Problems with free will, possibility, and causality

  • Thread starter Thread starter blase6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blase6 said:
NO! If I always choose what appears best to me, then I can only hope that God will present himself to me so that I will accept him. If he does not appear good enough, then I cannot accept him.

Which presupposes that I would be 100% certain that God always tells the truth. But I can never be absolutely 100% certain of almost anything being true. There is always the possibility that what I am told is false, and even my reason isn’t a guarantee for discovering what is objectively true.
Click to expand...
Based on this I conclude that you trust no one but yourself. Is this true? Are you that trustworthy?
 
davidv said:
Based on this I conclude that you trust no one but yourself. Is this true? Are you that trustworthy?
Click to expand...
I am naturally inclined to believe my own observation over someone else’s. Unless someone else’s observation appears more credible than mine.
 
blase6 said:
I am naturally inclined to believe my own observation over someone else’s. Unless someone else’s observation appears more credible than mine.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that for the OP, observations are insufficient to arrive at a believable solution. Most of the elements of the problem are not observable. What other tools are available?
 
PseuTonym said:
If you want to know whether or not your arguments are sound, then you need to look for flaws in them. One cannot even proofread a document for trivial typographical errors unless one looks for errors. You cannot attempt to revise an argument and remove a flaw until after you are aware that the flaw exists.

I suggest that as a first step you should make your arguments as clear as possible. In particular, every step of the argument must proceed by invoking a principle that is explicitly formulated. In other words, it is not good enough for the reader to guess what principle is invoked. It has to be possible for people to create their own arguments and invoke one of the principles that your arguments rely upon, and for them to know that they are invoking it. If they need your authorization, then the principle has not been clearly formulated. If they begin with assumptions that you agree are true and use your principles to arrive at false conclusions, then you need to revise your principles and then check to see whether you can revise your arguments.
Click to expand...
  1. It is self-evident that everything other than God has a cause.
  2. Causality is observed to be either deterministic, indeterministic, or a combination of both.
  3. The idea of freedom is as follows: In a given situation, motives for potential decisions present themselves to the will of a person. The will determines the motive which will be actualized in a decision, but the determination of the will is not necessitated by external factors.
  4. Freedom cannot exist under determinism, because in determinism every event necessitates the event directly proceeding from it. If the will has a deterministic component, then its decision proceeds necessarily from the motives available. Thus the other motives cannot be chosen because they will not move the will to be actualized in a decision.
  5. Freedom cannot exist under indeterminism, because indeterminism implies an outcome determined by chance. Thus one could not influence themselves with full responsibility, because ultimately one’s choice would random.
  6. Thus freedom cannot exist.
 
davidv said:
Seems to me that for the OP, observations are insufficient to arrive at a believable solution. Most of the elements of the problem are not observable. What other tools are available?
Click to expand...
Well, you can simply ask yourself why you acted in a certain way. If you can come to a conclusion that you weren’t forced by your situation to act, then that is at least some evidence for freedom. But I am not convinced after testing myself personally.
 
blase6 said:
Well, you can simply ask yourself why you acted in a certain way. If you can come to a conclusion that you weren’t forced by your situation to act, then that is at least some evidence for freedom. But I am not convinced after testing myself personally.
Click to expand...
How does this address my question? What other tools are available?

Sounds like you are asking me to use observation to do something it is not capable of doing.
 
davidv said:
How does this address my question? What other tools are available?

Sounds like you are asking me to use observation to do something it is not capable of doing.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by observation? By observation, I mean an intellectual perception and understanding of reality.
 
blase6 said:
  1. It is self-evident that everything other than God has a cause.
  2. Causality is observed to be either deterministic, indeterministic, or a combination of both.
  3. The idea of freedom is as follows: In a given situation, motives for potential decisions present themselves to the will of a person. The will determines the motive which will be actualized in a decision, but the determination of the will is not necessitated by external factors.
  4. Freedom cannot exist under determinism, because in determinism every event necessitates the event directly proceeding from it. If the will has a deterministic component, then its decision proceeds necessarily from the motives available. Thus the other motives cannot be chosen because they will not move the will to be actualized in a decision.
  5. Freedom cannot exist under indeterminism, because indeterminism implies an outcome determined by chance. Thus one could not influence themselves with full responsibility, because ultimately one’s choice would random.
  6. Thus freedom cannot exist.
Click to expand...
Why does ones intellect have to be determined? If you agree that we have the freedom to reason, than you should agree that we can make choices based on what we reason to be good for us in any particular circumstance.
 
ChainBreaker said:
Why does ones intellect have to be determined? If you agree that we have the freedom to reason, than you should agree that we can make choices based on what we reason to be good for us in any particular circumstance.
Click to expand...
You cannot first choose what to know. You receive knowledge apart from your will and then you consider how to act based on it.
 
blase6 said:
You cannot first choose what to know. You receive knowledge apart from your will and then you consider how to act based on it.
Click to expand...
You are not compelled to receive knowledge. Many people do not want to know…
 
blase6 said:
You cannot first choose what to know. You receive knowledge apart from your will and then you consider how to act based on it.
Click to expand...
People choose to seek knowledge.

Data requires interpretation. Conclusions are obtained based on some assumptions and some reasoning. If we want a signal that our assumptions include falsehood, then we want to arrive at a contradiction, but we want the contradiction to depend on the assumptions rather than on any error that we introduce into the reasoning.
 
PseuTonym said:
People choose to seek knowledge.

Data requires interpretation. Conclusions are obtained based on some assumptions and some reasoning. If we want a signal that our assumptions include falsehood, then we want to arrive at a contradiction, but we want the contradiction to depend on the assumptions rather than on any error that we introduce into the reasoning.
Click to expand...
No, people within their live choose to pursue knowledge in one way or another. But knowledge comes first from experience which is imposed on the person.
 
tonyrey said:
You are not compelled to receive knowledge. Many people do not want to know…
Click to expand...
You are compelled to receive knowledge from your current situation. But you can intentionally avoid a situation of receiving knowledge. You cannot ultimately control what you are aware of.
 
blase6 said:
You are compelled to receive knowledge from your current situation. But you can intentionally avoid a situation of receiving knowledge. You cannot ultimately control what you are aware of.
Click to expand...
Many students in middle school are evidence against this claim.
 
davidv said:
Many students in middle school are evidence against this claim.
Click to expand...
LOL.

Actually, what I am saying is that, even if choices exist or not, that people are led through their lives by their actions to gain knowledge. In their particular manner of action, they will gain a certain knowledge. You cannot enter a situation where you will receive knowledge and choose to not know it. Can you look at a bird and choose to not know that you are seeing a bird?
 
blase6 said:
LOL.

Actually, what I am saying is that, even if choices exist or not, that people are led through their lives by their actions to gain knowledge. In their particular manner of action, they will gain a certain knowledge. You cannot enter a situation where you will receive knowledge and choose to not know it.
Click to expand...
My middle school student example is a clear counter to this position. Some refuse the information. Others refuse to properly analyze it. And others do not have a sufficiently developed intellect to grasp the knowledge.
Can you look at a bird and choose to not know that you are seeing a bird?
Click to expand...
I believe you can do so.
 
davidv said:
My middle school student example is a clear counter to this position. Some refuse the information. Others refuse to properly analyze it. And others do not have a sufficiently developed intellect to grasp the knowledge.

I believe you can do so.
Click to expand...
Quite simply, you can’t. You can be motivated to ignore information at a certain point. However, you cannot control whether it enters into your subconscious or not. It is not your choice to be aware or not aware of something, even if you later attempt to ignore it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top