Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does free will exist?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 18 (103014)
04-27-2004 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Jack
04-27-2004 6:14 AM


I disagree that dualism necessitates the creation of a third category. Simply proposing that "mind" is a seperate "substance" does not entail that it's operations cannot be classified as some mixture of chance and determinism.
However there is a legitimate third category that we have not considered - "fated". I do not beleive that it applies to anything but it is not in itself incoherent.
I would say that the classificiations of the operation of a system go like this:
1) Determinism: The system will always give a particular output when starting from a particular internal state and presented with a particular set of inputs. The inputs may or may not have relevance.
2) Chance : There are a range of possible outputs for each initial state and set of inputs. (In actual cases this range and the probability distributions of the results will virtually always be restricted by the deterministic operations of the system so this is better considered as a combination of determinism and chance)
3) Fate : There is one possible output regardless of the state of the system and the inputs.
Since determinism is the only option which allows the internal state to dominate the output I suggest that determinism is the only option compatible with anything worth of the name "will".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 04-27-2004 6:14 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 04-27-2004 6:35 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 17 of 18 (103017)
04-27-2004 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by atrejusan
04-26-2004 8:14 PM


Is not all material theory an otherwise arbitrary symbolic representation of reality in the most convenient/useful manner available?
No. Our representations of the world are not arbitary.
Let's take a simple example: I have two small marble balls on my desk. Why is that designation not arbitary? Because they behave as a whole - I can pick them up, if they are struck by another ball they will move off as a whole. If I drop they fall as a whole, and bounce as a whole.
I expect you will already have spotted a problem. Namely that some particles from the marble balls will be left behind or chipped off, and other particles from my hands, or from the table, will have merged with the balls. Does this make the designation of the balls arbitary? No. It makes them fuzzy.
Taking it further: why do we consider the Sun as a whole when it is constantly flining energy and particles into space? Because to understand it's properties and influences we have to. If you didn't consider the sun as a whole you could never understand the effects it had, or the reasons behind the conditions at its surface and centre. Sure you can note that at X degree and Y pressure the hydrogen was fusing - but you could never explain the tempreture or the pressure without the holistic approach.
This is even more true when you start looking at organisms.
In summary, then, our categories are fuzzy, but not arbitary.
(Note: if you use the little red 'reply' button under the post you are replying to rather than the big 'post reply' button at the bottom your post will be linked to the one you are responding to and your conversations will be easier to follow).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by atrejusan, posted 04-26-2004 8:14 PM atrejusan has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 18 of 18 (103018)
04-27-2004 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
04-27-2004 6:27 AM


I disagree that dualism necessitates the creation of a third category. Simply proposing that "mind" is a seperate "substance" does not entail that it's operations cannot be classified as some mixture of chance and determinism.
Hmm. Yes, you're right - dualism need not deny these causes. However, classical dualism - such as proposed by Decartes - is specific in its denial of causal effects within mind.
I did not wish to claim the categories I presented as exhaustive and I agree with your proposed fourth category.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2004 6:27 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024