Daniel,
I think that your logic is as flawed as the poster's original argument. But that is my opinion.
Daniel,
I think that your logic is as flawed as the poster's original argument. But that is my opinion.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
I read an article a few weeks ago about how scientists are able to predict what people do based upon past data. People are creatures of habit, and in a sense yes we are "oppressed" by our environment. I was raised by parents who valued intellect above all else, so perhaps it is not surprising that I want to be a professor. I have a job, so it's not surprising that I go there every day instead of, say, going water skiiing.
Having habits and a predictable nature is different, however, from not having free will. I personally like having habits. I wouldn't really want to change the way I am plodding along to my destiny. However, we do have the ABILITY to change. If you're walking across the road from a candy shop, you have the ability to walk in, even if that's not what you normally do. You have the ability to buy the black jelly beans instead of the green.
Just like, say, people in Korea have the ability to form a revolt and take over the government. And serial killers can decide to kill young women instead of old men. This ABILITY to do what we want, and to change our lives is free will. If we choose not to, and keep to our habitual ways, that does not make our choices any less free; it just makes them more predictable.
Hope is that thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops... at all. ~Emily Dickinson
I ask not for a lighter burden, but for broader shoulders. ~Jewish Proverb
Humans are as predictable as dogs or mice, only we are more complicated; there are more variables. Theoretically, if all genetic/environmental data were at our disposal, a complete prediction of human life is possible.
Your conclusion is based on concepts only seriously considered in science fiction. I believe there are some episodes of Heroes with a person with precognitive abilities.Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
If you believe in the physical laws of the universe, i.e. 'cause and effect', - which most of us would probably accept (and tend to live our lives by) -then it is hard to reconcile that with the idea of free will. I suspect it's more a case of how free we 'feel' as individuals that concerns us, regardless of whether we actually are free to choose or not.
Last edited by Michael T; 03-17-2010 at 07:10 PM.
Ummm, no.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107143755.htm
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...76699300016890
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...TOKEN=62139751
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/...s/nn.2112.html
Evolution was presented in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Damn! I guess evolution isn't true then.
The Moments of Dominion
That happen on the Soul
And leave it with a Discontent
Too exquisite — to tell —
-Emily Dickinson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVW8GCnr9-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckGIvr6WVw4
[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;864453
Evolution was presented in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Damn! I guess evolution isn't true then.
[/QUOTE]
Ummm...no, it isn't true
...and I'm not starting that stupid argument again...
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
~
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Off-topic posts will be removed without further warning.
~
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
I agree that freedom is an illusion. Take for example in makine choices. We are not free to make decisions because we tend to think of ourselves before the others. Those few that can get out of this mind set tend to have a bit more choice making but are not entirely free because something or people affect the freedom that person does. The governments tend to say that they are free but we are truly not because we have to live under a set of rules. And even without a government we would still have a set of rules which is the food change in which we must be careful in what we do for our lives. This idea still restricts our freedom even though we may not be aware of it.
Am I making any sense out their can anyone help me out?
Many of Life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up
Hey Angel,
You're making sense, but I think we're arguing about different things.
For example, let's talk about the slaves. Over 150 years ago, African Americans were owned by white people in the united states. Most had to obey their masters or they were punished in some way. They had no FREEDOM.
Despite the fact that these slaves had no FREEDOM, however, they did have FREE WILL. They could choose whether or not they wanted to sing while they worked. They could choose whether to use what little time they weren't working to eat or sleep or dance.
Hope is that thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops... at all. ~Emily Dickinson
I ask not for a lighter burden, but for broader shoulders. ~Jewish Proverb
Determinism is an easy idea to hold and to defend, but I believe, like many philosophers, that it is a flawed one. I do believe that we, as humans, are limited in our choices, as well as rather predictable, but to say we have no free-will would be to say we are not just limited to certain choices but are secluded to a specific choice, which is not true. True, if a "snapshot" of the universe were taken at any given moment and all the assorted variables of the universe at said moment were attainable and we--humans, that is--were of a high enough intellect to solve the highly complex problem that is the universe, then we would be able to calculate--within close proximity--where every atom would be going, as well as where it would be going from there. But this does not mean that they could predict each atoms movements forever with 100% accuracy, because there are many different paths that an atom can take at any given time. Chaos does still exist. It is just to our eye that the cosmos appear to be in order. There are so many paths--just as the atoms that make us up--that humans can take. True, you can predict decisions to a certain proximity but never to any certainty.
"They're just thoughts, so go ahead and speak."
"We're just a collection of cells overrating
themselves."
forgive me, but anarchy is freedom. The idea of anarchy and chaos being one is a classic misunderstanding. In the early american movements, in the time of Emma Goldman and the Industrial Revolution, Roosevelt was threatend by the anarchists aboloshing his choo choo trains and all the happy fame, power, and economical progress the man would have obtaind. In direct opposition to the anarchist movement he stated "Anarchists are the enemy of humanity" and from that day on the incorrect idea of anarchy, anarchism, and anarchists has made it strong like a cockroach. I'm not sure how that even happens considering its almost impossible not to get the correct information, unless the people simply hear the word being used and assume its context is correct, which is a pretty stupid thing to do in the political world. It makes me wonder if people know what those pink and black flags in the spanish revolution are, or who the CNT-FAI really is, who Emma Goldman was and so on.
some more information http://www.infoshop.org/page/Anarchi...ctionA1#seca11
and at the OP, we are in no way free, we have rights, and as long as we have rights we will have restrictions. We are in a world of privilage, nothing more. But I have to wonder, with all the chaos in the world, are we even mature enough to be free? Sadly I doubt it. This doesnt mean you cant be free in other aspects though, self liberation is just as important as political, sexual and social liberation.
Last edited by Revolte; 03-20-2010 at 04:57 AM.
There seem to be a variety of different types of freedom being discussed in this thread. I think it is probably important to distinguish between political, economic, and some sort of metaphysical freedom-to-do-whatever-one-wants-in-freaking-magic-land. That being said, even without a working definition of freedom, your syllogisms are not quite logical. I know that others have already tried their hand at picking them apart, but i thought i would lend my two cents since i can't sleep.
P1. The experience of free will is no more than an appearance.
P2. If the experience of free will is no more than an appearance, then people don't really have free will.
C1. So, people don't really have free will.
This is a circular argument. You are stating that the appearance of freedom does not correspond to reality. But you aren't proving anything by making this statement.
P1. If a choice is free, then it is not caused.
P2. If a choice is not caused, then it is a random occurrence.
P3. But, if a choice is free, then it is not a random occurrence.
C1. So, if a choice is free, then it is both a random occurrence and not a random occurrence, which is impossible.
C2. So, no choice can be free.
This is again more of a statement than an argument. In P2 you give only two options, chance or determination. Then you say that both options exclude freedom, and so...again, kind of circular. C1 is, logically speaking, nonsense and completely unconnected to the rest of you proof despite using a lot of the same words.
P1. Whatever future events will happen, it is now true that these future events will happen as they do. (E.g., if I will in fact sing tomorrow, then it is true, and it is true now, that I will sing tomorrow.)
P2. If it is now true that these future events will happen as they do, then it is now not possible for anyone to bring it about that any of these future events will not happen. (E.g., if it is now true that I will sing tomorrow, then it is now not possible for me to bring it about that I will not sing tomorrow.)
P3. If it is now not possible for anyone to bring it about that any of these future events will not happen, then people are not free with respect to any future events.
C1. So, people are not free with respect to any future events..
This seems to be a statement that might be summarized: "Causation exists." That the future is a consequence of the past might be taken as a given. Most of modern Western culture structures its entire understanding of time based upon this assumption of linearity. Someone who considered a circular model might disagree. Regardless, this still doesn't function as a proof of anything.
P1. Computers can perform every task that people can perform.
P2. Computers do not have free will.
C1. So, no task that people can perform requires that people have free will.
P3. If no human activity requires free will, then we have no reason to believe that people have free will.
P4. If we have no reason to believe that people have free will, then we should not believe that people have free will.
C2. So, we should not believe that people have free will.
While I don't necessarily agree with your premises, I believe that the first part of this argument is logically valid. However, P4 is both almost tautological and it states an ethical precept not a necessary consequence. Also (and i'm being picky here,) the "if/then" of P3 is not demonstrated within the syllogism.
P1. Things made only of matter can only have actions that are caused.
P2. Things that can only have actions that are caused do not have free will.
C1. So, things made only of matter do not have free will.
C2. So, if people are made only of matter, then people do not have free will.
Here is the crux of your argument. All of the other syllogisms could be omitted, and this one would be enough state your point of view. I'll address your point of view after this final comment on your logical exercises.
P1. The entire human body (including the brain) is made up of cells each of which has no freedom of choice.
P2. If the entire human body (including the brain) is made up of cells each of which has no freedom of choice, then a human being cannot have freedom of choice.
C1. So, a human being cannot have freedom of choice.
There is no proof presented in this argument that a whole is not greater than its parts. It's kind of like pointing at a house and saying, " A house is made of bricks. A person cannot live in a pile of bricks. No one could live in that thing."
Like I said above, the lack of a strong definition of freedom bothers me, but there does seem to be an even greater absence in this discussion. And that is an adequate definition of "cause". For example, what causes a tree to grow? Is it the earth it is planted in? The weather that regulates that growth? The genetic material that it has inherited that provides the blueprint for its development? The farmer that planted it, the fence that protects it, the sun that feeds it, the gravity that holds it to the planet, its own internal organs that perpetuate its progress? Aristotle named four different types of "causes". I'm sure that if we were feeling pedantic enough we could subdivide his categories endlessly. All of these are necessary elements, efficient causes, none of them are sufficient unto themselves.
In my opinion, and you can take it for what its worth, the debate of free will v. determinism is a controversy based upon a false dichotomy. You can imagine each object, be it a statue, a cue ball, a person or an apple tree, as the singular product of a huge number of forces. A point of intersection for a variety of causes, and perhaps it could be considered to be fated or free to be nothing but itself. A limited being to be sure, but that "self", once caused, is hardly a passive puppet. It becomes a dynamic force in its own right. And to the degree that it exploits (and i'm getting pretty anthropomorphic here, forgive me) its own limitations to it's advantage, then the question of freedom or determinism is moot. Nothing is free, nothing is determined. It kind of just is what it is.
What a deflated ending to all of that...Sorry for the wall o'text. i'll be surprised if anyone reads all of this crap.
Last edited by Razzleg; 03-20-2010 at 06:38 AM.
Absolute Freedom is the independent ability to or not do ; without any act of any superior force whether interior force or exterior.
I once read that Allan Bloom said ( as i recall it ) " If we try to prove or give evidence for the existence of Freedom , then we are killing the freedom "
"He is asleep. Though his mettle was sorely tried,
He lived, and when he lost his angel, died.
It happened calmly, on its own,
The way the night comes when day is done."
Fortunately for us compatibilists, that's not usually the concept of freedom we're talking about.
Christine Korsgaard "solved" for me the problem of free will in a few short paragraphs. Here's an abridged excerpt, which I believe gives a very satisfactory account of free will.
Occasionally one meets the objection that the freedom we discover in reflection is a delusion. Human actions are causally determined. The philosopher's bugbear, the Scientific World View, threatens once more to deprive us of something we value.
…
The afternoon stretches before me, and I must decide whether to work or to play. Suppose first that you can predict which one I am going to do. That has no effect on me at all: I must still decide what to do.
…
Having discovered that my conduct is predictable, will I now sit quietly in my chair, waiting to see what I will do? Then I will not do anything but sit quietly in my chair. And that had better be what you predicted, or you will have been wrong. But in any case why should I do that, if I think that I ought to be working? Well, suppose that you tell me what you predict I am going to do. If you predict that I am going to work, and I think that I should work, then there is no problem. Or do I now have to do it less freely?
…
Determinism is no threat to freedom.
Now it will be objected that this is not what philosophers mean when they claim that determinism is a threat to freedom. They aren't talking about a practical problem -- that knowledge could somehow take away our freedom -- but about a theoretical one -- that knowledge would show us that we weren't free after all. But how is it supposed to do that? By showing that we could not have done otherwise?
That might show that we aren't responsible. But it is a different question whether determinism is a threat to responsibility. Freedom is the capacity to do otherwise, not the capacity to have done otherwise. No one has that capacity, because you cannot change the past. That sounds like a joke but I mean it. The freedom discovered in reflection is not a theoretical property which can also be seen by scientists considering the agent's deliberations third-personally and from outside. It is from within the deliberative perspective that we see our desires as providing suggestion which we may take or leave. You will say that this means that our freedom is not 'real' only if you have defined the 'real' as what can be identified by scientists looking at things third-personally and from outside.
. . .
The Scientific World View is a description of the world which serves the purposes of explanation and prediction. When its concepts are applied correctly it tells us things that are true. But it is not a substitute for human life. And nothing in human life is more real than the fact that we must make our decisions and choices 'under the idea of freedom'. When desire bids, we can indeed take it or leave it.
Source: The Sources of Normativity ( http://www.tiny.cc/normativity )
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
