Originally posted by apathistYes, and I said as such. Which suggests that your definitions are different from the people who have said that they are a dichotomy. My suggestion is to clear up those definitions before proceeding or you will continue to talk past each other indefinitely.
The DO form a false dichotomy - assuming you use the relevant definitions.
10 edits
Originally posted by apathistMy apologizes; I said that wrong. What I meant that as was;
When will you share your meaning for 'UNdetermined'?
undetermined = not determined
I used the prefix "un-" to mean "not", because often that is what that prefix means although I confess I forgot for a moment about the USUAL meaning of the word 'undetermined' which does NOT mean "not determined" thus I should have said "not determined" rather than "UNdetermined" to avoid confusing you. My apologizes. I will try and remember to say "not determined" or "none determined" in future.
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistI presume what you mean by 'probabilistic causation' is 'partly random and partly determined thus different outcomes having probabilities other than exactly 0 or exactly 1' . So what?
Besides 'determinism' and 'random' there is 'probabilistic causation'.
Originally posted by apathistFree will may be subject to environmental restrictions or consequences.(This may 'degrade' but not 'negate' the free will itself).
it's vs its still doesn't come automatically for me. Use 'it's' only if you mean 'it is' or 'it has'. I'm talking to myself.
For example, a chap might want to punch another chap on the chin, but may have his volition scuppered by social etiquette ingrained into his character, or by an unforeseen car that knocks him over in the act, or by fear of going to prison as a consequence.
Originally posted by humyNo. Basically, probabilistic causation designates a group of philosophical theories that aim to characterize the relationship between cause and effect using the tools of probability theory. The central idea behind these theories is that causes raise the probabilities of their effects, all else being equal. wiki
I presume what you mean by 'probabilistic causation' is 'partly random and partly determined thus different outcomes having probabilities other than exactly 0 or exactly 1' . So what?
All causes are probabilistic.
9 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassWhat has not knowing any cause of something got to do with whether it has a cause? Are you saying there is no such thing as an unknown cause? If so, why cannot a cause be unknown to us? Please clarify.
how can you define a decision as causative if you don't know the causes
Besides, I sometimes do know a cause of my decision.
define a decision as random when there are non-random biases?
why cannot something be partly random and partly non-random?
How does a decision partly being at least 'probabilistically determined' (something, such as an emotion, making it more probable that you will choose A rather than B but not inevitable) , which is another way of saying 'partly determined', rule out the possibility of it partly being caused by truly random events in the brain? I see no reason why you cannot have a mixture of BOTH.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCan everything in science be measured?
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.
Correlation does not equal causation. That's actually a well-known fallacy called 'false cause' (cum hoc ergo propter hoc).
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
Can't be justified in any way? Of course that's not true. Gravity works even as the sun is shining. We don't become all confused as to the cause of the egg falling down.
If we use Aristotle's system, in this thread we're talking about 'efficient' causation.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
1) The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
2) The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
3) The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.
4) The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools.
I'm not sure how useful all that is, though.
Originally posted by humyI'm surprised you don't see it. If the human brain controls its own future, then clearly it is free from the control of the rest of the world. A force to be reckoned with!
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.
?[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by humyNo problem. There is another potential problem I want to mention. The word 'determine' has a non-technical or standard meaning (or two) - I'm saying it doesn't necessarily involve the concept of determinism.
My apologizes; I said that wrong. What I meant that as was;
undetermined = not determined
Like, I dunno, I'm determined to go to the store today. That doesn't mean that deterministic causation will force me to do so; on the contrary it means I intend to willfully manipulate events for my own desired end! I'm not sure how to avoid miscommunication here (except for paying attention to context), but we should keep it mind I guess.
Originally posted by humyAgain, I may have read your posts wrong since I was having trouble following. But I think you made the argument that a predetermined decision is not free will and an undetermined (indeterminate?) decision is not free will, so free will does not exist. Does that sum it up?
What has not knowing any cause of something got to do with whether it has a cause? Are you saying there is no such thing as an unknown cause? If so, why cannot a cause be unknown to us? Please clarify.
Besides, I sometimes do know a cause of my decision.define a decision as random when there are non-random biases?
why cannot something be ...[text shortened]... used by truly random events in the brain? I see no reason why you cannot have a mixture of BOTH.
I think we agree that, even if you know one or some causes, we don't know all the relevant causes/determinants that may comprise free will. This cannot be mathematically calculated in advance as some of the causes are imaginary, i.e. they have not happened..
So I wasn't trying to make a statement that all unknown causes are non-existent, just that we don't know them. What I was trying to clarify was "without knowing the causes, how can you negate the existence of free will using a causality (determinism) argument ?"
As an alternative, you implied that an indeterminate free will would also negate its own existence, since it is complicated by the issue of uncontrollable randomness. This issue, though, still exists from a probabilistic standpoint, doesn't it? Even if it's only partly random, that random part would be considered uncontrollable. Per the original logic, that would still make free will an illusion?