Free Will and Randomness: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Free Will and Randomness » Free Will and Randomness

Free Will and Randomness

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Free Will and Randomness

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:04 PM: Subject: Free Will and Randomness	#1
(1) All random actions are undetermined by previous events. (From a common definition of randomness) (2) All actions undetermined by previous events are performed with libertarian free will. (From the definition of libertarianism) (3) No truly freely willed actions are random. (Conceptual truth about free will) (4) Therefore, no actions performed with libertarian free will are truly freely willed. Not an original question, but maybe one asked precisely: what's wrong with this argument? EDIT: Please do not answer that question. Instead, please consider this argument: (1) Some possible actions are random. (2) All possible random actions are undetermined. (3) If libertarianism is true, then all possible undetermined actions are free. (4) Therefore, if libertarianism is true, some actions are free and random. (5) But no actions are free and random. (6) Therefore, libertarianism is false. Edited by Incision on 09/22/09 - 10:11 PM. Reason: original argument obviously flawed

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 560

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:33 PM:	#2
As it stands: all random actions are performed with libertarian free will follows from 1 and 2. 3 seems good conceptually (i.e. it would be not be will if it were random). But 4 does not follow from these. No truly free willed actions are libertarian free follows, but not the other way around. But we could just note this by looking at the phrase 'libertarian free will' in 2. Though the definition of libertarianism is good, will implies intentionality, which by 3 implies there is a contradiction. 2 is then a false proposition. Edited by rigelrover on 09/22/09 - 01:55 PM
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 09/22/09 - 03:07 PM:	#3
Incision wrote: (2) All actions undetermined by previous events are performed with libertarian free will. (From the definition of libertarianism) The only events I can find that satisfy number 2 are particular quantum events. This tells me that many quantum events are performed by libertarian free will? Who/What performs these events?
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 09/22/09 - 07:10 PM:	#4
mway wrote: The only events I can find that satisfy number 2 are particular quantum events. This tells me that many quantum events are performed by libertarian free will? No; (2) states that actions "undetermined by previous events are performed with libertarian free will." Incision: Thanks for providing a succinct argument for what I've tried to express in numerous threads about free will. I hope that the libertarians in those discussions see and address this argument; I feel it has been dodged in many threads without being given a proper response. It still seems to me that the libertarian definition of "free will" makes it something that is impossible.
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

mark73
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 86

Posted 09/22/09 - 07:34 PM:	#5
The libertarian will reply that random actions and determined actiones are not free. They will reply that an indetermined action need not be random. Problem is that they have not been able to show how this is possible. The libertarian will say that you are begging the question by equating indeterminism with randomness. Perhaps the libertarian is correct to say that you are begging the question, since they are trying to show how an indetermined act can be free. However they failed miserably at this.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 09/22/09 - 08:06 PM:	#6
Kamerynn wrote: No; (2) states that actions "undetermined by previous events are performed with libertarian free will." Could you please elaborate on what you mean by actions?
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 09/22/09 - 08:12 PM:	#7
Incision wrote: (1) All random actions are undetermined by previous events. (From a common definition of randomness) (2) All actions undetermined by previous events are performed with libertarian free will. (From the definition of libertarianism) (3) No truly freely willed actions are random. (Conceptual truth about free will) (4) Therefore, no actions performed with libertarian free will are truly freely willed. Not an original question, but maybe one asked precisely: what's wrong with this argument? All R is U. All U is F. No F is R. Therefore: No F is U. When I do a venn diagram, it comes out as invalid. Have I misunderstood something?
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Jean Francoise
Protege of Being

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 63

Posted 09/22/09 - 09:27 PM:	#8
unenlightened wrote: All R is U. All U is F. No F is R. Therefore: No F is U. When I do a venn diagram, it comes out as invalid. Have I misunderstood something? This is also how I see it. Even with the distinction between F(Lib.) and F(True) there are at least 2 counterexamples. One of them is "an action that is determined and not random, yet an act of both true free will and libertarian free will". If the argument is invalid as presented we shouldn't really bother with going into the details concerning the truth of the premisess. If the contrary was true, then indeed one may question the soundness. Edited by Jean Francoise on 09/22/09 - 09:39 PM
Emptiness whispers in riddles.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 09/22/09 - 10:07 PM:	#9
rigelrover wrote: But 4 does not follow from these. unenlightened wrote: When I do a venn diagram, it comes out as invalid. Well, that's because it is. The argument has the form All R is U. All U is L. No F is R. Therefore: No L is F. This is rather obviously invalid. But here's another argument that may better reflect what I wanted to say. (1) Some possible actions are random. (2) All possible random actions are undetermined. (3) If libertarianism is true, then all possible undetermined actions are free. (4) Therefore, if libertarianism is true, some actions are free and random. (5) But no actions are free and random. (6) Therefore, libertarianism is false. Kick me if that's invalid. EDIT: note: updated OP.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 09/22/09 - 10:40 PM:	#10
Valid but unsound. A libertarian does not claim that all possible undetermined actions are free. She claims that some undetermined actions are not random. It's a strawman.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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