<p>“In order to maintain a fair justice system, these people, whose beliefs and actions are completely pre-determined, must be made to believe in free will”</p>
<p>
After reviewing the definition of “performative contradiction,” which I only remotely have a grasp of, I don’t understand how arguing against free will is one. I assume you were trying to argue that, without free will, we would not be able to argue against it. Is that what you meant? If so, then how did you come to that conclusion?</p>
<p>The act of arguing against free will implies free will (I’m only presenting the basic argument; I think they get pretty in-depth). </p>
<p>Performative contradiction isn’t that complicated of a term. I’m sure the definition says things like the “contingent this” and the “non-contingent that”, but it basically means that the content of a statement contradicts the conclusion of a statement.</p>
<p>Like sending sending you a letter saying that letters never get to their senders (probably not the best example, but it’s all I can think of at the moment).</p>
<p>Right… I was asking how you came to the conclusion that arguing against free will implies free will. It sounds like a statement that makes sense, but I’m having trouble proving it.</p>
<p>@ NonAntiAnarchist</p>
<p>Before you continue further with your uninformed statements, do us a favor and define free will.</p>
<p>Well, augmentation itself implies free will. If I argue anything at all, that implies that I am using (or attempting to use) logic, reason, etc. to convince another of a “truth”.</p>
<p>This contradicts determinism in a few ways: 1) If determinism is true, nothing I say would be have any truth value. What I say is not right or wrong, it just is.</p>
<p>2) If determinism is true, I can’t “convince” anybody of it, because they are unable to process facts, reason, etc. and come to a conclusion.</p>
<p>3) If determinism is true, the arguer himself cannot identify facts, reason, etc. and come to a conclusion based on those things; his actions are already determined as well, and his thoughts are therefore just as meaningless as anyone else’s</p>
<p>I’m trying to reason this out as I go (I was much more into this a few years ago and have forgot most of it :p), so I hope this makes sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh gawd, someone wants to show me how much bigger of a dick they have than me. I like the casual, friendly discussions better.</p>
<p>Free Will: the ability to chose</p>
<p>But you are still dodging what was demanded. DEFINE FREE WILL!</p>
<p>Arguing for something implies will, not free will. </p>
<p>And contrary to what you say, the truth of determinism does not entail that there are no truth values. </p>
<p>In reply to your 2nd statement, that is also incorrect. You can definitely argue and convince someone determinism is true. A good argument can serve as an/the efficient cause of someone coming to believe the thesis of determinism.</p>
<p>And regarding your third statement, where are you getting this information from? Since when does the truth of determinism entail epistemological nihilism?</p>
<p>man chill. People had asked to define free will, and you didn’t.</p>
<p>Here’s a little thought experiment for you. And I’m not trying to be ridiculous (maybe a little), this is serious. </p>
<p>I have two plates placed in front of you. On one there is a moldy sock. The other, mac n’ cheese. Which one would you rather eat? And why?</p>
<p>His definition of free will was “the ability to choose.” I think it’s funny that you are all up in arms about him dodging, when he really didn’t, and then you are telling him to chill?</p>
<p>Just because the act of arguing against free will is contradictory does not prove that free will exists. It is possible that we were predetermined to engage in contradictory behaviors.</p>
<p>The amazing thing about philosophy is that you can argue all you want and you will still get nowhere which makes it the perfect topic for cc.</p>
<p>It’s okay, no hard feelings :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As compared to what? You have hardly convinced someone if there is no alternative to him being convinced. </p>
<p>I’ll try to get to the other responses, but I’m doing it in between my schoolwork.</p>
<p>Just because I thought of it:
It’s impossible for an “All-Knowing God” and “free will” to both exist.
An all-knowing God knows the future. This would imply that our decisions are predetermined which would mean free will doesn’t exist.
Does the absence of one imply the presence of the other?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hey man, i’m just doing what i was predetermined to do . . .</p>
<p>do you see what i mean? it may be the case that my argument will change your opinion. if it does, then that’s what was predetermined. if not, then that was what was predetermined.</p>
<p>^ If you look it up, sneaky religious philosophers have figured out ways to resolve that issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think someone wanted me to justify this:</p>
<p>Of course, if determinism is true, one cannot interpret facts and reason. A person’s reaction to any particular input has a pre-determined output.</p>
<p>Determinism turns us all into very complex rocks.</p>
<p>silence_kit, I don’t get it. What do you mean?</p>
<p>your predetermined reaction to my argument could be to agree with it. i don’t see how presenting people with choices contradicts determinism . . . ?</p>
<p>If determinism is true, choices are just an illusion…</p>
<p>To acknowledge choices is to reject determinism.</p>
<p>i don’t see how what you said has to do with what I said. i can still make choices even if someone else happens to know which ones i’ll make ahead of time.</p>
<p>Okay, the God thread has peatered out and I need more ways to avoid doing work so I’ll take a swing at this one.</p>
<p>There is no such thing as free will.</p>
<p>In a nut shell, you are entirely controlled by your genetics and their interaction with the environment (experience). Think of a computer. It was programmed and it follows its exact program.</p>
<p>I mean, think about it. When you have to make a choice - how do you make that choice? You apply a certain set of standard criteria, some sort of model or algorhythm that leads you to a conclusion. Given a choice exactly the same as the last, you will always select the same thing.</p>
<p>To make it simpler – your actions are predetermined and you will always do the same thing in scenario #1,039,309,293,940 because you always pick the option that YOU THINK IS BEST. You will always pick the option that you, dim-witted animal, currently think is best. And how do you judge what is best? Well, you have a model and set of criteria - at that given time - that determines it. What determined that model/ criteria? Why you’re biologically hard-wired brain synapes and the result of external/ environmental influences which you had no control over.</p>
<p>Quite simply, a mind is either governed by rules, or it is random. Every single thing that is not random - well why is it not random? It is not random because it is governed or preditable by some rules. I personally believe that nothing is truly random (it is impossible - but that’s another debate).</p>
<p>Yet nevertheless, your mind is either utterly random chaos (obviously not) — or it is governed by known, predictable rules (or even if not knowable, they do exist). Hence, there is no free will. Only the perception that there is.</p>
<p>Just to provide a simplified image — imagine you put a person in a room with two plates to choose from - he can eat a banana, or he can eat a steaming pile of poo peppered with cyanide. The person - no matter which one of us - will choose the banana every time. The few times it is not chosen - it is because the utility of the poo is greater than the banana (which was predetermined) - such as the person wants to kill themselves, they want to be unique, they are trying to philosophically disprove determinism because it’ll make them feel better. You get the idea.</p>
<p>If we went back in time, back to the Big Bang/ the formation of earth/ whatever ---- the exact same sequence of events would take place leading us right here to the United States each one of us typing away on this forum. How can we have free will if these events are determinable.</p>
<p>Hell if we just went back one day – if we could time travel everything back one day, would not the exact same things and choices and events occur? I believe they would. If they didn’t, it was randomness (as impossible as free will) and certainly not a sort of unrandom, but ungoverned “free will” which is logically impossible.</p>