Free will, determinism and absolute knowledge.

Koldo · Jun 3, 2019

Curious George said:
Because there is no impediment to such behavior. Because people do act in practice unpredictably. Because there is no evidence that suggests peoples behavior must adhere to strict determinism.

In short, it is more reasonable to assume the obvious that to, based on faith and an appeal to ignorance, assume that some unseen forces are accounting for each and every action of ours.

Sorry but that is not a good argument.

1) The fact something is unpredictable in practice doesn't entail that something is unpredictable in principle. You have not shown choices to be unpredictable in principle.

2) The fact reasoning is involved while making a choice doesn't explain why any given choice is made. While referring to 'wants' does.

Curious George · Jun 4, 2019

Koldo said:
Sorry but that is not a good argument.

1) The fact something is unpredictable in practice doesn't entail that something is unpredictable in principle. You have not shown choices to be unpredictable in principle.

2) The fact reasoning is involved while making a choice doesn't explain why any given choice is made. While referring to 'wants' does.

1) you misunderstood as it is part of a good argument.
2) are you looking for a specific cause of a choice, that sounds like question begging.

Koldo · Jun 4, 2019

Curious George said:
1) you misunderstood as it is part of a good argument.
2) are you looking for a specific cause of a choice, that sounds like question begging.

1) As I have said: You have not shown choices to be unpredictable in principle.
2) I am proposing something akin to Hume's guillotine but with a spin on it. You can't reach a choice exclusively from facts about the ( external ) physical reality, no matter how much cognitive power you possess. The properties of objects ( red, tall, small, and strong, for instance ) are not in themselves sufficient to reach a conclusion not only about you should choose but also about what you will choose. Reasoning can not be used to determine what is better or worse, and therefore can not allow you to make a choice, without the input of certain values that precede reasoning itself.

Curious George · Jun 4, 2019

Koldo said:
1) As I have said: You have not shown choices to be unpredictable in principle.

I did not claim to have a proof that they were unpredictable in principle. I said they were unpredictable in principle and offered an inductive argument. You have not shown how they are predictable in principle (the positive claim). Hell, you haven't even offered a reason as to why they might be predictable in principle.

2) I am proposing something akin to Hume's guillotine but with a spin on it. You can't reach a choice exclusively from facts about the ( external ) physical reality, no matter how much cognitive power you possess. The properties of objects ( red, tall, small, and strong, for instance ) are not in themselves sufficient to reach a conclusion not only about you should choose but also about what you will choose. Reasoning can not be used to determine what is better or worse, and therefore can not allow you to make a choice, without the input of certain values that precede reasoning itself.

But to say that those inputs are then the cause, and not merely influential is taking it a step too far. I agree that we do not control all of our inputs, that doesn't mean that we have no control.

"You can't reach a choice exclusively from facts about the ( external ) physical reality, no matter how much cognitive power you possess."

Where did i ever suggest one can exclusively choose or do anything?

Koldo · Jun 4, 2019

Curious George said:
I did not claim to have a proof that they were unpredictable in principle. I said they were unpredictable in principle and offered an inductive argument. You have not shown how they are predictable in principle (the positive claim). Hell, you haven't even offered a reason as to why they might be predictable in principle.

Your argument takes the form of: I see no reason to assume that choices are predictable in principle, therefore it is most reasonable to assume they are not.
I say it is predictable in principle because our choices can be explained on the basis of what we wanted.

Curious George said:
But to say that those inputs are then the cause, and not merely influential is taking it a step too far. I agree that we do not control all of our inputs, that doesn't mean that we have no control.

A step too far in your perspective, but not in mine.
How are you going to choose without making strict use of those values ?
Merely assessing the properties of objects won't allow you to make a choice.
If you had to pick between two different cars, there is nothing about the cars in themselves that would allow you to make the choice because there is nothing about the cars in themselves that makes one car better or worse than the other car. This is why reasoning is insufficient.

Reasoning is necessary to make a choice, since we wouldn't be making choices in the sense we understand the term without the use of reasoning. I am not saying otherwise. However, when you claim that reasoning is sufficient to explain our choices, you are, in essence, saying something aking to: God did it. Why ? Because you don't explain HOW reasoning is in itself sufficient to make a choice, you are just throwing around the word. Until you can explain the process, you won't convince me. On the other hand, I can explain exactly how a choice is made by referring to what you wanted to do at the moment.

Curious George said:
"You can't reach a choice exclusively from facts about the ( external ) physical reality, no matter how much cognitive power you possess."

Where did i ever suggest one can exclusively choose or do anything?

I don't even understand your question. What is this supposed to mean ?

Curious George · Jun 4, 2019

Koldo said:
Your argument takes the form of: I see no reason to assume that choices are predictable in principle, therefore it is most reasonable to assume they are not.
I say it is predictable in principle because our choices can be explained on the basis of what we wanted.

That is because you have misunderstood.

We have two alternatives here.
1) choices are perfectly predictable in principle.
2) choices are not perfectly predictable in principle.
[/QUOTE]

You seem to believe 1. I believe 2.

The question is why. I gave that
a) There is no logical reason why choices are perfectly predictable in principle.

b) Choices are not perfectly predictable in practice.

c) There is no evidence that behavior is perfectly predictable.

So we are presented with a situation where choices appear not to be perfectly predictable; there is no evidence to the contrary; and, there is no reason behaviors must be perfectly predictable.

If all true, that is a pretty strong inductive argument. Ball is in your court. Time to prove or at least argue your positive claim that behavior is perfectly predictable in principle.

Curious George · Jun 4, 2019

Koldo said:
How are you going to choose without making strict use of those values ?
Merely assessing the properties of objects won't allow you to make a choice.
If you had to pick between two different cars, there is nothing about the cars in themselves that would allow you to make the choice because there is nothing about the cars in themselves that makes one car better or worse than the other car. This is why reasoning is insufficient.

Again you are confusing the issue. That the value inputs that will create a conflict are not in your control does little to negate a choice. It doesn't matter that you cannot control that one car looks cooler to you while the other car seems more efficient. You will ultimately need to reason in order to make a choice. If it was a mere matter of weighing wants objectively, then we would always make the correct choice at the time.

Koldo · Jun 4, 2019

Curious George said:
That is because you have misunderstood.

We have two alternatives here.
1) choices are perfectly predictable in principle.
2) choices are not perfectly predictable in principle.

You seem to believe 1. I believe 2.

The question is why. I gave that
a) There is no logical reason why choices are perfectly predictable in principle.

b) Choices are not perfectly predictable in practice.

c) There is no evidence that behavior is perfectly predictable.

So we are presented with a situation where choices appear not to be perfectly predictable; there is no evidence to the contrary; and, there is no reason behaviors must be perfectly predictable.

If all true, that is a pretty strong inductive argument. Ball is in your court. Time to prove or at least argue your positive claim that behavior is perfectly predictable in principle.

Refer to the post you quoted: "I say it is predictable in principle because our choices can be explained on the basis of what we wanted."
The ball is on your court.

Koldo · Jun 4, 2019

Curious George said:
Again you are confusing the issue. That the value inputs that will create a conflict are not in your control does little to negate a choice. It doesn't matter that you cannot control that one car looks cooler to you while the other car seems more efficient. You will ultimately need to reason in order to make a choice.

Let's go with your example: There is one car that looks cooler and another that looks more efficient.
How do you use reason to decide between cooler and more efficient ?
Reason can not allow you to decide between them without the input of what's more relevant to you and to what extent.

Curious George said:
If it was a mere matter of weighing wants objectively, then we would always make the correct choice at the time.

In what sense can our choices be correct or incorrect ? What do you mean by this ?
Are you talking about us regretting our choices later on ?

Curious George · Jun 4, 2019

Koldo said:
Refer to the post you quoted: "I say it is predictable in principle because our choices can be explained on the basis of what we wanted."
The ball is on your court.

And that is begging the question.

You conclude the reason for the choice is a want. And explain this by asserting that a person chooses whatever they want more.

This you do while simultaneously agreeing that the person employs reason in negotiating between their wants. That is not a very good argument.

Koldo · Jun 4, 2019

Curious George said:
And that is begging the question.

You conclude the reason for the choice is a want. And explain this by asserting that a person chooses whatever they want more.

This you do while simultaneously agreeing that the person employs reason in negotiating between their wants. That is not a very good argument.

I have never said we negotiate between our wants. We put them on a scale and figure out what we want more, that's all. The ability to compare between wants by putting them on a scale is what I am saying our reasoning does. It is your reasoning that allows your feelings to be expressed through your conscious actions, through your conscious choices.

Curious George · Jun 4, 2019

Koldo said:
Let's go with your example: There is one car that looks cooler and another that looks more efficient.
How do you use reason to decide between cooler and more efficient?

Well you would analyze the benefits and detriments you would draw from both. You may neglect some aspects, employ faulty reasoning, or be unaware of other aspects; or you may not. But the process by which you think, analyze, integrate, assimilate and accommodate all of the information in order to make a choice between the two most certainly affects the outcome. This is not a mere matter of which want supersedes the other. It is a matter of which want you think supersedes the other. In other words it is not subject to perfect prediction it is dependent on your reasoning.

Reason can not allow you to decide between them without the input of what's more relevant to you and to what extent.

Click to expand...

No, i suppose that is something you would have to reason out.

Curious George · Jun 4, 2019

Koldo said:
I have never said we negotiate between our wants. We put them on a scale and figure out what we want more, that's all. The ability to compare between wants by putting them on a scale is what I am saying our reasoning does. It is your reasoning that allows your feelings to be expressed through your conscious actions, through your conscious choices.

That better be a metaphorical scale you are talking about because that process is not objective.

Koldo · Jun 4, 2019

Curious George said:
That better be a metaphorical scale you are talking about because that process is not objective.

It depends on what you mean by objective.
Since we are talking about things only known to us through our subjective experience, there is no physical scale nor physical wants to weight in.

Koldo · Jun 4, 2019

Curious George said:
Well you would analyze the benefits and detriments you would draw from both. You may neglect some aspects, employ faulty reasoning, or be unaware of other aspects; or you may not. But the process by which you think, analyze, integrate, assimilate and accommodate all of the information in order to make a choice between the two most certainly affects the outcome. This is not a mere matter of which want supersedes the other. It is a matter of which want you think supersedes the other. In other words it is not subject to perfect prediction it is dependent on your reasoning.

Let me start from this point:
How do you determine what is a benefit and what is a detriment ?
Is spending less money on gas, by itself, a benefit ? If so, why ?

Curious George · Jun 4, 2019

Koldo said:
Let me start from this point:
How do you determine what is a benefit and what is a detriment ?
Is spending less money on gas, by itself, a benefit ? If so, why ?

Yes. Money can be spent on other things, therefore it is beneficial to save on one expense.

Curious George · Jun 4, 2019

Koldo said:
It depends on what you mean by objective.
Since we are talking about things only known to us through our subjective experience, there is no physical scale nor physical wants to weight in.

Yet you would hold that there is still some objective weight?

Koldo · Jun 4, 2019

Curious George said:
Yet you would hold that there is still some objective weight?

As I have said, it depends on what you mean by objective.

Koldo · Jun 4, 2019

Curious George said:
Yes. Money can be spent on other things, therefore it is beneficial to save on one expense.

Why do you regard having extra money and therefore being able to spend money on other things as beneficial ? I hope you understand where I am headed with this.

Ponder This · Jun 4, 2019

blü 2 said:
One of the issues discussed here is this:

How does the brain make decisions?

Neurology tells us it does so by the interaction of complex chains of biochemical and bioelectrical cause+effect (whether or not affected by quantum randomness at any point).

That being so, is there in the brain anything distinct from that, called 'the will', which can override it?

If there is, and it can, what is 'the will' and by what process does 'the will' make decisions?

If there is not, then the brain's processes of decision-making are either determined, or largely determined and slightly random.

Does overriding the chains of cause and effect in the brain mean the 'will' violates the science of chemistry?

How does science resolve the issue of controlled experiments on the will? If you control the will, then are you really testing free will or are you just testing a will that has been forced?

Free will, determinism and absolute knowledge.

Outstanding Member

Veteran Member

Outstanding Member

Veteran Member

Outstanding Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Outstanding Member

Outstanding Member

Veteran Member

Outstanding Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Outstanding Member

Outstanding Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Outstanding Member

Outstanding Member

Well-Known Member