Theologian Frank Pastore has some fine common sense on the issue of free will.
The denial of free will is perhaps the most bizarre delusion of materialists. That's saying something, I realize. But to deny that we are agents who choose, and to assert that all of the agency that causes our acts and thoughts is chemical and electrophysiological, etc., is just madness. Not only does such a view make nonsense of our culture and laws and moral sense. It is self-refuting. If free will is an illusion, then the assertion that free will is an illusion is a mere chemical reaction, with no more truth value than salt dissolving in water can be "true" or "false".
But materialists cannot admit that we have souls, and they are willing to speak nonsense rather than admit the error of their silly ideology.
The denial of free will is perhaps the most bizarre delusion of materialists. That's saying something, I realize. But to deny that we are agents who choose, and to assert that all of the agency that causes our acts and thoughts is chemical and electrophysiological, etc., is just madness. Not only does such a view make nonsense of our culture and laws and moral sense. It is self-refuting. If free will is an illusion, then the assertion that free will is an illusion is a mere chemical reaction, with no more truth value than salt dissolving in water can be "true" or "false".
But materialists cannot admit that we have souls, and they are willing to speak nonsense rather than admit the error of their silly ideology.
How do you know you have free will?
ReplyDeleteIf you play chess on the internet, can you tell whether you play against a "free agent" or a computer?
Does a cat have free will?
I know that I have free will because I experience it, and because nothing makes any sense if I don't free will, including any assertion that I don't have free will.
DeleteCats have free will. If you ask that, you must not own a cat.
Computers don't have free will, because they don't have minds.
I also experience free will, but how can you be sure you are not a sophisticated meat robot that evaluates various options and "chooses" the option that has the highest "desirability" value?
DeleteCats have free will. If you ask that, you must not own a cat.
I guess you don't have cats in your household. Otherwise you would realize that your cat owns you. My family is owned by two cats, and they surely do have free will.
Computers don't have free will, because they don't have minds.
It's an open question whether a computer can have a "mind".
[I also experience free will, but how can you be sure you are not a sophisticated meat robot that evaluates various options and "chooses" the option that has the highest "desirability" value?]
DeleteBecause if you're a meat robot without free will, your opinion that you're a meat robot without free will has no truth value. It's just something meat did. Denial of free will is self-refuting. If you don't have it, your denial is meaningless.
[I guess you don't have cats in your household. Otherwise you would realize that your cat owns you. My family is owned by two cats, and they surely do have free will.]
Of course they do, just like you.
[It's an open question whether a computer can have a "mind".]
It's only an open question if you don't understand the question.
Computation is algorithmic, which lacks intentionality and is not a mental act.
Because if you're a meat robot without free will, your opinion that you're a meat robot without free will has no truth value.
DeleteScientists use mathematical models to determine the truth value of propositions. They don't accept "gut feelings" as evidence. Why would it be any different regarding free will?
Computation is algorithmic, which lacks intentionality and is not a mental act.
Algorithms can model intentionality. How do you know a mental act isn't the outcome of an algorithm?
Because if you're a meat robot without free will, your opinion that you're a meat robot without free will has no truth value. It's just something meat did.
DeleteYour second statement doesn't follow from your first. When you figure that out, maybe you'll be smart enough to join an introductory philosophy class.
@anon:
DeleteLook. I found some meat juice on my blog.
@troy:
Delete[Scientists use mathematical models to determine the truth value of propositions. They don't accept "gut feelings" as evidence. Why would it be any different regarding free will?]
The only "meaning" that algorithms have is imparted to them by the programmer/scientist who designed and uses them. When you use a calculator to add 2+2, there is no "2" or "+" or "4" in the calculator itself. There are merely circuits, electrons, gates, etc which the programmer designed to do the calculation. The intentionality is extrinsic, imparted to the machine by the human with the mind.
Mind is an irreducible aspect of human beings (and animals), not a material artifact.
If there is no free will, then the workings of the meat are entirely physiochemical processes, which simply exist, without the quality of truth or falsehood. A chemical reaction cannot be true or false intrinsically, without truth value imparted to it by a mind. Therefore, if you are a meat robot, your meat "output" is neither true or false. It's just meat drippings.
If you deny free will and claim that you are a meat robot, you are making an airtight case that your opinion has nothing to do with truth.
[Algorithms can model intentionality. How do you know a mental act isn't the outcome of an algorithm?]
The only intentionality in an algorithm is that of the mind of the programmer and interpreter. The algorithm has no intrinsic intentionality, only extrinsic intentionality, which is imparted to it by a mind.