like when a dog poops in the house, you say something like "bad dog! don't do that" and perhaps give it some sort of punishment, not because the dog had free will and could have chosen not to poop in the house and is morally responsible for its actions, but because you want to correct its future behavior.

You really shouldn't be doing that to your dogs. The dog has no idea what you're upset about in most cases. Proper dog training involves special training pads and positive reinforcement for outside pooping.

Saying "bad dog" and giving punishment doesn't require free will. If the dog bites me, and I give him a smack it´s the same thing

The problem is not that someone acted in some way, it's saying that someone ought do something that's the problem.

 

It assumes that I have the free will to ponder it and accept it's validity. Otherwise it's some kind of social programming and I've argued that this "program" analogy explains nothing already, so the determinists have to give an account by which actual programming of the brain is occurring here. Or they are saying what the free willers are saying and there is no difference:

 

If I tell you that you ought to try the sushi at that restaurant and you end up doing that there is a causal link there since you might not have unless I said something, but that's not the same thing as determinism.

[michaelfcp]

The links I posted say the opposite.

The opposite? that the scientist doesn`t know before?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Saying "bad dog" and giving punishment doesn't require free will. If the dog bites me, and I give him a smack it´s the same thing

Under causal determinism it really doesn't matter morally if you hit the dog. It's the same as getting stung by a bee or hit by a falling branch. Everything is force. Debating for example is just atoms pushing other atoms. It's no different if I make an argument to convince you or use a brain washing technique to convince you. In a sense you ARE a dog.

[michaelfcp]

Cray cray means crazy. It might be a regional thing. Northern californians also apparently invented "hella".

 

You really shouldn't be doing that to your dogs. The dog has no idea what you're upset about in most cases. Proper dog training involves special training pads and positive reinforcement for outside pooping.

The problem is not that someone acted in some way, it's saying that someone ought do something that's the problem.

 

It assumes that I have the free will to ponder it and accept it's validity. Otherwise it's some kind of social programming and I've argued that this "program" analogy explains nothing already, so the determinists have to give an account by which actual programming of the brain is occurring here. Or they are saying what the free willers are saying and there is no difference:

 

If I tell you that you ought to try the sushi at that restaurant and you end up doing that there is a causal link there since you might not have unless I said something, but that's not the same thing as determinism.

Like I said before I´m no determinist. I´m only interested in the truth. 

 

If a man comes and try to kill me, it doesn´t matter in the moment if he has free will or not, I´m gonna do whatever I can to escape, same thing if it was a bear.

[Rainbow Dash]

But you didn't tell them what to do to improve their future behavior because you can't change your OWN future behavior. So if you can't change your own behavior you can't change someone else's. 

My future behavior is always changing. As you notice I post something different every time. I change my own behavior the same way a rock changes its momentum and collisions with other objects.

You really shouldn't be doing that to your dogs. The dog has no idea what you're upset about in most cases. Proper dog training involves special training pads and positive reinforcement for outside pooping.

Don't worry, I don't abuse dogs. I was just to[o] lazy to come up with a better example. I just wanted to quickly get my idea across.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Like I said before I´m no determinist. I´m only interested in the truth. 

 

If a man comes and try to kill me, it doesn´t matter in the moment if he has free will or not, I´m gonna do whatever I can to escape, same thing if it was a bear.

That's an interesting point. Your reactions to being attacked by the man are more like determinism I believe. Your instincts and body simply push you to react as best you can at the time. But with free will you have access to ideals and universals that are unchanging (and possibly a-causal ) so you have access to perfect future knowledge. Animals have virtually no access to this knowledge so they are all push. Our unique human capacity gives us a lasso into the future that allows us to pull ourselves rather than always be pushed like all other non-human things. So my hypothesis is that Determinism is the push and free will is the pull.

My future behavior is always changing. As you notice I post something different every time. I change my own behavior the same way a rock changes its momentum and collisions with other objects.

Yes, you'd be fundamentally the same as a rock only with the illusion that's there's a you that has any control over anything. 

[michaelfcp]

 But with free will you have access to ideals and universals that are unchanging (and possibly a-causal ) so you have access to perfect 

Maybe, but there is no proof. But I appreciate your theory.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Maybe, but there is no proof. But I appreciate your theory.

Cheers. I was just thinking about an old thought experiment regarding determinism. In determinism every event is pre-determined but what if you had a super computer that could precisely predict one event? Couldn't you then change that event, thereby changing the outcome and getting round determinism? You'd then have to suppose that the computer would also have predicted this change and further changes which seems to create a paradox and the only way out is to make a final choice. My idea is that our minds, because they can predict the future perfectly, are like this super-computer. We can essentially hot-wire causality.

Sorry to go on about my crack-pot theories but it's so much fun to speculate about this subject.

[Rainbow Dash]

Cheers. I was just thinking about an old thought experiment regarding determinism. In determinism every event is pre-determined but what if you had a super computer that could precisely predict one event? Couldn't you then change that event, thereby changing the outcome and getting round determinism? You'd then have to suppose that the computer would also have predicted this change and further changes which seems to create a paradox and the only way out is to make a final choice. My idea is that our minds, because they can predict the future perfectly, are like this super-computer. We can essentially hot-wire causality.

Sorry to go on about my crack-pot theories but it's so much fun to speculate about this subject.

Our minds can't predict the future perfectly.

[june]

Animals have virtually no access to this knowledge so they are all push. Our unique human capacity gives us a lasso into the future that allows us to pull ourselves rather than always be pushed like all other non-human things. So my hypothesis is that Determinism is the push and free will is the pull.

 

animals have access to future acknowledge just like us, they are just less capable. an animal can hear a noise (say, it's 'owners' voice) and use past associations to "acknowledge" what that noise represents (friendly, no danger, etc.). isn't this a form of "pull", as you described it? if so, it just seems like the difference between animals and humans are their capabilities, and so i'm not sure where the "free will" comes into your exampleand with that in mind: 

But with free will you have access to ideals and universals that are unchanging (and possibly a-causal ) so you have access to perfect future knowledge.

a-causal? but isn't all information (which inc. "ideals" and "universals"), and even the capability to comprehend that information, derived from the 'external' world? so can you explain how or in what way"free will" gives people access to "ideals" and "universals"... what do you mean by this? 

[Pepin]

Posted in the wrong thread.

[greekredemption]

Why does it have to be the genesis of a causal chain? This is a thing that determinists often seem to think that I just cannot understand, and which I guess leads them to claim that free will is some mystical property. Causality is not linear for human beings like it is for inanimate objects, it's reciprocal. We don't just react to things, we can have an impact on the environment as well. For us, causality is not limited to the present, it also exists as a factor in the past (memories/experience) and in the future (anticipation/planning). To me, free will is something that emerges from the combination of these causal factors and the resulting feedback in our minds. Our awareness of time and our intelligence allows us to anticipate causality and respond to it in a way that is unique relative to every other organism on the planet, much less inanimate matter.

Hey, you know, that may be a great description of free will as we experience it - the continual input and output from person to environment could well be what we call free will. But even given that - the reciprocity as you called it - the causal chain is still linear. I mean, it can't be any other way. The arrow of time only goes in one direction.

 

When you take causality as linear like it is in physics and apply it to human beings then of course decision-making becomes an illusion. If you say that we interact with causality in the same way that rocks do, then obviously we would be just as limited.

 

But as you say, we can very well describe the complex interplay between what we call a person and its environment to be free will. That it is still operating in a linear causal chain (again, which is must do) precludes the existence of a free will outside of that chain.

 

One thing I don't understand is how free will is invalid and yet intelligence/reason is spared under hard determinism. How can you reason without making decisions? If decision-making is just an illusion (simply an effect of prior causes) then what is intelligence? I think at the very least this should give hard determinists pause.

 

Intelligence I would suppose is a different arrangement of neurons impacted by given environmental factors. Just like all these other qualia. None of these things is necessary 'spared' by determinists. What determinists assert, in short, is that we do not in fact have choices. This does not preclude the existence of complex systems.

[Kevin Beal]

Intelligence I would suppose is a different arrangement of neurons impacted by given environmental factors. Just like all these other qualia. None of these things is necessary 'spared' by determinists. What determinists assert, in short, is that we do not in fact have choices. This does not preclude the existence of complex systems.

Let's hear the determinist account of qualia. I'd love to hear it. Let's hear the determinist account of how this supposed illusion of free will works.

 

If it's so easy as to say that the fact that effects have causes necessitates determinism, then it should be pretty easy to account for consciousness, intentionality, semantics, meaning, imposed functions, status functions, free will and the rest of it. It's just a more complicated version of physics right? So, let's hear it's mechanics. Give me a framework by which I can predict what I will do next.

 

I don't need every single variable, just enough to make a good prediction, which shouldn't even be half of the variables. I write software for a living and know that I don't need very many variables in order to figure out what a program is designed to do.

 

This really shouldn't be that difficult a request. Artificial intelligence really shouldn't be nearly as difficult as it is if determinism were true. It should be just a simple formula that builds on top of itself to produce more complicated results. But it isn't; it's one of the most complicated and frustrating areas of research that exists. And what that always means is some mistaken assumptions.

 

Robots cannot be intelligent

[greekredemption]

Let's hear the determinist account of qualia. I'd love to hear it. Let's hear the determinist account of how this supposed illusion of free will works.

 

If it's so easy as to say that the fact that effects have causes necessitates determinism, then it should be pretty easy to account for consciousness, intentionality, semantics, meaning, imposed functions, status functions, free will and the rest of it. It's just a more complicated version of physics right? So, let's hear it's mechanics. Give me a framework by which I can predict what I will do next.

 

I don't need every single variable, just enough to make a good prediction, which shouldn't even be half of the variables. I write software for a living and know that I don't need very many variables in order to figure out what a program is designed to do.

 

This really shouldn't be that difficult a request. Artificial intelligence really shouldn't be nearly as difficult as it is if determinism were true. It should be just a simple formula that builds on top of itself to produce more complicated results. But it isn't; it's one of the most complicated and frustrating areas of research that exists. And what that always means is some mistaken assumptions.

 

Robots cannot be intelligent

Suffice it to say that when all things appear to be effects of causes, and causes of effects, to exclude ourselves from that requires some pretty extraordinary evidence, which does not seem to be forthcoming. You know full well I can't account for those things - I am no psychologist or neuroscientist - but to be consistent with the universe as we know it those qualia must simply be effects of causes of effects of causes... and so on.

 

In any case, it seems to me that your definition of free will fits in perfectly fine with the determinist view. You aren't claiming that free will exists outside of causality but is instead a part of it. Sounds valid to me.

[Kevin Beal]

In any case, it seems to me that your definition of free will fits in perfectly fine with the determinist view. You aren't claiming that free will exists outside of causality but is instead a part of it. Sounds valid to me.

It seems to me the exact opposite actually: that you are a free willy just like me. Effects have causes is not the only necessary condition for determinism to be true, it must necessarily require the first person experience of the freedom of the will to be illusory for reasons I explained in my first post in this thread. If the entirety of the necessary premises to accept to consider yourself a determinist was that effects have causes, then I would be a determinist.

 

If "a billiard ball's mass, trajectory and velocity effect on the ball that it hits" is considered the same form of the causal description that says that "if I present you an argument and you consider it and change your mind", then there is no difference between our positions. But, of course, you cannot conflate the two senses of the word "causal". You either have to say that the second example is illusory or inferior to some lower level description, or you are free willing all over the place

 

At least, that's what I am prepared to argue.

[greekredemption]

If "a billiard ball's mass, trajectory and velocity effect on the ball that it hits" is considered the same form of the causal description that says that "if I present you an argument and you consider it and change your mind", then there is no difference between our positions. But, of course, you cannot conflate the two senses of the word "causal". You either have to say that the second example is illusory or inferior to some lower level description, or you are free willing all over the place

Maybe I'm struggling to comprehend your exact argument because I don't see what's different between those 'forms' of causality. 

[Rainbow Dash]

It seems to me the exact opposite actually: that you are a free willy just like me. Effects have causes is not the only necessary condition for determinism to be true, it must necessarily require the first person experience of the freedom of the will to be illusory for reasons I explained in my first post in this thread. If the entirety of the necessary premises to accept to consider yourself a determinist was that effects have causes, then I would be a determinist.

 

If "a billiard ball's mass, trajectory and velocity effect on the ball that it hits" is considered the same form of the causal description that says that "if I present you an argument and you consider it and change your mind", then there is no difference between our positions. But, of course, you cannot conflate the two senses of the word "causal". You either have to say that the second example is illusory or inferior to some lower level description, or you are free willing all over the place

 

At least, that's what I am prepared to argue.

I think this helps add clarity to your position. Yes I do believe that the second statement can be more accurately explained with a lower level description, we just don't know what it is. Based on this explanation of free will, I don't understand how morality is dependent on whether or not this free will exists.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Our minds can't predict the future perfectly.

In terms of ideal universal standards they can. For example you can predict that logic will not change, that A will =A in the future. Objects and animals cannot do this. Our capacity to conceptualize in in unchanging abstracts may mean our relationship to causality may be radically different from everything else in the known universe. 

animals have access to future acknowledge just like us, they are just less capable. an animal can hear a noise (say, it's 'owners' voice) and use past associations to "acknowledge" what that noise represents (friendly, no danger, etc.). isn't this a form of "pull", as you described it? if so, it just seems like the difference between animals and humans are their capabilities, and so i'm not sure where the "free will" comes into your exampleand with that in mind: 

a-causal? but isn't all information (which inc. "ideals" and "universals"), and even the capability to comprehend that information, derived from the 'external' world? so can you explain how or in what way"free will" gives people access to "ideals" and "universals"... what do you mean by this? 

Sure, animals have some sense of the future but it not just different in degree but in kind from our own knowledge. We have a unique intelligence that can comprehend universal abstractions. You might say the example with the dog could demonstrate a very slight bit of pull but compared to us it is negligible. As I've said before, highly intelligent animals may be displaying a kind of proto-free will. It would make sense that animals closest to us in intelligence would show some sighs of this.

The free will comes into the example with the human ability to compare its decisions and beliefs against universal ideals. Unlike animals or objects you have rational criteria upon which to act. Your mind can predict and simulate future events and make a final choice. With something like morality say, you can test justifications that support any proposed action. If those justifications logically fail then you can know that action cannot be morally justified. Hence objective morality / UPB. There's no animal that can do that. 

 

I don't think it has any bearing if the information about universals comes from the external world. The universals themselves, like the laws of logic, may still be a-causal in the sense that they may be eternal. The consistency of matter and energy from which things like logic are derived still existed even when there were no minds to understand it or form it into concepts. If things like that are eternal then it might be said to be un-caused or a-causal. So our minds, being able to conceptualize in abstractions, may be tapping in to something that is a-causal. 

It's not that free-will GIVES us access to ideals and universals but that because we have access to them we HAVE the capacity for free will. 

Suffice it to say that when all things appear to be effects of causes, and causes of effects, to exclude ourselves from that requires some pretty extraordinary evidence, which does not seem to be forthcoming. 

What was the cause of the first effect?

[Rainbow Dash]

In terms of ideal universal standards they can. For example you can predict that logic will not change, that A will =A in the future.

I didn't realize by "able to perfectly predict the future" you meant, understand that tautologies are always true. It seams misleading.

 

The free will comes into the example with the human ability to compare its decisions and beliefs against universal ideals. Unlike animals or objects you have rational criteria upon which to act. Your mind can predict and simulate future events and make a final choice. With something like morality say, you can test justifications that support any proposed action. If those justifications logically fail then you can know that action cannot be morally justified. Hence objective morality / UPB. There's no animal that can do that.

 

How do you know animals can't do this. It used to be thought that humans were the only animals that could use tools and that was what separated us from other animals. We now know that other animals use tools too. If it was discovered that animals did have this ability to conceptualize in unchanging abstracts, what would that change? Here is an interesting video on morality observed in animals, in case you are interested:

 

Also, not all humans base their decisions and beliefs on universal ideals. Does that mean that some humans don't have free will? 

[Kevin Beal]

What if the determinist position is psychological in origin and is used to justify self deception?

 

Consider the following:

 

If free will is an illusion, but it's a biological illusion to achieve some dumb blind end, then something delusional "I have causal powers over my own life" is just a lie the homunculus in our heads tells us so that we can continue to live life and keep moving.

 

This takes the same form a nasty emotional defense does. One I have some experience with.

 

What might the psychological consequences be of believing that there is no free will? Well, that people are not responsible. That I do not have to feel remorse and neither do I need to confront people that I don't want to confront, since I am just the way I'm programmed to be, and so are they.

 

The emotional defense is fatalism.

 

Things are much less painful if we think that they couldn't be any other way. In other words, it's not that my mother was bad, it's that she was programmed by the culture and her parents into being shallow and indifferent. She can't be responsible if that's just her programming. It's why people who have shitty opposite sex parents end up having a shitty outlook on the dating and the purpose of a love relationship generally. It's why people who get angry and recognize their abusers as evil are the people least likely to repeat cycles of abuse.

 

Fatalism also provides us with a false sense of control and predictability since we have a causal account of things. "My mother is petty because X". And we resent people who endure X, but decide to do something about it instead of waste away into the fatalistic abyss of suppression and avoidance. Because the causal description is no longer determined. And they just generally resent people who show them that it's not fatalistic.

 

How many times have you reasoned something logically and made a logical case to someone only for them to get hostile and say absurd things all the while projecting their own incapacity / unwillingness to reason logically onto you? The anti-thought masses refusing to face their own ignorance and the lies they were told, but instead take it out on you for showing them that reason is possible.

 

It doesn't matter if it's an illusion for these people since what they call "reason" is just blind bigotry. They just keep moving.

 

The emotional investment that I have and probably most free willers have is that the consequence of determinism is that no one is morally responsible. The emotional investment for determinists is what? If it's all determined how the debate is going to turn out or whether or not I ever end up considering myself a determinist again, then why would they possibly care?

 

And maybe even more fundamentally, why should they ask themselves that if no one is responsible?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I didn't realize by "able to perfectly predict the future" you meant, understand that tautologies are always true. It seams misleading.

 

 

How do you know animals can't do this. It used to be thought that humans were the only animals that could use tools and that was what separated us from other animals. We now know that other animals use tools too. If it was discovered that animals did have this ability to conceptualize in unchanging abstracts, what would that change?

 

Also, not all humans base their decisions and beliefs on universal ideals. Does that mean that some humans don't have free will? 

We have perfect knowledge that these constants will always be the same and we can compare or beliefs and possible actions against them. What have tautologies got to do with this?

 

I'm pretty sure animals can't do it but even if they could it would just mean animals can do it too and we've yet to discover that. I'm aware that animals show something that could be called moral behavior but it's not rational. We could not hold an animal morally responsible, only causally responsible for something bad it did. I'm talking about rational morality, knowing the difference between right and wrong. 

 

Humans naturally uses these ideals. Children for example start using rational standards early on. Some of the most logical people may not actually know anything about logic or philosophy. We have evolved to process it and follow it.

Some humans may NOT have free will but all functional humans may have the capacity. We are the rational animal. 

[Rainbow Dash]

We have perfect knowledge that these constants will always be the same and we can compare or beliefs and possible actions against them. What have tautologies got to do with this?

Constants by definition will always be the same thus is always true therefor a tautology

I'm pretty sure animals can't do it but even if they could it would just mean animals can do it too and we've yet to discover that. I'm aware that animals show something that could be called moral behavior but it's not rational. We could not hold an animal morally responsible, only causally responsible for something bad it did. I'm talking about rational morality, knowing the difference between right and wrong. 

 

Humans naturally uses these ideals. Children for example start using rational standards early on. Some of the most logical people may not actually know anything about logic or philosophy. We have evolved to process it and follow it.

Some humans may NOT have free will but all functional humans may have the capacity. We are the rational animal. 

I don't understand why you assume that animals have zero rationality behind their morality. As for knowing the difference between right and wrong, do psychopaths who can't distinguish right from wrong not have free will, and therefor not morally responsible for their actions?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Constants by definition will always be the same thus is always true therefor a tautology

I don't understand why you assume that animals have zero rationality behind their morality. As for knowing the difference between right and wrong, do psychopaths who can't distinguish right from wrong not have free will, and therefor not morally responsible for their actions?

It's got nothing to do with tautologies. Pointing out that my comment is somewhat tautological is irrelevant. I can say logic will always be the same or truth will always be the same or whatever. What have tautologies got to do with the fact that we can compare our beliefs and actions against ideal standards?

 

I don't know why you assume animals have any rationality behind their morality. As I said, if they have then that doesn't negate my general point. Maybe animals do have some form of primitive free will but it doesn't matter. I'm just using a generally accepted distinction between animals and humans. If I start talking about whether animals HAVE rationality and can understand abstract concepts then we're not going to get anywhere. What the hell does it matter right now? Surely you can understand the point without having to of on some side argument about whether animals are rational or not?

 

As for psychopaths they can have the capacity to understand morality. They just have no conscience. One of the main points of something like UPB is that you can prove right and wrong to a psychopath. 

[greekredemption]

What was the cause of the first effect?

It seems this is one of the great unanswered questions of physics.

 

 

The emotional investment that I have and probably most free willers have is that the consequence of determinism is that no one is morally responsible. The emotional investment for determinists is what? If it's all determined how the debate is going to turn out or whether or not I ever end up considering myself a determinist again, then why would they possibly care?

 

And maybe even more fundamentally, why should they ask themselves that if no one is responsible?

Again, to quote Christopher Hitchens, "Yes I have free will; I have no choice." It's plain that I am operating as if I have free will - certainly that's how I'm experiencing it - but it is also possible to recognise that my perception may not in fact be the truth. We must accept our biological limitations I think. Yeah it's a cognitive dissonance but it isn't entirely irreconcilable.

 

And furthermore, the effects of not believing free will are not relevant to its veracity, as you know.

[Kevin Beal]

it is also possible to recognise that my perception may not in fact be the truth. We must accept our biological limitations I think. Yeah it's a cognitive dissonance but it isn't entirely irreconcilable.

It is irreconcilable actually. "Determinism is true" takes free will to conclude, because if the belief that determinism is true is held, then in order to be consistent, it is just simply held independent of any truth value. Your belief just is, and is not reasoned thru to the conclusion because the act of reasoning is free will. Rocks don't reason, people thinking about things, comparing propositions against standards and causing themselves through their own volition to accept a conclusion is free will.

 

It's like the calculator versus myself doing a math problem. The calculator doesn't hold a position that 2 + 2 = 4, it just is. But if I put two reeses pieces next to another 2 reeses pieces I count 4 reeses pieces and the meaning of the operation becomes clear to me. I understand how and why 2 + 2 = 4. But determinists can't claim this same capacity for meaning and understanding since they are just calculators.

 

If you try to sustain determinism as a true and valid belief, then you've already contradicted yourself.

 

Determinists have to deny everyone free will but themselves in order to debate. It's insane.

 

"Why can't you people see that language has no meaning?!"

 

My favorite part is how determinists claim that this is somehow the scientific position. It's funny.

[michaelfcp]

Determinists have to deny everyone free will but themselves in order to debate. It's insane.

 

 

 

That is not true .  If determinism is true debates happen because of prior causes. 

But on the other hand, if free will is true, yes. 

 

And it is important to notice that we don´t know with complete certainty. It´s not like we can syllogistic prove free will. So, maybe not all determinists are insane.

[Rainbow Dash]

It is irreconcilable actually. "Determinism is true" takes free will to conclude, because if the belief that determinism is true is held, then in order to be consistent, it is just simply held independent of any truth value. Your belief just is, and is not reasoned thru to the conclusion because the act of reasoning is free will. Rocks don't reason, people thinking about things, comparing propositions against standards and causing themselves through their own volition to accept a conclusion is free will.

Why can't reasoning through to a conclusion be a deterministic process?