So, is there such a thing as an invalid Metaphysical proposition?

[MindOverMatter]

Haha, fair enough. It’s not exactly the happiest, or illuminating philosophy out there. Perhaps misinterpretation of our behavior (that suggests we have free will) is on no grander a scale than the misinterpretation of your brother’s tone of voice when he’s complementing you. He’s not really . Maybe free will isn’t really what we are observing?

How can one misinterpret that which we do not ourselves interpret?

And how does one expect to know truth if knowledge is determined? Does not the act of speculation between one belief and another require or presuppose a free agent that on some level causes itself to understand?

In a world determined by physical reality, people do not hold beliefs or have ideas out of there own freewill; and so there is no place for knowing knowing truth in such a world. This means that our debating about truth is quite ridiculous, for it is impossible that we could freely come to the knowledge that we have no freewill.

If it is not you that is thinking, then there is no “you”. So how is it that you have knowledge of self?

 

[o_mlly]

How does one go about invalidating metaphysical theories? Or validating something for that matter?

Any logical argument, metaphsical or not, may be defeated by either rejecting the truth of one or more of its premises or exposing a logical fallacy within the argument.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Matthew_J]

Does not the act of speculation between one belief and another require or presuppose a free agent that on some level causes itself to understand?

Obviously, it is fairly null and void, considering we are the subjects of our own discussion, and thus can have no objective take on this. Indeed, as you’ve neatly pointed out, with the topic at hand it is completely absurd. In order to continue the discussion, we would have to assume that we ourselves are the free agents you speak of, and we are discussing the free will of the rest of the human race? Rather silly and contradictive, but I can see no other way.

How can one misinterpret that which we do not ourselves interpret?

My original answer to this question was this:

We do interpret our own behaviour? How else would one come to the conclusion that they have free will? The fact that we (seem to) make choices is an observation we make of ourselves, that we interpret to be free will.

But having read the rest of your post, I understand (and positively cannot refute) your point. I’d say the discussion is moot from hereon in?

 

[JDaniel]

Excellent, you have shown the evil of determinism quite well… I would suppose that scientific determinists contemplate the destruction of those who do not hold their views, it seems inevitable that they would be murderous.

Yes! Inevitable: there would be no way to avoid it!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Obviously, it is fairly null and void, considering we are the subjects of our own discussion, and thus can have no objective take on this.

But, we can have an “objective take” on this. In the same way we can have an objective take on breathing, or, eating. Being members of a class, or, set, does not preclude our being objective. Or, are you just having some fun with the audience?

Indeed, as you’ve neatly pointed out, with the topic at hand it is completely absurd. In order to continue the discussion, we would have to assume that we ourselves are the free agents you speak of, and we are discussing the free will of the rest of the human race? Rather silly and contradictive, but I can see no other way.

It seems as though you have created a position of self-entrapment unnecessarily?

My original answer to this question was this:

We do interpret our own behaviour? How else would one come to the conclusion that they have free will? The fact that we (seem to) make choices is an observation we make of ourselves, that we interpret to be free will.

On the other hand, perhaps it is precisely the study of the actions of others that provides us with certain knowledge that we have free will - in a rather a posteriori manner? (I kind of like ending declarative statements with a question mark.)

But having read the rest of your post, I understand (and positively cannot refute) your point. I’d say the discussion is moot from hereon in?

Maybe; maybe not.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

Maybe; maybe not.

jd

J Daniel; are you challenging me?

 

[JDaniel]

J Daniel; are you challenging me?

No. Either that, or, I can’t decide.

jd

 

[Matthew_J]

JDaniel, I do appreciate your support, but I suggest you re-read MindOverMatter’s relevant post a few times, and contemplate his(?) point a little further. I spent a fair while trying to get around it, and failed dismally. IMHO, it seems fairly rock solid.

But, we can have an “objective take” on this. In the same way we can have an objective take on breathing, or, eating. Being members of a class, or, set, does not preclude our being objective. Or, are you just having some fun with the audience?

Not in this case. We cannot contemplate our own free will when the assumption that we are free must be made to do so. It’s rather pointless.

On the other hand, perhaps it is precisely the study of the actions of others that provides us with certain knowledge that we have free will - in a rather a posteriori manner? (I kind of like ending declarative statements with a question mark.)

That relies on the assumption that the behaviour of others is identical to ours, at least concerning free-will. We cannot know that, even if we believe it. It is much safer to analyse ourselves in such an issue, because I’d say we can be more sure of our own behaviour.

Besides, even if we were to make our conclusions with that assumption in mind, we virtually have to assume that “others” are different in nature. Simply to contemplate the issue yields the assumption that we have free will, and that the “others” we are observing can either have free will or not.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel, I do appreciate your support, but I suggest you re-read MindOverMatter’s relevant post a few times, and contemplate his(?) point a little further. I spent a fair while trying to get around it, and failed dismally. IMHO, it seems fairly rock solid.

So, what we have here is the ancient dichotomy of idealism vs realism? IOW, we gain knowledge of a thing either by already knowing (presupposing) it or by sensing (learning about) it. According to Aristotle, it is a combination of both, in a way, but, not either/or.

Matthew J;5122999:

Obviously, it is fairly null and void, considering we are the subjects of our own discussion, and thus can have no objective take on this.

But, we can have an “objective take” on this. In the same way we can have an objective take on breathing, or, eating. Being members of a class, or, set, does not preclude our being objective. Or, are you just having some fun with the audience?

Not in this case. We cannot contemplate our own free will when the assumption that we are free must be made to do so. It’s rather pointless.

Again, why must there be such an “assumption”? Do you think you cannot sense other people “seemingly” making choices? Do you believe that was the case (in your mind) from the very moment that you first witnessed (or, recognized) what might have appeared (to you) to be the exercise of the will by yourself as a free agent? Were you not exercising your will as a free agent prior to recognizing that you, in fact, might just happen to possess that faculty? Or, did you believe that you had no choices and everything was pre-determined? Or, that all is illusion?

So, we can only “contemplate” that which we choose to contemplate? Nothing (or thought) can sneak up behind us and capture center stage - if just for a moment - unless we choose it to do so? Does not everything that affronts our consciousness present with choices?

On the other hand, perhaps it is precisely the study of the actions of others that provides us with certain knowledge that we have free will - in a rather a posteriori manner?

That relies on the assumption that the behaviour of others is identical to ours, at least concerning free-will. We cannot know that, even if we believe it. It is much safer to analyse ourselves in such an issue, because I’d say we can be more sure of our own behaviour.

I’d, instead, say that we can corroborate either what we sense (feel, see, etc.), or, what we think (believe, know, etc.) by comparing it with the other.

Besides, even if we were to make our conclusions with that assumption in mind, we virtually have to assume that “others” are different in nature. Simply to contemplate the issue yields the assumption that we have free will, and that the “others” we are observing can either have free will or not.

We can assume that even if we do not make the assumption that they are “different in nature” (whatever you mean by that). However, it appears to me to be an irrational assumption. Which brings me to the conclusion that, at least in the way it has been stated, perhaps I have misunderstood your take.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

How does one go about invalidating metaphysical theories?

If, by accepting a principle of metaphysics, you can plainly demonstrate its absurdity.

Or validating something for that matter?

If, by accepting the opposite of a principle of metaphysics, you can plainly demonstrate its absurdity.

jd

 

[Kilbourne]

Metaphysics is the search for necessary truth. Are any truths necessary, and how does one discover such truth?

 

[Matthew_J]

So, what we have here is the ancient dichotomy of idealism vs realism? IOW, we gain knowledge of a thing either by already knowing (presupposing) it or by sensing (learning about) it. According to Aristotle, it is a combination of both, in a way, but, not either/or.

JD, I think you’re still missing the point. By assuming that our observations even could be trustworthy (i.e. that the truth is actually able to be found), we have to assume that free will exists. There is no room in a deterministic world for discovering the truth.

Again, why must there be such an “assumption”? Do you think you cannot sense other people “seemingly” making choices? Do you believe that was the case (in your mind) from the very moment that you first witnessed (or, recognized) what might have appeared (to you) to be the exercise of the will by yourself as a free agent? Were you not exercising your will as a free agent prior to recognizing that you, in fact, might just happen to possess that faculty? Or, did you believe that you had no choices and everything was pre-determined? Or, that all is illusion?

You’re still missing the point. It is not about some inability to accurately observe the free will of others, although doing so does pose problems. It is about the fact that the assumption that any observation (made of anything) could be a valiant effort in the discovery of truth requires the assumption that we have free will.

I’d, instead, say that we can corroborate either what we sense (feel, see, etc.), or, what we think (believe, know, etc.) by comparing it with the other.

IMHO we cannot make ourselves the free agent you speak of, if it is our own free will we wish to determine. The observation of the free will of others can only contribute to our knowledge of our own free will if the circumstances concerning free will of others exactly reflect our own. They do not, if we assume our own free will.

 

[Matthew_J]

Metaphysics is the search for necessary truth. Are any truths necessary, and how does one discover such truth?

Any fundamental theory, including things as rock-solid as Newton’s laws of motion, are invented, They are a theory developed that can never be fully proven, but their validity is measured by consistent correlation with experimental observation.

Metaphysics is approached no differently. A theory is postulated, and whilst it can never be proven, its validity is measured by how well it correlates with relevant observations of the world. Its validity is severely decreased once an inconsistency is found.

This is the only way truth can be discovered, as it is effectively impossible to prove a theory, as is the inherent nature of… nature.

Whether such truths are necessary is up to you. Generally speaking, human beings are curious creatures, forever seeking the truth. But, a happy man is he who can accept and rejoice in life without the burning need to understand life any further.

 

[JDaniel]

JD, I think you’re still missing the point. By assuming that our observations even could be trustworthy (i.e. that the truth is actually able to be found), we have to assume that free will exists. There is no room in a deterministic world for discovering the truth.

You’re still missing the point. It is not about some inability to accurately observe the free will of others, although doing so does pose problems. It is about the fact that the assumption that any observation (made of anything) could be a valiant effort in the discovery of truth requires the assumption that we have free will.

IMHO we cannot make ourselves the free agent you speak of, if it is our own free will we wish to determine. The observation of the free will of others can only contribute to our knowledge of our own free will if the circumstances concerning free will of others exactly reflect our own. They do not, if we assume our own free will.

I must be missing the point: I don’t understand the need for an “assumption”. (I don’t like assumptions, generally speaking.) That we actually HAVE free will would seem to be sufficient. I fully understand that, “There is no room in a deterministic world for discovering the truth.” My point is that the empirical (in a sense) existence of free will in free agents is enough. No “assumptions” need be made.

The sentence above that has been bolded is confusing. It could have either of two meanings: 1.) it could mean “discover;” or, 2.) it could mean “determinate”, as in render “deterministic”.

Why do you perceive a problem with the trustworthiness of our observations?

jd

 

[Matthew_J]

I must be missing the point: I don’t understand the need for an “assumption”. (I don’t like assumptions, generally speaking.) That we actually HAVE free will would seem to be sufficient. I fully understand that, “There is no room in a deterministic world for discovering the truth.” My point is that the empirical (in a sense) existence of free will in free agents is enough. No “assumptions” need be made.

The sentence above that has been bolded is confusing. It could have either of two meanings: 1.) it could mean “discover;” or, 2.) it could mean “determinate”, as in render “deterministic”.

I will attempt to make plain the point one final time.

In order for me to discover whether I have free will, I must first treat the problem as if I do (as in order to discover truth, one must have free will), which makes the quest rather ridiculous. The truth cannot be obtained from any other standpoint, and so we have already made our conclusion on the subject out of necessity, in order to attack the problem. And this was done before the quest had even begun. Does that make sense?

This does not suggest that we definitely have free will, it suggests if we believe that the truth (or any truth) can be obtained, then we have already concluded that we have free will. Why? Because the discovery of truth requires free will.

The reason that it doesn’t suggest we definitely have free will is that it IS a possibility that the truth *cannot * be obtained, that we live in a deterministic world. The question of free will directly results from the question of determinism.

Are we finally on the same page?

Why do you perceive a problem with the trustworthiness of our observations?

Of others?

It relies on more assumptions than (frankly) need to be made. Primarily, it relies on the idea that, if others do not have free will then I don’t either.

Keep in mind, I know less about others’ their nature and behaviour than my own, as well as the fact that I cannot know for sure which or how many of their characteristics can be applied to me.

These might seem trivial assumptions to you, but in the realm of philosophy they are quite significant. It is simply safer for me to limit my conclusion to be based solely on observations of myself.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Existence is the only necessary and ultimate truth; for with out it, there can be no such thing as truth in so far as it relates to being in itself. Thus at some fundamental level of reality we must necessarily reach a being that is absolutely incorruptible, changeless, perfect and intrinsically simple, as in completely self-existent, relying upon nothing else for its sustenance. It therefore follows, inescapably, that at the very foundation of all reality, being and predicate become one and the same entity.

In other words, only of a nature that is “existence”, can we
consider worthy of the crown of “necessity”. If existence is a nature in itself, through which beings gain potentiality and thus change, then existence is the only ultimate eternal truth that is logically possible, and cannot ever be confused with that which is in a state of becoming. For existence does not change, but is rather that through which change is made possible, for existence exists purely by its nature of being existence and is therefore the foundation of all change; thus there can be no change that transcends existence. This “Existence”, is what Catholics consider to be God. And if there is no self existing eternal truth, then it is absolute insanity, beyond all comprehension and logical integrity, that we should ever have existed at all. Hence we have answered the great question, “why something rather then nothing?”

Thus perhaps, we have discovered, however vague, some kind of a-prior argument that flows inescapable from the idea of “truth”. Call it then, “The argument from truth to the majesty of God.” Do you understand it?

Glory to the father in Heaven!!

 

[JDaniel]

The sentence above that has been bolded is confusing. It could have either of two meanings: 1.) it could mean “discover;” or, 2.) it could mean “determinate”, as in render “deterministic”.

I will attempt to make plain the point one final time.

In order for me to discover whether I have free will, I must first treat the problem as if I do (as in order to discover truth, one must have free will), which makes the quest rather ridiculous. The truth cannot be obtained from any other standpoint, and so we have already made our conclusion on the subject out of necessity, in order to attack the problem. And this was done before the quest had even begun. Does that make sense?

SNIP

MatthewJ:

We’re on the same page now. I responded to you about this on the other thread where this subject is being treated. I had not read that thread until yesterday. Then, when reading this thread, you kept using the word, “assumption.” As we know, that word has several meanings - some positive, some negative. The meaning I chose to go with was from the negative and had to do with assuming truth from a potentially unreliable source because I could not tell, from this thread alone, what side you were taking…

Interesting! In order to arrive at a unity with you here, I had to make a deliberate choice! Seems rather non-deterministic, at least to me.

jd

 

[Shike]

Interesting! In order to arrive at a unity with you here, I had to make a deliberate choice! Seems rather non-deterministic, at least to me.
jd

Oh, that’s just what an anti-determinist is determined to say!

 

[greylorn]

Of course there is. For an example: The universe came into existence from the droppings of a great, green cat.

However, anyone who poses the initial question will be able to find relevance in any proposition, because his mind works totally within itself and can invent whatever amuses him, especially including relevance.

So, for all practical (relevant) purposes, the thread question seems irrelevant.

My favorite measure of the relevance of a question is this:

If the question was answered and you accepted the answer, would it change your life? If so, how?

By this standard, the I.P. seems an exercise in futility, an excuse for people who have nothing better to do with their time than waste some more of it. Come to think of it, what am I doing here? It’s time to floss.

 

[Shike]

Of course there is. For an example: The universe came into existence from the droppings of a great, green cat.

However, anyone who poses the initial question will be able to find relevance in any proposition, because his mind works totally within itself and can invent whatever amuses him, especially including relevance.

So, for all practical (relevant) purposes, the thread question seems irrelevant.

My favorite measure of the relevance of a question is this:

If the question was answered and you accepted the answer, would it change your life? If so, how?

By this standard, the I.P. seems an exercise in futility, an excuse for people who have nothing better to do with their time than waste some more of it. Come to think of it, what am I doing here? It’s time to floss.

Oh I agree with your letter of the law interpretation of the OP. But I suspect the OP meant to say something to the effect of, “isn’t metaphysics just fantasy stories that can’t be verified scientifically”.

Anyways, nothing to see anymore… move along, move along.