Free Will, Consciousness, Identity (Identity)

by dhw, Sunday, July 22, 2012, 18:47 (4289 days ago) @ xeno6696

First things first. Wonderful to hear that mini-Matt is expected soon, and I'm sure all of us are keeping our fingers crossed that everything will go smoothly. -On the subject of "free will" and irrelevance, the source of our disagreement is now clear. We needn't bother with the brain in the vat, as we've already agreed that no-one can know whether we do or don't have free will. Your original argument was that there is no difference between what free and unfree actions look like, and THAT is why free/unfree is irrelevant. Hence my list of similar "lookalikes". You have now shifted your focus to the impossibility of knowing the answers, but here too I argue that the impossibility of knowing the answer does not make a question irrelevant. You chose one of my examples ... the origin of the universe ... to which I would reply that no matter what theory we have (e.g. the Big Bang), no-one can know what happened before the so-called "origin". For brevity's sake, however, to deal with your new focus, I'd prefer to use the example of God: no-one can possibly know if he exists or not. More of this in a second. And so to the source of our disagreement:-MATT: A question MUST HAVE a reachable answer. That's the first rule in mathematics, and by that extension--logic. If your question cannot terminate, it's not a valid question. -What right do mathematicians have to impose their definition of validity and relevance on non-mathematicians? If I'm interested in whether God exists or not, even though I'm perfectly aware that my question cannot "terminate" (you and I have already agreed many times that absolute truth is unattainable), it is relevant and valid to ME. By extension, we can say that philosophy by its very nature deals with questions which cannot terminate. If they could, we'd be in the realms of science/mathematics, not philosophy. Therefore, for a mathematician, apparently philosophical questions such as God's existence are invalid and irrelevant. This brings us to our epistemological hierarchy, which is inescapably subjective. I simply reject your mathematician's hierarchy, and ask again: valid for whom, relevant to what? You have previously replied: for everyone, to every subject. Far too vague for me. If my friends and I are interested in the degree to which the will is free, the question is valid to them and to me (as it has been to countless generations of philosophers, scientists and theologians before us), and it is (highly) relevant to the subject of the nature of consciousness and ultimately the existence of God. It is therefore clear that our disagreement has nothing to do with "free will" and everything to do with our subjective epistemological hierarchy.
 
Meanwhile, here are two quotes which you may think are irrelevant and invalid, but I hope they will amuse you:-"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." (Albert Einstein)-"Pure mathematics consists entirely of assertions to the effect that, if such and such a proposition is true of anything, then such and such another proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to discuss whether the first proposition is really true, and not to mention what the anything is, of which it is supposed to be true." (Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic)-Russell of course was a mathematician and a philosopher who was only too well aware that his philosophical questions could not be "terminated". I wonder, then, how many of his philosophical thoughts he considered to be invalid and irrelevant!