Punishment.

[NEOWatcher]

I don't...

You were the one who mentioned "god", so if you don't need it in that context, then please explain why you asked it in that context?

and I don't know what you claim to know about Solfe's definition of "soul"... I only need to understand "soul" in the context Solfe's talking about... from her.

What am I claiming? I agree with the definition, what's there to claim?

[SeanF]

Free will is choice which is uninfluenced (and non-random).

Evidence for such a thing would be... a choice demonstrated to be non-random and free of influence... and a test to demonstrate this would be up to the one making the claim that there is such a thing as free will.

Well, I don't think that's right, but I'll take your word for it.

Since I am one of those making the claim that there is such a thing as free will, I will devise the test.

If I have free will, I will choose to end this post without a closing period on the last sentence.

There we are

[profloater]

Since you cannot even prove you are conscious to anybody else, proving free will will be tricky; it's an unknowable. We have to make do with Descartes.

To discuss unknowables you have to start by recognising the existence of unknowables in your reality model. If you think you know something concrete as a starting point you have not yet got it.

[P Timmy]

Since I am one of those making the claim that there is such a thing as free will, I will devise the test.

If I have free will, I will choose to end this post without a closing period on the last sentence.

There we are

What's your definition of free will?

[P Timmy]

You were the one who mentioned "god", so if you don't need it in that context, then please explain why you asked it in that context?
What am I claiming? I agree with the definition, what's there to claim?

I'm trying to find out what Solfe thinks a soul is... and I think it better that she answers for herself.

[Solfe]

Do you have anything to substantiate the claim that "souls" are distinct from the body?
Apart from defining them to be, in which case the question becomes "do you have anything to substantiate their existence?"

I can provide no proof, however I can devise an experiment that may lead some people to consider further reflection on the "motivating force" in people (whatever you chose to call it).

Go to a local coffee shop with a friend and order two drinks in paper cups with lids so you cannot see the contents. Do not use the insulating sleeve if offered. Order one coffee black and one cup of ice water. Pay for them and ask your friend to pick up both cups.

If the coffee is hot enough and the ice water cold enough, he will drop both of them because his body can't sort out the two intensities and which hand is holding what. That is the body working. The "motive force thingy" is the thing that makes your friend refuse to go out for coffee with you again. It might even have some choice words for you. This is not the body working, but the motivating force that resides inside.

[Solfe]

I'm trying to find out what Solfe thinks a soul is... and I think it better that she answers for herself.

"Himself." "Solfe" was the name of my second character in an RPG. The reason for the ambiguous name is players were more likely to interact and invite women to join war-parties. When a male with an ambiguous name showed up, they were kind of stuck for it. I'd ask to change it but I've been using since 1992.

[P Timmy]

"Himself."

Ok... thanks.

Originally Posted by Solfe
Soul = motive force, distinct from the body.

I'd like to know how the soul you speak of operates.

Is this "soul" (motive force, distinct from the body) influenced by things which are separate from it?
Is this "soul" the only influence which causes the body to behave the way it does?

[SeanF]

What's your definition of free will?

You've already defined it. We'll use your definition.

[danscope]

Hi Henrick, Some feel that "we don't need no soul. We don't need no steeenkin soul ". Is it perhaps a defining effervescent intangible from the twilight zone
which separates us from the ants? For those who lack definition, they have lost nothing.
For those who enjoy the exaulted state of the human condition, they shall retain everything for always. And the material reality? Shrug.....

Best regards,
Dan

[P Timmy]

Free will is choice which is uninfluenced (and non-random).

Evidence for such a thing would be... a choice demonstrated to be non-random and free of influence... and a test to demonstrate this would be up to the one making the claim that there is such a thing as free will.

Since I am one of those making the claim that there is such a thing as free will, I will devise the test.

If I have free will, I will choose to end this post without a closing period on the last sentence.

There we are

What's the evidence which demonstrates that your choice was free of influence?

[SeanF]

What's the evidence which demonstrates that your choice was free of influence?

The fact that you can't say, "Your choice was influenced by x."

One of our more prolific posters on this board, Van Rijn, has a signature that reads, "I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?" Think about it.

Non-existence cannot be proven, it can only be disproven. If you can disprove the non-existence of influence on my choice, then do so. Tell us what influenced my choice, and how you know that it influenced my choice. If you can't do that, then admit that there's no reason to presume my choice was influenced.

[Van Rijn]

Free will is choice which is uninfluenced (and non-random).

Why would influence preclude free will?

Evidence for such a thing would be... a choice demonstrated to be non-random and free of influence...

So does that mean you wouldn't even consider the possibility of free will outside of a sensory deprivation tank?

[HenrikOlsen]

Hi Henrick, Some feel that "we don't need no soul. We don't need no steeenkin soul ". Is it perhaps a defining effervescent intangible from the twilight zone
which separates us from the ants? For those who lack definition, they have lost nothing.
For those who enjoy the exaulted state of the human condition, they shall retain everything for always. And the material reality? Shrug.....

Best regards,
Dan

OK, so the soul is the magical thingie that makes humans unique. Check. Feel free to imagine you have one of those., don't expect me to believe your claim.

This has now degenerated into that type of philosophical discussion where no results can be gotten because people insist on arguing based on vaguely defined imaginary concepts.

[P Timmy]

Originally Posted by P Timmy
Free will is choice which is uninfluenced (and non-random).

Evidence for such a thing would be... a choice demonstrated to be non-random and free of influence... and a test to demonstrate this would be up to the one making the claim that there is such a thing as free will.

Originally Posted by SeanF
Since I am one of those making the claim that there is such a thing as free will, I will devise the test.

If I have free will, I will choose to end this post without a closing period on the last sentence.

There we are

What's the evidence which demonstrates that your choice was free of influence?

The fact that you can't say, "Your choice was influenced by x."

Non-existence cannot be proven, it can only be disproven. If you can disprove the non-existence of influence on my choice, then do so. Tell us what influenced my choice, and how you know that it influenced my choice. If you can't do that, then admit that there's no reason to presume my choice was influenced.

You accepted the challenge of devising a test which would demonstrate that a choice can be non-random and free of influence... an failed. That you found it impossible to show that choice is free... demonstrates the futility in producing evidence for unsubstantiated beliefs.

[SeanF]

You accepted the challenge of devising a test which would demonstrate that a choice can be non-random and free of influence... an failed. That you found it impossible to show that choice is free... demonstrates the futility in producing evidence for unsubstantiated beliefs.

Unsubstantiated, like your belief that my choice was influenced?

I did not fail. I submit that I demonstrated a free-of-influence choice. You can claim it was influenced, but if you can't even identify what any of the supposed influences were, your claim is not very convincing.

Your influences and Van Rijn's invisible elf are one and the same.

[P Timmy]

Originally Posted by P Timmy
Free will is choice which is uninfluenced (and non-random).

Why would influence preclude free will?

I think post #163 answers that.

P Timmy
Evidence for such a thing would be... a choice demonstrated to be non-random and free of influence...

So does that mean you wouldn't even consider the possibility of free will outside of a sensory deprivation tank?

I think the illusion of free will arises from memory and sensory input being analyzed by the brain... but influence is much more than just input from our senses.

Our genetic makeup... and the environment in which were conceived and later born into are conditions we had no choice in... and yet... those influences largely determine who we will be throughout our life.

[P Timmy]

Originally Posted by P Timmy
You accepted the challenge of devising a test which would demonstrate that a choice can be non-random and free of influence... an failed. That you found it impossible to show that choice is free... demonstrates the futility in producing evidence for unsubstantiated beliefs.

Unsubstantiated, like your belief that my choice was influenced?

I don't know if your choice was influenced or not... it may have been random.

I did not fail.

I submit that I demonstrated a free-of-influence choice. You can claim it was influenced, but if you can't even identify what any of the supposed influences were, your claim is not very convincing.

Influence is influence... and whatever the specific influence may have been is irrelevant.
I don't know if your choice was influenced or not... it may have been random (as the definition you agreed to accounts for)... but whether your choice was influenced OR random... failure is the outcome of your attempt to produce evidence that there is such a thing as free will.

[NEOWatcher]

Using all the same logic I see in this thread... I now say there is no such thing as "North".
Since the universe started as a singularity and noone was there to understand orientation... then directions don't exist.

[AstroRockHunter]

I don't know if your choice was influenced or not... it may have been random.



Influence is influence... and whatever the specific influence may have been is irrelevant.
I don't know if your choice was influenced or not... it may have been random (as the definition you agreed to accounts for)... but whether your choice was influenced OR random... failure is the outcome of your attempt to produce evidence that there is such a thing as free will.

And yet you refuse to accept that the scenario that I proposed in post #151 demonstrates free will.

[SeanF]

Influence is influence... and whatever the specific influence may have been is irrelevant.
I don't know if your choice was influenced or not... it may have been random (as the definition you agreed to accounts for)... but whether your choice was influenced OR random... failure is the outcome of your attempt to produce evidence that there is such a thing as free will.

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly - in order to demonstrate free will to your satisfaction, one would have to demonstrate a choice and then they would have to prove that the choice was not influenced, rather than you demonstrating that it was. In other words, you want someone to prove a negative.

You presume that the choice was influenced until someone proves it wasn't.

You presume that Van Rijn's invisible elf exists until somebody proves it doesn't.

[SkepticJ]

How could someone prove they weren't influenced, anyway?

Behavioral determinism isn't falsifiable, therefore it's outside the realm of scientific explanations and is an inhabitant of the Land of Bull Crap. Proponents of it can always claim that everything that makes up your psyche wouldn't let you choose differently than you did.

[P Timmy]

Originally Posted by P Timmy
Influence is influence... and whatever the specific influence may have been is irrelevant.
I don't know if your choice was influenced or not... it may have been random (as the definition you agreed to accounts for)... but whether your choice was influenced OR random... failure is the outcome of your attempt to produce evidence that there is such a thing as free will.

SeanF
So, just to make sure I understand you correctly - in order to demonstrate free will to your satisfaction, one would have to demonstrate a choice and then they would have to prove that the choice was not influenced,

I required no proof from you and you gave none... I took your word that your choice was uninfluenced.
You chose to use my definition of free will... and based on my criteria... you chose to take on the challenge of devising a test that would provide evidence for their being such a thing as free-will... and failed.

SeanF
...rather than you demonstrating that it was. In other words, you want someone to prove a negative.
You presume that the choice was influenced until someone proves it wasn't.

It's my presumption that choice is either influenced or random.

If you had said... "Of course my choice was influenced... and the immediate cause and effect chain of events that lead me to this point began when I first noticed the 'Punishment' thread"... then the punishment would be over

You presume that Van Rijn's invisible elf exists until somebody proves it doesn't.

Well let me say this about that... I have a pink elephant living in my shirt pocket... and not that I think you'd get the job done... but since you're the only one I know of who's taken on the challenge of providing evidence for an unsubstantiated belief... I'd like to hire you to plead the case for the existence of my pink elephant... and based on the result of your efforts... I promise to pay you exactly what you're worth

[P Timmy]

How could someone prove they weren't influenced, anyway?

Proof of anything is hard to come by... but how about you... do you think that influence can be at least part of the reason that one chooses "A" instead of "B"?

Behavioral determinism isn't falsifiable, therefore it's outside the realm of scientific explanations and is an inhabitant of the Land of Bull Crap. Proponents of it can always claim that everything that makes up your psyche wouldn't let you choose differently than you did.

Is cause and effect within the scientific realm?
Do you believe that the human brain is anything other than biological?
Do you agree that a human is nothing more than a biological machine?

[SeanF]

I required no proof from you and you gave none... I took your word that your choice was uninfluenced.
You chose to use my definition of free will... and based on my criteria... you chose to take on the challenge of devising a test that would provide evidence for their being such a thing as free-will... and failed.

If my choice was uninfluenced, then it was free will. How, therefore, is it a failure?

I have a pink elephant living in my shirt pocket... and not that I think you'd get the job done... but since you're the only one I know of who's taken on the challenge of providing evidence for an unsubstantiated belief... I'd like to hire you to plead the case for the existence of my pink elephant... and based on the result of your efforts... I promise to pay you exactly what you're worth

I have not "taken on the challenge of providing evidence for an unsubstantiated belief." It is you who are claiming an unsubstantiated belief as truth, the only challenge I've taken is to try to get you to realize that.

I do believe I'm not up to the task, though.

[grapes]

To wrench the discussion back to the direction initiated by the OP, I have to ask, let's say we grant you your premise that there is no free will, how're you going to convince those that do believe there is free will (through no fault of their own)? What kind of evidence that there is no free will, or even a convincing argument, can you give to them?

[P Timmy]

I have not "taken on the challenge of providing evidence for an unsubstantiated belief." It is you who are claiming an unsubstantiated belief as truth, the only challenge I've taken is to try to get you to realize that.

I do believe I'm not up to the task, though.

Ha ha... good one

If my choice was uninfluenced, then it was free will. How, therefore, is it a failure?

Uninfluenced huh... so were there no reasons you chose to leave that period off the end of that sentence... and if so... was your choice random... in other words... was there no preceding thought about the action you took of leaving off the period?

[SkepticJ]

Proof of anything is hard to come by... but how about you... do you think that influence can be at least part of the reason that one chooses "A" instead of "B"?

Most of the time, yeah.

Ever heard of The Imp of the Perverse?

I have absolutely no desire to shoot myself in the foot with a gun. But I could choose to do just that, just to show that I am capable of making a choice I know I won't like and that I don't have to do. How do you explain this, except that I have free will? Or I could go less extreme, and just bite my tongue--which I'm doing just as I write this. How do you explain this, me inflicting pain on myself when I get no masochistic pleasure out of it?

Is cause and effect within the scientific realm?
Do you believe that the human brain is anything other than biological?
Do you agree that a human is nothing more than a biological machine?

Sure, but the universe isn't Newtonian. Quantum Mechanics swept the notion of a purely deterministic universe into the incorrect meme dustbin.

I'm very much a philosophical materialist, but if you think that means believing the universe is some kind of clockwork mechanism where nothing unpredictable ever happens, then you have a not-even-wrong understanding of the philosophical position. There are desktop toys that display chaotic behavior. No computer, extant or hypothetical (say a computer the size of the universe) could tell you how that toy will move next. If something made from a few bits of metal and an electromagnet can display such a property, then what weirdness could a human spit out?

[grapes]

I'm very much a philosophical materialist, but if you think that means believing the universe is some kind of clockwork mechanism where nothing unpredictable ever happens, then you have a not-even-wrong understanding of the philosophical position. There are desktop toys that display chaotic behavior. No computer, extant or hypothetical (say a computer the size of the universe) could tell you how that toy will move next. If something made from a few bits of metal and an electromagnet can display such a property, then what weirdness could a human spit out?

Are you referring to mathematical chaos?

Mathematical chaos is deterministic. It's fairly easy to predict short-term chaotic behavior, it's the long term behavior that is difficult to compute.

[Luckmeister]

P Timmy, I tried to refrain from any further posting but couldn't sit here biting my lip any longer (some influence made me start this post, but according to you I need claim no responsibility).

Free will -- shmee will! Please stop using that term as an absolute. I have some control over my actions.... right? How much control could be debated from now until the cows come home (if they have the will to come home). Since I have no doubt that I do have some control, I also have some responsibility for my actions and some accountability which might deserve some level of punishment some of the time.

Now, parse that paragraph out into your world of absolutes. Or do you maintain that I have no control over any of my actions? If so, that is pure fatalism and IMO has no place for rational discussion on a science board. There are metaphysics and philosophy forums where you could run with your train of thought to your heart's content (or whatever has been predestined for you). I respectfully suggest that you may feel much more at home there.

Seriously, the black or white, all or nothing logic stance you have been taking has no place in the complicated world we exist in. We don't have either total free will nor are total slaves to a variety of influences. Everything in human existence involves shades of grey including personal choices, culpability and punishment. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

BTW, if you have no free will then how is it that seven pages of posts in disagreement with your ideas haven't influenced you out of them? Oh, you like your answers better? Be careful... that would sound like you're exercising free will.