There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

Is it not equally valid for those who believe in free will to say "Your reasonings are rendered irrelevant by the stubborn fact that you have freely chosen not to believe in it?" That's not justification for believing in free will, any more than what you're saying is justification for not believing in it.
 
mattityahu said:
Is it not equally valid for those who believe in free will to say "Your reasonings are rendered irrelevant by the stubborn fact that you have freely chosen not to believe in it?" That's not justification for believing in free will, any more than what you're saying is justification for not believing in it.
Click to expand...

IMHO it is not an "equally valid" conclusion, because the fact that it is impossible to choose what we do not prefer is simply an irrefutable fact.
 
rodgertutt said:
IMHO it is not an "equally valid" conclusion, because the fact that it is impossible to choose what we do not prefer is simply an irrefutable fact.
Click to expand...

So in your humble opinion it's an irrefutable fact?

Hint: writing things in bold doesn't strengthen your argument.
 
mattityahu said:
So in your humble opinion it's an irrefutable fact?

Hint: writing things in bold doesn't strengthen your argument.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. In my humble opinion it is an irrefutable fact that it is impossible to choose what we do not prefer whether or not the word irrefutable is is in bold print.
The fact that we choose it proves "irrefutably" that we preferred it at least slightly more than other influences.
 
rodgertutt said:
IMHO it is not an "equally valid" conclusion, because the fact that it is impossible to choose what we do not prefer is simply an irrefutable fact.
Click to expand...
I refute this every time I play Scrabble and choose tiles that I would prefer not to have. :)

Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.
~Jawaharial Nehru, Indian politician​
 
seattlegal said:
I refute this every time I play Scrabble and choose tiles that I would prefer not to have. :)
Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.
~Jawaharial Nehru, Indian politician
​
Click to expand...

In choosing the Scrabble tiles you have commited yourself to the strongest influence of random chance. In that case the mechanics of the movement of your arm and fingers become the strongest influence and it will determine which tiles you pick up.

In other word you have chosen to make random chance be the deciding factor of your choice and so random chance becomes the strongest influence in the results of that choice.

You could also choose to make flipping a coin be the strongest influence in making major decisions too, but I woudn't recommend it. :)

I believe Nehru was wrong about card playing. The way you play the cards is determined by the strongest influence of the skill you have learned in reading the other player and making an educated guess on what cards they most probably have, that is unless you decide to ignore that skill and give yourself up to random chance. If you do, then random chance become the strongest influence.
 
rodgertutt said:
In choosing the Scrabble tiles you have commited yourself to the strongest influence of random chance. In that case the mechanics of the movement of your arm and fingers become the strongest influence and it will determine which tiles you pick up.

In other word you have chosen to make random chance be the deciding factor of your choice and so random chance become the strongest influence in the results of that choice.
Click to expand...
No, the strongest factor in this behavior would be my moral decision to not cheat at the game.

You could also choose to make flipping a coin be the strongest influence in making major decisions too, but I woudn't recommend it. :)
Click to expand...
It could make for an interesting study in predetermination, but I would also not recommend it. :)
 
seattlegal said:
No, the strongest factor in this behavior would be my moral decision to not cheat at the game.

It could make for an interesting study in predetermination, but I would also not recommend it. :)
Click to expand...

Your moral decision not to cheat would be a strong influence alright, but it would be your commitment to the mechanics of random chance that would be the strongest influence on the tiles that you would actually pick up.

Since we always choose in the direction of the strongest influence, predetermination is certainly true. We can know that without flipping a coin.
 
rodgertutt said:
Your moral decision not to cheat would be a strong influence alright, but it would be your commitment to the mechanics of random chance that would be the strongest influence on the tiles that you would actually pick up.
Click to expand...
Hmm, so a commitment to randomness would be required to overcome stronger influences? :D

Since we always choose in the direction of the strongest influence, predetermination is certainly true. We can know that without flipping a coin.
Click to expand...
I would certainly dispute this premise. Our choices are merely our choices. Labelling them as being the result of the strongest influence without properly investigating the causal mechanisms would be the questionable cause logical fallacy. If you are unwilling to do even the smallest amount of emperical investigation regarding actual causation of our choices, then this premise can be disputed due to a lack of evidence. The burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion, not with the one seeking to refute it. It's not my job to do your homework for you. :)
 
seattlegal said:
Hmm, so a commitment to randomness would be required to overcome stronger influences? :D
I would certainly dispute this premise. Our choices are merely our choices. Labelling them as being the result of the strongest influence without properly investigating the causal mechanisms would be the questionable cause logical fallacy. If you are unwilling to do even the smallest amount of emperical investigation regarding actual causation of our choices, then this premise can be disputed due to a lack of evidence. The burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion, not with the one seeking to refute it. It's not my job to do your homework for you. :)
Click to expand...

Dispute my premise all you want.

But after all of the arguments have been exhausted about us not being robots, and after all of the ethical opinions about our perception of morality have been expounded, this stubborn fact will still just sit there in all of its irrefutability.

We will always, without exception, choose in the direction of the strongest sets of influences that are being brought to bear upon our minds, because it is absolutely impossible to choose what we do not prefer. The fact that we choose it demonstrates that we preferred it at least slightly more than other sets of influences that were almost just as strong.

Therefore there is no such a thing as “free will.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top