11 Feb 03
Originally posted by bbarrI'm no philosopher, but here's my contribution.
Here's an intuitive illusrtation of what I take to be the notion of free will that people take themselves to have:
Suppose there are two worlds, A and B. Suppose that A and B have identical histories; they are physically identical and are governed by the same laws. Suppose that I am in world A. Now I'll have a doppleganger in world B, physically and men ...[text shortened]... rget of my argument. I find myself driven (against my will 🙂) to the compatibilist position.
Not all decisions are deliberated.
I don't deliberate decisions where my choice will have no effect on the outcome. I don't deliberate decisions where the outcome is inconsequential. I don't deliberate when the two choices are identical and indistinguishable. If I don't deliberate, then my decision cannot be affected by past experiences/events and so that decision (even though I don't care about it) is made of my own free will.
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by bbarrOh, OK, now that you put it that way, it makes perfect sense. Dammit, I've got idea what in the hell that is. Please do not bother to explain to the idiots of the world like Rob and myself. I will just go on the record as saying that Bennett is the most brilliant mind on the site. I am humbled by your brilliance. Do I hear an "amen" ?😉 Kirk
Well here's the proof:
{p} 1. (x) (Ax ---> Ex)
{p} 2. (x) (Ex ---> (Cx v Ux))
{p} 3. (x) (Ux ---> Rx)
4. Aa ---> Ea Universal Specification from
5. Ea ---> (Ca v Ua) Universal Specification from 2
6. Ua ---> Ra Universal Specification from 3
7. Aa ---> (Ca v Ua) from 4 and 5
{P} 8. Aa
9. Ca v Ua From 7 and 8
...[text shortened]... and 14
16. Aa ---> (Ca v Ra) Conditionalization from 8 and 15
So aha I'm right.
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by rwingettHow did you get that frorm what I wrote? That was just a thought experiment trying to illustrate the sort of freedom people take themselves to have; namely, a freedom such that a complete description of the world at the instant prior to an act of their will is not sufficient to determine the decision they'll make.
So are you saying that all parallel universes would be identical?
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by bbarrI don't think that the lack of free will necessarily rules out different parallel universes. There are still those 'random' events which can happen in any way you like.
How did you get that frorm what I wrote? That was just a thought experiment trying to illustrate the sort of freedom people take themselves to have; namely, a freedom such that a complete description of the world at the instant prior to an act of their will is not sufficient to determine the decision they'll make.
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by timmoI'm not sure you've got a handle on the argument here...
I'm no philosopher, but here's my contribution.
Not all decisions are deliberated.
I don't deliberate decisions where my choice will have no effect on the outcome. I don't deliberate decisions where the outcome is inconsequential. I don't deliberate when the two choices are identical and indistinguishable. If I don't deliberate, then my decision ca ...[text shortened]... es/events and so that decision (even though I don't care about it) is made of my own free will.
Are your decisions caused by something, or are they random?
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by kirksey957Why 'lil 'ol me? Thanks Kirk, but I think it has more to do with the home court advantage, I have to teach this stuff, after all.😉
Oh, OK, now that you put it that way, it makes perfect sense. Dammit, I've got idea what in the hell that is. Please do not bother to explain to the idiots of the world like Rob and myself. I will just go on the record as saying that Bennett is the most brilliant mind on the site. I am humbled by your brilliance. Do I hear an "amen" ?😉 Kirk
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by bbarrYou were talking about world A and world B with you inhabiting one and a doppleganger of you inhabiting the other. It just made me think of parallel universes...I don't know why. I'm sorry...please don't hurt me. :'(
How did you get that frorm what I wrote? That was just a thought experiment trying to illustrate the sort of freedom people take themselves to have; namely, a freedom such that a complete description of the world at the instant prior to an act of their will is not sufficient to determine the decision they'll make.
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by royalchickenI'm no philosopher, but I reckon statement 3 - that an uncaused event is random - is only necessarily true if you also accept the conclusion that there is no free will. You could counter by arguing that free will can produce an uncaused, yet non-random event. Indeed, you might even want to define free will by this ability.
I don't see what's being argued here. I think Acolyte may have hit on this before, but certain parts of the argument seem ill-defined. Also, I think your argument should be extended backwards a bit so it can rest on sounder axioms; statement #3 is quite weak. I think if you defined "caused" and "random" better, and had some more fundamental bas ...[text shortened]... uld tend to agree with the conclusion, through other arguments I have seen. Where is this from?
Now I'm not saying that such an argument provides any sort of proof that free will exists - merely that statement 3 also offers no proof of its truth. And any premise which relies on a conclusion drawn from it to demonstrate its own truth must surely be pretty weak.
Am I making any sense here? I'm beginning to doubt myself.
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by rwingettLOL, jeez...I'm sorry. Am I coming across as a bit rabid 🙄?
You were talking about world A and world B with you inhabiting one and a doppleganger of you inhabiting the other. It just made me think of parallel universes...I don't know why. I'm sorry...please don't hurt me. :'(
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by bbarrWhat makes you such a genius , Bennett, is that you have found a way to make a living teaching this stuff. To me that boggles the mind more than the reasoning of this argument. 😉 Kirk
Why 'lil 'ol me? Thanks Kirk, but I think it has more to do with the home court advantage, I have to teach this stuff, after all.😉
11 Feb 03
1 edit
Originally posted by richhoeyThe conclusion of the original argument, way back on the first page, was that we have no free will, so I'm not sure how the premise could tacitly rely on that conclusion. What you're claiming, in effect, is that if you disagree with that conclusion, then you'll have to reject the premise that says if an event is uncaused, then it is random. This seems right to me as well. You really hit the nail on the head when you say that "free will can produce an uncaused, yet non-random event". This is precisely what people would have to say if they want to retain free will but are unwilling to accept the characterization of free will provided by compatibilism. So the problem becomes making sense of how one event could bring about another event without causing it. This seems like a very hard problem. So hard it borders on incoherence. It borders on incoherence because it seems like we use the term 'cause' precisely to refer to one event bringing about another event.
I'm no philosopher, but I reckon statement 3 - that an uncaused event is random - is only necessarily true if you also accept the conclusion that there is no free will. You could counter by arguing that free will can produce an uncaused, ...[text shortened]... ak.
Am I making any sense here? I'm beginning to doubt myself.
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by richhoeyThank you, richhoey!
I'm no philosopher, but I reckon statement 3 - that an uncaused event is random - is only necessarily true if you also accept the conclusion that there is no free will. You could counter by arguing that free will can produce an uncaused, yet non-random event. Indeed, you might even want to define free will by this ability.
Now I'm not saying that such ...[text shortened]... truth must surely be pretty weak.
Am I making any sense here? I'm beginning to doubt myself.
This makes perfect sense to me. I've been trying to put my finger on why the original argument posted by bbarr didn't sit well, and I think you've done it.
11 Feb 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrIn the context of this thread, I think that there is a different meaning of 'caused' at play than the usual meaning. By saying an event is 'caused', what you're saying is that the event was the one and only inevitable result dictated by the state of the universe immediately preceding the event. Therefore, by claiming that every event is either 'caused' or 'random', you have assumed that there are no other types of events, i.e. an event which I 'cause' to happen by exerting my will and altering my surroundings. We have already agreed that 'random' events are not 'caused.'
The conclusion of the original argument, way back on the first page, was that we have no free will, so I'm not sure how the premise could tacitly rely on that conclusion. What you're claiming, in effect, is that if you disagree with that c ...[text shortened]... se' precisely to refer to one event bringing about another event.
The argument that I could not have caused anything to happen differently than I in fact did cause it to happen is again based on the assumption that there is no free will. I could equally argue that I did indeed make things happen differently than they would have happened, by exerting my free will. There is no way to verify either of our arguments, since I can not go back in time to test my ability to alter the outcome of past events.
Furthermore, if you follow the deterministic arguement to it's logical conclusion, you must either label the beginning of the universe as a 'random' event, or you must rely on some 'cause' which wasn't 'caused.'
11 Feb 03
Originally posted by richjohnsonAs far as I can tell, I'm the only one doing any arguing here. Your merely asserting that there is an event (an exertion of will) that is not random, and is not caused. Furthermore, you seem to be claiming that this exertion of your will is brought about by you in some way. Now if you go back to the second page of this thread, you'll find where I did define 'cause': This is what I said "Let's say the cause of an event is another event, preceding it in time and sufficient to bring it about". So in the context of this argument, if you were right that there was something within you sufficient to bring about an exertion of your will without cuasing it, you would in fact be claiming that there was something within you that both causes and does not cause the exertion of your will. Perhpas you find nothing wrong with this stark contradiction, but if that is so, then there is no point in continuing this argument, as anyone embraces a contradiction is to that extent irrational. So if you'd like to actually begin arguing for your postion, that would be fine. May I suggest that you begin by telling me how it's the case that something in you can bring about an exertion of your will without causing it, given that 'cause' is DEFINED as 'sufficient to bring about'. Furthermore, to claim that the argument is weak because it assumes that a contradiction of this sort cannot be a viable postion is to fail to appreciate what constitutes a good argument. I start with two things we all have an intuitve understanding of, something being caused and something being random. The argument shows that neither of the options leads to the type of free will we seem to want (the type of radical freedom illustrated in the 'parallel worlds' thought example). Additionally, I am not claiming that exertions of your will make no difference to the world, on the contrary, it is by exerting your will that you act. Wht I am claiming is that your exerting your will is an event, and as such either caused or random, and in either case beyond your control. So the manner in which you will exert your will is either already determined prior to the exertion, or it is just something that happens without cause. Two more points: First, verifiabilty is irrelevant in this context. Here we are dealing with the implications of our concepts, not with contingent facts about the world. You cannot verify logical truths either...logical truths would be presupposed by any attempt at their verification. Second: If you follow determinism back you never get a beginning of the universe.
In the context of this thread, I think that there is a different meaning of 'caused' at play than the usual meaning. By saying an event is 'caused', what you're saying is that the event was the one and only inevitable result dictated by the state of the universe immediately preceding the event. Therefore, by claiming that every event is either 'c ...[text shortened]... the universe as a 'random' event, or you must rely on some 'cause' which wasn't 'caused.'