(May 8, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: The world as we know it doesn't allow for the absence of causality, so you do have to conceive of non-causality if you're going to claim otherwise(which you can't, of course).

I agree that "the world as we know it " doesn't allow for the absence of causality but I do not agree that the world doesn't allow for it. We cannot prove that causality doesn't exist.

Quote:[...] so you do have to conceive of non-causality if you're going to claim otherwise(which you can't, of course).

I don't need to conceive of it at all, that's my point. Because my own failure of the imagination/inability to conceive is irrelevant to the actual existence of causality. My point is you can't prove causality doesn't exist. No one can but it doesn't matter because it's just obvious it exists.

Humans are incapable of visualizing or conceiving of the world existing without causality, and I can't conceive of any other possible lifeform in the unvierse ever conceiving of its nonexistence either. But again just because I can't conceive of something doesn't mean it's impossible. My own failure of the imagination does not imply that it's not possible.

Quote:Causality isn't meant to be proven, it's the one thing everything else is based on, we just take it as a given and build up from there. It's simply self-evident.

I agree.

Quote:If that's how he demonstrated it then he was obviously wrong and that's a very bad example of causality to showcase its possible non-existence since we already know that the sun won't come up one day.

No we don't, prove it. The burden of proof is on the person claiming knowledge of something unproven. He absolutely believed in causality and believed the sun will always come up, he was not trying to prove the logical possibility of the sun maybe not coming up, because he didn't have to. It is a logical possibility and that's his point: it will come up but you cannot prove it will, so you can't prove causality.

Go on then. Prove causality. Prove that two events don't just coincide out of some ridiculously improbable massive coincidence rather than actually one causing the other. You can't. You can't prove causality.

But I agree it is self-evident, and I agree we don't need to. There is more evidence for causality than anything else in the world, but it is technically evidential and it isn't proven through logical argument.

Quote:Quantum whatever doesn't affect causality, only our understanding of it.

I agree completely.

-Hammy

Knowledge determines existence, not the other way around. Such are the trappings of language, I'm afraid.

You can't prove non-causality because it doesn't make any sense, not because causality is a sure thing. But causality is a sure thing. It is the epitome of certainty. Trying to argue that it isn't is like trying to show the universe doesn't exist. That's a no-no.

Quote:Prove that two events don't just coincide out of some ridiculously improbable massive coincidence rather than actually one causing the other. 

This doesn't make one iota of sense, no matter how I try to spin it.

(May 8, 2016 at 12:40 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: That's great. You didn't answer my question.

Of course I did.  The half-life of uranium-238 is 4.468 billion years.  Which half? Indeterminate.

No, you didn't.

(May 8, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Lol, it was a joke.

Haha, I thought so. But just checking, I can never tell with you. Your sense of humor is drier than my own land-turtle turtle shell sandpapered to fuck for all eternity.

EP Wrote:Existence isn't eternal, it's only as durable as the intelligence that describes what the universe does, on its own terms.

This all comes down to how you are defining "existence" then.

-Hammy

You can define it however you like, it's still not going to outlive the beings that employ it as a concept.

(May 8, 2016 at 12:44 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm)pool the great Wrote: You're arguing the analogical equivalent that a ball that move freely inside a fence lack freedom of movement.

What do you mean by "freedom" of movement? The ball is caused to move just like we are.

Quote:It doesn't lack freedom of movement but I'd agree that it does indeed lack freedom of absolute movement.
Try to link this idea with free will.

Define how it even has any relative "freedom" of movement. It simply has movement.

I don't link it to "free will" because "free will" is about will as well as freedom, balls are not.

-Hammy

Don't be so rough with him, he's just naive.

(May 8, 2016 at 8:28 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 8:22 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Continued participation in this thread.

You don't think you're forced to either participate or not at any given moment by processes in your brain that you couldn't possibly control? Not to mention, if your internet connection was suddenly lost, or something similar happened, that too would be outside of your control and you'd be forced to stop participating in the thread, whether you wanted to or not.

Perhaps the process in his brain is only happening because he wants to participate in the thread? Perhaps his wanting to caused the brain reaction? Perhaps had he not wanted to his brain would have reacted differently?

(May 8, 2016 at 1:10 pm)Losty Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 8:28 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: You don't think you're forced to either participate or not at any given moment by processes in your brain that you couldn't possibly control? Not to mention, if your internet connection was suddenly lost, or something similar happened, that too would be outside of your control and you'd be forced to stop participating in the thread, whether you wanted to or not.

Perhaps the process in his brain is only happening because he wants to participate in the thread? Perhaps his wanting to caused the brain reaction? Perhaps had he not wanted to his brain would have reacted differently?

Are you arguing for the existence of souls?

(May 8, 2016 at 1:13 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 1:10 pm)Losty Wrote: Perhaps the process in his brain is only happening because he wants to participate in the thread? Perhaps his wanting to caused the brain reaction? Perhaps had he not wanted to his brain would have reacted differently?

Are you arguing for the existence of souls?

Lolwut?

No I was asking questions. I was thinking that the brain is you and you are the brain so why can't it be that the brain process is your will (excepting of when the brain is malfunctioning)? Your brain is not an external force.

(May 8, 2016 at 12:59 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Knowledge determines existence, not the other way around.

What do you mean "knowledge determines existence"?

Quote:You can't prove non-causality because it doesn't make any sense, not because causality is a sure thing. 

You can't prove non-causality or causality, regardless of the fact that causality makes sense and non-causality doesn't.

Quote:But causality is a sure thing.

Then prove it.

Quote:It is the epitome of certainty.

No, "all bachelors are unmarried" is the epitome of certainty.

Hammy Wrote:Prove that two events don't just coincide out of some ridiculously improbable massive coincidence rather than actually one causing the other. 

EP Wrote:This doesn't make one iota of sense, no matter how I try to spin it.

Okay let me rephrase: Think of any two events happening, one event follows the other, all evidence points to one causing the other. Now try to use logical argument to absolutely prove that one caused the other. You can't do it because no one can do that, it's not logically provable because the opposite always remains logically possible.

-Hammy

Lostykins Wrote:Perhaps the process in his brain is only happening because he wants to participate in the thread?

I think it's only happening because he wants to participate in the thread but his desire to participate in the thread is ultimately for other reasons beyond that, because all of his behavior is ultimately caused. Would you agree kitten?

Quote:Perhaps his wanting to caused the brain reaction?

I'm sure it did but I'm sure we agree the conscious parts of his brain actions are in a sense "him".

Quote: Perhaps had he not wanted to his brain would have reacted differently?

Definitely

-Hammy

The article linked at the beginning of the thread seems to indicate that the decision to do a thing comes subconciously, and it comes BEFORE the desire is felt. The desire seems to be the result, not the cause.
This would indicate lack of freewill, even when "free" is re-defined to mean completely constrained and not free, and "will" is defined as desire.

We can have desires, but it appears we don't even chose to have those, they are just chemical reactions resulting from a series of previous causes.

(May 8, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Losty Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 1:13 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Are you arguing for the existence of souls?

Lolwut?

No I was asking questions. I was thinking that the brain is you and you are the brain so why can't it be that the brain process is your will (excepting of when the brain is malfunctioning)? Your brain is not an external force.

Yes, your will is also a brain function. Beyond that, I defer to Evie's wisdom on the matter, as disseminated above.

(May 8, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 12:59 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Knowledge determines existence, not the other way around.

What do you mean "knowledge determines existence"?

Quote:You can't prove non-causality because it doesn't make any sense, not because causality is a sure thing. 

You can't prove non-causality or causality, regardless of the fact that causality makes sense and non-causality doesn't.

Quote:But causality is a sure thing.

Then prove it.

Quote:It is the epitome of certainty.

No, "all bachelors are unmarried" is the epitome of certainty.

Hammy Wrote:Prove that two events don't just coincide out of some ridiculously improbable massive coincidence rather than actually one causing the other. 

EP Wrote:This doesn't make one iota of sense, no matter how I try to spin it.

Okay let me rephrase: Think of any two events happening, one event follows the other, all evidence points to one causing the other. Now try to use logical argument to absolutely prove that one caused the other. You can't do it because no one can do that, it's not logically provable because the opposite always remains logically possible.

-Hammy

We experience the world through our minds. Our minds explain everything through causality. Since causality and non-causality can't both be true, it's either one or the other, causality is real and non-causality isn't, and not only that, it's also impossible. That's all there is to it. No need to over-complicate things.

(May 8, 2016 at 1:31 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

Lostykins Wrote:Perhaps the process in his brain is only happening because he wants to participate in the thread?

I think it's only happening because he wants to participate in the thread but his desire to participate in the thread is ultimately for other reasons beyond that, because all of his behavior is ultimately caused. Would you agree kitten?

Quote:Perhaps his wanting to caused the brain reaction?

I'm sure it did but I'm sure we agree the conscious parts of his brain actions are in a sense "him".

Quote: Perhaps had he not wanted to his brain would have reacted differently?

Definitely

-Hammy

I don't agree or disagree. I don't care about it that much. I feel like I have free will. That's all that matters really. Maybe everything is externally determined. Oh well. I don't have any control over that. So I just go on feeling like I'm making my own choices even though I'm actually not. As long as it's not another person forcing me to do something then I suppose it doesn't really matter.