Philosophy Now Forum

Wyman wrote: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.

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.

Wyman wrote:

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 wrote:

A_Seagull wrote: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.

A_Seagull wrote: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.

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.

alpha wrote:

A_Seagull wrote: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.

A_Seagull wrote: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.

alpha wrote:

A_Seagull wrote: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 wrote: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.

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

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

Skip wrote: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.