Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • I don't assert a caused/random dichotomy. I see determinism and randomness working together; neither enabling free will. We've tackled your 'infinite logics' before. My trouble there is quite likely naive, but since I have never encountered a kind of logic other than what I assume is classical, I don't know what to make of other forms. As for universalising and dogmatism... surely the belief in free will is a universalisation and a dogmatism that is upon available evidence an illusion that is quite possibly well explained by evolution. Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 15:38
  • 1
    @Futilitarian All our reasoning actually uses a four state logic, while classical logic uses a two state: true or false. The four states are a) supported well enough to accept as a working hypothesis, b) rejected well enough to dismiss, c) currently indeterminate enough between support and counter-evidence that one cannot make a determination, d) poorly structured proposition, incapable of evaluation. All four of these categories violate the Law of the Excluded Middle of classical logic. Whenever you reason with them, you are using non-classical logic. Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 15:43
  • @Futilitarian What you have now revised Strawson's argument to be, is that all causation must be one of three things: caused, random, or a mix of the two. We know that our explicit theory of causation has changed radically over the millennia, and post-Hume/Newton, it is actually now a poorly defined concept. You are relying now upon our intuitions that SOME form of a non-specified causation must be true, and that a caused/random "trichotomy" applies to it. What is the justification for your modified universalized claim? Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 15:51
  • My immediate response is to return to the argument as summarised by Studebaker in the OP. When I read through it, it makes sense to me. The most effective way for you to illustrate your view is maybe to address specific premises. Conifold has done this briefly already in the comments, but I'm not literate enough to grasp them without further reading at the moment. Maybe you can critique them more at my level. Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 15:54
  • 1
    @Futilitarian The first paragraph "we make these decisions on the basis of reasons" extends our vague concept of causation to mental choices. Caused/random provides no space for AGENCY. Free Will relies intimately upon a concept of Agent, which does not fit into your caused/random trichotomy. SO -- we need a different logic of cause that includes and allows for how agency works. I can't offer that to you yet, but I have confidence that someone will eventually be able to find one, among the infinite possible logics, that actually captures what we mean by agency. Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 16:04