We have determined that the argument for Free Will is neither circular nor is it an infinite regression. And in fact the argument against regression came down to the assertion that the concept of Free Will qualifies as an axiom, because the contrary of Free Will reduces to universal delusion.
So the prior argument concerning infinite regression answers this question too: the argument is grounded in an axiom.
Being grounded in an axiom presents another solution, too: the argument is not non-coherent. It becomes a tautology:
IF [Free Will exists axiomatically], Then [Free Will exists].So far we have determined that the argument for Free Will is a valid syllogism, that it is neither circular nor an infinite regression, that it is grounded, axiomatically, and that it is not internally non-coherent.
All objections and corrections welcome
P. A being requires a rational process to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim (hereinafter, to be convinced by argument).
ReplyDeleteC. if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a rational source.
P. Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality. No arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing
P. No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitute a rational source.
C. No assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source.
P. The assertions of human minds are, in fact, capable of truth or falsehood
C. Human reasoning processes must have a non-physical, rational source.
C. Naturalism, the position that everything (including reason) arose out of physical processes, is false.
Thoughts?
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI think you have stated the argument against Physicalism/Materialism/Naturalism quite well. It might be a bit more clear using the standard IF/THEN, ASSERTION, CONCLUSION format, but it appears to fit.
The premises of your second argument are the points at which the counter attacks will be made.
For example, there are several attempts to generate stories concerning so-called "emergent properties" with no material proof of such emergence other than the story.
One "Just So" story starts with "patterns", which are claimed to gain sentience as the patterns reach certain degrees complexity. There is no evidence for this other than the wishful thinking of the proponent.
Another story is that electrochemical electron exchange gains sentience for unknown reasons.
The only support for these counter arguments is the ideology of Scientism and the perceived necessity of Philosophical Materialism in the ideology of the arguer.
I think your argument is defensible by demanding empirical proof from any counter arguers, and investigating the contrary of your argument for flaws, a good exercise for the logician in any argument.
The demand for empirical proof addresses the Philosophical Materialist claim of being evidence based, in a material-only universe.
Providing the contrary to your own argument shows the illogic of the contrary (if that is how it turns out).
How would you provide an analysis of the contrary?
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThat is in fact C.S. Lewis' argument from reason. I made a comic strip version here, although stated a little differently.
Hello anyone,
ReplyDeleteOne possibility of contingent evidence which favors against the materialism of the mind is still in some investigations regarding NDEs... the actual problem with those studies is, unfortunately, political and economical censorship rather than experimental rigidity.
One of my conjectures is that one of the problems with Materialist/Physicalist philosophy is: it may be inherently non-coherent to mention that the essence of a phenomenon is known just by interacting with its properties.
P may be anything, even God.
If [properties of P] are [in essence P];
Then
[God does not exist];
[properties of P] are [in essence P] is true;
Then
[God does not exist].
When P is treated like god/gods, it's common from the new atheist to talk about an "invisible man in the sky", and that it is in essence an "invisible God". When P is matter, simply matter and physics know the absolute truth of all.
I think that P is that wildcard which is frequently used to fit a ideology which most of its adherents I know are lazy to evaluate.
That's the kind of bizarre logic and circular reasoning I see with most of the physicalists I know.
Most of the attacks are because of Biblical literalism, emotional turn-downs which are not well evaluated by the atheist who has had them, and one pint of hubris.
This is a sort of a tantrum, but I'm afraid this problem is more usual than necessary:
Just one advice: When there are devastating episodes in life and turn out to be difficult, nobody, incluiding myself, learns about them when blaming anything else except, when time cures wounds a bit, evaluating what's learned from such experiences (some people become atheist that way, and because of this very thing and some other reasons I became a former strong agnostic - weak atheist, and being influenced by some literature (Comte, Sagan, Hobbes, Göran T.))
Kind Regards.
Stan said: "The premises of your second argument are the points at which the counter attacks will be made."
ReplyDeleteThose premises are obviously circular because I simply stated the conclusion as a premise. That 'rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality' and that 'no arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing' are what we are trying to examine in the first place. I'm still on the fence.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteYour second argument is this:
”P. Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality. No arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing
P. No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitute a rational source.
C. No assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source.”
I have tried to put your argument into the deductive syllogistic format, and it took six arguments to complete. The conclusion of each argument is used in the premise in the subsequent argument.
First Argument:
P1: IF [Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality], THEN [No arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing]; (Properties argue for properties of an essence).
C1: [No arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing].
Second Argument:
P2: IF [No arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing], THEN [no arrangement of non-rational materials can produce assertions which are True or False]. (Properties of an essence argue for properties).
C2: [no arrangement of non-rational materials can produce assertions which are True or False].
Third Argument:
P3: IF [(no arrangement of non-rational materials can produce assertions which are True or False), AND (The assertions of human minds are, in fact, capable of truth or falsehood)], THEN, [Human reasoning processes must have a non-physical, rational source.]
C3: [Human reasoning processes must have a non-physical, rational source].
Fourth Argument:
P4: IF [(Human reasoning processes must have a non-physical, rational source) AND (Human reasoning exists)], THEN [a non-physical rational source must exist].
C4: [a non-physical rational source must exist].
Fifth Argument:
P5: IF [a non-physical rational source must exist], Then [there is non-physical existence].
C5: [there is non-physical existence].
Sixth Argument:
P6: IF [there is non-physical existence], Then [Physicalism and Philosophical Materialism are False].
C6: [Physicalism and Philosophical Materialism are False].
P1 is still vulnerable to demands for proof. It is a universal statement, so empirical proof is impossible. Is it “obviously true upon inspection” as is an axiom? What would the contrary show?
Contrary to P1: [Rationality can arise out of non-rationality].
The knee jerk answer to this is: evolution can and has produced rationality out of non-rationality. By asserting evolution as the source of everything, a “satisfying” answer can be had for Skeptics, so long as they are not skeptical of evolution’s empirical standing. So the contrary can be believed despite its lack of any rational probability.
Since the contrary is “believable”, then P1 cannot have the status of being an axiom. So its only status is the perception of its probability by the viewer.
(continued)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteNote that there might be other problems in the arguments, specifically category differences between “pure properties” (perceptions) vs. essences (actualities). Properties and essences are difficult to separate, and then to understand whether they can occupy the same argument – a subject which I would try to address, except that it is mooted by the intractable problem with P1, which negates any certainty which the argument might ever have.
Unless P1 can be changed to an undeniable premise somehow, the empirically unjustified belief in the superpowers of evolution will always defeat this argument. Debating evolution is always a losing battle because it is ideologically sustained first of all, with a "mountain" of circumstantial evidence as the first weapon, and Scientism as the second. While neither are rationally justified as certain proof, they are acceptable to those vulnerable to the ideology.
Even Antony Flew's argument concerning the improbability of the complexity of DNA arising chemically to define life resulted in the counter argument that "Flew is senile", thus demonstrating that logic, even valid and obvious, is of no value in addressing those afflicted with the ideology.