Question regarding free will

[Falvlun]

Not if it is true. The only way it could be falsified is if it were untrue. It you take the position that determinism is true you also have to take the position that it can't be falsified.

This is kinda a science thing. It's not that you can falsify X (assuming X is true), it's that it would have been possible to prove it false.

So, for example, we know that the Earth orbits the sun.

The way we could have falsified this statement is by sending probes to an appropriate vantage point, and having them watch the orbits of the sun and Earth. If the Earth actually didn't orbit the sun, this test would have falsified the statement.

I suppose it's about potential falsifiability.

 

[Skwim]

Determinism doesn't allow you to consciously alter anything.

Sure it can. Don't confuse being made to do something (an act of determinism) using the conscious mind, and choosing. You seem to be under the misguided notion that the deterministic sequences of cause/effect cannot included the conscious mind. Deterministic sequences of cause/effect events can ultimately lead up to and include thoughts of X, Y and, Z, just as they well as they can lead to unconscious events. Why you think that conscious thoughts are exempt from the impact of such sequences, and in turn become a part of that cause/effect sequence, is curious.

.

 

[Nakosis]

This is kinda a science thing. It's not that you can falsify X (assuming X is true), it's that it would have been possible to prove it false.

So, for example, we know that the Earth orbits the sun.

The way we could have falsified this statement is by sending probes to an appropriate vantage point, and having them watch the orbits of the sun and Earth. If the Earth actually didn't orbit the sun, this test would have falsified the statement.

I suppose it's about potential falsifiability.

Conceive of a test that could prove determinism is false if determinism is true? You'd have to assume an alternate outcome that could never happen if determinism is true.

If determinism is true, there can't be different outcomes. So basically create a test to falsify determinism in which there can't be different outcomes. How can you falsify something in a reality where there can't be alternate outcomes?

 

[Nakosis]

Sure it can. Don't confuse being made to do something (an act of determinism) using the conscious mind, and choosing. You seem to be under the misguided notion that the deterministic sequences of cause/effect cannot included the conscious mind. Deterministic sequences of cause/effect events can ultimately lead up to and include thoughts of X, Y and, Z, just as they well as they can lead to unconscious events. Why you think that conscious thoughts are exempt from the impact of such sequences, and in turn become a part of that cause/effect sequence, is curious.

.

Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event - Determinism - Wikipedia

Yet you are saying conscious could cause some other event. I'm saying conscious thought is not exempt if determinism is true.

 

[Falvlun]

Conceive of a test that could prove determinism is false if determinism is true? You'd have to assume an alternate outcome that could never happen if determinism is true.

If determinism is true, there can't be different outcomes. So basically create a test to falsify determinism in which there can't be different outcomes. How can you falsify something in a reality where there can't be alternate outcomes?

You know how the word "theory" means something different in science than it does in every day speech? That's kinda the same thing here. Since I failed to explain it well enough last attempt, maybe check out the wiki on it: Falsifiability

Now, whether determinism is actually falsifiable is a good question. I don't think I agree with viole: she's right in that you would simply need to have a different outcome occur, given the same conditions. However, to get the exact same conditions might prove to be very difficult, if not impossible.

 

[Skwim]

Yet you are saying conscious could cause some other event.

Nope. I'm say that consciousness is one of the contexts in which determinism operates.

.

 

[Nakosis]

You know how the word "theory" means something different in science than it does in every day speech? That's kinda the same thing here. Since I failed to explain it well enough last attempt, maybe check out the wiki on it: Falsifiability

Now, whether determinism is actually falsifiable is a good question. I don't think I agree with viole: she's right in that you would simply need to have a different outcome occur, given the same conditions. However, to get the exact same conditions might prove to be very difficult, if not impossible.

A determinist is saying that determinism is true. Determinism is our reality. In such a reality, it would be impossible to conceive of a test in which determinism wouldn't work.

Of course you could imagine an alternate universe were determinism didn't work that such a test could be made but it could not be done in a universe were determinism is true.

IOW you can't actually perform the test. It is by definition impossible to observe an alternate outcome in a deterministic universe. You can't logically argue that it is possible in a deterministic universe. So is it possible to scientifically falsify a theory when your premise is illogical?

 

[Nakosis]

Nope. I'm say that consciousness is one of the contexts in which determinism operates.
.

I agree. Therefore consciousness cannot alter the outcome. So you can't make the argument, logically anyway, that consciousness can alter the outcome.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

So, do you deny that causality exists? Really??? There is no such a thing as "Because . . . ."

In response to me saying:
"still your only argument is to say that the reason causality exists is because it does."

Shows that you have not read what I have said.

I am questioning the REASON causality exists, not the FACT of its existence.
I could easily have phrased the question:
'How did causality come into existence?'
It could not have been caused, surely you can see that?
Thus it is not a mechanism, but must have arrived a-causally:
Thru free-will of God, or perhaps chaos?
I can't think of any other a-causal concepts.

Incidentally, the great philosopher Anthony Flew
wrote an amazing book, simply titled 'a dictionary of philosophy'.
In it he compiles summaries of almost every philosopher.
It is one of the top 10 books of all time in my view.
Anyone interested in philosophy is at a great disadvantage without a copy.

Flew outlines three different types of reason:
causal, motivational and reasons of evidence.
So according to him causality is just one type of reason.

But I really find it sad that you do not see any evidence of free will in your own life.
Your example of a five-legged flying elephant is a great example.
How could such an idea come into your mind unless you thought it up freely?

 

[Falvlun]

A determinist is saying that determinism is true. Determinism is our reality. In such a reality, it would be impossible to conceive of a test in which determinism wouldn't work.

Of course you could imagine an alternate universe were determinism didn't work that such a test could be made but it could not be done in a universe were determinism is true.

IOW you can't actually perform the test. It is by definition impossible to observe an alternate outcome in a deterministic universe. You can't logically argue that it is possible in a deterministic universe. So is it possible to scientifically falsify a theory when your premise is illogical?

Do you believe the following statement is falsifiable, based on the scientific understanding of falsifiability?

"The Earth orbits the sun."

Spoiler: Hint

(Yes, it is considered falsifiable. And we are all heliocentrists, as far as I know.)

 

[Falvlun]

I agree. Therefore consciousness cannot alter the outcome. So you can't make the argument, logically anyway, that consciousness can alter the outcome.

Consciousness is one of the causes. Thus, it alters the outcome in the same way that gravity, and chemical reactions, and other forces do.

 

[Skwim]

I agree. Therefore consciousness cannot alter the outcome. So you can't make the argument, logically anyway, that consciousness can alter the outcome.

Unfortunately, you've insisted on making this a "I didn't shoot him, my hand did," kind of debate, and I'm too weary of it to continue.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Falvlun]

Unfortunately, you've insisted on making this a "I didn't shoot him, my hand did," kind of debate, and I'm too weary of it to continue.

Have a good day.

.

"I didn't shoot him, my hand did."

That's an interesting way to put it. I sort feel like those who deny free will are making such an argument: I don't make a choice; my brain, my rationality, my body chemistry, my genetics, etc make the choice.

 

[Skwim]

In response to me saying:
"still your only argument is to say that the reason causality exists is because it does."

Shows that you have not read what I have said.

Ah, but I did.

I am questioning the REASON causality exists, not the FACT of its existence.

Yes, I know, and I know what you're fishing for, but it's like asking why action-reaction exists in the world of physics, or why gravity only operates as an attractive force. All that can be said is: because it's the way our universe works. Want to insert god into the mix, fine, but I don't buy it anymore than if you want to claim that pixies are behind the origin of cause. In the end, it's an inconsequential and not very interesting subject.

.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you believe the following statement is falsifiable, based on the scientific understanding of falsifiability?

"The Earth orbits the sun."

Spoiler: Hint

(Yes, it is considered falsifiable. And we are all heliocentrists, as far as I know.)

Consciousness is one of the causes. Thus, it alters the outcome in the same way that gravity, and chemical reactions, and other forces do.

Alters it from what? An imaginary universe where gravity doesn't exist? How are you going to test it let along falsify it?

 

[Nakosis]

Unfortunately, you've insisted on making this a "I didn't shoot him, my hand did," kind of debate, and I'm too weary of it to continue.

Have a good day.

.

Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion. From my view I've only insisted that determinism be logically consistent.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Ah, but I did.


Yes, I know, and I know what you're fishing for, but it's like asking why action-reaction exists in the world of physics, or why gravity only operates as an attractive force. All that can be said is: because it's the way our universe works. Want to insert god into the mix, fine, but I don't buy it anymore than if you want to claim that pixies are behind the origin of cause. In the end, it's an inconsequential and not very interesting subject.

.

Do you even understand what causality is, I wonder?

Can you figure out this conundrum?

premise 1: gravity is curvature of space (general relativity)
2: a black-hole causes space to curve so much that nothing traveling at the velocity of light escapes from it
3: gravity itself travels at the velocity of light, (general relativity) and yet this gravity said to escape the black-hole

hint:
A) choose to think about it
or
B) don't

 

[Falvlun]

Alters it from what? An imaginary universe where gravity doesn't exist? How are you going to test it let along falsify it?

I have tried to explain falsifiability to you. I have given you the Wiki. It is a philosophical and scientific concept-- it's not something we just made up here.

But you repeat the same incorrect argument back, demonstrating you're still not understand the concept.

I'll try one last time.

Falsifiable:
I own a green tshirt.

This statement can be proven false by checking all the clothing I own. Whether I actually own a green shirt doesn't matter. Reality doesn't matter. All that matters is that there's conceivably a way to prove it false.

Unfalsifiable:
I own an invisible and completely undetectable shirt.

This statement can't be proven false. There's no way to prove that an undetectable shirt doesn't exist. It doesn't matter whether one actually exists or not. It only matters that there is no conceivable way to prove it false.

 

[Nakosis]

"I didn't shoot him, my hand did."

That's an interesting way to put it. I sort feel like those who deny free will are making such an argument: I don't make a choice; my brain, my rationality, my body chemistry, my genetics, etc make the choice.

I think it's more like "I didn't shoot him, the universe did". The falsifiablity of determinism is a tangent I suppose. It just means whether science would be able to evaluate determinism as a theory or not. Doesn't really prove or disprove it.

 

[Nakosis]

I have tried to explain falsifiability to you. I have given you the Wiki. It is a philosophical and scientific concept-- it's not something we just made up here.

But you repeat the same incorrect argument back, demonstrating you're still not understand the concept.

I'll try one last time.

Falsifiable:
I own a green tshirt.

This statement can be proven false by checking all the clothing I own. Whether I actually own a green shirt doesn't matter. Reality doesn't matter. All that matters is that there's conceivably a way to prove it false.

Unfalsifiable:
I own an invisible and completely undetectable shirt.

This statement can't be proven false. There's no way to prove that an undetectable shirt doesn't exist. It doesn't matter whether one actually exists or not. It only matters that there is no conceivable way to prove it false.

Ok, according to your explanation. for something to be falsifiable you need to be able to make an observation. Correct?

Something that can't be observed, like an undetectable shirt can't be falsified.

Keep in mind, we are talking about determinism, not causality. Determinism is a theory regarding human beings. So an example using inanimate objects works for causality. It doesn't work for determinism since determinism is not about inanimate objects.

So how would you go about observing determinism?