42 of 73
42
Do non-human animals have free will?
Posted: 14 April 2013 05:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 616 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6198
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 14 April 2013 04:47 AM

,

Do you think that logic is dependent on metaphysics? That the material implication can only produce true sentences when indeterminism is true?

I think the material implication is truth by virtue of the fact that the antecedent is false.

But what does truth mean in that context? I have no idea.

Certainly your counterfactual rests on it being the case that indeterminism would be true if I had bought coffee.

And so yes clearly indeterminism is in the mix in your explanation of counterfactuals.

The meaning of the sentence “Oh, I could have bought a pack of coffee if I would have known we were run out of it!” just says “all other conditions being the same, if I’ve only had known we have run out of coffee, I could have bought a pack of coffee”. Say, you were in the shop, there was coffee available, you had enough money etc. etc. The only reason you did not buy coffee is that you did not know you had no coffee anymore at home. Does this sentence only have meaning if the world is indeterministic? Sorry, this just makes no sense to me.

1) It makes no sense to say that’s the only reason because the reason you didn’t have the knowledge is also part of the explanation.

2) The fact is indeterminism would be true if I had the knowledge all else the same.

So there it is indeterminism is there in the background, you can’t get rid of it what ever you do, or so it seems.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2013 06:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 617 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
StephenLawrence - 14 April 2013 01:17 AM

George,

I was just looking around and something you wrote on the smplexity thread jumped out at me. When I’ve commented on things like this before I’ve tended to get an irritated reaction.

I’m really not trying to irritate you, I really am trying to understand your view on choice (not free will).

So here goes shut eye : “What the author is forgetting is that you have a choice these days. You can buy a smart TV and spend days, if not months, trying to figure out all the features, or you can get Apple TV instead, plug it in, and set it up in a couple of minutes.”

Do you believe what you wrote makes sense or not?

Stephen

Sure it makes sense. In that thread. It would be, however, wrong in this thread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2013 06:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 618 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2007-08-31

Stephen,

In any other situation, very similar to the one where you were in the shop, there was coffee on stock, you had the money, and you knew that you had no coffee at home, you have bought a pack. Given your intention to have coffee at home, and that everything else applied except that you did not know you had no coffee anymore at home, it is completely justified to say “Oh, I could have bought a pack of coffee if I would have known we were run out of it”, independent of the fact if it was possible at all for you to know that you had run out of coffee. And that has nothing to do, in your sense, with the question if indeterminism is true or not.

[ Edited: 14 April 2013 08:52 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2013 10:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 619 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6198
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 14 April 2013 06:27 AM

Stephen,

In any other situation, very similar to the one where you were in the shop, there was coffee on stock, you had the money, and you knew that you had no coffee at home, you have bought a pack. Given your intention to have coffee at home, and that everything else applied except that you did not know you had no coffee anymore at home, it is completely justified to say “Oh, I could have bought a pack of coffee if I would have known we were run out of it”, independent of the fact if it was possible at all for you to know that you had run out of coffee. And that has nothing to do, in your sense, with the question if indeterminism is true or not.

We’re stuck GdB.

I can only repeat myself and I shall one more time.

It does have something to do with indeterminism because if I had the knowledge all else exactly the same indeterminism would be true.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2013 11:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 620 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 14 April 2013 10:43 PM

We’re stuck GdB.

That’s a pity. Doesn’t the point about similarity ring a bell? Dennett uses it in his analysis of what it means ‘could have done otherwise’ in his ‘Elbow room’. Did you read it? If you did, why don’t you think it is convincing?

StephenLawrence - 14 April 2013 10:43 PM

It does have something to do with indeterminism because if I had the knowledge all else exactly the same indeterminism would be true.

For me that means your daily unproblematic usage of counter-factual sentences, shows that you practically believe in libertarian free will. Just as George (the question you asked George about the choices was a good one) you are changing hats between daily life and when theorising. Said differently: you both do not really believe what you are saying here.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 04:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 621 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

No, GdB. I say that I have a choice just like I say that the sun rises. Neither one of them is true, but as long as I am not talking neuroscience or astronomy, respesctivelly, I see no problem using these otherwise false terms.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 05:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 622 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
George - 15 April 2013 04:28 AM

No, GdB. I say that I have a choice just like I say that the sun rises. Neither one of them is true, but as long as I am not talking neuroscience or astronomy, respesctivelly, I see no problem using these otherwise false terms.

Exactly…and I’ve seen others use this method before.  It’s cheap.  Haven’t most people addressed the usage of the term “choice”.  I know I did just a couple of pages back.
Secondly…like George has said before….it’s an illusion.( for lack of a better word)
Stephen why would you take this route?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 06:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 623 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2007-08-31

Well, there is an event that corresponds to the sun rising, even if it is true that sun does not really rise.

So we can explain what really is going on, in this case the earth revolving so that an observer gets into the light of the sun. So it means you have explained nothing by saying that ‘the sun rising is an illusion’, E.g. just to say ‘the sun does not rise’ may mean it will not get day anymore. That means for a complete explanation we must strip the illusion from the real process, and then explain what the real process is, and then, when your theory is good, you also might be able to explain why we have the illusion that the sun rises.

Compatibilism is nothing else, but then about the topic of free will. The illusion is that of libertarian free will, i.e. that we are not caused, but surely there is something going on when you are ‘choosing’: your brain is evaluating future options. This is a determined process, but the outcome determines what will happen next. That means our wishes and beliefs do determine my actions, and if I really follow my own we call this ‘free will’. The illusion of libertarian free will is explained by the fact that we, on the level where we experience our selves, we have no access to the physically determined layer of the brain, and so, as Lois would probably say, to the causal factors that determine me.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 624 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I was going to ask you why you drag compatibilism into this but I know you can’t help it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 625 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2007-08-31
George - 15 April 2013 07:10 AM

I was going to ask you why you drag compatibilism into this but I know you can’t help it.

Maybe good arguments could cause me to stop to do so. But that depends on your arguing module, as well as some of my stubbornness routines.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 07:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 626 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

More like a red herring than a good argument.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 02:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 627 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6198
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 14 April 2013 11:01 PM
StephenLawrence - 14 April 2013 10:43 PM

It does have something to do with indeterminism because if I had the knowledge all else exactly the same indeterminism would be true.

For me that means your daily unproblematic usage of counter-factual sentences, shows that you practically believe in libertarian free will.

No, Libertarian free will is what is supposed to give us ultimate responsibility and I don’t believe in that.

More to the point which of these two statements is compatible with determinism?

1) If I had done otherwise the initial conditions of the universe would have been different.

2) If I had done otherwise indeterminism would be true.

Clearly 2) is not compatible with determinism so you obviously appear to have an error in your compatibilist theory.

Your answers so far have been we can ignore it. Well since it’s the crux of the matter we can’t, we have to explain it. And material implications, but that has nothing to do with it.

Stephen.

edit: added of the universe.

[ Edited: 05 May 2013 03:20 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 08:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 628 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2007-08-31

The matter is that the history of the situation I am considering plays no role in considering the truth of a proposition about it.

“If I would have known we were run out of coffee, I could have bought a pack.” is a true sentence, even if the universe was determined in such a way that it was physically impossible that I could have known that we were run out of coffee.

And just so with:

“Every else being the same, if I would have known we were run out of coffee, I could have bought a pack.”

The truth of material implications is independent of the factual situations, it only describes possible connections between events. It does not describe that any of these events occur. But, if “If A then B” is true, then if follows that if “A is true” then “B is true”. It also follows that if “B is false” then “A is false”. But it nowhere says that A, B or not-A or not-B factually is the case.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 11:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 629 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6198
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 05 May 2013 08:24 AM

The matter is that the history of the situation I am considering plays no role in considering the truth of a proposition about it.

“If I would have known we were run out of coffee, I could have bought a pack.” is a true sentence, even if the universe was determined in such a way that it was physically impossible that I could have known that we were run out of coffee.

And just so with:

“Every else being the same, if I would have known we were run out of coffee, I could have bought a pack.”

The truth of material implications is independent of the factual situations, it only describes possible connections between events. It does not describe that any of these events occur. But, if “If A then B” is true, then if follows that if “A is true” then “B is true”. It also follows that if “B is false” then “A is false”. But it nowhere says that A, B or not-A or not-B factually is the case.

What we are talking about is the ability to do otherwise. Is it compatible with determinism or not?

You take the position that:

A) It is compatible with determinism

And

B) It is not because if I had done otherwise indeterminism would be true.

Your answers are just refusals to address the issue.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 630 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  143
Joined  2008-09-27
StephenLawrence - 05 May 2013 11:40 AM

What we are talking about is the ability to do otherwise.
Stephen

the ability to do other than you did… if you had known something you didn’t know.
it’s not “given everything EXACTLY the same”.
maybe everything external exactly the same, at a given point in time.

Profile
 
 
   
42 of 73
42
 
‹‹ Destiny..?      Babies are bigots ››