The whole notion of "free reasoning" seems rather odd. That doesn't seem to mesh with the logical notions of validity, soundness, implication, etc. We don't choose what follows logically. — Terrapin Station
So would you say that you're choosing to believe the principle of noncontradiction, for example, where you could just as easily choose to believe the opposite? — Terrapin Station
No, I choose to believe in non-contradiction, because it compares better — Pippen
Free will is impossible with or without determinism and it's not circular reasoning ... it's a basic argument. Namely:
(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to control your fundamental nature.
(2) But you can't control your fundamental nature.
(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
This is true with or without determinism. — luckswallowsall
But from your (3) it also follows that you can't control your very argument, so how can you believe in it? That's exactly my problem. — Pippen
Many neurobiologists conclude from premises X, Y, Z to the conclusion that our will is unfree. But that means that their very argument is based on unfree reasoning, i.e. having no alternatives, undermining any confidence or justification in that process and therefore in the conclusion. — Pippen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.