Should we believe in Free Will?

[Nous]

You said 'proven empirically false,' which science cannot empirically do that.

If you ever become able to read, understand and respond to anything I actually said here--

It's really quite stunning to me to learn how anti-scientific so many people are so as to disregard (and even deny) the fact that the thesis of determinism has been proven empirically false. The postulates of both realism and localness of quanta in the absence of (or prior to) a measurement have been experimentally refuted. Therefore, the thesis of determinism cannot be true.​

--be sure to let me know.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you ever become able to read, understand and respond to anything I actually said here--

It's really quite stunning to me to learn how anti-scientific so many people are so as to disregard (and even deny) the fact that the thesis of determinism has been proven empirically false. The postulates of both realism and localness of quanta in the absence of (or prior to) a measurement have been experimentally refuted. Therefore, the thesis of determinism cannot be true.​

--be sure to let me know.

I am perfectly able to read, and again 'determinism cannot be proven empirically false,' nor can the thesis of determinism be determined to be not true.

 

[shunyadragon]

'Truth' and 'claims of truth' are two different things.

I consider 'Truth' to be beyond the comprehension or determination by fallible humans. All I see from the human perspective is conflicting 'Claims of Truth.'

Truth to me is the ultimate nature of our existence. IF God exists, God represents the ultimate unknowable Truth of our existence. IF God does not exist the ultimate nature of our existence is the Natural Laws and eternal nature of our Physical existence, and again likely beyond human comprehension.

 

[Skwim]

I believe your view describes humans in terms of deterministic robots, and of course I disagree. First, there are indeed viable options in the chain of outcomes of human decisions within a limited range, but of course the main contention between different philosophies is how much of a range there is.

Don't forget the philosophical position of hard determinism, which denies any such thing as options, and particularly any lying within some kind of range.

It ranges from your view which is our decisions are predetermined to Libertarian Free Will where the range of options are quite large. I believe the evidence of contemporary science discounts the extremes.

Just to be clear here, like choices and options, decisions are an illusion. So when you say "your view which is our decisions are . . . ." it's actually a meaningless statement. I don't view the concept of decisions as anything more than a gross misconception. So in effect, you have no decisions to view. At best, you preformed a mental act predetermined by causal factors.

.

 

[Willamena]

I consider 'Truth' to be beyond the comprehension or determination by fallible humans. All I see from the human perspective is conflicting 'Claims of Truth.'

​

If so, then your perspective holds no truth and no one has reason to listen to it. Certainly no reason to believe you.​

Truth to me is the ultimate nature of our existence. IF God exists, God represents the ultimate unknowable Truth of our existence. IF God does not exist the ultimate nature of our existence is the Natural Laws and eternal nature of our Physical existence, and again likely beyond human comprehension.

 

[shunyadragon]

If so, then your perspective holds no truth and no one has reason to listen to it. Certainly no reason to believe you.​

Drop the sarcasm and answer again with some coherence.

The lack of absolute Truth from the human perspective does not preclude believing. Science is not grounded in Truth, and there is abundant reason to believe in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Don't forget the philosophical position of hard determinism, which denies any such thing as options, and particularly any lying within some kind of range.

It is not a matter of forgetting it, I just do not consider it a viable alternative and considers humans deterministic robots.

Just to be clear here, like choices and options, decisions are an illusion. So when you say "your view which is our decisions are . . . ." it's actually a meaningless statement. I don't view the concept of decisions as anything more than a gross misconception. So in effect, you have no decisions to view. At best, you preformed a mental act predetermined by causal factors.

.

Simpy disagree with hard determinism based on the evidence that supports compatibilism.

 

[Skwim]

It is not a matter of forgetting it, I just do not consider it a viable alternative and considers humans deterministic robots.

Yes I know. I was merely replying to your "the main contention between different philosophies is how much of a range there is." Determinism being a philosophy that doesn't recognize any such range.

.

 

[Willamena]

Drop the sarcasm and answer again with some coherence.

The lack of absolute Truth from the human perspective does not preclude believing. Science is not grounded in Truth, and there is abundant reason to believe in science.

Science is very much grounded in truth. It relies on methods and logics to compose increasingly accurate models of the natural processes of the universe. If those methods and logics were not true, the whole cookie would crumble.

I apologize. There was no sarcasm in what I said in #125 above, it is just the logical consequence of what you had said, if what you "consider" to be actually is. If truth is really beyond our comprehension, then what you are attempting to put into words fails every time. Everything we could possibly say is for naught because language is inadequate to the task, and no one would really hear anything that you are attempting to speak because the referents of words would point at air. The logic behind grammar would be nonsense because it's untrue, too. With the reason for us to try to communicate undermined, there would be no reason to believe, because it is perceived truth that we believe. We must comprehend the object of belief, or there is no possibility of a perception of it. Truth is the one thing in our lives that we cannot undermine without committing gross fallacy in every aspect of who we are as conscious beings.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is very much grounded in truth. It relies on methods and logics to compose increasingly accurate models of the natural processes of the universe. If those methods and logics were not true, the whole cookie would crumble.

I apologize. There was no sarcasm in what I said in #125 above, it is just the logical consequence of what you had said, if what you "consider" to be actually is. If truth is really beyond our comprehension, then what you are attempting to put into words fails every time. Everything we could possibly say is for naught because language is inadequate to the task, and no one would really hear anything that you are attempting to speak because the referents of words would point at air. The logic behind grammar would be nonsense because it's untrue, too. With the reason for us to try to communicate undermined, there would be no reason to believe, because it is perceived truth that we believe. We must comprehend the object of belief, or there is no possibility of a perception of it. Truth is the one thing in our lives that we cannot undermine without committing gross fallacy in every aspect of who we are as conscious beings.

Your misusing the word 'Truth,' and causing confusion. What is true or false is not 'Truth.' Science may be considered based on or grounded in the ultimate 'Truth?' of the Natural Laws, the philosophy of science that is the foundation of Methodological naturalism is NOT based on Truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I know. I was merely replying to your "the main contention between different philosophies is how much of a range there is." Determinism being a philosophy that doesn't recognize any such range.

.

It is not Determinism that you are claiming, but an extreme or hard determinism. A range can include zero.

 

[Willamena]

Your misusing the word 'Truth,' and causing confusion. What is true or false is not 'Truth.' Science may be considered based on or grounded in the ultimate 'Truth?' of the Natural Laws, the philosophy of science that is the foundation of Methodological naturalism is NOT based on Truth.

I rather think I am not misusing it.

 

[Skwim]

It is not Determinism that you are claiming, but an extreme or hard determinism. A range can include zero.

In other words, I shouldn't be calling a Rolls Royce a "car" because I'm not calling it a "luxury car" ?

Get real.

.

 

[Nous]

I am perfectly able to read, and again 'determinism cannot be proven empirically false,' nor can the thesis of determinism be determined to be not true.

The thesis of determinism--

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.​

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

--has been proven empirically false by the experimental findings that show that the behavior of quanta violate the Leggett-Garg inequality and thereby refute the realism postulate, as noted by the studies cited in #11 and #19 here: Solve the Riddle of Compatibilism, Win Big Prize

According to the definition, the thesis of determinism cannot be true if there occurs even a single instance where the “the way things go” after time t is not “fixed as a matter of natural law.” Violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality refutes the assumption that quanta exist in a definite and specifiable in the absence of or prior to a measurement. Therefore, “the way things go thereafter” cannot be “fixed as a matter of natural law” by the “way things are at time t”.

I've pointed this fact out to you numerous times. Not once have you ever addressed this fact. Not once have you ever shown that the behavior of quanta do not violate the Leggett-Garg inequality. Not once have you ever articulated any argument by which to conclude that the thesis of determinism could be true while the postulate of realism has been experimentally refuted.

Your religion of determinism has been proven empirically false.

 

[`mud]

It's about 1:30 and I am determined by some attribute to get a beer from my refrigerator, and drink it. And godidit !

 

[Shadow Link]

Will is directed by the author of the narrative. Understanding is more like a story-board.

Yeah, I was taking a shot at the absolute. That we simply, from birth, do not possess all knowledge. Which would make free will not seem so free willed by our very nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
According to studies, belief in determinism can cause both immoral behavior and general unhappiness.

According to what studies?!?!?

This is pure nonsense. There are different kinds of determiniam. There is hard determinism. soft determinism, and scientific determinism. There are also deterministic beliefs from the religious perspective.

I can see how belief in Calvinist Divine predeterminism can cause unhappiness.

 

[shunyadragon]

The thesis of determinism--

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.​

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

--has been proven empirically false by the experimental findings that show that the behavior of quanta violate the Leggett-Garg inequality and thereby refute the realism postulate, as noted by the studies cited in #11 and #19 here: Solve the Riddle of Compatibilism, Win Big Prize

According to the definition, the thesis of determinism cannot be true if there occurs even a single instance where the “the way things go” after time t is not “fixed as a matter of natural law.” Violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality refutes the assumption that quanta exist in a definite and specifiable in the absence of or prior to a measurement. Therefore, “the way things go thereafter” cannot be “fixed as a matter of natural law” by the “way things are at time t”.

I've pointed this fact out to you numerous times. Not once have you ever addressed this fact. Not once have you ever shown that the behavior of quanta do not violate the Leggett-Garg inequality. Not once have you ever articulated any argument by which to conclude that the thesis of determinism could be true while the postulate of realism has been experimentally refuted.

Your religion of determinism has been proven empirically false.

This does not disprove scientific determinism in the macro world beyond the quanta level.

Scientific determinism at the macro level and soft determinism allows for a degree of free will.

A lot of effort on your part but no brass ring on this and there never was no matter how many times you repeat it. You have never been able to demonstrate that scientific determinism, ie Methodological Naturalism on the macro level has been experimentally refuted nor proven false,

 

[shunyadragon]

In other words, I shouldn't be calling a Rolls Royce a "car" because I'm not calling it a "luxury car" ?

Get real.

.

This not a coherent response Soft determinism and scientific determinism allow for a degree of free will. Extreme or hard determinism does not allow for free will, which is a philosophical assumption not a scientifically falsified one.

 

[Skwim]

This not a coherent response Soft determinism and scientific determinism allow for a degree of free will. Extreme or hard determinism does not allow for free will, which is a philosophical assumption not a scientifically falsified one.

I'm sorry, but you've been picking the wrong Google sites for your on-the-fly education, and I'm not up to putting you straight.

Have a good day.

.