Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
I want to attempt to stray away from the determinism agrument on this thread, we are supposed to be debating free-will.
I will say this though, I give much more creedance to philosophy and epistemology in the field of detemrinism versus indeterminism than I do to science. The only way science could disprove or prove determinism is if someone was omniscient. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, so philosophical deduction and reasoning will have to suffice.
|
I think you are being too generous to philosophy
and not generous enough to science.
Philosophy has been grappling with the problem
of Free Will for over 2000 years and is no closer
to a solution now than it ever was. In fact, I am
not sure it is closer to a solution to any other
problem either.
Science on the other hand has shown a steady
progression for about 500 years, and it has provided
some pretty clear cut solutions of the greatest
imagineable practical value, from the existence of
atoms to the existence of microbes to the existence
of genes to the use of speed-of-light communication
such as these PCs we are hacking away on all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
It boils down to determinism = every effect is the direct result of another force. And indeterminism = at least some effects were not caused, they 'just happened'.
|
Yes, and the issue is so much in doubt that we
may exercise our Free will in chosing the one we
like the most for the time being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
Now, the point you raise is that randomness does not necessarily preclude free-will, I of course disagree (didn't see that coming did you?).
Is something a choice if it was determined by a random function? I don't understand how someone could say 'yes' to this. Randomness excludes your 'will', so 'free' as it may be, it is not free-will.
Conversely, determinism includes will but excludes freedom.
|
Your issue lies with complete, chaotic randomness,
which is not a fact of natural and human history.
You have made a leap from saying that if
some
randomness exists, then
everything is random,
and that is not a logical step.