How does your point above make any of that go away? Unless, of course, both our points are inherent, necessary manifestations of the human brain wholly in sync -- "somehow" -- with the laws of matter going all the way back to what [who?] brought them into existence in the first place.
"Somehow"? Yeah, until scientists, philosophers and/or theologians do pin down the definitive explanation.
Have they? Link me to it.
Again, imagine you had a dream and an exchange of this sort unfolded between us. You wouldn't wake up and argue that you had free will then, would you? And I have had any number of dreams myself in which exchanges unfolded with others similar to ours. Perhaps your dreams are different.
phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:26 pm
We're not even talking about the same thing.
I'm interested in the practical implications of free-will and determinism.
You're interested in "the definitive explanation" of how something came into existence.
Right, like until we can determine how and why -- scientifically, philosophically, theologically, etc. -- the matter that is the human brain is or is not capable of embodying free will, we can just skip that part and be "practical" about it.
Are you even capable of grasping how ridiculous that is? Perhaps more or less ridiculous than my point? For "all practical purposes"?
And are you actually arguing that we can simply forget about our utter lack of understanding regarding why something rather than nothing exists, and why it is this something and not something else, and just skip to the part where the "human condition" here on planet Earth "somehow" came into existence.
That is what you are saying?
After all, isn't it precisely at this point that the religious folks interject with a God, the God, their God.
Don't you?
That would certainly be one "definitive explanation", right? God creates Souls and these Souls have free will. God knows all but you can still choose freely.
And, aside from those like IC here, most are quite willing to believe that in one or another existential "leap of faith".
Don't you?
Having an explanation here tells us nothing either ontologically or teleologically about whether the explanation itself is derived either from free will or determinism. Here we are still back to subjective, existential leaps of faith that our own assumptions are more reasonable.
Right?
phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:26 pmAgain. We're not even on the same page.
Again, we are on the only page we could ever be on if the human brain is just more matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter. I'm just more than willing to acknowledge that I have no capacity to actually demonstrate this.
Do you have the capacity to demonstrate your own conclusions? Aren't they basically what you have thought yourself into believing that your brain "somehow" acquired the capacity to think "freely"?
Then this part:
Again, imagine you had a dream and an exchange of this sort unfolded between us. You wouldn't wake up and argue that you had free will then, would you? And I have had any number of dreams myself in which exchanges unfolded with others similar to ours. Perhaps your dreams are different.
Are your dreams different?
In fact, last night I had one of my "work dreams". In the dream, I am arguing with my old employer about how the business should go in the direction of school stores rather than mass market retail. A really, really detailed discussion! Yet I wake up and immediately realize that it was entirely created by my brain instead!!!
Oh, I know, the waking brain is just "somehow" different.
And, sure, there's doubt that it could be. But how exactly would we go about pinning that down?
That's not the point. The point is that, like me, you have no scientific, philosophical or theological evidence that settles the matter once and for all.
phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:26 pmAnd again.
Okay. I understand that you have different interests. But you don't have to keep restating that we need evidence to settle it "once and for all".
I would like to see a discussion that progresses beyond that one point.
Unbelievable. Well, to me. Over and over and over again in our interactions in the either/or world [assuming free will] we can get into situations where we damn well do insist on evidence to prove something. To doctors, to lawyers, to engineers, to teachers, to family and friends.
You tell me the car you want to sell me is in great condition. I ask you to prove it and you complain that I don't just take your word for it.
The surgeon tells you that an operation is the only option and you just shrug and and tell her, "well, if you say so."
phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:26 pm
Okay, we don't have the ultimate, absolute evidence. What can we say based on what we do have and what we do know?
Come on, you know me. My focus is always on those who insist that what they do know settles it. The objectivists. The moral and political and religious objectivists in particular but also those who make arguments about the Big Questions like this one as well. Call it, say, the "peacegirl Syndrome".
Or the Immanuel Can/henry quirk Syndrome here?