[bumab]

Well, some are probably sick of the free will discussions for a while, but I'm still curious! I thought I would get this in a seperate thread just to attempt to keep the discussions on topic

I was looking at various responses from both sides on the free will vs. determinism debates lately, and noticed everybody uses the presupposition of free will in their argument. For example: "I've weighed the evidence...." "I see no reason why...." "Rationally, I think...." etc etc.

I think it's been pretty well concluded that reasoning and deciding are free-will requiring activities. So how come we presuppose we have free will when making arguments about pretty much anything?

So my question is: Is it possible to make a statement about a personal belief in determinism (i.e. this is why i think the universe is deterministic....) without presupposing the idea of free will?

I'm not sure how, but I'm terribly curious!

[Biochemist]

Great thread, B-

I suggest that some notions that typically require free will to have meaning include:

1) Objectivity
2) Analysis
3) Preference
4) Creativity
5) Affection (as opposed to "instinct")
6) Altruism
8) Democracy
9) Bias
10) Value

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Great thread, B-

I suggest that some notions that typically require free will to have meaning include:

1) Objectivity
2) Analysis
3) Preference
4) Creativity
5) Affection (as opposed to "instinct")
6) Altruism
8) Democracy
9) Bias
10) Value

Those examples have nothing to do with the subject. Determinism is an event-driven mechanism. "Notions" are not events.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

Those examples have nothing to do with the subject. Determinism is an event-driven mechanism. "Notions" are not events.

We Calvanists are also believers in Determinism, it's called predestination.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

Those examples have nothing to do with the subject. Determinism is an event-driven mechanism. "Notions" are not events.

Au contraire. Examples like these are the middle of the subject. These are things that would not exist if free will did not exist.

[mother engine]

Originally Posted by bumab

So my question is: Is it possible to make a statement about a personal belief in determinism (i.e. this is why i think the universe is deterministic....) without presupposing the idea of free will?

I'm not sure how, but I'm terribly curious!

personal belief is reactionary. if freewill were required for the formulation of beliefs than a beliefs could develope without outside interference. or am i defining freewill to narrowly?

[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I suggest that some notions that typically require free will to have meaning include:

1) Objectivity
2) Analysis
3) Preference
4) Creativity
5) Affection (as opposed to "instinct")
6) Altruism
8) Democracy
9) Bias
10) Value

Each of these can be shown to have causality outside of free-will:
1) Objectivity: This would be an intrinsic value of a deterministic system. A chemical reaction can not subjectively decide what its % yield will be. Things occur to the laws of nature or they do not occur.

2) Alanysis: This requires objectivity and is just an extension of it. It is a 3rd party objective examination of the facts. Propper analysis should only reveal a true false answer. If it does not, it indicated the experimental system was flawed. (Or not fully understood).

3) Preference: This is based on either biological necessity or developed through cause/effect past events and in essence pre-determined for each individual.

4)Creativity: I had discussed this in a different thread, but artists make something to express some idea or concept. These things are developed through past experiences and follow a causality pathway.

5) Affection: This follows preference.

6) Altruism: Other species exhibit this trait. This is a evolutionary tool that helps the species survive.

7) Is determined to not have a term....

8) Democracy: A combination of Preference/Altruism/bias.

9) Bias: Preference.

10) Value: For something to have value it must be consistant. This illustrates the inability of things not being able to exert free-will, or consistency would be lost.

[Fishteacher73]

One might also want to look at many of the early great Greek philosophers. It seems that they understood to a degree the deterministic nature of their world. They called it fate. Even their gods were subject to it.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

1) Objectivity:.....A chemical reaction can not subjectively decide what its % yield will be....
2) Alanysis: ...3rd party objective examination of the facts. ...3) Preference:...based on either biological necessity or developed through cause/effect past events...

FsT- I understand your suggestion, but in each case, you are saying that the "real example" does not really exist. Your are saying that objectivity is NOT an independent analysis of data, it is an advantaged reaction. You did describe analysis as having an independent 3rd party role, but I think that would not be possible in the absence of free will, since there would be no reason for an independent 3rd party to be involved. You are saying that preference is biological or event driven, not an independent idosyncratic desire of the individual. You are saying altruism in not really altruism, it is just disguised self preservation. Etc.

The question that launched the thread was related to how often we impute free will requirements into our opinions or communications. You are suggesting that there is really no reason to use any of these words in the sense that they are actually defined. Tell me what words you would use to describe the outcome of a specific basic science experiment without using words that impute independent, objective analysis and/or opinion?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

One might also want to look at many of the early great Greek philosophers. It seems that they understood to a degree the deterministic nature of their world. They called it fate. Even their gods were subject to it.

I think you are correct on this. The greeks used this regularly to sidestep responsibility for ther behaviors, losses and failures.