So, let me clarify. You're going with: "'X is self evident because it begs the question' does not beg the question if I cannot justify X"? — InPitzotl

I don't understand your statement; can you rephrase it another way? Otherwise if it helps, begging the question to defend a claim does not entail that the claim is false. It actually means the claim is not a self-contradiction, which is a good thing.

(1) is a red herring; not being evidenced in no way suggests self-evident. (2) is an appeal to popularity. — InPitzotl

(1) The term "self-evident" literally means "evidenced by itself". You don't see it? Similar to how the term "Triangle" has the words "tri" (three) and "angle" in it.
(2) When a claim cannot be evidenced any other way, then the appeal to popularity is sufficient to tip the scale in its favour. We could also use a reductio ad absurdum too instead.

Me? Absolutely! [...] — InPitzotl

Your lengthy paragraph seems to be an attempt at giving an adequate reason to justify the PoSR. Now if that reason is inadequate, then it fails to justify the claim; and if it is adequate (or in other words sufficient), then it presupposes the PoSR, that is, it begs the question.

What use would that have? — InPitzotl

To claim that the alternative to the LNC has no use that you see, does not prove the LNC to be true.

You should be interested in all of the possible ways you can be wrong. — InPitzotl

I am. You just haven't shown how I was wrong yet, since we are still arguing about the PoSR. Of course, I trust your comment applies to you too.

So if this man does poach an egg, but "could have" scrambled it, it's not true that the egg was scrambled. — InPitzotl

Sure; but so what? Free will means that before the choice is made, there are numerous possibilities, like poaching and scrambling. As you wrote, before choosing to poach an egg, the man "could have" scrambled it.

There's no change in my position; I think you may have misinterpreted something. Doubly so, because if you assume I would never question my own opinions [...] — InPitzotl

Position, opinion; same things. I am not saying it is a bad thing to change it. I just wanted to clarify this is what happened, so that I understand your new points.

But calling that self-evident because it begs the question is literally rationalizing away begging the question. — InPitzotl

Not if there is no other way to justify it. A claim is self-evident if (1) it cannot be evidenced (i.e. justified) by anything else, and (2) if everyone believes it to be true by default (to remove the possibility of its opposite also being self-evident). Now can you think of a way to justify the PoSR without begging the question?

If you start with traditional logic and deny the law of non-contradiction, you wind up with the principle of explosion; given PoE, you can prove 2=5 (though PoE could be avoided by using paraconsistent logics). — InPitzotl

So what? Why should we not believe in the PoE or that 2=5, if not because it violates the law of non-contradiction?

If your free will could lead to either then it's not a sufficient reason for either. — InPitzotl

This is not how I interpret sufficiency. E.g. Observing that a floor can support a 10 kg weight is sufficient to conclude that it can support 10 kg or less; but it could also support more. But maybe you can give me an example of what you mean by efficiency?

Your assessment is correct under the condition that we know nothing about the perceptions. It is equivalent at this point to guessing the results of tossing 3 coins.

But once we add the information that all three subjects always perceive the same thing, then the probability calculation changes completely. It is a lot more like rolling 3 dice, and knowing that the results are always 6-6-6, we are then inclined to believe that the dice are loaded.

Nope; it's always possible our acceptance of PoSR is in error. What is its justification? — InPitzotl

So it looks like you are changing the position you took here where you said you saw no problem with the PoSR.
Anyways, the PoSR is a self-evident principle, because asking for a justification is asking for a sufficient reason for it, which begs the question. This is similar to asking for a justification for the Law of Non-Contradiction.

This type of cause is not a sufficient reason. A sufficient reason for A must cause A; it cannot cause B (where B is an alternate) — InPitzotl

Why can't free will have sufficient power to cause A if it chooses A, and cause B if it chooses B?

the need is simple; you're making an argument where you enumerate possibilities, rule some out, and have the rest "by default". You can't do this properly if your enumeration is incomplete. — InPitzotl

Sure, but as previously stated, as both determined and undetermined things can be both predictable and unpredictable, then I don't see the point of adding the "predictable" property to the list.

Semi-predictable is perfectly coherent, even useful; it's why your smart phone has a weather app on it. — InPitzotl

Okay. So semi-predictability is like probability. Note that most systems that have a probable outcome are fully determined. The lack of full predictability does not come from random effects, but from our lack of knowledge of all the causes.

Right on.
Also I have edited my previous post: (1/10)*(1/10)*(1/10)=1/1000, not 1/100.

The probabilities of outcomes change based on your knowledge of the system. As the knowledge in the first paragraph above is different than the one in the second paragraph, the probabilities are different.

Justified means you have good reason to think a thing is true; having a justified belief doesn't guarantee truth. That's why we talk about knowledge as JTB's instead of just JB's. — InPitzotl

But how else can you determine if a thing is true, other than by using justification or reasoning?

Now backing out of hypothetical-land, there was a real, not hypothetical, cup to the right of my mouse pad. Think of a way to find out what color it was. — InPitzotl

You look at it, and based on the color you perceive, you conclude it is reasonable to believe the cup is the color you perceived, until given a reason to believe otherwise.

Banno was questioning the premise. The only "error" here is that he did not as you requested accept the premise. — InPitzotl

But if you and I both accepted the PoSR premise as true, then both you and I must conclude Banno made an error by contradicting the PoSR. We must accept the consequences of our assumptions.

[...] if you interpret PoSR in a causality sense, it is the definition of determinism. — InPitzotl

But B was possible before the choice was made. As so:
At time T1, both A and B are possible choices. At time T2, we make a choice which causes A to manifest, and not B. If free will necessitates choices, then it can exist during T1. And this makes sense: we choose to act before we act.

If you like, but shouldn't you be interested in all of the ways in which your assumptions can be wrong? — InPitzotl

I just don't think we are going to make progress on this one. I don't understand why we need to add the property of predictability, and how 2b can be always predictable even though cause A may lead to different effects, and in 2c, how a thing can be sometimes predictable and sometimes not. If a thing is not always predictable, then it must be unpredictable.

Hello again.

Knowing nothing else, indeed the probability of a true perception is 1/2, and a false perception is 1/2, and thus the probability of X, Y and Z all having a true perception is 1/8, and all having a false perception is also 1/8.

But we know something else: All three perceive the same thing P.
This new knowledge changes the probability. To simplify, let's suppose they can only perceive 10 different things ever. The probability of all three perceiving the same false perception P is now (1/10)*(1/10)*(1/10)=1/1000. Since the only alternative is a true perception, that probability is 1-(1/1000)=999/1000.

Closer when? By what metric? What is it you imagine is happening? — InPitzotl

Knowledge is "justified true belief", where "justified" means you have sound argument for why it is true. If you believe something that is true for the wrong reasons, then you have not acquired any knowledge.

Now consider what you would need to do to get to the truth of the question: "What color is that cup?" [...] — InPitzotl

Relax. I said the purpose of debates is to find truth. I did not say it was the only way to find truth. Of course your method of looking at the cup is a sufficient way... At least to make your opinion the Prima Facie, and thus the burden of proof is shifted to the other side. Here's what I mean:

You claim the cup is red because it looks red to you (this is an argument by the way: position defended by a reason). But I claim it is in fact white, and the reason you see it red is because you are wearing glasses with red lenses, and once you remove them, you will see the cup as white. You then remove the glasses, and indeed you now see the cup as white. I have refuted your original argument, and the Prima Facie has shifted to the other side. This was a debate, and we got closer to knowing the truth.

No, an irrefutable argument is simply one that cannot be refuted. A proof establishes an argument is valid. — InPitzotl

I would have said that a proof needs to be sound, not just valid. But fine; minor disagreement.

Because I can construct contradictory arguments that are irrefutable. — InPitzotl

Can you give an example? I claim it is not possible.

Both arguments can be valid. At most one can be sound. — InPitzotl

Sure. I meant sound then.

You're begging the question. PoSR is unnecessary to presume for logic. It is a premise. — InPitzotl

I personally believe it is a law of logic, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose it is merely a premise. Okay, but it is a premise we have accepted as true. So if Banno's demonstration contradicts a true premise, then there is an error.

To say that A has a sufficient reason is to say that A manifests for some reason X such that if X is present it will manifest. If A manifesting excludes B, as in this case, and A manifests for reason X, and X is sufficient for A, then B is impossible. — InPitzotl

Why do you say "A manifesting excludes B"? B can still manifest later.
Are you perhaps conflating the terms "impossible" with "not actual"? E.g. Both options A and B are possible. Before I choose, A and B are non-actual (or in potential). Once I choose A, A becomes actual (what you call manifest), and B remains non-actual, but still possible.

Random roughly means unpredictable. [...] — InPitzotl

Sorry, I just don't understand what you are saying in this whole section. I don't get your states 2b and 2c. Additionally, random is not equal to unpredictable. Things could be fully determined, and yet remain unpredictable if we cannot observe the cause. But as you originally said this was only a minor objection, maybe we can just drop it?

There are invalid arguments for true things — InPitzotl

Yes but you wouldn't be closer to knowing the truth; where knowledge means "justified true belief".

and irrefutable arguments for false things — InPitzotl

How would you know this if the arguments cannot be refuted? :wink:
More seriously though, an "irrefutable argument" is also called a "proof", which gives truth with certainty.

Rather, what's critical is what things justify your belief and whether or not they are affected by the veracity of the thing. — InPitzotl

Right; justified true belief. But what do you mean by "justified", if not that the position is defended by a valid reason? Because this is also the definition of a valid argument.

Okay, good. But you do realize that both you and Banno cannot be correct, right? But both of your views are not "nothing but abritrary opinions". — InPitzotl

I would not be arguing if I thought both our views were compatible. And so if contradicting, then one (or both) of us must have made an error: Inasmuch as math does not contradict math, reason does not contradict reason.

Banno's view is logically consistent, and supported by evidence, legitimately. It may or may not in the final analysis be correct, but it's certainly not fallacious. — InPitzotl

It is not logically consistent if it contradicts a law of logic that is the PoSR.

Given I choose A among options A and B out of LFW, PAP demands B is possible. PoSR demands there be a sufficient reason for A, suggesting B is not possible, because A both happened for that sufficient reason and that reason was sufficient for A to happen. — InPitzotl

Both options A and B are possible, AND there is a sufficient reason for choosing A over B: free will. Where do you see a contradiction?

your list of determinism, randomness, and free will may not be exhaustive. — InPitzotl

It is. Due to the Law of Excluded Middle: Either p or not-p is true.
Either "Cause A always gives Effect B" (Determinism) or "Cause A does not always give Effect B".
And if the latter, it is either because there exists in Cause A the power to choose the effect (ie Free Will), or there does not (ie Randomness).

Volition: Alright, I think I'm getting the gist of it. Where I'm going with these questions, is that it sounds like the volition of the robot "supervenes" on its physical parts and interaction with the world, as opposed to being a power of the mind or consciousness.

Your position is that by debating this you're going to find truth. People have been debating this for over two millennia... did they find the truth? — InPitzotl

He who's arguments have not been refuted is the closest to knowing the truth. That is in fact the entire purpose of sincere arguments. If the pro-souls debaters over the millennia were not refuted and their opponents were, then the pro-souls were indeed closer to knowing the truth (and vice versa of course). But don't worry too much about other people, as truth is not found by consensus. What matters is whether my summary argument can be refuted or not.

Which part of that rebuttal is nothing but and arbitrary opinion? — InPitzotl

I don't see one. You started with an opinion, namely that Banno is right (about not all physical things being determined), and defended it with a reason. That's good. This is by the way the definition of an argument: a position (or opinion) defended by a reason.

And that is what I think your (5) premise really is... it's not logic, it's just your intuition. — InPitzotl

I feel we are finally having a productive debate. So then, what do you say is wrong with premise (5)? That the PoSR disallows for randomness, or that the PoSR is simply not true?

Volition is still goal oriented behavior — InPitzotl

So volition is goal oriented behaviour with acts in the world. So far so good?
And a wind-up doll, who is a simple program (ie wind-up system) with mechanical parts, does not have volition.
And a robot, who is a more complex program with mechanical parts, has volition.
And so would you say the critical part to volition is complex programming?

Debates are worse than useless... they are counter-productive to truth. — InPitzotl

Debates are formal discussions in which arguments are put forward; and the function of (sincere) arguments is to find truth; therefore debates lead to truth. All the discussions in this forum are debates, minus the formality part.

In a debate, two sides go in with an opinion, two sides go out with the same opinion they went in with, both sides think they won, and both sides delude themselves into becoming more confident because they "won". — InPitzotl

That's precisely the type of problems that rules such as "Fulfilling the Onus of Proof" aim to resolve. Both sides cannot "win" if one side has not fulfilled the onus of proof when it applies to them.

My beef with you is that you're confusing your opinions with logic. — InPitzotl

Which part in the summary is nothing but an arbitrary opinion?

Don't take Derek too seriously here [...] — InPitzotl

Ok, so if I understand correctly, your intent of bringing up the video was neither to attack or defend the points made in the summary, but only to show that it was related; is that right?

It is going to involve those mechanical parts, critically so. — InPitzotl

But if all you mean by "volition" is "respond to external information to achieve a goal", then mere programs without mechanical parts can do this too. There exists programs which goal is to win at a game of chess for example.

The conflict between these two things provides an experimental way to test which is true, and the experiments conflict with any classical results. — InPitzotl

It may disprove classical mechanics, but not the laws of thoughts, and so does not conflict with the PoSR. As per my summary, there can be a non-physical cause, which is not necessarily empirically detectable, and if so, then falls outside the realm of science; but not of philosophy.

I'm having an incredibly difficult time taking you seriously when you say that you fail to see the relationship between this and your summary. — InPitzotl

The guy in the video says that one of the two explanations given by physicists is that "entangled particles can signal each other faster than light" which would be a sufficient cause. So I did not see any real objection to my summary.

Also as a general rule, giving links to other sources is not an argument. Ideally one would formulate an argument, and may add a link for additional, but non-necessary, information. Part of the onus of proof is to do the ground work for it.

A robot is not even a program, much less nothing more than one. Robots and programs are different things. — InPitzotl

But a robot is essentially a program + mechanical parts; and if a robot is going to have volition, it's going to be through its program and not through its mechanical parts. No?

I'll just pick on (6) through (8). What, then, do you have to say about Bell's Theorem ("cliff note" version by Derek/Veritassium)? — InPitzotl

Me? Nothing. I failed to see the relation with my summary. But it's your objection; not mine. What then do you have to say about it with regards to the summary?

Ok. And how so?

Hello.
I believe the notions of determinism and free will only apply to the topic of causality, not the topic of identity. But do you think identity is relevant to the discussion?

There is no more a contradiction between the computer program following a program line by line not intentionally doing so and yet the same computer trying to clean troughs, as there is in the shaky person having their hands shake not intentionally shaking them and yet the same shaky person shifting a gear trying to shift. — InPitzotl

I think there is. If A is nothing but B which is doing nothing but C, then A is doing nothing but C. If a robot is nothing but a program which is doing nothing but executing lines, then the robot is doing nothing but executing lines. The robots' "intentions" is thus only an expression for what we perceive it is doing, and points to nothing in reality.


As for the rest of the discussion, let's clean it up by summarizing where I think we are.

(1) There are only 3 possible explanations for all events: determinism, free will, and randomness, as so:
(2) Determinism: Cause A always gives Effect B.
(3) Free Will: Cause A may give different effects; and this is explained by Cause A having free will.
(4) Randomness: Cause A (including "nothing") may give different effects; but this is not explained by Cause A having free will.
(5) The PoSR disallows for randomness. This only leaves determinism and free will for possible explanations for all events.

(6) From observation, it appears everything that is physical (ie matter and energy) is determined, with perhaps the exception of photons and humans.
(7) Photons: Science states events with photons have no physical cause.
(8) But PoSR demands a sufficient cause.
(9) So they must have a non-physical cause, which could be free will or other.
(10) If free will, this proves that free will is non-physical.
(11) If other, then the cause is both non-physical and determined.
(12) In both cases, it follows that everything that is physical is determined.

(13) Humans: Humans have free will (assumed in the OP).
(14) Humans have a part that is non-physical.

The robot in cleaning up troughs is different than the computer in following its program line by line. — InPitzotl

So my question is, how are they different, such that a robot can have intentions? I'm fairly sure a robot is nothing more than a computer executing a program line by lines, with sensors attached.

[...] it's your model of human action... namely, humans have free will which implies they are not fully determined (your words) which requires non-physical souls. But other than having non-physical souls, it's implied that you agree humans can actually exist. — InPitzotl

?? Sorry; I don't understand the point of this whole paragraph, or the previous demonstration with steps 1 through 6 anymore. How does this fit with the original objection about the laws of thoughts?

You're trying to prove that physics is fully determined; you can't just hold that as a premise. — InPitzotl

That's not what I was trying to prove with the previous syllogisms. These were merely a response to your 6-step objection, which admittedly I apparently have misunderstood.

I thought we already showed that the physical is determined: PoSR. Let's loop back. I think there are only 2 alternatives to determinism: randomness and free will. PoSR disallows for randomness, and I believe you already dismissed the hypothesis that photons have free will. This only leaves determinism.

But let me just try this a different way. [...] now photons and radioactive atoms are not physical. — InPitzotl

This is really straining away from common sense. Of course photons are physical; why wouldn't they be? And even if they weren't, this doesn't mean they are undetermined. As per above, the only alternative to determinism is free will, and this goes for all things, regardless if they are physical or not.

As the zombie carries out the command, he is indeed intending it — InPitzotl

Oh okay. So "intention" means "aiming towards a goal", not necessarily choosing that goal. I will think a bit more about this definition; to see if true intentions can exist without freely choosing them.

The zombie is an agent; it has to navigate a complex environment that it doesn't have full knowledge about. [...] The wind-up doll will go through the exact actions needed to clean the troughs; all built-in. — InPitzotl

A simple wind-up doll, fine. But what if we add sensors to the doll, so it can see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, like the zombie; and make the program a lot more complex such as "if shovel not found at location A, then search for it", etc. At this point, is there still a difference between the zombie and the doll-with-sensors-and-complex-program?

But that just sounds like AlphaZero building its own valuation system, which it does deterministically. — InPitzotl

I thought we agreed that computers, being nothing but programs, cannot have intentions. People on the other hand can have intentions, and intentionally choose our own ranking of values. Now for the tricky part: maybe there is such a thing as "deterministic intentions", that is, we always aim towards the goal which results in the greater value for us. But by this definition, then intention towards values themselves must be different than deterministic intentions.

6. State A involves the physical. — InPitzotl

Does this mean State A is fully physical or merely that some of it is physical? I hope the two syllogisms below cover both options.

P1.1. All that is fully physical is determined, so that state A will always evolve to state B.
P1.2. State A is all physical.
C1. State A will always evolve to state B.

or

P2.1. All that is fully physical is determined, so that state A will always evolve to state B.
P2.2. State A does not always evolve to state B.
C2. State A is not fully physical.

If a photon has just original causation, then it's not fully determined. We need never have photons with free will. — InPitzotl

One of the expressions of the PoSR is that "every change (or event) necessitates a sufficient cause".
If photon A always causes effect B, then that's sufficient. But if sometimes photon A also causes effect C, then there is a change between causation A-B and causation A-C, and this change necessitates a cause other than photon A alone.

Suppose there's a classic, old, voodoo style zombie (not a p-zombie) hanging around.[...] — InPitzotl

So you would say the original command to go clean the troughs is not intended by the zombie, but everything else in that set of acts is intended with the goal of cleaning the troughs, is that correct? Would this therefore be different than a computer program which only goes through a programming code line by line with no intentions involved? Genuinely asking.

That's fine, but your example took something like a desire (preference for vanilla), and added a second variable to it (cost). What is the purpose of having two variables involved in the choice? [...] — InPitzotl

Right. The reason I added the second variable was because my position is that free will doesn't apply for the taste example only, but does apply if we have conflicting values. I'll try again.

In a situation with only one type of value, like choosing between chocolate or vanilla, then free will is not really involved; because free will or not, everyone would simply pick their preferred flavour, and that's that. Free will only applies at the "very beginning", when it comes to ranking our values in order of priority. E.g. ethics #1, safety #2, pleasure #3. Then in a situation where several values are in conflict, then our intentions are directed with the end of achieving the higher values over the lower ones. Note, I acknowledge I did not defend why that is; because as per the OP, this free will is assumed to be true for this discussion.

[...] There is no solid a proiri reason that the universe must fit our preconceived notions of how it works. — InPitzotl

Sure there is. The Laws of Thoughts are also called Laws of Logic. Take the Law of Non-Contradictions. If two propositions contradict, then at least one of these is necessarily false. This not only means that we made an error in our reasoning, but more importantly it means that one of these propositions is not reflective of reality. If this wasn't the case, then these Laws would serve no purpose.

[...] if I, a conscious sentient agent, can be an original cause; how come a photon cannot be an original cause, or a radioactive atom? — InPitzotl

Yes, we can also entertain the hypothesis that photons have free will. But I think the OP argument would still hold, because this power of free will still cannot be physical if science has determined that no antecedent physical cause exist.

So people always intend to do the good (at least in their view), and when they don't do the good, then they have regret.

But is this even logically possible? The following appears to be a logical necessity:
Intention + Possibility = Act
If you intend to do something, and it is possible for you to do it, then you will necessarily do it. If you did not do it, it was either because it was not possible, or because you did not really intend it.

E.g. Who can say "Yes I cheated, but it was unintentional"? (Aside from this of course)

Particles don't have fixed positions, they instead have probablity distributions. So you have cause A and then 50% chance for effect B, 20 % chance fo effect C etc. — Echarmion

No objection; just thinking out loud. What you describe indeed does not fit determinism, and yet a probability distribution still implies some sort of order. It is odd that it is not fully ordered, yet not fully random... For some reason, I would be more willing to accept full absence of order over partial order.

This does not normally occur on the macro scale, but the jury is still out on exactly when this breaks down into determined effects. — Echarmion

That seems to me simply the result of Central Limit Theorem; where the macro scale averages out the inconsistencies. If so, then I'm pretty sure it's quantifiable with some confidence interval.

There is of course the "hidden causes" line of argument that claims this apparent probablity distribution is just dues to lack of knowledge. But so far experimental results have not backed it up. I think there have actually been a number of experiments that make "hidden causes" seem less likely. — Echarmion

This poses a difficulty. I am fairly sure that the Scientific Method is founded on the Principle of Sufficient Reason; and any scientific theory that goes against its founding principles would be self-defeating, like sawing off the branch it's sitting on.

humans indeed are a highly social species, so nurture (for which "psychological history" is longhand) is very significant. But nature is also very significant; — InPitzotl

That's fine. The point was that to explain our resulting taste, nature and nurture are sufficient without having to bring in free will.

Making preferences complex isn't impressive. — InPitzotl

It's not about complexity. I'm okay with computers making highly complex decisions and still being fully determined. It's about how we all feel we freely chose our values; which once chosen, determine the rest of our behaviour accordingly.

I've no problem with choice, and no problem with volition; [...] I'm agnostic on the free will question — InPitzotl

I still don't understand the distinction between volition and free will. How can intentions truly exist if they are not freely chosen? To contrast, AlphaZero, being nothing but a program that goes through the motions, has no intentions.

(1) You're telling God what to do, [...] (1) comes into play with how you argue that physics is fully determined; it must be, "laws of thoughts" demand it to be. That to me sounds not so much like an argument as it does an excuse not to give one. — InPitzotl

That sounds to me like an ad hominem attack. Are you objecting because there is a flaw in my reasoning, or merely because it seems I am telling God what to do?

(2) You want to have your cake and eat it too. [...] when it comes to how we behave, this rule suddenly gets thrown out the window; "laws of thoughts" demand physics to be fully determined; "free will" demands us to not be. That's (2). — InPitzotl

This is a misunderstanding. Laws of Thoughts, specifically the Principle of Sufficient Reason, does not allow for random causality. This therefore leaves two possibilities for causality. Free Will, and Determinism for things which don't possess free will. Neither of these possibilities violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason, as far as I can tell. But if it does, let me know.

Defending the existence of free will would take too long, and so it is assumed to be true in this discussion. However, if we were to argue about free will, then I agree that Ockham's Razor would be a good starting point, and that the free-willer would then have the onus of proof.

I think I understand what you are saying better now. Yes, if self-control is not a result of knowledge but is applied alongside knowledge, there perhaps it is indeed synonymous to free will.

As I said earlier, another fact is that we can act on ideas that do not reflect reality...therefore we are not marionettes being played by the world around us. — Chester

I'm not sure about this one though. Ideas like unicorn indeed do not reflect reality, but they might still be caused by our perception of reality in the first place. I don't think determinism and imagination are incompatible.

I am inclined to agree with you that calling the result "determined" as per some clockwork model of the universe, isn't supported by current science. — Echarmion

the laws of physics are descriptive — Echarmion

Perhaps they are not prescriptive, but they are predictive. — Banno

I agree that when we say "physical things obey the laws of physics", it is merely an expression to say there is uniformity or consistency in causality, and the laws of physics describe that uniformity. That's also all I meant in P1.

But there appears to be a discrepancy with our meaning of the term "determined". My understanding of "determined" is that a given Cause A will consistently result in Effect B; not necessarily that we can know with certainty what Cause A and Effect B are. Do you mean something else by it?

I like the first one better, as it is simpler and thus easier for me to follow.

You are correct that the argument can only go as far as proving that we have a non-physical part, and that the claim that this is the soul is an add-on at the end. That's okay, I think the hard work is in the first part for most people. After that, it is not great effort to connect this part which is non-physical and has free will, to what is commonly referred to as the soul.

If someone assesses an action as violating the Golden Rule, but also thinks that they should do it anyway for some other reason, then that means they think there are (at least) exceptions to the Golden Rule, and it isn't always morally binding. — Pfhorrest

The Golden Rule is an absolute; here's why. Fairness is defined as treating everyone equally; no discrimination. Nobody in their right mind can judge that being unfair is morally good, and that being fair is morally bad. And unfairness necessarily results when breaking the Golden Rule.

Consider beliefs for comparison. [and the rest of this post] — Pfhorrest

Yes I agree with this when it comes to beliefs; but not when it comes to morality. You make it sound like the way people act is always out of the honest belief that the act is morally good. But this is absurd for a couple of reasons.

(1) Rapists exist; and nobody in their right mind would honestly believe rape to ever be the morally good. They do it because of some sort of pleasure it brings, not out of moral duty.
(2) A prerequisite of guilt is that the defendant knows or should have known that the act was bad. Thus if all moral errors are honest errors, then nobody can be a morally bad person.

Maybe the following test will work. As a child, have you ever lied? If so, was it really out of honest belief that it was your moral duty to lie at this time; or was it because it was an easy escape while knowing it was morally wrong?

Hey all. Sorry, I'm a little behind in answering the comments. Will be back at it tomorrow.

I actually am haha. But that is besides the point of the discussion which is about the argument in the OP.

That you can intend to move demonstrates volition. That you have no choice by definition rules out free will. Essentially, you're conflating free will with volition — InPitzotl

It's weird because in french, "free will" is translated as "volonté libre", and "volition" as "volonté". Be that as it may, a choice is still present as long as you have the choice to intend one way or another. Intentions must be free and have multiple choices, otherwise they would be no intentions at all. And if you tie me up so that I am immobile, we say this was done "against my will", that is, against my intention, my consent.

If it's a logical fallacy to say that nothing causes the photon to go left instead of right, how is it not a logical fallacy to say that nothing causes me to pick vanilla instead of chocolate? — InPitzotl

Alright. You pick vanilla because vanilla tastes better than chocolate for you, and since this choice in taste is not voluntary, it must come from psychological history; and everyone with the same history would do the same. Now if that was the whole story, then indeed positing free will would be superfluous. But let's add to the example that vanilla is more expensive than chocolate. You then have to choose between two conflicting values: taste and money. And choosing between values is voluntary, and so is caused by our power of free will (or volition if you prefer).

We have a few disagreements.

Someone who cheats on their spouse thus either honestly thought that the pleasure it brought them was more important than the other consequences of it, and acted according to that judgement, in what they felt was a justified, and therefore moral — Pfhorrest

By "moral value" I mean breaking the golden rule of ethics: do onto others as you would want them to do onto you. This rule is simple enough that most people can correctly judge what is morally right and wrong; and this removes the possibility of honest rational mistake about moral judgements.

or else they thought that they should act out of more consideration for those other consequences than for their own pleasure, and yet did not act that way, doing something they thought was wrong ought of weakness of will. — Pfhorrest

Once judged that cheating is morally wrong, then they can freely choose between moral value or pleasure (picture the angel and demon on each shoulder like in cartoons). If they ended up cheating from choosing pleasure, then the act was intended, willed. If they chose the moral good but somehow ended cheating anyways (say they were drugged), then the act indeed happened against their will; but free will must exist for something to go against it.

So the free choice is at the step of choosing between moral value and pleasure, and then the remaining outcome is determined.

I think what you refer to is "will power" or "self-control", which is indeed related to free will but different still. You say we obtain free will through educating ourselves; but then what causes us to educate ourselves if not free will? Something cannot cause itself into existence.

I think dogs only have instinct; and can walk away from a treat once we have modified their instinct through training.

Free will is supposed to involve choice, which is none of the above things. I voluntarily reach towards the chocolate ice cream after I deliberate about whether to get chocolate or vanilla. — InPitzotl

Hmmm... I don't think a choice in outcome is necessary for free will. You can tie me up so as to remove my choice in outcome of moving vs not moving, but this would not take away my free will, because I can still choose to intend to move.

Does Free Will violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason? — InPitzotl

I don't believe so.
E.g. What caused this person to act in such a way, if it did not follow the cause-to-effect we observe in other physical things? Answer: His free will.

Hello.

We are also animals. — Daniel

Sure. But what's your point with regards to this discussion?

But you have used that claim to further claim that the world is determined. If the 'laws of physics' are merely a description, which they are, then any claim of determinism is unjustified. — A Seagull

I don't understand this statement. If nature is uniform, consistent in its effects resulting from a given cause, then it is indeed determined; where the opposite of "determine" is "randomness", when free will is not involved.

Nature is not uniform, there is no claim for that in physics, and any claim to uniformity is at best, very very approximate and even then only in some circumstances. — A Seagull

So is the alternative randomness? This seems to fail the Principle of Sufficient Reason. In addition, how do you explain technology without the Uniformity of Nature? E.g. planes consistently fly.

The important bit...
And again, what is salient is that intelligent, practical folk accept these uncaused events as part of the mechanism that allows all our electronic devices to function.
— Banno — Banno

Meh. People have developed technology in the past before fully understanding the theory behind it; like boats before fully understanding buoyancy. Also I'm wondering if order can result out of chaos, which sounds like what something-out-of-nothing would be.

...four...
— Samuel Lacrampe

There's your problem. — Banno

Oh ok. I didn't know this was disputed as a Law of Thought. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is self-evidently true, because any attempt to give a sufficient reason for or against it would presuppose it. This is why it fits as part of the basic laws of thoughts or logic.

it's that these cannot both be known (or determined) with certainty at all. — Wayfarer

That's okay. What I meant by "determined" is not that we can know it with certainty, but that the cause-effect is consistent or uniform, even if we don't know it. So identical causes yield identical effects.

There is no non-physical 'part' because 'parts' generally characterise physical things; in other words, physical things are composed of parts, and it is not as if 'the soul' is one part amongst others. — Wayfarer

Indeed, "parts" don't apply to non-physical things. But if we define a human being as the whole system of body and soul, then the soul is a part of that system.

science can't account for the 'subjective unity of individual perception'. — Wayfarer

Thomas Aquinas was already talking about this back then (but I cannot find the source of this anymore).

nothing causes [...] — Banno

I would accept the claim "we don't know what causes [...]", but "nothing causes [...]" is a logical fallacy.
It goes against the Principle of Sufficient Reason; which is one of the four Laws of Thoughts.

Also, curious about the butterflies...

To say that all physical things "obey the laws of physics" is merely an expression. It refers to the Uniformity of Nature, which is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same. For a given cause A, we always expect to see effect B.