Freewill

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Freewill

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Is free will demonstrated in eating the cake or not eating the cake?

Eating the cake seems to demonstrate action and so demonstrate free will but not eating the cake demonstrates free will more so because you are overcoming something you want to do.

Always doing what you want demonstrates less freewill than not doing what you want. IMO...
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Bubuche87
Student
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:01 pm
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Freewill

Post #41

Post by Bubuche87 »

[Replying to Wootah in post #38]

The first sentence of the original post is: "Is free will demonstrated in eating the cake or not eating the cake?"
The answer is no. A dice doesn't have free will because we are incapable of predicting on what it will land.

You are confusing
"I am not capable of demonstrating X"
with
"I am capable of demonstrating not X"

X here being determinism.
And it's a huge mistake, confusing epistemology and ontology.
Our capability (or incapability) of demonstrating something has no bearing on what it actually is.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Freewill

Post #42

Post by Difflugia »

Wootah wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:50 pmIf you could show I am arguing for indeterminism would be good. I think I am arguing for the obvious atm.
What?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Freewill

Post #43

Post by Wootah »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:45 am
Wootah wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:50 pmIf you could show I am arguing for indeterminism would be good. I think I am arguing for the obvious atm.
What?
Let's roll back. What did you say at this point:

> Just to interject a bit, these aren't the only two options. Determinism makes most definitions of free will impossible, but indeterminism alone isn't sufficient to infer free will.

Are you saying I am arguing for indeterminism? I am just arguing for something quite obvious to my mind.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Freewill

Post #44

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:04 am Is free will demonstrated in eating the cake or not eating the cake?

Eating the cake seems to demonstrate action and so demonstrate free will but not eating the cake demonstrates free will more so because you are overcoming something you want to do.

Always doing what you want demonstrates less freewill than not doing what you want. IMO...
It is very possible to go against your bodily drives. When religious people fast, their bodies are driving them to get food, but they resist. I suppose that's one good example of mind over body, but maybe not enough for free-will. Even if it is not enough for free-will it definitely shows that we are not as controlled as the non-human animals that blindly follow their instincts and drives (i.e. they have little to no ability to resist them).
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Bubuche87
Student
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:01 pm
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Freewill

Post #45

Post by Bubuche87 »

Except they do. You can perfectly train a dog not to eat food you haven't give it personally.
We live in a world where, to survive you must adapt to the situation. I'll make it short: you need a brain.

Where you are begging the question is when you assume that the mind (i e. Something immaterial) is responsible for that, when the brain (network of neurons plugged to stimulus from the outside world + a bunch of accidents of evolution) can perfectly be pointed as the source of those behavior.

Before assuming something immaterial is responsible for a phenomenon, starts by proving something immaterial exist to begin with.

Disclaimer: we would need evidence for the immaterial, and arguments aren't evidence.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Freewill

Post #46

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Bubuche87 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:41 pm Except they do. You can perfectly train a dog not to eat food you haven't give it personally.
I don't see how your example shows "overcoming something you want to do". I don't see why dogs can't find food on their own, like if you leave food out within their reach and they take it (eventhough it was not intended for them).
Bubuche87 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:41 pmWe live in a world where, to survive you must adapt to the situation. I'll make it short: you need a brain.

Where you are begging the question is when you assume that the mind (i e. Something immaterial) is responsible for that, when the brain (network of neurons plugged to stimulus from the outside world + a bunch of accidents of evolution) can perfectly be pointed as the source of those behavior.

Before assuming something immaterial is responsible for a phenomenon, starts by proving something immaterial exist to begin with.
Let's take a step back. Let's not assume that it is physical nor non-physical.
Bubuche87 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:41 pm Disclaimer: we would need evidence for the immaterial, and arguments aren't evidence.
We would need evidence that the mind or consciousness is physical or non-physical to claim either of the two. I started a thread to challenge anyone to show just that...

We don't know if consciousness is physical, period.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: Freewill

Post #47

Post by boatsnguitars »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 5:57 pm
Bubuche87 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:41 pm Except they do. You can perfectly train a dog not to eat food you haven't give it personally.
I don't see how your example shows "overcoming something you want to do". I don't see why dogs can't find food on their own, like if you leave food out within their reach and they take it (eventhough it was not intended for them).
Bubuche87 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:41 pmWe live in a world where, to survive you must adapt to the situation. I'll make it short: you need a brain.

Where you are begging the question is when you assume that the mind (i e. Something immaterial) is responsible for that, when the brain (network of neurons plugged to stimulus from the outside world + a bunch of accidents of evolution) can perfectly be pointed as the source of those behavior.

Before assuming something immaterial is responsible for a phenomenon, starts by proving something immaterial exist to begin with.
Let's take a step back. Let's not assume that it is physical nor non-physical.
Bubuche87 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:41 pm Disclaimer: we would need evidence for the immaterial, and arguments aren't evidence.
We would need evidence that the mind or consciousness is physical or non-physical to claim either of the two. I started a thread to challenge anyone to show just that...

We don't know if consciousness is physical, period.
So your position is because we don't know if it's material or immaterial, you'll argue that it's immaterial - despite the only evidence being produced is only from material sources....

It's kind of like saying we can't know if electricity is real, or part of our imagination if we are brains in vats, so we'll just go ahead and pretend it's not real and can't be measured or used, etc...
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

Bubuche87
Student
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:01 pm
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Freewill

Post #48

Post by Bubuche87 »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu Apr 06, 2023 5:57 pm
Bubuche87 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:41 pm Except they do. You can perfectly train a dog not to eat food you haven't give it personally.
I don't see how your example shows "overcoming something you want to do". I don't see why dogs can't find food on their own, like if you leave food out within their reach and they take it (eventhough it was not intended for them).
Re-read me because you didn't understood what I said. You read something I didn't said.

Let's take a step back. Let's not assume that it is physical nor non-physical.

We would need evidence that the mind or consciousness is physical or non-physical to claim either of the two. I started a thread to challenge anyone to show just that...
And I can give you the answer:
A/ we cannot prove it's material or immaterial, or disprove any of those.
and B/ we have evidence of material stuff, we have no evidence of non-material stuff, so by induction we can conclude that this thing is material too.
We don't know if consciousness is physical, period.
It depends. What is you definition of knowledge?
If it's "justified true belief"
1) we have justification (induction)
2) some people may believe it.

And if it happens to be true (ontologically) then the person who believe it's material know it is.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Freewill

Post #49

Post by Wootah »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:14 am
Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:04 am Is free will demonstrated in eating the cake or not eating the cake?

Eating the cake seems to demonstrate action and so demonstrate free will but not eating the cake demonstrates free will more so because you are overcoming something you want to do.

Always doing what you want demonstrates less freewill than not doing what you want. IMO...
It is very possible to go against your bodily drives. When religious people fast, their bodies are driving them to get food, but they resist. I suppose that's one good example of mind over body, but maybe not enough for free-will. Even if it is not enough for free-will it definitely shows that we are not as controlled as the non-human animals that blindly follow their instincts and drives (i.e. they have little to no ability to resist them).
According to determinism, How is it possible? How is it possible for a chemical reaction to not complete?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Freewill

Post #50

Post by Wootah »

Bubuche87 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:41 pm Except they do. You can perfectly train a dog not to eat food you haven't give it personally.
We live in a world where, to survive you must adapt to the situation. I'll make it short: you need a brain.

Where you are begging the question is when you assume that the mind (i e. Something immaterial) is responsible for that, when the brain (network of neurons plugged to stimulus from the outside world + a bunch of accidents of evolution) can perfectly be pointed as the source of those behavior.

Before assuming something immaterial is responsible for a phenomenon, starts by proving something immaterial exist to begin with.

Disclaimer: we would need evidence for the immaterial, and arguments aren't evidence.
Yeah, I am OK with that end point that the mind is immaterial. Not sure atheists will be.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Post Reply