Jump to content
270soft Forum

I am legitimate


Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little thing I thought up

29 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Can a tri-omni God lie? If He is omnibenevolent He can't lie but then He wouldn't omnipotent since there is something He can't do, if He can then He isn't omnibenevolent but is still omnipotent since lying is a form of non-benevolence.

 

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

A little thing I thought up

 

You're a little late to come to the debating table about the nature of the Christian Trinity and it's component members. These were VERY hot debate topics, even leading to major schisms, official refutations, ecclesiastical councils, denunciations, formal creeds, and other such great events in the first several centuries of the Early Christian Church's existence, before the actual Fall of the Roman Empire. You missed the boat on that debate by over 1500 years. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...