View Single Post
Old 08-11-2013, 04:33 PM
viva_nate viva_nate is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 65
Default Re: Can there be free will in a world where pre-destiny exists?

Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack View Post
I don't assume cause and effect. Show me an effect that has no cause.

We may be using different definitions of the word assume.
Oh we're using different senses of the word, yes. Non-causal systems are pretty well-established in philosophy; monads appear from ancient philosophy onwards. And just because causal explanations exist, doesn't mean that causes exist. Events may be causal; but it could be that explanations are ephemeral causal phenomena. If you present an argument about innate properties of matter (classical philosophy) or information (more recent), you're going to have to ask whether states are convenient or necessary properties of the object.

Consider the piano-falling-in-the-woods example upthread. You have an object, you have a space, and you therefore assume movement and presence in space and time. Now, imagine that same space, with no object in it. Do movement and time still provide explanative force (this is what Leibniz and Newton quarreled over)? Or is it the matter itself that provides the force, via will or some other innate energy?

I mentioned Panspermia twice, but never insisted on it. It does occur, but I only mentioned it as an idea as to why life itself was generated
I understand. I'm not holding you to it. I'm making the suggestion that maybe you might want to consider rebutting non-causal approaches to better define where you stand re: determinism/indeterminism. The addition of panspermia contains a (more physicalist, I'll grant you) suggestion of panpsychism. If you accept that, you'll have trouble substantiating causal relationships.

As far as Slippery Slope goes, it is not a valid form of argumentation. I have spent the past four semesters taking Philosophy, Logic, Ethics, and Critical Thinking, and can tell you without a doubt that the Slippery Slope is an argumental fallacy and is not acceptable as far as a reason to accept a claim. Every argument can be deconstructed as a slippery slope, but that is obviously in reverse.
I am confident in my bona fides as well. But it's such a technical issue, let's simply disagree & return to the original point, non tali auxilio etc. Also, that's a good course of study. Who have you been reading lately? I'd suggest Ian Bogost's stuff, it's an approachable start to speculative realism and OOP, which formal logicians and gamers might really dig. It's hard to suggest reading lists in philosophy w/o sounding pretentious, so I apologize in advance.

I would just like to state that in this topic, I've picked my side, but that's it. I obviously don't know the answers, but also am not going to sway from the side I've chosen. I actually enjoy this kind of stuff.
That's certainly a good thing. I do too. Fun thread full of intelligent people.
Reply With Quote