“Cause and Effect” is a little like “There is a Reality” and “There are Other Minds” and the rejection of Last Thursdayism. We can never really prove that there is such a thing as cause and effect. All events might be random, and all we see are huge chains of coincidence.
It’s an absurdity of celestial proportions – my clicking the button on my computer mouse doesn’t cause the application to launch: that would have happened anyway. I only labor under the illusion of causality!
But, like solipsism, it cannot be disproven.
So if someone challenges us to “prove” that one thing caused another thing – we cannot! Not in the ultimate sense.
(Science has a working definition, but it depends on the idea that events are repeatable. If all events are unique, then the definition fails. Probability fails too: what is the probability of an unique event? What was the probability of nuclear war breaking out in October, 1962? Phrased that way, the question is meaningless.)
But cause is better defined than just correlation with a previous event. There must be a demonstrable connection between cause and effect.
Determinism explains that brain events cause behaviour- one atom or molecule interacts with another in a well defined and understood interchange repeated over and over again. The mechanism is describable and has an adequate model.
No such model exists for “free will”, an ill defined concept affecting the atoms and molecules in the brain has no model nor describable adequate model- only mysterian and supernatural ones.
Dangit, man, that’s a response! You were two sentences away from finally living up to your “I will not be responding directly or otherwise to any of your past or future postings on this thread” potential, but you had to go and provide a response!
What do you do for an encore? Declare you’ll leap tall buildings in a single bound, and then just hold still for a surprisingly long time? Announce you’ll unveil the world’s first working teleportation device later this week, and then – show up at the patent office holding a goldfish for some reason?
Just keep on keeping on with the incorrect statements; I’ll be here noting errors.
I feel like I should be afraid. But should I be very afraid? Hmm.
Anyhow, since Pjen already went back on the deal by predictably getting stuff wrong, I may as well be a touch more forthcoming with the answers requested:
1: I have it on good authority that "A Libertarian avers that there is a soul (or analogue) that is finally responsible for human acts. I don’t aver that there is a soul, and I don’t think I aver anything about a parenthetical analogue either.
2: Asked and answered.
3: When speaking conversationally, I use 'em somewhat interchangeably. But when strict accuracy is called for, I stick to the dictionary definition, where accountability is “the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions”; by contrast, “responsible” is defined as “liable to be called to account … marked by or involving responsibility or accountability”. Wait, that’s no help; neither is the thesaurus; and we already covered the ‘conversational’ angle; so, dang.
But, yes, if I’m in a hair-splitting mood, I can delve deep into the dictionary for a note about – well, it’s more what’s implied and suggested, but I guess that counts: “responsible implies holding a specific office, duty, or trust <the bureau responsible for revenue collection>. answerable suggests a relation between one having a moral or legal obligation and a court or other authority charged with oversight of its observance <an intelligence agency answerable to Congress>. accountable suggests imminence of retribution for unfulfilled trust or violated obligation <elected officials are accountable to the voters>” Man, that’s good stuff.
4: Again: in casual conversation they’re kinda interchangeable, but as per a bit of dictionary hair-splitting the difference is that a decision is “a choice that you make about something after thinking about it … the result of deciding: the ability to make choices quickly and confidently”, while choice is defined as “the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities … the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision”. It’s like a hall of mirrors! And the thesaurus is even less help!
5: Nope, still gonna leave this one alone; I’m holding out hope that the promise of a sweet, sweet “I will not be responding directly or otherwise to any of your past or future postings on this thread” claim may yet be fulfilled as per the if-then-once-again round of offer-and-acceptance. Fingers crossed!
Well that confirms my suspicion that you have not the first idea about philosophy.
The fact that you use dictionary definitions about essential concepts such as choice/decision and accountability/responsibility is why you cannot do philosophy in the way that it is normally done.
The fact that you will not discuss what a cause is is another problem.
And finally your refusal to decide the ontological status of “Free Will”- is it a Universal or a Particular- is a major problem with your understanding of the problem.
The Free Will Problem is not one that is open to “Common Sense” answers or a problem to be decided by a vote of the people.
When stated in simple English, the problem becomes enmeshed in contradictory definitions of the words being used which unfortunately carry meanings not intended by people who try to do philosophy in everyday language. In order to understand the problem it is necessary to strip away as much baggage from the words used as possible, which is why philosophy has carefully crafter distinctions such as choice/decision, accountability/responsibility, cause versus correlation, and the defining of what a concept is in the world- is it of the material world or not.
By continually trying to rebut an argument by logic chopping and using your own personal language, you build yourself a machine of your own misinformation.
Until you start using argument philosophically- using carefully defined meanings for words used- you will be in the same position of the man in the street trying to understand the laws of Electromagnetism without using mathematics.
Common sense does not apply because it is common sense that leads to the very problem of Free Will! Philosophy of this sort is manly concerned with defining what we agree that words will mean to ensure that there are no deeply embedded errors in the way that we use these words. You seem totally blind to this, offering conflicting dictionary (common sense) definitions instead of appreciating how powerful misusing language can be in frustrating understanding.
One example which has been discussed above is the word “Volition” which can be used by different sides in the debate to mean two different matters- both of which assume the answer that each side is making. “Volition” to a determinist may be used to mean “the experience of a feeling of internal compulsion to act in a certain way”- this allows the determinist to say that volition is not part of the causative chain. A libertarian may use the word to mean “that internal power exhibited by a person when causing an event to happen”. Each definition is assuming the answer required, so when discussing the problem it is necessary to decide whether it is an experience or a cause or both, and for this we need to carefully lay out what is meant within the debate, not go and consult a dictionary to find out its usual usage.
Until you develop these skills you will be like the man in the street doing electromagnetics without mathematics.
Philosophy is not about winning arguments about who is the cleverest; it is about careful definitions of what we mean by what we say.
Dangit, man: what part of “once again cease responding to you” and “I will not be responding directly or otherwise to any of your past or future postings on this thread” keeps eluding you? What does it take before you’ll finally do it right? When do you walk away from the string of incorrect claims?
My refusal to weigh in on that last one there was – explicitly – a matter of taking you up on the if-then-once-again-cease-responding-to-you deal: you said your goodbye, and yet you keep coming back despite my best efforts! You made an offer; I accepted; you’re still posting responses! It’s eerie!
Let’s compare and contrast!
I carefully said: “I define ‘free will’ as the quality by which a volitional entity – who can be persuaded by appeal to a decision-making calculus within an internal moral structure – makes a choice he can be held ACCOUNTABLE for, since he can then give an explanation that refers to his internal store of previous experience rather than external coercion, as someone who can reason and be reasoned with.”
I meant it.
You said: “I will not be responding directly or otherwise to any of your past or future postings on this thread” – did you mean what you said? You’ve said a whole bunch of demonstrably incorrect things; did you mean any of them? Are you being careful or careless in this thread? Is there anything that can make you live up to your claims?
I just cannot resist the challenge of someone who is so unable to appreciate what they are doing as to be comical.
You say Free Will is:
“the quality by which a volitional entity – who can be persuaded by appeal to a decision-making calculus within an internal moral structure – makes a choice he can be held ACCOUNTABLE for, since he can then give an explanation that refers to his internal store of previous experience rather than external coercion, as someone who can reason and be reasoned with.”
Using the word “Volitional” assumes Free Will to some people. By “Volitional” do you mean:
a/ “having the experience of having caused an event” or
b/ “I know that my thought caused the event”.
“a” makes one a potential materialist or compatibilist at least and excludes being a libertarian. “b” makes a claim to being a Libertarian and denying Determinism.
The rest of the sentence is an attempt at a compatibilist account, so long as by “ACCOUNTABLE” you mean that it is reasonable to treat the person “as if” he caused the event, rather than claiming that factually he did cause the event"
So the question that you are avoiding answering may be answered by you choosing either “a” or “b” above. Then you will have stated your opinion.
(I have just looked at your posting history and see that you are approaching this in the same manner you approached trisection- ignoring all the work that has been done on the subject and trying to apply common sense to a complex and already proven matter. Although Free Will has not been proved impossible, it has been carefully defined to the point where it is difficult for a Libertarian to explain, given our understanding of the world, exactly how such a concept would work.)
Now choose “a” or “b”. They are two different animals with different offspring.
You offer that opinion, after announcing you won’t.
I relay the fact that you make plenty of incorrect claims, after announcing – well, no; only one of us is spending this thread making bold announcements while “unable to appreciate” that he can’t actually follow through.
You think “unable to appreciate” equals “comical”? Metaphysician, entertain thyself.
Limit them like that and I’ll go for ‘a’.
Not so; ‘a’ doesn’t “exclude” ‘b’. Yes, it’s the statement I would make if I knew ‘a’ to be true and ‘b’ to be false – but it’s also the statement I’d make if I knew ‘a’ to be true and couldn’t rule out ‘b’. It’s the statement I’d make if I didn’t believe the latter – or if I believed both, but only had first-hand information about the former.
Okey-doke.
Okey-doke.
Well, yeah: with one of 'em, you mean it’s reasonable to treat the person as if he caused the event and is ACCOUNTABLE; with the other, likewise; but one is ‘a’ without excluding ‘b’, and the other flatly includes ‘b’.
Didn’t say that. I said one may speak as if they did, but didn’t rule out that it may be because they did. Or, to quote Pjen: “we do not know if free will exists. It may, but there is no proof of it.” To quote Pjen, “I do not deny free will. I say there is no proof that it exists. It may exist”. Who am I to disagree? I certainly didn’t object!
Who’s obfuscating? I’ve said all along that I act as if it exists, in part because it may exist, and in part because it strikes me as a distinction without a difference – adding that, far as I can tell, someone with free will would be functionally indistinguishable from someone without it.
Likewise, you weren’t obfuscating when flatly making a number of incorrect claims. For me, obfuscation would be a step down; for you, it’d be a step up.
If you were to use the words as they are commonly used by professional philosophers and neuro-scientists when discussing this issue, you would understand your errors.
Your previous answer excluded Libertarianism yet you then try to include it as a possibility.
You are sadly confused- much as you were at the start as you are trying to believe two incompatible things- much like your attempts to trisect a general angle!
My previous answer expressly noted that ‘a’ does not, in fact, exclude ‘b’. I pointed this out at the time; it was yet another one of your many incorrect claims.
Imagine you know someone is older than forty. He asks you to describe his age: pick either (a) you’re older than forty, or (b) I know you’re older than fifty.
Is he older than fifty? You don’t know. Is he older than forty? He is. You pick (a). You don’t exclude the possibility that he’s older than fifty by picking (a); whether he’s older than fifty is both irrelevant and an included possibility.
You’re the one attempting a nit-pick! (And failing! Spectacularly!)
You said my previous answer excluded a possibility I later tried to include; I note that you’re incorrect; I noted it at the time; I noted it later; I’m noting it again now. That you keep posting responses – after claiming you wouldn’t – astounds me; that you keep doing it with incorrect statements, likewise.
There are some people who it is a delight to debate with. There are others who seem determined to disrupt and annoy. Some of us are trying to have an adult debate. I will leave you to your silly games, satisfied to know that from your posting history there is little to be gained trying to debate with you seriously.
My mistake for taking you seriously and assuming a shared interest in reaching a conclusion. I will leave you to your games.
