Oh Free-Will. Where art Thou???

[firedragon]

Could the term "philosophical proof" be an oxymoron. When did philosophy prove anything?

In my opinion.

Try to be a little humble and ask a valid question.

Philosophical proof, logical proof, etc are not like scientific evidence. Its no oxymoron, but just that you didnt take a minute or two to read up.

In philosophy, when someone presents an adequate argument for a proposition, that is called proof. Its no oxymoron.

 

[danieldemol]

Try to be a little humble and ask a valid question.

Philosophical proof, logical proof, etc are not like scientific evidence. Its no oxymoron, but just that you didnt take a minute or two to read up.

In philosophy, when someone presents an adequate argument for a proposition, that is called proof. Its no oxymoron.

Why is it called proof when some new avenue of philosophical enquiry may turn it on its head? Surely philosophy can't protect itself from unknown unknowns?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Why is it called proof when some new avenue of philosophical enquiry may turn it on its head? Surely philosophy can't protect itself from unknown unknowns?

Nothing can protect itself from unknown unknown.

Anyway, if you want to question why in the philosophy field why they call it "proof", open a new thread and maybe some people will contribute.

 

[KWED]

Hard determinism will typically say we don't have free-will. Even in the position of hard determinism, free-will is accommodated in some schools of God believers. Not in a naturalistic philosophical manner, but within the theology where God has knowledge. The problem remains we tend to think God knows what I will do the next minute, and there is only one variable. Do you understand? One variable means I am going to drink tea at 5:15 PM today and that's the only think I am going to do at that time, and God knows it. I have no other option or any chance of doing anything else.

IN this case also, what you should know is that this knowledge of God matter could also mean God knows every single variable. Just that, we don't understand the variables. This is one school of thought.

Nevertheless, philosophers argue about determinism and libertarianism. Atheists too. A lot of atheistic philosophers argue for determinism, as well as the flip side. Thus, even some atheists dont believe in free will, and claim that we have already been determined in our actions. Thus, this is not necessarily a God problem.

So bottomline is, a strong position is that every occurrence, action, are either determined by causality, or random. What one must think about is that lets say a person is today worrying about free will, what caused him or her to do so? Was it nurture or nature? Lets say it was nurture, then maybe the society or the parents had some influence on them. If its nature, he was born to worry about free will. Thus, considering nurture again, what nurtured the parents or the society to influence him? Why did they question it, act in a certain way, or speak out? Did they also do it that way because it was all determined? Or is it a combination of nurture and nature both? Were they all determined to have this combination?

One would think if we have nurture and nature both in a particular event, can we have conflict in our minds prior to this event and the outcome of that conflict will decide what the event is or its outcome?

Compatibilists, which a school of thought say that this nature and nurture will give weight to both sides of the scale in our decision making process, and the heavier sides will tip the scale. So in this case prior to an event a human being will have multiple decisions to make, and that will have a causal chain which will also depend on decisions made with each link in that causal chain.

Now this is a purely naturalistic, philosophical argument for compatibilism.

Consider it carefully and apply that to your theistic model of God, free-will, and knowledge. Lets see where it could go.

If there are variables, the future is not known.
QED.

 

[stvdv]

Hard determinism will typically say we don't have free-will

Free-Will. Where art Thou???

"Free Will"
is for those who
"Will Free"
themselves from cycle of birth and death

 

[blü 2]

Hard determinism will typically say we don't have free-will. Even in the position of hard determinism, free-will is accommodated in some schools of God believers. Not in a naturalistic philosophical manner, but within the theology where God has knowledge. The problem remains we tend to think God knows what I will do the next minute, and there is only one variable. Do you understand? One variable means I am going to drink tea at 5:15 PM today and that's the only think I am going to do at that time, and God knows it. I have no other option or any chance of doing anything else.

IN this case also, what you should know is that this knowledge of God matter could also mean God knows every single variable. Just that, we don't understand the variables. This is one school of thought.

Nevertheless, philosophers argue about determinism and libertarianism. Atheists too. A lot of atheistic philosophers argue for determinism, as well as the flip side. Thus, even some atheists dont believe in free will, and claim that we have already been determined in our actions. Thus, this is not necessarily a God problem.

So bottomline is, a strong position is that every occurrence, action, are either determined by causality, or random. What one must think about is that lets say a person is today worrying about free will, what caused him or her to do so? Was it nurture or nature? Lets say it was nurture, then maybe the society or the parents had some influence on them. If its nature, he was born to worry about free will. Thus, considering nurture again, what nurtured the parents or the society to influence him? Why did they question it, act in a certain way, or speak out? Did they also do it that way because it was all determined? Or is it a combination of nurture and nature both? Were they all determined to have this combination?

One would think if we have nurture and nature both in a particular event, can we have conflict in our minds prior to this event and the outcome of that conflict will decide what the event is or its outcome?

Compatibilists, which a school of thought say that this nature and nurture will give weight to both sides of the scale in our decision making process, and the heavier sides will tip the scale. So in this case prior to an event a human being will have multiple decisions to make, and that will have a causal chain which will also depend on decisions made with each link in that causal chain.

Now this is a purely naturalistic, philosophical argument for compatibilism.

Consider it carefully and apply that to your theistic model of God, free-will, and knowledge. Lets see where it could go.

The difficulty, I'd say, is to describe the manner in which one's brain makes a decision without involving the nature of the brain, which is to say, a very complex biochemical and bioelectrical organ.

If one argues that something other than the brain makes the decision, then what's lacking is a clear description of what that something is, and by what process it makes the decision instead, and by what process it communicates that decision to the brain.

When we look at reality, the physical world, we see chains of causality occasionally interrupted by quantum randomness. Neither lets us escape with dignity from the reality of our being subject to physics such that we have power of making truly "free" decisions.

And I've never heard of any alternative to a physical explanation being proposed as we map the brain and explore its functions and how they interrelate.

Nor have I ever heard of a testable hypothesis, an alternative explanation, as to how the self could make a decision independently of the physical processes of the brain.

But if someone has one, I'm interested to hear it.

 

[firedragon]

The difficulty, I'd say, is to describe the manner in which one's brain makes a decision without involving the nature of the brain, which is to say, a very complex biochemical and bioelectrical organ.

If one argues that something other than the brain makes the decision, then what's lacking is a clear description of what that something is, and by what process it makes the decision instead, and by what process it communicates that decision to the brain.

When we look at reality, the physical world, we see chains of causality occasionally interrupted by quantum randomness. Neither lets us escape with dignity from the reality of our being subject to physics such that we have power of making truly "free" decisions.

And I've never heard of any alternative to a physical explanation being proposed as we map the brain and explore its functions and how they interrelate.

Nor have I ever heard of a testable hypothesis, an alternative explanation, as to how the self could make a decision independently of the physical processes of the brain.

But if someone has one, I'm interested to hear it.

Great. Thanks.

 

[Brian2]

If there are variables, the future is not known.
QED.

Is the future set if there are variables?
Is the future not known for someone who sees it, variables or not?

 

[Brian2]

The difficulty, I'd say, is to describe the manner in which one's brain makes a decision without involving the nature of the brain, which is to say, a very complex biochemical and bioelectrical organ.

If one argues that something other than the brain makes the decision, then what's lacking is a clear description of what that something is, and by what process it makes the decision instead, and by what process it communicates that decision to the brain.

The difficulty for a materialist is to describe the process by which molecules can become conscious and make decisions.
That in itself points to the existence of something else which is by it's very nature, alive and conscious.
Not so for science. Evidence like that is ignored because there is no substance to study except a brain, and so that must be conscious through the logic of a science that is illogical because of the rules that governs it.
You need to be willing to step beyond this science for some things.

When we look at reality, the physical world, we see chains of causality occasionally interrupted by quantum randomness. Neither lets us escape with dignity from the reality of our being subject to physics such that we have power of making truly "free" decisions.

And I've never heard of any alternative to a physical explanation being proposed as we map the brain and explore its functions and how they interrelate.

Nor have I ever heard of a testable hypothesis, an alternative explanation, as to how the self could make a decision independently of the physical processes of the brain.

But if someone has one, I'm interested to hear it.

Does the self make a decision independently of the physical brain? The brain collects and stores information somehow and provides that for the decisions that need to be made.

 

[firedragon]

Is the future set if there are variables?
Is the future not known for someone who sees it, variables or not?

Future how far? What future? The end? The middle?

What do you mean when you say future? Do you mean every single millisecond? Or are there milestones? Death?

Think about it.

 

[blü 2]

The difficulty for a materialist is to describe the process by which molecules can become conscious and make decisions.

That's been the subject of medical research for centuries, but particular since the 1990s when better tools for the job became available, and it became possible to watch eg blood flow as the brain operated, showing which parts were involved to address which questions the body (or the researcher) put to the subject. That research has only accelerated since then. I don't suggest that we have all the answers, BUT we're actively looking for them ─ unlike supporters of other views.

That in itself points to the existence of something else which is by it's very nature, alive and conscious.

See above ─ especially the failure of your team, not only not to have any evidence for that view, but to be actively looking for some.

Does the self make a decision independently of the physical brain?

No, but the sense of self is basic to all of us. How it arises is one of the questions that science is pursuing.

 

[firedragon]

See above ─ especially the failure of your team, not only not to have any evidence for that view, but to be actively looking for some.

when you speak of evidence here, and Brian speaking of something metaphysical, what is this evidence you are speaking about? Lets say in terms of determination vs libertarianism or/and compatibilism, @Brian2 is directly inferring something metaphysical. Thus, what is the evidence you are speaking about? Can you give an example? Or explain from your epistemic stand-point?

Thanks.

 

[danieldemol]

when you speak of evidence here, and Brian speaking of something metaphysical, what is this evidence you are speaking about? Lets say in terms of determination vs libertarianism or/and compatibilism, @Brian2 is directly inferring something metaphysical. Thus, what is the evidence you are speaking about? Can you give an example? Or explain from your epistemic stand-point?

Thanks.

It appears as though you are asking @blü 2 to provide evidence for Brian2's proposed idea.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to ask Brian2 for the evidence? After all its on him to provide evidence for his own ideas if he expects anyone not indoctrinated into his ideas to believe them.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

It appears as though you are asking @blü 2 to provide evidence for Brian2's proposed idea.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to ask Brian2 for the evidence? After all its on him to provide evidence for his own ideas if he expects anyone not indoctrinated into his ideas to believe them.

In my opinion.

Strange.

 

[blü 2]

when you speak of evidence here, and Brian speaking of something metaphysical, what is this evidence you are speaking about?

Evidence satisfactory to the skeptical but impartial onlooker.

Lets say in terms of determination vs libertarianism or/and compatibilism, @Brian2 is directly inferring something metaphysical. Thus, what is the evidence you are speaking about? Can you give an example? Or explain from your epistemic stand-point?

I take it you mean "metaphysical" in the supernatural rather than philosophical sense?

There's no problem unless the claim that something is supernatural is accompanied by the claim that it's also real ie has objective existence, can be found in the world external to the self, nature.

But if that is the claim, we'll first need an objective test that can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary /purely conceptual. I'm not aware of any.

Or if some other meaning of 'real' is intended, I'd be interested to hear its definition, and the test, under that definition, for whether something is real or not.

 

[firedragon]

Evidence satisfactory to the skeptical but impartial onlooker.

I understand that premise. But that's not a clear explanation of what evidence is in your paradigm.

I take it you mean "metaphysical" in the supernatural rather than philosophical sense?

Metaphysics is a component of philosophy. It means things that transcend physical sciences in a broad sense. What belongs to that is metaphysical.

There's no problem unless the claim that something is supernatural is accompanied by the claim that it's also real ie has objective existence, can be found in the world external to the self, nature.

But if that is the claim, we'll first need an objective test that can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary /purely conceptual. I'm not aware of any.

Or if some other meaning of 'real' is intended, I'd be interested to hear its definition, and the test, under that definition, for whether something is real or not.

Thus, what is the evidence as described by you? From your epistemic position!

 

[firedragon]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to ask Brian2 for the evidence? After all its on him to provide evidence for his own ideas if he expects anyone not indoctrinated into his ideas to believe them.

Do you believe there is anything metaphysical? Like God concepts, deities, divinity, meta physical truths, anything at all?

 

[blü 2]

I understand that premise. But that's not a clear explanation of what evidence is in your paradigm.

That will depend on the topic. I think what we're talking about here is the definition of 'real'. As you know, to me 'objective reality' is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses, and 'real' means having objective existence. So if the claim is that some particular concept is based on a real counterpart, as with "God" for example, what we need is evidence of the reality (with the meaning I mentioned) of that being.

If some other meaning of 'real' is intended, it needs to be clearly defined so that it can be understood, and the test for what is real according to this definition can be clearly identified.

Metaphysics is a component of philosophy. It means things that transcend physical sciences in a broad sense. What belongs to that is metaphysical.

Not quite. Let me offer this quote from the metaphysical philosopher David Armstrong:

there are a great number of notions that [...] we can call topic neutral notions. Instances are cause, class, property, relation, quality, kind, resemblance, quantity, number, substance, fact, truth, law of nature, power, and others. These notions are perfectly general, are very difficult to analyse and interconnect, and give rise to controversy [...] They are not exhausted by logic or mathematics. It is these sorts of notions, I suggest, that metaphysics strives to give a systematic account of.​

Thus, what is the evidence as described by you? From your epistemic position!

I hope I made that clear above. If not, let me know.

 

[firedragon]

That will depend on the topic.

when you speak of evidence here, and Brian speaking of something metaphysical, what is this evidence you are speaking about? Lets say in terms of determination vs libertarianism or/and compatibilism, @Brian2 is directly inferring something metaphysical. Thus, what is the evidence you are speaking about? Can you give an example? Or explain from your epistemic stand-point?

Not quite. Let me offer this quote from the metaphysical philosopher David Armstrong:

there are a great number of notions that [...] we can call topic neutral notions. Instances are cause, class, property, relation, quality, kind, resemblance, quantity, number, substance, fact, truth, law of nature, power, and others. These notions are perfectly general, are very difficult to analyse and interconnect, and give rise to controversy [...] They are not exhausted by logic or mathematics. It is these sorts of notions, I suggest, that metaphysics strives to give a systematic account of.

So how does he disagree with the understanding of metaphysical I had given? Where? I ask since you said "not quite".

I hope I made that clear above. If not, let me know.

Not at all. You did not address it. From your epistemic position, what do you deem is evidence?

 

[blü 2]

when you speak of evidence here, and Brian speaking of something metaphysical, what is this evidence you are speaking about? Lets say in terms of determination vs libertarianism or/and compatibilism, @Brian2 is directly inferring something metaphysical. Thus, what is the evidence you are speaking about? Can you give an example? Or explain from your epistemic stand-point?

If @Brian2 wants to argue that God is real

then first we need his definition of "real", and the test that follows from it as to whether any X is real or not.

You already have my definition of "real".