Omniscience

. . . Someone demonstrate how freewill and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural?

Sure.
Lets start with the premise that everything when seen in retrospect has a cause, or a wide variety of influences that constitutes a cause. Nothing 'just happens' that we know of. (free of quantum theory, which is really just philosophy..)
In order to have true free will, ie be able to arrive at a 'choice' and have the freedom to go either direction implies freedom from the causes that lead to that 'decision'. But we are not free from causes, everything we do is backed by myriads of causes. Again, this becomes blatantly clear when events are examined in retrospect.
So it seems to me, freewill and causality are incompatible, even paradoxical. Causality is demonstrable. Freewill is not.
Since it seems that they can't co-exist it seems logical to conclude freewill is an illusion at best.
But, perhaps I am mistaken about everything. Someone demonstrate how freewill and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural?

I realize that many look at the misery and suffering of the world and shake their heads over my belief. I answer that what seems to be an interminable ordeal for us is only a few hours to God,

neologist wrote:

I realize that many look at the misery and suffering of the world and shake their heads over my belief. I answer that what seems to be an interminable ordeal for us is only a few hours to God,

Do you think you could ask god to lay off the relativity stuff and pick up a Timex at Costco?

Doktor S wrote:

Sure.
Lets start with the premise that everything when seen in retrospect has a cause, or a wide variety of influences that constitutes a cause. Nothing 'just happens' that we know of. (free of quantum theory, which is really just philosophy..)
In order to have true free will, ie be able to arrive at a 'choice' and have the freedom to go either direction implies freedom from the causes that lead to that 'decision'. But we are not free from causes, everything we do is backed by myriads of causes. Again, this becomes blatantly clear when events are examined in retrospect.
So it seems to me, freewill and causality are incompatible, even paradoxical. Causality is demonstrable. Freewill is not.
Since it seems that they can't co-exist it seems logical to conclude freewill is an illusion at best.
But, perhaps I am mistaken about everything. Someone demonstrate how freewill and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural?

Everything has a cause, you state. But you try to exclude freewill by definition from the list of possible causes.

'There is no free will because everything has a cause. Free will cannot cause any thing because it is not a cause.'

Nice circular argument.

Sure.
Lets start with the premise that everything when seen in retrospect has a cause, or a wide variety of influences that constitutes a cause. Nothing 'just happens' that we know of. (free of quantum theory, which is really just philosophy..)
In order to have true free will, ie be able to arrive at a 'choice' and have the freedom to go either direction implies freedom from the causes that lead to that 'decision'. But we are not free from causes, everything we do is backed by myriads of causes. Again, this becomes blatantly clear when events are examined in retrospect.
So it seems to me, freewill and causality are incompatible, even paradoxical. Causality is demonstrable. Freewill is not.
Since it seems that they can't co-exist it seems logical to conclude freewill is an illusion at best.
But, perhaps I am mistaken about everything. Someone demonstrate how freewill and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural?

Don't expect me to demonstrate how free will and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural that's fer damn sure!

By free wall as applied to people do you mean: "the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance"? http://www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm

I take it you believe there will come a time when a new scientific theory supplants Quantum Theory, and the proposition of causation will once again reign supreme in the subatomic world, or are you only referring to the philosophical implications of Quantum Theory as applied to people?

Staying with the Quantum premise for a bit, assuming I built a thinking machine that used a random number generator to guide its actions, could that machine be in some sense considered to have free will?

How do you explain the individual's objective perceptions that a least to some degree, under certain circumstances, it appears to said individual that at least in some sense, a decision was reached based on freedom of choice? Is it simply that the individual has neither the time nor ability to assess the underlying causation in its entirety? Is it hubris?

Do you see any difference between the free will arguments one might make as per the individual, and the free will arguments one might make as per mankind as a whole?

Don't expect me to demonstrate how free will and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural that's fer damn sure!

By free wall as applied to people do you mean: "the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance"? http://www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm

I take it you believe there will come a time when a new scientific theory supplants Quantum Theory, and the proposition of causation will once again reign supreme in the subatomic world, or are you only referring to the philosophical implications of Quantum Theory as applied to people?

Staying with the Quantum premise for a bit, assuming I built a thinking machine that used a random number generator to guide its actions, could that machine be in some sense considered to have free will?

How do you explain the individual's objective perceptions that a least to some degree, under certain circumstances, it appears to said individual that at least in some sense, a decision was reached based on freedom of choice? Is it simply that the individual has neither the time nor ability to assess the underlying causation in its entirety? Is it hubris?

Do you see any difference between the free will arguments one might make as per the individual, and the free will arguments one might make as per mankind as a whole?

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Sure.
Lets start with the premise that everything when seen in retrospect has a cause, or a wide variety of influences that constitutes a cause. Nothing 'just happens' that we know of. (free of quantum theory, which is really just philosophy..)
In order to have true free will, ie be able to arrive at a 'choice' and have the freedom to go either direction implies freedom from the causes that lead to that 'decision'. But we are not free from causes, everything we do is backed by myriads of causes. Again, this becomes blatantly clear when events are examined in retrospect.
So it seems to me, freewill and causality are incompatible, even paradoxical. Causality is demonstrable. Freewill is not.
Since it seems that they can't co-exist it seems logical to conclude freewill is an illusion at best.
But, perhaps I am mistaken about everything. Someone demonstrate how freewill and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural?

Everything has a cause, you state. But you try to exclude freewill by definition from the list of possible causes.

'There is no free will because everything has a cause. Free will cannot cause any thing because it is not a cause.'

Nice circular argument.

Sometimes you are so utterly clueless it baffles my mind.

For starters, that isn't the argument I made. WTF are you smokin son?

I was explaining why 'freewill' is mutually exclusive to the supernatural, explained why, and challenged anyone to present a counter argument as to how they might co-exist...which neither you nor anyone else has been able to produce.

Big surprise.

That your reply totally fails to address this speaks of blissful ignorance or slippery deception, and I know your posting style well enough to assume the latter.

Yawn. Boring.

I think you mean penitentiary science's potential efficacy and not its presumed idealizations. Given that you have yet to show that penitentiary science's idealized purposes are in any way congruent with whatever pragmatic efficacy penitentiary science might have.

And how come you have said nada about my oh-so-nifty post? Heartbroken I am, shattered………

Chumly wrote:

I think you mean penitentiary science's potential efficacy and not its presumed idealizations. Given that you have yet to show that penitentiary science's idealized purposes are in any way congruent with whatever pragmatic efficacy penitentiary science might have.

And how come you have said nada about my oh-so-nifty post? Heartbroken I am, shattered………

There were so many words, my brain fell out just from looking.

All I meant by my question was if there were no free will, wouldn't it be unfair to punish criminals?

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Sure.
Lets start with the premise that everything when seen in retrospect has a cause, or a wide variety of influences that constitutes a cause. Nothing 'just happens' that we know of. (free of quantum theory, which is really just philosophy..)
In order to have true free will, ie be able to arrive at a 'choice' and have the freedom to go either direction implies freedom from the causes that lead to that 'decision'. But we are not free from causes, everything we do is backed by myriads of causes. Again, this becomes blatantly clear when events are examined in retrospect.
So it seems to me, freewill and causality are incompatible, even paradoxical. Causality is demonstrable. Freewill is not.
Since it seems that they can't co-exist it seems logical to conclude freewill is an illusion at best.
But, perhaps I am mistaken about everything. Someone demonstrate how freewill and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural?

Everything has a cause, you state. But you try to exclude freewill by definition from the list of possible causes.

'There is no free will because everything has a cause. Free will cannot cause any thing because it is not a cause.'

Nice circular argument.

Sometimes you are so utterly clueless it baffles my mind.

For starters, that isn't the argument I made. WTF are you smokin son?

I was explaining why 'freewill' is mutually exclusive to the supernatural, explained why, and challenged anyone to present a counter argument as to how they might co-exist...which neither you nor anyone else has been able to produce.

Big surprise.

That your reply totally fails to address this speaks of blissful ignorance or slippery deception, and I know your posting style well enough to assume the latter.

Yawn. Boring.

On the contrary, your argument has been countered. You would like to pretend that no one has challenged it, but I clearly pointed out that yours is a circular argument.

Your argument is invalid regardless of whether or not the supernatural is even considered. It falls at the starting gate before getting onto the track.

You want to assert that 'causes lead to decisions'.

You have not defined 'causes' , nor described how they 'lead to' decisions.

Do these undefined 'causes' force you to make a choice you do not want to make?

Or do these undefined 'causes' force you to want to make the choices you make?

The only thing that is clear from your post is that , by definition, you seek to exclude freewill as a possible 'cause' of any decision or action.

It's a circular argument.

'Freewill is not responsible for any event. Why? Because 'causes' are responsible and freewill is not a 'cause'. '

The burden of proof is upon you to show what your undefined 'causes' are, why freewill is not a 'cause', and how they 'lead to' (i.e. force) decisions to be made or actions to be performed if no such thing as freewill is involved.

---------------------------------------------

If your theory were true , then DS you are not responsible for the beliefs that you hold, and can claim no credit for them.

This is particulary dire for you, since you pride yourself on your self-perceived superiority in judgement and intellect.

But if there is no freewill, then (even if your beliefs about all things happened to be true) you are no more than a lucky accident.

Dumb luck is hardly anything to be superior about.

------------------------------------------

But back to reality.

I can assure you that the things you believe are NOT true. (For starters, you are not god. You fit no definition of god, except the one you invented in your head.)

And I can assure you that you are certainly responsible for your beliefs and actions. No undefined 'cause' can be blamed.

'Freewill is not responsible for any event. Why? Because 'causes' are responsible and freewill is not a 'cause'. '

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Sure.
Lets start with the premise that everything when seen in retrospect has a cause, or a wide variety of influences that constitutes a cause. Nothing 'just happens' that we know of. (free of quantum theory, which is really just philosophy..)
In order to have true free will, ie be able to arrive at a 'choice' and have the freedom to go either direction implies freedom from the causes that lead to that 'decision'. But we are not free from causes, everything we do is backed by myriads of causes. Again, this becomes blatantly clear when events are examined in retrospect.
So it seems to me, freewill and causality are incompatible, even paradoxical. Causality is demonstrable. Freewill is not.
Since it seems that they can't co-exist it seems logical to conclude freewill is an illusion at best.
But, perhaps I am mistaken about everything. Someone demonstrate how freewill and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural?

Everything has a cause, you state. But you try to exclude freewill by definition from the list of possible causes.

'There is no free will because everything has a cause. Free will cannot cause any thing because it is not a cause.'

Nice circular argument.

Sometimes you are so utterly clueless it baffles my mind.

For starters, that isn't the argument I made. WTF are you smokin son?

I was explaining why 'freewill' is mutually exclusive to the supernatural, explained why, and challenged anyone to present a counter argument as to how they might co-exist...which neither you nor anyone else has been able to produce.

Big surprise.

That your reply totally fails to address this speaks of blissful ignorance or slippery deception, and I know your posting style well enough to assume the latter.

Yawn. Boring.

On the contrary, your argument has been countered. You would like to pretend that no one has challenged it, but I clearly pointed out that yours is a circular argument.

Your argument is invalid regardless of whether or not the supernatural is even considered. It falls at the starting gate before getting onto the track.

You want to assert that 'causes lead to decisions'.

You have not defined 'causes' , nor described how they 'lead to' decisions.

Do these undefined 'causes' force you to make a choice you do not want to make?

Or do these undefined 'causes' force you to want to make the choices you make?

The only thing that is clear from your post is that , by definition, you seek to exclude freewill as a possible 'cause' of any decision or action.

It's a circular argument.

'Freewill is not responsible for any event. Why? Because 'causes' are responsible and freewill is not a 'cause'. '

The burden of proof is upon you to show what your undefined 'causes' are, why freewill is not a 'cause', and how they 'lead to' (i.e. force) decisions to be made or actions to be performed if no such thing as freewill is involved.

---------------------------------------------

If your theory were true , then DS you are not responsible for the beliefs that you hold, and can claim no credit for them.

This is particulary dire for you, since you pride yourself on your self-perceived superiority in judgement and intellect.

But if there is no freewill, then (even if your beliefs about all things happened to be true) you are no more than a lucky accident.

Dumb luck is hardly anything to be superior about.

------------------------------------------

But back to reality.

I can assure you that the things you believe are NOT true. (For starters, you are not god. You fit no definition of god, except the one you invented in your head.)

And I can assure you that you are certainly responsible for your beliefs and actions. No undefined 'cause' can be blamed.

You say my argument is circular because I have ruled out 'freewill' as a cause.I already pointed out you have misinterpreted my argument, in fact this argument is not only not what I presented but it isn't even circulus en demonstrato. You just keep building up that straw man, I'm nowhere near it.
Since you didn't understand, let me break it down a little more for you. ( I do apologize for continually forgetting to dumb down my posts for you, I'll try to do better in the future)

Quote:

'Freewill is not responsible for any event. Why? Because 'causes' are responsible and freewill is not a 'cause'. '

The point you totally missed is that freewill, by definition, implies freedom from all external causes. The freedom to choose, completely unrestricted, with that choice being born in some sort of void or magical nebula or whatever you believe, just not as a result of outside influence. It's unprecedented (unless of course you already hold supernatural beliefs) and makes no sense in a naturalistic (read:realistic) worldview.


It's whole lot of hot air and blustering until you can demonstrate how freewill can exist free of supernatural inferences, which is a question you have been dodging since this dialogue began.

Chumly wrote:

I think you mean penitentiary science's potential efficacy and not its presumed idealizations. Given that you have yet to show that penitentiary science's idealized purposes are in any way congruent with whatever pragmatic efficacy penitentiary science might have.

And how come you have said nada about my oh-so-nifty post? Heartbroken I am, shattered………

There were so many words, my brain fell out just from looking.

All I meant by my question was if there were no free will, wouldn't it be unfair to punish criminals?

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

I think you mean penitentiary science's potential efficacy and not its presumed idealizations. Given that you have yet to show that penitentiary science's idealized purposes are in any way congruent with whatever pragmatic efficacy penitentiary science might have.

And how come you have said nada about my oh-so-nifty post? Heartbroken I am, shattered………

There were so many words, my brain fell out just from looking.

All I meant by my question was if there were no free will, wouldn't it be unfair to punish criminals?

Well if you impute that the lack of freewill means the inevitability of causality, then punishing criminals is also part and parcel of the absence of free will, just as is the criminal act itself, thus the application of the ethical idealization of fairness (which imputes the ability to apply the tenets of freewill) is not only irrelevant it's impossible.

As you might have guessed by now, I am not at all convinced that the question of freewill has any meaning, not that I mind noodling around with it.

History and the deeds of religion has shown that it hates free will. Accusations of heresy, apostasy, paganism, heathenism, goyism, infidelism, inquisitions, burning at the stake are all acts of the church to control thought and free will. Religion doesn't believe in free will.