HUMANS DO NOT ACT, BUT REACT, SO MUCH FOR FREE WILL

[Iwannaplato]

As I have stated so many times before, there is no such thing as human action; there is only human reaction, and those reactions are causes to humanity's outer world.

I'm sorry...this is just too dumb a debate to be had. It's really stupid.

If people cannot choose, then people cannot change their minds, either. So argumentation is pointless: the only reason you could then give for why anybody held any view was "prior material factors made it happen." So there would be no "better" or "worse" views of anything -- the total determinant would be the previous causal forces.

And arguments wouldn't work. For then, there is no mind to hear them, and no possibility of a mind being convinced of them.

So why is this OP about something the OP both requires of us, and yet demands we believe can't happen?

Too dumb for words.

I agree that determinism or perhaps better put determinists have a problem: how can they know that, for example, determinism applies to other people. They moment they think all their conclusions are determined and their sense that this is 'for good reasons', how can they judge whether they logically or just compulsively arrived at their conclusion. They can't.

But this doesn't let the free will people off the hook. You also have a position that needs justification.

When you make a decision, freely, but not caused by prior states, what leads to the decision? Does nothing lead to it? Is it uncaused?

[Impenitent]

happy fish...

what else should be let off the hook?

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

As I have stated so many times before, there is no such thing as human action; there is only human reaction, and those reactions are causes to humanity's outer world.

I'm sorry...this is just too dumb a debate to be had. It's really stupid.

If people cannot choose, then people cannot change their minds, either. So argumentation is pointless: the only reason you could then give for why anybody held any view was "prior material factors made it happen." So there would be no "better" or "worse" views of anything -- the total determinant would be the previous causal forces.

And arguments wouldn't work. For then, there is no mind to hear them, and no possibility of a mind being convinced of them.

So why is this OP about something the OP both requires of us, and yet demands we believe can't happen?

Too dumb for words.

I agree that determinism or perhaps better put determinists have a problem: how can they know that, for example, determinism applies to other people. They moment they think all their conclusions are determined and their sense that this is 'for good reasons', how can they judge whether they logically or just compulsively arrived at their conclusion. They can't.

Exactly so. There's just no way a Determinist can use "reason," because "reason" assumes the existence of a rational, free agent to hear the argument and to choose to respond out of rational motivations.

Does the Determinist believe HE'S rational? If he does, he does not believe he's merely "reacting" to prior causes. He thinks, or he assumes, that he is making a rational argument -- even while he is denying that the making and receiving as of such "immaterial" things as "reasons" is even possible.

But this doesn't let the free will people off the hook. You also have a position that needs justification.

Of course. But the important question is "Where does the burden of proof lie?" That is, should we assume Determinism until free will is proved, or assume free will until Determinism is proved?

The answer, of course, is the latter. Even Determinists, in making their argument, are accidentally making the natural assumption -- namely, that free will operates. It's actually impossible for anybody to live as if Determinism is true -- to surrender all volition to an impersonal belief in Fate or prior causes. Such a person would die almost immediately. So we're all going to continue to believe in free will, or at least act as if free will operates, even while the search for justification for Determinism goes on. And if we ever find justification for Determinism, ironically, it would be meaningless and unavailable to our consciousness, unless free will exists.

So the prospect for a proof of Determinism doesn't look great, to say the least. And the burden is on them, a burden they'll never succeed in bearing.

When you make a decision, freely, but not caused by prior states, what leads to the decision? Does nothing lead to it? Is it uncaused?

Oh, the answer to this is actually very easy to identify, if not as easy to demonstrate. We're not sure exactly how to demonstrate it beyond all possible doubt, but there's not much doubt what we'd be aiming to demonstrate.

The Determinist is gratuitously excluding a genuine causal factor -- at least, the free willian thinks so. That is, Determinism is declaring, for no good reason, that volition, human choice, cannot ever be considered a causal factor. The Determinist is only considering impersonal, material things as capable of being included in any explanation of causality.

But there's no reason for him to do so; and if he uses reason to say there is a reason, then he's self-defeating again. It does not follow from the observation that there ARE some impersonal, material causal chains that there is NOTHING BUT those. That's not logical. Nothing warrants that assumption.

This is what makes the whole argument so daft. We all HAVE to assume free will. Even the Determinists, in arguing, is doing it. We have no choice but to do that. So the burden of proof is squarely on the person who is making the counterintuitive and counter-rational and self-refuting claim that everything is predetermined.

[Gary Childress]

I'm sorry...this is just too dumb a debate to be had. It's really stupid.

If people cannot choose, then people cannot change their minds, either. So argumentation is pointless: the only reason you could then give for why anybody held any view was "prior material factors made it happen." So there would be no "better" or "worse" views of anything -- the total determinant would be the previous causal forces.

And arguments wouldn't work. For then, there is no mind to hear them, and no possibility of a mind being convinced of them.

So why is this OP about something the OP both requires of us, and yet demands we believe can't happen?

Too dumb for words.

I agree that determinism or perhaps better put determinists have a problem: how can they know that, for example, determinism applies to other people. They moment they think all their conclusions are determined and their sense that this is 'for good reasons', how can they judge whether they logically or just compulsively arrived at their conclusion. They can't.

Exactly so. There's just no way a Determinist can use "reason," because "reason" assumes the existence of a rational, free agent to hear the argument and to choose to respond out of rational motivations.

Does the Determinist believe HE'S rational? If he does, he does not believe he's merely "reacting" to prior causes. He thinks, or he assumes, that he is making a rational argument -- even while he is denying that the making and receiving as of such "immaterial" things as "reasons" is even possible.

Whether we live in a deterministic world or not, it is irrelevant to the argument whether or not the one who is arguing the point is being "rational". That's an entirely different matter than the truth or falsity of what is being argued.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree that determinism or perhaps better put determinists have a problem: how can they know that, for example, determinism applies to other people. They moment they think all their conclusions are determined and their sense that this is 'for good reasons', how can they judge whether they logically or just compulsively arrived at their conclusion. They can't.

Exactly so. There's just no way a Determinist can use "reason," because "reason" assumes the existence of a rational, free agent to hear the argument and to choose to respond out of rational motivations.

Does the Determinist believe HE'S rational? If he does, he does not believe he's merely "reacting" to prior causes. He thinks, or he assumes, that he is making a rational argument -- even while he is denying that the making and receiving as of such "immaterial" things as "reasons" is even possible.

Whether we live in a deterministic world or not, it is irrelevant to the argument whether or not the one who is arguing the point is being "rational". That's an entirely different matter than the truth or falsity of what is being argued.

No, Gary...it means that you (meaning the Determinist, of course, not you personally) is being irrational.

You can't use rationality to show that rationality doesn't work. If you "succeed" at that, then you fail. You undercut your own feet.

If rationality doesn't work, you can't have a rational case.

[Gary Childress]

Exactly so. There's just no way a Determinist can use "reason," because "reason" assumes the existence of a rational, free agent to hear the argument and to choose to respond out of rational motivations.

Does the Determinist believe HE'S rational? If he does, he does not believe he's merely "reacting" to prior causes. He thinks, or he assumes, that he is making a rational argument -- even while he is denying that the making and receiving as of such "immaterial" things as "reasons" is even possible.

Whether we live in a deterministic world or not, it is irrelevant to the argument whether or not the one who is arguing the point is being "rational". That's an entirely different matter than the truth or falsity of what is being argued.

No, Gary...it means that you (meaning the Determinist, of course, not you personally) is being irrational.

You can't use rationality to show that rationality doesn't work. If you "succeed" at that, then you fail. You undercut your own feet.

If rationality doesn't work, you can't have a rational case.

No. The question at hand is whether we are deterministic in nature. "Rationality" has nothing to do with the argument of whether we are or not. It does not prove that the statement "we are determined" is false.

[Immanuel Can]

Whether we live in a deterministic world or not, it is irrelevant to the argument whether or not the one who is arguing the point is being "rational". That's an entirely different matter than the truth or falsity of what is being argued.

No, Gary...it means that you (meaning the Determinist, of course, not you personally) is being irrational.

You can't use rationality to show that rationality doesn't work. If you "succeed" at that, then you fail. You undercut your own feet.

If rationality doesn't work, you can't have a rational case.

No.

Yes.

The question at hand is whether we are deterministic in nature. "Rationality" has nothing to do with the argument of whether we are or not.

Then, by its own definition, it cannot be a "rational" argument. Determinism implies NO argument, on either side, can be "rational."

It does not prove that the statement "we are determined" is false.

No, because Determinism is unprovable as well as undisprovable. It's a gratutitious hypothesis, and an irrational one by its own definition.

[Gary Childress]

No, Gary...it means that you (meaning the Determinist, of course, not you personally) is being irrational.

You can't use rationality to show that rationality doesn't work. If you "succeed" at that, then you fail. You undercut your own feet.

If rationality doesn't work, you can't have a rational case.

No.

Yes.

The question at hand is whether we are deterministic in nature. "Rationality" has nothing to do with the argument of whether we are or not.

Then, by its own definition, it cannot be a "rational" argument. Determinism implies NO argument, on either side, can be "rational."

It does not prove that the statement "we are determined" is false.

No, because Determinism is unprovable as well as undisprovable. It's a gratutitious hypothesis, and an irrational one by its own definition.

No. No. No. I'm tired of your games. You don't understand philosophy. You're a theist, for God's sake. Your allegiance is to the Bible, whether true or not.

[Iwannaplato]

Of course. But the important question is "Where does the burden of proof lie?" That is, should we assume Determinism until free will is proved, or assume free will until Determinism is proved?

So the prospect for a proof of Determinism doesn't look great, to say the least. And the burden is on them, a burden they'll never succeed in bearing.

The burden is on anyone making an assertion of what is the case. You could be dealing with people who cannot see a way that free could work while at the same time see a problem with the determinist position.

But regardless, anyone assertion accrues a burden.
We all HAVE to assume free will. Even the Determinists, in arguing, is doing it. We have no choice but to do that. So the burden of proof is squarely on the person who is making the counterintuitive and counter-rational and self-refuting claim that everything is predetermined.

I tend to agree that if one mounts an argument, one is tending to assume some kind of free will. Great. But that doesn't mean it is false. So, why is free will the case? Why is it true? Or do you think there is no way to demonstrate that it is?

The determinist has a problem when arguing his case, that doesn't mean it is false. It just means they have a problem arguing it for reasons you pointed out. But if you think and assert free will is the case, what is the justification?

[Immanuel Can]

No.

Yes.

The question at hand is whether we are deterministic in nature. "Rationality" has nothing to do with the argument of whether we are or not.

Then, by its own definition, it cannot be a "rational" argument. Determinism implies NO argument, on either side, can be "rational."

It does not prove that the statement "we are determined" is false.

No, because Determinism is unprovable as well as undisprovable. It's a gratutitious hypothesis, and an irrational one by its own definition.

No. No. No. I'm tired of your games.

It's not a game, Gary. It's a very simple point:

Here we go:

1. Under Determinism, "rationality" or (reason) is said never to be a cause of human action. (see the OP)
2. A proper argument is, by definition, "rational".
3. Therefore, any argument FROM Determinism cannot rely on rationality to verify its truth (i.e. cannot be a proper and "rational" argument).

[Gary Childress]

Yes.

Then, by its own definition, it cannot be a "rational" argument. Determinism implies NO argument, on either side, can be "rational."



No, because Determinism is unprovable as well as undisprovable. It's a gratutitious hypothesis, and an irrational one by its own definition.

No. No. No. I'm tired of your games.

It's not a game, Gary. It's a very simple point:

Here we go:

1. Under Determinism, "rationality" or (reason) is said never to be a cause of human action. (see the OP)
2. A proper argument is, by definition, "rational".
3. Therefore, any argument FROM Determinism cannot rely on rationality to verify its truth (i.e. cannot be a proper and "rational" argument).

That's a sloppy argument. You don't have any congruence from one premise to the next. Not a valid argument, though not necessarily a false conclusion because of that but a sloppy argument that can't be taken seriously.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course. But the important question is "Where does the burden of proof lie?" That is, should we assume Determinism until free will is proved, or assume free will until Determinism is proved?

So the prospect for a proof of Determinism doesn't look great, to say the least. And the burden is on them, a burden they'll never succeed in bearing.

The burden is on anyone making an assertion of what is the case.

That's the OP. See above.

You could be dealing with people who cannot see a way that free could work while at the same time see a problem with the determinist position.

What we "cannot see" is just the point. The Determinist thinks that because he "cannot see" free will, it cannot exist. But there are many real things that human beings "cannot see." One "cannot see" any abstract quality: one is deducing them, not "seeing" them.

So let's take these people who "cannot see a way free will could work." So what? They don't see. But who cares? Maybe they WILL one day see, or maybe it's one of those things we cannot see, but has to be deduced.

But what we CAN see is that Determinism is inherently irrational.

I tend to agree that if one mounts an argument, one is tending to assume some kind of free will. Great. But that doesn't mean it is false.

Determinism is false because it refutes itself.

So, why is free will the case?

Free will is our natural working hypothesis, and the only one that works in real life. So until further notice, it's the supposition we have to go with. And it is the default until some better explanation succeeds, if it ever does.

Why is it true? Or do you think there is no way to demonstrate that it is?

I suspect it's not possible to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt. But there are many things that are not possible to demonstrate beyond ALL doubt that are still true and reasonable. For example, you and I can find ways to doubt that the Napoleonic Wars ever existed, if we are perverse enough to accept wild counter-explanations. But we aren't reasonable to do so, and we have enough evidence that we should believe in the Napoleonic Wars, until somebody disproves them conclusively.

We're in a similar situation with free will...but free will is even more compelling, because you and I are having to assume it right now, even to have this conversation.

The determinist has a problem when arguing his case, that doesn't mean it is false.

It does if his case self-refutes. And Determinism does.

[Immanuel Can]

No. No. No. I'm tired of your games.

It's not a game, Gary. It's a very simple point:

Here we go:

1. Under Determinism, "rationality" or (reason) is said never to be a cause of human action. (see the OP)
2. A proper argument is, by definition, "rational".
3. Therefore, any argument FROM Determinism cannot rely on rationality to verify its truth (i.e. cannot be a proper and "rational" argument).

That's a sloppy argument. You don't have any congruence from one premise to the next.

You mean you want it rendered as a formal syllogism? I can do that.

1. Rationality is a product of prior, impersonal causal forces (i.e. Deterministic)
2. This argument is (intended to be) rational.
3. Therefore, this argument is a product of nothing but prior, impersonal, causal forces.

QED.

[Iwannaplato]

What we "cannot see" is just the point. The Determinist thinks that because he "cannot see" free will, it cannot exist. But there are many real things that human beings "cannot see." One "cannot see" any abstract quality: one is deducing them, not "seeing" them.

So let's take these people who "cannot see a way free will could work." So what? They don't see. But who cares? Maybe they WILL one day see, or maybe it's one of those things we cannot see, but has to be deduced.

But what we CAN see is that Determinism is inherently irrational.

No, you haven't shown that. What you've shown is that arguing for determinism is irrational. You've nowhere demonstrated that determinism is irrational.

Free will is our natural working hypothesis, and the only one that works in real life. So until further notice, it's the supposition we have to go with. And it is the default until some better explanation succeeds, if it ever does

.OK, that's fine. You can't demonstrate is it the case. You assume it. OK.

It does if his case self-refutes. And Determinism does.

The determinist's argument fails or has as implicit that we can evaluate the argument. That does not mean that determinism isn't the case. The state of reality is not dependent on our arguments.

But free will is your working assumption. Fine. And honestly on that part we're pretty close in position. I live as if it is true. I can't demonstrate it is, even to myself. But generally, in philosophical contexts if you assert it is the case or, for example, the only rational conclusion, well, you just got an onus. Believing doesn't accrue an onus, but asserting does.

[Immanuel Can]

What we "cannot see" is just the point. The Determinist thinks that because he "cannot see" free will, it cannot exist. But there are many real things that human beings "cannot see." One "cannot see" any abstract quality: one is deducing them, not "seeing" them.

So let's take these people who "cannot see a way free will could work." So what? They don't see. But who cares? Maybe they WILL one day see, or maybe it's one of those things we cannot see, but has to be deduced.

But what we CAN see is that Determinism is inherently irrational.

No, you haven't shown that.

What you've shown is that arguing for determinism is irrational.[/quote]
I stand corrected: that is my claim.

Free will is our natural working hypothesis, and the only one that works in real life. So until further notice, it's the supposition we have to go with. And it is the default until some better explanation succeeds, if it ever does

.OK, that's fine. You can't demonstrate is it the case. You assume it. OK.

Assume it, yes; "just" assume it, no. It's the most rational position, and the only one that works with reality, so based on "argument to the best explanation," we should go with it.

It does if his case self-refutes. And Determinism does.

The determinist's argument fails or has as implicit that we can evaluate the argument. That does not mean that determinism isn't the case. The state of reality is not dependent on our arguments.

Yes, of course. I should have been more precise in my statement.