Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Time, Omniscience and Free Will

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    But in what sense is the human will not subject to the same natural laws as the rest of the natural world. That's what I'm not seeing in your posts. It's one thing to say that the human will is not subject to natural law, it's another thing to explain why, or how that is.
    Humans are subject to the same Natural Laws as the rest of the natural world, no problem. Human will is subject to Natural Laws, no problem. The problem by the present objective knowledge is the degree and nature of human will cannot define 'Free Will' from the human perspective. As refered to and defined Determinism from the human perspective cannot determine the nature and degree of human will. As referenced only 'some' try to do so on a subjective philosophical basis.

    Science does not define why(?).


    Great, I'd appreciate it, because if as you say Popper doesn't consider the will to be the effect of natural and deterministic laws, I'd be interested to know what he thinks the will is determined, or rather freely determined by.
    Careful on the above. Popper nor I do not say human will 'not to be the effect of natural and deterministic laws.. In facl our physical existence is determined by Natural Laws, but again not in absolute mechanistic sense from the human perspective as many may subjectively assert. Your missing, and not reading Karl Poppers definition of Determinism and how it relates to human will. The human perspective is limited.

    It maybe in the future that science may be able to determine the nature and extent of human will, and the degree of freedom, but at present it is a philosophical question most often based on the assumptions of belief and non-belief.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Humans are subject to the same Natural Laws as the rest of the natural world, no problem. Human will is subject to Natural Laws, no problem. The problem by the present objective knowledge is the degree and nature of human will cannot define 'Free Will' from the human perspective. As refered to and defined Determinism from the human perspective cannot determine the nature and degree of human will. As referenced only 'some' try to do so on a subjective philosophical basis.

      Science does not define why(?).




      Careful on the above. Popper nor I do not say human will 'not to be the effect of natural and deterministic laws.. In facl our physical existence is determined by Natural Laws, but again not in absolute mechanistic sense from the human perspective as many may subjectively assert. Your missing, and not reading Karl Poppers definition of Determinism and how it relates to human will. The human perspective is limited.

      It maybe in the future that science may be able to determine the nature and extent of human will, and the degree of freedom, but at present it is a philosophical question most often based on the assumptions of belief and non-belief.
      Okay, but it seems to me that all you're saying, or all that Popper is saying, is that he has no idea whether that which we call the will is determined by physical law or is in some way free and not subject to those laws.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Okay, but it seems to me that all you're saying, or all that Popper is saying, is that he has no idea whether that which we call the will is determined by physical law or is in some way free and not subject to those laws.
        . . . but, it seems . . . is not coherent way to present an argument particularly since you misrepresent both Popper and I.

        Repeatedly absolutely No. All of our existence including the nature and degree of our will is determined by Natural Law. Let's get beyond this before we can go on.

        Both Popper and I do not consider the nature and degree of human will can be based on the assumption of Determinism. The assumption os Popper and I are simply that the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence is that Determinism is the assumption that the consistency and predictability of our physical existence is based on Natural Laws. No priori judgement whehter Free Will is true nor false based on Determinism.

        The degree and nature of human will world possibly be subject to falsification based on objective verifible evidence in the future, but at present this us indeterminate. He acknowledged the implications of his Detrminism allows a degree of Free Will.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-01-2020, 07:25 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          . . . but, it seems . . . is not coherent way to present an argument particularly since you misrepresent both Popper and I.
          I'm not presenting an argument Shunya, I'm simply trying to decipher yours.
          Repeatedly absolutely No. All of our existence including the nature and degree of our will is determined by Natural Law. Let's get beyond this before we can go on.
          Okay, so our will is determined by natural law, but the degree to which it is determined has not been determined. Is that what your saying?
          Both Popper and I do not consider the nature and degree of human will can be based on the assumption of Determinism.
          You see, that sounds like a contradiction to me. Not sure if you're just not articulating the argument clearly, or I'm not comprehending it properly.
          The assumption os Popper and I are simply that the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence is that Determinism is the assumption that the consistency and predictability of our physical existence is based on Natural Laws. No priori judgement whehter Free Will is true nor false based on Determinism.
          Sorry, but that sentence just isn't comprehensible to me. I'm guesssing by the last sentence that what you mean to say is that whether or not free will exists can't be assessed based upon deteminism.

          The degree and nature of human will world possibly be subject to falsification based on objective verifible evidence in the future, but at present this us indeterminate.
          I don't know shunya, this all seems very convoluted to me. In a nut shell I think you are saying that though the universe is determined the human will is only determined to a certain degree, but I don't see how you are getting there.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            I'm not presenting an argument Shunya, I'm simply trying to decipher yours.
            You're not trying very hard. Misreprenting Popper and I is a bad start.

            My argument is presented in extreme detail in my references in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The level may be a little hard for you, but a dictionary may help.

            Okay, so our will is determined by natural law, but the degree to which it is determined has not been determined. Is that what your saying?
            There are two important issues here. The first is most important and specific in the references. There is no assumption of the degree and nature of human will in the basic definition of Determinism as referenced, and Karl Popper's description of Determism. Determinism is ONLY based on the consistency and predictability of Natural Laws, nothing more and nothing less.

            You see, that sounds like a contradiction to me. Not sure if you're just not articulating the argument clearly, or I'm not comprehending it properly.
            Simply read the reference I gave in the Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is longer and more detailed than I referenced. There are no contradictions nor problems of articulation nor understanding if there is no problems with you ability to comprehend the reference. It is the best academic reference we have so far. You have not presented any other competing reference.

            Sorry, but that sentence just isn't comprehensible to me. I'm guesssing by the last sentence that what you mean to say is that whether or not free will exists can't be assessed based upon deteminism.

            I don't know shunya, this all seems very convoluted to me. In a nut shell I think you are saying that though the universe is determined the human will is only determined to a certain degree, but I don't see how you are getting there.
            The only problem with anything incomprehensible or convuluted is the problem with your literacy level in reading and undeerstanding the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

            I said specifically that Determinism as defined in the references that the nature and degree of Free Will or no Free Will cannot be an assumption of determinism alone as defined in my reference. As defined in the reference the consistency and predictability of Natural Laws and natural processes is the only assumptions of determinism. It is possible that in the future the degree and nature of human will can be determined and falsified by Methodoogical Naturalism, but at present it is the subject of subjective assumptions of competing world views in philosophy, which are at times contradictory and convuluted.

            The view of Popper and I are specific and actually relatively simple as in the reference.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-01-2020, 08:24 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Okay, but it seems to me that all you're saying, or all that Popper is saying, is that he has no idea whether that which we call the will is determined by physical law or is in some way free and not subject to those laws.
              Does not remotely represent what I said or the reference.. If you want the details please read the reference in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is actually simpler than you think.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Irrelevant. They are not the same. Look it up.
                Huh? If I say knowledge is a subset of belief, um, doesn't that imply that I'd distinguish knowledge and belief? That they're not the same?

                Please try and speak english, not mumbojumbo.
                Here we go . . .

                How does god know the future, does the future already exist for god? If so then it already does and always has existed period. If not, then how does he know what you will do in the future.
                God knows it immediately, conceptually, innately. Future knowledge doesn't screen off existent states of affairs. God knows exhaustively the truth-conditions for future tense propositions. For example, if God knows the proposition,

                1. Tommorow, I will mow my lawn.

                then, God knows the proposition,

                2. Today, I am mowing my lawn.

                where 2 is 1's present tense counterpart. Thus, one truth condition for 1 is that 1's present tense counterpart, 2, 'will be' true. God knows all of this conceptually. Conceptual knowledge is completely unmysterious. It's a priori. There's no implausibility or incoherence here.

                So, this analysis doesn't involve the future existing at all.

                And now for the scope of the relevant modal operators here.

                Just because it's true that,

                3. Necessarily, if God knows that I'll mow my lawn, then I'll my lawn.

                it doesn't follow that

                4. If God knows that I'll mow my lawn, then I'll necessarily mow my lawn.

                That's an illicit shift of the scope of the modal operator. The scope of the operator in 3 ranges over an entire conditional; the scope of the operator in 4 is the consequent of the conditional. And we can't infer the necessity of a consequence from the necessity of a conditional.

                Propositions have nothing to do with it. How does he know which proposition will be true?
                Um, yes they do. Propositional knowledge is a subset of conceptual knowledge. Concepts aren't propositions, but innate knowledge of concepts enables innate knowledge of propositions since concepts are constituents of propositions. So . . . how does God know such propositions? The same you know some propositions a priori. There doesn't have to be an existent Platonic Solid for you to have conceptual knowledge of it. Examples could be multiplied.

                I don't believe that even makes sense. Perhaps you are able to speak more plainly.
                It makes sense. Go back to me mowing my lawn.

                1's truth depends on conditions. In this case, it depends on whether I freely mow my lawn, say. Knowledge of 1's truth-conditions has nothing to do with 1's being true once the conditions are satisfied. Thus, knowledge of 1 doesn't determine 1's true or satisfy 1's truth-conditions. What determines 1's truth and satisifies its truth-conditions is that I will freely mow my lawn tomorrow.

                I don't believe there is anything "explanatory" in anything you've said.
                I was making a point about explanatory priority.
                Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                George Horne

                Comment

                Related Threads

                Collapse

                Topics Statistics Last Post
                Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                9 responses
                81 views
                0 likes
                Last Post rogue06
                by rogue06
                 
                Started by Andius, 10-07-2020, 07:38 PM
                9 responses
                61 views
                0 likes
                Last Post siam
                by siam
                 
                Started by mattbballman31, 08-26-2020, 11:42 AM
                23 responses
                474 views
                0 likes
                Last Post shunyadragon  
                Started by seer, 07-27-2018, 08:47 AM
                2,045 responses
                105,579 views
                0 likes
                Last Post thormas
                by thormas
                 
                Working...
                X