zms11235 t1_jbqb39f wrote
True, no empirical evidence is really possible for free will (as far as I know). However, we can show rationally how determinism leads to absurdity and the impossibility of knowledge. For example: if all of your thoughts are mere byproducts of electro-chemical reactions in the brain (which you yourself don't even understand), then so are the laws of logic that are preconditions for knowledge of any kind. Not only would these laws of logic be reduced to blind chemical reactions with no real reference to "truth" and no way to epistemically justify them, but your brain (and hence mind) could also be determined to believe false things outside of your control. Basically, determinism makes epistemology impossible. It's an absurd and self-contradictory belief.
bildramer t1_jbsk41c wrote
What makes you think chemical reactions can't have reference to truth? Also, yes, you can be fooled, that just means you aren't a perfect reasoner.
zms11235 t1_jbspdrp wrote
Why should I trust chemical reactions to unfold in a way that “references truth”? Reason requires a rational agent, not a biorobot.
HamiltonBrae t1_jc2lvmz wrote
many people are perfectly happy with anti-realism with regard to truth and justification. they might even say it is the best picture of the world given philosophy's well documented difficulties in determining these things.
zms11235 t1_jc3gq7n wrote
Determining what is and is not the most accurate picture of the world, along with what philosophy can and can’t justify, both presuppose some standard of truth and epistemic justification which anti-realism makes impossible.
HamiltonBrae t1_jc78t6u wrote
Not necessarily. Accuracy can just mean that the model you construct predicts data accurately... the data you see in the world is what the model tells you to expect. That doesn't necessarily mean the model is true. Nor does it necessarily mean there is a single true model that we can construct.
zms11235 t1_jc7fu1g wrote
That’s a truth claim. So what model did you use to construct it?
HamiltonBrae t1_jc7j920 wrote
>That’s a truth claim.
Yes, but if you're an anti-realist about truth then I don't think it really matters. I use words like true or false all the time but it doesn't necessarily mean I am using them to mean something in the sense of truth/justification realism.
>So what model did you use to construct it?
what are you talking about exactly?
zms11235 t1_jc8fyur wrote
Then what does "truth" even refer to in your worldview?
You're arguing that predictive modeling is the best/only real standard for truth. That's a truth claim. So did you come to this belief via predictive modeling? If not, it's an invalid claim on your own grounds.
HamiltonBrae t1_jc95vmi wrote
I dont know exactly what truth means, probably something similar to what many people think; "what is the case" or "what are the facts" but what does this mean? I don't think it can be specified in some way that reflects some objective standard.
"predictive modeling" maybe is a standard for belief (just in the sense of changing beliefs with regard to evidence), but it is not enough for truth.
>So did you come to this belief via predictive modeling?
ha this is almost like asking "did you come up with this belief via thinking"
zms11235 t1_jcclz35 wrote
Thinking rarely involves predictive modeling.
Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction?
HamiltonBrae t1_jcdohzh wrote
All Ive been talking about is how beliefs are supported by evidence and I think thats how most people think. They change their minds if they feel that their beliefs are no longer supported by the evidence they see.
As for non-contradiction, I don't know. It seems an obvious part of my general thought the overwhelming majority of the time but I do understand there are people with views and who have created logics that are not so strict about that. I am open to logical pluralism and/or nihilism.
zms11235 t1_jche50v wrote
So it's okay if we contradict ourselves? We shouldn't strive to have coherent paradigms?
HamiltonBrae t1_jcni16m wrote
well according to those logics and views there are some contradictions that are acceptable. im not saying that arbitrary contradictory sentences make sense and i dont even know too much about those views but im open to the idea that logic can be done in different ways.
even so, i dont think the idea of non-contradiction is enough to pick out truth because truth depends on the premises and if these are blurry or underdetermined or context dependent then its not straightforward.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments