2 edits
Originally posted by humyI asked what do you mean by those two terms ('determined' and 'UNdetermined' ). Apparently I got the first one right.
I do not equate 'uncaused' with 'random'; don't know where you got that idea from. So by argument still applies....
I didn't say you equate uncaused with random. I asked if you equate 'UNdetermined' with uncaused or random. I still don't know what you mean by 'UNdetermined'.
Originally posted by apathistThey DO form a dichotomy - assuming by 'random' you mean within a given set of outcomes - even if probabilistically biased.
That's a false dichotomy. Willed decisions are neither inevitable nor random.
If on the other hand by 'random' you mean 'equally probability for all possible outcomes' then you almost certainly are using it differently than other posters here.
9 edits
Originally posted by apathistViolation of what?
[b]Volition.
Willed decisions are neither inevitable nor random
So what determines a decision if nether emotion nor reasoning nor something random?
If emotion and reasoning (either flawed or sound), and I think our decisions are at least partly determined by our emotions and reasoning, and if there is no truly quantum random element in the brain involved (presumably because there is NO such thing as true quantum randomness), then a decision is determined by emotion and reason alone thus your final decision will be inevitably whatever it will be.
If truly quantum random element in the brain involved (presumably because there IS such thing as true quantum randomness and surely, if so, there must be true quantum randomness in our brain), which final decision made isn't inevitable but truly probabilistic i.e. impossible to predict with absolute certainty EVEN if you had infinite intellect AND magically had an infinite and complete knowledge of all relevant factors.
What is third possibility are you suggesting here other than and contrary to the two possibilities above?
Incidentally; I have no opinion on whether quantum randomness is truly random or merely pseudo-random thus don't know if there is any 'truly' random element, as opposed to mere pseudo-random elements, in our decision making process.
Originally posted by apathistThe problem with causation is that you cannot measure it. The only thing we can measure are events, and when event A is typically followed by event B we can say that event A caused event B. But such an inference is only that - an inference. It can never be formally proven or justified in any way beyond noting that there is a correlation between events. Therefore, causation is not "known to apply" in any case.
In the 'moon and design' thread tw says "Causation doesn't apply to the universe as a whole (just as it is not known to apply to most of the universe's parts)."
It is that parenthetical part I'm interested in this thread. I'd like to learn about events that are known to be 'uncaused'.
I expect that the claim is false, or at least not known to be true.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think one could safely argue that the correlations are so strong that we have knowledge. (justified belief).
Therefore, causation is not "known to apply" in any case.
The reverse is not true ie the lack of observed correlations is less easily claimed to justify 'knowledge' of randomness.
Of course my original claim is that we do not have knowledge of complete determinism.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell yes, if one insists on a ridiculously high level of proof. However, if event B is never seen without event A preceding it and event B has never been seen without event A preceding it and we have good theoretical grounds for thinking there is a causal relationship then we have pretty good grounds for a knowledge claim. The truth test, experiment in our case, doesn't have to be infallible in order for us to make that claim.
The problem with causation is that you cannot measure it. The only thing we can measure are events, and when event A is typically followed by event B we can say that event A caused event B. But such an inference is only that - an inference. It can never be formally proven or justified in any way beyond noting that there is a correlation between events. Therefore, causation is not "known to apply" in any case.
Using the language of scattering theory, causation amounts to the statement that the out state is caused by the in state, and is looking a little trivial.
Originally posted by humyI think you need to break up these two sentences into more coherent thoughts, because I can't understand.
If emotion and reasoning (either flawed or sound), and I think our decisions are at least partly determined by our emotions and reasoning, and if there is no truly quantum random element in the brain involved (presumably because there is NO such thing as true quantum randomness), then a decision is determined by emotion and reason alone thus your final decision ...[text shortened]... finite intellect AND magically had an infinite and complete knowledge of all relevant factors.
Apathist defined free will as volition, which I like. This puts free will in more concrete terms as a human cognitive process of decision making. Human actions are guided by volition. As we decide, we cannot consciously weigh all the amalgamated inputs that direct the process. We also cannot accurately measure these inputs, as they are happening in real time and they involve an evaluation of possible events that might happen but have not. Deciding between two paths in the woods, ala Robert Frost: this is free will in action.
I do not completely follow your argument, but it seemed like an earlier post you broke up a decision-point as either causative or random, and that neither thing would be free will and therefore it doesn't exist. But how can you define a decision as causative if you don't know the causes (some of which have not even happened)? How can you define a decision as random when there are non-random biases?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe DO form a false dichotomy - assuming you use the relevant definitions.
They DO form a dichotomy - assuming by 'random' you mean within a given set of outcomes - even if probabilistically biased.
If on the other hand by 'random' you mean 'equally probability for all possible outcomes' then you almost certainly are using it differently than other posters here.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI understand the deterministic view against free will. It fails on the face of it since reality is fundamentally indeterministic. Of course, that is not enough to establish that volition (free will) exists or happens.
...
If emotion and reasoning (either flawed or sound), and I think our decisions are at least partly determined by our emotions and reasoning, and if there is no truly quantum random element in the brain involved (presumably because there is NO such thing as true quantum randomness), then a decision is determined by emotion and reason alone thus your final decision will be inevitably whatever it will be.
...
Once we're able to think past the restrictive and linear deterministic view, at least one new element come into play and the issue becomes interesting as a way for the human brain to determine its own future becomes apparent.
I don't think you're ready yet.
Originally posted by apathisthow can you possibly know this if it were true?
since reality is fundamentally indeterministic.
I don't think you're ready yet.
Once we're able to think past the restrictive and linear deterministic view, at least one new element come into play and the issue becomes interesting as a way for the human brain to determine its own future becomes apparent.
How can you hold in your head the contradiction of BOTH
1, the physical human brain determines its own future thus has no free will.
AND
2, free will isn't determined nor random.
?