Is Epiphenomenalism Irrational?

[seer]

Apology not required from Thinker...although it is required from the supporters of a particularly nasty deity. Something the Southern Baptist Convention didn't get around to until the 1990's regarding its biblical justification of slavery.

You know Tass, in all our debates, often heated, you never used such a term. I give you credit for that. If Thinker wishes to keep speaking with me he can PM me with an apology. And BTW, Dawkins is an idiot, because if he is correct concerning his atheism then it was nature that created us with these concepts of god. He is arguing against nature.

[Tassman]

You know Tass, in all our debates, often heated, you never used such a term. I give you credit for that. If Thinker wishes to keep speaking with me he can PM me with an apology.

You’re being precious. By choosing to take such offence you’re really telegraphing your inability to refute Thinker’s arguments.

And BTW, Dawkins is an idiot, because if he is correct concerning his atheism then it was nature that created us with these concepts of god. He is arguing against nature.

On the contrary! These concepts of God merely reflected the xenophobic, violent tribal values of those who invented him, i.e. God made in man’s image.

[seer]

You’re being precious. By choosing to take such offence you’re really telegraphing your inability to refute Thinker’s arguments.

Nonsense, in all these debates I have not backed down one time with Thinker. But we are going over the same ground and I find what he said deeply offensive.

On the contrary! These concepts of God merely reflected the xenophobic, violent tribal values of those who invented him, i.e. God made in man’s image.

Yes nature determined use to believe these things, so Dawkins is railing against what nature produced - silly.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, in all these debates I have not backed down one time with Thinker. But we are going over the same ground and I find what he said deeply offensive.

Nor have you addressed his (and my) oft asked explanation of how LFW can function in a determined universe without being logically incoherent.

Yes nature determined use to believe these things, so Dawkins is railing against what nature produced - silly.

As always you retreat to your simplistic mischaracterisation of 'causal determinism' as 'fatalism' despite being corrected over and over again. Nor have you ever been able to explain how the universe can be anything other than causally determined and where in the evolutionary tree free-will developed.

[seer]

Nor have you addressed his (and my) oft asked explanation of how LFW can function in a determined universe without being logically incoherent.

Again, we don't live in a deterministic universe but indeterministic universe.

As always you retreat to your simplistic mischaracterisation of 'causal determinism' as 'fatalism' despite being corrected over and over again. Nor have you ever been able to explain how the universe can be anything other than causally determined and where in the evolutionary tree free-will developed.

Nonsense Tass, I linked qualified dictionary definitions of fatalism that fit perfectly with my point. And you can not show where or why or how in the evolutionary tree self-awareness developed.

[JimL]

Again, we don't live in a deterministic universe but indeterministic universe.





Nonsense Tass, I linked qualified dictionary definitions of fatalism that fit perfectly with my point. And you can not show where or why or how in the evolutionary tree self-awareness developed.

You can't show where consciousness emerged either seer. But we can see that consciousness developed, or evolved in degrees through life in time, and that it didn't begin with the creation of human beings in Eden.

[seer]

You can't show where consciousness emerged either seer. But we can see that consciousness developed, or evolved in degrees through life in time, and that it didn't begin with the creation of human beings in Eden.

My point Jim is that Tass' question about freedom of the will and when it came about is irrelevant. It is the same with self-awareness - we don't how or why it came about, we just know we have it. And perhaps freedom of the will tacks with a growing and more complex self-awareness. The more or more complex self-awareness the more freedom.

[JimL]

My point Jim is that Tass' question about freedom of the will and when it came about is irrelevant. It is the same with self-awareness - we don't how or why it came about, we just know we have it. And perhaps freedom of the will tacks with a growing and more complex self-awareness. The more or more complex self-awareness the more freedom.

Well, I happen to agree with you on that. We don't know how life emerged from non life, and we don't know as of yet how or when consciousness emerged from non-consciousness, so it could be possible as well that freedom emerged somehow from determinism. That doesn't mean that it did, or that we even have free will, it just means that its possible and we don't as yet know how that could be.

[seer]

Well, I happen to agree with you on that. We don't know how life emerged from non life, and we don't know as of yet how or when consciousness emerged from non-consciousness, so it could be possible as well that freedom emerged somehow from determinism. That doesn't mean that it did, or that we even have free will, it just means that its possible and we don't as yet know how that could be.

I generally agree, but I think it is becoming pretty clear that we live in a indeterministic universe, not a deterministic universe. How that may play into the concept of free will I don't know. But I think it leaves to door open.

[Tassman]

Again, we don't live in a deterministic universe but indeterministic universe.

We live in a causally determined universe seer; the alternative is to argue that our universe is capricious and inscrutable whereby we could not even reason about the principle of uniformity, or any other basic physical law or constant.

And you have yet to explain how LFW can function in a determined universe without being logically incoherent.

Nonsense Tass, I linked qualified dictionary definitions of fatalism that fit perfectly with my point.

Your quote-mined definition omits the causal nature of ‘determinism’.

And you can not show where or why or how in the evolutionary tree self-awareness developed.

There is every good reason to believe believe that 'self-awareness' developed incrementally via natural selection…just as all our survival skills have. OTOH there’s no good reason for your god-did-it scenario.

[Tassman]

My point Jim is that Tass' question about freedom of the will and when it came about is irrelevant.

The question is whether we have true freedom of the will as opposed to the illusion of having it. You have not explained, despite numerous requests, HOW 'libertarian free-will can logically obtain in our causally determined universe.

It is the same with self-awareness - we don't how or why it came about, we just know we have it.

Very many creatures have self-awareness and there is absolutely no good reason to assume that it arose other than via natural means.

And perhaps freedom of the will tacks with a growing and more complex self-awareness. The more or more complex self-awareness the more freedom.

Yet again your idle speculation is based upon the unsupported assumption that we actually have 'libertarian free-will' in the first place. This is the very issue under discussion. You're begging the question.

[seer]

We live in a causally determined universe seer; the alternative is to argue that our universe is capricious and inscrutable whereby we could not even reason about the principle of uniformity, or any other basic physical law or constant.

Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (cf. causality) by prior events. It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. It is highly relevant to the philosophical problem of free will, particularly in the form of metaphysical libertarianism.

In science, most specifically quantum theory in physics, indeterminism is the belief that no event is certain and the entire outcome of anything is a probability. The Heisenberg uncertainty relations and the "Born rule", proposed by Max Born, are often starting points in support of the indeterministic nature of the universe.[1] Indeterminism is also asserted by Sir Arthur Eddington, and Murray Gell-Mann. Indeterminism has been promoted by the French biologist Jacques Monod's essay "Chance and Necessity". The physicist-chemist Ilya Prigogine argued for indeterminism in complex systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism

So it is not clear at all Tass that we live in a deterministic universe.

Your quote-mined definition omits the causal nature of ‘determinism’.

That is a lie Tass, I did not quote mine anything - I linked Dictionary definitions, and Joel also linked a definition. These are accepted definitions that are more broad than yours but still valid. You just don't like them.

There is every good reason to believe believe that 'self-awareness' developed incrementally via natural selection…just as all our survival skills have. OTOH there’s no good reason for your god-did-it scenario.

I did not say any thing about God, only that your question about when did free will come about is meaningless. Perhaps freedom came about incrementally with more intelligence and greater awareness.

[Tassman]

So it is not clear at all Tass that we live in a deterministic universe.

Indeterminacy is only relevant with regard to quantum physics; it does not impact upon the macroscopic universe of classical physics. If it did we could not reason about the principle of uniformity, or any of the physical laws or constants of the universe, nor engage in physics, or rely on our computers' to work, or send a rocket to the moon.

That is a lie Tass, I did not quote mine anything - I linked Dictionary definitions, and Joel also linked a definition. These are accepted definitions that are more broad than yours but still valid. You just don't like them.

You quote-mine everything. Your quote re determinism vis-à-vis fatalism is so broad as to render it useless.

I did not say any thing about God, only that your question about when did free will come about is meaningless. Perhaps freedom came about incrementally with more intelligence and greater awareness.

You're begging the question. Your speculation is based up on the logically incoherent assumption that we actually have libertarian free-will.

[seer]

Indeterminacy is only relevant with regard to quantum physics; it does not impact upon the macroscopic universe of classical physics. If it did we could not reason about the principle of uniformity, or any of the physical laws or constants of the universe, nor engage in physics, or rely on our computers' to work, or send a rocket to the moon.

Nonsense Tass, it is the macroscopic that makes up everything. Including our brains. This is not a deterministic cosmos - period.

You quote-mine everything. Your quote re determinism vis-à-vis fatalism is so broad as to render it useless.

See there you go again - I use accepted dictionary definitions and you accuse me of quote-mining! Why aren't you the one who is quote-mining with your definitions? Hypocritical Tass...

You're begging the question. Your speculation is based up on the logically incoherent assumption that we actually have libertarian free-will.

And you are begging the question assuming that we don't.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, it is the macroscopic that makes up everything. Including our brains. This is not a deterministic cosmos - period.

Well, if you say so.

Of course we live in a causally determined universe (we demonstrably don’t live in a capricious, inscrutable, a-causal one) otherwise we wouldn't be able to engage in physics or rely on any of the physical laws or constants of the universe. But we can and do rely on the physical laws as our myriad technical achievements and vast accumulation of factual knowledge testifies.

See there you go again - I use accepted dictionary definitions and you accuse me of quote-mining! Why aren't you the one who is quote-mining with your definitions? Hypocritical Tass...

The definition you cherry-picked re determinism vis-à-vis fatalism is so broad as to render it useless.

And you are begging the question assuming that we don't.

No, I've given reasons why we don't. All you have to do to prove me wrong is show how libertarian free-will can logically function in a demonstrably determined universe. You haven’t done this despite numerous requests.