160 of 168
160
The greatest proof of free will…
Posted: 26 August 2012 06:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2386 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 26 August 2012 06:04 AM

Sorry Stephen, you interpret Swartz wrongly. He just explains that the idea of laws of nature ‘forcing things to happen’ is a wrong idea.

Right.

Things just happen as they do, and the laws of nature describe that.

Right.

From the link

The truth of propositions, whether singular (containing proper names) or universal/statistical (and free of proper names), does not force the world to be one way rather than another. The world unfolds, including our actions and choices. And whichever way it does unfold, propositions ‘look after themselves’. They take their truth from the way the world is. They don’t ‘force’ the world to be any particular way at all.

Bold by me.

So true propositions including laws would be false if the world had been different, which he says absolutely cleary.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 06:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2387 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20

The concept is the same as the true proposition: You didn’t want to go to Paris last weekend  *would be false*  if you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend

As it’s the same, one would think it’s uncontroversial.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 06:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2388 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 05:28 AM

You are using:

i. If Athen B
ii
It is physical necessary that (not A )
----------
iiinot (If Athen B

again, which is not valid.

Nope. Take this statement: My house is on fire. The point is if this were true, my house would be on fire.

That’s all.

Missed this one. Fill in the Paris stuff into the argument above:

i. If I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.
ii. Due to initial conditions and the deterministic development of the universe, it was impossible for me to want to go to Paris last weekend
Ergo:
iii. “If I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.” is not true.

And that derivation is wrong.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 06:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2389 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 26 August 2012 06:43 AM
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 05:28 AM

You are using:

i. If Athen B
ii
It is physical necessary that (not A )
----------
iiinot (If Athen B

again, which is not valid.

Nope. Take this statement: My house is on fire. The point is if this were true, my house would be on fire.

That’s all.

Missed this one. Fill in the Paris stuff into the argument above:

i. If I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.
ii. Due to initial conditions and the deterministic development of the universe, it was impossible for me to want to go to Paris last weekend
Ergo:
iii. “If I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.” is not true.

And that derivation is wrong.

Sure, but I’m not saying that. I’m saying it was physically impossible for you to have gone to Paris because if you had gone to Paris, a or some laws of nature would be false

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 07:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2390 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 06:52 AM

Sure, but I’m not saying that. I’m saying it was physically impossible for you to have gone to Paris because if you had gone to Paris, a or some laws of nature would be false

Why? And why is that important? You are completely lost again, Stephen.

I claim that the sentence “If I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.” is true. That’s all.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 07:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2391 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 26 August 2012 07:02 AM
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 06:52 AM

Sure, but I’m not saying that. I’m saying it was physically impossible for you to have gone to Paris because if you had gone to Paris, a or some laws of nature would be false

Why?

Re read Swartz or read “Are we free to break the laws”

Stephen

oops edited by mistake.

[ Edited: 26 August 2012 07:26 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 07:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2392 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 07:22 AM

No you also claim it was physically possible for you to have wanted to go to Paris last weekend.

Point me to the place where I say that, given the initial conditions of the universe, it was possible for me to want to go to Paris last weekend.

That is a different statement than saying that “Going to Paris if I wanted to” is not against any law of physics without reference to the initial conditions of the universe. That is what normal people mean when they say “If I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.”, i.e. it was physically possible for me to go to Paris.  Only people suffering of ‘philosophical disease’ would deny that.

But it is of no importance. You should reread this posting.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2393 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 07:22 AM
GdB - 26 August 2012 07:02 AM
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 06:52 AM

Sure, but I’m not saying that. I’m saying it was physically impossible for you to have gone to Paris because if you had gone to Paris, a or some laws of nature would be false

Why?

Use your own words, Stephen.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 07:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2394 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 26 August 2012 07:02 AM
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 06:52 AM

Sure, but I’m not saying that. I’m saying it was physically impossible for you to have gone to Paris because if you had gone to Paris, a or some laws of nature would be false

Why? And why is that important?

1)Because if you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend all else exactly the same one or more true propositions which are (or refer to) laws of nature would be false

2) Because if you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend all else exactly the same indeterminism would be true.

3) Because since there was sufficient cause of your want not to go to Paris you would have wanted to go to Paris despite being caused not to want to, which is contra causal.

I claim that the sentence “If I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.” is true. That’s all.

No you claim it makes sense for ‘all else the same’ to mean ‘all else exactly the same’ without it following that if so indeterminism would be true if you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend.

And why is that important?

Because you’re a contra causal compatibilist. grin

the problem is either your version of free will is no different to contra causal free will. Or you obscure the difference to make it impossible to see.

It’s important to widen the meaning of ‘all else the same’, so people see you would have had to be in different circumstances in order to have wanted to go to Paris last weekend.

Stephen

[ Edited: 26 August 2012 11:54 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2395 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 07:41 AM

1)Because if you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend all else exactly the same one or more true propositions which are (or refer to) laws of nature would be false

Where do I say that it should be possible that everything else being exactly the same I can still want to go to Paris. You are misreading me consistently, Stephen. It is no use to react on the rest, as long as this is not clear to you.

What I say is that if last weekend I had the money, there are trains going to Paris from Switzerland, I had no other obligations, all that being the same, I still did not go to Paris, because I did not want to. But if I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.

What for compatibilist’s sake is not clear about that!

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 08:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2396 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 26 August 2012 07:55 AM
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 07:41 AM

1)Because if you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend all else exactly the same one or more true propositions which are (or refer to) laws of nature would be false

Where do I say that it should be possible that everything else being exactly the same I can still want to go to Paris.

You deny it’s physically impossible, which amounts to the same thing.

What I say is that if last weekend I had the money, there are trains going to Paris from Switzerland, I had no other obligations, all that being the same, I still did not go to Paris, because I did not want to. But if I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.

As you well know you have been sticking to “all else exactly the same” .

What for compatibilist’s sake is not clear about that!

It’s unclear to stick to “all else exactly the same” which is what you have done. And so there is no difference between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will.

Are you now denying ‘all else the same’ means “all else exactly the same” if so you’ve changed your mind as a result of the debate.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 08:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2397 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 08:06 AM

You deny it’s physically impossible, which amounts to the same thing.

In what meaning?

a. Not in conflict with the laws of physics sec?
b. or not in conflict with the laws of physics including the initial conditions of the BB?

I mean the sense of a., but you put b. into my mouth.

See here for a clear formulation of my standpoint.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2398 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 26 August 2012 08:18 AM
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 08:06 AM

You deny it’s physically impossible, which amounts to the same thing.

In what meaning?

a. Not in conflict with the laws of physics sec?

Yes, a. not in conflict with the laws of nature.

b. or not in conflict with the laws of physics including the initial conditions of the BB?

Yes too.

I mean the sense of a., but you put b. into my mouth.

No, there is no sense of a. because you stick with all else the same meaning all else exactly the same

So you put b. into your own mouth, of your own free will.  grin 

GdB I intend to take a break. Whether I do or not we’ll see, I hope so.

The problem is people blame people, as if they had magic powers. People are ‘singled out’ as if they could have had a different will in exactly the same circumstances. (except the will)

By not accepting a slack definition of ‘all else the same’ , you are failing to point out that in order for the person to have had a different want they would have needed to be in different circumstances. Failing to point out it was physically impossible for them to have done otherwise.

I was in the pub today and a charactor in there was watching the telly and singling out a player for missing a goal. The player was a “cunt” a “wanker” and so on. I wasn’t offended by this, I was able to laugh and take it for what it was, which was emotions running high and natural and not meant to be taken too seriously.

But it does matter that the person in question imagines the player could have had a different will in the actual circumstances. Of course swearing at the bloke on the telly won’t do much harm, but the same belief underlies most human relationships.

By slackening the meaning of ‘all else the same’ it’s clear that the agent in question was unlucky to be in the circumstances he was in, which brings about an understanding and compassion which is lacking without it.

Whilst ‘all else the same’ means ‘all else exactly the same’ you lose the crucial difference between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will and make it nigh on impossible for anyone to tell the difference.

All the best,

Stephen

[ Edited: 26 August 2012 12:35 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2399 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 26 August 2012 08:18 AM
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 08:06 AM

You deny it’s physically impossible, which amounts to the same thing.

In what meaning?

a. Not in conflict with the laws of physics sec?
b. or not in conflict with the laws of physics including the initial conditions of the BB?

Two options:

1) If you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend the initial conditions of the universe would have been different.

2) If you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend determinism would be false.

Which you go for depends upon what you mean by ‘all else the same’.

Stephen

[ Edited: 26 August 2012 12:38 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 01:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2400 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4538
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 12:19 PM

No, there is no sense of a. because you stick with all else the same meaning all else exactly the same

This is what you put into my mouth. And here I clearly say what my standpoint is. You did not even bother to react, but react on things you interpret in my words.

Here is what I said:

I am intended to agree with Stephen on the following point: given the universe as it was, causing me not to want to go to Paris, it is impossible that I wanted to go to Paris. (And if Stephen is stressing me like that: physically impossible.) Compare: If I heat the water long enough, it is impossible that it will not boil.

But, and that is the point Stephen does not accept: the sentence “If I wanted to, I could have gone to Paris last weekend” is still a meaningful and (in my personal case) a true sentence. He defends this position by saying it was (physically?) impossible for me to want to go to Paris in this actual universe.

Daily people travel from Switzerland to Paris. So I could too, if I wanted to. Think about “Doug’s rule”: don’t defend philosophical ideas that are not in agreement wit the ideas you use in daily life.

And you can deny it hundred times, but your argumentation is wrong:

i. If I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.
ii. Due to initial conditions and the deterministic development of the universe, it was impossible for me to want to go to Paris last weekend
Ergo:
iii. “If I had wanted to go to Paris last weekend, I could have gone to Paris.” is not true.

StephenLawrence - 26 August 2012 12:32 PM

1) If you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend the initial conditions of the universe would have been different.

2) If you had wanted to go to Paris last weekend determinism would be false.

Which you go for depends upon what you mean by ‘all else the same’.

1) of course. But your ‘all else the same’ is something I never said. I always said “it does not matter”. I asked your several times to show where I say the things you put into my mouth, but you did not give me one citation, only your interpretations of them.

It seems to me you are ideological blinded. You interpret my words in ways I did not say.

And concerning your moral outrage: from the “Did Your Brain Make You Do It?” thread you should see how my ideas work in practice. You react on me as if I defend libertarian free will, and think that people earned their punishment.

PS And you did not react on this too:

Everything in the universe plays a causal role. But for human behaviour we can evaluate their behaviour as in accordance with their desires and beliefs or not. In the first case the behaviour was free, in the second it wasn’t. That’s it. From the perspective of the universe the human will is just a causal factor as the moon causing tides. If you want to deny desires and beliefs, then be my guest. But then you you are definitely living in a self refuting performance.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
160 of 168
160