• Sheik Yerbouti
    12
    Every cause has an effect. An event that always suceeds another one is thought to be the effect of the preceding event which is said to be the cause. Though, an event suceeds another one, it doesn't somehow proves that there is a connection between those two events, only a conjuction. The more we speculate about universe, the more unifornity we find in various things that are present in the universe which are conceivable to our sense. And this furthur weakens our belief that everything that happen, only happens because of randon chance as there has to be a cause for that effect and the more we know about causes, more certain we are about there effects.

    Same is the case with humans. There is a uniformity in humans throught the world and always between those who lived during different periods of time. Not that I am implying that there is no room for individualism in human's nature but that all of us are susceptible to certain emotions and sentiment like hate, love, anger etc affecting everyone to various degree. Now as I have said that everything has a cause (i.e conjunctions of events) and there is a uniformity in humans (not in an absolute sense but in one that I have described), so every human action is an effect for which there has to be a cause, and the cause has to be present in our surroundings to which a human is reacting (as all our emotions or actions are just reactions to what our senses perceive through surroundings), is there still any room for freewill to exist?
  • PoeticUniverse
    797
    No, for one cannot be free of the will, for then what would one will with.
  • Eiwar
    8
    There kinda isn't any free will, but we aren't enslaved either. Our will is just one of causes. And I like Nietzsche's idea, that there are nothing but subjects, which are centrums of power, and everything else is just efect of reaction one subject to another. Then, we will be as a matter of fact, only causes, just not on conscious level.
  • Echarmion
    995
    Every cause has an effect. An event that always suceeds another one is thought to be the effect of the preceding event which is said to be the cause.Sheik Yerbouti

    How do we actually know this though, given that you acknowledge we don't actually observe causation, but merely correlation?
  • TheMadFool
    4.7k
    Two things:

    1. We have an ability to deny ourselves. We can say no to delicious cake or ice cream
    2. Self-awareness

    The more self-aware we become the more we can control our intent. In other words we become, in a way, more free. You can observe that animals that lack self-awareness behave through instinct, lacking any sort of self-control. Humans are self-aware animals and exhibit a greater degree of control over themselves. This pattern continues even within the human species as the more knowledgeable you become the beginnings of freedom of will emerge and grow.

    We can deny ourselves which is a manifestation of our ability to reject our most powerful of animal instincts, things least under our control.

    Therefore, our ability of self-denial coupled with our self-awareness which can be enhanced does provide adequate "room for freewill" in my opinion.

    Notice that "free" is a qualification for "will" which itself is self-awareness for how can there be a will without there being a will-er who knows that s/he can will.
  • TheMadFool
    4.7k
    How do we actually know this though, given that you acknowledge we don't actually observe causation, but merely correlation?Echarmion

    Very important observation. If we can reject causation then we can admit freewill.

    So, we could say, continuing down that road, causation is just a particular case of correlation - one that persists over time and space - basically it's just a convenient label to this particular "type" of correlation having no metaphysical import.

    No causation. Yes freewill

    What do you think?
  • Shamshir
    856
    If we can reject causation then we can admit freewill.TheMadFool
    You don't need to reject it.
    Just accept self-caused causes.
  • TheMadFool
    4.7k
    @Echarmion
    You made use of a particular word "conjunction" that's important.

    Was it Hume who used "conjunction" in his views on causation? I don't remember but the basic idea is that we infer causation when we see a conjunction of events. Slap-pain is a conjunction that persists over time and space. This contextualization of a conjunction of events in space-time is what we call causation.

    Now, one important aspect of causation is the requirement for a mechanism of how cause-effect works. This further consolidates the notion of causation wherever it's employed.

    In the case of the slap-pain conjunction we do have an explanatory mechanism - stimulation of pain nerve fibers. This proves the cause-effect is real. Many causal claims are already presented with models of the mechanism of cause-effect.

    So, although the concept of "conjunction" might open the door to causality being nothing more than a habit of mind, that there are plausible mechanisms for cause-effect closes that all too important door.
  • TheMadFool
    4.7k
    You don't need to reject it.
    Just accept self-caused causes.
    Shamshir

    You didn't just pop into existence. There was a sequence of events that preceded and led to you. You're NOT self-caused.
  • TheMadFool
    4.7k
    You don't need to reject it.Shamshir

    :up: :clap:
  • TheMadFool
    4.7k


    I'd like your views on the following as regards to conjunction

    Hume claimed that causality is simply a habit of the mind - when a conjunction of events repeat in time and over space it's considered causation. He claimed that there's no logical necessity in causality - we can't prove it. Basically it's inductive in nature - a matter of a given conjunction of events repeating itself.

    If all of causation is like this - merely inferred from a repeating conjunction - then it's possible that causation isn't real and is just a habit of the mind constructed to see patterns.

    If the above is true then freewill is possible since we usually reject it because we believe causality is real. If causality isn't real then freewill is possible!

    That said, many causal arguments come with an account of the mechanism which explains how the cause leads to the effect. To use my previous example, a slap stimulates the nerve fibers and that's what's felt as pain. When this is done, a mechanism of cause-effect provided, it strengthens the argument for causality being real and not just a habit of the mind. However, this isn't the case too because the causal mechanism, whatever it maybe, is itself nothing more than a conjunction which we know is not real causation.

    So, since causation isn't real, freewill is possible.
  • Shamshir
    856
    There was a sequence of events that preceded and led to youTheMadFool
    Let me guess, it's my destiny.

    But then destiny is self-caused, regardless if it has or doesn't have its own destiny.

    Case closed.
  • Echarmion
    995
    Hume claimed that causality is simply a habit of the mind - when a conjunction of events repeat in time and over space it's considered causation. He claimed that there's no logical necessity in causality - we can't prove it. Basically it's inductive in nature - a matter of a given conjunction of events repeating itself.TheMadFool

    Yes, I think Hume was correct here. Causation is valid as an inductive principle, but causation itself cannot be deductively proven.

    If all of causation is like this - merely inferred from a repeating conjunction - then it's possible that causation isn't real and is just a habit of the mind constructed to see patterns.

    If the above is true then freewill is possible since we usually reject it because we believe causality is real. If causality isn't real then freewill is possible!
    TheMadFool

    To add to this, the entire realm of the physical world - where causation is a useful principle - is only a mental model. The internal perspective, where we experience freedom, is entirely outside this model.

    That said, many causal arguments come with an account of the mechanism which explains how the cause leads to the effect. To use my previous example, a slap stimulates the nerve fibers and that's what's felt as pain. When this is done, a mechanism of cause-effect provided, it strengthens the argument for causality being real and not just a habit of the mind. However, this isn't the case too because the causal mechanism, whatever it maybe, is itself nothing more than a conjunction which we know is not real causation.TheMadFool

    Yes, I'd argue the same thing. We can go into more detail on the events that happen. But we don't know whether the order we automatically put these events in is objective.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Why do we have 2-3 threads per week on the same topics, over and over and over?
  • Echarmion
    995


    Using the search function is hard. And also, you have this really unique spin on the topic, and you really want people to respond.
  • DingoJones
    1.4k


    ...right, self important douchbags. Thats what I said.
  • SophistiCat
    966
    On one now defunct forum that I used to visit they even made a sub-section of their philosophy forum specifically for free will discussions. I wish we had that here. Or just merge all the free-will-cannot-exist-because-determinism posts into one thread.
  • DingoJones
    1.4k


    Seems to be a general symptom of online discourse, I wouldnt say its just free will topics. Religion, antinatalism, etc
    People just seem to doggedly trot out their pet topics regardless of its redundancy....and then people for some reason always support the new topic by responding and engaging.
  • PoeticUniverse
    797
    The redundant free will thread redux lives on…

    Now’s pen inscribes, based on what was there,
    Its destined words phrasing our sentence here.
    Although it may spell to us right or wrong,
    Even one letter’s change hasn’t a prayer.

    Since outputs always have inputs, so true,
    Then what, we wonder, should we try to do?
    It’s the other way around, oh, brain stew,
    For cause, time, and the universe do you!

    Outputs must have inputs, they in turning
    Becoming inputs to more ‘fates’ churning.
    In that sense, all is writ, on every path,
    As in ours, so what must be will e’er spring.

    What be: thy output must form from input,
    For naught else can stride the moving foot,
    And ‘randoms’ recede; naught from nought makes no.
    The pen can’t revise its scroll; "we’re" caput!
  • PoeticUniverse
    797
    The pyramid of the will bears nested dancers,
    Each an expert in their field of laws and causers—
    Through the land’s contours of memory’s sands of what was;
    The King doesn’t decide, but his repertoire does.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

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.