Chill out, man. I am no “freewillist”, nor do I ever want to type that “word” again I’ve been using “Free Will advocate” by the way, seeing as Free Will isn’t a singular term - it’s two terms.
Nor am I a Dualist.
In fact, I’ve made that pretty clear on other threads, though I can’t expect you to have read everything I’ve written. I get that you’re frustrated by people trying to get away with the errors that you’ve pointed out, but everything you said is something I’ve already argued somewhere or other - in fact, I wrote only the other day that Free Will requires Dualism. Are you copying my own points to use against me consciously, unconsciously, or did you come up with that independently? Either way, relax that trigger finger, I’m not your guy.
All I said was that there may be something besides Determinism (alongside it), which is only a nod to models of the quantum realm being so incomplete, but I fully respect the maxim “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, and I am certainly against the “God of the gaps” nonsense of ascribing “Free Will” to our gaps in knowledge. The only reason I hedge here is because of the existence of things like Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, which may only apply to mathematical axioms, but in the interests of not acting like I completely understand Quantum Mechanics, I’m leaving open the possibility that such logic may apply in physics as well - and even then I only do so extremely tentatively.
My default position until proven otherwise is with Determinism, but I’m not even sure it’s possible to prove otherwise since a requirement of knowledge and proof is logical and/or causal sense, which is Determinism by definition. Epistemologically, this is a much more fundamental objection to “Free Will”. However, with regards to the burden of proof, that is on the proponent of the existence of something. Free Will is more like a lack of something, and causation is a something, putting the burden on the Determinist. However-however, I also agree that “we can never experience causation, therefore it doesn’t exist” is nonsense in the same way that verbs like “to go” don’t “not exist” simply because you can’t experience a “go”. Going, like causing, is a description of ways in which things that exist (nouns) behave, and their existence is in the degree to which the verb matches the behaviour, which causation seemingly does immaculately. However-however-however, if the Free Will advocate is presenting Free Will as a something, or implying of something such as the mind separate from the body/Dualism, and a concrete and precise notion of identity, then I am on your side that the burden of proof is on them in this regard, and they’re running into a dead end.
Does that clear things up?
I’ll leave the first part alone and only state that you’re contradicting yourself from previous systems made… that what you’re defining at the end as determinism, you’ve otherwise defined as “soft determinism” or compatibalism in another post.
Can you clarify that?
Easily. Any possibility of indeterminacy in the quantum realm, whose consequences may or may not spill over beyond that realm isn’t “soft Determinism” or “Compatibilism” because there is still no room for Free Will in anything I said in the first part. Indeterminacy might imply “free” but not “will” - if there’s any lack of Determinism between inputs and outputs of decision making, randomness removes from “will”, if anything. It most certainly does not constitute the exact opposite: proof of your will being enhanced or freed.
Soft Determinism/Compatibilism is a position on Free Will and its incorporation with Determinism. This is not what I am doing, therefore no contradiction.
You said that you have a very high iq, so, you can probably infer this, compatibalism is not a freewill argument, it is an argument which states that for every choice there are restrictions.
So, you’re “determinism better than freewill” argument, is a straw man to this regard.
As above, you don’t need an IQ as high as mine to simply read a definition of a term. Compatibilism is a Free Will argument.
I can understand if all you wanted to say was that “for every choice there are restrictions”, but that’s not Compatibilism. If that’s all you wanted to point out then I’d just say yes, obviously, and it’s all completely consistent with hard Determinism.
However, I can’t help but notice the title of your thread “Freewill exists”. So forgive me for thinking “Determinism is better than Free Will” was an appropriate argument…
So to clarify, I apply “Determinism is better than Free Will” to your talk of Free Will, and to “for every choice there are restrictions” I am glad that you agree with me. No straw men here, yes?
In saying all that, even as a counter argument, you are the only person so far on these boards that discussed this line of thought intelligently.
I am glad you noticed.
It is a problem in general when one comes up with an argument, and people proceed simply to say what they think instead in response - without even addressing your argument. I would rather set the example of actually engaging with what people set out to discuss.
It seems to be a common instinct in conversation, which irritates me considerably, for people to simply wait for their turn to say what they wanted to say rather than respond to what you just said.
You can certainly expect a reply. I’m too busy for that right now.
You keep saying that you have all these proofs, but I’m having a lot of trouble finding them, and if I do find something I tend to find it ambiguous. So I look forward to your reply on one hand but on the other hand I hope it’s clear and not more of the same. You also say you have a high IQ, so my expectations are high.