New answers tagged

0

Absolute predictability of a person's behaviour by other people is impossible (even if the person just died). There could be a very high degree of predictability; this would imply strong correlations between predicted and predicting - maybe they are identical twins with a very strong understanding of each other and in very good agreement, so both exercicing ...


0

Although I am a determinist myself, there are some misconceptions about free will and predictability. Quantum Physics (a set of the most successful theories out there) suggests that our Universe is not ABSOLUTELY, but only partially, predictable. If you have a particle P that is in a superposition of states (which means that it can have spin-up and spin-...


2

Because you are speaking of prediction of a man's action you are in the position when that individual is an object for you. Objects cannot be free, they could be casual at max. Objects move within probabilities and laws (objects do not act, they move, their "acting" is the animation from your side). When thinking of an object and having knowledge of it, who ...


4

Free will is having a choice. Just because one can predict what choices another will make does not mean that the actor does not have choices. Computers do not have free will. They do what they are programmed to and cannot choose to do otherwise. People, on the other hand, almost always have choices. Sometimes the choices are dire ("Give me the ...


0

Modern determinism in the scientific sense is basically only about mathematical prediction--if the universe is deterministic that means complete knowledge of the universe's physical state at an earlier time can be used to predict the physical state at a later time with perfect accuracy, no additional notions associated with philosophical ideas about "...


0

I'd say it is not so much logically-flawed as non-reductive or not fundamental, and for the reasons you give. A fundamental theory cannot rest on a caused phenomenon or event. Hence an argument for Materialism is an ironic argument for a Divine Creator or miraculous origin. For a solution one would have to examine the Perennial notion of a 'causeless ...


0

Nothing will happen. If superdeterminism is true and we prove it, then we are "superdetermined" to prove it. Science and history will contiue to be what they are meant to be. The point is that, if everything is already determined, then we cant do nothing to change it and everything we do is already written. Your question make a simple logic flaws that i see ...


1

This question has a red herring in it. It assumes neuro reductionism, and causally closed physicalism. Neuro reductionism is considered a failed project in philosophy of mind: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/ But the problem remains whether one is a reductionist or not! Here is the actual central issue: If everything has a [...


1

Free will arguably may reduce to physical phenomena. So may the redness of the flower we are looking at. So may the idea we have that democracy is the least bad system of government. So may our scientific ideas of nature. So may our idea of the physical world. If what I do is determined by my brain and my brain is a part of me, then what I do is determined ...


1

When you have defined free will out of existence, people will still make decisions I have never understood the insistence that if no decisions are arbitrary (read: having no explanation besides "free will"), then that is proof that people have no free will. If I eat because I was hungry, and wanted to stop being hungry, and my body is arranged to be hungry ...


0

We aren't aware of many thoughts at any one time, but assuming the thoughts we are aware of are completely determined by the brain, before we give up on the reality of free will and the soul we need to find out what is causing the brain to determine those specific thoughts. To make the example more specific suppose we are aware of a desire to eat pepperoni ...


2

The first thing that comes in my mind when I saw this question is the thought of Spinoza. Spinoza thought that everything follows a rule of causality including our behaviour and our desires. With our actual knowledge, you can apply this to our neurons. Free will is an illusion for Spinoza. The human brain have the possibility to evaluate different ...


Top 50 recent answers are included