Why? Because it's 'true'? How would we know? And if we can't, why does it matter?good to see free will winning in a landslide so far
Why? Because it's 'true'? How would we know? And if we can't, why does it matter?good to see free will winning in a landslide so far
What about internal agencies like intuition, automated reactive thinking, desire, hatred, conscience. This will heavily influence your choice and give you the feeling you have made a free choice
Ok you could say that in conventional terms we choose our friends . I realize the weakness of this example but it was too late to me to fix that in my original post. I'm disappointed with the response of this thread by free will believers . They vote for it in the poll but not a single of them defend their point of view with good arguments . Atleast the members that believe in combination of both ( that is called compatibilism ) give valid arguments .We don't choose our friends??
Why ? Many times people believe in many things that turned to be false .good to see free will winning in a landslide so far
Quite right. The theoretical opposite to determinism is indeterminism, which is completely compatible with the non-existence of free will.Not determinism.
See Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
That leaves a large space between free will and determinism, namely the likelyhood of choosing each of the freely available possibilities, which can be very different for each.I do not see how anyone can coherently maintain determinism. In making a choice, you necessarily think of the possibilities that lie before you as genuine possibilities. Determinism holds that there is only one possible course of action before you, namely whichever course you end up taking.
I do not see how anyone can coherently maintain determinism. In making a choice, you necessarily think of the possibilities that lie before you as genuine possibilities. Determinism holds that there is only one possible course of action before you, namely whichever course you end up taking. Thus one cannot be a determinist within one's acts of choosing.
The same goes for offering choices to other people, or treating them as if they have choice in what they do. You cannot do that and be a determinist at the same time.
What is more, this applies not just to choices in outward action, but even to acts of thinking. If I am trying to figure something out, say trying to answer a question, I must, in doing so, consider the possibilities before me as genuine possibilities, which again contradicts determinism. So the person who professes himself a determinist is contradicting himself every time he or she makes that profession.
You would have to exist outside the world, like God, in order to profess determinism (and it would be determinism not about yourself, but only about those who exist in the world) without contradicting yourself.
Quite right. The theoretical opposite to determinism is indeterminism, which is completely compatible with the non-existence of free will.
You have not understood one single claim that I made, much less the structure of the arguments in which you purport to find fallacies. I nowhere asserted that we have free will. Your would-be counter-arguments are completely irrelevant. Try to understand what I wrote before you attempt to criticize it.I think that your logic is entirely fallacious. The fact that we have mental capacity does not imply that we have free will. [Etc.]
My thesis was that it is impossible coherently to assert determinism. My argument is that to choose, to think, or to treat another human being as capable of choosing or thinking, is incompatible with the acceptance of determinism. Here is my post again, with the statement of the thesis and the intermediate conclusions supporting it in bold type:Please try to be clearer in expressing your views.
I do not see how anyone can coherently maintain determinism. In making a choice, you necessarily think of the possibilities that lie before you as genuine possibilities. Determinism holds that there is only one possible course of action before you, namely whichever course you end up taking. Thus one cannot be a determinist within one's acts of choosing.
The same goes for offering choices to other people, or treating them as if they have choice in what they do. You cannot do that and be a determinist at the same time.
What is more, this applies not just to choices in outward action, but even to acts of thinking. If I am trying to figure something out, say trying to answer a question, I must, in doing so, consider the possibilities before me as genuine possibilities, which again contradicts determinism. So the person who professes himself a determinist is contradicting himself every time he or she makes that profession.
You would have to exist outside the world, like God, in order to profess determinism (and it would be determinism not about yourself, but only about those who exist in the world) without contradicting yourself.
I'll give you an analogy. Suppose that someone arrives at the conclusion that the cognitive powers of human beings are so defective that we are incapable of apprehending truth. Such a conclusion does not seem to be, in itself, incoherent. But consider our gloomy speculator making the assertion, "Human beings are incapable of apprehending truth." In making that assertion, he is offering it as truth; but the assertion itself implies that he cannot do what he is purporting to do. Thus the content of his assertion is in contradiction with his act of asserting it. He is trying to assert a view that cannot coherently be asserted.
This kind of contradiction is called by some a pragmatic contradiction: the contradiction is not in the content of what is asserted, but between that content and the act of asserting it. Note that someone other than a human being -- God, say -- could make the assertion "Human beings are incapable of apprehending truth" without thereby entangling himself (herself, itself) in any contradiction.
I argue that determinism involves a contradiction of this sort. In acting, the agent considers himself capable of choosing between possible actions; in thinking, he considers himself as capable of choosing between possible thoughts. Now you may want to maintain that this is an illusion, and that there is no genuine choice among possible actions or possible thoughts, but merely the succession of one thought or act upon another. The idea in itself seems coherent, but it contradicts the act of affirming it.
That's the part that I have trouble with. How can it be a genuine choice if the outcome is predetermined? If (to take a simple example) I am considering whether to go out this evening or stay home, I regard both of those possible courses of action as -- well, as possible courses of action. According to determinism, they are nothing of the sort; only one of them is, namely whichever course of action I end up taking. The determinist may agree to call this process "choosing," just as the person who believes that human beings cannot apprehend truth may accept the common practice of describing certain things as "true" or "known"; but the theory that each professes denies this. A so-called "choice" between two or more so-called "possibilities," only one of which is actually a possibility, is not a choice.Yes, I would agree that an assertion that the cognitive powers of humans are incapable to apprehending truth represents the type of "pragmatic contradiction" that you describe when a human is making such an assertion.
I disagree with you that asserting determinism constitutes a similar contradiction. There are choices, but those are determined in that they would be entirely predictable based on complete knowledge of the inputs affecting those choices.
That's the part that I have trouble with. How can it be a genuine choice if the outcome is predetermined? If (to take a simple example) I am considering whether to go out this evening or stay home, I regard both of those possible courses of action as -- well, as possible courses of action. According to determinism, they are nothing of the sort; only one of them is, namely whichever course of action I end up taking. The determinist may agree to call this process "choosing," just as the person who believes that human beings cannot apprehend truth may accept the common practice of describing certain things as "true" or "known"; but the theory that each professes denies this. A so-called "choice" between two or more so-called "possibilities," only one of which is actually a possibility, is not a choice.
Why? Because it's 'true'? How would we know? And if we can't, why does it matter?
Why ? Many times people believe in many things that turned to be false .
I think free will is one of those false concepts.
Ha , Ha that's hilarious . You claim that I'm wrong but you don't give a single argument defending your view.nope
you're wrong
DONE