Free Will

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Free Will

#41  Postby Black36 » Mar 18, 2010 6:22 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Black36 wrote:I'm sure your viewpoint would change if I could prove God's existence to you, no?


Tell you what. If you can even give me a description, let alone a definition of God that isn't unreal meaningless nonsense I'll be impressed. So let's not fly a plane before we can crawl eh?

I'll take your reponse as a yes.
Black36
 
Posts: 6

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#42  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 6:25 pm

Black36 wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:
Black36 wrote:I'm sure your viewpoint would change if I could prove God's existence to you, no?


Tell you what. If you can even give me a description, let alone a definition of God that isn't unreal meaningless nonsense I'll be impressed. So let's not fly a plane before we can crawl eh?

I'll take your reponse as a yes.


How easy for you.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#43  Postby Nocterro » Mar 18, 2010 6:38 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Black36 wrote:I'm sure your viewpoint would change if I could prove God's existence to you, no?


Tell you what. If you can even give me a description, let alone a definition of God that isn't unreal meaningless nonsense I'll be impressed. So let's not fly a plane before we can crawl eh?


1)
There exists a necessary being with properties including, but not necessarily limited to, perfect freedom, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, who caused the beginning of the existence of contingent things.

2)
If P does A freely, then no cause makes him do A. He is ultimately responsible for A being done; for nothing makes him make A be done.

3)
A person P is omnipotent at a time t if and only if he is able to bring about the existence of any logically contingent state of affairs x after t, the description of the occurrence of which does not entail that P did not bring it about at t, given that he does not believe that he has overriding reason for refraining from bringing about x.

4)
A person P is omniscient at time t if and only if he knows every true proposition about t or an earlier time and every true proposition about a time later than t which is true of logical necessity or which he has overriding reason to make true, which it is logically possible that he entertains then.

5)
A person P is perfectly good if P is so constituted that he always does what there is overriding reason to do, and always refrains from doing what there is overriding reason for not doing.

*edited for punctuation*
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddhārtha Gautama
User avatar
Nocterro
 
Posts: 322
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#44  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 6:45 pm

Nocterro wrote:
1)
There exists a necessary being with properties including, but not necessarily limited to, perfect freedom, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, who caused the beginning of the existence of contingent things.

2)
If P does A freely, then no cause makes him do A. He is ultimately responsible for A being done; for nothing makes him make A be done.

3)
A person P is omnipotent at a time t if and only if he is able to bring about the existence of any logically contingent state of affairs x after t, the description of the occurrence of which does not entail that P did not bring it about at t, given that he does not believe that he has overriding reason for refraining from bringing about x.

4)
A person P is omniscient at time t if and only if he knows every true proposition about t or an earlier time and every true proposition about a time later than t which is true of logical necessity or which he has overriding reason to make true, which it is logically possible that he entertains then.

5)
A person P is perfectly good if P is so constituted that he always does what there is overriding reason to do, and always refrains from doing what there is overriding reason for not doing.

*edited for punctuation*



Ohhh nice. Okay...

1. Perfect Freedom and perfect Goodness are meaningless.

2. Plain nonsense.

3. Any description of a person as omnipotent is a stretch to say the least, to consider what he believes is utterly meaningless.

4. True is meaningless.

5 (see one)

Really you would have been better with "Magic superman who created it all".
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#45  Postby Teuton » Mar 18, 2010 6:55 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
I don't disagree, however without something real to refer to such concepts are meaningless and non-existant.


No, concepts do not depend for their existence and meaningfulness on anything that falls under them.
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#46  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 6:59 pm

Teuton wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:
I don't disagree, however without something real to refer to such concepts are meaningless and non-existant.


No, concepts do not depend for their existence and meaningfulness on anything that falls under them.


Anything that has no meaning is meaningless. That which is meaningless falls outside any definition. Concepts that cannot be considered meaningful cannot be adequately defined anything said or written about them is therefore without intrinsic value.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#47  Postby Teuton » Mar 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Audley Strange wrote:Anything that has no meaning is meaningless. That which is meaningless falls outside any definition. Concepts that cannot be considered meaningful cannot be adequately defined anything said or written about them is therefore without intrinsic value.


A meaningless, undefined sequence of letters is not even a concept. Note that contradictory concepts such as "square circle", which cannot possibly apply to anything real, are not meaningless, because it's exactly its partial meanings which contradict one another. A meaningless pseudo-concept such as "gimrish dircle" cannot even be contradictory.
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#48  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 7:18 pm

Teuton wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:Anything that has no meaning is meaningless. That which is meaningless falls outside any definition. Concepts that cannot be considered meaningful cannot be adequately defined anything said or written about them is therefore without intrinsic value.


A meaningless, undefined sequence of letters is not even a concept. Note that contradictory concepts such as "square circle", which cannot possibly apply to anything real, are not meaningless, because it's exactly its partial meanings which contradict one another. A meaningless pseudo-concept such as "gimrish dircle" cannot even be contradictory.


In so far as square circle is something that is self contradictory then it devalues itself to nothing so I'd say that it has no meaning whatsoever. However you say concepts do not depend on meaningfulness. Perhaps, but they are not concepts that I would consider having anything approaching adequate definition or meaning as such they may as well be a sequence of random letters.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#49  Postby Nocterro » Mar 18, 2010 7:35 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Nocterro wrote:
1)
There exists a necessary being with properties including, but not necessarily limited to, perfect freedom, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, who caused the beginning of the existence of contingent things.

2)
If P does A freely, then no cause makes him do A. He is ultimately responsible for A being done; for nothing makes him make A be done.

3)
A person P is omnipotent at a time t if and only if he is able to bring about the existence of any logically contingent state of affairs x after t, the description of the occurrence of which does not entail that P did not bring it about at t, given that he does not believe that he has overriding reason for refraining from bringing about x.

4)
A person P is omniscient at time t if and only if he knows every true proposition about t or an earlier time and every true proposition about a time later than t which is true of logical necessity or which he has overriding reason to make true, which it is logically possible that he entertains then.

5)
A person P is perfectly good if P is so constituted that he always does what there is overriding reason to do, and always refrains from doing what there is overriding reason for not doing.

*edited for punctuation*



Ohhh nice. Okay...

1. Perfect Freedom and perfect Goodness are meaningless.

2. Plain nonsense.

3. Any description of a person as omnipotent is a stretch to say the least, to consider what he believes is utterly meaningless.

4. True is meaningless.

5 (see one)

Really you would have been better with "Magic superman who created it all".



Do you have any ACTUAL criticisms of these definitions? Saying there are nonsense or meaningless does not make it so. You are just arbitrarily dismissing this with a wave of your hand. And that's intellectually dishonest.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddhārtha Gautama
User avatar
Nocterro
 
Posts: 322
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#50  Postby Teuton » Mar 18, 2010 7:50 pm

Audley Strange wrote:However you say concepts do not depend on meaningfulness.


No, that's not what I said. I said that a concept <F> can be perfectly meaningful if there are no Fs or even cannot be any Fs.
That is, the existence and meaningfulness of a concept <F> is independent of the actual or possible existence of Fs.
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#51  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 8:13 pm

Nocterro wrote:

Do you have any ACTUAL criticisms of these definitions? Saying there are nonsense or meaningless does not make it so. You are just arbitrarily dismissing this with a wave of your hand. And that's intellectually dishonest.


Considering my potition regarding what definition and meaning are I'd have thought that you would have grapsed what I was saying.

Sigh.

Okay.

1.There exists a necessary being with properties including, but not necessarily limited to, perfect freedom, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, who caused the beginning of the existence of contingent things.

what do you mean by perfect freedom. Describe it, give a definition of both which actually refer to something that exists. The same with perect goodness. I refute there is such a thing as goodness, perfection and question an adequate definition of "freedom".

If we take this though. " There exists a necessary being... who caused the beginning of the existence of contingent things."

We can continue without issue so far.

2. If P does A freely, then no cause makes him do A. He is ultimately responsible for A being done; for nothing makes him make A be done.

Except P makes P do A thus P is the cause itself. P is the Cause but nothing makes P act thus there is no cause thus there is no P.

So. Nonsense.

With these two alone it fails to fall within a description that is rely on that which I find meaningless nonsense.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#52  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 8:18 pm

Teuton wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:However you say concepts do not depend on meaningfulness.


No, that's not what I said. I said that a concept <F> can be perfectly meaningful if there are no Fs or even cannot be any Fs.
That is, the existence and meaningfulness of a concept <F> is independent of the actual or possible existence of Fs.


I would agree that concepts exist. I disagree that they have any real meaning or value unless they relate to that which is real.

I need to go do some work, I'll continue with these later.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#53  Postby Teuton » Mar 18, 2010 11:27 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
I would agree that concepts exist. I disagree that they have any real meaning or value unless they relate to that which is real.


I don't know what the difference between real and unreal meanings is.
(Are you alluding to the distinction between so-called real and nominal definitions?)
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#54  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 19, 2010 1:59 am

Teuton wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:
I would agree that concepts exist. I disagree that they have any real meaning or value unless they relate to that which is real.


I don't know what the difference between real and unreal meanings is.
(Are you alluding to the distinction between so-called real and nominal definitions?)


Thanks for the link I see such thinking can cause a struggle quite commonly, it was helpful in trying to communicate what seems self evident to me but clearly confusing to others.

I'm saying A concept is that which is concieved by thought. Some concepts relate to the real (which I think refers to Frege's object) but others relate to abstraction, those which are abstract have no meaning in and of themselves, such must be extrapolated. I think that such extrapolation is pointless since it becomes a bottomless pit whereupon description becomes poorly understood, open to much interpretation and eventually a recursive loop of defining definitions and arguing about those definitions of definitions simply because the concept itself is nebulous at best and ungraspable at worst.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#55  Postby Teuton » Mar 19, 2010 2:25 am

Audley Strange wrote:I'm saying A concept is that which is concieved by thought. Some concepts relate to the real (which I think refers to Frege's object) but others relate to abstraction, those which are abstract have no meaning in and of themselves, such must be extrapolated.


Well, in my view a concept is what is expressed by a set of intra- and interlinguistically synonymous predicates and what represents one or many properties. Not all concepts represent real, existent properties. (Some philosophers think that properties can exist even if nothing exists that has them, but I deny this.) For example, the concept <unicorn> is expressed by the predicate "is a unicorn" and it represents the property of being a unicorn. But since no unicorns exist, the property of being a unicorn doesn't exist either. But this certainly doesn't mean that the corresponding concept and predicate(s) are nonexistent too.
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#56  Postby Loren Michael » Mar 19, 2010 3:34 am

I have never met a definition of free will that made any sense whatsoever. In my opinion, vigorous pursuit of the hollowness of the notion of "free will" is the best way to get people to question their ideas of justice. It also pretty badly messes up the underpinnings of a good deal of religions that have retributive justice as a core principle.

It's important when discussing "free will" to note that it's not simply a matter of faith, it's a matter of it not making sense. It's important to nail down exactly what it is. It's important to have people recognize that "free will" is like a square circle, and that it can't be faithed into being any more than contradictory shapes can.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#57  Postby Teuton » Mar 19, 2010 4:08 am

Loren Michael wrote:I have never met a definition of free will that made any sense whatsoever.


"'Free Will' is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millenia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.)"

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill)

"'Free will' is the conventional name of a topic that is best discussed without reference to the will. Its central questions are 'What is it to act (or choose) freely?', and 'What is it to be morally responsible for one's actions (or choices)?' These two questions are closely connected, for freedom of action is necessary for moral responsibility, even if it is not sufficient."

("Free Will," by Galen Strawson. In The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward Craig, 286-294. London: Routledge, 2005. p. 286)
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#58  Postby Comte de St.-Germain » Mar 19, 2010 9:18 am

Teuton wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:I have never met a definition of free will that made any sense whatsoever.


"'Free Will' is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millenia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.)"

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill)


You have to love inept authors. In their attempts of a definition, they invoke so much many concepts they know nothing about the definition crumbles before it is completed. 'Rational agents'? What's a 'rational agent' and has anyone ever met one?

"'Free will' is the conventional name of a topic that is best discussed without reference to the will. Its central questions are 'What is it to act (or choose) freely?', and 'What is it to be morally responsible for one's actions (or choices)?' These two questions are closely connected, for freedom of action is necessary for moral responsibility, even if it is not sufficient."

("Free Will," by Galen Strawson. In The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward Craig, 286-294. London: Routledge, 2005. p. 286)


Not a definition.
Quod tanto impendio absconditur etiam solummodo demonstrare destruere est
User avatar
Comte de St.-Germain
 
Name: Franciscus I
Posts: 441
Male

Country: Vatican City
Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#59  Postby FBM » Mar 19, 2010 9:44 am

katja z wrote:
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:
Anyway, Libet offered the idea of the veto himself. It has been rather solidly rebuked in an experimental setting as well.

Do you have any links? I'd be interested in reading up on this.


http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/m-udi041408.php
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
User avatar
FBM
 
Posts: 715

Korea, Republic of (kr)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#60  Postby katja z » Mar 19, 2010 10:59 am

FBM wrote:
katja z wrote:
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:
Anyway, Libet offered the idea of the veto himself. It has been rather solidly rebuked in an experimental setting as well.

Do you have any links? I'd be interested in reading up on this.


http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/m-udi041408.php

Thanks FBM! :cheers:
User avatar
katja z
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5353
Age: 38

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests