Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-22-2016, 08:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXX
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
I just remembered why I don't usually get into these discussions. All I see is endless meandering semantic games that people have been playing for centuries.
Wittgenstein, Tractatus:
Quote:
6.53 The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method.
If one wants to talk about philosophical topics, one must be clear about the concepts one is using. Sometimes dis-covering the correct meanings of certain concepts solve a philosophical problem completely. So the case with the seemingly contradictory concepts of free will and determinism. Under the correct definitions of laws of nature and what free will really is, the 'problem' is not solved: it just simply does not exist.

But it is OK if you are not interested in philosophy.
Putting a bandaid over the oil warning sign in your car doesn't get rid of the problem; it just ignores it. Changing the definition of free will that is more to your liking doesn't get rid of the problem. It just puts a spin on it that makes it appear as if there is no conflict. You keep using the concept "free will" as not being forced by the laws of nature. No determinist that I know is saying that you are being forced by the laws of nature such that your choice has been determined for you in advance of you making it. Although there is no law prescribing what you must choose, your life history, experiences, and heredity present conditions that push you in a certain direction for satisfaction, which is completely beyond your control. You are not free to choose the option that appears the least preferable in your eyes. You cannot do it. This natural law is descriptive. It is not telling you what you must choose in advance, but that does not mean your will is ever free (based on your compatibilist definition) to choose that which you prefer the least in comparison. For example, if choosing B (eating peanuts that I know will put me in anaphylactic shock which could kill me) is an impossible choice because it gives me less satisfaction under the circumstances (that is, if I prefer living over dying), then I am not free to choose A (choosing not to eat the peanuts). If a choice doesn't go as planned, this doesn't mean you can't make a "better" choice the next time a similar situation presents itself, but it certainly doesn't mean your will was ever free to choose that which you preferred less given your particular circumstances.
__________________
The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors -- John Stuart Mill


 “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-22-2016 at 08:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-23-2016, 07:37 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLVII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
I don't think it's any more silly than the whole discussion already is. Pretending to have solved a problem by defining it away, then claiming that definition is "the" correct one, implying that one has discovered the true definition that was out there somewhere to be discovered, that is pretty silly.
No idea what any of this means, except that you don't have the inclination to follow what is being presented and so reflexively oppose it. It's not silly at all, But welcome to peacegirl land. What an unlikely alliance.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:31 AM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXII
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
I don't think it's any more silly than the whole discussion already is. Pretending to have solved a problem by defining it away, then claiming that definition is "the" correct one, implying that one has discovered the true definition that was out there somewhere to be discovered, that is pretty silly.
It is not 'out there'. The silliness is yours.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:57 AM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXII
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You keep using the concept "free will" as not being forced by the laws of nature. No determinist that I know is saying that you are being forced by the laws of nature such that your choice has been determined for you in advance of you making it.
Right. I accentuated what I think is important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Although there is no law prescribing what you must choose, your life history, experiences, and heredity present conditions that push you in a certain direction for satisfaction, which is completely beyond your control.
As I already told many times, your concept of being in control is just wrong. If organisms in general had no control, how could you explain evolution? There is no contradiction between determinism and having control. What you mean is something like ultimate power over the complete universe for all times. That is just ridiculous. (But But would say, oh, that is just another definition, just as good as any other...)

And what is pushing different than forcing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are not free to choose the option that appears the least preferable in your eyes.
Being free is being able to do what you want. Wanting the least preferable is an absurdity. Nobody in her right mind would propose that free will means that you are able to do what you do not want. (Conclusion.... :chin: )
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-23-2016), The Man (07-23-2016)
  #55  
Old 07-23-2016, 12:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXX
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You keep using the concept "free will" as not being forced by the laws of nature. No determinist that I know is saying that you are being forced by the laws of nature such that your choice has been determined for you in advance of you making it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
Right. I accentuated what I think is important.
No one always knows, not even the person himself, what choice he will make in advance of him making it. This does nothing to support free will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Although there is no law prescribing what you must choose, your life history, experiences, and heredity present conditions that push you in a certain direction for satisfaction, which is completely beyond your control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
As I already told many times, your concept of being in control is just wrong. If organisms in general had no control, how could you explain evolution?
I'm not sure where evolution points to an organism having control over the conditions of his environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
There is no contradiction between determinism and having control. What you mean is something like ultimate power over the complete universe for all times. That is just ridiculous. (But But would say, oh, that is just another definition, just as good as any other...)
Man's will is not free means man's choices are beyond his control. Some choices are obviously not the ones society would like him to make. Unfortunately, even the harshest penalties will not deter some people from doing harm to others. There is a better solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
And what is pushing different than forcing?
It just means that our environment, along with our heredity, create the conditions that compel us to favor one alternative over another. It doesn't mean we are being forced against our will, or without our consent.

Quote:
You are not free to choose the option that appears the least preferable in your eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
Being free is being able to do what you want. Wanting the least preferable is an absurdity. Nobody in her right mind would propose that free will means that you are able to do what you do not want. (Conclusion.... :chin: )
You are blocked. Free will means we can choose either/or; that there is no meaningful difference between choice A or choice B. That's absurd and makes a mockery out of our ability to contemplate.
__________________
The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors -- John Stuart Mill


 “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-23-2016, 12:48 PM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXII
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Free will means we can choose either/or; that there is no meaningful difference between choice A or choice B.
Please find this definition in a dictionary or philosophical encyclopedia.

Last time I looked following element belongs to every meaningful definition of free will: the ability to act according my intentions. So if I intend not to do A and therefore do B, it is a perfect candidate for a free action. Nowhere you will find that there must not be a meaningful difference between choice A or choice B.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-23-2016), The Man (07-23-2016)
  #57  
Old 07-23-2016, 03:17 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXX
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Free will means we can choose either/or; that there is no meaningful difference between choice A or choice B.
Please find this definition in a dictionary or philosophical encyclopedia.
It doesn't matter how it's worded. It's the meaning behind the words. By saying we were free to have chosen either/or it is saying that we could have chosen something other than what we chose, which is a free will that is not compatible with determinism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
Last time I looked following element belongs to every meaningful definition of free will: the ability to act according my intentions.
Yes, that's true, and your intentions are based on all the life experiences that have brought you to this moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
So if I intend not to do A and therefore do B, it is a perfect candidate for a free action. Nowhere you will find that there must not be a meaningful difference between choice A or choice B.
No way GdB. That is a slick way to get people to think that they are a free candidate. If you intend not to do A because B appears the better choice [in your estimation, not someone else's), you were not free to choose A because that would have been the less preferable choice in comparison. It is impossible to choose something that is less preferable to an option that is more preferable given your set of circumstances. It is a law of nature that we are compelled to choose the option that gives us the greater satisfaction. If you can't see this, it isn't the fault of the principle that is being demonstrating. All I can do is give you examples to show you that there are no exceptions to this law. This is an accurate observation which is based in reality, not an arbitrary definition of a free will we don't have.
__________________
The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors -- John Stuart Mill


 “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-23-2016, 03:42 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MMMCMXXXIII
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
That has to depend on "what we style free will". I don't see how this sort of argument changes anything.
I think what Swartz is showing (in my opinion convincing) that the idea that laws of nature force us to do things is just wrong.
That's debatable. Why don't you try to jump to the moon? Every time you fall down, you can try to convince yourself that you weren't "forced" to do that.

Quote:
So how can you argue then, that the laws of nature constrain our free will? The problem for hard determinists is that their 'attack' on free will is invalid, because it uses a wrong concept of laws of nature.
I think Swartz's idea of natural laws is hopelessly misguided.

Quote:
The idea of 'could have done otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, including my brain state', is an methodological unjustified extension of what we mean with free will in daily life.
Why? And what we mean by free will in daily life is almost certainly a pychological illusion anyway; we feel we have the freedom to choose even when our brain has already made a decision.

Last edited by But; 07-23-2016 at 05:08 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
peacegirl (07-23-2016)
  #59  
Old 07-23-2016, 03:49 PM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXII
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Free will means we can choose either/or; that there is no meaningful difference between choice A or choice B.
Please find this definition in a dictionary or philosophical encyclopedia.
It doesn't matter how it's worded. It's the meaning behind the words.
In other words, you know you will not find such a definition anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
By saying we were free to have chosen either/or it is saying that we could have chosen something other than what we chose, which is a free will that is not compatible with determinism.
No. This is 'could have chosen otherwise, even if my brain state was exactly the same'. I do not adhere to this concept of free will, and you know that too.

The way we should read 'could have done otherwise' is the same as 'That was very dangerous what you did, you could have fallen!'. How would you react? 'No, I could not have fallen, because the world is determined'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
So if I intend not to do A and therefore do B, it is a perfect candidate for a free action. Nowhere you will find that there must not be a meaningful difference between choice A or choice B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you intend not to do A because B appears the better choice [in your estimation, not someone else's), you were not free to choose A because that would have been the less preferable choice in comparison.
Total BS. You will find no single philosopher who agrees with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is a law of nature that we are compelled to choose the option that gives us the greater satisfaction.
Total BS again. If I like to do something, and are able to do it, there is no compulsion anywhere. You are raping the meaning of the the verb to compel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All I can do is give you examples to show you that there are no exceptions to this law.
I know. It is because the definition is circular, and therefore is not based on reality at all.

So this is BS too:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is an accurate observation which is based in reality, not an arbitrary definition of a free will we don't have.
'Being compelled to choose the option that gives us the greater satisfaction' is exactly such an arbitrary, and meaningless definition.

And now please go away. You are endlessly repeating the same, and therefore I am too. I have to correct your same errors over and over again. Otherwise I will have to charge you for philosophy lessons.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-23-2016), The Man (07-23-2016)
  #60  
Old 07-23-2016, 05:33 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLVII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
That's debatable. Why don't you try to jump to the moon? Every time you fall down, you can try to convince yourself that you weren't "forced" to do that.
Really, do you believe Swartz’s view of the laws of nature is such that he thinks we can jump to the moon? In any case, getting a “thanks” from peacegirl ought to tip you off that you’re on the wrong path. :cheesywink:

To repeat, I would never demand that someone read everything Swartz wrote in order to intelligibly discuss his claims. But one has to be at least glancingly familiar with his main points in order to have a sensible discussion.

You could just read this. It’s not very long. Note from the linked material:

Quote:
It's true that you cannot 'violate' a law of nature, but that's not because the laws of nature 'force' you to behave in some certain way. It is rather that whatever you do, there is a true description of what you have done. You certainly don't get to choose the laws that describe the charge on an electron or the properties of hydrogen and oxygen that explain their combining to form water. But you do get to choose a great many other laws. How do you do that? Simply by doing whatever you do in fact do.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-23-2016), The Man (07-23-2016)
  #61  
Old 07-23-2016, 07:08 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLVII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Another problem I have with Swartz is the idea of physical necessity (see here). It seems to me that something like physical necessity exists: given some conditions, the consequences are necessary. This of course does not mean that the laws under which we are able to describe the consequences force the consequences to occur. But as I understand Swartz, he concludes from the contingency of the conditions, the consequences are also contingent. But I think they are only contingent as far as the conditions are contingent. Given the truth of a set of conditions, the consequences are physically necessary.
To reply to this, I will quote from here.

Quote:
There is no physical necessity, either in laws or in nature itself. There is no intermediate state between logical necessity on the one hand and sheer contingency on the other.
To state it another way, there is, in the possible worlds heuristic of modal logic that Swartz espouses, simply no modal category of “physical necessity.”
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-23-2016), The Man (07-24-2016)
  #62  
Old 07-23-2016, 08:17 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MMMCMXXXIII
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
That's debatable. Why don't you try to jump to the moon? Every time you fall down, you can try to convince yourself that you weren't "forced" to do that.
Really, do you believe Swartz’s view of the laws of nature is such that he thinks we can jump to the moon? In any case, getting a “thanks” from peacegirl ought to tip you off that you’re on the wrong path. :cheesywink:
:lol:

Ah, argument by thanks. I see.

Quote:
You could just read this. It’s not very long. Note from the linked material:

Quote:
It's true that you cannot 'violate' a law of nature, but that's not because the laws of nature 'force' you to behave in some certain way. It is rather that whatever you do, there is a true description of what you have done. You certainly don't get to choose the laws that describe the charge on an electron or the properties of hydrogen and oxygen that explain their combining to form water. But you do get to choose a great many other laws. How do you do that? Simply by doing whatever you do in fact do.
We get to choose laws of nature and there are infinitely many of them. That's pretty silly.

Last edited by But; 07-23-2016 at 10:27 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-23-2016, 08:38 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLVII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
That's debatable. Why don't you try to jump to the moon? Every time you fall down, you can try to convince yourself that you weren't "forced" to do that.
Really, do you believe Swartz’s view of the laws of nature is such that he thinks we can jump to the moon? In any case, getting a “thanks” from peacegirl ought to tip you off that you’re on the wrong path. :cheesywink:
:lol:

Ah, argument by thanks. I see.
Oh, no, seriously? You think I made an "argument by thanks," as opposed to just a (partial) joke? (I certainly would worry if peacegirl thanked me). No, I made an argument to the effect that what you claimed Swartz said, is not what he said, and I presented you with a link to his own work -- not very long -- to show you what he did say. It doesn't even come close to what you claimed he said. That's the argument -- but I see you have no actual interest in discussing this incredibly interesting topic, but merely in making lazy and ill-informed comments. What a surprise on the Internet!

Quote:

We get to choose law of nature and there are infinitely many of them. That's pretty silly.
Congratulations on another display of intellectual laziness and general assholery. What don't you read this to try to understand what he is talking about: the difference between a necessitarian account of the laws of nature, and the neo-Humnean or regularity account of them. He subscribes to the latter.

You know, you're awfully dismissive of a guy, Swartz, who holds a B.A. in physics from Harvard University, and an M.A. and a P.h.D. in the history and philosophy of science, and who moreover taught philosophy for years at Simon Fraser University, a highly rated liberal arts college. This is not an appeal to credentials -- I'm not saying what he says must be right because of his credentials. I'm saying it must be awfully strange to suppose that someone with this background would believe, for example, that we can jump to the moon if we want -- which is what you claimed he said.

But, again, if you don't actually want to discuss this topic, why not leave the thread for those that do? Of course you can do as you wish; but if you shit up the thread again I'll just pass over your comments in silence.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-23-2016), The Man (07-24-2016)
  #64  
Old 07-23-2016, 10:22 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MMMCMXXXIII
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I'm saying it must be awfully strange to suppose that someone with this background would believe, for example, that we can jump to the moon if we want -- which is what you claimed he said.
No, I'm giving an example that highlights how absurd the position is that we aren't forced to do anything by laws of nature. If you try to jump to the moon, the laws of physics force you to come down much more effectively than someone with a shotgun.

Quote:
But, again, if you don't actually want to discuss this topic, why not leave the thread for those that do? Of course you can do as you wish; but if you shit up the thread again I'll just pass over your comments in silence.
Thank you, I think I'll choose some more laws of nature by shitting up this thread.
:angrynana:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
peacegirl (07-23-2016)
  #65  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:03 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXX
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Free will means we can choose either/or; that there is no meaningful difference between choice A or choice B.
Please find this definition in a dictionary or philosophical encyclopedia.
It doesn't matter how it's worded. It's the meaning behind the words.
In other words, you know you will not find such a definition anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
By saying we were free to have chosen either/or it is saying that we could have chosen something other than what we chose, which is a free will that is not compatible with determinism.
No. This is 'could have chosen otherwise, even if my brain state was exactly the same'. I do not adhere to this concept of free will, and you know that too.

The way we should read 'could have done otherwise' is the same as 'That was very dangerous what you did, you could have fallen!'. How would you react? 'No, I could not have fallen, because the world is determined'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
So if I intend not to do A and therefore do B, it is a perfect candidate for a free action. Nowhere you will find that there must not be a meaningful difference between choice A or choice B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you intend not to do A because B appears the better choice [in your estimation, not someone else's), you were not free to choose A because that would have been the less preferable choice in comparison.
Total BS. You will find no single philosopher who agrees with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is a law of nature that we are compelled to choose the option that gives us the greater satisfaction.
Total BS again. If I like to do something, and are able to do it, there is no compulsion anywhere. You are raping the meaning of the the verb to compel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All I can do is give you examples to show you that there are no exceptions to this law.
I know. It is because the definition is circular, and therefore is not based on reality at all.

So this is BS too:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is an accurate observation which is based in reality, not an arbitrary definition of a free will we don't have.
'Being compelled to choose the option that gives us the greater satisfaction' is exactly such an arbitrary, and meaningless definition.

And now please go away. You are endlessly repeating the same, and therefore I am too. I have to correct your same errors over and over again. Otherwise I will have to charge you for philosophy lessons.
I will not go away until it gives me satisfaction to go away, and right now I find it more preferable to stay right where I am. This gives me no free coice. My will is not free to do otherwise.
__________________
The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors -- John Stuart Mill


 “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXX
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
That's debatable. Why don't you try to jump to the moon? Every time you fall down, you can try to convince yourself that you weren't "forced" to do that.
Really, do you believe Swartz’s view of the laws of nature is such that he thinks we can jump to the moon? In any case, getting a “thanks” from peacegirl ought to tip you off that you’re on the wrong path. :cheesywink:
Is that the most disgusting thing you've ever heard? Trying to use past history in a goofy thread to discredit this most revolutionary work? He is so completely out in left field that anyone who engages with him should be made aware of his arrogance and false logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
To repeat, I would never demand that someone read everything Swartz wrote in order to intelligibly discuss his claims. But one has to be at least glancingly familiar with his main points in order to have a sensible discussion.
The fact is he is wrong in his analysis, PERIOD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
You could just read this. It’s not very long. Note from the linked material:

Quote:
It's true that you cannot 'violate' a law of nature, but that's not because the laws of nature 'force' you to behave in some certain way. It is rather that whatever you do, there is a true description of what you have done. You certainly don't get to choose the laws that describe the charge on an electron or the properties of hydrogen and oxygen that explain their combining to form water. But you do get to choose a great many other laws. How do you do that? Simply by doing whatever you do in fact do.
This is such bullshit I don't know where to begin. Most certainly I won't begin with the premise that WE get to choose a great many other laws. This is such screwed up logic, I hope nobody takes David seriously, or they're in deep trouble.
__________________
The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors -- John Stuart Mill


 “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:09 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCXXI
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I will not go away until it gives me satisfaction to go away, and right now I find it more preferable to stay right where I am than to leave. My will is not free to do otherwise.
By the same token, you lie, weasel and evade questions because it gives you more satisfaction to do that than to just answer the damn questions.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (07-24-2016)
  #68  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXX
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I will not go away until it gives me satisfaction to go away, and right now I find it more preferable to stay right where I am than to leave. My will is not free to do otherwise.
By the same token, you lie, weasel and evade questions because it gives you more satisfaction to do that than to just answer the damn questions.
You have not done your homework Angakuk, so I have no desire to talk to you at all. Keep making fun of a discovery that will change the world for the better, but of course you don't care about that because Christianity says man's will is free. All you care about is being right for your own personal reasons.
__________________
The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors -- John Stuart Mill


 “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:55 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCXXI
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I will not go away until it gives me satisfaction to go away, and right now I find it more preferable to stay right where I am than to leave. My will is not free to do otherwise.
By the same token, you lie, weasel and evade questions because it gives you more satisfaction to do that than to just answer the damn questions.
You have not done your homework Angakuk, so I have no desire to talk to you at all. Keep making fun of a discovery that will change the world for the better, but of course you don't care about that because Christianity says man's will is free. All you care about is being right for your own personal reasons.
It may be the case that I have not done my homework, whatever it is that you conceive that to be. However, it is clear that you have failed to do your homework before making sweeping statements about what Christianity has to say with regard to the freedom of the will. The nature of the human will and the extent to which it may be said to free or not free has long been a point of contention within Christian circles.

Knowing your preference for videos over actually reading books I cordially refer you to "Free Will is a Downright LIE!" - MARTIN LUTHER - On The Bondage of the Will. - Introduction. - YouTube Be warned, there are 17 videos in this series.

For a summary of the key elements of the debate between Erasmus and Luther over the freedom of the will I refer you to this wikipedia article.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:

Last edited by Angakuk; 07-24-2016 at 12:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (07-24-2016), The Man (07-24-2016)
  #70  
Old 07-24-2016, 12:17 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLVII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

From Angakuk's linked wiki piece:

Quote:
He argued against the belief that God's foreknowledge of events was the cause of events...
:2thumbsup:

Anticipating modal logic five four centuries before it was invented/discovered. :golfclap:

Last edited by davidm; 07-24-2016 at 12:21 AM. Reason: edited cuz I can't always count. :derp:
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-24-2016, 12:43 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MMMCMXXXIII
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
From Angakuk's linked wiki piece:

Quote:
He argued against the belief that God's foreknowledge of events was the cause of events...
:2thumbsup:

Anticipating modal logic five four centuries before it was invented/discovered. :golfclap:
:lol:

Erasmus of Rotterdam was anticipating modal logic. That's a new one.

Last edited by But; 07-24-2016 at 01:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-24-2016, 01:19 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCXXI
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

No, that was part of the summary of Erasmus of Rotterdam's argument.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-24-2016, 01:34 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MMMCMXXXIII
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

:fixed:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-24-2016)
  #74  
Old 07-24-2016, 01:43 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLVII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
From Angakuk's linked wiki piece:

Quote:
He argued against the belief that God's foreknowledge of events was the cause of events...
:2thumbsup:

Anticipating modal logic five four centuries before it was invented/discovered. :golfclap:
:lol:

Erasmus of Rotterdam was anticipating modal logic. That's a new one.
Right. The argument that God's foreknowledge of events does not cause events is formalized by modal logic -- I've already done it in this very thread.

So in that sense the centuries-old argument anticipates that which was much later formalized.

But then, I don't expect you to grasp this, because it's increasingly evident that you're not very bright.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-24-2016, 01:50 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLVII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Free will in philosphy and science

St. Anselm's ontological argument can also be modalized, though it may be a stretch to say the style of his argument anticipated its formulation in modal terms. One person who gave a modal configuration of the Anselm argument was Kurt Gödel, who must have been a very stupid man by But's "lights."
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.23748 seconds with 14 queries