"freewill"

[alpha]

Forget randomness (one vague concept at a time) - why can't the law of cause and effect allow free will? The only over-arching law I can think of that could be called THE law of cause and effect is that something cannot come from nothing - everything has a cause.

because in order for will to be truly free, it mustn't be caused by anything (unless the chain of causes ends at a starting point or initial state that was truly chosen by us; i.e., causa sui). because our current states (now or at birth) certainly wasn't chosen by us, and everything that follows the initial state must adhere to its characteristics completely.


To say that everything has a cause is not to say that everything is predetermined or that everything follows other laws. I think you are making an empirical observation rather than a logical one.

actually, everything must follow some sort of laws, and must therefor be determined. this is a purely logical concept.

[Wyman]

in order for will to be truly free, it mustn't be caused by anything

everything must follow some sort of laws, and must therefor be determined.

Can't you see that this is circular? By assuming that which you set out to prove, you prove and say nothing.

You define/assume 1) free will as something that 'mustn't be caused.' You assumed previously 2)that everything has a cause.
Conclusion: 'everything' as you define it does not include free will

In the second quote above, you assume that everything must follow laws and that everything is determined. On those assumptions, of course will is determined - because you just assumed 'everything is determined.'

I could just as well say 'everything is blue'; you are not blue; therefore you don't exist

I may agree with your assumptions, but can't agree that you present a logical argument.

[alpha]

in order for will to be truly free, it mustn't be caused by anything

everything must follow some sort of laws, and must therefor be determined.

Can't you see that this is circular? By assuming that which you set out to prove, you prove and say nothing.

You define/assume 1) free will as something that 'mustn't be caused.' You assumed previously 2)that everything has a cause.
Conclusion: 'everything' as you define it does not include free will

In the second quote above, you assume that everything must follow laws and that everything is determined. On those assumptions, of course will is determined - because you just assumed 'everything is determined.'

I could just as well say 'everything is blue'; you are not blue; therefore you don't exist

I may agree with your assumptions, but can't agree that you present a logical argument.

yes, for will to be truly free it must be eternal (infinitely old) and therefor uncaused, or with a starting point (initial state) that was chosen by the person, which clearly isn't the case. if it's caused by something (directly or indirectly) outside of our control, it is unfree by definition. no circular logic.

[A_Seagull]

How do you think that belief in determinism would affect people's (your) decision making?

How do your think that belief in free-will would affect people's decision making?

belief in determinism can affect "decision making" in many ways; i can think of some if necessary.

belief in freewill...well, take a look at most people.

Go on then.. how does belief in determinism (or free-will) affect people's decision making?

My point is that whether determinism exists or not is a moot point and probably indeterminable.

What is more significant is whether people believe in determinism or not and whether and how that might affect their decision making and their lives.

[alpha]

Go on then.. how does belief in determinism (or free-will) affect people's decision making?

My point is that whether determinism exists or not is a moot point and probably indeterminable.

What is more significant is whether people believe in determinism or not and whether and how that might affect their decision making and their lives.

it's neither moot nor indeterminable.

first, philosophical discussions (theories, etc.) don't have to have practical implications in this lifetime; they may apply to the afterlife (and whether there exists an afterlife or not).

second, i shall demonstrate a couple of the different implications these two opposing beliefs may have in this lifetime;

1-

I do not believe in freedom of the will. Schopenhauer’s words: ‘Man can do what he wants [wills], but he cannot will what he wills’ accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of freedom of will preserves me from taking too seriously myself and my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and from losing my temper./quote]

-albert einstein

people who truly believe in freewill are more inclined to blame themselves for their shortcomings, and others for wronging them; when all they must do, is blame "god" for everything.

2- if one believes in determinism, he needn't belong to any religion, nor fear eternal damnation etc..

3- for some people, believing in determinism can make them more prone to existential depression, and such.

the implications are not limited to these. more can be suggested if one thinks long enough, and researches hard enough.

[A_Seagull]

Go on then.. how does belief in determinism (or free-will) affect people's decision making?

My point is that whether determinism exists or not is a moot point and probably indeterminable.

What is more significant is whether people believe in determinism or not and whether and how that might affect their decision making and their lives.

it's neither moot nor indeterminable.

first, philosophical discussions (theories, etc.) don't have to have practical implications in this lifetime; they may apply to the afterlife (and whether there exists an afterlife or not).


Quite so. But that doesn't make determinism determinable. How would you determine - even as a thought experiment - whether determinism exists or not?


second, i shall demonstrate a couple of the different implications these two opposing beliefs may have in this lifetime;

1-
people who truly believe in freewill are more inclined to blame themselves for their shortcomings, and others for wronging them; when all they must do, is blame "god" for everything.

Yes quite possibly... people who believe in free-will may be more likely to engage more directly and energetically with the world.

2- if one believes in determinism, he needn't belong to any religion, nor fear eternal damnation etc..

"If one believes in free-will one needn't belong to any religion nor fear damnation etc...... " makes just as much sense as what you wrote.

3- for some people, believing in determinism can make them more prone to existential depression, and such.


"For some people, believing in free-will can make them more prone to existential depression" afgain , this makes just as much sense as what you wrote.

the implications are not limited to these. more can be suggested if one thinks long enough, and researches hard enough.

Go on then!

[alpha]

Quite so. But that doesn't make determinism determinable. How would you determine - even as a thought experiment - whether determinism exists or not?

i've already answered this question more than once in this very thread. if those answers aren't satisfactory, feel "free" to disagree.


"If one believes in free-will one needn't belong to any religion nor fear damnation etc...... " makes just as much sense as what you wrote.

as hexhammer would say, this is pure nonsense and babble. the difference is that freewill means accountability, which brings the possibility of eternal damnation; whereas determinism means absolutely no accountability, hence eternal damnation would be unjust for anyone; no exceptions.


"For some people, believing in free-will can make them more prone to existential depression" afgain , this makes just as much sense as what you wrote.

indeed, some people who believe in freewill can have existential depression, but they are less prone to it than their determinist counterparts, because it's plausible that an existence that includes freewill may have a purpose. it's much more difficult to see any purpose to a deterministic world, however.

[A_Seagull]

Quite so. But that doesn't make determinism determinable. How would you determine - even as a thought experiment - whether determinism exists or not?

i've already answered this question more than once in this very thread. if those answers aren't satisfactory, feel "free" to disagree.


"If one believes in free-will one needn't belong to any religion nor fear damnation etc...... " makes just as much sense as what you wrote.

as hexhammer would say, this is pure nonsense and babble. the difference is that freewill means accountability, which brings the possibility of eternal damnation; whereas determinism means absolutely no accountability, hence eternal damnation would be unjust for anyone; no exceptions.


"For some people, believing in free-will can make them more prone to existential depression" afgain , this makes just as much sense as what you wrote.

indeed, some people who believe in freewill can have existential depression, but they are less prone to it than their determinist counterparts, because it's plausible that an existence that includes freewill may have a purpose. it's much more difficult to see any purpose to a deterministic world, however.

So what you are saying, in essence, is that determinists can rot in hell as they are barely alive anyway.

Hmmm, I might even agree with you.

[alpha]

So what you are saying, in essence, is that determinists can rot in hell as they are barely alive anyway.

Hmmm, I might even agree with you.

that's not exactly what i'm saying. at least it's not the case for all determinists.

[alpha]

i would've thought this topic would get more attention than this.

spheres, what about you?

hobbes, i just noticed that you had agreed with my op, which is strange considering that you're a relativist. i'm confused. what am i missing here?

[alpha]

what does everyone think of this argument:

1. everything must either be (a). subject to the principle of sufficient reason (logical cause-and-effect) or (b). not subject to this law/principle (random/spontaneous/coincidental). they can't both be true, as per the law of no contradiction, nor can there be a third possibility, as per the law of excluded middle.

2. the will is a thing, and therefor must fall under one of the two categories above.

3. if the will falls under category (a), then it must adhere to the aforementioned principle, rendering it completely determined and unfree.

4. if the will falls under category (b), then it is random, making it completely indetermined.

5. neither determined will nor indetermined will entail any real accountability/responsibility of any sort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. conclusion: "free" will that entails accountability is logically impossible.

[Skip]

2. Volition is not a thing; it is a process taking place in a brain. The brain in which will happens is a thing.

[alpha]

2. Volition is not a thing; it is a process taking place in a brain. The brain in which will happens is a thing.

three observations; 1. a process is still a thing , even though it's comprised of several other -simpler/smaller- things. 2. i might not agree that the will itself is necessarily a process per se (it could be the result of a process). 3. if you wanna use the brain instead of the will, it should still do (might need some tweaking/revising).

[Skip]

three observations; 1. a process is still a thing , even though it's comprised of several other -simpler/smaller- things.

What "smaller things"? None of the stages in a process are things. They are events.

Physical objects/things exist. Processes/events happen. If you use the terms interchangeably, you'll get confused.

[alpha]

three observations; 1. a process is still a thing , even though it's comprised of several other -simpler/smaller- things.

What "smaller things"? None of the stages in a process are things. They are events.

Physical objects/things exist. Processes/events happen. If you use the terms interchangeably, you'll get confused.

events happen to things. without things, there can be no events.

also, things needn't necessarily be physical.