Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think you're putting a lot of work into this uneccessarily. It's a simple concept and there's no need to complicate it. Cause...and effect. That's it. If you make a decision there's always a reason for it. The reason is the cause. The decision is the effect.
Sure, but as I said that's insufficient to capture my experience of my will in operation. The decision wasn't forced upon my will by prior reasons. What we're dealing with is we have good reasons to believe that there is a (seemingly) uniform law of cause and effect, real experience of some phenomenon of free will within ourselves, and a dilemma where if we assume the former is caused by an irrational law the problem is insoluble. So one of them has to give, you seem to have tossed free will and I've compromised the "law" of cause and effect by supplying a cosmic agent into the equation. Personally, I think we should always go with the better evidence and in this case its a matter of quality over a quantity of lower quality evidence.
No, but they were determined by them. And you have no control over the reasons. Even if it's a preference, you prefer something for a reason. Over which you have no control. I just had tea instead of coffee with my breakfast. For no other reason than I preferred it. You can then say my preference was the cause and deciding to have tea was the effect. What caused my preference at that moment? I don't really know to be honest.
Uh huh, if you say so.
If you say so.
Semantics need to be explored here.
A claim which is entirely contrary to my fundamental experience of reality. I can change my preferences, if I choose to. Not immediately, but over time.
As I said, we're not talking about "cause" in the same fashion since you're talking about an entirely different form of cause than efficient causes.
Fair enough, though largely irrelevant.
Except you don't really believe this, because you seem to think that there is some merit in arriving at a superior conclusion. Which if you had no control over it, you receive no merit for it. Anymore than a arrow deserves merit for hitting the target. Because ultimately, everything comes down to irrational causes proceeding towards irrational ends.
In your opinion, Do individual human beings have personal libertarian volition that makes them culpable for their personally chosen actions and reactions to the rational universe, in respects to rational laws of the universe, (no conflating this question with the illogical metaphysically philosophical, theosophical, atheosphical or deistically reasoned system of anarchy and such ignorant gibberish) as presented with reality defined by these terms?
There'll be a reason for you changing your mind.
That's right. This has been discussed at length. I can't blame the guy for cutting me off in traffic. And I can't accept praise for helping the little old lady across the road. That we do both is irrelevant as to whether free will actually exists. The illusion comes in handy.
Then you are not a true atheist because your rational statements have zero validity as they are not yours.
And that reason is internal to my will, not a prior constraint on it.
There's also no reason to trust the reasoning that made you arrive at the conclusion. Afterall, it's just the result of particles colliding into other particles on the basis of fixed irrational laws.
A claim I seriously doubt you truly believe.
It's funny how quickly "skeptics" chuck parsimony when it doesn't suit there worldview. There should be basically no doubt as to the ontological status of free will, since the simplest explanation for our experience of the associated phenomena is that it is a genuine faculty. The question isn't whether it actually exists, but how it functions.
Just like the illusion of the physical world, I suppose.
So there was nothing external to a decision you have made? Again, I must ask for an example so I know exactly what you mean.
Irrational laws? What do you mean by irrational laws. We describe things as laws because they are rational. I don't know what you mean by this.
Emotionally I welcome the praise. Rationally I cannot. And what I say I believe and what I say I don't I'm afraid you are going to have to take as a given. You are not in a position to doubt it.
The basis of my position is materialism. That hardly comports with a belief that the physical world is an illusion. I thought you would have understood that.
What does it matter? You have identified that you have no individual personality, being, moral center, intellect, rational experience, relational experience to even yourself… let alone, others… you don’t even exist as far as "you" (whatever that word or any word means) are concerned.
Didn't say that, but you're trying to argue that because I have preferences those preferences dictate my decisions. Which is contrary to my phenomenal experience.
The other day I would have prefered to put sugar in my coffee, but I chose to put stevia.
I mean laws that do not act according to a mind.
Oh? What mind is behind the laws? Our description of those laws may be the product of our minds, but the laws themselves are irrational unless they are underwritten by a rational agent.
Simply that the laws are not the result of conscious thought, which has to be the case if we do not assume the existence of a cosmic agent.
As you should
Oh? Seems that it is entirely rational to me, unlike believing that free will is an illusion.
We will know them by their fruits. People behave in accordance to their true beliefs, even if they claim their beliefs are otherwise.
I am, because I can see that your actions aren't in keeping with what you claim to believe.
Of course, a metaphysical position which must deny the reality of free will. Since we don't share the metaphysical commitments, your arguments are entirely unconvincing.
No, but it does render our internal experiences illusion cast by a material world. Which is a more ridiculous idea, since the only reason I am certain that I exist is that I have internal experiences.
I do, my statement was meant to be illustrative not argumentative.
Lucky! I'm Jelly! I was born near beaches! I'm not close to them, now. But, seriously! Super gorgeous! I've always been interested in Australia! Pretty amazing scenery and landscape!!!
I wanted to go to the pub. I didn't want to spend an hour working out. But my preference was the gym. It's first order versus second order. My first order desire is sugar in my coffee. My second order preference is to leave it out because I've got another kilo to lose.
Except that doesn't work if our preferences are causally determinitive..because we wouldn't be able to rank them and choose a stronger preference based on a rational priority, it would be decided purely on the strength of emotional/physical desires. If I didn't have free will, I would have gone for the sugar because I am physically addicted to sugar.
If that were the case it would be impossible to overcome physical addictions, rather than simply really difficult. It is only if there is some indeterminism to our decisions that our experience of making choices can be properly accounted for and not hand-waived as an illusion.
Freud calls that the IT or ID.... for either social or delicious beverage desires... maybe both, you wanted to go to the Pub.
Also, the "IT"
Appearance or Health?
Sounds like you are saying that you have Desires, yet only one body to act upon them, constrained by daily time.
A desire that is good for the heart.
Another desire that is good for the heart.
Right... That's known as "eating when you are hungry", which is applicable to not only food.
Yet, your will is free to choose. It's you that is culpable for the extra kilo. You can say that "you" didn't gain it, but if you eat a bit too much, or go too large in volume on the carbs... it is you that earned that kilo. Likewise, you have the will to "Lose that kilo". That's up to you.
Honestly, it sounds like you are a "divine" determinist and believe yourself to be... divine. Think about it. You speak as if your desires are cosmic matters... and your will to do what you do is decided by the UNIVERSE... which by reading your words... revolves around you.
Whether you can overcome an addiction, or just a simple desire (go to the pub instead of the gym) requires a second order level of decision making. Now if you are the type of person who gives in easily to temptation then you'll have the sugar (or the heroin). You'll go to the pub and not the gym. The first order craving will win out. You can't decide to not be that person. It's who you are. And you had no control over that.
