An open letter to Stefan Molyneux concerning his THEORY OF MIND

[Jordan Miller]

For the past several months something has bothered me. I felt as if something Stefan was saying was self-contradictory. I called into the show twice to try and figure out what it was.

 

I figured it out.

 

I have written an open letter to Stefan detailing my thoughts.

 

you can read it and comment on it here if you like. Enjoy.

 

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The arguments and claims in this letter have been addressed to the point of exhaustion. Free will is not actions produced independent of causes that produced them. Where are you getting this?

You say that human intelligence is just different in degree from an animal but offer no proof. A human mind can do abstract reasoning, an animal cannot. This is observable. 

This is all the same determinst argument from incredulity and/or ignorance we hear over and over again. You can't imagine how free will could exist, therefore it doesn't. Can you even define cause and effect in a way that excludes free will without begging the question?

Also, stop saying "I find . . ." and "It seems to me . . .". Those aren't arguments. 

[Leevan]

The arguments and claims in this letter have been addressed to the point of exhaustion. Free will is not actions produced independent of causes that produced them. Where are you getting this?

You say that human intelligence is just different in degree from an animal but offer no proof. A human mind can do abstract reasoning, an animal cannot. This is observable. 

This is all the same determinst argument from incredulity and/or ignorance we hear over and over again. You can't imagine how free will could exist, therefore it doesn't. Can you even define cause and effect in a way that excludes free will without begging the question?

Also, stop saying "I find . . ." and "It seems to me . . .". Those aren't arguments. 

 

Whoa, dude. You don't need to bite his head off. He doesn't seem to know all the facts. You get more flies with honey, etc.

[jpahmad]

For the past several months something has bothered me. I felt as if something Stefan was saying was self-contradictory. I called into the show twice to try and figure out what it was.

 

I figured it out.

 

I have written an open letter to Stefan detailing my thoughts.

 

you can read it and comment on it here if you like. Enjoy.

 

Hi Jordan.  I have solved this problem already with Aristotle's basic logic.  I think last year.  Stefan's "free will" approach is reconcilable with a deterministic universe.  You can have it both ways.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO35eHxJvkI

 

 

The simple formula:  Chemistry determines, I am chemistry, I determine.  End of story.  You are a "force of nature."

 

You say that human intelligence is just different in degree from an animal but offer no proof. A human mind can do abstract reasoning, an animal cannot. This is observable. 

 

 

Abstract reasoning marks the presence of consciousness.  However, the lack of the ability to do abstract reasoning doesn't mean that an entity is not conscious.

 This is observable. 

 

Is it?  Since when can we observe the experience of what it's like to be a dog or a cat?  Qualia, or, the "what it's like" experience, is not as far as I know objectively observable. 

[neeeel]

Free will is not actions produced independent of causes that produced them. 

 

What is it then?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Whoa, dude. You don't need to bite his head off. He doesn't seem to know all the facts. You get more flies with honey, etc.

Concern troll.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Abstract reasoning marks the presence of consciousness.  However, the lack of the ability to do abstract reasoning doesn't mean that an entity is not conscious.

Is it?  Since when can we observe the experience of what it's like to be a dog or a cat?  Qualia, or, the "what it's like" experience, is not as far as I know objectively observable. 

Not conscious? What?

 

Yes you can observe that people are capable of abstract reasoning and animals are not. I don't have to know what it's like to be a cat to know it can't understand syllogisms. Even if it can and is somehow concealing that fact then it wouldn't matter for the overall point about free will. 

What is it then?

I don't know. That's the whole point. It's unknown much in the same way the reason for life was unknown. But I do know it is ridiculous to say it's completely independent of antecedent events/ causes. Determinists like to claim free will is magical but even MAGICAL events are not claimed to be independent of causes that produced them. 

[neeeel]

Not conscious? What?

 

Yes you can observe that people are capable of abstract reasoning and animals are not. I don't have to know what it's like to be a cat to know it can't understand syllogisms. Even if it can and is somehow concealing that fact then it wouldn't matter for the overall point about free will. 

I don't know. That's the whole point. It's unknown much in the same way the reason for life was unknown. But I do know it is ridiculous to say it's completely independent of antecedent events/ causes. Determinists like to claim free will is magical but even MAGICAL events are not claimed to be independent of causes that produced them. 

 

Determinists dont claim that free will is magical. They claim that it doesnt exist.

But you are saying that it does exist, but you dont know what it is?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Determinists dont claim that free will is magical. They claim that it doesnt exist.

But you are saying that it does exist, but you dont know what it is?

Those two claims are not mutually exclusive. They DO claim it is magical as I have seen them do this many, many times. If you are insinuating that what I meant was that determinists actually say there is a magical thing called free will that actually exists then I have to assume you are trolling or joking. Obviously I meant it in the same way I'd say atheists claim God is magical. Just because they ALSO might say he doesn't exist doesn't mean they don't also say he's magical and just because they say he's magical does not mean they're saying he exists. You understand?

 

Yes I don't know what free will is. So what? There are lots of things we might observe in the universe that we may not know what they are. 

[jpahmad]

Not conscious? What?

 

Yes you can observe that people are capable of abstract reasoning and animals are not. I don't have to know what it's like to be a cat to know it can't understand syllogisms. Even if it can and is somehow concealing that fact then it wouldn't matter for the overall point about free will. 

I don't know. That's the whole point. It's unknown much in the same way the reason for life was unknown. But I do know it is ridiculous to say it's completely independent of antecedent events/ causes. Determinists like to claim free will is magical but even MAGICAL events are not claimed to be independent of causes that produced them. 

 

I'm not saying I think animals can do abstract reasoning.  I'm saying that you can't observe what it's like to be an animal.  Therefore we have no way of knowing how "unique" our conscious experience is.

[J. D. Stembal]

People in this thread are currently converting ideas within their brain into electrons that travel through the either for all to see. How are we still uncertain about whether or not humans have free will?

 

Wow.

 

The primary requirements to exercising free will are reason and language. Free will also requires a secondary ability to to be curious in the face of adversity. If you make loud sounds, most animals will be alarmed and move away from you. This is not so with humans, who will usually investigate the cause of the unusual sound before deciding what to do.

 

Humans have the ability to operate within their fight-flight-freeze (lizard) part of their brains as well as their frontal lobes, which are used for reason. The function of the lizard brain is not to think, it is to communicate to your body sensory data that scares the shit out of you.

 

Have you ever seen a wild animal seek you out and try to attempt to communicate or reason with you out of curiosity? They can sense that you are a predator (or prey in some cases like shark attacks), and they don't require reason to act. It's a base animal response to stimulus. Pets and livestock don't count within the context of this discussion because they are domesticated and dependent on humans for food and confined.

[Nathan Metric]

What people typically call "free will" is nothing more than the belief that human action is subject to moral considerations. "Determinism" is the belief that human action is not subject to moral considerations (nihilism).

 

By this understanding the determinist position is self-contradictory. The determinist uses words like "wrong" or "incorrect" to describe the free will position which presuppeses that one OUGHT to be correct. That one OUGHT not be wrong.

 

The only way the determinist can get out of this dilemma is by admitting that the free will/determinist question has nothing to do with morality, but then what is the point in answering it then? What's the point in saying no one has free will if you just going to subject them to morality anyway? It's just a pointless debate.

[James Dean]

What people typically call "free will" is nothing more than the belief that human action is subject to moral considerations. "Determinism" is the belief that human action is not subject to moral considerations (nihilism).

 

By this understanding the determinist position is self-contradictory. The determinist uses words like "wrong" or "incorrect" to describe the free will position which presuppeses that one OUGHT to be correct. That one OUGHT not be wrong.

 

The only way the determinist can get out of this dilemma is by admitting that the free will/determinist question has nothing to do with morality, but then what is the point in answering it then? What's the point in saying no one has free will if you just going to subject them to morality anyway? It's just a pointless debate.

This is perhaps the most concise and all encompassing summary of my frustration with the determinism topic... Thank you.

[Matt D]

If the Determinist argument was valid (and if they could somehow escape the contradiction Nathan mentioned above) would it change anything about human action? Would it change how you act? I would assert that thinking about something which will have no consequence on the world is to the pursuit of philosophy as masturbation is to making love.