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...
Freewill
Moderator: Moderators
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9237
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 191 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Freewill
Post #1Proverbs 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 ."
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 ."
Re: Freewill
Post #41[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.
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.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3066
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3316 times
- Been thanked: 2031 times
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9237
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 191 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: Freewill
Post #43Let'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 ."
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 ."
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Re: Freewill
Post #44It 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).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...
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
Re: Freewill
Post #45Except 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.
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.
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Re: Freewill
Post #46I 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).
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 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.
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
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- boatsnguitars
- Banned
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 477 times
- Been thanked: 580 times
Re: Freewill
Post #47So 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....AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 5:57 pmI 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).
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 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.
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.
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
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
Re: Freewill
Post #48Re-read me because you didn't understood what I said. You read something I didn't said.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 5:57 pmI 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).
And I can give you the answer: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...
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.
It depends. What is you definition of knowledge?We don't know if consciousness is physical, period.
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.
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9237
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 191 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: Freewill
Post #49According to determinism, How is it possible? How is it possible for a chemical reaction to not complete?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:14 amIt 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).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...
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 ."
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 ."
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9237
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 191 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: Freewill
Post #50Yeah, I am OK with that end point that the mind is immaterial. Not sure atheists will be.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.
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 ."
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 ."