Oy. I’ve heard this one too many times (more than once, really). There are few things as annoying as someone who attains a self-appointed Knower of Truth, especially regarding what is often a personal platform that can differentiate itself remarkably from the dictionary/whatever definition.
There’s an important third option that I think you’re missing here. 
Anyway …
Given the definition of free will that you give, not only do ants, viruses, and computers have free will, but so does any system whatsoever that performs some action based upon its internal state. This is not what is generally referred to as “free will”. (Although philosopher Daniel Dennett uses this definition in “Elbow Room”, and probably again in “Freedom Evolves” although I’ve not read that yet.)
Given the term “free will” to be defined as you say, then I think humans have free will. However, even granting this there is a flaw in your argument. This definition of free will is perfectly compatible with determinism.
Heck, there’s a flaw in your argument regardless of the above. You say that “[belief that we make choices] = [belief in free will] = [non-belief in determinism]”. Let’s grant for the sake of argument that free will and determinism are incompatible. That is to say, they cannot both be true. This in no way implies that belief in these things is also incompatible. You would have to assume that it is impossible for someone to hold logically inconsistent beliefs. Humans being what they are, this would not be a good assumption.
BlackKnight, I think you may have been typing your last post while I posted mine. If not, it adequately addresses your second point, which is similar to Ludovic’s computer argument. Giving orders to a computer is different from giving orders to a human only in that humans believe themselves to have a choice in the matter.
Your other point is that not wanting to kill somebody does not necessarily entail a belief in free will, since your lack of desire could be logically explained by past events in a deterministic fashion. I disagree with this only in that it does not address where the conflict truly lies. I gladly concede the possibility that you are deterministically prevented from killing anybody, which would explain why you do not respond to my challenge. Whether or not this is true, however, you cannot truly believe it to be so. By saying you don’t want to kill somebody, whatever the basis for that may be (deterministic or otherwise), you are professing a belief in desires, which satisfies not only my definition of free will, but also the optional conditional thereof. Ergo, by stating that you want or do not want to do something, you are rejecting a deterministic universe.
Regarding my use of “truly believe” versus “believe”, you had the right idea to begin with. I have since been using the two terms interchangeably, which is nothing more than a negligent mistake on my part. By stating that one cannot have a “true belief” in determinism, I meant that one cannot accept without doubt or question that choice does not exist. This differs from “believe” only in that people can delude themselves into thinking they believe things which they do not. “True belief”, then, would be the total understanding and acceptance of a specific notion, whereas “belief” may simply be a misguided line of thought. If you don’t agree that people have this ability, simply ignore the difference between the two terms; the logic involved does not require the existence of potentially false “belief” to get to its point. I phrased my inital point this way to avoid confusing anybody who agrees that the difference exists, and was planning on making an argument based on that distinction.
Incidentally, looking over my previous posts, it appears I’ve hurled a small bit of invective your way as well. Looks like I was mistaken in thinking you had nothing worthwhile to say. You make a valid point, I just don’t agree that it applies to this particular discussion. I think the same thing happened here that happened between myself and Ludovic; neither of us understood the other, so we assumed the other must not be saying anything at all. I guess there’s a reason this thing has remained in the Pit instead of getting moved to GD 
The third option would be that I’m actually not making any sense. That’s quite right, and I apologize for having missed it; in retrospect that statement made me sound egotistical, which if you knew me in real life, I most certainly am not. Sometimes I speak without thinking, and that can get rather nonsensical. This is not one of those times. That’s why I phrased those options as I did.
Right, to some extent. I purposefully use a very liberal partial definition of “free will” in debates to avoid conflict on whether or not humans believe themselves to possess it. Though this definition is obviously not what I believe free will to actually be, I cannot (nor can anyone) give a both literal and complete definition of free will. Language is simply an inadequate tool to describe the concept. I use this definition of the term because humans conclusively believe themselves to meet it, and its limited depth is all I require for purposes of these discussions. I do not do this because it makes me more likely to be “right”; adding to the definition to make it more specific would not affect my argument either way, unless you purposefully reword it to exclude humanity, and then you’re missing the point of the concept itself. If you don’t believe that my definition is at least part of the definition of “free will”, then just ignore that term and use the wording of the definition in its place. The point holds just fine.
No it isn’t. Determinism eliminates the ability to make choice. If your path is predetermined, you cannot choose it. It has been chosen for you. The only way this does not hold true is if you dispute my definition of “determinism” or of “choice”. I am taking “determinism” to mean that the progression of events follows without exception a given set of laws. Thus, the future (I am assuming for the moment that you’re not going to argue about the existence of time) is therefore predetermined by the events (or, more accurately, the conditions) of the past. Given these conditions, choice cannot exist. If, on the other hand, you’re understanding “choice” differently than I am, please clarify as to what you believe this term to mean.
Correct. As I said above, humans can delude themselves into thinking they believe things their minds do not actually accept. Where we’re disagreeing is in whether or not we accept this state of mind as “belief”. I do not. If the mind were to actually accept that choice did not exist, it could not possibly function in its present state. Doing anything requires the mind to make choices. Even the choice to do nothing, or as close to “doing nothing” as humans can come, is the product of a mind that believes itself capable of decision.
You’re arguing with me because you disagree with me. You therefore think you believe something. Do you know of anybody who honestly does not think they believe anything? Can you conceptualize such a person? Even if you could, you’d imagining a person who believes that they have no beliefs, which is a contradiction in and of itself. Humans cannot accept the idea that they do not have beliefs. Humans cannot accept the idea that they do not make conscious choices. Humans cannot accept the idea that the choices they make have no effect on anything. Humans cannot truly believe in determinism.
Two that I can think of off the top of my head:
- The idea that something is unnatural and therefore must be bad.
One does not follow from the other. It needs an argument. And I have never heard a good one.
-The oh so convenient get-out clause that certain theories cannot be tested because they are somehow not the kind of thing you can scientifically prove.
Astrology is a good example. Either the predictions can be proven to be more accurate than random predictions or they are no better than random predictions. However, astrology fiends will then use the tactic noted earlier in this thread of attacking science as some cold Hal-style calculating thing that has nothing to do with the real world.
Furthermore I would like to generally moan about the fact that many people will not listen to anyone’s argument, understand it first and then counterargue or pick holes in the arguments. Instead they kind of free associate on the topic discussed and blast out their opinion.
People who think that the law determines what is moral and what is not. Yes the law must be followed, but it must also be questioned if we are to be a free nation.
People who refuse to acknowlede shades of grey. Yes, black and white do exist, but refusing to acknowledge shades of grey is unnecessarily authoritarian.
In short, people who are waaaaaaaay too rigid.
There actually has been at least one psychological study using a similar methodology, though that doesn’t mean it’s a fact that gay-bashers are gay themselves. I’d dig up a cite but I have to get ready for work.
: Buys NumberSix a drink :
“It worked for me/my sister/my roommate/my second cousin’s guinea pig!” As though that proves that something is true. This particularly drives me nuts when there is proper empirical research on the subject to the contrary.
This argument is used to support everything from astrology to feng shui to homeopathy. Look people, at least listen to me when I try to explain coincidence, spontaneous remission, confirmation bias, and so on, before insisting that one person’s subjective experience trumps reams of scientific study!
The worst justification for believing woo woo I’ve personally heard came from someone I was trying to educate about homeopathy (poor girl thought she had to forego yummy California Pizza Kitchen pizza with rosemary on it, because her “practitioner” said rosemary conflicted with her homeopathic treatment). When I was done explaining the ways quacks can convince people their quackery is necessary and beneficial, she said, “I just don’t like to believe that people could be dishonest.” AAAARGH! I was torn between trying to slap some sense into her, and trying to sell her some swampland in Florida.
FTR, I’m an agnostic *and * an atheist. So there.
Oh, and hi tdn! waves
I think Homebrew sorta stated it in his post. Perhaps he should have expanded just a bit to include, “you never win an arguement with a train.”
Very much in agreement with your post, AerynSun, but as for this statement:
How? 
Or am I being whooshed?
woo woo!!!
This “argument” always gets to me, the “well, you don’t agree with me because you’re just not ready / evolved / enlightened enough to understand this concept. Someday you will.”
Nice way to end the argument and pat yourself on the back for being right, while at the same time not having to offer any support for your argument, because obviously your audience not yet wise enough to understand.
I don’t *know * whether there is some deity lurking out there. While I can discount a tri-omni God with the information I have, I find it possible that there is a deistic Prime Mover, or some other creature that could be classed a “god” but which is unwilling or unable to intervene in any significant way in our world. So I think it’s accurate to say I can’t claim knowledge of any gods. Therefore, I’m an agnostic.
On the other hand, I don’t find the agnostic label useful in practicality. When it comes down to it, for any given concept of a god, you have to choose whether to live your life as though it exists. Your behavior must demontrate belief or disbelief, even if you can philosophically claim the agnostic position. Moreover, for me, there is so little evidence of any god, I can’t say I have any belief in one. Sure, it’s possible, but I don’t believe it. Therefore I’m an atheist.
But within reasonable parameters, I try to use whatever label someone gives himself. If you say you are an agnostic, I will call you that, not try to convince you that you’re really an atheist.
Aren’t there really three types of agnostics? Agnostic-thiestic; not sure if god can be proven or disproven, but might as well go with it, just in case, agnostic (middle), just not sure either way, and Agnostic-athiestic- not sure it can be proven either way, but leans towards the possiblity being zero?
AerynSun, that is an interesting way to put the dilema. Can I rephrase it this way:
I believe that there may be some possibility of some “Prime Mover” in the universe. However, I do not believe that any of the concepts of the characteristics of such an entity that I have seen are possible. So, while I believe that a sort of god is possible, I do not think that God is possible.
I hope the juxtaposition of the capitilized gods made that clear. This sounds closer to my position than I’ve heard before. I’m willing to accept that some definition for god might be constructed that is possible. However, I have never seen one. Every definition for God that I have ever encountered includes logically impossible components. The only thing I have ever heard of which comes close is the Naturalists idea that god is simply the sum of all of the natural laws of the universe.
Is this simply hard agnosticism? Or is it Very soft Athiesm. Neither of these seems satisfactory. They both seem to imply the possibility that some particular conception of God might be right.
Intregingly good debate for a thread about woo woo arguments.
Hey there, sweet stuff!
Oh good god. Should be Intriguing.
What do I have to sacrifice to the gods of the board to get this typo erased. How long do I have to become a theist in order to qualify for a small miracle? 
pervert, despite your egregious misspellings, I think you make a good point here. I’ve often kicked around the idea that there is a god, without a doubt, but what is in contention is the nature of said entity. I find it entirely reasonable to assume that there is a god, but that it (not “he”) is sexless, brainless, and thoughtless. Merely a simple set of rules by which matter behaves. Call it God, Jehovah, Allah, Natural Law, Snizflark, or sdlkjt7ok47, doesn’t really matter.
This leads me to another woo-woo argument that drives me testicles – the way that people just make shit up then take it as absolute truth. “God is white”, “Man couldn’t go to the Moon because of the Van Halen belts” (yeah, someone actually said that), “Aliens have grey skin”, “Manipulating the spine alters subluximations”, etc. Listen up, people – just because your fevered imagination conjured it out of thin air does not make it so!
Sorry for the delayed response, but I was out of town this weekend and didn’t have Internet access.
I don’t understand how desires have anything (important) to do with free will. Can you explain why you think that I am rejecting a deterministic universe by stating that I have wants? I don’t see any connection there.
Indeed, it seems at first glance that wants and desires strengthen the position of the determinist - that is, we can say that someone’s actions are determined by their wants and desires. Their wants and desires are, in turn, determined by other things (information from the senses, information from one’s own body, other wants and desires, etc).
What is a delusion but a type of belief? Of course we can say that a delusion is one thing and a belief is another if that’s what we want to say, but I think that most people would agree with a definition of “delusion” as something like: “a belief that is held without regard to, or in direct opposition to, evidence related to that belief”.
(Yes, the above sounds suspiciously like an argument from popularity. But when discussing the meaning of words I don’t think that’s a fallacy. 
)
No problem. I admit I was too surly in my first post in this thread. One thing I love about this message board is that such discussions as this can suddenly appear even in the Pit.
“You haven’t studied enough about X to make a decision about it. You need to dig deeper into it.”
Some years ago, I got interested in channeling. I read at least a couple of dozen books about it, watched several videotapes and listened to several audiotapes and even attended a couple of channeling sessions. At the end of that time I came to the conclusion that there wasn’t much to channeling, and there was no point in wasting further time with it. And you know the reaction I got from friends who were into channeling. “Oh, you need to read * this book,” * or “Oh, you need a session with * that * channeler because you wouldn’t say that if you really understood channeling!”
Back in my younger days, I was much smitten with Marxist-Leninism. I read quite a bit about it, I attended a number of public lectures and meetings at the Socialist Workers Party, I spent I don’t know how many hours debating the ins and outs of the philosophy with various friends and acquaintances who had various degrees of understanding and commitment to M-L. At last I came to the conclusion that M-L was at best very crude, simplistic and incomplete, and at worst had gone off down the wrong road altogether–that M-L was, in fact, a kind of secular religion. And again, you know the reaction: “Oh, you need to study it some more! You need to consider Castro’s analysis of Chairman Mao’s response to Stalin’s views of Trotsky’s criticism of Lenin’s attitude toward’s Engels’ commentary on Marx’s study of the exploitation of workers in the buggy whip industry, because you wouldn’t say that if you really understood M-L!”
Ditto for Ayn Rand and Objectivism, sociobiology, Skinneran behaviorism, astrology, Roman Catholicism, subliminal penetration (though I’ll admit I was taken in by that one for quite a while), Holocaust revisionism, the more extreme forms of Afro-Centrism or any number of other things.
It seems that, no matter how much effort I put into learning about and understanding X, I * never * know enough about X if I make a decision about X that someone else doesn’t like. My “friends” don’t seem to have problem with the fact that I’ve only read a dozen or so books about X as long as it seems that I’m agreeing with them; but when I disagree, then suddenly I find I don’t really understand anything at all about that philosophy, religion or theory and must spend endless hours boning up on the subject.
Well, life’s too freakin’ short for that, bub. If it makes you feel better to believe that I don’t “understand” X properly, well, then, you go right ahead and believe that. In the mean time, I’ve got a job, I’ve got the usual errands and chores everybody else has, I’ve got friends and family I’d like to visit, I’ve got * other * books I’d like to read, videos I want to watch, music I’d like to listen to, I’d like to take a walk in the woods once in a while, and I’m kind of trying to get a romance going with a certain female acquaintance of mine. You get maybe twenty or thirty minutes of my time a week, assuming I can work up more than a passing interest in your particular hobby horse in the first place. And anyway, I long ago realized that no matter how hard I try I’m going to be wrong about some things, so there’s just no point in making superhuman efforts to gain exhaustive knowledge about every possible subject under the sun.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’d kind of like to go get tooted and listen to ol’ Hank. Door’s that way, don’t hurry back.