BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 1:19 am
Immanuel, let's cut through the noise.
You keep saying things like that. Then you don't answer the question I've asked you:
What is "emergence," precisely. Exactly how does it take place?
...the burden is on you...
It's not. It's on the Determinist. Everybody, including the Determinist, already lives and acts --just as you are doing by arguing now -- as if free will exists. That means that the normal or default position is to assume its existence. The weird position is to deny it.
That puts the burden squarely on the Determinist, to show us all that we are wrong -- which, if he does, he's proved that rational argument works...which means people can change their minds as a result of rational persuasion, rather than of predetermining physical factors...and he has thereby proved Determinism false.
So he's in a real catch 22 situation. He can't win. And when a position is self-defeating, you've got the clearest evidence you'll ever need that it's actually not coherent. Determinism just doesn't make sense, even on its own terms.
...conveniently sidestepping the fact that science often operates in realms where full mechanisms are not yet understood.
Not only do I not "sidestep" it, I insist that it's true. I want you to know that. Science does
not presently have any warrant for Determinism...you're absolutely right.
But a promissory note to provide future evidence that does not yet exist is not legit. You don't know what evidence will exist in the future, and can't base any argument on the hope that the missing facts will simply pop into place one day -- especially when, today, you can't even imagine what those facts would even look like. You can't expect a rational person to sake such a 'prophecy' seriously, can you?
So that admission is fatal to the case for Determinism. It turns the whole theory into "well, one day I'll be right, maybe..." And that's not an argument. It's no more than a wish.
Lack of complete understanding doesn't invalidate determinism
Actually, it does. Means it's not scientific, but rather a metaphysical position without evidence. It's wishful thinking: no more.
Now, about your repeated assertion that abstractions like rationality or meaning cannot arise from physical processes: show me one instance of a "non-physical" phenomenon that isn't reliant on or derived from physical reality.
I've given you a whole bunch. Free will, volition, choice, reason, logic, mathematics, personhood, identity, ethics...
But I can predict the response. You'll say they're physical. However, what you'll have to mean by that is that they can be applied to the physical after-the-fact, which is true; but their origin, their existence, does not actually depend on physical causes at all. You'll assume they must, because you already want to believe in Determinism: but you won't be able to explain how they could "emerge" out of non-sentient matter.
Heck, I have to say this -- you don't even apparently know what you, yourself, mean when you use the word "emergence." Apparently, you can't say.
If you could, you'd have given me your explanation long ago, just to make your case. There certainly isn't any reason to become shy about it...unless I'm just asking too much.
And I am. I'm asking you to solve a problem that none of the greatest philosophers of mind have been able to solve so far. Read Nagel or Kim. You'll find both enlightening. At least you'll understand how impossible the "emergence" explanation is to take seriously.
