Thoughts on free will vs. determinism

[BrettK]

Again, you haven't addressed the contradiction. Using ability X to make the claim that ability X doesn't exist doesn't make sense.

Is it your claim that the use of logic is an illusion? If so, you'll have to explain how you came to (and can trust) that conclusion, at which point you'll be in another self-defeating mess.

[Triumph36]

Neither of those are the real claim, though. The claim would be that what we think are 'logical processes' are merely stimulus-response and cause-effect relations. That is not to say that logic is an illusion, nor that it doesn't exist, simply that there is a material cause for it, in which case it must be determined by cause-effect relations, and consequently must be pre-determined. The basis it rests on is this postulate/axiom: all material causes come from other material causes and are consequently determined by laws, whether unknowable or knowable. The proof for the true 'place' of logic therefore involve a very lengthy study of the brain rather than anything I could say here.

I have never argued that determinism is not self-defeating or contradictory. I'm just not sure this is the way to go about proving it.

[BrettK]

You're still missing the point. You've come to the conclusion that determinism is at least a possibility. How did you come to that conclusion? Let's group your possible responses into two categories: 'I came to this conclusion logically,' and 'I didn't come to this conclusion logically.'

Since the employment of logic involves decision making, if you came to your conclusion logically, you're saying that you've decided that it's possible that decision is impossible.

If you didn't come to your conclusion logically, then how can you trust that it's correct?

[Triumph36]

Saying that determinism is a possibility does not say that decision-making was involved. My 'conclusion' exists as nothing but material stored in my memory. What I am saying is that one can abstract from consciousness and avoid the entire circularity you are bringing up. I understand where it comes from, but I think it's no more a refutation of determinism than my claim about material is a refutation of free will.

What I'm saying is that both what you are saying and what I am saying could very easily be proven true. Therefore, neither is true, and are meaningless.

[BrettK]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that determinism is a possibility does not say that decision-making was involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it does, as long as you claim to have come to that conclusion logically.

[ QUOTE ]
What I am saying is that one can abstract from consciousness

[/ QUOTE ]
What?

[Triumph36]

My proof from before: Assume that everything has a material cause. If that is true, what we consider 'logical decisions' are simply cause and effect relations in the brain which we cannot have any control over. Therefore, my 'logical decision' is the result of material causes, which must be determined by known or unknown laws.

You say: But you arrived at that decision logically.

I say: It is not a decision, it is simply motions within the mind. What we assert as 'true' or 'false' must be represented materially in the brain, and are therefore just as determined as everything else. We have a capacity for determining whether something is true or false, and we call this 'logic', but it too has a material cause.

Your contradiction comes from language; it's semantics. As I said, we have no way of talking 'deterministically', language simply does not work that way.

[BrettK]

[ QUOTE ]
My proof from before: Assume that everything has a material cause.

[/ QUOTE ]
Define "thing".

[ QUOTE ]
If that is true, what we consider 'logical decisions' are simply cause and effect relations in the brain which we cannot have any control over.

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove it. Even if I grant you your first assumption (which I don't), this massive leap of a conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premiss.

[ QUOTE ]
I say: It is not a decision, it is simply motions within the mind. What we assert as 'true' or 'false' must be represented materially in the brain, and are therefore just as determined as everything else. We have a capacity for determining whether something is true or false, and we call this 'logic', but it too has a material cause.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're still ignoring the contradiction. Explain this "capacity for determining whether something is true or false" (which we call logic) without including decision-making.

[ QUOTE ]
Your contradiction comes from language; it's semantics. As I said, we have no way of talking 'deterministically', language simply does not work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, you're mistaking logical contradiction for semantics. The reason you "have no way of talking 'deterministically'" is that arguing in favor of (the possibility of) determinism and claiming to do so logically is self-defeating.

[purnell]

correction: All of your arguments (in this thread anyway) are good, GG.

[Triumph36]

*sigh* Okay, let's try it this way:

I cannot define what a 'thing' is. However, we know that all material relations are cause and effect relations. Every effect must have a cause; therefore, the 'world' as we know it is nothing but a series of cause and effect relations, whether we can identify them or not. If we deny this, we deny that experience is coherent, and consequently we know nothing.

If we assume there is nothing in the world except material which we are capable of knowing (and this is not a wild assumption), we can only therefore see things in terms of cause and effect relationships. If we assume a 'soul' or 'decision-making factor', we cannot know at all how that acts, since it does not act causally. Decision-making, if it is not causal, is unknowable and has no correleate in the brain. Anything we say about it are things we can only guess.

I ask this: when you say yes or no to something, what is doing that? When you agree with or disagree with a logical proof, what is doing that? How can you give a material argument for 'decision-making', and if you cannot, how can you explain anything else?

[BrettK]

*bangs head against keyboard*
For the rest of the debate, I'm going to assume that you understand that your position is logically contradictory. As long as you keep in mind that that invalidates your argument completely, I'll humor you and respond to you step-by-step.

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot define what a 'thing' is.

[/ QUOTE ]
A dualist would defeat you on this point alone. He'd claim that your definition of "thing" is "that which is physical/material", which would prove that you're begging the question.

[ QUOTE ]
However, we know that all material relations are cause and effect relations. Every effect must have a cause; therefore, the 'world' as we know it is nothing but a series of cause and effect relations, whether we can identify them or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, in a certain sense. However, if it's your claim that the universe functions according to a set of universal causal laws, you have to prove it. Determinism and causality are not necessarily synonymous.

What causes an apple to fall from a tree? Is it the 'law of gravity' or the gravitational pull of the Earth? Prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
I ask this: when you say yes or no to something, what is doing that? When you agree with or disagree with a logical proof, what is doing that?

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, the terms 'my brain', 'my mind' and 'myself' are synonymous. Pick one.