No nope, I am not trying to convince you. You can believe whatever you want or like. I just pointed out your beliefs are wrong, and explained why they are. If you opt to keep believing the wrong beliefs, then no one can change it. I have already told you that I have tried to change the dualists' wrong beliefs on Cogito, but failed to do so. So, why should I try to change your belief?
It is your freewill to believe whatever you decided to believe even if it is a deep hallucination of hard determinism, or decide to free yourself from the dogma, and change your mind accepting the truth.

They are irrelevant and silly for the argument. Because they don't prove that all the events and actions are determined.

Thank you for the reading recommendation. "Ants don't play guitars." is a fact. "Humans don't fly like the birds." is also a fact. Just as what I said in my post are facts. — Truth Seeker

You are most welcome :) Sure they are also facts you could say that. But they are silly loopy facts that are irrelevant and unfit for the philosophical discussions. You could hear them in the kindergartens I am guessing. :D

You could go on saying "Dogs don't smoke cigars.", "Snakes don't write poems." ... etc etc. It can be amusing, but not very meaningful or helpful for you becoming wiser.

Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain the choices made by organisms. — Truth Seeker

You could do with reading Hume. Hume's cause and effect theory will set you back to the right track on this. Genes, environment, nutrients and experiences are Genes, environment, nutrients and experiences. They are not causes themselves. Your psychology is saying they are the causes for the choices made by organisms. In other words, causes exist in your mind, not out there in the world.

This is a fact. — Truth Seeker

It is not a fact. It is a dogma and misunderstanding.

This is why banana trees don't type posts on forums and humans don't photosynthesise. — Truth Seeker

They are not rational philosophical comments. It is like saying "Ants don't play guitars." and "Humans don't fly like the birds."

I have no idea what that means! — Truth Seeker

Meditate on it. It may flash in your mind.

I don't have anything else to say. — Truth Seeker

Try to construct a tight logical arguments for your claims. Remember no beliefs, no opinions and no emotional statements. Just facts and the inferences and reasonings based on the facts. Will take it from there.

Can you prove to me that you are both happy and unhappy at the same time? — Truth Seeker

Well, yes and no, perhaps or maybe? :wink:

An earthquake is determined by all the variables that cause it. A cyclone is determined by all the variables that cause it. A choice is determined by all the variables that cause it. Do you understand now? — Truth Seeker

Hmmm it just sounds like all tautologies to me. There is nothing new or compellingly significant in that statement.

It sounds like a contradiction to me. It's saying someone was alive and dead at the same time or angry and calm at the same time or excited and bored at the same time. — Truth Seeker

You seem to be getting more confused. Being alive and dead at the same time is your description of a physical bodily condition. Your being happy and unhappy at the same time is your mental state. They are not the same category. You cannot draw comparisons between the two totally different categories.

I provided you with the determining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If you don't remember what I said, please read my posts again. Once you have refrained from the 27 things I asked you to refrain from and have done the 7 tasks I asked you to do, I will be convinced that you have free will. — Truth Seeker

Your 27 lists to-do are not meaningful in philosophical discussions. They belong to the functions of biological agents. They will not help you or me or anyone else to understand what freewill and determinism means.

If you want to know about freewill and determinism in philosophical point of view, you must try to prove determinism is valid supplying all the qualities and determinant properties of things or events which you believe to be determined.

I am going to ask you a simple question to start. : What do things and events which you believe to be determined have as their qualities and properties? i.e. what do you mean by something is determined?

I don't know what it is like to be you or anyone else. I have never been happy and unhappy at the same time. — Truth Seeker

It is natural that you cannot be anyone else than yourself. Maybe you have never been both happy and unhappy at the same time, but there are many others who have been. So it doesn't mean that one cannot be happy and unhappy at the same time.

How can you be both happy and not happy at the same time? I have never experienced. I wish we were all telepathic - that way we could really know what it is like to be each other instead of having to resort to communicate with words. — Truth Seeker

Human linguistic semantics are to capture and reflect your mental state and the world. You often hear people saying "I am not sure on that." "Yes and No", "maybe" "perhaps" ... you may not know it because maybe you have not done any self introspection for yourself, but an emotional state of someone can be mixture of various feelings.

It's a matter of evidence. I have provided you with the evidence. You failed to forever refrain from the 27 things I asked you to refrain from. You failed to do the 7 tasks I asked you to do. — Truth Seeker

Hmmmm matter of evidence? Are you sure? :)
All I could see is your mental state for believing and claiming everything is under determinism. There is no philosophical argument in your claims at all. Your to-do tasks has nothing to do with either determinism or freewill. They are just functions of a biological agent.

I disagree with you because the evidence contradicts your position. It does not matter to me whether you agree with me or not. — Truth Seeker

It is OK that you disagree with me. I told you already that it is usually impossible to change someone's belief which is based on psychology or mental state. It is a psychological belief, so there is no way to persuade the believer using logical argument. I know it already, because I saw how it was impossible to change the view of the dualists who believe that I think therefore I am, is a logical statement.

I have been working on self-referential paradox for two decades. — PL Olcott

That's cool Olcott.

No one else that understands the math of the things has the slightest clue what a knowledge ontology is. It just occurred to me much more recently that HOL is isomorphic to a knowledge ontology. — PL Olcott

This sounds a very interesting topic. I was reading on HOL recently, and it seems to be heavily mathematical arithmetic stuff. My question arose with the Liars paradox. How do you convert the Liars paradox sentence into HOL formula?

You asked for a logically sound argument.

P1. IfDeterminism is true, Free Will is not possible;
P2. Determinism is true.
P3. Your choices are determined.
C. Your concept of Free Will is an illusion. — AmadeusD

That is just saying determinism is true, and freewill is false.
That is nothing new to your psychological assertion, and you listed down as some sort of logical argument, which clearly is not.

Write down exactly back to front determinism replaced with freewill, you get the same conclusion for freewill is true and determinism is an illusion.

Sorry mate, go and think harder, and you need to brining in something which makes sense for your argument.

I will give you a hint. You must write down all the determinant properties for X, if X is determined. And prove those properties are necessarily true. If you do that, I will show you why they are false.

IFF all events have prior causes, Determinism is true. — AmadeusD

I have not seen the logical proof of that. Where is it? Or you could prove again here.
How do you know all events have prior causes?

Even if we suppose all events have prior causes, that doesn't entail determinism. Because some of the events are caused by freewill.

But you must prove how all events have prior causes first, and prove that they are absolutely not caused by freewill to secure the validity of determinism.

We hold that it is (though, intuitively, I am fairly open to the idea that something about consciousness to be discovered will shake this). If all events have prior causes, you don't have Free Will. You've not addressed any arguments at all. — AmadeusD

I thought my argument was clear in my reply to you. All my actions and expressions are caused by my freewill. What else could it be?

Happiness and sadness are mental states but they are determined by the electrochemical activities of the brain. You can't be both happy and sad at the same time but you can be happy at one time and sad at another time. — Truth Seeker

It makes perfect sense to me, when I ask someone "Are you happy?", and get a reply "Well Yes and No".

It goes even deeper than that. Assuming that atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, planets, universes are real and not simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion, our thinking occurs as a result of the electrochemical activities of the brain. This activity is determined and constrained by the laws of physics. That's why we can't think faster than our nerve conduction velocity which is 50 to 60 metres per second. — Truth Seeker

Well prove your argument in Logical argument. You must start with some reasonable premises for your arguments, and then inferences and reasonings for the premises, and then your conclusion. Will have a look at it together for its validity and soundness.

Just saying, everything is under hard determinism because blah blah blah .... doesn't have compelling points for its meaningfulness or truth as such. Many will just say, well that's just your belief and assertion, but what about the opposite point of view on that? And that has been happening all along in this thread. We can come to a closure clarifying either your assertion has a validity with logical sound argument, or it was just your mental state.

That's just you saying this. It doesn't entail that you've looked for, or understand what we're putting infront of you.

If every event has a prior cause, these are absolute facts. It is not possible to sit yourself outside of that lineage. If you reject that, you're in need of a rather strong and convincing argument that includes empirical considerations and logical cogency. I don't think you ahve either. — AmadeusD

I used to have a lot of illusory beliefs such as people will live forever, because they resurrect as soon as they die after seeing the action films stars in the other films after seeing them dead in another film.

I also used to believe Santa was real, and the old folks born old, and I will stay as a wee 10 year old forever. But as time went by, all my illusions were proven to be wrong. People die for good, and the old folks were the babies and kids at one time a long time ago. They just got old by living on, and we all get old, and will die.

I am not sure what other illusions I still have. Not many, if not at all.

Hard determinism and free will are two ideas but they are ideas about how reality works. Hard determinism and free will are not mental states the way happiness and sadness are mental states. — Truth Seeker

I still think determinism is your psychology. If you see all the events and your actions from your past point of view, then everything seems to be determined.

But if one sees every event and one's actions from the present point of view, then everything is from freewill. It is that difference i.e. difference of point of view.

You can say a bottle is half empty or half full with wine. It just is upto your point of view and expression.

If you really believe the world events and your actions are under hard determinism, then you must be able to prove via the Logical Argument for that.

All you have is just your belief and assertions that the world events and your actions are under hard determinism and constraints just because you have been born, you have your mum's DNA, you taught yourself English ... etc. They are your past experiences, abilities and limitations. They are not the determinants and constraints. They can be, just because you are looking at them as the constraints.

You say that everything is determined and is under constraints. Some others say the opposite, and they believe in freewill.

They cannot be proved either true or false, because they are just personal opinions or psychological beliefs. Just like Descartes "I think therefore I am" is a psychological utterance with missing object for the "think".

You cannot prove psychological state or utterance using Logic. Logic needs something to check for the truth or falsity of the statements against something which are objective and infallible. Psychological beliefs and utterances have nothing to compare, check over or infer against for truth or falsity. Because all psychological states and beliefs are private to their owners.

Hard determinism and free will are opposing ideas. They can't both be true. — Truth Seeker

They can be, if and only if they are psychological state. They can be both true, because they are not deductive or inductive facts.

You could say, "yes and no", when asked if you are happy.

20. Think — Truth Seeker

I asked you "Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?" You have not given me even one such example. — Truth Seeker

I have given you an example from your list No.20. Think. I was demonstrating how one's Thinking operates in the realm of Freewill.

The demonstration also proved that Freewill is mental state, rather than your doing some things.
Likewise your determinism is not a material object, but it is your mental judgement on your perception of the external world and your actions.

You can do anything under determinism or freewill or by random chance. If you see it as determined, then you will say it was done under determinism. If you think it was under freewill, then you will say, it was done under freewill. Therefore these are your psychological judgements rather than objective facts.

Thinking that you are free does not make you actually free. — Truth Seeker

Does it mean that Descartes "I think therefore I am." doesn't mean anything meaningful either?
I can understand your point, when it was said "I think therefore I am free." because your thinking has no object or content, so you don't know what you were thinking about.

But what about the case of "I think that I am free, therefore I am free."? In that case, you know that you think about your freedom and freewill is true, hence you confirm you are free.

If we accept that being free is a mental state, rather than some physical activities such as your lists to do, then your thinking that you are free must come from your being free, and it implies your freewill.

Likewise X is determined or under constraint also implies the epistemic judgement of one's mind, rather than something material. Hence determinism is your mental state of your judgement on your perception rather than description of some concrete object in the world. So what we are talking about is all mental concepts which are determinism or freewill. They are not concrete objects in the world. Is it correct?

If you can do that, I will be convinced that you have free will. — Truth Seeker

How about, "I think, therefore I am free." When I think I am free, I am free. It is a psychological belief that I am free.

Tomorrow, I may say, "I think I am not free, therefore I am not free." I can change my thinking to I am not free by my freewill. I think I am not free, therefore I am not free, but I am free because I thought I am not free by my freewill to think I am not free. The day after tomorrow, I can change my thinking to, "I think I am free, therefore I am free." and I am free, and so on so forth.

Because it is a psychological belief, no one can prove it or disprove it, like if you say "I believe in the existence of God.", then no one can prove or disprove it empirically or logically.

You may say "well, but you can only think because you are not banana DNA.", but I can retort "Well, No. I was able to think I was free, and changed my thinking to I was not free, and changed back again to think I was free, because I had freewill."

you were under a very successful illusion. But your choices are not made consciously on this view and your experience of choice is like a mini experience machine. That you felt it doesn’t mean it’s what’s actually happening — AmadeusD

But I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that I was under a very successful illusion. Everything around me is working too coherently and rationally, and there is nothing I can even doubt, that the world, perceptions and my decisions and choices were illusion. Can you?

I don't have any problem with other people having different views from me. In fact, I prefer it. Diversity of all kinds makes the world much more interesting than it would be if everyone were identical. — Truth Seeker

That's also what I believe too. You can think whatever you feel true as true, and express your thoughts with your interlocutors freely on the philosophical topics under discussion. That is what philosophical discussion is about suppose.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following: — Truth Seeker

Some determinants and constraints are definitely absolute such as birth, death, ageing etc. But looking them as the cause for one's decision to drink water instead of coffee sounds a bit extreme view.

I feel that determinism or freewill could actually belong to the domain of psychological beliefs. To believe that an event was determined or was undetermined depends on one's psychological state and belief rather than from objective analysis and facts. Hence it is tricky to prove them via logic or reasonings.

7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks. — Truth Seeker

I have not done anything you listed, and I am sure I will never be able to do them. But still I believe that I have freewill. If it is psychological belief, then it is just a matter of believing them i.e. believe that everything is contingent, random and free, and I have freewill to do whatever I want.

Or I can change my belief tomorrow to ditch my freewill, and start believing in hard determinism. No one will able to refute it including me. So I confess I will never be able to change your belief. I accept that you have your belief that everything in the universe is operational under hard determinism.

As I can't create an identical universe or access data from another universe, I can't prove it incontrovertibly. However, I am almost certain that it is true - as my conclusion is based on experiments and observations carried out in this universe. — Truth Seeker

It sounds like you are making choices and decisions on your beliefs and the world views. Some will say that even the hardest determinism is chosen via freewill of the believer. Hence this argument seems it has no resolution.

I am not going to say your view is wrong like some other folks would do. Your view is just different from some others and mine, and it is good to know that.

Please have a read on your own writing, and think. Where is philosophy? It is just criticisms based on your own subjective point of view and bias.

When it is a deadlock, one has to say "Hey let's move on", and that's what I have done, and you still keep accuse the position I took.

I don't need your nonsense and emotion filled writings. I have moved on long before you head butted into the thread with your nonsense. As I said, was just wondering what you were on about. Move on mate.

Maybe I did, or maybe I didn't. People sometimes misquote. I am not going to waste more of my time going back to the old posts and start investigating for possible misquoting, just because you keep saying so. There is better things to do in life.

We have agreed to move on. Just wondering what your point is keep repeating the others' sayings word by word.

You don't have any kind of instinct or intuition for what logic actually looks like, how logic actually works. You said you'd go back and read one of your logic books - I think you'd really benefit from that. — flannel jesus

Thanks for your advice. I read a Logic book once long time ago, and am back to reading another one now. I am enjoying reading it. I wish you all the best.

To prove this, flannel jesus, you would need (A <-> B) -> (~A -> ~B). — Bob Ross

Good point Bob.

You seem emotionally volatile, but I do think you have the right to say what you feel is correct, even when you are this obviously confused or disingenuous. — Bylaw

You keep repeating to the others the word by word what the others described your writings.

I didn't know you didn't know even the difference between deductive and inductive cases in logic. When it was clear that was the case, I have pointed it out to you, in which case you never paid attention, and just claimed I was wrong.

Our agreement in your private message was to put it across to OP, so some other Logic expert could help us. I never claimed I was a logic expert.

But instead of that happening, you kept on claiming I was wrong, and the folks in your bandwagon joined in to make senseless emotional ad hominem comments with rolling eyes and gaslighting statements.

So I just concluded that it would be best we leave it there, and go our own ways. It would be better time spent to engage in some other topics with the likely minded folks or just do some readings??? I will leave you to it. I tried my best to help you. But perhaps it didn't work out as we intended at first. We can always learn from all our doings, sayings, hearings and readings. ATB~

From your uncalled for private message to me, that is what anyone would interpret your intentions in the message, which proved otherwise in the OP.

But this emotionally fuelled carry-on is just waste of time. There is no meaning or point to talk with you or any of the folks in your bandwagon. Bye.

So why did you do that? Why did you group the wrong parts of my post together, in order to criticise me for something I didn't say? Why are you dishonest? — flannel jesus

The questions wasn't for you. It was for jgill. You said that you wanted to learn about Logic, and asked for my help, hence I tried. Jgill didn't seem to have a clue what he was talking about, so asked him a question on what he said. None of your business.

When it amuses. Keep going. :cool: — jgill

It was a simple and straight forward question to yourself, since you publicly objected to one's free thinking and speaking what one feels correct on the philosophical topics.

You wanting to is determined. This ignores the objection. — AmadeusD

It looks determined after the event, but before the event I was able to decide to want and choose what I wanted. Or sometimes I don't want something, but I still choose something with no wanting or thinking at all. If this is the case, then why is it determined?

Says it all :roll: — jgill

Isn't it the first principle on which philosophical discussions are based? Freedom of thinking and expressing on what you think is correct on the subject? Do you condone dishonesty, pretension and uncontrolled emotional volatility in the discussions?

That whole line was just gaslighting.
— Bylaw

Sure, it just shows your whole mental operations and judgements are based on your volatile emotions and wild imaginations rather than facts and reasons.
— Corvus

Just more gaslighting. — wonderer1

It was just to point out that comment was emotionally volatile in nature, which totally disregards the facts or logics.

Sue's car is already here every morning when I arrive, so her shift probably starts before mine.

Inductive reasoning does not look like — flannel jesus

That is definitely an inductive statement. It is never deductive statement for sure. The statement came from your experience and observations in the past. You clearly have no idea what deductive and inductive thinkings are. Herein seems to lie all the confusions.