science of free will vs determinism

[cab21]

I am wondering about scientific studies on free will, and not philosophy entirely from logic, should the scientific studies show something different from philosophy.

[Eudaimonic]

17 hours ago, cab21 said:

I am wondering about scientific studies on free will, and not philosophy entirely from logic, should the scientific studies show something different from philosophy.

Science is almost entirely deterministic or agnostic and some good reads for the science of determinism is Sam Harris's Free Will or Michael S. Gazzaniga's Who's In Charge? For a short book on why exactly the science of determinism doesn't nesseccarily disprove free will Alfred R. Mele's Free: Why Science Hasn't Disproven Free Will is also a great book. There is little to no scientific evidence for free will, though there is introspection.

However, you can assume free will since Determinism and agnosticism therein has the burden of proof.

As well, I can assure you that science will never disprove free will given the fact that science assumes free will in order to validate it's theories. 

[A4E]

15 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

As well, I can assure you that science will never disprove free will given the fact that science assumes free will in order to validate it's theories. 

What is your definition of free will in this context?

[Eudaimonic]

3 minutes ago, A4E said:

What is your definition of free will in this context?

The ability to, at any given moment, manifest several potentialities within the context of what is possible (universals) through one's actions.

A crude example: You're going to eat dinner at a Seafood restaurant (universal) but you can tell the waiter (manifestation) that you want cod or haddock or scallops or some combination (potentialities.) In this context, Free Will is the ability to choose between what seafood you'll have even though it is determined that you will eat seafood.

[A4E]

18 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

The ability to, at any given moment, manifest several potentialities within the context of what is possible (universals) through one's actions.

A crude example: You're going to eat dinner at a Seafood restaurant (universal) but you can tell the waiter (manifestation) that you want cod or haddock or scallops or some combination (potentialities.) In this context, Free Will is the ability to choose between what seafood you'll have even though it is determined that you will eat seafood.

With a definition like that I believe you would find agreement with many determinists that this free will exist. Really! I don't suspect any determinists would have any objection to this kind of free will. Only that they, and I, would add that it is of course already determined what kind of seafood you will have, though its totally fine to accept this kind of free will that you defined.

 

Its easy to understand why you put the burden of proof on determinism from that definition. In which the thought process would go something like this: Every human make choices - so choices are obvious - therefore that is the foundation - anything else will have to be proven.

 

if op agrees with that definition of free will, then you might have to remove the 'versus', since that definition and determinism can work (well) together.

[neeeel]

17 hours ago, Eudaimonic said:

Science is almost entirely deterministic or agnostic and some good reads for the science of determinism is Sam Harris's Free Will or Michael S. Gazzaniga's Who's In Charge? For a short book on why exactly the science of determinism doesn't nesseccarily disprove free will Alfred R. Mele's Free: Why Science Hasn't Disproven Free Will is also a great book. There is little to no scientific evidence for free will, though there is introspection.

However, you can assume free will since Determinism and agnosticism therein has the burden of proof.

As well, I can assure you that science will never disprove free will given the fact that science assumes free will in order to validate it's theories. 

so for example. when I feed data into my computer, and it chooses which player in a match to bet on, has my computer just demonstrated free will? I mean, there was a choice, right?

 

[Eudaimonic]

1 hour ago, A4E said:

With a definition like that I believe you would find agreement with many determinists that this free will exist. Really! I don't suspect any determinists would have any objection to this kind of free will. Only that they, and I, would add that it is of course already determined what kind of seafood you will have, though its totally fine to accept this kind of free will that you defined.

 

Its easy to understand why you put the burden of proof on determinism from that definition. In which the thought process would go something like this: Every human make choices - so choices are obvious - therefore that is the foundation - anything else will have to be proven.

 

if op agrees with that definition of free will, then you might have to remove the 'versus', since that definition and determinism can work (well) together.

Not exactly, but I see what you mean. Potentialities, in this definition, implies that if you wound back the clock you would be able to choose to manifest a different potential within the set of universals just as equally as the first. Determinism, as I understand it, implies no potentialities, there is and only can be one outcome in any given moment.

To use my example: if you could go back in time you would be equally able to choose cod instead of haddock, but in both situations you have to eat seafood.

I've actually wondered if this is a more compatiblist position, but I don't understand that term clearly and have gotten different definitions for it, so I just call my position free will.

I give the burden of proof to determinism or free will agnosticism because most people naturally (free from indoctrination or violence) assume free will to be true. Sort of how the earth being round had the burden of proof against it being flat and now visa versa. I don't know if that matters to you.

[Eudaimonic]

20 minutes ago, neeeel said:

so for example. when I feed data into my computer, and it chooses which player in a match to bet on, has my computer just demonstrated free will? I mean, there was a choice, right?

 

The machine doesn't choose, there's no potential for it to choose anything else but what it's algorithm determines from your data. Humans have the capacity to choose from potentials.

How that process works and why we have that capacity is not known, but free will is true because knowledge is dependent on it. Any theory that attempts to disprove free will nesseccarily invalidates itself.

[neeeel]

Just now, Eudaimonic said:

The machine doesn't choose, there's no potential for it to choose anything else but what it's algorithm determines from your data. Humans have the capacity to choose from potentials.

How that process works and why we have that capacity is not known, but free will is true because knowledge is dependent on it. Any theory that attempts to disprove free will nesseccarily invalidates itself.

Who says theres any potential for you to choose anything else but what your algorithm determines from your data?

Its perfectly possible to attempt to disprove free will without invalidating itself. If free will didnt exist, it would still be possible for the determined actors to be determined to come up with a an attempt to disprove free will.

[Eudaimonic]

1 minute ago, neeeel said:

Who says theres any potential for you to choose anything else but what your algorithm determines from your data?

Its perfectly possible to attempt to disprove free will without invalidating itself. If free will didnt exist, it would still be possible for the determined actors to be determined to come up with a an attempt to disprove free will.

If free will isn't true there's no such thing as knowledge. There must be knowledge, therefore free will is true.

If you posit that free will isn't true you're saying that you don't know if the argument "free will isn't true" is true or not, which means you can't posit that free will isn't true.

Free Will is required for knowledge. For you to know that free will is not true, free will must be true.

[neeeel]

Just now, Eudaimonic said:

If free will isn't true there's no such thing as knowledge. There must be knowledge, therefore free will is true.

If you posit that free will isn't true you're saying that you don't know if the argument "free will isn't true" is true or not, which means you can't posit that free will isn't true.

Free Will is required for knowledge. For you to know that free will is not true, free will must be true.

how is free will required for knowledge?

 

[Eudaimonic]

22 minutes ago, neeeel said:

how is free will required for knowledge?

 

If we have knowledge we must be justified in believing what is true. In a deterministic universe, what you believe and what convinces you is determined beforehand, you automatically assume what you are determined to believe. You may, by chance, be correct in your position, but you can never be justified in it because you could never run your position through a methodology that meant anything. You would accept what you accept because you are determined to accept it, all explaination would be post-hoc fabrication (which embarrassingly is exactly what Gazzaniga argues...)

To justify a position you need to be able to choose to run it (or not) through a methodology.

[neeeel]

1 minute ago, Eudaimonic said:

If we have knowledge we must be justified in believing what is true. In a deterministic universe, what you believe and what convinces you is determined beforehand, you automatically assume what you are determined to believe. You may, by chance, be correct in your position, but you can never be justified in it because you could never run your position through a methodology that meant anything. You would accept what you accept because you are determined to accept it, all explaination would be post-hoc fabrication (which embarrassingly is exactly what Gazzaniga argues...)

To justify a position you need to be able to choose to run it (or not) through a methodology.

nothing is "determined beforehand" . Thats not what determinism means. So, its perfectly possible for a brain to be logical, to come to logical conclusions, in a deterministic world. In a deterministic world, it is also still possible to lay out and follow the steps of logic.

Nothing you have said precludes determinism. IF the world is deterministic, all the above behaviours could still be observed. 

Why do you think its so hard for people to change their beliefs, their positions? Because what they believe, and what convinces them IS determined before hand. 

Its electrons running down synapses. pathways in the brain that can be re-programmed with difficulty.

 

 

It has been shown that a lot of what goes on is in fact post hoc fabrication.

 

[Eudaimonic]

11 minutes ago, neeeel said:

nothing is "determined beforehand" . Thats not what determinism means. So, its perfectly possible for a brain to be logical, to come to logical conclusions, in a deterministic world. In a deterministic world, it is also still possible to lay out and follow the steps of logic.

Nothing you have said precludes determinism. IF the world is deterministic, all the above behaviours could still be observed. 

Why do you think its so hard for people to change their beliefs, their positions? Because what they believe, and what convinces them IS determined before hand. 

Its electrons running down synapses. pathways in the brain that can be re-programmed with difficulty.

 

 

It has been shown that a lot of what goes on is in fact post hoc fabrication.

 

I'm confused, is it determined beforehand or not? If the universe is determined then everything that is happening was going to happen since the beginning of existence.

The brain can be as logical as it wants, but it will never be justified in believing in that logic or that logic is even valid, because it was determined to accept that logic is valid (how do you know, what can you compare it to?) All beliefs in a deterministic universe are fundamentally faith based.

It doesn't matter whether a body or mind are deterministically going through the motions, there's nothing to place one's justification on.

If everything is post-hoc fabrication, how can one know that everything is post-hoc fabrication?

[neeeel]

1 minute ago, Eudaimonic said:

I'm confused, is it determined beforehand or not? If the universe is determined then everything that is happening was going to happen since the beginning of existence.

The brain can be as logical as it wants, but it will never be justified in believing in that logic or that logic is even valid, because it was determined to accept that logical is valid (how do you know, what can you compare it to?) All beliefs in a deterministic universe are fundamentally faith based.

It doesn't matter whether a body or mind are deterministically going through the motions, there's nothing to place one's justification on.

If everything is post-hoc fabrication, how can one know that everything is post-hoc fabrication?

Im not sure what you mean by "justified in believing in" or "placing ones justification on" 

You can place your justification on logic. Or not. If theres a set of logical rules, and something follows those rules, then its valid. 

yes, everything, fundamentally, is faith based. That is, if you follow your belief chain back far enough, for ANY belief you hold, you reach a point where you just have to accept something as an axiom, or as a "well, it just is". Why do you place your justification on logic?

 

Again, nothing you have said rules out a deterministic universe. Everything you said could occur in a deterministic universe. In a deterministic universe, there could be thoughts about "placing ones justification on something"

Determinism can mean "determined beforehand" yes. Or it could mean determined as in previous state of the universe + some randomness ( quantum stuff) = current state of the universe. 

 

In order to accept free will, you have to reject materialism, and believe in some sort of mystic realm where free will takes place. 

[Goldenages]

The universe is not deterministic in the literally meaning of the word. The idea that a clockwork started with the Big Bang and - literally - everything is determined til the end is definitely wrong.  This conclusion can be drawn from quantum physics and chaos theory.

If our minds are not materialistic, then nothing can be said about free will, because we don´t even know what to to talk about. Gosts? Gods?

If our minds are materialistic, free will must be between chance and clockwork.  Chance does not require energy consuming brains and minds, and evolution would never have  favored them.

A clockwork does not need a mind at all.

 

Benjamin Libet made some experiments regarding free will.

From this link:

Quote

Libet's experiments suggest to some^[8] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated, according to this interpretation. For instance, Susan Blackmore's interpretation is "that conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen."^[9]

Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"^[10][11]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious.

 

regards

Andi

[HasMat]

From this link:

Quote

Libet's experiments suggest to some^[8] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated, according to this interpretation. For instance, Susan Blackmore's interpretation is "that conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen."^[9]

Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"^[10][11]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious.

 

This quotation is how I see choice operating from biological systems (suppression of alternates until 1 remains). The primary inhibitory neurotransmitter in the spinal cord is glycine. If you trigger a knee-jerk response the signal never makes it to the brain before you "decide" to straighten your leg.

 

But the biomechanical representations of mind are not freewill. These are objects that our subject automatically expresses.

 

Looking for proof of mind in objects cannot be satisfied. Our on-going subjective experience is not measureable to outsiders. No one can conclusively pass a Turing test. This is intractable. You can't know the internal experience of another without inhabiting another (for B, thus ending distinction of A=A, B=B, and not A=B).

 

At the level of freewill, you can't know someone without being someone (A=A). Once that happens the evidence is ever-present. We have subjective experience.

 

But as long as you don't "be someone" you can't measure their freewill. Mind and matter, subject and object, freewill and biomechanical expression of freewill, are all the same dichotomy. You will never be able to disassociate quantum probability and immaterial intentionality (mind/freewill) within biological choice systems (like brains).

 

To the most precise empiric methodology, freewill will feature as a probability. That's the closest empircs get to subjects. This probability is interesting because a confidence interval is also the most accurate way to represent someone passing a Turing Test (or Solipsism being false).

 

The stack of mental gymnastics to predict agency is just getting started with Poe's Law (inability to disambiguate satire from genuine). It's just another path along Solipsism's road. Ultimately we can't know others mind in direct observation, although with enough science we could know their brain state. Mind and brain are not the same thing.

 

Externals cannot directly measure internals. That's a schematic feature of a reality where A=A. If there is any part of us that is non-physical in being (like freewill or subjective experience), science will be unable to document it. If there is no part of our being that is non-physical than freewill is not possible. All matter-originating causes are known by science. None of these causes is an exclusive or unique property of you and you only, insofar as legitimizing rewarding/punishing you for your behavior.

 

Chaos works on all. If chaos is the totality of "freewill", then we share a universal and communal source of agency (and thus praise and culpability is mutual for all and every act--kind of how liberals see white guilt). Individual action and moral responsibility are impossible in this type of universe. If freewill is true, this worldview is necessarily false.

[Eudaimonic]

On 5/18/2017 at 3:40 PM, neeeel said:

Im not sure what you mean by "justified in believing in" or "placing ones justification on" 

You can place your justification on logic. Or not. If theres a set of logical rules, and something follows those rules, then its valid. 

yes, everything, fundamentally, is faith based. That is, if you follow your belief chain back far enough, for ANY belief you hold, you reach a point where you just have to accept something as an axiom, or as a "well, it just is". Why do you place your justification on logic?

 

Again, nothing you have said rules out a deterministic universe. Everything you said could occur in a deterministic universe. In a deterministic universe, there could be thoughts about "placing ones justification on something"

Determinism can mean "determined beforehand" yes. Or it could mean determined as in previous state of the universe + some randomness ( quantum stuff) = current state of the universe. 

 

In order to accept free will, you have to reject materialism, and believe in some sort of mystic realm where free will takes place. 

Logic is something objective, not arbitrary. Logic, to be valid, is dependent on free will because otherwise your conclusions are nothing but post-hoc assumption, not justified true belief. Knowledge and validation is meaningless without free will, it's a post-hoc show. These terms only mean something if you can voluntarily run a hypothesis through a methodology and come to a conclusion based on that. In a deterministic universe, you have a belief because you have to, not because you've justified it.

Truth is not faith based, it is objective via objective metaphysical axioms which are true because they could not be otherwise, that is not faith, that's certainty. Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Faith is not required for truth and is arbitrary, which truth by definition cannot be.

You do not have to reject materialism because there is no reason to assume that free will can't exist with universals. As well, it's on the determinist to show that free will is an illusion and not the libertarian to prove free will, which science is overwhelmingly agnostic in the issue and hasn't been able to disprove it, neither have philosophers given the epistemological problem.

[neeeel]

3 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

Logic is something objective, not arbitrary. Logic, to be valid, is dependent on free will because otherwise your conclusions are nothing but post-hoc assumption, not justified true belief. Knowledge and validation is meaningless without free will, it's a post-hoc show. These terms only mean something if you can voluntarily run a hypothesis through a methodology and come to a conclusion based on that. In a deterministic universe, you have a belief because you have to, not because you've justified it.

Truth is not faith based, it is objective via objective metaphysical axioms which are true because they could not be otherwise, that is not faith, that's certainty. Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Faith is not required for truth and is arbitrary, which truth by definition cannot be.

 

I am going to leave this for now, as I have already covered this. Nothing you say here precludes determinism. If you want to come back this, I can try to put it a different way.

 

 

Quote

You do not have to reject materialism because there is no reason to assume that free will can't exist with universals. As well, it's on the determinist to show that free will is an illusion and not the libertarian to prove free will, which science is overwhelmingly agnostic in the issue and hasn't been able to disprove it, neither have philosophers given the epistemological problem.

 

You do have to reject materialism, because otherwise you are positing some sort of entity that isnt mechanical, or material. 

If the universe is purely material, that is, the only things are ( in a basic way) atoms and quarks, and that these atoms and quarks obey rules ( for want of a better word, there arent actually physical rules), then everything in the universe is made of atoms and quarks, and is obeying the rules. This completely rules out free will for any definition of free will. Everything in the system, including thoughts about free will, knowledge, logic etc, are effects of the atoms and quarks following the rules. 

In order for free will to exist, there would have to be some sort of entity that could "step outside" the materialist rules, and make choices or decisions outside of the physical, material system. This is impossible.

 

 

[Eudaimonic]

33 minutes ago, neeeel said:

I am going to leave this for now, as I have already covered this. Nothing you say here precludes determinism. If you want to come back this, I can try to put it a different way.

This is not an argument. It also doesn't address the epistemological problem of knowledge, all it says is that you can observe the same behavior in a deterministic universe as well as a libertarian one. The problem is epistemological, not emperical. I'm not attempting to disprove that the behavior we observe can't possibly be deterministic, my argument is that you can't have knowledge in a deterministic universe. I could simply reverse this and say determinism doesn't preclude free will and call myself a philosopher. You haven't addressed my main argument and this is getting tiring especially considering you're acting on the premise of free will. I'm curious to know you're relationship to it.

33 minutes ago, neeeel said:

You do have to reject materialism, because otherwise you are positing some sort of entity that isnt mechanical, or material. 

If the universe is purely material, that is, the only things are ( in a basic way) atoms and quarks, and that these atoms and quarks obey rules ( for want of a better word, there arent actually physical rules), then everything in the universe is made of atoms and quarks, and is obeying the rules. This completely rules out free will for any definition of free will. Everything in the system, including thoughts about free will, knowledge, logic etc, are effects of the atoms and quarks following the rules. 

In order for free will to exist, there would have to be some sort of entity that could "step outside" the materialist rules, and make choices or decisions outside of the physical, material system. This is impossible.

I've already shown that choice can exist within universal laws. Potentialities can exist within universals (i.e. more than one thing can happen in any given situation depending on which causes are acted on.) Humans have the capacity to enact multiple causes.

I don't see how this contradicts materialism. There are a set if universal laws, a limited number of causes which can be acted on, but this doesn't mean that there is no choice, only that one's choice is limited to ones nature and what is possible. In fact, we see that when one learns more about causes, one acquires a larger ranger of action, which is why we hold adults morally responsible and don't babies.

I don't even have to argue why or how it works, you have the burden of proof.

[neeeel]

Just now, Eudaimonic said:

This is not an argument. It also doesn't address the epistemological problem of knowledge, all it says is that you can observe the same behavior in a deterministic universe as well as a libertarian one. The problem is epistemological, not emperical. I'm not attempting to disprove that the behavior we observe can't possibly be deterministic, my argument is that you can't have knowledge in a deterministic universe. I could simply reverse this and say determinism doesn't preclude free will and call myself a philosopher. You haven't addressed my main argument and this is getting tiring especially considering you're acting on the premise of free will. I'm curious to know you're relationship to it.

 

ye, well its lucky I never put it forward as an argument for anything. I didnt think we were getting anywhere, its perfectly possible the problem is on my side, but dont make out I have made no arguments at all.

determinism does preclude free will, as I outlined in my last post ( that you have to reject materialism). 

I also outlined how ALL belief ( and therefore knowledge) is based on unprovable axioms or things that you just accept. 

perhaps we need to define knowledge to proceed? You say we cant have knowledge in a deterministic universe. What is your definition of knowledge?

 

 

Quote

 

I've already shown that choice can exist within universal laws. Potentialities can exist within universals (i.e. more than one thing can happen in any given situation depending on which causes are acted on.) Humans have the capacity to enact multiple causes.

I don't see how this contradicts materialism. There are a set if universal laws, a limited number of causes which can be acted on, but this doesn't mean that there is no choice, only that one's choice is limited to ones nature and what is possible. In fact, we see that when one learns more about causes, one acquires a larger ranger of action, which is why we hold adults morally responsible and don't babies.

 

You certainly havent show how choices can exist within universal laws

I dont know what "potentialities can exist within universals" means. I also dont know what it means to say "more than one thing can happen (depending on what causes are acted on)". Causes arent acted on in that sense. There isnt a cause, and then you decide whether to act on it or not. I also dont know what it means to say "humans have the capactiy to enact multiple causes". What does it mean to "enact a cause"?

 

I already outlined why it contradicts materialism, because if the universe is purely materialistic, then any choice is atoms and quarks following the rules. In order for true choice to be possible, there would have to be something "outside the system"

[Donnadogsoth]

Hey neeeel, we agree on something:  that materialism precludes free will.  If matter is all there is, it must be enslaved to material law, whether that law is deterministic or random or a mixture of both.  There is no "wiggle room" here, no possibility of meaningful choice in any way.

[Eudaimonic]

18 minutes ago, neeeel said:

 

ye, well its lucky I never put it forward as an argument for anything. I didnt think we were getting anywhere, its perfectly possible the problem is on my side, but dont make out I have made no arguments at all.

determinism does preclude free will, as I outlined in my last post ( that you have to reject materialism). 

I also outlined how ALL belief ( and therefore knowledge) is based on unprovable axioms or things that you just accept. 

perhaps we need to define knowledge to proceed? You say we cant have knowledge in a deterministic universe. What is your definition of knowledge?

 

 

You certainly havent show how choices can exist within universal laws

I dont know what "potentialities can exist within universals" means. I also dont know what it means to say "more than one thing can happen (depending on what causes are acted on)". Causes arent acted on in that sense. There isnt a cause, and then you decide whether to act on it or not. I also dont know what it means to say "humans have the capactiy to enact multiple causes". What does it mean to "enact a cause"?

 

I already outlined why it contradicts materialism, because if the universe is purely materialistic, then any choice is atoms and quarks following the rules. In order for true choice to be possible, there would have to be something "outside the system"

I don't think I'm interested in parsing this out with you. If you think knowledge is arbitrary, you've invalidated your own position. If you think free will is an illusion, you should stop debating me because you have no control over what I believe anyway.

Furthermore, I'd say you should see how determinism and an arbitrary view of knowledge is affecting your life. This may have something to do with it. This isn't an argument from me however.

[neeeel]

Just now, Eudaimonic said:

 

I don't think I'm interested in parsing this out with you. If you think knowledge is arbitrary, you've invalidated your own position. If you think free will is an illusion, you should stop debating me because you have no control over what I believe anyway.

Furthermore, I'd say you should see how determinism and an arbitrary view of knowledge is affecting your life. This may have something to do with it. This isn't an argument from me however.

So, you only want to debate that free will exists, with people who already believe that free will exists? Thats a strange position to take

 

[Eudaimonic]

6 minutes ago, neeeel said:

So, you only want to debate that free will exists, with people who already believe that free will exists? Thats a strange position to take

 

That is not what I said.

[neeeel]

Just now, Eudaimonic said:

That is not what I said.

huh? any determinist is automatically invalidated, according to you. So therefore why would you debate any determinist?

 

[ofd]

Quote

my argument is that you can't have knowledge in a deterministic universe.

What do you call the fact that some 'deterministic' animals have a (implicit) knowledge of physical laws, without having the abstract knowledge of those laws?

[Eudaimonic]

4 minutes ago, neeeel said:

huh? any determinist is automatically invalidated, according to you. So therefore why would you debate any determinist?

 

Because determinist have the choice as to what position they take. The concept of determinism is invalid and contradictory, but a determinist is not determined to hold that belief, where as that is the opposite in a deterministic universe.

[neeeel]

Just now, Eudaimonic said:

Because determinist have the choice as to what position they take. The concept of determinism is invalid and contradictory, but a determinist is not determined to hold that belief, where as that is the opposite in a deterministic universe.

what? How do they have a choice? 

 

Wait, are you seriously pre-supposing the existence of free will, in order to prove free will?

[Eudaimonic]

9 minutes ago, ofd said:

What do you call the fact that some 'deterministic' animals have a (implicit) knowledge of physical laws, without having the abstract knowledge of those laws?

Knowledge is justified true belief. Animals have valid intuition, not knowledge. You're conflating two different definitions and calling both knowledge.

[Eudaimonic]

4 minutes ago, neeeel said:

what? How do they have a choice? 

 

Wait, are you seriously pre-supposing the existence of free will, in order to prove free will?

I wasn't attempting to prove free will, I said it doesn't make much sense to try to change another's mind when you have no control over that person's beliefs according to determinism.

[Donnadogsoth]

9 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

I wasn't attempting to prove free will, I said it doesn't make much sense to try to change another's mind when you have no control over that person's beliefs according to determinism.

All this is a dodge by Eudaimonic who maintains that free will is compatible with materialism.

[neeeel]

Just now, Eudaimonic said:

I wasn't attempting to prove free will, I said it doesn't make much sense to try to change another's mind when you have no control over that person's beliefs according to determinism.

ye, ok, sure you werent trying to prove free will, just invalidate determinism.

 If free will is true, and I have a choice, then debating with me can change my mind( of course, this isnt invalidated by determinism, but you conveniently ignore that). You obviously dont believe in free will if you dont answer questions, because you dont believe that answering my questions can change my mind.

 

 

 

 

[Goldenages]

1 hour ago, neeeel said:

If the universe is purely material, that is, the only things are ( in a basic way) atoms and quarks, and that these atoms and quarks obey rules ( for want of a better word, there arent actually physical rules), then everything in the universe is made of atoms and quarks, and is obeying the rules. This completely rules out free will for any definition of free will. Everything in the system, including thoughts about free will, knowledge, logic etc, are effects of the atoms and quarks following the rules. 

 

Who says that free will does not follow rules?  Free will defined as choice between alternatives does indeed follow rules - weighing pro and contra, experience, personal preference, feelings or logic and so on.  Thats a whole bunch of rules.  Free will defined as to do anything without cause does not make sense - because thats simply chance.

 

regards

Andi

[neeeel]

1 minute ago, Donnadogsoth said:

All this is a dodge by Eudaimonic who maintains that free will is compatible with materialism.

yes, he dodged my questions on that topic.