Proof of free-will (Pandora's Contraption - Part 1)

[Skwim]

Are you not certain that the symbolization you are using is MATH? Will you deny what you are using is MATH and not LOGIC?
You are using MATHEMATICAL LOGIC specifically (specifically called mathematical logic) and not pure deduction. It is NOT the SAME THING.

There are distinctions among the following types of deductive logic: classical logic (aka Aristotelian logic), Medevial logic (aka some called it Material Logic), Symbolic logic (aka Modern logic), Mathematical logic, modal logic (partly deductive and partly not deductive), etc.

While sometimes called "mathematical logic," in the logic books I have it's called "symbolic" or "formal" logic. So the designation "mathematical logic," is merely a name, and doesn't signify anything different than symbolic or formal logic. It's an irrelevant distinction you're attempting to establish.


In any case; from ratiocinator's post 119

E - Events
D - Events that result from deterministic processes
R - Events that result from randomness
C - Conscious choices
F - Conscious choices that are entirely the result of free will


P1: All E are (D or R)
P2: All C are E
IC1: All C are (D or R) [syllogism - Middle: E, Subject: C, Predicate: (D or R)]
P2.1: All F are C
IC2: All F are (D or R) [syllogism]
P3: F not R
C: F are D [disjunctive syllogism]​

____________________________________________________


Recast in bare standard syllogistic form (Barbara: name of the valid syllogistic form. Disjunctive: type of argument form)

ORIGINAL FORM .........................BARE FORM

P1: All E are (D or R).....................All E are (D or R)
P2: All C are E...............................All C are E
__________________.........................._____________........Barbara
IC1: All C are (D or R)...................All C are (D or R)


IC1: All C are (D or R)................. All C are (D or R)
P2.1: All F are C...........................All F are C
__________________........................______________.......Barbara
IC2: All F are (D or R)..................All F are (D or R)


IC2: All F are (D or R)..................All F are (D or R)
P3: F not R...................................No F are R
__________________.......................______________......Disjunctive
C: F are D....................................∴..All F are D​

Which is a completely valid progression of syllogisms and conclusion. Not sound mind you (C and F are not true), but valid.


.

 

[Nous]

My main argument can be expressed as follows.

P1: Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination.
P2: Conscious choices are events.
P3: Randomness cannot be purposeful and so cannot contribute to 'free will'.

C: Therefore any notion of 'free will' must be based on determinism (compatibilism).

........BARE FORM

P1: All E are (D or R).....................All E are (D or R)
P2: All C are E...............................All C are E
__________________.........................._____________........Barbara
IC1: All C are (D or R)...................All C are (D or R)


IC1: All C are (D or R)................. All C are (D or R)
P2.1: All F are C...........................All F are C
__________________........................______________.......Barbara
IC2: All F are (D or R)..................All F are (D or R)


IC2: All F are (D or R)..................All F are D or R
P3: F not R...................................No F are R
__________________.......................______________......Disjunctive
C: F are D......................................All F are D​

Which is a completely valid progression of syllogisms and conclusion. Not sound mind you (C and F are not true), but valid.


.

You have not merely "straightened up" the 4 propositions above. Right?

 

[Skwim]

You have not merely "straightened up" the 4 propositions above. Right?

Not quite understanding, but all I did was to get rid of premise and conclusion designations, reword P3 to its proper form, show where IC1 in the second syllogism, and IC2 in the third syllogism come from, and indicate the name, "Barbara," of the syllogistic form.


.

 

[Nous]

reword P3 to its proper form,

"P3: Randomness cannot be purposeful and so cannot contribute to 'free will'" means what equals what?

You've got P3 as "All F are R" .
F - Conscious choices that are entirely the result of free will
R - Events that result from randomness

That definitely doesn't sound like a mere "rewording" of "Randomness cannot be purposeful and so cannot contribute to 'free will'".

BTW: what is the difference between "a conscious choice that is entirely the result of free will" and a conscious choice that is partly the result of free will?

 

[Skwim]

"P3: Randomness cannot be purposeful and so cannot contribute to 'free will'" means what equals what?

You've got P3 as "All F are R" .

No I don't. I have P3 as, "No F are R"

BTW: what is the difference between "a conscious choice that is entirely the result of free will" and a conscious choice that is partly the result of free will?

I give up. What?

.

.

 

[Nous]

No I don't. I have P3 as, "No F are R"

My bad. So what term is ratiocinator's "randomness"? Middle, subject or predicate?

Also, your P1 ("All E are (D or R)") is obviously not rationcinator's P1 ("Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination."). Right?

You didn't merely rearrange the wording of ratiocinator's proposition to make a valid argument.

BTW: what is the difference between "a conscious choice that is entirely the result of free will" and a conscious choice that is partly the result of free will?

I give up. What?.

You're the one who made up that term. It isn't a concept that occurs in ratiocinator's collection of propositions.

 

[Skwim]

My bad. So what term is ratiocinator's "randomness"? Middle, subject or predicate?

Also, your P1 ("All E are (D or R)") is obviously not rationcinator's P1 ("Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination."). Right?

You didn't merely rearrange the wording of ratiocinator's proposition to make a valid argument.

You're the one who made up that term. It isn't a concept that occurs in ratiocinator's collection of propositions.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the inclination to lead by the hand to show you the obvious. If you can't see why your objections are invalid, so be it. Maybe someone else will help you out.

.

 

[Nous]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the inclination to lead by the hand to show you the obvious. If you can't see why your objections are invalid, so be it. Maybe someone else will help you out..

I will help you out and say what is apparently too painful for you to acknowledge. Your P1 ("All E are (D or R)") is not rationcinator's P1 ("Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination."). You have not merely put into valid form what ratiocinator has stated.

And the term "a conscious choice that is entirely the result of free will" does not occur in ratiocinator's pile of proprositions.

 

[Skwim]

I will help you out and say what is apparently too painful for you to acknowledge. Your P1 ("All E are (D or R)") is not rationcinator's P1 ("Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination."). You have not merely put into valid form what ratiocinator has stated.

And the term "a conscious choice that is entirely the result of free will" does not occur in ratiocinator's pile of proprositions.

I suggest trying to ask someone else to show you your error.

.

 

[Nous]

I suggest trying to ask someone else to show you your error..

You are welcome to point out any error I've made. That's what I've done with yours.

 

[Logikal]

While sometimes called "mathematical logic," in the logic books I have it's called "symbolic" or "formal" logic. So the designation "mathematical logic," is merely a name, and doesn't signify anything different than symbolic or formal logic. It's an irrelevant distinction you're attempting to establish.


In any case; from ratiocinator's post 119

E - Events
D - Events that result from deterministic processes
R - Events that result from randomness
C - Conscious choices
F - Conscious choices that are entirely the result of free will


P1: All E are (D or R)
P2: All C are E
IC1: All C are (D or R) [syllogism - Middle: E, Subject: C, Predicate: (D or R)]
P2.1: All F are C
IC2: All F are (D or R) [syllogism]
P3: F not R
C: F are D [disjunctive syllogism]​

____________________________________________________


Recast in bare standard syllogistic form (Barbara: name of the valid syllogistic form. Disjunctive: type of argument form)

ORIGINAL FORM .........................BARE FORM

P1: All E are (D or R).....................All E are (D or R)
P2: All C are E...............................All C are E
__________________.........................._____________........Barbara
IC1: All C are (D or R)...................All C are (D or R)


IC1: All C are (D or R)................. All C are (D or R)
P2.1: All F are C...........................All F are C
__________________........................______________.......Barbara
IC2: All F are (D or R)..................All F are (D or R)


IC2: All F are (D or R)..................All F are D or R
P3: F not R...................................No F are R
__________________.......................______________......Disjunctive
C: F are D....................................∴..All F are D​

Which is a completely valid progression of syllogisms and conclusion. Not sound mind you (C and F are not true), but valid.


.

Another one bites the dust!!!! WHO is it that you are sucking up to? Clearly the distinction I made is legit AND RELEVANT. You too have not comprehended or understood categorical syllogisms. You must not be aware there are rules for forming syllogisms or you lost your mind. There is NO WAY that garbage on the left or right fit into standard form categorical syllogisms. HOW you formulate propositions in the TWO DISTINCT forms of logic are not the same. Some translation MUST OCCUR but MATH GUYS don't seem to GET IT. What you and your boy meant to say were CONDITIONALS:
IF E, then (D or R)
IF C, then E
therefore if C, (D or R)
But he tried to play it off by writing in a form that looks like a syllogism. He did not even know he shouldn't use four premises in A SINGLE ARGUMENT. Yet you say MATHEMATICAL LOGIC is the SAME????
You lost comprehension trying to go from one to another because you guys don't care about QUALITY of what you are saying. In reality this poor excuse of a premise (premise one) sounds as you don't want fault if you end up wrong. Pretty slick not taking accountability with the either or statement inside a categorical. But you think this is okay? PERHAPS IN MATH. In classic logic this DOES NOT FLY! So the distinction MUST BE MADE. The math people are deceiving people by saying logic is logic and its all the same. What you cannot do in classical logic is put a disjunction inside a quantified proposition. I CANNOT say in classic logic All Apples are red fruit or green fruit.
This is a person trying to get out of being wrong! According to MATHEMATICAL LOGIC I can add disjunctions forever. What THAT MEANS is I will just add OR puprple, OR pink, OR . . . until I have named every color under the Sun. In this way NO ONE WILL PROVE MY CLAIM WRONG! Just keep adding answers and I can never be corrected. Brilliant!

Perhaps all you understand is the mechanics and not the concepts. But then again if you think Math and deductive logic to be the same you would have to KNOW the terminology is not the SAME CONTEXT with the same words. Math guys changed a lot of the terminology contexts without warning. Math uses the term contraposition differently than deductive logic taught through Philosophy for instance. That is only one example where the same words are Spelled and pronounced the same but the CONTEXT is NOT identical.

 

[Skwim]

Another one bites the dust!!!! WHO is it that you are sucking up to? Clearly the distinction I made is legit AND RELEVANT. You too have not comprehended or understood categorical syllogisms. You must not be aware there are rules for forming syllogisms or you lost your mind. There is NO WAY that garbage on the left or right fit into standard form categorical syllogisms. HOW you formulate propositions in the TWO DISTINCT forms of logic are not the same. Some translation MUST OCCUR but MATH GUYS don't seem to GET IT. What you and your boy meant to say were CONDITIONALS:
IF E, then (D or R)
IF C, then E
therefore if C, (D or R)
But he tried to play it off by writing in a form that looks like a syllogism. He did not even know he shouldn't use four premises in A SINGLE ARGUMENT. Yet you say MATHEMATICAL LOGIC is the SAME????
You lost comprehension trying to go from one to another because you guys don't care about QUALITY of what you are saying. In reality this poor excuse of a premise (premise one) sounds as you don't want fault if you end up wrong. Pretty slick not taking accountability with the either or statement inside a categorical. But you think this is okay? PERHAPS IN MATH. In classic logic this DOES NOT FLY! So the distinction MUST BE MADE. The math people are deceiving people by saying logic is logic and its all the same. What you cannot do in classical logic is put a disjunction inside a quantified proposition. I CANNOT say in classic logic All Apples are red fruit or green fruit.
This is a person trying to get out of being wrong! According to MATHEMATICAL LOGIC I can add disjunctions forever. What THAT MEANS is I will just add OR puprple, OR pink, OR . . . until I have named every color under the Sun. In this way NO ONE WILL PROVE MY CLAIM WRONG! Just keep adding answers and I can never be corrected. Brilliant!

Good grief man, stop puffing up before you explode. You talk like a college freshman Logic 101 student who finally got his first B, and has fallen in love with the sound of his own voice; strutting before a group of 10th graders and trying to impress them with small polysyllabic words and your ability to put them in caps.

For one thing, and please pay attention here. "if M then P " is indeed not the same as "All M is P." And no doubt rationcinator knows this, but chose to use "All M is P " because that's what he meant to say, and not "if M then P."
For another thing, that you want to put words in his mouth my be amusing to you, but it ain't cricket here on RF and could quickly earn you a couple of "IGNORES." Just sayin'.

He did not even know he shouldn't use four premises in A SINGLE ARGUMENT.

Almost forgot about this little treasure of a comment. Please see post #141.

.

 

[Nous]

He did not even know he shouldn't use four premises in A SINGLE ARGUMENT.

I count a total of 6 terms in these 4 sentences that ratiocinator calls a "valid argument":

P1: Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination.
P2: Conscious choices are events.
P3: Randomness cannot be purposeful and so cannot contribute to 'free will'.

C: Therefore any notion of 'free will' must be based on determinism (compatibilism).​

I don't even know how to count the verb terms "cannot be," "cannot contribute" and "must be".

Apparently such is the "logic" of those who conclude that they cannot choose to draw a valid conclusion rather than an invalid one.

 

[Logikal]

Good grief man, stop puffing up before you explode. You talk like a college freshman Logic 101 student who finally got his first B, and is in love with the sound of his own voice. Strutting before a group of 10th graders and trying to impress them with small polysyllabic words and your ability to put them in caps.

For one thing, and please pay attention here. "if M then P " is indeed not the same as "All M is P." And no doubt rationcinator knows this, but chose to use "All M is P " because that's what he meant to say, and not "if M then P."
For another thing, that you want to put words in his mouth my be amusing to you, but it ain't cricket here on RF and could quickly earn you a couple of "IGNORES." Just sayin'.


Almost forgot about this little treasure of a comment. Please see post #141.

.

I specifically addressed your post #141. I stated specifically that YOU CANNOT have a disjunction within a quantified categorical statement. Please address that. You cosigned that this is permissible in logic and that said nonsensical premise along with the argument that followed was VALID. I specifically said this is valid in MATHEMATICAL LOGIC but NOT in classical logic. Address that since you too think logic is logic and they are identical. Please address RELEVANT points I made that is if you comprehend the concepts at all.

I never said "if M then P " is indeed not the same as "All M is P." What this is clearly how mathematicians translate the categorical. Yes he DOES know that but it is not always legit. There are times were it fails but HE DOES NOT KNOW that.

 

[ratiocinator]

@Nous and @Logikal

The phrase "unable to see the forest for the trees" springs unbidden to mind. This is actually a really, really simple argument.

Here is a pretty picture for you:-

The premises construct the relationships in the diagram and the conclusion merely points out that the resulting "free will" choices are contained within deterministic events.

In the way I originally stated it, I foolishly assumed that people would be able to apply a little intelligence to it and wouldn't need to be spoon-fed in tiny logical steps. As it turns out, you seem unable to follow it even if it is spelled out in said tiny steps. One has to wonder at people who have obviously studied logic (or tried to) but seem incapable of applying it in an intelligent way.

Anyway, I really have very little interest discussing the format further. If you can't see how the conclusion follows from the premises from any of the ways it's been presented, I don't think I can help you further.

 

[Logikal]

@Nous and @Logikal

The phrase "unable to see the forest for the trees" springs unbidden to mind. This is actually a really, really simple argument.

Here is a pretty picture for you:-

The premises construct the relationships in the diagram and the conclusion merely points out that the resulting "free will" choices are contained within deterministic events.

In the way I originally stated it, I foolishly assumed that people would be able to apply a little intelligence to it and wouldn't need to be spoon-fed in tiny logical steps. As it turns out, you seem unable to follow it even if it is spelled out in said tiny steps. One has to wonder at people who have obviously studied logic (or tried to) but seem incapable of applying it in an intelligent way.

Anyway, I really have very little interest discussing the format further. If you can't see how the conclusion follows from the premises from any of the ways it's been presented, I don't think I can help you further.

You can't offer people help when all you do is mechanical operations that a trained monkey can do. I have already mentioned machine without BRAINS or INTELLIGENCE as you put it can do the mechanics as you! How is it you have intelligence when the physical acts can be duplicated by non humans?

The point we made to you is that you are like the drunk guy who drives home safe and has no idea how he made it. YOU Maybe blessed and not realize it. This seems evident. Whenever some Joe Smoe was a GOD GIVEN Ability that requires little effort that is a blessing and NOT THE PERSON EARNING their aceivement. Look up savants and you will see, but you have an issue understanding concepts so this might not work.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sir what YOU seem to be missing are some concepts that you seem not even to understand. Nous seems to have learned Logic from Philosophy. YOU did not.
The point all can take notice here is there are DISTINCT types of LOGIC.
RAtiocinator I would bet house and all I have (tif I were a gambling man which I am not) that you have studied MATHEMATICAL LOGIC and you don't even realize it!

There is no such "mathematical logic." Math is logic. And not only that, grad school philosophy requires some "hefty" math courses, very hard from what I have heard, that get in deep enough to use math to prove the existence of something.
Things that are logical are logical when the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises. A logical claim does not even have to be a true claim. A fine example is this very thread that involves a thought experiment that can summed up as follows:
Claim 1: a machine has been built that can accurately predict the future
Claim 2: after a man asks the machine the outcome of a sporting game, his wife interferes and changes the outcome of the game
Conclusion: because the wife thwarted the outcome, free will exist.
However, the conclusion directly contradicts the claim of a machine that can accurately predict the future, and the machine failed to predict the future, meaning the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Now, if I make something like this, it would be false but logical:
Claim 1: Fire is hot
Claim 2: This object is hot.
Conclusion: This object must be fire.
Of course this is not necessarily true, and would only be true in very few situations as there are many things that are hot, but because the conclusion does follow from the premises it is a logical statement.

 

[Logikal]

There is no such "mathematical logic." Math is logic. And not only that, grad school philosophy requires some "hefty" math courses, very hard from what I have heard, that get in deep enough to use math to prove the existence of something.
Things that are logical are logical when the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises. A logical claim does not even have to be a true claim. A fine example is this very thread that involves a thought experiment that can summed up as follows:
Claim 1: a machine has been built that can accurately predict the future
Claim 2: after a man asks the machine the outcome of a sporting game, his wife interferes and changes the outcome of the game
Conclusion: because the wife thwarted the outcome, free will exist.
However, the conclusion directly contradicts the claim of a machine that can accurately predict the future, and the machine failed to predict the future, meaning the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Now, if I make something like this, it would be false but logical:
Claim 1: Fire is hot
Claim 2: This object is hot.
Conclusion: This object must be fire.
Of course this is not necessarily true, and would only be true in very few situations as there are many things that are hot, but because the conclusion does follow from the premises it is a logical statement.

PROVE IT! I can bust you each time you try to prove it. There are clear DISTINCTIONS between CLASSICAL LOGIC and MATHEMATICAL LOGIC AND even INDIAN LOGIC as well as MATERIAL LOGIC (which is now called Epistemology). They require translation from one to the other and it is not 100% .

CAN YOU Show me why contraposition does not always work in reality?
Let us see if you UNDERSTAND CONCEPTS or are you just a mechanical person who is PRACTICAL?

Be honest are you learning logic from a Math person? I have no doubt that modern people are not being taught how to think well in alleged LOGIC. And they are duping the masses by saying all logic is the same and logic is math. You lean theory and not reality. We can go over concepts and you will lose because all people who are practical care about is ONLY RESULTS.

I beg you in all your getting get UNDERSTANDING.

Deductive logic PREDATES MATHEMATICAL LOGIC. There is indeed a filed specifically called MATHEMATICAL LOGIC. I can tell you there are no trace or records of MATHEMATICAL LOGIC prior to 1845. I did not say there was no mathematics. There was no relevant correlation between math and logic because each has its own method and specialized content. You man Georgie Boole pretty much persuaded people to think like you think. I bet that is the reason you do. Perhaps you should look into it. People RESPECT MATHEMATICS and a overwhelmingly majority of human beings on the planet think Philosophy is B.S. Can you guess or tell me why philosophers let this slide and I will show you they had PRACTICAL reasons.

 

[ratiocinator]

Claim 1: Fire is hot
Claim 2: This object is hot.
Conclusion: This object must be fire.
Of course this is not necessarily true, and would only be true in very few situations as there are many things that are hot, but because the conclusion does follow from the premises it is a logical statement.

No, this isn't logically valid because fire being hot doesn't imply that everything that is hot is fire - the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Be honest are you learning logic from a Math person?

I gave you what you basically learn from something like a 111 philosophy course. Nothing advanced or beyond an introduction to logic. In math and philosophy alike, if the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the statement is illogical. The same set of logic that I apply to coding or working on my car I apply to debate. 1+1 must equal 2. Anything else is wrong.

You lean theory and not reality.

Theories of logic often to apply to reality. Humans may not be logical machines, but we know enough about how we function to know a starving human will resort to drastic and extreme solutions to put something in their belly. It may not be rational to eat mud or rocks given the lack of nutrition and difficulty of digestion, but logically it works out when your belly is rumbling and you are very weak and approaching death.

We can go over concepts and you will lose because all people who are practical care about is ONLY RESULTS.

It seems you may only win in your head. You have adequately demonstrated you do not have the background in philosophy, math, and ethics that some other members here have.