16
   

What is free will?

Forums: Free Will, Philosophy, Logic, Determinism, Definition
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:49 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

If you have issues with the logic of the cogito, let's talk about them.

Why?


Best answer. Gold star forthcoming.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:18 am
@igm,
Why did you ask if I had issues with its logic?
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:22 am
"Cogito" is not just saying "thinking"; it implies the belief that "there is an I who is thinking." That's a very large presumption--reflecting a grammatical custom, that posits an agent behind thought and a doer behind every deed. With this in mind does "cogito ergo sum" look like a logical proof or just a bald assertion?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:28 am
@JLNobody,
Unless you can disprove it.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:53 am
@JLNobody,
So how would you phrase a more logical argument, in your self's opinion?

Thinking and meditation exists, hence.... nothing exists?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 01:34 pm
@Olivier5,
See my sig. line
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 01:45 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
What's a "sig. line"? Sorry, I'm new here.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:08 pm
@Olivier5,
It's the quote under the word "Signature" in one's post. Mine says Cogito sum. Ergo sum. Cogito. It's meant as a joke to demonstrate the uncertainty of any seemingly self-evident Cartesian conclusions; it translates best if read aloud with a Mexican accent: "I think I am. Therefore I am. I theenk."
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Olivier, one doesn't have to disprove it. It is evidence of the limitation of logic.
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:40 pm
@JLNobody,
No more need said.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:48 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Why did you ask if I had issues with its logic?

That's not important because you answered, 'not really' when you could've answered with a 'yes' or 'no'. What's more important if we are to talk about this subject is why you answered, 'not really'? Does that just mean 'no' but using other words or is there some other reason for your choice of words?

Of course you might not be interested in the subject at all in which case there is no point in getting past these preliminary stages.

Actually JL's latest post has preempted my problem with, 'the cogito'.... the 'I' is already assumed to exist... therefore its existence is not proven and is logically trivial in his reasoning.

You like logic and seem to like 'the cogito' but its reasoning is logically trivial... or it seems by some to be the case.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:58 pm
@igm,
Added a final line to my post above.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 03:11 pm
@JLNobody,
JLN, you wrote,
Quote:
Olivier, one doesn't have to disprove it. It is evidence of the limitation of logic.


I'm not sure I understand how something doesn't need to be disproved with the condition that logic has limitations.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 04:25 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Funny. This said, everybody seems to enjoy taking a shot at Descartes but nobody is very good at scoring... In other words, the cogito still stands. As annoying as that may be, it's one of the very few philosophical statement that has some enduring power.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 04:25 pm
@JLNobody,
What evidence of the limitation of logic?
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 04:40 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Funny. This said, everybody seems to enjoy taking a shot at Descartes but nobody is very good at scoring... In other words, the cogito still stands. As annoying as that may be, it's one of the very few philosophical statement that has some enduring power.


Not necessarily so.

igm wrote:
Actually JL's latest post has preempted my problem with, 'the cogito'.... the 'I' is already assumed to exist... therefore its existence is not proven and is logically trivial in his reasoning.


As both igm and JL have already pointed out, the "je pense donc je suis" statement posits that there is an 'I.' Therefore, the conclusion reached, that "...therefore I am" , becomes something of a tautology.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 04:43 pm
@igm,
Quote:
Actually JL's latest post has preempted my problem with, 'the cogito'.... the 'I' is already assumed to exist... therefore its existence is not proven and is logically trivial in his reasoning.

The reason for my "not really" is precisely that the cogito could be phrased in a more mathematically correct way, but it won't change a thing in terms of its results, and in fact it may chip away from its poetic impact.

E.g. one could say:
- some thinking, perception, and emotion get perceived, mirrored or heard somehow, within a certain space
- therefore, this thinking exists, some thing that can cause the thinking must exist, some entity that can perceive it must exist too, and a space exists within which they exist and thinking occur
- let's call this space and entities therein "I"
- therefore I exist

But this sounds so dull... Brevity is the essence of wit.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 04:52 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
The expression is just a simplification of the logic. One cannot think its own inexistence. Can you envision a world where there would be nothing else than free-floating thoughts, without an agent having such thoughts, and do you think that vision fits your intimate sense of what is the state of affairs?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 05:00 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Can you envision a world where there would be nothing else than free-floating thoughts, without an agent having such thoughts, and do you think that vision fits your intimate sense of what is the state of affairs?


Sure, I can. In fact, I once had an idea for a sci-fi story wherein some astronauts encounter a race of beings that are not susceptible to being discovered or observed by any of the five "senses" that we humans possess. They can be intuited only from some of the effects of their thoughts which take the place of "actions." I'm a terribly poor mathematician and felt I needed more insight before I could put that story down on paper. Hence, I never did. But can I envision it? You bet.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 05:31 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
Sure, I can. In fact, I once had an idea for a sci-fi story wherein some astronauts encounter a race of beings that are not susceptible to being discovered or observed by any of the five "senses" that we humans possess. They can be intuited only from some of the effects of their thoughts which take the place of "actions." I'm a terribly poor mathematician and felt I needed more insight before I could put that story down on paper. Hence, I never did. But can I envision it? You bet.

That novel has been written already: Le Horla by Maupassant.

Still, you're forced to premisse some "beings" that would be the source or cause of these thoughts.
 

Related Topics

Is free-will an illusion? - Question by MoralPhilosopher23
Free Will --- or confidence in your feelings - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Prove your own free will! - Discussion by hamilton
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Free Will - Discussion by neologist
Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will. - Discussion by Centroles
The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil.... - Discussion by NoName77
What happens when brains lose faith in free will? - Discussion by livinglava
Freedom of choice, how to approch this exemple ? - Question by stregoi
Free Will vs. Determinism argument - Discussion by Guaire
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is free will?
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 10:01:17
▲ ▼