Can we be intellectually honest and believe in the freedom of man?

[lelinator]

It seems rather a valid point. We all experience free will. You, and others, seem to say what we experience is nothing more than an illusion created by our own brain. Since you claim something that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be real, is not real at all, the burden of proof should be in you.

This is where we disagree. Things that seem obvious to you, don’t seem obvious to me. So why is it that I need to prove my position, but you don’t need to prove yours? When in fact neither of us can prove our position.

If I look out my window and see the ocean, I can assume the ocean is there. If you claim there is no such thing as an ocean, you really need to prove your point, not me.

Actually I’m a solipsist, so your and my opinion as to the nature of the ocean isn’t the same either. Yet I would ask the same question. Why is the onus on me to prove my position, when you’re just as incapable of proving your position as I am?

Why do you get a free pass just because you think that your position is “obvious”?

 

[EndTimes]

No modesty intended, just Bradskii snarkiness. RIP

A forum without Bradskii snarkiness is just cruel.

It seems rather a valid point. We all experience free will. You, and others, seem to say what we experience is nothing more than an illusion created by our own brain. Since you claim something that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be real, is not real at all, the burden of proof should be in you.

If I look out my window and see the ocean, I can assume the ocean is there. If you claim there is no such thing as an ocean, you really need to prove your point, not me.

Indeed…

And Even the Snarks who dwell in that Ocean have never known to have Proved a dang thing,

 

[tafan2]

Actually I’m a solipsist, so your and my opinion as to the nature of the ocean isn’t the same either.

Well, then I will admit defeat in this discussion, as anyone whose mind is capable of creating an illusion of our entire universe, including very intellectual accomplishment of mankind, is far superior to me. I know when I am out classed.
Besides, I don’t exit, so you would be wasting your god-like intellect debating with me.

 

[lelinator]

Well, then I will admit defeat in this discussion, as anyone whose mind is capable of creating an illusion of our entire universe, including very intellectual accomplishment of mankind, is far superior to me. I know when I am out classed.
Besides, I don’t exit, so you would be wasting your god-like intellect debating with me.

I can actually appreciate the facetiousness. Hopefully your understanding of solipsism is a bit more comprehensive than your response would suggest.

As to our discussion, would you say that a theist’s arguments can be summarily dismissed, because they cannot prove that God exists?

And what is your criteria for deciding which positions must be proven, and which can be regarded as self-evident?

 

[Freddy]

EndTimes:

That comes across as false modesty to me. Happens often when one’s sore after losing…

No modesty intended, just Bradskii snarkiness. RIP

A forum without Bradskii snarkiness is just cruel.

I believe he’s a fellow Aussie. I’ll pass on your message. I’m sure he’ll appreciate it…

 

[tafan2]

As to our discussion, would you say that a theist’s arguments can be summarily dismissed, because they cannot prove that God exists?

And what is your criteria for deciding which positions must be proven, and which can be regarded as self-evident?

Evidence and soundness of argument. Note, I don’t think any of this must be proven. But a given viewpoint must match the evidence we have and have a sound and reasoned argument behind it, if it is going to be taken seriously.

There is zero evidence for a denial of free will. Zero. It all stems from the assumption our world is completely deterministic. But that assumption, when it comes to human will is without basis.

 

[lelinator]

Evidence and soundness of argument.

Wow, that’s exactly the same criteria that I use. Wait a minute…isn’t that the same criteria that everyone uses?

And yet we disagree on so much, why is that? Could it be because both of those standards are to a large degree subjective?

There is zero evidence for a denial of free will. Zero.

There’s also zero evidence that it exists. The fact that people appear to have free will, doesn’t constitute objective evidence of free will.

So why are you holding me to a different standard of evidence than you’re holding yourself?

P.S. It doesn’t stem from the assumption that the world is completely deterministic.

 

[whatistrue]

There will be reasons why you make one choice over another

I am confused. I thought that you were arguing that we don’t really make the choice; that our actions are deterministic. That is the position I was arguing against.

 

[EndTimes]

There’s also zero evidence that it exists.

Wouldn’t ask you to 'prove it" - knowing ahead of time that you couldn’t.

This is where you evidence (never prove) that you do not know what evidence actually is!

The evidences for Man’s ability to Choose as he wills are overwhelming.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There will be reasons why you make one choice over another

I am confused. I thought that you were arguing that we don’t really make the choice; that our actions are deterministic. That is the position I was arguing against.

If someone asks you to choose Plan A or Plan B, you have to say something, even if it’s ‘I can’t decide’. No-one is arguing against your ability to make a choice. The debate is whether that choice is made with a free will or whether circumstances dictated what your choice would be.

Whatever choice you make, there will be a reason associated with it (else the choice was random). The question is: How much weight is attached to that reason. That is, does it guide your choice or determine it.

 

[Freddy]

The evidences for Man’s ability to Choose as he wills are overwhelming.

Freddy: Pick a card. Any card.
Endtimes picks a card.
Endtimes: Free will exists! QED!

We can all go home now. Who knew we could solve one of life’s most compelling mysteries so quickly.

 

[whatistrue]

The debate is whether that choice is made with a free will or whether circumstances dictated what your choice would be.

If it is not by free will then, as far as I am concerned, there is no point to sapience. I realize that is more of an emotional than a reasoned argument, but that is where I am and where I remain.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The debate is whether that choice is made with a free will or whether circumstances dictated what your choice would be.

If it is not by free will then, as far as I am concerned, there is no point to sapience. I realize that is more of an emotional than a reasoned argument, but that is where I am and where I remain.

But if it feels like free will and gives all the appearance of free will then you will find that even those who deny it exists will still act as if it does. Why not do the same?

The greatest danger to mankind would be to actually discover that we don’t have it. Best to carry on as if it exists and leave the doubts to random discussions in philosophy forums, bar room talks over a beer and late nights around the camp fire sharing a (ahem) cigarette.

 

[whatistrue]

Best to carry on as if it exists

Well, since I firmly believe that it does, that is no problem for me. And on that note, I am out.

 

[lelinator]

This is where you evidence (never prove) that you do not know what evidence actually is!

At least you recognize that there’s a difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is subjective. The world is just chock full of evidence. For all kinds of disparate and contradictory things. From reincarnation, to ancient aliens, to every conceivable conspiracy theory. Evidence is everywhere. You’ve got what you consider to be evidence, and I’ve got what I consider to be evidence, and Donald Trump has what he considers to be evidence.

The evidences for Man’s ability to Choose as he wills are overwhelming.

Then it should be a fairly simple task for you to give us your best evidence for free will.

So go ahead, hit us with that overwhelming evidence.

 

[tafan2]

Wow, that’s exactly the same criteria that I use. Wait a minute…isn’t that the same criteria that everyone uses?

And yet we disagree on so much, why is that? Could it be because both of those standards are to a large degree subjective?

Yes, they are subjective, but that does not mean we cannot come to a rational conclusion.

The difference, on this topic, is that there is no evidence, as you seem to admit, that free will does not exist. There is evidence, in your opinion its subjective, that free will does exist. That evidence is that we all seem to make choices every day. Now, could it be all a big illusion? I suppose so, but where is the evidence for that? Why would we select that as the best conclusion without evidence of any sort?

 

[tafan2]

But if it feels like free will and gives all the appearance of free will then you will find that even those who deny it exists will still act as if it does. Why not do the same?

Well, doing the same would be a choice, which does not exist.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But if it feels like free will and gives all the appearance of free will then you will find that even those who deny it exists will still act as if it does. Why not do the same?

Well, doing the same would be a choice, which does not exist.

I think you’re missing the point, tafan. No-one is arguing that you can’t make a choice. Choices exist. The argument is whether the choice is made on the basis of free will.

 

[tafan2]

I am not missing the point. Your semantics are non-sensical. Is, I can write a line in a computer program that says " If X is true, do Y, else do Z". Now, you may say the computer is making a choice, but there is no choice to make. It is only proceeding along a path based on the value of X. If it is true, Y will occur, if it is not, Z, there is no choice. But you are saying “Why not do Y”? When I make that decision, I have an indeterminant number of (name removed by moderator)uts that I can weigh in order to make the decision (as opposed to just X). One position is that, when all of those (name removed by moderator)uts are weighted and analyzed, Y is determined to occur, or Z is determined to occur. In other words, we are the same as that computer program, we just have a really advanced expression for X. That being the case, no choice is made. Its determinant. If a choice is being made, it is not determinant, it is free will.

 

[littlebird]

God would not create beings that would not have a free will. What would be the point ? God can create robots any time that he wants.

Your premise (and neurosciences’ position) is inconsiderate of many scenarios.