For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
WHY?
What does the 'it' word refer to here?
Well this is just BLATANTLY OBVIOUS anyway, to 'me'.
1. An act of free will requires further actions to occur from that choice thus necessitating determinism coming from free will.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 1:00 amWHY?
Why can change NOT HAPPEN by just free will alone?
What you said here infers that ALL decisions are predetermined anyway, which opposes and is contrary to the idea of free will. Or if you mean something else, then what do you mean?
What does the 'it' word refer to here?
And, saying, "determinism requires free will" implies that free will ALWAYS existed alongside determinism or prior to determinism. Whereas is it NOT possible that free will came to exist through the evolutionary process later along the evolutionary line, or after?
Well this is just BLATANTLY OBVIOUS anyway, to 'me'.
But maybe if you explained what 'determinism' and 'free will' ACTUALLY IS, to 'you', then that might help in understanding how you reached this conclusion here. From your 1. and 2. wording this certainly did NOT help in arriving, logically nor reasonably, at this 3. conclusion, well not from my perspective anyway.
Even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes.
If the universe is determined, and everything including concepts are determined as they are rooted in this universe, then free will is determined to exist.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:03 pmEven a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes.
You got the gist right, but for all wrong reasons.
The physical universe is determined, and understandable in terms of inviolable principles, else the knowledge necessary for volition would not be possible. But knowledge is only possible to conscious rational beings, and consciousness is not physical or determined, else both knowledge and volition would not be possible.
No, that does not follow. I agree that free will is real, but not for those reasons.
1. The concept of free will necessitates free will as existing as a concept. If all reality is consciously measured through concepts and concepts are determined as extensions of the universe, with the universe being determined, then free will is determined.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:52 pmNo, that does not follow. I agree that free will is real, but not for those reasons.
It might be the case that people are predetermined to have a concept called "free will," but no more than a concept...and this concept has no more reality than pixies or mermaids do. That's what Determinists will say is the case.
There are actually two mistakes people make when they start a discussion on Determinism versus Free Will: one is to absolutize the latter, and the other is to relativize the former. Both produce error.
Free will is never absolute. It is not the case that free will advocates have to believe that everything is "free." They don't have to disbelieve in scientific laws, or probability patterns, cause-and-effect, or anything like that. They don't insist free will describes everything. And for the very reason you suggested earlier (namely that free will actually presupposes the existence of pattern, reliability, laws, etc.), they not only can, but have to insist that some elements of reality are fixed and predictable. That's no problem to belief in free will. It's not absolute.
You can also see this if you try to stretch your mind to imagine a universe in which nothing predictable, law-like, or regular ever happened, where everything was random. There would be no free will in such a universe, because it would be devoid of anything that could make "will" effective. Nothing one did could be relied upon to produce a particular outcome; so all choices would be futile and ineffective. Ironically, this would be a Determined universe: just one predetermined to be chaotic, not predictable or regular in any way. And free will would be impossible there.
So that's free will: "free" never means "absolute." It simply means that human will is ONE OF the factors that produce particular outcomes...not that it has to be -- or even can be -- the only one.
But Determinism is different. It is absolute. Determinism says that NOTHING is not fated or predetermined by forces (usually material, but in religious cases, spiritual) that compel the individual into particular actions. There is, in the causal chain, no such link human "will." Human beings are essentially automatons, predetermined by biochemistry, or physics, or social dynamics, all of which are also predetermined by prior factors.
So you can have free will with some fixed or law-governed elements in the universe. But you cannot have Determinism with ANY smidgen of free will. If you do, then the truth is that free will exists, and Determinism isn't true.
The upshot: free will is relative, in the sense that we can argue over whether there is more or less of it, without departing the postulate of free will, and can allow that some elements of the world are law-governed, with no rational problem created by us doing that.
But Determinism is absolute: it can admit of no degrees. It has to hold absolutely, or not at all.
No, this is a mental error known as a "non-sequitur." What you're suggesting does not follow.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:10 pm 1. The concept of free will necessitates free will as existing as a concept. If all reality is consciously measured through concepts and concepts are determined as extensions of the universe, with the universe being determined, then free will is determined.
That isn't an "absolute statement." It's just a definitional one. It explains what the concept "free will" means, that's all.3. This is a paradox as you are making an absolute statement: "So that's free will: "free" never means "absolute." It simply means that human will is ONE OF the factors that produce particular outcomes...not that it has to be -- or even can be -- the only one."
But you've now made another error called, "begging the question," meaning "taking for granted a conclusion you ought to prove."4. ...any choice made results in a causal chain of factors which stem from the choice.
1. Yet if all is rooted in the universe then what is imaginary is rooted in the universe as well.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:55 pmNo, this is a mental error known as a "non-sequitur." What you're suggesting does not follow.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:10 pm 1. The concept of free will necessitates free will as existing as a concept. If all reality is consciously measured through concepts and concepts are determined as extensions of the universe, with the universe being determined, then free will is determined.
The term "existing as a concept" can just mean "imaginary." It doesn't necessarily mean "real."
That isn't an "absolute statement." It's just a definitional one. It explains what the concept "free will" means, that's all.3. This is a paradox as you are making an absolute statement: "So that's free will: "free" never means "absolute." It simply means that human will is ONE OF the factors that produce particular outcomes...not that it has to be -- or even can be -- the only one."
But you've now made another error called, "begging the question," meaning "taking for granted a conclusion you ought to prove."4. ...any choice made results in a causal chain of factors which stem from the choice.
Determinism cannot include "choice" in the causal chain. "Choice," for the Determinist," has to be no more that a rather strange "epiphenomenon," (that's the actually word they use). That means it's not real, but it's an illusion we have. It exists merely "as a concept," but does not "exist in reality as a causal factor."
I also note a third error: namely, that you equivocate the word "exist." To "exist as a concept" is not what is means when somebody says "this rock exists."
Now you're not using the word "root" the same way in both statements. Do you mean "root" as "actually real," or only as "imaginary"?
Well, only between the two people communicating. It's certainly not "absolute." Definitions can also be "provisional" or even "stipulated."2. The definition, if true, must be constant...
No, any actual choice eliminates Determinism.3. I said a choice results in determinism
No, that's not true. "Exists" can be defined multiple ways, and you've already shown two: "exists as real," versus "exists as imaginary." The two are not the same.4. If existence has multiple definitions then these multiple definitions are tied together under the nature of existing.
1. Root is origin. Origins are real.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:47 amNow you're not using the word "root" the same way in both statements. Do you mean "root" as "actually real," or only as "imaginary"?
Well, only between the two people communicating. It's certainly not "absolute." Definitions can also be "provisional" or even "stipulated."2. The definition, if true, must be constant...
No, any actual choice eliminates Determinism.3. I said a choice results in determinism
No, that's not true. "Exists" can be defined multiple ways, and you've already shown two: "exists as real," versus "exists as imaginary." The two are not the same.4. If existence has multiple definitions then these multiple definitions are tied together under the nature of existing.
And that's actually the point that Determinists are arguing: are phenomena of mind causal factors or not? The Determinists have to say an absolute, "No." The proponents of free will have to say that at least in some cases, the answer is "Yes."
No, Spiderman has an "origin." But he's not real. He has an imaginary origin.
You're not paying attention. So long as you and I have a common definition, we're good. And you and I can decide what it is, no problem.2. Then there is no common definition for free will
Determinists deny that "choice" is in the material-causal chain at all. So no, it doesn't.3. Choice does not eliminate determinism because a cause and effect chain follows from any choice.
4. Exists as real is existence as real. Exists as imaginary is existence as imaginary.
Determinists deny that it IS real. So no, it's not "determined" at all, according to them. It's not real. It's a mere "epiphenomenon."5. As real the phenomenon of free will is determined to exist.
1. But the origin as imaginary is real as imaginary. Are you following this at all.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:09 amNo, Spiderman has an "origin." But he's not real. He has an imaginary origin.
Are you tracking this?
You're not paying attention. So long as you and I have a common definition, we're good. And you and I can decide what it is, no problem.2. Then there is no common definition for free will
So do you want to talk about things that are actually real, or things that are only real as concepts, but don't actually exist? You pick it, and we'll use that definition.
Determinists deny that "choice" is in the material-causal chain at all. So no, it doesn't.3. Choice does not eliminate determinism because a cause and effect chain follows from any choice.
4. Exists as real is existence as real. Exists as imaginary is existence as imaginary.
Two different things, then: the real, and the imaginary. You've just said it.
Determinists deny that it IS real. So no, it's not "determined" at all, according to them. It's not real. It's a mere "epiphenomenon."5. As real the phenomenon of free will is determined to exist.
So "imaginary" and "real" are exactly the same to you?
Apparently, the answer to my question above is "Yes." You don't know the difference, it seems.2. Reality is reality whether it is real as an actual truth or real as an imaginary.
According to Determinists, yes, that's exactly right.3. So no cause and effect actions result from a choice?
Determinists say that "choice" is not real; it's only imagined.Without a cause and effect chain from a choice then choice does not exist at all.
No, you're equivocating the word "existence" there.4. Yet both real and imaginary share the same concept of existence as a medial, or rather middle, term.
That's what they think. They say there are only "epiphenomena."5. Determinism cannot have any illusions
1. Both imaginary and real share the same nature in the fact both exist. The actual exists. The imaginary exists.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:34 amSo "imaginary" and "real" are exactly the same to you?
Apparently, the answer to my question above is "Yes." You don't know the difference, it seems.2. Reality is reality whether it is real as an actual truth or real as an imaginary.
According to Determinists, yes, that's exactly right.3. So no cause and effect actions result from a choice?
Determinists say that "choice" is not real; it's only imagined.Without a cause and effect chain from a choice then choice does not exist at all.
No, you're equivocating the word "existence" there.4. Yet both real and imaginary share the same concept of existence as a medial, or rather middle, term.
Same problem: if you don't know any difference between "exists as real" and "exists in imagination," then you're going to imagine they're the same. But they're not.
A real tiger can eat you. An imaginary one never will.
That's what they think. They say there are only "epiphenomena."5. Determinism cannot have any illusions