Variation on Determination vs Free Will

[Mercutio]

You argue that my saying "you cannot predict everything" is resorting to god-of-the-gaps, yet you have no problem making a similar assumption that even though we can't explain everything, someday we will. Should we call this "god-of-the-caulk"?

The former is a negative definition, which shrinks with each new discovery. The latter is a positive definition, stronger with each new discovery. Certainly we may reach a point of diminishing returns, where we run out of variables to check. We aren't close yet.

In physics, we used to have inner causes, too. Things fell to earth because they wanted to. Physics took off after we abandoned the inferred inner causes for the empirically testable external ones. There is still uncertainty here, too--just ask Heisenberg. But a very real limit to observation there does not suddenly offer proof that the inner cause is right. Negative definitions don't work that way. If we can find no more environmental causes for a behavior, you will say it is internally caused. Perhaps, though, it was caused by the gods. Or my psychokinetic cat. Or Iacchus's dream. Ah, but it has the appearance of free will? So do those.

 

[Mercutio]

So, if God had free will,

Assumes both a god and Free Will, neither of which are evidenced.

and He existed on the other side of this "void" you folks keeps referring to

Who has refered to a void? "Nothing" is not a void, it is nothing.

, wouldn't His free will also extend into our "little domain?"

Why should it? You can suppose anything you wish, but there is no reason to suppose that your suppositions are meaningful.

This, by the way, would coincide with this spiritual "thingee" that I brought up in the original post.

In that all involved are the fictitious figments of your fevered imagination, yes.

Meaning, the fact that we have free will or, the appearance of it,

Two very different "facts", Iacchus. Which is it?

similar to the appearance of evolution

Not at all similar. There is evidence for the fact of evolution.

, constitutes evidence don't you think?

No. Not even close. Thanks for playing, don't let the door slam your butt on the way out.

 

[Taffer]

Tricky: But we do know if there is true free will or not. Or, at least, I do. Since I believe in a deterministic universe (excluding random elements), it is not possible for any form of free will to exist. Given the exact same conditions, the same person would make the same 'desicion' every time. The 'illusion' comes from the fact that these factors are so complex, as to be essentially impossible to predict. Thus, on the 'small' scale we have free will, but on the 'large' scale we see that we do not. We do, but we don't, or something like that.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Forgive me for thinking philosophy is a load of old codswhallop. I have no free will to think otherwise.

By "philosophy" here you mean metaphysics, right?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Given the exact same conditions, the same person would make the same 'desicion' every time.

Not if there is a random factor involved. That would make it seem even more free willy.

~~ Paul

 

[kmortis]

I have to agree with Tricky. First off, I've always like the Tick better than Affleck. Secondly, from his definiton, it sounds like he's taken into account all the lead-in factors (of education, experience, rearing, et al) and posits that at the moment of choice, all those things have an influence, but the person still can go against them.

I liken it to the weather. Lorentz was able to model storms and such by dusting off a 14th c. mathematics. This showed that, given an initial set of variables, a set of outcomes had the highest probablity. This is similar to the concept of free will. We all have unique initial conditions. Each one of us will probably choose from a limited set of possible outcomes. But we still can choose them.

(note: this is not to imply that the weather "chooses" it's outcome)

 

[Taffer]

Not if there is a random factor involved. That would make it seem even more free willy.

~~ Paul

Indeed, which is why I said "excluding randomness". But even random elements are deterministic, or at least their outcomes are. I would not count anything random as being free will.

 

[Iacchus]

If free will exists, then it had to come from someplace, and probably from without your world of cause-and-effect.

 

[Tricky]

By "philosophy" here you mean metaphysics, right?

~~ Paul

Umm.... I might.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Indeed, which is why I said "excluding randomness". But even random elements are deterministic, or at least their outcomes are. I would not count anything random as being free will.

Oops, sorry, missed that parenthetical phrase. But random elements are not deterministic. The definition of deterministic is "not random." Perhaps you mean that sometimes the outcome of many random events is predictable. But all you need is one random thought to render a decision nondeterministic.

I agree that randomness is not free will. So libertarian free will has to involve a mechanism that is neither deterministic nor random. That's why it's incoherent.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

Even free will, in order to be maintained, has to have structure, otherwise there would be neither ... contingent upon the fact God is the Creator and the embodiment of free will and structure at the same time.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, and if someone could describe that structure, then I might stop repeating that the concept of free will is incoherent.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, and if someone could describe that structure, then I might stop repeating that the concept of free will is incoherent.

~~ Paul

Oh, well, you didn't by any chance see the original post did you? ... Well, I guess some things are just too farfetched.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, and if someone could describe that structure, then I might stop repeating that the concept of free will is incoherent.

~~ Paul

LOL. Depends on how you define it. As a structure, it is incoherant. As as description, it works just fine.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It works fine if everyone knows you're talking about compatibilist free will.

Have I beaten this with a bat long enough?

~~ Paul

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Perhaps if you drove some nails through the bat before you start swinging next time.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh gosh, no. I'd willingly back down before getting to the nail thing.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

It works fine if everyone knows you're talking about compatibilist free will.

Have I beaten this with a bat long enough?

~~ Paul

I'm counting on few people knowing the difference between compatibilist free will and libertarian free will. That is an assumption that I can safely make for a large majority of the population. Heck, I'm just trying to come up with a useful definition for the term, not to battle philosophy majors.

The way that Iacchus and other LFW'ers use the term, it is completely incoherant. But then, they're mostly incoherant about everything.

Put your bat away.

 

[Taffer]

Oops, sorry, missed that parenthetical phrase. But random elements are not deterministic. The definition of deterministic is "not random." Perhaps you mean that sometimes the outcome of many random events is predictable. But all you need is one random thought to render a decision nondeterministic.

I agree that randomness is not free will. So libertarian free will has to involve a mechanism that is neither deterministic nor random. That's why it's incoherent.

~~ Paul

Nononono, "the effects" are deterministic. Ye gads, if I came across as thinking that the random elements are deterministic in themselves, I must be bonkers!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I know what you mean, but not even the "macro effects" are deterministic. They are predictable, but not deterministic. But anyhoo, I know what you mean.

~~ Paul