So, you may either accept that actions are determined and that even your "urge" or will to do something is determined by that causality chain, or just believe that there is a "supernatural" instance of "self" or "agent", independent from nature's laws, that is driving your actions. Either you follow science basics or you bounce all the way to the other extreme of supernaturality. Compatibilism is nonsense.
If you understand the basics of science, you understand that within our Universe, causality drives all events. Something is always caused by something. You say your "will power" causes your actions. But then, what causes your will power? It is set of brain electric and chemical changes, which are caused by previous changes, which can be tracked back to the big bang in an infinite chain of causality. That is just the way things are. Period.
So schizophrenia, bi-polar, depression, asperger's syndrome don't "cause" certain decision making behavior? Addiction isn't caused? Is only a healthy mind "free".
Decisions come from your mind. Your mind is just a bunch of brain cells. The brain cells are subject to the natural laws of the universe. Every brain cell does what it does because it was caused by a chemical reaction. It doesn't seem like your thoughts were caused but they were.
Granted the factors that affect our decisions are impossibly complex, but that does not mean that it is not predictable. A falling tree does make a sound whether we are there to hear it or not. When you really boil the whole thing down, we do not have free will only the illusion of it which is enough to keep most of us sane.
Your history is wrong. Newton's theory was less accurate than Ptolemy's until Laplace, c. 1800. You're right on 2 kinds of cause but I would say they are Humean prior events & essential or concurrent causes. Intentions & the laws of nature are concurrent. (See my video #13). Our ability decide and effect is causality's paradigm, not its contradiction. Peace, DP
Check out JustinTheAtheist, Freewill cannot exist, if you want to see exactly the kind video this guy is taking about. When questioned about it Justin will explain how its all too complicated to pin down any cause, but yet there must be a cause.
In this video: Someone who can't help but to incorrectly accuse someone of committing a fallacy that isn’t actually being committed and then follow up by making one of his own. To MrCropper: Look up “Begging the Question”.
It doesn't sound like you understand the problem of free will, the kind of free will that people argue against is the notion that the causes underlying one's will are metaphysically special, not merely the fact that one makes choices, how could anyone argue with that? You say that there is a difference between 'natural causes' and 'causes where consciousness is involved', but is consciousness not the product of 'natural causes?'
Your style of "argumentation" does not flow in any coherent manner. That makes these "discussions" an awful waste of time and breath, like MENTAL MASTURBATION, I am increasingly disturbed by these "MrCropper" videos. He is a pseudo-intellectual, as much as that word is thrown around it aptly applies.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this guy.
Saying that deterministic reasoning is "babbling" is babble itself.
This has to be the weakest argument against determinism I have seen yet. You basically say, "Of course we have free will, to say otherwise is stupid." Hitchens is borrowing from Nietzschean notions concerning the "usefulness" of "truth". There are certain things we HAVE to consider as "true", even though they may naturally be false judgments. Aside from this, you seem to be missing the point. ANY action requires an act of will, the only reason anyone does anything is because they have "willed"..
... to do so. But what of "will" itself? Is it "caused", or otherwise? If it is not "caused", then how does it come to be? And if it IS "caused", can we really say it is free? Personally, I think it is a mistake to view human will in this way, as "cause and effect" is a man made conctruction that is perhaps not the best lense through which to view human will. Thus I disregard completely the idea of "free will", and also "non free will". That aside, Kant offers an explanation that seems to be...
... pretty much in line with modern physics, Heisenburg, etc. Simply because the universe may have the APPEARANCE of being strictly deterministic, it does not necessarily follow that it ACTUALLY IS.
I agree that "we have no choice in the matter" of believing in free will. Belief in free will is a pre-requisite for consciousness itself; without the idea of free will in your mind on a subconscious level at least, life and decisions are meaningless.
But since when is believing in something proof that it's true? I contend that even though free will doesn't exist in the true physical sense of the word, it nonetheless MUST exist in our minds, as a necessary illusion for consciousness to exist.
"Determinism is still an open question, it have not been dis/proven, just as you know."
That's what you think (or feel more likely). As Hitchens puts it: "Yes we have free will- we have no choice in the matter." Like it or not, you control your own mind.
@MrCropper: Do you suggest that mentally ill people are in full control of their minds, therefore they are completely responsible for their actions and perhaps they even chose their condition for themselves?
It does amount to an academic argument or a philosophical trap.
I tend to answer the free will versus determinism debate with the answer "both". Conscious beings have free will to make their own decisions, but in some wacko God's vision or whatever, we all just going along with the program.
At some point it will all be in the history books. One can argue whether those books are already written or are being written. Might as well argue whether God exists, it's pointless.
I think you are right on about so much (and I take pride in having supported your pedagogy $), but you are clearly wrong about your precious freewill. Saying determinism is futile does no good and means nothing. That is not an argument. Choice, or will, cannot be free of your own mind or the causal nature of reality.
Choice isnt free of your memories, mood, personality, oxygen , dopamine, serotonin or norepinephrine levels and all other physically based aspects of your brain (even the temperature in the room). Your brain is inextricably linked to the physical world. There is no unmoved mover in the brain. If you make a choice, to act, you do not access the first motor or pre-motor or motor association neuron in the chain by telekinesis. There is nothing in the brain to suggest a supernatural aspect.
The burden of proof is on you to identify the process by which we might miraculously negate the law of causality. Our will is free, but not of itself. Freewill, like the sunrise, is an illusion. It occurs, just like the sunrise, but it only appears to be free, just like the sun appears to rise even though it does not really.
Read Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation by Harry Binswanger. It's a 25 page essay easily found on google. Free will does not negate causality, it is the cause of human volitional actions.
You're welcome. 2 little points to ponder. 1.Using terms like 'seems to me' is an implicit acceptance of free will. Else you would say 'I am programmed (or caused), now...' 2.You're corrupting the meaning of 'free'. For example, I'm not free to act in a way that defies the law of gravity but that doesn't make my choices any less freely made. Obviously our brain works through bio-chemical laws which we cannot violate but it produces a consciousness capable of free choice. Cheers.
I need more time to finish Binswanger's paper, but I'm not impressed so far. Using an expression like 'it seems to means' does not suggest an acausal freewill. Seeming happens causally just like opinions, convictions and feelings. Why use the word free to describe the nature of choice at all? Freedom is a different subject completely and has to do with how we relate to things outside ourselves, not in our brain.
And Binswanger's (and Rand's) 'will to focus' is still a choice and is causally dependent on physical factors, like memory, stored pre-synaptically or post-synaptically.
Well, I have finally found the time to finish reading that paper. And, no offense, but I am more sure than ever that Ayn Rand herself was particularly irrational when it comes to a couple very key ideas. Although, I think she is the greatest well-known philosopher to date. Anyway, Harry says, This[freewill]constitutes a philosophical problem only for those who equate causality with necessitation by antecedent events. You dont? Well, I certainly do.
Implicit in the nature of causality is that things do what is in their nature to do. That is not the whole essential definition. An object will necessarily stay in uniform motion unless acted upon by an outside force. It IS in our nature to choose. But that choice is not free from the law of causality. The word is CAUSality. Choice and necessity are not opposites; they are inextricably linked. Choice is a causally dependent mental calculation.
You cannot make a choice without the necessary information. The traditional objectivists are clearly wrong, imo. Binswanger even admits that the mind has causal efficacy and that the brain depends on causality to work (but not to choose to focus?). Freewill is simply a god of gaps. The decision to focus or not depends on everything in ones head. And his little part on Freewill and the social environment just demonstrates my point as he says
Its a whole lot of rationalization, imo. Thank you very much for the tip on his paper. I did enjoy it. I completely agree that holding a policy of choosing to focus will lead an individual to develop confidence in his mind and a sense of control over his life-i.e., self-esteem. I just think this is completely dependant on the most minute structure of the brain, environment and the laws of nature. Our perceptions program our minds from birth.
Our memories, thoughts, emotions and personality are causally dependant on our experiences. It only appears, to those who do not wish to see the whole picture, like freewill. I am not denying our ability to choose. He just throws out there, if it is a choice one is compelled to make, then it is not a choice. Baseless. Choices are electroneurochemical calculations, not miracles.
@MCTMD1: You make me believe in miracles. I thought I'll never be able to find someone who seems to have very similar views on this matter as I do. I think the notion of people being the masters of their lives is very harmful to those who lead a very sad life, because of their illness or other impediments.
@asmodeus585 Well, It is certainly nice to know there are other rational people like yourself in this world. I have a blog, where I ramble on about this kind of stuff, if you would like to check it out. I would be honored. My channel can direct you there.
I am not suggesting that things are predetermined, only determined by the structure of reality and the laws that dictate its change, at the time of choice. Pre-determinism (as you understand determinism), would entail a psychic ability to see the future, or a really good guess. You are a biological machine, my friend; deal with it. Also, calling people idiots weakens your argument, imo.
I have to much respect for the word "agree" to answer with an affirmative.
If his acceptance of free will is from Kant, then no, strictly speaking he doesn't agree. He accepts it as an article of faith, as a floating abstraction. There is nothing in Kant's philosophy which grounds free will in metaphysical axioms.
On this point, I couldn't agree with you more. There are several types of causation (Aristotle listed four). The thing that happens first is the efficient cause. The thing without which it would not have happened is the final cause. Science deals only with efficient causes (usually, aside from complexity theory and most of biology--though for material/reductionist biologists, the final causes are covertly employed--see teleonomy).
I agree. However, for "consciousness" to be a link in the causal chain, consciousness itself has to be caused by something that preceded it (just like everything else). If THAT is what you believe, then you are a determinist. If you want to take a religious or "spiritual" approach to consciousness, and claim that it is generated "outside of space and time" (or some such nonsense), then you should argue for "free will" (i.e. non-causal thinking).
I believe you are falling into the compatibilist trap (which is simply an emotional attachment to religious language).
Compatibilists believe everything that determinsts believe, however, since (for some reason) they are attached to religious language (the language of "free will"), they redefine such terms as "free will" to conform to modern thinking.
They are simply determinsts with a fetish for religious terms.
D4, I think the problem here is that you're assuming only one kind of causality operates in nature. Causation is a more nuanced concept, as Cropper tried to show, than just "that which happens first leads to that which happens next." There are also final and formal causes--this is where what we call "will" comes from.
As such... "will" is just an arbitrary distinction, and little more than a carry over from (or redefinition of) prior religious concepts (especially when one qualifies it with "free" [i.e. free from causality]).
Well... so are the laws of logic and physics then. As soon as you can explain what "non-causal" would even mean, then maybe we'll take your silly little religious concepts (i.e. "God", "morality" and "free will") seriously.
The idea behind determinism (i.e. "causal determinism" [the kind taken seriously in the modern day]) is that all things (that we know about and understand) are caused. Which "kind" of causation is involved is irrelevant to that premise.
If you are admitting that everything is caused (to the best of our knowledge), then you are a determinist who is simply trying to hold on to and update (redefine) the silly religious language of "free will".
Look up Aristotle's four causes. The kind of causality is not irrelevant when discussing free will and determinism. Formal causes are not deterministic, as efficient causes are. They both require one another (ie, freedom requires constraints in order to do anything).
@MrCropper It's obvious what's wrong with pitting free-will against determinism anyway though. Determinism has been proven wrong, just listen to Kaku: watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw
@JohananRaatz The uncertainty of the uncertainty principle comes from us studying the uncertainty principle, not from the quantum particles. We don't know if they move randomly or in a logical way governed by laws of physics and anyone claiming otherwise doesn't understand quantum mechanics. There is a real effort to bring about a theory combining all aspects of physics, a theory of everything. There would be no point to attempt at a theory of everything if we thought particles moved randomly.
@MrCropper It's amazing that you've used a Hitchens' joke to back up a superstitious belief.The discussion about whether animals have free will isn't splitting hairs-we are animals!Anyone advocating free will must say that animals have it or some magical event occurred to coincide with the evolution of the homo sapien.
"how can an event have neither a cause nor be random?"
You are entirely neglecting the existence of another category of 'cause' which is will power or consciousness. The CAUSE is the DECISION in your MIND.
"but if nothing moves your mind to make that decision, isn't your mind acting at random?"
I don't think you understand what a "mind" is, which is odd, since you seem to have one. Your mind is NOT a billiard ball. Rather, it is a conscious entity with free will.
This has been flagged as spam show
@moegreen2 "Determinism is still an open question, it have not been dis/proven, just as you know."
No it's not. Listen to what Michio Kaku has to say: watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we don't have free will people are afraid of thinking about it.
Ecuadorfil 3 months ago
So, you may either accept that actions are determined and that even your "urge" or will to do something is determined by that causality chain, or just believe that there is a "supernatural" instance of "self" or "agent", independent from nature's laws, that is driving your actions. Either you follow science basics or you bounce all the way to the other extreme of supernaturality. Compatibilism is nonsense.
dalvani 7 months ago
If you understand the basics of science, you understand that within our Universe, causality drives all events. Something is always caused by something. You say your "will power" causes your actions. But then, what causes your will power? It is set of brain electric and chemical changes, which are caused by previous changes, which can be tracked back to the big bang in an infinite chain of causality. That is just the way things are. Period.
dalvani 7 months ago
Most endings of your videos have something I find humorous in them.
SuperKittyPancake 7 months ago
So schizophrenia, bi-polar, depression, asperger's syndrome don't "cause" certain decision making behavior? Addiction isn't caused? Is only a healthy mind "free".
IronicKismet 8 months ago
Decisions come from your mind. Your mind is just a bunch of brain cells. The brain cells are subject to the natural laws of the universe. Every brain cell does what it does because it was caused by a chemical reaction. It doesn't seem like your thoughts were caused but they were.
misterhed 8 months ago
Granted the factors that affect our decisions are impossibly complex, but that does not mean that it is not predictable. A falling tree does make a sound whether we are there to hear it or not. When you really boil the whole thing down, we do not have free will only the illusion of it which is enough to keep most of us sane.
SupraSPL 9 months ago
Your history is wrong. Newton's theory was less accurate than Ptolemy's until Laplace, c. 1800. You're right on 2 kinds of cause but I would say they are Humean prior events & essential or concurrent causes. Intentions & the laws of nature are concurrent. (See my video #13). Our ability decide and effect is causality's paradigm, not its contradiction. Peace, DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
Check out JustinTheAtheist, Freewill cannot exist, if you want to see exactly the kind video this guy is taking about. When questioned about it Justin will explain how its all too complicated to pin down any cause, but yet there must be a cause.
estragon9 1 year ago
I was wondering
if we have no free will
and the brain can do everything by himself
why the hell do we need consciousness then?
nice vid :)
abumefak2 1 year ago
What a terrible refutation.
IronicKismet 1 year ago 2
In this video: Someone who can't help but to incorrectly accuse someone of committing a fallacy that isn’t actually being committed and then follow up by making one of his own. To MrCropper: Look up “Begging the Question”.
i.e. this video sucks
cbh09c 1 year ago
No people don't need to listen to this simplistic nonsense, it's you that is completely ridiculous.
mechnar9 1 year ago
Wow more logic fail. Strawson "Freedom and Resentment" do it now.
mechnar9 1 year ago
Declaring determinism to be antithetical to free will is absurd, if it weren't for determinism you wouldn't be free.
nspeert 1 year ago
It doesn't sound like you understand the problem of free will, the kind of free will that people argue against is the notion that the causes underlying one's will are metaphysically special, not merely the fact that one makes choices, how could anyone argue with that? You say that there is a difference between 'natural causes' and 'causes where consciousness is involved', but is consciousness not the product of 'natural causes?'
nspeert 1 year ago
Say that to Alzheimer patients.
Nades129 1 year ago
Time is relative, which throws free will out the window.
the concept of free will is for egomaniacs, can't accept that they don't have absolute control of their lives.
WonderBread006 1 year ago
As a concept designer, irrelevant of your discussion, I approve of the blue glow from behind the bookshelf.
lucentenor 1 year ago
Your style of "argumentation" does not flow in any coherent manner. That makes these "discussions" an awful waste of time and breath, like MENTAL MASTURBATION, I am increasingly disturbed by these "MrCropper" videos. He is a pseudo-intellectual, as much as that word is thrown around it aptly applies.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this guy.
Saying that deterministic reasoning is "babbling" is babble itself.
You completely miss the point.
Talk about babble, SHA-YEESH
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
This has to be the weakest argument against determinism I have seen yet. You basically say, "Of course we have free will, to say otherwise is stupid." Hitchens is borrowing from Nietzschean notions concerning the "usefulness" of "truth". There are certain things we HAVE to consider as "true", even though they may naturally be false judgments. Aside from this, you seem to be missing the point. ANY action requires an act of will, the only reason anyone does anything is because they have "willed"..
biggsy182 2 years ago
... to do so. But what of "will" itself? Is it "caused", or otherwise? If it is not "caused", then how does it come to be? And if it IS "caused", can we really say it is free? Personally, I think it is a mistake to view human will in this way, as "cause and effect" is a man made conctruction that is perhaps not the best lense through which to view human will. Thus I disregard completely the idea of "free will", and also "non free will". That aside, Kant offers an explanation that seems to be...
biggsy182 2 years ago
... pretty much in line with modern physics, Heisenburg, etc. Simply because the universe may have the APPEARANCE of being strictly deterministic, it does not necessarily follow that it ACTUALLY IS.
biggsy182 2 years ago
I agree that "we have no choice in the matter" of believing in free will. Belief in free will is a pre-requisite for consciousness itself; without the idea of free will in your mind on a subconscious level at least, life and decisions are meaningless.
But since when is believing in something proof that it's true? I contend that even though free will doesn't exist in the true physical sense of the word, it nonetheless MUST exist in our minds, as a necessary illusion for consciousness to exist.
DaniDurazo 2 years ago
TRUE,or shell I say I have the same belief as u do ! Right on the spot.
Toskana416 2 years ago
Wow, harsh man, it's just a philosophical discussion
Gavinator777 2 years ago
Lol, this guy obviously doesn't understand causality. Just another silly Ayn Rand cultist.
xxdiogenescynicxx 2 years ago
"Determinism is still an open question, it have not been dis/proven, just as you know."
That's what you think (or feel more likely). As Hitchens puts it: "Yes we have free will- we have no choice in the matter." Like it or not, you control your own mind.
MrCropper 2 years ago
@MrCropper: Do you suggest that mentally ill people are in full control of their minds, therefore they are completely responsible for their actions and perhaps they even chose their condition for themselves?
asmodeus585 1 year ago
@MrCropper If you have “no choice in the matter” then logically you have no “free will”.
You have not explained why you would need “free will” to be motivated to take action.
thymefromti 11 months ago
Great explanation.
It does amount to an academic argument or a philosophical trap.
I tend to answer the free will versus determinism debate with the answer "both". Conscious beings have free will to make their own decisions, but in some wacko God's vision or whatever, we all just going along with the program.
At some point it will all be in the history books. One can argue whether those books are already written or are being written. Might as well argue whether God exists, it's pointless.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
I think you are right on about so much (and I take pride in having supported your pedagogy $), but you are clearly wrong about your precious freewill. Saying determinism is futile does no good and means nothing. That is not an argument. Choice, or will, cannot be free of your own mind or the causal nature of reality.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Choice isnt free of your memories, mood, personality, oxygen , dopamine, serotonin or norepinephrine levels and all other physically based aspects of your brain (even the temperature in the room). Your brain is inextricably linked to the physical world. There is no unmoved mover in the brain. If you make a choice, to act, you do not access the first motor or pre-motor or motor association neuron in the chain by telekinesis. There is nothing in the brain to suggest a supernatural aspect.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
The burden of proof is on you to identify the process by which we might miraculously negate the law of causality. Our will is free, but not of itself. Freewill, like the sunrise, is an illusion. It occurs, just like the sunrise, but it only appears to be free, just like the sun appears to rise even though it does not really.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Read Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation by Harry Binswanger. It's a 25 page essay easily found on google. Free will does not negate causality, it is the cause of human volitional actions.
zardozcs 2 years ago
Gladly. Thanks! But it seems to me, now, that if it does not negate causality, then it is not free.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You're welcome. 2 little points to ponder. 1.Using terms like 'seems to me' is an implicit acceptance of free will. Else you would say 'I am programmed (or caused), now...' 2.You're corrupting the meaning of 'free'. For example, I'm not free to act in a way that defies the law of gravity but that doesn't make my choices any less freely made. Obviously our brain works through bio-chemical laws which we cannot violate but it produces a consciousness capable of free choice. Cheers.
zardozcs 2 years ago
I need more time to finish Binswanger's paper, but I'm not impressed so far. Using an expression like 'it seems to means' does not suggest an acausal freewill. Seeming happens causally just like opinions, convictions and feelings. Why use the word free to describe the nature of choice at all? Freedom is a different subject completely and has to do with how we relate to things outside ourselves, not in our brain.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
And Binswanger's (and Rand's) 'will to focus' is still a choice and is causally dependent on physical factors, like memory, stored pre-synaptically or post-synaptically.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Well, I have finally found the time to finish reading that paper. And, no offense, but I am more sure than ever that Ayn Rand herself was particularly irrational when it comes to a couple very key ideas. Although, I think she is the greatest well-known philosopher to date. Anyway, Harry says, This[freewill]constitutes a philosophical problem only for those who equate causality with necessitation by antecedent events. You dont? Well, I certainly do.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Implicit in the nature of causality is that things do what is in their nature to do. That is not the whole essential definition. An object will necessarily stay in uniform motion unless acted upon by an outside force. It IS in our nature to choose. But that choice is not free from the law of causality. The word is CAUSality. Choice and necessity are not opposites; they are inextricably linked. Choice is a causally dependent mental calculation.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
You cannot make a choice without the necessary information. The traditional objectivists are clearly wrong, imo. Binswanger even admits that the mind has causal efficacy and that the brain depends on causality to work (but not to choose to focus?). Freewill is simply a god of gaps. The decision to focus or not depends on everything in ones head. And his little part on Freewill and the social environment just demonstrates my point as he says
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Its a whole lot of rationalization, imo. Thank you very much for the tip on his paper. I did enjoy it. I completely agree that holding a policy of choosing to focus will lead an individual to develop confidence in his mind and a sense of control over his life-i.e., self-esteem. I just think this is completely dependant on the most minute structure of the brain, environment and the laws of nature. Our perceptions program our minds from birth.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Our memories, thoughts, emotions and personality are causally dependant on our experiences. It only appears, to those who do not wish to see the whole picture, like freewill. I am not denying our ability to choose. He just throws out there, if it is a choice one is compelled to make, then it is not a choice. Baseless. Choices are electroneurochemical calculations, not miracles.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
@MCTMD1: You make me believe in miracles. I thought I'll never be able to find someone who seems to have very similar views on this matter as I do. I think the notion of people being the masters of their lives is very harmful to those who lead a very sad life, because of their illness or other impediments.
asmodeus585 1 year ago
@asmodeus585 Well, It is certainly nice to know there are other rational people like yourself in this world. I have a blog, where I ramble on about this kind of stuff, if you would like to check it out. I would be honored. My channel can direct you there.
MCTMD1 1 year ago
@MCTMD1: Thank you.. You shall see me commenting on some of your edifying posts in the near future.
asmodeus585 1 year ago
I am not suggesting that things are predetermined, only determined by the structure of reality and the laws that dictate its change, at the time of choice. Pre-determinism (as you understand determinism), would entail a psychic ability to see the future, or a really good guess. You are a biological machine, my friend; deal with it. Also, calling people idiots weakens your argument, imo.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
Did the temperature in your room determine you writing this?
Kurtyoungblood 2 years ago
Partly.
MCTMD1 2 years ago
The cause of someone jumping off a building is watching Twilight.
AtomicExplosion95695 2 years ago 6
Spoken like an unwitting Kantian, Mr. Cropper. Bravo!
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
"Written like a Prussian aristocrat with too much time on his hands, but prone to periodic lapses into objectivity, Mr. Kant. Bravo!"
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Haha, doesn't he agree with MrCropper on free will though?
Kurtyoungblood 2 years ago
I have to much respect for the word "agree" to answer with an affirmative.
If his acceptance of free will is from Kant, then no, strictly speaking he doesn't agree. He accepts it as an article of faith, as a floating abstraction. There is nothing in Kant's philosophy which grounds free will in metaphysical axioms.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Agreed.
Kurtyoungblood 2 years ago
On this point, I couldn't agree with you more. There are several types of causation (Aristotle listed four). The thing that happens first is the efficient cause. The thing without which it would not have happened is the final cause. Science deals only with efficient causes (usually, aside from complexity theory and most of biology--though for material/reductionist biologists, the final causes are covertly employed--see teleonomy).
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
So... consciousness is not "natural" or part of the "natural world"?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
"consciousness is not "natural" or part of the "natural world"?"
Of course it is. But just because it is natural doesn't mean it ISN'T a form of causation. It can be BOTH natural AND a form of causation.
MrCropper 2 years ago
I agree. However, for "consciousness" to be a link in the causal chain, consciousness itself has to be caused by something that preceded it (just like everything else). If THAT is what you believe, then you are a determinist. If you want to take a religious or "spiritual" approach to consciousness, and claim that it is generated "outside of space and time" (or some such nonsense), then you should argue for "free will" (i.e. non-causal thinking).
D4Shawn 2 years ago
I believe you are falling into the compatibilist trap (which is simply an emotional attachment to religious language).
Compatibilists believe everything that determinsts believe, however, since (for some reason) they are attached to religious language (the language of "free will"), they redefine such terms as "free will" to conform to modern thinking.
They are simply determinsts with a fetish for religious terms.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
D4, I think the problem here is that you're assuming only one kind of causality operates in nature. Causation is a more nuanced concept, as Cropper tried to show, than just "that which happens first leads to that which happens next." There are also final and formal causes--this is where what we call "will" comes from.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
As such... "will" is just an arbitrary distinction, and little more than a carry over from (or redefinition of) prior religious concepts (especially when one qualifies it with "free" [i.e. free from causality]).
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Hmm, well perhaps "determinism" is another religious carryover of the ancient obsession with fate.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Well... so are the laws of logic and physics then. As soon as you can explain what "non-causal" would even mean, then maybe we'll take your silly little religious concepts (i.e. "God", "morality" and "free will") seriously.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
The idea behind determinism (i.e. "causal determinism" [the kind taken seriously in the modern day]) is that all things (that we know about and understand) are caused. Which "kind" of causation is involved is irrelevant to that premise.
If you are admitting that everything is caused (to the best of our knowledge), then you are a determinist who is simply trying to hold on to and update (redefine) the silly religious language of "free will".
It's like redefining "God" to mean "everything".
D4Shawn 2 years ago
Look up Aristotle's four causes. The kind of causality is not irrelevant when discussing free will and determinism. Formal causes are not deterministic, as efficient causes are. They both require one another (ie, freedom requires constraints in order to do anything).
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
@MrCropper It's obvious what's wrong with pitting free-will against determinism anyway though. Determinism has been proven wrong, just listen to Kaku: watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz The uncertainty of the uncertainty principle comes from us studying the uncertainty principle, not from the quantum particles. We don't know if they move randomly or in a logical way governed by laws of physics and anyone claiming otherwise doesn't understand quantum mechanics. There is a real effort to bring about a theory combining all aspects of physics, a theory of everything. There would be no point to attempt at a theory of everything if we thought particles moved randomly.
baldurus1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baldurus1 "We don't know if they move randomly"
Actually we do. They are called Bell's inequalities, and any TOE will need to incorporate them.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@MrCropper It's amazing that you've used a Hitchens' joke to back up a superstitious belief.The discussion about whether animals have free will isn't splitting hairs-we are animals!Anyone advocating free will must say that animals have it or some magical event occurred to coincide with the evolution of the homo sapien.
henryporter101 1 month ago
If your decisions aren't caused, are they random?
If they're neither, how can an event have neither a cause nor be random?
frayzerm 2 years ago
"how can an event have neither a cause nor be random?"
You are entirely neglecting the existence of another category of 'cause' which is will power or consciousness. The CAUSE is the DECISION in your MIND.
MrCropper 2 years ago
Yes, but if nothing moves your mind to make that decision, isn't your mind acting at random?
frayzerm 2 years ago
"but if nothing moves your mind to make that decision, isn't your mind acting at random?"
I don't think you understand what a "mind" is, which is odd, since you seem to have one. Your mind is NOT a billiard ball. Rather, it is a conscious entity with free will.
MrCropper 2 years ago
Have you ever considered teaching for the OAC?
nine9s 2 years ago
"Have you ever considered teaching for the OAC?"
Yes, but I'd have to move to LA.
MrCropper 2 years ago
It's your destiny...
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Well done Mr. Cropper.
OblivionMon 2 years ago
i know a bunch of ppl who dont believe in free will.. but they are also socialists and communists who voted for obama.
matterweisen 2 years ago
were they also zombies?
WarVideo 2 years ago