Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Arguments you should not use

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    We agree that you have to have a mind to make free will decisions. However, there's a difference between "you must have a rudimentary mind to have a will" and "you must have a will to have a mind". The first claims mind without will; the second claims will without mind. They're mutually exclusive.
    except I never said "you must have a will to have a mind" - I said you had to have a mind to have a will. A will is a part of the mind. It is the part that chooses among your options and desires.








    Ah, but 'self-aware' isn't a necessary component for having a mind. It's not in the definition at all.
    It is not in YOUR definition.


    There are plenty of higher order animals which we don't consider self-aware, yet they aren't considered mindless by any stretch.
    I would disagree. I see self-awareness in my dog for example. He is aware of himself, he can think (not in words obviously) - he can anticipate the future and danger, for example, he understands if he jumps off of something high, he will injure himself, so when he is on my bed, he hesitates and won't jump off even though I can tell he wants too, so he is showing that he is self-aware and has a mind. That he is not just reacting on instinct, that he can weigh his options (jump and get hurt because he wants down, or not jump despite really wanting to get down, and not get hurt) and so on.

    We could say that being self-aware is a requirement for free will, which I could grant. However, that depends on what we think 'self-aware' means. As best I can tell, it's not much more than an internal observer.
    that is a fairly good start. There is "someone" who we feel is "I" and is different from the world around "me" and can consider what he observes, is aware of the world around him and himself, and make decisions bases on all of this. Basically it is your MIND.



    The other internal processes don't necessarily change. Computer analogies are always dangerous in this discussion, but you could liken 'self-aware' as simply what's being displayed on your monitor. In fact, the entire discussion of LFW vs determinism is effectively trying to decide if it's 'external input' or 'being displayed on a monitor'. That's it. It's not a question of having self-awareness or a mind. It's a question of 'how does it work'. The determinist doesn't deny either one; that's just a strawman made by dissenters.
    This paragraph makes no sense to me.

    and that brings up another part of self-awareness. being able to make sense of the world. Not only observing and reacting to it, but being able to put it into context and make sense of it. You have to be able to freely think about what you are observing to rationalize it. You can't just be a deterministic machine.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      except I never said "you must have a will to have a mind" - I said you had to have a mind to have a will. A will is a part of the mind. It is the part that chooses among your options and desires.








      It is not in YOUR definition.


      I would disagree. I see self-awareness in my dog for example. He is aware of himself, he can think (not in words obviously) - he can anticipate the future and danger, for example, he understands if he jumps off of something high, he will injure himself, so when he is on my bed, he hesitates and won't jump off even though I can tell he wants too, so he is showing that he is self-aware and has a mind. That he is not just reacting on instinct, that he can weigh his options (jump and get hurt because he wants down, or not jump despite really wanting to get down, and not get hurt) and so on.

      that is a fairly good start. There is "someone" who we feel is "I" and is different from the world around "me" and can consider what he observes, is aware of the world around him and himself, and make decisions bases on all of this. Basically it is your MIND.



      This paragraph makes no sense to me.

      and that brings up another part of self-awareness. being able to make sense of the world. Not only observing and reacting to it, but being able to put it into context and make sense of it. You have to be able to freely think about what you are observing to rationalize it. You can't just be a deterministic machine.
      The reason that this argument should not be used is that there is no objective evidence that humans could naturally be a deterministic machine or as claimed a robot without free will. Human nature is what it is naturally with consciousness, a mind, and a (free?) will regardless, and there is no way to compare the possible options of an existence with nor without God. This is the same for the weak argument for an objective morality, because human nature and morality is as it is whether God exists or not, and there is no way to compare a hypothetical world with a God and one without God.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        except I never said "you must have a will to have a mind" - I said you had to have a mind to have a will. A will is a part of the mind. It is the part that chooses among your options and desires.
        Either the hierarchy is will->mind or it's mind->will. You're trying to claim both, but they're mutually exclusive options. "Have to have a mind to have a will" is NOT the same thing as "will is part of the mind". It's a "which comes first" question. You have to pick one.


        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        It is not in YOUR definition.
        I provided the standard definitions. Self-awareness entails far more than what you try to present. There's a reason the consensus for the last 4+ years has been that all mammals, birds, and some invertebrates have consciousness but that very few demonstrate self-awareness. This isn't just me making stuff up, for all that you're trying to paint it that way.


        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        I would disagree. I see self-awareness in my dog for example. He is aware of himself, he can think (not in words obviously) - he can anticipate the future and danger, for example, he understands if he jumps off of something high, he will injure himself, so when he is on my bed, he hesitates and won't jump off even though I can tell he wants too, so he is showing that he is self-aware and has a mind. That he is not just reacting on instinct, that he can weigh his options (jump and get hurt because he wants down, or not jump despite really wanting to get down, and not get hurt) and so on.
        Your dog demonstrates consciousness. It doesn't demonstrate self-awareness. Self-awareness would entail things like the ability to teach himself to not be afraid. It's not the same thing as higher order, value-laden decision making. We don't know of any animals that demonstrate self-awareness, though it's extremely difficult to test. A very tiny portion have been able to demonstrate self-recognition, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition of self-awareness.


        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        that is a fairly good start. There is "someone" who we feel is "I" and is different from the world around "me" and can consider what he observes, is aware of the world around him and himself, and make decisions bases on all of this. Basically it is your MIND.
        Nothing about the 'internal observer' entails an 'internal actor', though. That's an extremely crucial distinction. We have zero indication other than just "seems like" that any such actor exists, and we have some evidence that shows it doesn't.


        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        This paragraph makes no sense to me.
        I think that's part of the problem. Afaict, the equivocation you and demi make is the one most people make when they don't really understand what's being discussed. Determinism vs LFW (and everything in between) isn't a discussion of "do we have it". You treat it as such, and that's how you get to 'determinism=mindless'. It's absurd, though, because they're two different discussions.


        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        and that brings up another part of self-awareness. being able to make sense of the world. Not only observing and reacting to it, but being able to put it into context and make sense of it. You have to be able to freely think about what you are observing to rationalize it. You can't just be a deterministic machine.
        Claiming so doesn't make it so, unfortunately. There's no reason to think the ability to build a map of our environment from our interactions with it isn't an integral part of our brain mechanisms. Deterministic or not doesn't even enter into the discussion there. Higher order animals, especially those that can demonstrate self-recognition, are pretty likely to have the same map-making ability. That doesn't mean their contexts aren't deterministic in nature. Again, determinism vs LFW is a completely different discussion than self-awareness.
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          Either the hierarchy is will->mind or it's mind->will. You're trying to claim both, but they're mutually exclusive options. "Have to have a mind to have a will" is NOT the same thing as "will is part of the mind". It's a "which comes first" question. You have to pick one.

          snip
          Not necessarily so. This is true only if you so define it. Reality is not dependent on this definition.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            Not necessarily so. This is true only if you so define it. Reality is not dependent on this definition.
            There are only three options here:

            a) will = mind (no one is claiming this)
            b) will is part of the mind
            c) a mind is needed to have a will

            People are free to choose which of those three options they hold, but they are mutually exclusive. It's not like I just make this stuff up...
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #36
              Think of it this way: you have to have apples to have apple pie. The question is, "which is the apple?" Is the will our apple and mind the pie? Or is mind the apple and will the pie? It can't be both.

              "You have to have mind to have a will" says mind is the apple. "You can't have a mind without a will" says will is the apple. Sparko has made both statements, hence the contradiction.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                Either the hierarchy is will->mind or it's mind->will. You're trying to claim both, but they're mutually exclusive options. "Have to have a mind to have a will" is NOT the same thing as "will is part of the mind". It's a "which comes first" question. You have to pick one.
                again you are not making sense in your objections. If the will is part of the mind, then you have to have a mind to have a will.



                I provided the standard definitions. Self-awareness entails far more than what you try to present. There's a reason the consensus for the last 4+ years has been that all mammals, birds, and some invertebrates have consciousness but that very few demonstrate self-awareness. This isn't just me making stuff up, for all that you're trying to paint it that way.
                Consciousness is self awareness. That is pretty much the definition of consciousness.



                Your dog demonstrates consciousness. It doesn't demonstrate self-awareness. Self-awareness would entail things like the ability to teach himself to not be afraid. It's not the same thing as higher order, value-laden decision making. We don't know of any animals that demonstrate self-awareness, though it's extremely difficult to test. A very tiny portion have been able to demonstrate self-recognition, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition of self-awareness.
                where are you coming up with this stuff? It is not the "standard definitions" by a long shot. Let's go with your definitions though. He does have the ability to teach himself to not be afraid. He used to be afraid to go up stairs, but he taught himself not to be afraid of steps.



                Nothing about the 'internal observer' entails an 'internal actor', though. That's an extremely crucial distinction. We have zero indication other than just "seems like" that any such actor exists, and we have some evidence that shows it doesn't.
                You are not a prisoner in your head. Your observations lead to actions. since you can decide what actions you want to take, it is obvious that you have free will.


                I think that's part of the problem. Afaict, the equivocation you and demi make is the one most people make when they don't really understand what's being discussed. Determinism vs LFW (and everything in between) isn't a discussion of "do we have it". You treat it as such, and that's how you get to 'determinism=mindless'. It's absurd, though, because they're two different discussions.
                The mind is the part of yourself that actually does do things and makes decisions and considers things and is aware of what is going on and understands. It is the "why" you do what you do. If your actions are determined by anything it is your mind.


                Claiming so doesn't make it so, unfortunately. There's no reason to think the ability to build a map of our environment from our interactions with it isn't an integral part of our brain mechanisms. Deterministic or not doesn't even enter into the discussion there. Higher order animals, especially those that can demonstrate self-recognition, are pretty likely to have the same map-making ability. That doesn't mean their contexts aren't deterministic in nature. Again, determinism vs LFW is a completely different discussion than self-awareness.
                again, you seem to be missing what I am saying. It is not about mapping our environment. It is about understanding that map. To be able to think about your environment, and to make decisions based on that, and with your own thoughts and desires.

                It is self-evident that we are making freewill decisions.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                  You mean, 'our mind causing physical matter cannot happen in description'. That no imply logically that they no can happen in reality, which what matters. Guess what, big bait-and-switch/equivocation you trying to do fails
                  A description of something is about what is and isn't the case, and our description of reality includes that fact that it isn't the case that mind causes physical matter. You are so ignorant on this point it is not even funny.

                  There is saying, "map is not territory". Not sure how many times I need to repeat, rephrase very very simple point.
                  I know that saying and I've shown why saying this here doesn't make your point.



                  About "ruling out", see above. And also, philosophically you relying on contradicting theories together. Ever heard of principle of explosion?
                  See above what? You show no argument. QM and relativity each apply in different domains, so they don't have to be compatible here.


                  This is just sweeping statement assuming philosophical/logical truth of induction.
                  LOL. It's an equation that shows how all matter behaves on everyday levels, which includes us, which negates a soul/mind force. The problem of induction doesn't apply here since we're talking about what's going on in your body right now that we understand. Any change from this understanding would only apply in the future, not now or the past.
                  Blog: Atheism and the City

                  If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                    Part 2:





                    If you're going to try to do silly argument to absurdity from consequence, try no so silly ones.

                    Can you here yourself, """"""""""thinker"""""""""? 'Someone might use argument of yours to do stupid stuff'

                    That is not logical disproof and you know it. Buck up man!!!
                    Wow. I'm debating a 4th grader.
                    Blog: Atheism and the City

                    If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post


                      That just assertion!
                      It's a fact.

                      Again, this just assuming logical truth of (one form of) induction!! So much assertion, so little logical proof from you. Sad!!!
                      As I said, the problem of induction doesn't apply here since we're talking about what's going on in your body right now that we understand. Any change from this understanding would only apply in the future, not now or the past.
                      Blog: Atheism and the City

                      If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                        Number 1) (continued):



                        We all know many atheists like to say this. But if we prod atheist of this type, he will admit scientific laws only description, not prescription. So how is no-prescription-only-description map supposed to ban stuff in reality (which is prescription)?

                        *crickets*

                        I should say that seems to me this type of bait-and-switch is not purposely dishonest. Somehow these atheists really sincere, just can't help themselves making basic errors. So be patient

                        That's very easy. The descriptions tell us what is possible and impossible, and given the description, that means certain possibilities are ruled out. With a description we can indeed say what should and should not be the case. That's exactly how scientists make predictions dufus. You're confusing "prescription" with meaning why the laws of physics should be the way they happened to be, with being able to make predictions based on what the laws of physics actually are. In other words...

                        Your understanding of science is as bad as your grammar.
                        Blog: Atheism and the City

                        If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          we are all mindless robots therefore your argument is invalid.
                          Having a mind doesn't require free will, but having free will requires a mind.

                          You fail to understand this.

                          But free will is logically impossible so it cannot possibly be true. Disagree? Logically prove it for us all with an argument.
                          Blog: Atheism and the City

                          If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                            Having a mind doesn't require free will, but having free will requires a mind.

                            You fail to understand this.

                            But free will is logically impossible so it cannot possibly be true. Disagree? Logically prove it for us all with an argument.
                            I am not going to get into it with you because you are a complete moron. At least with Carrik, I can have an actual discussion.

                            Here for your amusement:

                            P1. I Decide what I want to do within my abilities.
                            P2. I do it.

                            Therefore, I have free will.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I can prove free will.
                              Sparko please pass the tobasco sauce.
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                                I can prove free will.
                                Sparko please pass the tobasco sauce.
                                no.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                353 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X