Philosophy Now Forum

Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.

seven follows from three and four

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:30 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.

seven follows from three and four

-Imp

Nice work.

And what is your opinion?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.

Premise 1 is false.
Causation is not always aim to an end.

For instance, if a ball hits another ball and causes the second ball to bounce, there is causation happening, but without prior knowledge.

Or are you saying that marble and stone balls have knowledge as to what an elastic or an inelastic collision is, and can calculate (in their heads, not using paper and pencil) the complex equation systems with two unknowns of the effects of the law of no energy loss or gain and no loss or gain in momentum.

Here is bahman's argument, improved:

1) Everything is caused.
2) Therefore nothing can be free
3) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:37 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.

Premise 1 is false.
Causation is not always aim to an end.

For instance, if a ball hits another ball and causes the second ball to bounce, there is causation happening, but without prior knowledge.

Or are you saying that marble and stone balls have knowledge as to what an elastic or an inelastic collision is, and can calculate (in their heads, not using paper and pencil) the complex equation systems with two unknowns of the effects of the law of no energy loss or gain and no loss or gain in momentum.

Knowledge in the case of stone ball is encrypted in them so called laws of nature.

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:42 am Here is bahman's argument, improved:

1) Everything is caused.
2) Therefore nothing can be free
3) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

Premise 2 needs justification. I used to discuss this in another forum, Catholic, and they were claiming that human is caused, sustained by God, and still is free.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am
Knowledge in the case of stone ball is encrypted in them so called laws of nature.

No. Laws of nature, as it were, obey the same rules whether anyone knows them at all or not.

So that argument is false.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:47 am

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:42 am Here is bahman's argument, improved:

1) Everything is caused.
2) Therefore nothing can be free
3) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

Premise 2 needs justification. I used to discuss this in another forum, Catholic, and they were claiming that human is caused, sustained by God, and still is free.

They claimed that not due to reason, but due to sticking to the tenets or dogmas required to profess as per their church.

There are many, many religious people who deny to the last drop the most basic and extant empirically observed truths, only because it is incompatible with their faiths. Instead of reforming their faiths' tenets, they try to reform reality to what it is not. Don't use their denial of empirical truths as arguments against empirical truths.

The reason most scientists, most Ph.D.-s, most Nobel Prize Winners, the largest number of educated normal people are atheists, is because they had enough of the bullshit their religions tried to force down their throats.

Free from what is the question.

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am
Knowledge in the case of stone ball is encrypted in them so called laws of nature.

No. Laws of nature, as it were, obey the same rules whether anyone knows them at all or not.

So that argument is false.

No.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:07 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am
Knowledge in the case of stone ball is encrypted in them so called laws of nature.

No. Laws of nature, as it were, obey the same rules whether anyone knows them at all or not.

So that argument is false.

No.

yes.

Does the statistical notion of “degrees of freedom” fit into your conception of a “free agent”?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:37 pm Does the statistical notion of “degrees of freedom” fit into your conception of a “free agent”?

No. By free I only mean that an agent's decision is not subject to options.