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.

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.

And if you thought it was about deduction why in goodness name did you spend so much time calling it Modus Ponens, which is deduction? And even when you finally acknowledged that it wasn't modus tollens, did you continue to write deduction symbolic logic rather than using inductive reasoning. — Bylaw

I have tried with the different methods for logical analysis, which didn't suit the cogito for a logical analysis due to the fact it being a psychological statement. So the final conclusion was throwing out cogito into the bin for being a solipsistic subjective statement which is not fit for logical analysis.

It is intended as deduction. It's not, I was thinking and hey, look I was also existing. Then I tracked many instance of thinking and existing was happening, so it's probable that they are connected causally or something like that. — Bylaw

It is a psychological statement. It is not deduction or induction. I have said that many times, but obviously you missed it.

I disagree because it's a domino effect starting from the beginning of the universe to the present. If you remove any of the dominos from the trail of dominos the chain of causation breaks. — Truth Seeker

For example, if your partner (husband or wife) cheated you, then would you say that he / she cheated because he / she was born, and had DNA for cheating? Your partner had to cheat because the cheating was done under the determinism and constraint, that he or she couldn't be faithful. Therefore, he / she is not morally culpable?

Would you not take into account the fact, and the fact only that your partner cheated you regardless of what the domino effect of the cause for the cheating was in concluding he / she is morally culpable for the cheating?

Right, which makes it once again clear that it's not an inductive argument. How are you going to make an inductive argument with no reference to any empirical observations?
4 minutes ago — flannel jesus

That is still to be discussed and concluded. I am not sure 100% that is inductive or deductive statement. To me it is not a statement. It is grammatically incorrect to begin with.

I think~ has no content, no object. We don't know what I think means.
Who is "I" there by the way?

I chose DEDUCE to mean, that we have no empirical element of observation in the statement. It was used in loose sense at the time. But here we are into the rigid meaning of Deductive and Inductive statements.

Analytic statement means that the statement itself already has its meaning, or the premises already contains the meaning of the conclusion.

Inductive statement means that both premise and conclusion are based on the empirical events or facts.

I am not sure on your answers. Where is analytic part in the statements?

See? We don't even agree on the statements were deductive or inductive, and were trying to argue if they were true.

What do you think the word "deduce" means Corvus? What relationship do you think there might be between "deduce" and "deductive logic"? — flannel jesus

Here is a question for you. Is "I think therefore I am" a deductive or inductive statement?
How about "If it rains, the ground will be wet." ????

What do you think the word "deduce" means Corvus? What relationship do you think there might be between "deduce" and "deductive logic"? — flannel jesus

I understand deduce as logical thinking from A priori or analytic concepts. Induction means that you come to logical conclusion via external empirical observations.

The poor neck-beard can't afford heating. :worry: — Banno

It must be still winter chill season in England.

I didn't make fallacious comment.
Please note this point. The internet says "It is fallacious to deny antecedent." But it is only fallacious in deductive syllogistic case. We have been talking about an inductive case. It is not fallacious to deny antecedent in inductive logic.

No probs mate. Jgill said he is not believing with this discussions keep going on here, so there must be folks thinking that we are having stupid conversation. So did I in some respect. I have not agreed with your claim I was wrong on something. I said yes to come to closure on the discussion. So, if you still want to make clear what your point was, then you better let me know about it in the private message. I will wait you there for your exact point what you think is unclear.

If you achieved what you planed to achieve, whatever it might be, I am fine with that.
There is nothing wrong for someone to be wrong. People keep learning and changing their views and ideas. If one was right on a point, that doesn't make him a teacher or the greatest philosopher in history. Important thing is, that one keeps learning and improving one's knowledge.

P->Q and Not Q -> Not P TF values is exactly the same in the truth table in one of my Logic book here. If P -> Q is false then Not Q -> Not P is false. And all the other cases are True.

No one said you were secretive. But once the points were made in the posts, you could sit and think for yourself, and get the points if your intention was to learn something. You didn't have to keep on going drumming up the crowds for claiming right or wrong on someone's idea, after all what was passing trivial comment in a post. It just feels there is very little point in the bizarre attempt of the repeating the same thing, and from learning point of view.

My point was that if the case was Deduction, then denying antecedent is fallacy (that is what internet says), but if it is Induction, then denying antecedent is not fallacy. Did you take that into consideration?

But since now you're saying it's a Fallacy, then the above quote that you agreed with can't be true. — flannel jesus

I can say anything I feel correct. Whether you agree to it or not, that doesn't make anything different. After all the whole of you point seems to be dependent on the internet searches and some other folks agreeing with you. My point is more trying to learn something in Logic. I am not really bothered if what who said was wrong or right, as long as I learn something. I am not here to prove you are right, and I am wrong, or I am right, or you are wrong. If that was your ultimate motive for privately messaging me with the point, then I am a bit disappointed with your stance. Give it a rest, and move on. There are even some folks complaining that the posts that you spew out are hurting his eyes.

So you were incorrect about that when you said that?

And then earlier in this thread you agreed with the following: — flannel jesus

I seems to be the case your whole point was not trying to find and learn something in logic, but trying to assert my one post was wrong. Is it that meaningful to you and to the rest of the world?

A good video for the thread.

No, it isn't. Truth tables are easy enough to learn, and easy to do, if you don't have too many variables.
(p=>q)=>(~p=>~q) is false when p is false and q is true. — tim wood

Well spotted Tim. I am a bit too lazy to be staring at Truth tables, and was too busy at the time, and was guessing. It depends on the TF values of p q in the table. There is nothing always.

No. You would not. Your present is the result of your past. — Truth Seeker

Should we not trace the most immediate causes for our actions? If we go too far back for accounting the causes, then we might have to go back to the big bang for as the cause for every events taken place since the start of universe. It wouldn't be very meaningful.

For my freewill to decide to drink water now instead of coffee is that because I wanted to drink water, not because my DNA was not banana's DNA, or the universe happened, or I was born.

The reason I could read your post in English was because I got email that you have replied to my post, and I decided to read it (which is the most immediate cause for the action), not because I was born, studied to read in English, didn't have DNA of banana, or the universe started 500 billion years ago.

I could have chosen not drink anything at all, or could have drank a cola, but I chose to drink water because I wanted to. I could have gone to bed instead of reading your post in English, but I decided to read it. I had my freewill at the time. Now it is past the moments, I no longer have the freewill. Those events are now under the hard determinism. But for my future and present actions, I still have my freewill to exercise as I want and desire.

Would you agree? Or is my point not quite making sense? :)

You guys need to find a bedroom. I'm surprised we others are allowed to witness the proceedings. — jgill

Was just trying to be a help for the request from FJ for clarification.