Free will

[satricion]

Dynz:

Your first point: Yes, either determinism or indeterminism have to be true. It's not possible to prove them either way, but you're idea about reaching conclusions at the end doesn't matter here...no matter what conclusion you reach, you end up with the same answer. If you didn't then there would be more debate to be had here, but you don't so it doesn't matter. One of them has to be true.

Your idea about living beings being different in some way is not sound. To argue for this in the context of the determinism/indeterminism argument, you would have to be claiming that living beings exist in such a way that they are immune from not only the natural laws of the universe, but also from the forces of randomness. Just what ontological status does such a being hold? You're not positing a logically consistent being here.

Now, on to your point about people's experiences. I'm not saying as a general rule everyone's experiences are invalid, what I'm saying here is the fact that I think I have free will doesn't make the existence of free will any more plausible. For example, it is logically impossible that I exist in two places at once, or that I am both a person and a cow (forget any bioengineering or whatever issues, we're talking about strict logic here. You can't be two different things). So if I took some drugs or went insane and decided that I was both a person and a cow at the same time, this would not make being a person and a cow at the same time any more logically plausible. Any more than my perception of free will makes this completely logically impossible concept more plausible.

What are these natural laws? It doesn't matter what these natural laws are, so long as they exist. If they exist, then free will is false because it's a result of these natural laws. I don't have to say what they are for the argument to stand. Saying what they are is the domain of the rational science paradigm (which is where the determinism argument comes from). But as you say, this is not a scientific quesiton.

If these natural laws exist then no matter what they are free will is false.

If they don't then free will is still false because everything is random (unless you somehow manage to provide a logically, ontologically sound argument that living beings are immune to both of these forces, regardless of which one actually exists).

Also, you can't disprove determinism and indeterminism by saying free will is true. Firstly, you haven't proved free will in this argument, and secondly one of the two must be true. I mean...either there are natural laws or there aren't...I really don't see how anything in between exists...I mean, I suppose at a stretch you could argue that some aspects of reality are goverened by natural laws and some aren't, but even if you did free will is still false. So you can't disprove them both using the premise that free will is true. It's a faulty premise. It's like arguing that being two separate things at once is logically okay because you perceive that you are both a person and a sheep.

Ps: Please don't think that I am belittleing your argument...I'm just pointing out that it doesn't work...the liberalists used to use that exact argument in an effort to disprove determinism but not only does the argument definitely not work, it also wouldn't disprove free will if it did.

 

[satricion]

Doesntmatter:

First you are wrong that philosophy doesn't deal with definites. Free will is logically impossible. That is a definite. If anything, science doesn't deal with definites because of the impossibility of proving determinism, as well as a whole host of other issues not relevant to the present debate (for more info, read up on David Hume).

Secondly, determinism doesn't at all require that everything works as we think it does. All it's saying is that there are natural laws. It's not saying what they are or whether or not we are right about what they are. It doesn't require humans to be omniscient...I can't figure out why you drew this conclusion at all...

You say:

"the argument that random activity to humans says that even those random actions don't prove anything about free will is the same as saying the predictable actions don't either. you can't have one or the other. if something is random and can be predicted, then something that can be predicted COULD be random."

If something is random then it can't be predicted. That's what being random is...so no, something that can be predicted CAN'T be random. What you have said is a contradiction in terms.

On to your numbered points:

1. Determinism doesn't rest on our knowledge of anything. You have misunderstood the nature of determinism at a very fundamental level.

2. Again, our being all knowing is irrelevant.

3. This point is again totally misunderstanding what determinism is.

I'm not sure I've addressed your fundamental argument...is it that determinism requires us to be omniscient? That's not true, and even if it is it doesn't matter, because if determinism is false then indeterminism is true and free will is still false.

Also, please keep in mind that while the determinism/indeterminism argument is sound, so is Strawson's 'basic argument' about self-causation (which is explained in one of the sections of the link you said you read). So it matters even less.

 

[elemenohpee]

however determinism requires omniscients to be correct.

 

[Medatripper Tates]

Its my opinion that the scientific method is the only way of fixing belief. You can perceive things through experience, but the scientific method is the only way you can come to conclusions about those experiences.

no, we do not have conclusions, we have realizations and understandings, conclusions to our misunderstandings and destruction. ultimately i dont think there is a conclusion... there are many levels to our self and it does not stop here.

we can have the profound experience (which is beyond our usual senses and what we can conceive), then gain the knowledge, realization, and understanding of those experiences through meditation. the more this happens, the deeper the experiences get, and the farther away from conceptual reality they become - making it impossible to fully conceive. why feed to the illusion? only to help others, i guess.

So our perception of consciousess itself doesn't really tell us anything, especially as it is so biased, since it is perceiving itself.

thats right, we can look at ourself in the mirror but that doesn't really tell us anything about who we are. we have to go into the experience which shows us who we really are, and it is the techniques which raise awareness which allow us to keep this "knowing" of who we are, and how other things work.

We feel emotions, even though its been proven that they are caused by chemicals in the brain. We don't really get an accurate picture of whats going on through our limited means of perception. Any false premises acquired here will render your conclusions useless, so its not really the best way to come to conclusions.

the conclusion is that there are no conclusions.

 

[qwedsa]

This is not really the case, especially for free will.

The reason that free will is a philosophical and not a scientific or empirical question is because it is not operationalisable as a scientific phenomena. You can not test free will.

i was not talking about free will, and i agree with you... for now. in the future, when we know more about consciousness and what produces it, perhaps we will be able to examine the concept scientifically

1. for determinism ( the philosopohy that everything has already happened in theory) to work, you would have to know EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW (in the past and the future

we've been addressing this point again and again. ill put it really simple this time

if you have a deterministic system to examine, there's no reason you'd need to gather every bit of data about the system to realize that the systen functions deterministically. you can use a little bit of the data and logic to realize that it's a deterministic system.

WHY IN HELL would you need to know every bit of information at every point in time about the system in order to know that it's deterministic?

 

[qwedsa]

The infinite regress of self-causation can be solved. ... By mysterious processes, one wills oneself into existance, with an 'empty' mental nature N0. Mental processes begin. ...

um.

 

[Medatripper Tates]

if we know them through experience, that means we know them empirically, which means they are scientifically valid (unless you're the only one that sees it, in which case there's probably a psychological rather than ontological explanation)

they are scientifically valid in a subjective sense, and the only way they are scientifically valid to us is if we don't try to wrap our conditioned ego around it and use it to create an interpretation which we think is the truth.

it all depends on how you define "subjective science". From the egos point of view, it thinks it is the subjective science, because when you try to look at this truth from the ego it will only reflect itself back, thinking that image is the truth. You looked in the mirror to find a beautiful face, I swear I saw nothing. But here on these forums I see a face on me, so my subjective science is lost. It could be called pseudoscience. The only way I can return to the science it is to return to that nothingness from which all things come.

Viewing reality through subjective science, to me, is looking through that untouched, balanced, empty state of being that we lost long ago when language, communication, and society came into place.

I should also mention that this “knowing” of what happens outside the bounds of science is brought on by techniques which heighten awareness. Psychedelics can give us the experience, meditation can give us the knowledge of the experience… which ultimately is ourself.

 

[Medatripper Tates]

Just get over it people...the only new argument that has been thrown in to the free will debate in the past hundred years is Strawson's 'basic argument' about the infinite regress free will would require (this argument is another reason why determinism or indeterminism are irrelevant). Before this the same arguments had existed for hundreds of years. You can't prove free will, it's just impossible.

to me, this isn't just a free will debate. the more conscious you are, the more free will you have, thats all there is to it.

but how do we get more free will, how do we become more consious, how do we access the infinity of choices we have during those life changing experiences?

plant a lotus seed.

 

[satricion]

to me, this isn't just a free will debate. the more conscious you are, the more free will you have, thats all there is to it.

What is consciousness? Is it a property that somehow transcendes logic?

That strikes me as dubious.

 

[Medatripper Tates]

What is consciousness? Is it a property that somehow transcendes logic?

That strikes me as dubious.

consciousness, wakefulness, alertness, mindfulness, etc. when i am more of these, the more free will i feel i have. to reduce this to logic is to create an image, a shadow, around the real thing that consciousness is. for me, trying to figure out consciousness by using logic is only covering myself in ignorance and unconsciousness. from my experience, that is.

 

[Pegasus]

technically free will comes down to whether or not we have a "soul"

Indeed.

 

[Pegasus]

the conclusion is that there are no conclusions.

That sounds like a self defeating statement to me. The fact that you came to that conclusion in itself shows me that there are indeed conclusions to be made.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

 

[Medatripper Tates]

what kind of conclusions are we talking about though..

 

[Pegasus]

what kind of conclusions are we talking about though..

It seems to me like you are talking about all that are based on experience, which would be all of them...?

 

[Medatripper Tates]

It seems to me like you are talking about all that are based on experience, which would be all of them...?

i am talking about the experience of consciousness in general

 

[Pegasus]

If you believe that your experiences can't be interpreted as truth, then you believe that you can't actually know anything, and that would mean your life would be levels upon levels of built up misfounded understandings. Yet, as you age, you seem to understand the world better and better. I think that goes to show that your conclusions were indeed worthy.

This gets back into the whole Hume theory from the last determinism debate, with the ball dropping 100 times and falling to the ground. Will it fall to the ground the 101th time? While you can't say for a fact that it would, I think it would be unreasonable to say that it might not.


Edit- I've reread your posts over and over, and I think I still might not be completley understanding what you are trying to say. Please correct me if I am not.

 

[Medatripper Tates]

My experiences could be interpreted as truth, if it were to be understood by somebody who knows of this experience. The words would have truth in them, because there is a connection between the two persons communicating through language and experience. There are many who understand the state I am speaking of. But if it is not understood it is not truth, only concepts not understandable by one who has not experienced. I don’t know anything, only words. They could be dead of they could be alive.

 

[Fishface]

It's like trying to describe anything to someone when they don't have direct experience of it.

You might be able to get close, very close, through the use of words, pictures, samples of its constituent parts, etc., etc., but until you actually experience an elephant, a glass of fresh milk, a dew drop, a kiss, whatever, you cannot know.

Such is the way with the experiences MedaTripper speaks of.

Because others may not have shared those experiences does not invalidate them and because he is unable to convey their nature through words in this forum is due to the limitations of any medium to transfer real knowledge, not because those states do not exist.

 

[elemenohpee]

Medatripper, science does not have to take place in the laboratory. The type of science I am talking about is any use of the scientific method. You use this all the time without realizing it, i gave an example of a light switch not working earlier. I assume you integrate your experiences into your normal life? If the knowledge gained during your meditation did not line up with your experiences in the real world, then you would not continue to hold those beliefs. You came to believe those things through a type of science, this is what I was reffering to.

I may be completely missing your point because I'm not clear on what type pf experiences you're reffering to. Could you attempt to explain them?

 

[satricion]

consciousness, wakefulness, alertness, mindfulness, etc. when i am more of these, the more free will i feel i have. to reduce this to logic is to create an image, a shadow, around the real thing that consciousness is. for me, trying to figure out consciousness by using logic is only covering myself in ignorance and unconsciousness. from my experience, that is.

This is basically the same as someone's earlier argument. Experiencing something doesn't make it so.

For your argument to work here you need to somehow claim that consciousness (or alertness or whatever) would make you immune from:

1) All physical laws (if they exist).
2) Randomness (should there be no physical laws.
3) The laws of causality (so that you can cause your own mindset).

You haven't done this. Free will is logically impossible. I don't see how you've argued against any of my previous arguments at all here. Until you can formulate an argument that there is some mindset possible that makes you immune from anything that governs the way anything works then your argument fails.