Jump to content
270soft Forum
DebateGod

I am legitimate

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So, I think a physicalist would have to deny this premise. They would have to hold that some physical states are uncaused. The only other option is a loop of physical causes.

Well, they do have reason to as there are uncaused events https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-such-thing-as-an-uncaused-event

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

If so, then the argument falls apart, no?

Not fully, since those uncaused events don't apply to free will or brain chemistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

I think the first two premises have to be reformulated, then.

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Since this is the philosophy thread I figured I'd post my proof that free will can't exist without the supernatural

Premise A:  All physical states as applies to the brain and free will must somehow be caused

Premise B: The brain and its processes which would allow free will to be excercised are physical

Conclusion 1: The brain's mechanisms as applies to free will must be caused in a physical manner

Premise A: From the principle of alternate possibilities we know than an agent can't be held responsible for an action if he couldn't have chosen otherwise

Premise B : Frankfurt cases will never apply as beliefs and wants are caused by brain states which are in turn physical states (and from conclusion 1) must be caused

Premise C (From conclusion 1) If all brain states are physical and hence must be caused then we, the agents, couldn't have chosen otherwise and can't be held responsible for those choices.

Conclusion 2: If the physical world is all that exists free will is impossible.

Premise A: (From conclusion 2) since free will is impossible in a solely physical world something non-physical, an unmoved mover of sorts would have to account for it

Premise B: Since such a mover can't be physical it'd have to be supernatural.

Premise C : And that supernatural would account for free will

Conclusion 3: Free will is impossible in a solely physical world, but is possible if a spiritual world exists.

@LegolasRedbard @Conservative Elector 2

 @vcczar @Patine @WVProgressive @Reagan04 @ThePotatoWalrus

@admin_270 I've slightly reformulated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Since this is the philosophy thread I figured I'd post my proof that free will can't exist without the supernatural

Premise A:  All physical states must somehow be caused

Premise B: The brain and its processes are physical

Conclusion 1: The brain's mechanisms must be caused in a physical manner

Premise A: From the principle of alternate possibilities we know than an agent can't be held responsible for an action if he couldn't have chosen otherwise

Premise B : Frankfurt cases will never apply as beliefs and wants are caused by brain states which are in turn physical states (and from conclusion 1) must be caused

Premise C (From conclusion 1) If all brain states are physical and hence must be caused then we, the agents, couldn't have chosen otherwise and can't be held responsible for those choices.

Conclusion 2: If the physical world is all that exists free will is impossible.

Premise A: (From conclusion 2) since free will is impossible in a solely physical world something non-physical, an unmoved mover of sorts would have to account for it

Premise B: Since such a mover can't be physical it'd have to be supernatural.

Premise C : And that supernatural would account for free will

Conclusion 3: Free will is impossible in a solely physical world, but is possible if a spiritual world exists.

@LegolasRedbard @Conservative Elector 2

 @vcczar @Patine @WVProgressive @Reagan04 @ThePotatoWalrus

 

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Why did you tag me?

 

1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

What's the issue? I just want feedback.

 

1 hour ago, Patine said:

You must have missed a couple of things I've said in the last few days.

This also applied to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

 I've slightly reformulated it.

Looking better.

I'm a compatibilist - I think that determinism and free will are compatible, and so I would push on the "couldn't have chosen otherwise" formulation. In the relevant sense, I would say an agent could have chosen otherwise *even in a deterministic universe*, physical or otherwise. My view comes largely out of working on computer agents who review criteria and make choices, but are deterministic. I would say a computer agent *can* choose A, or *can* choose B. That agent then reviews the relevant criteria internally, ranks the possibilities (so, internal deliberation), and *chooses* A or B. This, in my opinion, is a sense of 'choice' *worth having*. Computer agents, therefore, have free will in a weak sense. We have much more developed free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×