renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I still want you to give me a choice you made for no reason.
Why? Reasons don't lead us to determinism.
We don't even understand our reasons sometimes. We are the determining factor in the equation, not all the pros and cons. Given the exact same scenario we could very well make totally different choices and have a different life next time... if there was a next time.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Our nature is part of the 'antecedent'. We are part of the environment. We have been formed by the environment. That's the purpose of this thread - we cannot extract ourselves from the environment and treat ourselves as being separate from it. If you do follow that line of reasoning you get to what some describe as a soul. Something that operates outside of, not just us, but of the environment itself. Something that can observe from a third party perspective what is going on and what we should do.

There's no such thing.
Unless you have a supreme being in the equation, that gives individuals the same free will that he has.

Otherwise everything is just determined by the universe, which is to say by nothing but chance.. And although it's an unbroken line of causation it's also completely random causation with no meaning or intelligence behind it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
They're either making it for no reason (as you said) OR input from any or all sources are being used.
Their decision might emerge from their perceptions (where perceptions aren't really optional for humans). Not all perceptions are reasonable though .. thus their decision can be for 'no reason'.
Bradskii said:
And note that I didn't repeat 'in isolation' because we are part of the environment and cannot be separated from it. You cannot make a decision with zero input. It can be random but it cannot be zero.
A system can produce a response to an impulse. An impulse motivates a response but the net system output is dependent on the innate system characteristics (or transfer function).

In the case of a decision, the impulse may be generated internally by individual perceptions and the transfer function, (which shapes the output), can also be unique within a population of human minds. The response isn't random but its also not deterministic when viewed from other minds' viewpoints.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,589
71
Bondi
✟248,673.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why? Reasons don't lead us to determinism.

I want you to understand that, apart from truly random examples, there are reasons for all decisions. And those reasons are based on the relevant conditions.

Repeat those exact conditions and the reasons for making a choice will always be the same.
 
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
56
Center
✟58,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Our nature is part of the 'antecedent'. We are part of the environment. We have been formed by the environment. That's the purpose of this thread - we cannot extract ourselves from the environment and treat ourselves as being separate from it. If you do follow that line of reasoning you get to what some describe as a soul. Something that operates outside of, not just us, but of the environment itself. Something that can observe from a third party perspective what is going on and what we should do.

There's no such thing.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here. Are you saying that there's no such thing as a soul, because if you are I agree with you? I think that our soul is our consciousness and it is fully capable of knowing what is going on and what we should do. I don't think we need a third party perspective to tell us what's going on and what we should do. We can discover that ourselves by exercising our conceptual faculty. the alternative to reason is just taking things on faith. To be a moral person, I still have to judge what others tell me. If someone told me what I should do is set myself on fire, I'm not going to accept their advice. I place nothing, and I mean nothing higher than my judgment of my mind.

When I used the term antecedent, I was referring to events, not our nature. Our nature is not an event but a fact. It is what we Objectivists call metaphysically given. The metaphysically given is anything with comes about without the input of human choice. The metaphysically given is, was, and had to be. It could not have failed to be. Man's nature is such.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,589
71
Bondi
✟248,673.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Unless you have a supreme being in the equation, that gives individuals the same free will that he has.

Otherwise everything is just determined by the universe, which is to say by nothing but chance.. And although it's an unbroken line of causation it's also completely random causation with no meaning or intelligence behind it.

I think you've got it...
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,589
71
Bondi
✟248,673.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Their decision might emerge from their perceptions (where perceptions aren't really optional for humans). Not all perceptions are reasonable though .. thus their decision can be for 'no reason'.

Perceptions are environment dependent. And 'unreasonable' is not a synonym for 'no reason'.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,589
71
Bondi
✟248,673.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
When I used the term antecedent, I was referring to events, not our nature. Our nature is not an event but a fact.

Yes, it's a fact of the environment. We are part of the environment so our nature is likewise. And I don't differentiate between events and facs. A rock is a fact. A window is a fact. The event of that rock breaking the window is a fact.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I want you to understand that, apart from truly random examples, there are reasons for all decisions. And those reasons are based on the relevant conditions.

Repeat those exact conditions and the reasons for making a choice will always be the same.

How could we know if our experience is caused by truly random events or not? And what are the implications of either possibility (Truly random vs not truly random)?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Perceptions are environment dependent.
Not necessarily .. Eg: perceptions can be formed in dreams.
Bradskii said:
And 'unreasonable' is not a synonym for 'no reason'.
It is when the individual can't rationalise those perceptions to themselves.
The term 'unreasonable' can have any meaning to a specific individual. It only acquires its common meaning when there's a commitment to convey an in-common, shared meaning (or reason) with a 2nd party with which that party can then relate.
'No reason' deliberately conveys no meaning to the 2nd party.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,589
71
Bondi
✟248,673.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How could we know if our experience is caused by truly random events or not? And what are the implications of either possibility (Truly random vs not truly random)?

I meant if the decisions are truly random. Based on a coin toss for example. Whether any given event is random or not is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,589
71
Bondi
✟248,673.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It is when the individual can't rationalise those perceptions to themselves.
The term 'unreasonable' can have any meaning to a specific individual. It only acquires its common meaning when there's a commitment to convey an in-common, shared meaning (or reason) with a 2nd party with which that party can then relate.
'No reason' deliberately conveys no meaning to the 2nd party.

Irrelevant. Decisions are random or they are not. If random then free will is not applicable. If not random then they are dependent on conditions. And will repeat should the conditions be repeated.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,404
15,550
Colorado
✟427,817.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
....When I used the term antecedent, I was referring to events, not our nature. Our nature is not an event but a fact. It is what we Objectivists call metaphysically given. The metaphysically given is anything with comes about without the input of human choice. The metaphysically given is, was, and had to be. It could not have failed to be. Man's nature is such.
Does that even matter?

The claim is our decisions are entirely the result of antecedent facts that we cannot change.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,404
15,550
Colorado
✟427,817.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...If Thinking requires selective attention, then free will exists. Attention is a function of the will or consciousness. So if we have the ability to selectively employ our will, then it is free. No argument is necessary for that which is self-evident.....
Where we "choose" to place our attention is entirely the result of antecedent conditions. Thats the claim, based on the physics of cause/effect.

I'm looking for a mechanism that could escape that physics.

Now if you hold an identity-based view of causality, in which a thing's nature determines its actions, then the choice is not a breach of causality but an instance of it.
What creates identity? Prior conditions, it seems. Theres no "you" thats the author of those conditions ultimately. You are a result of them.

(I actually agree with your conclusion, that we do have free will. But I disagree that free will is a rational proposition. I can find no rational support for it so far. Its basically a faith position.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
...which are the result of prior conditions that you cannot reach back and change.
Prove it.
At every point along the way I had a choice... Not only based on the conditions around me. I can't change past choices now, but I can change future choices and present choices.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Prove it.
At every point along the way I had a choice... Not only based on the conditions around me. I can't change past choices now, but I can change future choices and present choices.
I don't understand the mindset that we don't have choices.

I guess it's to make people like Klebold & Harris look like it was God's fault they did what they did.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,404
15,550
Colorado
✟427,817.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Prove it.
At every point along the way I had a choice... Not only based on the conditions around me. I can't change past choices now, but I can change future choices and present choices.
Im looking for the way you can change the reasons for which you made a choice. No ones been able to propose anything. If you cant change those reasons, then you cant change your choice - and your "choice" is just an algorithmic certainty regardless of how the process feels to you..

(As I said elsewhere, I agree that we have free will. But its not a rational conclusion.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Im looking for the way you can change the reasons for which you made a choice. No ones been able to propose anything. If you cant change those reasons, then you cant change your choice - and your "choice" is just an algorithmic certainty regardless of how the process feels to you..

(As I said elsewhere, I agree that we have free will. But its not a rational conclusion.)
Reasons don't choose for us
They aren't intelligent beings.
That's like saying that we should have some kind of reverence for the which I hear all the time. Nonsensical because the universe isn't intelligent, divine or worthy of devotion.
Reasons don't cause anything that happens.
We do, with our soul, Spirit, body and mind.
 
Upvote 0