Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge » Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/24/09 - 05:29 PM:	#31
oag wrote: I disagree. I've narrowed the definition of the truth element to only that which I can decide. I've abandoned the belief that truth is objective and that I am forced to accept it. If you recognize that I can believe one thing and that be my truth, and that you believe another and that be your truth, then you have allowed for two truths. It is for that reason that solipsists need not be argued with, as there's no pursuing the truth because there is no single truth. That is absolutely correct. I permit you to state the truth as you see it and to be right about it, even if I disagree, so long as it works for you. Either there is a rock before me or there's not. Maybe I can't determine the truth due to my limited senses or whatever, but to say that there's a rock before me to me and not a rock before me to you is to say there is no external rock, but only phenomenal rocks. In fact, it denies there is even a me, but only a phenomenal me to you. Again, if I'm not really here, why are you arguing with a non-entity that happens to be a subdivision of the holistic you? You are arguing for a idealistic holistic monism, meaning the world is comprised of one thing, that thing is your mind, and there are no individual components of your mind. I can contradict any truth you put forth because what you are putting forth is not objective truth. It cannot be. You are attempting to use my belief that truth is not objective to make it impossible for me to deny objective truth. That makes no sense. This comment departs from a neutral agnosticism to an atheism. You are claiming objective knowledge here, namely that there is no objective truth. That is, you are denying there is actually a rock, but only various opinions about rocks. It is my belief that you do not have an objective POV. I believe that this is not possible. OTOH, if you believe that you can justify that to yourself then that is fine. You simply cannot justify it to me. First of all, you have denied that I have external existence, but am no more than part of your mind. Why a part of you refuses to accept your solipsism is a bit confusing, don't you think? In fact, since part of your mind (i.e. me) is convinced of an external, objective reality, then you are as well (as you are me). By me believing in an objective reality, I have convinced you because there is no distinction between you and me. I'm saying that I do not believe that you can or will ever have objective truth and you cannot ever, under any circumstances, satisfactorily justify to me your belief that you can have it. From where I'm sitting your belief remains unjustified and delusional. That is merely my opinion though. I'm saying that I have convinced me and that I am you, so I have convinced you. If you allow for a me, then it seems clear that you should allow for rocks and cliffs and everything else. I do not. I observe that there are rocks in front of me now and then and I avoid them accordingly. I don't pretend anything about them. I do not pretend to know that they objectively exist. I operate solely on what I observe with no thought to what I cannot know. I/you do in fact know rocks to objectively exist, and I resent me/you saying that.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

cosscos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 171

Posted 06/24/09 - 10:16 PM:	#32
I have found it very interesting on your free will and knowledge, Hanover. I suppose, now, north wind is blowing in hot summer day. A pretty girl is feeling herself cool in her soft skin at a mountain . Yes, she wouldn't come to the knowledge of coolness if free will of wind were not to visit her. I'd like to agree with you if this is what you meant by the case.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/25/09 - 12:28 AM:	#33
Hanover wrote: If you recognize that I can believe one thing and that be my truth, and that you believe another and that be your truth, then you have allowed for two truths. It is for that reason that solipsists need not be argued with, as there's no pursuing the truth because there is no single truth. Theoretically there is that single truth. The point is that neither you nor I have it. If we did THEN, and only then, would the point of arguing be removed. It is the fact that neither of us are in possession of that single truth that allows for us to argue about it. We can each only ever pursue our own version of the truth. Pursuing objective truth is chasing chimeras. In the end, your pursuit of a single, objective truth is going to result in your perception of it, your interpretation, your opinion. Either there is a rock before me or there's not. Maybe I can't determine the truth due to my limited senses or whatever, but to say that there's a rock before me to me and not a rock before me to you is to say there is no external rock, but only phenomenal rocks. How can you determine that there are external rocks? If you want to know if the rock before you is also before me you have to ask me about my internal perception. I cannot confirm the external existence of the rock with my own subjective observation. All I can ever tell you is that I see it too. You can draw whatever conclusion you please from that but it doesn't make it THE truth. It only makes it as truth as you see it. In fact, it denies there is even a me, but only a phenomenal me to you. Again, if I'm not really here, why are you arguing with a non-entity that happens to be a subdivision of the holistic you? Why not? I'm enjoying myself. In order for me to have a resonant and fulfilled experience of life it must contain people of character and wit as well as dipshits who frustrate me. You are arguing for a idealistic holistic monism, meaning the world is comprised of one thing, that thing is your mind, and there are no individual components of your mind. Is that not a possibility? I am not arguing that this is the way things really are. I am arguing that if it were then I'd have no way to know that. I'd have no indication that every last thing I experience is nothing more than my imagination or some carefully planned stimulation of my brain in a vat somewhere. The one thing that I am willing to commit to the existence of is my mind. I simply won't commit to anything else. Everything else remains a possible explanation but not an absolutely compelling one. The last part about individual components of my mind makes no sense to me. My mind is what it is and it is either part or all of reality and I can't tell the difference using my mind. This comment departs from a neutral agnosticism to an atheism. You are claiming objective knowledge here, namely that there is no objective truth. You are arriving at that conclusion by circular logic. I cannot claim objective knowledge in my denial that any such thing is possible. That creates a fallacious and impossible paradox. I am saying that there is no objective truth and that this is my subjective opinion, well justified by the observation that no person has ever been able to present a single objective truth. I express that opinion with the same degree of confidence as I do the contention that no one will ever present me with anything perfect or infinite. There is nothing objective about it. I observe that doing any of the above is impossible and express that opinion to you. That is, you are denying there is actually a rock, but only various opinions about rocks. Exactly right. I don't deny that I see a rock or that you may see it too. I simply deny the ability to confirm that it objectively exists. First of all, you have denied that I have external existence, but am no more than part of your mind. Incorrect. I have refused to commit to the dogmatic belief that you have external existence. That is not the same as denying the possibility. I deny only that it is an irrefutable truth. Why a part of you refuses to accept your solipsism is a bit confusing, don't you think? It is only confusing that you won't accept it. You continue to attempt to force your objective POV into mine and I continually have to reject it. In fact, since part of your mind (i.e. me) is convinced of an external, objective reality, then you are as well (as you are me). There is no part of my mind. My mind represents a whole. I remain unconvinced of an objective reality no matter how many times you erroneously insist that I am. By me believing in an objective reality, I have convinced you because there is no distinction between you and me. Wrong. I have distinctly stated, for the record, on several occasions, that I do not accept and will not commit to the belief that there is an objectively existing reality. I only acknowledge the possibility. As a solipsist I can do nothing else. I cannot commit to the belief that an objectively existing reality is impossible can I? I'm saying that I have convinced me and that I am you, so I have convinced you. If you allow for a me, then it seems clear that you should allow for rocks and cliffs and everything else. I allow for you and rocks and cliffs and everything else in that you and they are all part of my perceptions of reality. You don't believe that you are me. You believe that you are a separate, objectively existing person with your own set of beliefs which include the conviction that you exist in objective reality. If you are simply a creation of my own mind your convictions are not my own but simply an invention of my mind to give YOU depth and character and opposition to me for my own purposes. To suggest that your subjective opinions merely represent mine is ludicrous. They represent yours because I say they do, because I believe that they do. I/you do in fact know rocks to objectively exist, and I resent me/you saying that. I don't need to concern myself with that do I?

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/25/09 - 05:06 AM:	#34
oag wrote: We can each only ever pursue our own version of the truth. Pursuing objective truth is chasing chimeras. In the end, your pursuit of a single, objective truth is going to result in your perception of it, your interpretation, your opinion. Using your theory, you can't tell me that I can't reach what I believe to be an objective opinion. We will forever be caught in that circle. Among non-solipsists, the prevailing view is that we move toward the truth over time by increasing our empirical knowledge and continuing our rational evaluation of the facts. For example, while doctors don't know the exact causes of cancer and certainly have no absolute cure, we are closer to this knowledge than we were 100 years ago (or even 10). We all admit to the fallibility of our knowledge, but you've rejected that there are better opinions than others, which would mean that debate such as this will necessarily be futile, other than to fulfill some entertainment purpose. Clearly, though, as in the medical technology example, the purposes of the endeavor go beyond entertainment. This is to say that you can't declare one argument more logical or reasonable than another because to do so would suggest that there is some type of external gauge outside of your opinion. How can you determine that there are external rocks? If you want to know if the rock before you is also before me you have to ask me about my internal perception. I would not resort to asking you whether you saw the rock. I would look to see if there were a rock and rely upon my observation because I accept that there is some correlation between perception and external reality. There is no part of my mind. My mind represents a whole... I remain unconvinced of an objective reality no matter how many times you erroneously insist that I am. You don't believe that you are me. You believe that you are a separate, objectively existing person with your own set of beliefs which include the conviction that you exist in objective reality. If you are simply a creation of my own mind your convictions are not my own but simply an invention of my mind to give YOU depth and character and opposition to me for my own purposes. To suggest that your subjective opinions merely represent mine is ludicrous. They represent yours because I say they do, because I believe that they do. I don't need to concern myself with that do I? If I am an invention of your mind, and your mind is not subdivided into parts, then I am you. That's the problem with holism. You can't start breaking it off into smaller units, or it's divisible. Consider a materialist. He is a monist. He claims the world is composed solely of one thing, and it is matter. He is not, however, a holist. He says that there are many distinct pieces of matter and they take many distinct, seperate forms. He then is forced to explain all things in the material universe from pieces of paper to quarks. You've taken the view that you are you and there's nothing else. If that's the case, and I exist in your mind, then I am you. To say that Mental Creation Hanover believes in objectivity, but that Oag doesn't, explicitely creates two seperate entities, regardless of whether you believe that Oag is the original creator of the universe. The point of this is that you can't now say that Mental Creation Hanover is whatever you want him to be. He now has distinct existence and you have to explain him just as the materialist would.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/25/09 - 09:32 AM:	#35
cosscos wrote: I have found it very interesting on your free will and knowledge, Hanover. I suppose, now, north wind is blowing in hot summer day. A pretty girl is feeling herself cool in her soft skin at a mountain . Yes, she wouldn't come to the knowledge of coolness if free will of wind were not to visit her. I'd like to agree with you if this is what you meant by the case. I'm not completely following you here, other than your obvious longing for some mountain girl cooling herself in the breeze. Setting aside your romantic musings, I would not attribute free will to the wind. Going any which way the wind blows strikes me as free spirited when metaphorically applied to human conduct, but the wind does not literally possess free will.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/25/09 - 04:04 PM:	#36
Hanover wrote: Using your theory, you can't tell me that I can't reach what I believe to be an objective opinion. I don't have to tell you. You tell me that very thing right here. Among non-solipsists, the prevailing view is that we move toward the truth over time by increasing our empirical knowledge and continuing our rational evaluation of the facts. If you are continually moving toward the truth you will never actually have it will you? You can't have it both ways. We all admit to the fallibility of our knowledge, but you've rejected that there are better opinions than others No I haven't. I have only rejected the possibility of having objective truth. Subjective truths can range from bad to good but any assessment of that is similarly going to be subjective. If you declare one truth better than another that is only your opinion. You have no yardstick to hold up for objective measurement of one truth being better than another. I would not resort to asking you whether you saw the rock. I would look to see if there were a rock and rely upon my observation because I accept that there is some correlation between perception and external reality. Whereas I'd be too busy avoiding the rock to worry about whether it objectively existed or not. If I am an invention of your mind, and your mind is not subdivided into parts, then I am you. Wrong. You are you from where I am sitting. If you are an invention of my mind you are not in a position to tell me about my mind. You are invented to be a distinct individual, you. The point isn't that I believe that you are an invention of my mind but that I believe it to be a distinct possibility that you are. Just as you believe it to be a distinct possibility that I am an objectively existing thing external to yourself. Neither of us can confirm our own beliefs much less convince the other. You've taken the view that you are you and there's nothing else. That is not correct. I've taken the view that I am me and that is the one and only thing that I will commit to as objectively existing. That is not to say that nothing else exists because obviously you exist and my wife and my kids. However, I am not willing to commit to any certainty about the manner in which you all exist nor abandon the possibility that you all exist as fictions of my mind. Unlike objectivists I cannot and will not say that my view or yours is the way things really are. There IS something else. There is what I experience. If that's the case, and I exist in your mind, then I am you. Wrong. You exist in my mind as you. You are you. Here's what you are missing. Whether you are an invention of my mind or a separate being I experience you in exactly the same way, in my mind. I will not commit to the dogmatic belief that you exist externally from me nor will I dismiss the possibility that my mind invented you. You being in disagreement with a particular POV of mine is not proof for or against either one. Perhaps my subconscious felt I needed a nemesis and invented you. My conscious mind would expect you to disagree so you are behaving exactly as my mind would have created you to behave.

jtoma
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 34

Posted 06/26/09 - 12:56 AM:	#37
(i) Clearly DesCartes is linking the ability to know with the ability to choose. (ii) He describes the process as (1) you must first understand something clearly and distinctly, and (2) you must judge the thing and decide if it is correct. (iii) The act of judging is an act of the will. This process seems to me to be correct. (v) So, my question is whether it even makes sense to say that you "know" something if you lack a free will? (vi) That is, if your knowledge regarding a particular item is in your brain solely due to deterministic causes, and it is there without having gone through any libertarian judgment process, is there any way to say that the item of knowledge in your brain at that time is any more likely true or not true? The implications being that without libertarian free will, we can know nothing about the world. (i) Because without knowledge there is no right to exercise free will to choose (to affirm or deny). (iii) This is an assumption Descartes is making. (v) He says if you don't clearly and distinctly perceive something and yet you exercise your free will to affirm or deny it, then your affirmation or denial will constitute a self-originated privation (of understanding or proximity to God) or error. (vi) It is not possible to have empirical knowledge without a judgement process, see Kuhn's The Structure or Scientific Revolution (ch. 10 maybe?). I don't know what 'libertarian' means. (&1) Knowledge need not concern likelihood of truth, e.g. 'I am thinking about the color blue' is a form of knowledge yet there is no mention of the truth of a proposition representing this thought. (&2) You propose that if some element of knowledge has been acquired deterministically without judgment and that if there was no free will, then there would be no way to say if that element of knowledge was more likely true or not true. What does free will have to do with likelihood of truth? Can you acquire any knowledge without judgment? Kuhn says no. So, if you have no free will, then you can't know? Well, think about a computer. Assume that it doesn't have free will. Say it is programmed to shut down after five mouse clicks in rapid succession. If the mouse of that computer is clicked five times rapidly, then the computer acts based upon its programming and shuts down. The act of programming enabled the computer to interpret five rapid clicks differently than the computer I am using right now. Roughly, knowledge relates to programming, perceiving to interpreting, and judging to shutting down after five rapid clicks (Try an example). A determinist would agree the computer's execution is deterministic, because it doesn't have free will. I take your question to be whether a determinist would take a human's judgment in perception to be guided by knowledge as the computer's execution upon interpretation is guided by programming. The answer is, what do you want 'free will' to mean? There are a number of good questions you raise that I haven't addressed.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/26/09 - 05:05 AM:	#38
Jtoma, If we are to say that a computer has knowledge (where truth is a necessary element of knowlege), then we have to stipulate that the computer was programmed in such a way that it would lead to the truth. To apply this computer analogy to the universe, you could have knowledge if determinism were true, but you would have to stipulate that the deterministic forces for some reason lead us to the truth. To claim that the laws of nature lead us to the truth seems to posit a guiding hand that presents us with knowledge. Such a claim appears to be overly faith based, and if you're going to posit faith, then it seems more reasonable to have faith in the common sense notion of free will. If we accept determinism as a premise, then when I ask you why you believe that the world is round, you may provide me various reasons for your beliefs, but, those reasons are nothing other than rationalizations implanted in you by the deterministic world. In truth, the reason you believe the world is round (if you were a determinist) would be because you must. You may think that your opinion is the result of rational thought and observation, but what you take to be rational thought and observation is simply that which the causal chain has caused you to think is rational thought and observation. I think for you to have a proper judgment, you must be able to freely decide. Using an example of a judge, he reviews the evidence, he considers the facts, and he then freely decides guilt or innocence. Certainly the judge had some biases and some preconceived notions, but to the extent those biases were relevant and to the extent he couldn't set them aside, his judgment was not valid. If a judge is not controlled by his reasons, but is controlled by other external forces, then his jugment cannot be said to be correct. A determinist must therefore claim that the deterministic forces compelled the judge to follow logic and reason when he reached his decision. My question this is: what requires that the amoral causal chain of the universe be fair, and what requries that it lead us to the truth? I think a determinist must stipulate that reasons (i.e. valid, logical explanations correlating to reality) are causes, but I think that's a huge leap of faith. For me to say that I went to work today for a reason (to make money), assumes that the reason was the cause.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/26/09 - 05:57 AM:	#39
Hanover wrote: In truth, the reason you believe the world is round (if you were a determinist) would be because you must. This is where determinism fails too. In a picture the world is round. In reality the world is actually slightly football shaped because it bulges at the equator. Also the moon pulls it slightly out of round due to the majority of the surface being water. The element of free will comes in when you decide how you want to see it and what exactly you are talking about. If you feel compelled to declare that the world is round based on the evidence and I come along and remind you that it is actually a globe in 3 dimensions (and not exactly a perfect globe either) you can reassert that it is (undeniably) round in 2 dimensions and remain correct about that.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 06/26/09 - 06:51 AM:	#40
oag wrote: This is where determinism fails too. In a picture the world is round. In reality the world is actually slightly football shaped because it bulges at the equator. Also the moon pulls it slightly out of round due to the majority of the surface being water. The element of free will comes in when you decide how you want to see it and what exactly you are talking about. If you feel compelled to declare that the world is round based on the evidence and I come along and remind you that it is actually a globe in 3 dimensions (and not exactly a perfect globe either) you can reassert that it is (undeniably) round in 2 dimensions and remain correct about that. For the purposes of absolute accuracy in philosophy forums, fine, the earth is football shaped (actually American football shaped) and not round, like a marble. My point remains that in a determined world I will not "decide" the world is round or oblong; I will just believe whatever the casual chain requires me to. And, your comment about what the earth actually is like in reality isn't entirely consistent with your prior posts questioning actuality and reality.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.