May I ask why we need to prove that we have free will when the logic that say’s we don’t contradicts itself? If you don’t have free will, than how are you free to know/believe that? and furthermore, when you claim to have no control over what you say or do, how can you expect us to believe what you say to be true?Determinism cannot rule human activity as is easily shown from the paradox of Buridan’s a**. Assuming that determinism is correct, an a** will always satisfy his needs by approaching whichever is closer. Suppose then that the a** is equally hungry and thirsty. You then place the a** exactly midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Assuming determinism and that the a** will go to whichever is closer, he will then die of both hunger and thirst since he does not have the free will to choose one over the other. Humans, on the other hand, have the power of free will and rational decision and will wisely choose one and then the other, thus proving the existence of free will by the scientific method of experimentation and observation.
It’s a false dilemma like I said. Free-will originate in us, we’re the causa sui of some of our actions. We’re rational beings, and a very strong case made is that it is immaterial. We’re not rocks or dice.
I suppose I’ll have to re-hash the episode with my father again, when he appeared in my room the night he died.
I have a counter-argument against materialism. It is based on the fact that causality is not possible without consciousness.
Here’s another problem with your argument: the hidden premises you’re not defending.
You have a misunderstanding of “indeterminism.” Indeterminism does not necessarily imply that all events are random or uncaused; it only implies that some are.
No it doesn’t. Self-determinism is still determinism. My previous mental state is determining my present mental state. Either our decision-making process is a completely deterministic process or it is not. If it is not, then some random event must be occurring in the process. There are no other alternatives. (Logic dictates this much.)
To begin with, I am arguing that libertarian free will (free will which is not compatible with determinism) does not make your position any more palatable than compatiblist free will (free will which is compatible determinism).
Finally, we learn from our mistakes. What we learn becomes a DETERMINANT factor in our subsequent choices. For example, if I learn that I will get burnt when I place my finger on a sizzling frying pan, I will most likely not place my finger on a sizzling frying pan in the future.
Saying that free will is an illusion supposes that something other than the soul moves the soul to choose one way or another. If the choice of the soul is in itself indeterministic, that is exactly what is meant by “free will.” You have yet to demonstrate that the choice of the soul is deterministic.
Okay, let me rephrase. It is my understanding that the determinist position re: free will is that our will is determined by prior events, while the indeterminist position re: free will is that our will makes choices only because of random forces along with determined prior events. Does that fit your understanding better? Because I still think that excludes another possibility, that neither random events nor prior events determine our will, but out will determines its own actions at the moment of making a choice, without prior causes or random events determining it, but itself in that moment. Do you think that’s possible?
I don’t think it does, because my understanding of the terms “determinism” and “indeterminism” is that one refers to prior events determining something while the other refers to some things not being determined at all. That seems to leave a third possibility: something being determined, not by prior events, but by itself at the moment it makes a choice.
I think my definition of free will makes us responsible for our choices, while indeterminism and determinism make random forces responsible for our choices, with determinism putting the blame on ancient random forces and indeterminism putting most of the blame on more recent random forces.
Well you certainly aren’t responsible for the random elements, right? And as for the nonrandom elements, do you think you could have made them any other way? If not, then how are you responsible for them, and what is left for us to be responsible for if we aren’t responsible for either of the things that determine our choices?
There is a certain amount of randomness in our choices which are determined internally by our free will. Determinism in this case is internal to our soul and free will since it is that which determines what choices we make. The determinism involved here is not external, except to the extent that the choices presented to us are not entirely within our power to change. For example, the person living in poverty has a choice to buy a quart of milk, but not a Tesla car which is beyond his means. So it is not exactly an either or situation. Our choices are determined by what our free will chooses. As the example from Buridan’s a** shows, our human choices are not determined only by forces external to us. So your logic denying free will is missing some important ingredients and therefore is leading you to a false conclusion based on an erroneous simplification of the question.
I have never claimed that determinism rules human activity.
a donkey.The word is not allowed on CAF.
The idea that what we experience is not real is known as solipsism which is untenable. The scientific method depends on experiment and observation. The scientific method depends on trusting what we observe is what is occurring in the real world.
Do you believe free will is compatible with determinism?
You haven’t provided me with any logical argument that demonstrates that the logic I employed contradicts itself.
I started this thread to explain why free will is an illusion.
It’s a real illusion even like a dream is a real illusion.