• Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    My argument is that if the thoughts in my head were not caused by me, there would be no me to have them,Pantagruel

    That's a claim. There's no argument for that claim.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    I think the short answer, in the context of this argument, is that there'd be no you. Without free will, there can be no attribution (of thoughts, experiences etc.) so there is no self.Echarmion

    We could say, "Without free will, there can be attribution (of thoughts, experiences, etc.), so there is a self."

    Or in other words, that's not actually an argument for the position, it's just an arbitrary, unsupported claim. We could do the same thing in either direction.
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k

    It isn't a "claim" it's the definition of thinking. What you are proposing is absurd.
    A reductio ad absurdum to be precise.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    the definition of thinking.Pantagruel

    Per what source?
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    LIke I said, Descartes, the "father of modern philosophy"

    Anyway, I'm sorry that you (that is the 'you' that is the cause of the rather repetitive objections appearing here) feel so strongly in disagreement. As I said, let us (as in 'me' and whichever 'you' it is that I am attempting to dialogue with) agree to disagree. [politely ends this particular conversation].
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    LIke I said, Descartes, the "father of modern philosophy"Pantagruel

    Where does Descartes say anything resembling, "I define 'thinking' as follows: if the thoughts in my head were not caused by me, there would be no me to have them"?

    Also, I don't agree to disagree. I want to help you make your arguments (or "arguments" as the case may be) not a complete mess. I'm not agreeing to stop that effort.
  • Baden
    15.6k


    You're going to have to go beyond 17th century philosophy to have a sensible conversation re free will. At least try engaging with critics who have.
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k

    What's wrong with 17th century philosophy exactly?
  • Baden
    15.6k


    I didn't make a generalised evaluation of 17th century philosophy but a context-specific comment. The discussion won't be of any reasonable quality and may be closed if it goes on like this. Ball in your court.
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    Well, first, you assume that I haven't done any further reading, which I have. That fact that you would in any way denigrate the quality of a work based on it's age is, I think, very narrow-minded and suggests to me that perhaps you have not done as much reading as you might.

    A few of the 'modern' books from my own library are listed below. Of course this isn't everything I have read on the subject:

    Merleau-Ponty - Phenomenology of Perception
    Chalmers - The Conscious Mind
    Rorty - Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
    Dennett - Consciousness Explained
    Churchland - A Neurocomputational Perspective
    - Matter and Consciousness
    Searle: - Mind: A Brief Introduction
    - Rediscovery of the Mind
    Kornblith(ed) - Naturalizing Epistemology
    Neumann - Origins and History of consciousness
    Beakley(ed) Philosophy of Mind: Classical problems/Contemporary issues
    Posner - Foundations of Cognitive Science
    Varela - The Embodied Mind
    Valentine - Conceptual Issues in Psychology
    Fodor - The Modularity of Mind
    Maturana - The Tree of Knowledge: Biological roots of human understanding

    I'm not including Bergson, Huxley, Dewey, you know, anyone who might be too "old" for you....
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k

    I would suggest you close the topic. :)
  • Baden
    15.6k


    What you have or haven't read isn't necessarily relevant to my original comment.



    Ok. There's significant overlap with the other free will discussion anyway
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.