Like Epiphenomenalism, Denial of Free Will is Self-Stultifying

[Nous]

Stultify: “to cause to appear or be stupid, foolish, or absurdly illogical.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stultify

Epiphenomenalism is the philosophical thesis that the mind (or mental phenomena such as beliefs or desires) exists (exist) but is (are) causally inefficacious:

Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events.​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/

In order to have knowledge that one has a mind (or beliefs or desires), that mind (or beliefs or desires) must somehow be able to produce an effect on one’s brain. But in order to produce an effect on one’s brain, one’s mind (beliefs or desires) must somehow be causally efficacious, therefore refuting the thesis of epiphenomenalism.

Thus the SEP article notes:

2.4 Self-stultification

The most powerful reason for rejecting epiphenomenalism is the view that it is incompatible with knowledge of our own minds -- and thus, incompatible with knowing that epiphenomenalism is true.​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/#SelStu

The denial of free will--or the denial of having the ability to act volitionally, purposefully, intentionally--is self-stultifying in essentially the same way, and for similar reasons: the assertion that one lacks free will, if true, means that the assertion lacks truth-value (i.e., is meaningless), because the entity that lacks free will is unable to choose between a true statement and false statement.


QED

 

[Sunstone]

...the assertion that one lacks free will, if true, means that the assertion lacks truth-value (i.e., is meaningless), because the entity that lacks free will is unable to choose between a true statement and false statement.

Apparently, you have struck a false analogy between epiphenomenalism and determinism. Determinism does not necessarily assert, like epiphenomenalism does, that mental events have no effect upon physical events.

 

[crossfire]

In order to have knowledge that one has a mind (or beliefs or desires), that mind (or beliefs or desires) must somehow be able to produce an effect on one’s brain. But in order to produce an effect on one’s brain, one’s mind (beliefs or desires) must somehow be causally efficacious, therefore refuting the thesis of epiphenomenalism.

You decide to write a post, which sends signals to the appropriate areas of the brain that involve coordinated movement of your fingers upon the keyboard which correlates to language symbols which convey the abstract thoughts in your mind which others can then understand within their own minds. Is it a mere coincidence that all of the minds who read the post understand the thoughts that were in your mind when you wrote the post?

 

[Nous]

Apparently, you have struck a false analogy between epiphenomenalism and determinism.

Where the hell did I make an analogy between epiphenomenalism and determinism? Obviously I didn’t say anything about determinism. Apparently you have chosen to read things in my post that are not there.

Determinism does not necessarily assert, like epiphenomenalism does, that mental events have no effect upon physical events.

I agree. In fact, there are people who claim that free will and determinism are not incompatible--this thesis is called “compatibilism”. That doesn’t make the thesis of determinism true. The empirical evidence is what proves the thesis of determinism to be false: http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html “It is just a pious hope that the universe is deterministic . . .” He got that so right.

 

[Nous]

You decide to write a post, which sends signals to the appropriate areas of the brain that involve coordinated movement of your fingers upon the keyboard which correlates to language symbols which convey the abstract thoughts in your mind which others can then understand within their own minds. Is it a mere coincidence that all of the minds who read the post understand the thoughts that were in your mind when you wrote the post?

I don't know that "all of the minds who read the post [understood] the thoughts that were in [my] mind". Indeed, the evidence is that at least one person didn't understand what was written. (Actually, if I had precisely expressed in my post "the thoughts that were in my mind," more people would be offended by my post.)

Anyway, no, I don't think it is any sort of weird coincidence when people understand the meaning of the words before their eyes. What is your point?

 

[crossfire]

I don't know that "all of the minds who read the post [understood] the thoughts that were in [my] mind". Indeed, the evidence is that at least one person didn't understand what was written. (Actually, if I had precisely expressed in my post "the thoughts that were in my mind," more people would be offended by my post.)

Anyway, no, I don't think it is any sort of weird coincidence when people understand the meaning of the words before their eyes. What is your point?

My point is that the mind is able to produce an effect on the brain via stimulating the areas of the brain needed to communicate ideas. The fact that people are able to understand the idea that was communicated via this method is empirical evidence to prove this.

 

[Nous]

My point is that the mind is able to produce an effect on the brain via stimulating the areas of the brain needed to communicate ideas. The fact that people are able to understand the idea that was communicated via this method is empirical evidence to prove this.

We agree, then--epiphenomenalism must be false.

Hopefully you have likewise understood why the denial of free will is self-stultifying like epiphenomenalism.

Obviously, free will and the proposition that mind is causally efficacious are closely related. If one lacks a causally efficacious mind, then one cannot act willfully, volitionally, intentionally, purposefully. For instance, my belief that my husband would be at the gym yesterday afternoon at a particular time, as he said he would be, and my desire to meet him there, as we had agreed, in order to play squash were the primary factors that motivated me to choose to move my bones and get to the gym so as to meet him at the appointed time. My expectation that I would again beat him in squash was another motivating factor.

 

[Sunstone]

Where the hell did I make an analogy between epiphenomenalism and determinism? Obviously I didn’t say anything about determinism.

I'm not responsible for your failure to understand the implications of your own argument.

 

[Skwim]

The denial of free will--or the denial of having the ability to act volitionally, purposefully, intentionally--is self-stultifying in essentially the same way, and for similar reasons: the assertion that one lacks free will, if true, means that the assertion lacks truth-value (i.e., is meaningless), because the entity that lacks free will is unable to choose between a true statement and false statement.

More

bombastic silliness.

 

[Estro Felino]

Juridic sciences are based upon ius naturale (natural law), which analyzes the human behavior from a rigorous scientific point of view. Criminal law is entirely based upon the principle that free will is what leads people to commit actions.
Not only the denial of free will is self-stultifying, but it contradicts all juridic principles present both in Civil law systems and in the Common law systems.

The denial of free will--or the denial of having the ability to act volitionally, purposefully, intentionally--is self-stultifying in essentially the same way, and for similar reasons: the assertion that one lacks free will, if true, means that the assertion lacks truth-value (i.e., is meaningless), because the entity that lacks free will is unable to choose between a true statement and false statement.
QED

If I could, I would give you a hundred frubals-likes for saying that.

 

[Skwim]

Criminal law is entirely based upon the principle that free will is what leads people to commit actions.

So what?

. . . the denial of free will . . . contradicts all juridic principles present both in Civil law systems and in the Common law systems.

So what? Juridic principles don't determine or validate the concept of free will. They just assume it to be true.



.

 

[Nous]

I'm not responsible for your failure to understand the implications of your own argument.

Evidently it is you who didn't understand what I clearly stated. Obviously you haven't shown that I failed to understand any argument.

If you become able to respond to something I actually said, rather than to something I didn't say, please do so. Evidently you are unable to argue that the denial of having free will is not self-stultifying.

And evidently you are unable to argue that the thesis of determinism is true.

 

[Nous]

More

bombastic silliness.

And obviously you are unable to articulate any argument that denial of free will is not self-stultifying.

And obviously you are unable to provide any rational reason to deny the commonplace human ability to act volitionally.

Determinism is a dumb religion. It was proven false a while back, and has been proven false in more than one way.

 

[Nous]

Juridic sciences are based upon ius naturale (natural law), which analyzes the human behavior from a rigorous scientific point of view. Criminal law is entirely based upon the principle that free will is what leads people to commit actions.
Not only the denial of free will is self-stultifying, but it contradicts all juridic principles present both in Civil law systems and in the Common law systems.

Indeed, the ability of people to act voluntarily and intentionally are the fundamental and explicit premises of criminal law.

If I could, I would give you a hundred frubals-likes for saying that.

Thank you. It's actually only unfortunate that anyone would need to point out the undeniable fact that denial of free will is self-stultifying--and is self-stultifying for basically the same reason that epiphenomenalism is.

 

[Nous]

I suppose it isn't difficult to understand why, when people are encouraged to believe that they lack free will, they are more likely to engage in unethical behavior: http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf

 

[Skwim]

And obviously you are unable to articulate any argument that denial of free will is not self-stultifying.

I might possibly bother if you made an argument for it. But just so you know, I don't consider mere claims to be arguments.

And obviously you are unable to provide any rational reason to deny the commonplace human ability to act volitionally.

And wouldn't that be nice if it was true.

Determinism is a dumb religion. It was proven false a while back, and has been proven false in more than one way.

Determinism is now a religion is it. Hmmmm.... Just a minute................................................... The jury says you must have slipped off your rocking chair, lost your thinking cap, and bonked your brain. They don't expect any kind of explanation for your assertion, but do hope you get better, which I think is very thoughtful of them (I'm not a member of the jury).

 

[Nous]

I might possibly bother if you made an argument for it.

There's no need to lie about it, there's no need to delude yourself about it; you don't have an argument that concludes that denial of free will is not self-stultifying, and you don't have an argument that concludes that determinism is true. If you had such arguments, you would have provided them long ago.

 

[Nous]

It’s certainly a reasonable assumption that the fact that the denial of free will is self-stultifying and the fact that determinism has been proven false by the findings and theories of modern physics are upsetting to some people because these facts prevent one from absolving oneself of one’s own condemnable choices and avolition. (Avolition is, after all, a symptom of both depression and psychotic mental disorders.)

 

[Skwim]

There's no need to lie about it, there's no need to delude yourself about it; you don't have an argument that concludes that denial of free will is not self-stultifying, and you don't have an argument that concludes that determinism is true. If you had such arguments, you would have provided them long ago.

Determinism is true from June 12, 2011 Short version.

 

[Nous]

Determinism is true from June 12, 2011

Prove it.

(Even if you could, it still won't prove that denial of free will is not self-stultifying.)