82
   

Proof of nonexistence of free will

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 05:33 pm
@joefromchicago,
Joefromchicago wrote:
Actually, it's designed to test the validity of materialism.

I assume that would be materialism as in "a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter." (Webster)

Webster's definition""and you're welcome to suggest others""suggests a logical approach to testing this theory. You start with a process or phenomenon that's tough to explain as manifestations or results of matter. Then you challenge competent materialists to explain it to you, and see if they succeed. Are you interested at all in giving that approach a try?

One caveat if you are: the process or phenomenon to explain must have actually occurred somewhere, at some time. To my knowledge, materialists do not claim they can explain everything anyone could possibly make up""only "processes and phenomena" that have actually been experienced.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 08:45 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
None of us likes it when their brainchildren get harmed. But there's no need to get testy about it. It's not personal.

Not personal, not testy, and definitely not harmed. Your quibbles didn't even rise to the level of hair-splitting.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 08:48 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Your quibbles didn't even rise to the level of hair-splitting.


In street vernacular I believe that is called "throwing down".
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 09:02 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
None of us likes it when their brainchildren get harmed. But there's no need to get testy about it. It's not personal.

Not personal, not testy, and definitely not harmed. Your quibbles didn't even rise to the level of hair-splitting.

That's your interpretation of the exchange. My interpretation is that you knew you'd lost your case, so, being a good lawyer, you moved for a mistrial. Glad to hear you're fine though.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 08:01 am
The flattest form of materialism, the materialism of the city proles, is to be found in Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Idea.

Quote:
The will, as thing-in-itself, constitutes the inner, true and indestructible essence of the man; in itself, however, it is without consciousness. For consciousness is conditioned by the intellect and this is a mere accident of our being, since it is a function of the brain, and that again (with its dependent nerves and spinal chord) is a mere fruit, a product, nay, even a parasite of the rest of the organism, inasmuch as it does not intervene directly in the latter's activity but only seves a purpose of self preservation by regulating its relations with the outer world.


The intellect as mere weapon of the will-to-life in the struggle for existence.

The popularity of this metaphysic, like Darwin's, being due to the ease by which it could be understood by the growing number of intellectual mediocrities in megalopolitan areas who had so enthusiastically confused the harnassing of non-animal energy sources with their own excellence once this dramatic and epochal transformation had freed enough of them up to sit in their rooms speculating.

The fact that the speculations were in constant danger of being revealed as triviality was glossed over by the weaving of big words into tapestries, waving of the arms, twisting of the fingers and serious facial distortions. Enough of formula was retained to provide an atmospheric illusion of profundity and exclusiveness and --hey presto- the civilised view of the world became complete and simple enough to be understood by anybody who read the appropriate newspapers and periodicals which employed the more astute members of the caste.

The system anticipates Darwin. In the chapter Zur Metaphysik der Geschlechtsliebe of Schopenhauer's Ueber den Willen in der Natur (1835) there is the struggle for existence, the intellect as instrument in the struggle and sexual love as unconscious selection according to biological interest. There is also the idea that the intellect is a bungler and unconscious and impulsive actions are completely efficient. In other words natural selection is anticipated in full.

The economic origin of Darwinism, by the Manchester School of Industrialists out of Malthus, is easily seen by the fact that it is cobbled together from the similarities between men and higher animals, ceases to fit with the plants and becomes absurd as soon as it is applied with its will tendency to primitive organisms such as microbes however well evolved. It applies equally well to tool design as we have seen with Deepwater Horizon.

The proof is a presentation of selected facts in such a way that they conform to Darwin's not very original preconceived idea of "Evolution". It is the application of the causality principle, so beloved of the Manchester School, to living things and is a method and not a result. And all its essential details were known in the 18th century. It is the political element of the Manchester School which accounts for its acceptance. It proved that if you were rich you were superior biologically however you got rich. Anti-American I would have thought.

It represents that change from the Culture of the countryside to the Civilisation of the megalopolis which is at the root of the debate. Deepwater Horizon was drilling to get the cities their daily fix. The theory was read into Nature rather than out of it as with Goethe. It is flat and not upright, it is mechanical and not organic, it is progress and not inner fulfillment , it is law and not emblem and it is a superficial system of utilities and not Destiny. It is pessimistic. The pessimism sent Nietzsche booloo.

It is also Socialist and thus purports to be directed to the welfare of mankind which no real philosopher ever spends a thought upon. Materialism, Socialism and Darwinism are conjoined triplets.

And then comes the man with the nerve to follow it out to its logical conclusion. Bernard Shaw and Man and Superman. Shaw didn't step fastidiously aside like Nietzsche did after simply noting that Darwin's idea involved "breeding" and leaving it at that. Shaw said that there was no point in talking about it if nothing is going to be done about it and he set forth the demand that mankind be transformed into a stud farm as Hitler attempted to do.

So will the real materialists step into the light and explain the mechanical operations their own logic entails. They cannot know any other modes. The who, the what, the where and the how and the degree of compulsion so dear to the socialist's heart.

If you need guidance just study the English factory system of Darwin's day. If you weep you are a closet Christian. And Deepwater Horizon has brought the whole rag-tag-and-bobtail to the surface as well as the crude oil.
ughaibu
 
  5  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 08:22 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
The flattest form of materialism, the materialism of the city proles . . . . . has brought the whole rag-tag-and-bobtail to the surface as well as the crude oil.
What the hell does any of this have to do with free will?
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 10:59 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
None of us likes it when their brainchildren get harmed. But there's no need to get testy about it. It's not personal.

Not personal, not testy, and definitely not harmed. Your quibbles didn't even rise to the level of hair-splitting.

That's your interpretation of the exchange. My interpretation is that you knew you'd lost your case, so, being a good lawyer, you moved for a mistrial. Glad to hear you're fine though.


twas a burn
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 02:20 pm
@ughaibu,
I had got fed up with corpses and brain death which I felt might be inhibiting the cheery spirit of A2K and had got to wondering if I could exercise my free will to get a laugh at the expense of materialism. It worked for me ugh and if it didn't for you I hope you will accept my apologies which are heartfelt and of the utterest sincerity.

It had been a subject of one of my meditation sessions on my recliner whether irony and laughing are possible without free will and as materialism, especially Central-state materialism, denies free will I was doing a thought experiment on a live brain to try to validate my hypothesis that materialists have no sense of humour and hopefully metamorph it into a general theory. I had been reading D.M.Armstrong and wondering if he had been taking the piss. It is the highest form of artistic expression to be taking the piss and getting $100 grand a year for it. It derives from the court jester principle. "Alas, poor Yorick", and all that. Ya dig?

The promotion of the principles of a general theory of such a nature is designed to help readers here to decide whether or not they wish to buy into materialism and the necessary elimination of free will. Or whether they think it might be a bit of a drag.

If you didn't laugh the theory claims that you are a materialist and thus have no free will and no sense of humour.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 02:26 pm
@ughaibu,
Welcome to spendiville. Prepare to explore the philosophy of madness.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 03:30 pm
Quote:
I assume that would be materialism as in "a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter." (Webster)


The problem with that is that there is the void in which the matter exists. To assume the void has no attributes is something of a stretch.

Matter takes up a very small proportion of our bodies. In the definition of Webster the void is a "nonent"--what is not. Just as pure infinite space was a nonent in the Classical cultures, determining their art and way of life, so the void is a nonent for us. It may not always be though. I have seen claims that the void does have attributes but my technical expertise in not such as to give me the confidence to confirm or deny them. They were certainly presented in the best scientific taste with the usual technical tricks of the trade. Whether the participants fell about laughing when the director said "cut" I don't know but I shouldn't be at all surprised.

The Hadron Collider programmes were the best though.
0 Replies
 
Briteone
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:16 am
@djjd62,
if god knows the past, present. and future ( future is the key)
then do we realy have freewill? predetermined
unless the future is constently changing
we split off in defferent realitys
It would be like thought proceses of the brain
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:24 am
@Briteone,
Briteone wrote:

if god knows the past, present. and future ( future is the key)
then do we realy have freewill? predetermined
unless the future is constently changing
we split off in defferent realitys
It would be like thought proceses of the brain
The question of whether or not agents have free will is entirely independent of any stories about any gods.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:53 am
@litewave,
litewave wrote:

There are only 3 possible ways your action can originate:

1) When you have reasons for your action - then the action is the result of those reasons.

2) When you don't have reasons for your action - then the action is unintentional.

3) Your action can be the result of a combination of 1) and 2).

None of those possibilities allow for free will because you are always compelled to your action and never in control of your action.


Last night I went to a restaurant suggested to me my a friend. I would not have gone to the restaurant unless he had suggested it to me. But why would you think that I was compelled to act on my friend's suggestion. I needn't have gone. It was only a suggestion. (By the way, I enjoyed myself. And I will go there again. But not under compulsion, but because I want to go again).
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:55 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Logically speaking, you can't prove a negative anyways. So a proof of the non-existence of something is illogical. Your challenge instead is to prove that all outcomes are the product of natural forces.

T
K
O


You can't prove a negative? I cannot prove that there is no elephant in this room with me? What would make you think such a thing?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 09:59 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Here we go again !

POINT 1
"Causality" works for billiard balls, but has no meaning in particle physics and falls apart under philosophical analysis. It also competes poorly with "teleology" in biology and the social sciences. Hence attempts at reducing "choice" to mechanisic determinism are epistemologically naive.

POINT 2.
The meaning of a concept such as "free will" is determined by its socially determined connections with other concepts such as "culpability" and "sin". ...i.e meaning is contextual use (Wittgenstein).The fact that "free will" also has connections with a more general concept of "choice" ( already undermined by point 1) has no more significance than say the concept of "weapon" being associated with a concept of " a knife", in so far as they have some common aspects. This point is simply illustrated by the fact that we do not in real life talk about "our free will" to put on a particular shirt.


You mean that when my physics book tells me that lowering the temperature to zero centigrade under normal conditions causes water to freeze, that falls apart under analysis. Have you told physicists about your discover yet? I am sure they will be astonished to hear about it. (Should I give up trying to make ice in the freezer of my refrigerator do you think?). (Why do people, when they do philosophy say things, quite sincerely, that they know are false?).
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 10:01 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
You mean that when my physics book tells me that lowering the temperature to zero centigrade under normal conditions causes water to freeze. . . . .
In fundamental physics there is no notion of cause, the term is meaningless. Who authored your book?
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 02:21 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
Last night I went to a restaurant suggested to me my a friend. I would not have gone to the restaurant unless he had suggested it to me. But why would you think that I was compelled to act on my friend's suggestion. I needn't have gone. It was only a suggestion. (By the way, I enjoyed myself. And I will go there again. But not under compulsion, but because I want to go again).

You went there because you desired to go there - your desire determined that you would go there. Your friendĀ“s suggestion contributed to that desire. But did you choose that desire intentionally? Did you intend to have that desire? If yes, did you also intend to have that intention? Did you intend to intend to have the desire to go the restaurant?
0 Replies
 
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 02:25 pm
@ughaibu,
Quote:
In fundamental physics there is no notion of cause, the term is meaningless. Who authored your book?

That is not true. In quantum physics the setup of the experiment affects the outcome of the experiment, so causality remains but it is mixed with quantum indeterminacy.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 03:50 pm
@litewave,
"affects the outcome" does not seem to be equivalent to "cause".

The weather affects the outcome of a golf competition It does not cause it.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 08:14 pm
@litewave,
litewave wrote:

Quote:
POINT 1
"Causality" works for billiard balls, but has no meaning in particle physics and falls apart under philosophical analysis. It also competes poorly with "teleology" in biology and the social sciences. Hence attempts at reducing "choice" to mechanisic determinism are epistemologically naive.

If you don't act for reasons then why do you act?

Quote:
POINT 2.
The meaning of a concept such as "free will" is determined by its socially determined connections with other concepts such as "culpability" and "sin". ...i.e meaning is contextual use (Wittgenstein).The fact that "free will" also has connections with a more general concept of "choice" ( already undermined by point 1) has no more significance than say the concept of "weapon" being associated with a concept of " a knife", in so far as they have some common aspects. This point is simply illustrated by the fact that we do not in real life talk about "our free will" to put on a particular shirt.

I claim there is no free will in the sense that one is in control of his actions.


Does that mean that you could not help posting?
Sounds like Tourette's syndrome to me. Have you seen a physician?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/08/2022 at 06:26:10