Printable View
Big topic here that I would love to discuss, but the other one was closed, so let's discuss this without ad hominem, or going off the subject. If you don't, we will get kicked off. So, Does Man Have Free Will?
My belief- yes. Proof? First, I need an opponent. :D
No. Spinoza's philosophy abolished Descartes' idea of the dualism between the soul and matter by logically showing that the soul is a direct function of that which affects it; Descartes' view of the soul being separate and free from physical constraints is widely held by Christians today. As he abolished this dualism, the paradoxes that went along with it were abolished as well.
He also showed that two substances cannot exist together, claiming that there is only one substance that can exist; Einstein showed this mathematically about 300 years later, and displayed it during world war two with an atomic bomb.
Spinoza's Proof:
1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.
Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [2]
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
Truthfully, there can be only energy, and if this is the case, then it can be said to be infinite and as having infinite attributes, because that is all that is; after concluding this, he stated famously: "Deus sive Natura," or God is Nature. Spinoza ultimately claims that all that exists is God, and that God is infinite. Of all the modes which God may be said to have, the two modes, or aspects, that are apparent to humans are Thought and Extension, where Thought is roughly defined as God's infinite intellect, and where Extension is matter itself.
Spinoza's philosophy was only studied during the 1800's, around 200 years after it was finalized. It was repressed for being against the church and he was threatened and almost killed several times during his life. Even by today's standards, it is among the best philosophy the west has ever produced. Although western religions don't agree, his metaphysics is demonstrably complete and final.
Bookworm,
You should have added a poll.
There was another thread on free will with a definition posted:
Definition of Free Will
- A condition that exists when an agent, such as a human being has the ability to change the outcome of future events by its actions.
- The existance of free will, as defined above, runs contrary to the doctrines of determinism, which holds that all future events are fixed, and of indeterminism, which holds that future events are variable but cannot be changed by force of will.
Future events would have to be fixed in order for an agent to alter them. If they a variable, then an agent would be choosing from a fixed option. Before we can determine free will, I believe we first have to determine if the future is fixed.
True, however, man can accomplish greater things by rejecting determinism. That's why I refuse to even ponder the possibility of a fixed future.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
I don't think so. In fact, I'd say that being truthful with oneself and our place would allow for more inspiration and veracity in one's work. Here's a short list of determinists:Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Goethe
Voltaire
Camus
Spinoza
Schopenhauer
James
Holbach
Hobbes
Hardy
Hawthorne
Laplace
Einstein
Kant
Searle
Most notable scientists from last century
I think these guys were a little successful...
A point here, please, Dr. Ralph.
When you decided that Spinoza's philosophy was corect rather than Descartes', was that in and of itself not an exercise of your free will? No one forced you to believe one over the other, that was a choice. When man is given a choice and may decide for himself which road to take, that is a very plausible argument in favor of the fact that free will exists.
We only have choice in an unfixed future. But, it would be choice not free will. Free will depends upons a fixed future in order to alter it; however, if it is fixed then the diviation is the fixed and inevitable decision. Free will is a paradox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Hmm ... anybody familiar with the theory that anti-matter, might be matter coming back from the end of time?
I will be your opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him
But what context is this topic?
Omniscient God or without God?
I live with my parents so I don't think so, man does not have free will (until he's 18!)
No, Spinoza logically demonstrates that Descartes is false, much like how one can show that three line segments may form a triangle. It's not a choice, but in fact a logical necessity, and need not involve me at all. My brain is a causal system like anything else; the idea of choice is illusory and derived solely from the ego.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Men think themselves free, in so far as they are conscious of their volitions and desire, and ignorant of the causes by which they are disposed to will and desire... - Spinoza
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
Then who (or what) decided what Spinoza would say? If Spinoza isn't responsible for his "truth" then why should it carry any weight whatsoever? Why should any utterance of "truth" be considered such if not freely arrived at? Who's in charge here? Determinists attempt to argue from outside the frame of determinism (exempting their statements because to not do so would render their statements meaningless), but that cannot be so: if there is no freewill, then the words of determinists become meaningless.
And, by extension: who or what chose what you just now posted? Why should anything you (or I) say have any meaning if we did not choose those words and the viewpoints that drive them? You didn't choose Spinoza's views (because in philosophy it's not that easy to empirically prove that someone else's philosophic view is "right" or "wrong")?
Man is free to do what he wants but it has its limitations in reality. However in the bible, man still does have his free will, but he must a path of rightousness in order to achieve a good afterlife, so in that sort of reality, no man does not have free will...
Even in general man does not have free will, we are limited to only so much, especially with these times n these days coming...
I hope I didn't say anyting bad or whatever..................................SCORPIOS RULE!
So, your brain does not function indepently. You have no other choice than to act, think, or believe as you do, your brain is but a subsystem of a larger whole called "logic." I find that very illogical. If every one functioned without choice, we would all just be stamped out carbon copies of each other, driven by logic to all act the same. Your brain's function doesn't need to involve you at all? OK. I must then logically asume that you are dead. Anyone who isn't at least brain dead has to think to act. Even those who have trained themselves to think and act at the same time, must use their brainpower themselves. Choice is the gift and curse of man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
According to İslam everything happened and will happen are written in a book called Levh-i Mahfuz. Though man have free will. God's knowledge is beyond our will. He knows what will happen in future and according to this everything already happened somewhere. Though in our time. Today; we have free will.
Really then there is no Free Will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
Where is "somewhere"?Quote:
Though man have free will. God's knowledge is beyond our will. He knows what will happen in future and according to this everything already happened somewhere.
This is not possible.Quote:
Though in our time. Today; we have free will.
Well, I intended it to be with Omniscient God, more of a predestination (Presbyterians) vs. Free Choice (Baptist) and then to apply that to all life... But I forgot to specify... :D It doesn't matter all that much, anyway. So, how 'bout you and I debate from the omniscient God view. You first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
(sorry if it takes me awhile to respond. I can't get on that often. :bawling: )
C'ya!
How can truth be freely arrived at? This is a contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
That's not close to what I said and you tend to misuse the word "logically."Quote:
So, your brain does not function indepently. You have no other choice than to act, think, or believe as you do, your brain is but a subsystem of a larger whole called "logic." I find that very illogical. If every one functioned without choice, we would all just be stamped out carbon copies of each other, driven by logic to all act the same. Your brain's function doesn't need to involve you at all? OK. I must then logically asume that you are dead. Anyone who isn't at least brain dead has to think to act. Even those who have trained themselves to think and act at the same time, must use their brainpower themselves. Choice is the gift and curse of man.
Could both of you be a little more articulate, I can't understand much of what you wrote. And please spare me the italics and bold.
My answer was not sufficiently clear; I'll try again. Truth cannot be a function of determinism; it must be arrived at throught the free choices of the mind that is examining and evaluating what the "truth" of something is or is not. In other words, in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as truth because your utterances as to what the "truth" is (e.g. Spinoza's right and Descartes is wrong) are merely consequences of random neurons firing and chemicals squirting through your brains, or your socio-economic surroundings or whatever psychological conditions you suffer - but it wasn't you who uttered "truth" - it was the consequences of these processes on you. Truth cannot exist in a world where all human expression is merely the consequence of forces biological, physical, psychological or social.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
1) Maybe you ought to work a little harder at understanding us - since communication is a two-way street and I think Pen and I were quite clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
2) "Spare you"? Sorry - I don't let posters dictate my writing style. Most educated people are quite clear on the usage of these stylistic devices.
I think the truth being referred to is defined as that which is independent of a particular viewpoint (hence the reference to three lines making a triangle).Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
This assumes all brains are identical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Exactly. If this is to be an absolute truth, then it can not be based on something as inconsistent as the brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by StormLogic
OK - let me try again: not all accepted "truths" are objective in nature (like the triangle example); there are many "truths" that are established through evaluation - like whether a philosophic position accurately describes life, human behavior or reality; or, whether or not we agree with a particular interpretation of an event, a work of art, a behavior someone is demonstrating. If determinism is the law of existence, there is no need to believe anything any of us says as "right" or "true" because those statements were the consequences of processes that are beyond our control. That's what I meant. Yes: a triangle is a triangle - but much of what we call reality and truth doesn't pan out that objectively.
What we call truth and what is truth are not necessarily the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You, sir, have twisted my argument and then attacked it. Of course determinism is not a function of truth; this is a red herring. Whether or not the particular atoms which comprise my body "utter truth," they by no means change truth. In reality, there must be unchangeable axioms and principles on which to base existence; objective truth must exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You seem to think that truth is a pure mental construct, which I disagree with. Geometry and mathematics are based on a few axioms which are true regardless of human interpretation of them, such as the relationship between circumference and diameter (as opposed to history, literature, etc). In other words, if Earth were completely destroyed tomorrow, the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter will exist because they do not depend on anything but themselves. Although the word "truth" is often used as a mental construct in everyday speech, this crass definition isn't suitable for reasoning.
Perhaps you should let your syntax show which words are emphasized. Italics and bold hardly have style.
Edit:Quoted for truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by StormLogic
Do you know stars you see above are dead since millions of years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Where is somewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
I never travelled faster than light, that's why i don't know. But you don't think about existence of God. If you would be out of time, then everything happened in time would be known by you. Because you would be beyond of the time. And this wouldn't mean people doesn't have free will.
Most of them are still alive actually...
As i know most of them are dead. But doesn't matter it's enough even some of them are dead, it's enough to point a thought.
{edit}Regardless of God being outside time etc...omniscience and free will is logical impossibility. As you said - everything is written in a book and just like characters in a novel don't have free will so do we...Quote:
But you don't think about existence of God. If you would be out of time, then everything happened in time would be known by you. Because you would be beyond of the time. And this wouldn't mean people doesn't have free will.
{edit}Well, have you watched movie named Lord of the Rings?Quote:
Regardless of God being outside time etc...omniscience and free will is logical impossibility. As you said - everything is written in a book and just like characters in a novel don't have free will so do we...
{edit}None of the characters have free will. Only will that they have is the will of the author/narator.Quote:
Well, have you watched movie named Lord of the Rings?
Warning
Please do not personalise your argument; it is the ideas that we discuss, not other members.
Well, i didn't mean that. Knowing what will happen next doesn't mean there's no free will. I've watched this movie, so i would know what will happen next if i'd watch it for second time. Does it means i am controlling actors? God knows everything happened in future, it's in his knowledge. Also i didn't say that book is never changeable. In fact many Islamic scholars says prayers can change Levh-i Mahfuz, so future is changeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Author created the characters he knows everything about them including the choices they will make. Yes, it is the author that controls them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
Quote:
God knows everything happened in future, it's in his knowledge.
This is contradictory.Quote:
Also i didn't say that book is never changeable.
In fact many Islamic scholars says prayers can change Levh-i Mahfuz, so future is changeable.
To know that the future was altered, they would first need to know the future. They believe the future was changed, but its faith not fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
It's like someone prays for money and 5 years later they recieve it from hard work, and credits the prayer.
I beg Scher's patience just once, I promise not to be harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
My friend, verbosity is no indication of intelligence, as computers have built-in spell-checkers, grammar checkers, and thesauruses. I have not “misused” any word, if it doesn’t match your personal definition of the word that is not my problem. I gave an accurate summary of your statement, if your own medicine becomes bitter; I suggest you make no more of it. You expect us to accept what you say without question. I do not bow at your altar; I live my own life. And since you want to get in my face about this: Have a nice day!
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...ne/NiceDay.gif
{edit} The human brain is the most misunderstood organ in the body. Bigger is not always more intelligent. I recall reading of one genius whom, upon his death was discovered to have virtually no brain at all, just cells lining the skull cavity.Quote:
Originally Posted by StormLogic
Yeah, i agree first line, it's faith. Like many things in life. But i don't think second line is related to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
No, it's not. God able to do anything. And if he wants for prayers of good people he may change the future.Quote:
This is contradictory.
Well, he have high will (Kulli İrade=Total Will) but we do have little will, so he creates concept of good and choices, but we choose 'em. He creates every action and thing but we choose them. For example concept of death created by God, just like concept of goodness or life, but you are the one who choose one of choices, for example if you kill someone you choosed it if you help and give good things to someone, then it's you choice too. Also he knows everything happened, but that doesn't mean he forced you to do something.Quote:
Author created the characters he knows everything about them including the choices they will make. Yes, it is the author that controls them.
{edit}Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Logic roughly refers to the crude science of thought, arriving at demonstrable certainties. I recall you once used the phrase "logically assume" and proceed to build an argument on it; the phrase is oxymoronic. The argument is pretty nonsequitur as well, just saying.
I admit that I often become tired after reading the same use of "choose" and "decide" throughout replies to my more mathematical and rigorous posts. Even your buddy Descartes mentions that words used in everyday speech have no license to be used in logic and reason. Using these palpably sophistical words during an intelligent discussion actually impedes progress. I will state my argument once more, though much more tersely.
Spinoza uses rigorous and airtight logic to show that there can only be one substance in reality, which destroy's Descartes' idea of the mind acting separately from the body. Spinoza proceeded to build a mountain of incredible philosophy based on this idea that there can be no plurality of substances.
Furthermore, Einstein famously demonstrated, through mathematics, that atoms may be converted into a combination of potential and kinetic energy (E=mc^2 in a nutshell). He and a team of badass scientists then created an atomic bomb; a similar phenomenon called nuclear fusion is constantly used in trillions of stars. In short, all that exists is energy, and that is pretty much final. There can be no dualism between God and humans because all that can be is one substance, hence Spinoza's famous summary "God or nature," as they are not logically discernible. The same method of reasoning is used to show that there cannot be four sides to a triangle.
I have dealt with your argument as best I understand it - and don't feel too insulted that I "attacked" it - I thought that was kind of expected in a discussion forum. My language was inexact: no - truth is not a function of determinism - but determinism negates the idea that our expressions can contain truth because truth must be arrived at through a discrimination between competing ideas (because not all truth is mathematical in nature and requires interpretation and context to properly evaluate); some truths can only be arrived at by examination and evaluation - but if freewill doesn't exist, then it seems that any conclusions we would arrive at about the "truth" of a matter would be purely arbitraray, having been arrived at through deterministic processes that do not allow for any true consideration of the facts at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
Everything we know comes to us through our senses, and we make inferences about the world we live in via those senses; these inferences lead us to more detailed conclusions; as such, all possible knowlege depends upon the validity of our reasoning (that with with we make inferences); if the certainty we express by words such as must be, therefore and since is a real perception as to how things outside our own minds must be, then all is well and good. But, if this sense of certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents how our minds work (determinism) - then we can have no knowledge at all (liberal borrowing from CS Lewis, Miracles).
In other words: our perception of the reality of the world cannot be true if determinism is correct, because our vision of what the world is merely a result of how our minds work electronically/chemically, rather than a conscious appraisal and system of inferences we make using our reason.
Truth is not purely a mental construct; but neither is all truth empirically arrived at by mathematical means. You keep quoting mathematical proofs as if that's all reality is founded upon: what mathematical proofs can you offer me that any of your posts contain any truth whatsoever? Aren't your posts merely a result of the random electronic/chemical processes in your brain over which you have no say or control?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
Perhaps you should get over my writing style - I don't need a composition lecture, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph
i have to say yes Man does have free will .. in the sport i am involved in >>>Parkour. they teach me that through every obstacle there is a path...use what you have (the human body) in any case.. man can do whatever the hell he wants right??? nope he cant i'll let someone finish what i'm saying