Free will, freedom from what?

[Flannel Jesus]

When did you become curious about why? Last time we talked, you demanded a proof and when I said I could talk about why, you just continuously demanded a proof and said I was unreasonable because I didn't have a proof. What an unexpected change of heart.

[Immanuel Can]

When did you become curious about why? Last time we talked, you demanded a proof and when I said I could talk about why, you just continuously demanded a proof and said I was unreasonable because I didn't have a proof. What a strange change of heart.

I've always been curious about the "why."

And for rational persons, an asking of "why you believe X" is the same as asking for proof, evidence, or other demonstration of the truth of the claim. It's not a request for feelings or preferences or anything unanchored to facts. And the definition of "unreasonable" would be "having no sufficient reasons to warrant the belief." In other words, believing something for which you don't know why you should believe it.

In fact, the "why," thus construed, is ALL I've been asking about.

[Flannel Jesus]

When did you become curious about why? Last time we talked, you demanded a proof and when I said I could talk about why, you just continuously demanded a proof and said I was unreasonable because I didn't have a proof. What a strange change of heart.

I've always been curious about the "why."

Well I can't really square that with how you spoke to me when I offered to talk about why and was met with insults instead

And no, why is not synonymous with proof. Proof is a strong word. Very few things in this world are provable - really only things like mathematical facts, syllogistic abstract logic, set theory. The reasons why people believe things don't always take the form of proofs - that's why mathematics is full of conjectures waiting for proofs. Because mathematicians have reasons why they believe things, but can't yet prove them.

[phyllo]

Why determinism or compatibilism?

Because there appears to be no way of creating an uncaused event.

One is always reacting to a particular state.

[Immanuel Can]

When did you become curious about why? Last time we talked, you demanded a proof and when I said I could talk about why, you just continuously demanded a proof and said I was unreasonable because I didn't have a proof. What a strange change of heart.

I've always been curious about the "why."

Well I can't really square that with how you spoke to me when I offered to talk about why and was met with insults instead

I never offered you any insult at all. I can't imagine why you suppose I did. You seem to think that the word "proof" implies an insult, but it does not.

To ask you to prove your point is philosophy, not abuse. And we're on a philosophy site.

Proof is a strong word.

It's in no way offensive. People use it all the time, without any ill-will being expressed at all. I can only suppose you very badly misread my implication in some way, or imagined I was aiming at some tone I was not.

Let's put that down to the vicissitudes and vagueness of communicating by email.

If it upsets you, let's change it. Let's say, "evidence," or "demonstration" instead.

Do you have any evidence or demonstration...or let's even add "logical explanation" for Compatibilism?

[Flannel Jesus]

Proof wasn't the insult. I didn't say it was.

You make a lot of strange assumptions in these conversations.

If it upsets you, let's change it. Let's say, "evidence," or "demonstration" instead.

Proof didn't upset me. As I explained, your reaction to me saying "I don't think I can prove it to you, but I can talk about why I believe what I believe" soured our conversation. And your sequence of bizarre misunderstandings in this thread don't make me any more excited to talk to you more.

[Immanuel Can]

Why determinism or compatibilism?

Because there appears to be no way of creating an uncaused event.

Well, "there appears" is an extremely weak reason for concluding anything at all. But let's suppose that's true. It begs the whole question of what can "cause" things. And the debated point is whether only material phenomena can "cause" things, or whether mental phenomena can, too. And nothing in your objection answers anything about that question.

One is always reacting to a particular state.

Again, you say "one reacts." But the question is whether or not this "one" is an active cause of anything, even in response to a particular state of affairs, or whether the "one" is a dumb terminal that actually cannot "react" but is merely pushed around but the "real," prior, material causes.

Again, there's no explanation in that objection. You have just assumed a "one" who can choose how to "react": which would make you not-a-Determinist of any kind. Or did you only mean that the "one" is a dumb terminal that is forced to "appear to react," but in actuality, generates no "reacting" at all?

[Immanuel Can]

Proof wasn't the insult. I didn't say it was.

You make a lot of strange assumptions in these conversations.

Likewise.

Do you have an answer to the question of why you are a Compatibilist -- in terms of evidence, logic or demonstration of the truth of that theory?

[Flannel Jesus]

Proof wasn't the insult. I didn't say it was.

You make a lot of strange assumptions in these conversations.

Likewise.

Do you have an answer to the question of why you are a Compatibilist -- in terms of evidence, logic or demonstration of the truth of that theory?

I have a train of thought. If you're prepared to stop demanding proofs like you did before, I could try to talk you through it.

[Immanuel Can]

Proof wasn't the insult. I didn't say it was.

You make a lot of strange assumptions in these conversations.

Likewise.

Do you have an answer to the question of why you are a Compatibilist -- in terms of evidence, logic or demonstration of the truth of that theory?

I have a train of thought. If you're prepared to stop demanding proofs like you did before, I could try to talk you through it.

Go ahead. We've dropped the word "proof," and we're now working with evidence, demonstration of truth, logical explanation...take your pick.

[phyllo]

And the debated point is whether only material phenomena can "cause" things, or whether mental phenomena can, too. And nothing in your objection answers anything about that question.

That's because it makes no difference whether one is reacting physically or mentally. Physical reactions have a cause and so do mental ones.

Again, you say "one reacts." But the question is whether or not this "one" is an active cause of anything, even in response to a particular state of affairs, or whether the "one" is a dumb terminal that actually cannot "react" but is merely pushed around but the "real," prior, material causes.

Free-willers imagine themselves as active and they imagine determinists as dumb.

I see no difference in what is actually happening.

Again, there's no explanation in that objection. You have just assumed a "one" who can choose how to "react": which would make you not-a-Determinist of any kind. Or did you only mean that the "one" is a dumb terminal that is forced to "appear to react," but in actuality, generates no "reacting" at all?

I assumed no such thing.

I see no more ability to "choose how to react" in free-willers than in determinists.

[Immanuel Can]

And the debated point is whether only material phenomena can "cause" things, or whether mental phenomena can, too. And nothing in your objection answers anything about that question.

That's because it makes no difference whether one is reacting physically or mentally. Physical reactions have a cause and so do mental ones.

But is one of those causes volition? If not, how can you speak of "one reacting," when the "one" is no causal agent, and the "reaction" is only a material-chain-reaction? No "one" did it at all, then.

Again, you say "one reacts." But the question is whether or not this "one" is an active cause of anything, even in response to a particular state of affairs, or whether the "one" is a dumb terminal that actually cannot "react" but is merely pushed around but the "real," prior, material causes.

Free-willers imagine themselves as active and they imagine determinists as dumb.

No, "dumb terminal" is a computer term meaning "a terminal that does not performing local processing of entered information, but serves only as an input/output device for an attached or network-linked processor." (Gardner) It does not mean that Determinists are "dumb." It's not an insult. It's a descriptor of what is being implied by Determinism itself.

The question is whether or not the person, the "one" of whom you speak, actually does anything, or is just cause-and-effected into an output. In other words, is this "one" a participatory agent or merely a dumb terminal.

Again, there's no explanation in that objection. You have just assumed a "one" who can choose how to "react": which would make you not-a-Determinist of any kind. Or did you only mean that the "one" is a dumb terminal that is forced to "appear to react," but in actuality, generates no "reacting" at all?

I assumed no such thing.

I see no more ability to "choose how to react" in free-willers than in determinists.

Well, "I see..." is not any kind of argument, of course. It just means, "When I see X, I choose to interpret it as D."

And that's the problem with Determinists: they see everything as proof of Determinism, even when it isn't. As G.K. Chesterton so beautifuly put it, they are "in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea." They never see even one thing that makes them doubt Determinism. And that's because Determinism is false but unfalsifiable, to use Popper's term. No amount of contrary evidence is ever allowed, by Determinists, to be real.

It's like speaking to people who believe that all reality is an illusion. No matter what you point to, they say, "Well, that's not real." In a similar way, the Determinists look at every phenomena and say, "Well it was all predetermined."

No evidence. No proof. No demonstration of the truth of the claim. Just an assumption. But it's one that they hold to the death.

[Self-Lightening]

I say the Big Bang is the beginning that never began, just as the Big Chill is the ending that will never end.

That's the key issue: there's no such thing as "a beginning that never began." You can see the contradiction even in the wording. If something that is contingent -- that is not itself eternal, that is -- "never began," then it wouldn't exist now. All things that are perishable have a beginning.

It's a paradox, not a contradiction. I'm saying the universe is eternal, imperishable. It just extends between two asymptotes.

Entropy is another "clock," just as the universal expansion rate is a kind of "clock," that we can rewind back to the starting point.

We could never rewind it all the way back, just as it will never unwind all the way.

Fires run out of fuel. Mountains wear down. Automobiles deteriorate. Stars themselves burn out. Paper thrown into the air lands randomly. In these phenomena, and in billions of other ways, we see entropy. In fact, it's probably our best-established natural law, the second law of thermodynamics.

So we know that the Earth had a beginning, though we were not at it. We can even deduce some details about it from our present state. But we know for sure that there was a beginning, and no reasonable or scientific person can deny there was.

None of these things, including the Earth, of course, are the universe.

I find that suggestion excessively implausible. A base element has never given even the slightest indication of consciousness, in the entire known history of the world. On what basis, then, would you attribute sentience to rocks or minerals? Only by pure imagination, but not on the basis of any facts, obviously.

Are you sure, though, that, throughout the entire known history of the world, people had microscopes?

Again, you're mistaking what people knew at a given time, from what was true at that same time. The Earth was round before people had telescopes.

Now, if you think there's any evidence that in ancient times, say, iron was sentient, or hydrogen was philosophical and self-aware, I'll happily see your evidence.

Again, "philosophical" and "self-aware" is your straw man. And I didn't make the mistake you attribute to me. I'm not saying it was true only at some time in the past. It's an extrapolation, though, as I've said repeatedly. Then again, your dishonesty makes perfect sense, considering your position.

Haven't used hallucinogens for about six years now, by the way.

I neither knew you had nor did I mention it. However, if you're imagining base elements have consciousness...well, that would explain the confusion. LSD and such have permanent, residual brain effects, sometimes even including unanticipated manifestations later in life. So thank you for that piece of information, I guess.

You have promethean75 to thank for that. In any case, I'm talking about the quantum level, not the classical level; and yes, consciousness, not self-awareness. And postulating, not imagining.

[phyllo]

But is one of those causes volition? If not, how can you speak of "one reacting," when the "one" is no causal agent, and the "reaction" is only a material-chain-reaction? No "one" did it at all, then.

Everyone is an agent.

As soon as reality is broken up into various entities, they have characteristics and they have behaviors.

One can't say "There is Bob" and "Bob doesn't do anything".

One can say "All is atoms" and "Atoms do everything". But we don't conceptualize the world in that way.

No, "dumb terminal" is a computer term meaning "a terminal that does not performing local processing of entered information, but serves only as an input/output device for an attached or network-linked processor." (Gardner) It does not mean that Determinists are "dumb." It's not an insult. It's a descriptor of what is being implied by Determinism itself.

Yes, I know about dumb terminals.

The question is whether or not the person, the "one" of whom you speak, actually does anything, or is just cause-and-effected into an output. In other words, is this "one" a participatory agent or merely a dumb terminal.

Well, every person has sensors, a brain for processing and they are self-propelled. (Animals as well)

They do local processing.

And that's the problem with Determinists: they see everything as proof of Determinism, even when it isn't. As G.K. Chesterton so beautifuly put it, they are "in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea." They never see even one thing that makes them doubt Determinism. And that's because Determinism is false but unfalsifiable, to use Popper's term. No amount of contrary evidence is ever allowed, by Determinists, to be real.

It's like speaking to people who believe that all reality is an illusion. No matter what you point to, they say, "Well, that's not real." In a similar way, the Determinists look at every phenomena and say, "Well it was all predetermined."

That's complete nonsense.

Show me how you can bypass your current situation and generate some sort of reaction that a determinist cannot generate.

[Immanuel Can]

I say the Big Bang is the beginning that never began, just as the Big Chill is the ending that will never end.

That's the key issue: there's no such thing as "a beginning that never began." You can see the contradiction even in the wording. If something that is contingent -- that is not itself eternal, that is -- "never began," then it wouldn't exist now. All things that are perishable have a beginning.

It's a paradox, not a contradiction.

Umm...nope. Not a "paradox." A paradox is when two things that don't seem to be compatible end up being compatible. They are not when something is directly opposite to the other, so that both CANNOT be simultaneously true.

Entropy is another "clock," just as the universal expansion rate is a kind of "clock," that we can rewind back to the starting point.

We could never rewind it all the way back, just as it will never unwind all the way.

You're missing the point. Yes, we can mentally rewind the clock, wind it back by maths, just if I ask you to count backwards, you can do it. If we are at point 10 in entropy, and we know that entropy is moving forward (both of which we can easily verify, of course), then we can count back to the "0" point very easily, too.

Fires run out of fuel. Mountains wear down. Automobiles deteriorate. Stars themselves burn out. Paper thrown into the air lands randomly. In these phenomena, and in billions of other ways, we see entropy. In fact, it's probably our best-established natural law, the second law of thermodynamics.

So we know that the Earth had a beginning, though we were not at it. We can even deduce some details about it from our present state. But we know for sure that there was a beginning, and no reasonable or scientific person can deny there was.

None of these things, including the Earth, of course, are the universe.

Well stars and galaxies are: and we can see the evidence of the entropy in them, as well as in Earth. "Heat death" is a term that applies to the whole universe, not merely to Earth.

Are you sure, though, that, throughout the entire known history of the world, people had microscopes?

Again, you're mistaking what people knew at a given time, from what was true at that same time. The Earth was round before people had telescopes.

Now, if you think there's any evidence that in ancient times, say, iron was sentient, or hydrogen was philosophical and self-aware, I'll happily see your evidence.

Again, "philosophical" and "self-aware" is your straw man.

No, it was your claim. You said they even had consciousness of their own existence: that means they were self-aware. And only when one is self-aware can one be philosophical, because only then can one objectify the world, so as to make it an object of reflection.

That's why animals don't do philosophy: they lack self-awareness, and thus of distinction between themselves as distinct selves, and of the external world as an object of reflection. They are creatures of instinct, not of philosophy.

But if you think otherwise, I'll be happy to entertain your evidence...if you provide any.