Oh Free-Will. Where art Thou???

[Brian2]

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.

I'm not sure exactly what you want evidence for.
In science I see nothing that provides evidence either way at the moment between a materialist pov and a spiritual pov. No I guess the lack of evidence for the spiritual pov can be seen as evidence for the materialist pov but that is not good evidence imo.
History and philosophy can provide evidence but that is not proof it seems.
Both pov require stepping beyond proof and into belief without proof.
If you want evidence for molecules not becoming conscious or not, science takes the methodological position that molecules can become conscious,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or think that they are conscious,,,,,,,,,,,,, and will not change that position it seems and so goes on with that presumption.

 

[Brian2]

Evidence satisfactory to the skeptical but impartial onlooker.

How can you claim impartiality when you hold positions without evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Sure, but not for rational reasons, I dont consider there to be evidence for any of the above, and because I don't know of evidence for them I couldn't give you an example of such evidence.

Not sure if this extra information is helpful, but I dont really believe in trying to convince non-believers that there is a God, because the hurdle of evidence is one I see i can't leap.

So I instead happily await God to provide evidence of God's existence. If God cares whether we believe or not it seems reasonable for God to provide it.

In my opinion.

God has provided evidence enough imo but it is not proof. But if you believe in God not for rational reasons then that can spill over into the rational if you allow it,,,,,,,,,,, if you want to justify your belief to yourself, even if not to others.

 

[firedragon]

That's why I asked you the clarifying question, which shows that your version of the meaning of metaphysics differs from his.

Nope. It does not. The meaning I gave you is not a "version". Its the accepted, universal definition, and he never ever will disagree in your entire life.

I've not only read his book, I've had lunch with him, thanks to a philosophical friend of mine at Stanford. (Armstrong was Australian, of course.)

In that case, you dishonoured him. I have never met him, nor had lunch with him. Only read his book. He is one of the few being a naturalist who wrote in such a variety of topics such as Advaitha, epistemology, etc. He will never in your life disagree with the explanation of metaphysics I gave you. Any atheist can relate to that definition if he has any idea of the topic. His epistemology might change. And mind you, he was all out for the combination or the love of affair between metaphysics and epistemology.

The End.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not sure that blü 2 is entirely the opposite of me, because we would both accept that I have no solid logical reason or evidence for faith which I could present to a disbelieving enquiring third party to convince them that my faith is justified.

Rather there is overlap between me and him, I have faith without evidence, he has no faith also without evidence.

So we have common ground even though in the singular aspect of having faith and having no faith we are opposite.

In my opinion.

It is hard to provide solid logical reason or evidence for faith to present to a disbelieving enquiring third party.
I would say it is also hard to provide solid logical reason or evidence for faith in a materialist pov to present to a disbelieving enquiring third party.
Belief either way justifies itself imo and sometimes the only evidence we have is our faith. No shame in that imo.
In the end it ends up as a choice either way imo.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

will: the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.

free will: the faculty by which a person decides on an initiates action is not under the control of another.

determinism: events, including human action, are determined by causes external to the will.

The Problem: if decisions are determined by causes external to the will, then people do not make "meaningful" choices (e.g. people are not morally responsible for their actions).

Compatibilism is the notion that free will and determinism are compatible.

But I don't understand the argument you have presented for compatibilism.
Are you saying that, people exert control on their future decisions through past decisions? But in determinism all decisions, past and future, are determined by causes external to the will.

 

[firedragon]

will: the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.

free will: the faculty by which a person decides on an initiates action is not under the control of another.

determinism: events, including human action, are determined by causes external to the will.

The Problem: if decisions are determined by causes external to the will, then people do not make "meaningful" choices (e.g. people are not morally responsible for their actions).

Compatibilism is the notion that free will and determinism are compatible.

But I don't understand the argument you have presented for compatibilism.
Are you saying that, people exert control on their future decisions through past decisions? But in determinism all decisions, past and future, are determined by causes external to the will.

Good post.

No, I am not saying "people exert control on their future decisions through past decisions".

I have already posted the compatibilists argument. its not my argument. Actually this is a particularly stressed argument by atheists. Since you asked, what I can do is cut and paste from the OP you have quoted in your post.

"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."

Cheers.

 

[blü 2]

Science has learnt some things about our computer, the brain and how it is connected with the body. That however does not tell us about how molecules become conscious and make decisions.

But it will. >This discussion< of consciousness may interest you.

Why do you suggest that science is owned by skeptics and atheists. It is the tool of all humans.

It's potentially that, but it's wholly materialistic. It thinks, as I do, that the supernatural is by definition purely conceptual / imaginary.

And of course it won't be molecules that are conscious, it will be biological-bioelectrical systems of molecules that will give rise to consciousness. The nervous system of any chordate animal will point the way to the systems of the human brain.

We can and do step beyond what the brain tells us. I for example am a Christian without proof and you, an atheist without proof.

To be technical, I'm not an atheist, I'm an igtheist, hence I confess I have no idea what real thing, thing with objective existence, "God" is, such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not ─ and no one seems able to tell me.

We like to think that we are rational in our choices, but our choices defy that and our reason can just be used to justify our beliefs much of the time.

Yes, that can sometimes be true, and it's good to be aware of it, in oneself and in others.

How can you claim impartiality when you hold positions without evidence.

I try to identify things I might believe without evidence. That's why I assume rather than assert that a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and that reason is a valid tool. But fortunately all the humans I know share those assumptions, so we find ourselves to that extent on the same page.

 

[firedragon]

It's potentially that, but it's wholly materialistic. It thinks, as I do, that the supernatural is by definition purely conceptual / imaginary.

Science "Thinks" that all of this supernatural is "purely imaginary"? Really?

Can you provide the hypothesis, research construction, experiments, tests, falsification, and final assumptions of this process?

 

[blü 2]

Science "Thinks" that all of this supernatural is "purely imaginary"? Really?

Can you provide the hypothesis, research construction, experiments, tests, falsification, and final assumptions of this process?

Yes. Science works by empiricism and induction.

I thought you knew that.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. Science works by empiricism and induction.

I thought you knew that.

Absolutely. Thats how science works. Science works on the axiom of naturalism. Its a methodological approach.

But you made a positive claim that "Science "Thinks" that all of this supernatural is "purely imaginary""

To make such a claim, you have to provide "the hypothesis, research construction, experiments, tests, falsification, and final assumptions of this process".

 

[blü 2]

Absolutely. Thats how science works. Science works on the axiom of naturalism. Its a methodological approach.

But you made a positive claim that "Science "Thinks" that all of this supernatural is "purely imaginary""

What else can empiricism think?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What else can empiricism think?

It doesn't "think"..
It is merely our observations of how the universe behaves. It cannot tell us one way or the other about the existence of non-physical concepts.

 

[firedragon]

What else can empiricism think?

We are talking about science. Not empiricism. And they dont "think" that everything outside their paradigm are "imaginary".

You made that up. Its a shame for science and the philosophers of science to make such a bogus claim.

 

[blü 2]

It doesn't "think"..
It is merely our observations of how the universe behaves. It cannot tell us one way or the other about the existence of non-physical concepts.

That's correct. However I think in due course it will provide us with effective descriptions of the brainstates that represent particular concepts.

The thing about "non-physical" things is that the only way they're known to exist ─ and so far the only credible way in which they can exist ─ is as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. They don't have objective existence by definition, ie they're not found in the world external to the self.

The definition of "truth" that I use is that truth is a property of statements and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (the "correspondence" definition). Thus it provides an objective test for what is true.

There can be no such objective test for "non-physical" things, which I suspect accounts for the tens of thousands of versions of religion in the world at present, and goodness knows how many historically.

Or do you know of such an objective test?

 

[blü 2]

We are talking about science. Not empiricism. And they dont "think" that everything outside their paradigm are "imaginary".

We're talking about empiricism in science.

You made that up.

Don't be silly. I didn't invent the philosophy of science. Science employs empiricism and induction.

Its a shame for science and the philosophers of science to make such a bogus claim.

But the solution is in your own hands and if you're correct it's very simple ─ give a satisfactory demonstration of the supernatural in reality. And then we'll all admit you're right.

Go for it!

 

[firedragon]

We're talking about empiricism in science.

Okay. Lets use your words.

"Empiricism IN SCIENCE" does not assume the "supernatural" is just "imaginary". Earlier you used "science", and now you changed it to "empiricism in science".

You are making a claim, so please provide the scientific process you had taken to prove that this is imaginary.

Don't be silly. I didn't invent the philosophy of science.

Of course you didnt invent the philosophy of science. You made up your claim that "science thinks the supernatural is imaginary". You made that up.

But the solution is in your own hands and if you're correct it's very simple ─ give a satisfactory demonstration of the supernatural in reality. And then we'll all admit you're right.

I did not make that claim. So you are doing the burden of proof fallacy. You claimed that "science thinks the supernatural is imaginary". Thus, that burden of proof is yours. Quite simple. So whats the scientific process that was taken in science to prove that the supernatural is imaginary?

Thanks.

 

[blü 2]

Okay. Lets use your words.

"Empiricism IN SCIENCE" does not assume the "supernatural" is just "imaginary". Earlier you used "science", and now you changed it to "empiricism in science".

You are making a claim, so please provide the scientific process you had taken to prove that this is imaginary.

Enough of games, fun though they be.

Give me ─ give the world ─ this satisfactory demonstration of the supernatural so that for the first time empiricism will be able to inspect what you're talking about.

Or are you in the same position as science, knowing the supernatural only though your imagination?

 

[firedragon]

Give me ─ give the world ─ this satisfactory demonstration of the supernatural so that for the first time empiricism will be able to inspect what you're talking about.

Burden of proof fallacy. Of course that's because you have no answer.

Now. Could you show me the "philosophy of science" book that says "science thinks the supernatural is imaginary" as a methodology?

Thanks.

 

[blü 2]

Burden of proof fallacy. Of course that's because you have no answer.

*Chuckle*

Now. Could you show me the "philosophy of science" book that says "science thinks the supernatural is imaginary" as a methodology?

A methodology? No, the methodology is the empiricism, which until you present us with your satisfactory demonstration has no category "supernatural" to study.

So please bring it on.