Core point of view test. 1 question poll (anonymous)

[A4E]

Edit: In violation of guidelines, so please ignore.

[neeeel]

for no 3, surely if some things can directly violate the laws, then the laws cant be absolute?

[ThatDrewGuy]

I said #1. By definition, the laws of the universe can't be broken.

[dsayers]

By definition, the laws of the universe can't be broken.

A lot of people have lost sight of the fact that the word "law" denotes something that is absolutely binding. I think the power hungry call their commands backed by threats of violence "laws" to poison the well and trick people into thinking they cannot be questioned.

[A4E]

By "Laws of the universe" In this context, I mean "That which moves and changes it through time". Which is probably what most associate "Laws of the universe" with.

 

Feel free to change a vote if it is possible. I am very excited for every vote!

[Kevin Beal]

Conscious agents with free will cannot violate the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc., nor would that be required of the free will position.

[rosencrantz]

Conscious agents with free will cannot violate the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

 

 

The laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc. together with previous events necessitate events. You have to show that there are agents with free will in this scenario. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by rosencrantz

[shirgall]

How come?

 

Inductive reasoning: no object in the physical world has been reliably observed to violate physical, chemical, biological laws (whether or not it has the quality "free will"), therefore it is likely that no object n the physical world *can* violate physical, chemical, and biological laws. Bonus fact: physical objects with the quality "free will" have tried to violate physical, chemical, and biological laws and have always failed.

[rosencrantz]

Sorry Shirgall, I edited my post to make it more appropriate.

[Kevin Beal]

The laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc. together with previous events necessitate events. You have to show that there are agents with free will in this scenario. 

An "event" is a model. It's not a thing in reality. When we talk about causes and effects, we are describing the properties and functions of objects. "Event" and "causation" are not scientific concepts but philosophical ones.

 

An "event" could be me deciding something using my free will. I am the object and I have a function called "volitional consciousness".

 

What free will is "free" of is determinism.

 

Determinism is the proposition that our subjective experience of choosing our behavior is an illusion. In other words, our behavior is as determined as a purely instinct driven animal. (Determinism is not "causes have effects" because that equally describes the free will position).

[Mister Mister]

The laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc. together with previous events necessitate events. You have to show that there are agents with free will in this scenario. 

 

Why do we have to show this...why is it not you that has to prove that events are "necessitated"?

[A4E]

As promised here is my opinion of the various statements. Please note that I do not want to start or participate in debates, as I am convinced that they are mostly completely useless and just creates resentment and division. And I was starting to regret making this thread when I saw that debates are beginning to form.


1. The laws of the universe are absolute. And nothing can directly violate them.

Hard determinism.


2. like 1, but some things have the ability to choose what happens to it when given options.

I was originally going to just call it compatibilist free will, but I don't really understand this position, so then its better if internet can explain it for me. I found Compatibilism, explained from wiki: "Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics. They define free will as freedom to act according to one's motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions."


3. The laws of the universe are absolute. But some things within the universe can directly violate them.

It does not seem like it is a thing on internet, but I aimed for hardcore free will. That free will works outside and independently of a deterministic universe. Perhaps alternatively it could be a standard free will stance as explained by google: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." But then we are getting really close to compatibilism, so I guess my original aim is more relevant.


4. The laws of the universe are not absolute. And so can be altered and manipulated within the universe.

Religious position. ie, if the laws of the universe are absolute, then praying in itself would not be able to change the universe. And miracles that defy the laws, would be impossible.

[Kevin Beal]

1. The laws of the universe are absolute. And nothing can directly violate them.

 

Hard determinism.

No, it's not. (More below).

 

I was originally going to just call it compatibilist free will, but I don't really understand this position

That's because the position is nonsensical. Only people like Daniel Dennett, who have lost their minds and don't believe consciousness exists can say such things with a straight face.

 

 

It does not seem like it is a thing on internet, but I aimed for hardcore free will. That free will works outside and independently of a deterministic universe.

That would be a religious or dualist conception of free will. Ironically, materialists are a kind of dualist, it's just that materialists try and do away with subjectivity (e.x. determinism, epiphenomenalism, functionalism, behaviorism, etc.), rather than integrate it into a broader philosophical framework.

 

That's not the position of Ayn, Stef and other more modern philosophers who accept free will. They just say it's a function of an emergent phenomena in the brain and is no more magical than the liquidity of water. It's just a biological phenomenon like photosynthesis, digestion, etc.

 

The confusion comes mostly out of an equivocation of unlike things. First is a "deterministic universe" and the actual determinist position. When people say "deterministic universe" they mean a rational universe in which causal relationships between objects can be modeled and predicted.

 

The determinist position is not that, because if it was, it would make no comment on free will. Free will doesn't require an irrational universe.

 

The determinist position is that free will is an illusion and other causal forces fully account for our behavior.

[rosencrantz]

Why do we have to show this...why is it not you that has to prove that events are "necessitated"?

 

 

The reason for that is simple. Every natural event has a predecessor(s) and takes place within the framework of the natural laws. All processes in the brain are determinated by biochemistry. If you are argue for free will you have to show it can exist within a deterministic framework or you have to argue that there are supra-naturalistic processes in the brain that influence biochemistry. That being said, I understand the forum's guidelines on determinism and stop my argument.

[A4E]

That being said, I understand the forum's guidelines on determinism and stop my argument.

One reason I made this thread is that I noticed the sticky thread ban on conversations regarding determinism had been taken down. Or I could not find it. I see now that the ban is in the guidelines. I admit my wrongdoing and assume all responsibility. I will attempt to delete the thread, and await any appropriate punishment.

[EclecticIdealist]

The natural laws of the universe are absolute. By this, I mean that reality is objective and consistent. Our knowledge and understanding of the Natural Laws of the universe is necessarily subjective and will change as our knowledge and understanding increases and becomes more precise. Our knowledge and understanding approaches an objective knowledge and understanding of the Universe the more we learn about what we as yet do not know. Practically speaking, we have an objective knowledge of "Newtonian Physics". Nevertheless, this practically objective knowledge is subject to change as newly discovered phenomena augments or alters our current understanding.