Determinism is bugging me big time :-(

[BushwigBill]

Washington, I'm not sure how you expect the Merriam-Webster definition to have solved that problem as "significance" and "purpose" are themselves entirely relative.

Sure, I suppose free will is a handy unconscious shortcut to the attribution of an action, but I don't see how this alone could lead to its acceptance as a conscious belief. For example, there was that test done where people were forced to make split second decisions to assign words and faces to two categories, and there was a very strong tendency for white people to assign black faces to the same category as words with negative connotations. Naturally these participants were shocked by the results. They had been emotionally conditioned to respond in that way, but this didn't cause them to consciously adopt racist beliefs.

Quatona, I was inviting you to explain why I should not dismiss such a belief (as it seemed self-contradictory to me), not telling you not to bother as my mind was made up. So no offense meant and none taken.

Apology accepted for the misunderstanding.

With regard to pragmatism, I'm inclined to think that belief in the truth is most likely to "help you toward happiness" in the long run as it would allow you to guide your actions more accurately and result in the desired effects, whatever those may be. I also think that if a belief can be reduced to absurdity by imagining how one might behave if they truly lived by that belief, then that belief is unlikely to be true.

Exactly what paradigms do you think I have imposed on determinism that are not inherent in the view itself? I need a little more detail if I'm to respond to that statement.

What I mean by "not accountable" is that obviously there can be no morality if people are not in control of their actions. It can no longer be said to be "wrong" to cause harm to another person.

My scenario involves making an effort to override any unconscious beliefs that contradict what I consciously accept as true. So there would have been no chance of my going to the funeral (I just got back by the way) as
it wouldn't have benefited me. I would also force myself to do a number of things which I would otherwise feel undesirable in an attempt to reign in any stray subconscious beliefs.

I hope your thumb is doing better. One of my psychology textbooks from a few years back said that for mild to moderate pain, it's most effective to try to distract yourself from the pain. In cases of extreme pain, focusing on and analysing the sensation itself (which could include picturing the biological factors) brought greater relief. The unconscious mind can be controlled. Perhaps it can't be entirely controlled, but I don't feel that it would make sense to just accept that we constantly do things that contradict our beliefs, without making any effort to change. Pleasure and pain can be viewed as experiences but they result from subjective interpretations of other experiences and can thus be controlled, at least to an extent.

It seems to me that people without free will would exist in a lesser sense. In the case of a fully determined action I don't see how a person can be said to "do" anything. In a deterministic universe it might be accurate to say that a person is a medium through which an action occurs, but I don't see how one could possibly view that person as an actor. To me meaningful existence seems to hang on free will.

I can see how the reality of pleasure and pain (both physical and emotional) and question of whether or not there's a point in doing anything may seem unrelated to determinism, but to me free will seems to be the cornerstone of meaningful existence. Things like pleasure and pain which would otherwise be meaningless find meaning in their relation to a meaningful being.

And as for the logical obstacle of self-caused events, I think the fact that we exist is a comparable example. Obviously one can trace causality back through procreating parents and then through evolution etc. all the way back to the big bang, but what then? How did we get here and why? Either there are start and end points for existence, or it just continues infinitely through all dimensions, however many there may be. We are left with either infinity or self-causing events, neither of which the human brain can quite comprehend. And if someone had suggested the possibility of a probabilistic world 200 years ago, no-one would have thought it logical, but today we are being forced to get used to it. I really don't think we can afford to rule anything out.

 

[Triad]

Am I the only one who can make neither heads nor tails of this kind of self-referential sophistry? How it reads to me: God allows me to be me, but gives me stuff that I can choose to make a better me. How many "me"s do I have? It looks like there's a "me" which is free to choose how I behave and/or believe. Is that the "meta-me"?

Good observations, Teddy. It calls for further explanation. The idea I'm trying to convey is that God does let us make our own decisions, but He also gives us recommendations on how to utilize the best in ourselves. People with amazing talents squander them all the time. They certainly have the capability for great things. But if they choose not to utilize them, that's a decision that they make. The ability was still there, however. The idea is that people often don't realize just how much they're capable of doing. They have it in them, but they don't recognize it. Either that, or sometimes they just aren't motivated and don't want it enough. It often takes an outside agent to make them aware of their capabilities or to help them see the benefits of reaching for them.

You are implying that God can only see certainties and not possibilities, which I think would limit His omniscience immensely.

A-ha! But a possibility is a far cry from seeing what will occur. God can't "know" that a possibility will happen, because it's merely a possibility. See the conundrum there? The idea of God's seeing possibilities doesn't really get us anywhere in the discussion. Seeing and knowing them are different. You can see possibilities without knowing them. That point would appear to be irrelevant to the discussion.

Surely He would have complete knowledge of the effects of His actions on the universe in advance?

You're assuming in that statement that God effectuates everything and doesn't let anything happen on its own. That's quite a big assumption. If the universe involves the decisions of other agents, then God would be letting others determine certain outcomes for themselves, within His parameters.

This all could be moot anyway, because ultimately we should keep in mind that God would not necessarily be constrained by notions of "in advance" in the way we view time. Bringing time into the equation is another huge assumption.

 

[Washington]

Washington, I'm not sure how you expect the Merriam-Webster definition to have solved that problem as "significance" and "purpose" are themselves entirely relative.

Never said it would solve anything. You asked for suggestions as to where to start in defining "meaning" and I gave you one. No guarantees made or implied. Don't like it? Come up with something else. I'm open.

Sure, I suppose free will is a handy unconscious shortcut to the attribution of an action, but I don't see how this alone could lead to its acceptance as a conscious belief.

Perhaps mine is not the answer, and that there's a much better one. As I pointed out, my answer was off the top of my head because I had never considered the issue before.

For example, there was that test done where people were forced to make split second decisions to assign words and faces to two categories, and there was a very strong tendency for white people to assign black faces to the same category as words with negative connotations. Naturally these participants were shocked by the results. They had been emotionally conditioned to respond in that way, but this didn't cause them to consciously adopt racist beliefs.

I don't know what relevance this has to the origin of FW, but okay.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Good observations, Teddy. It calls for further explanation. The idea I'm trying to convey is that God does let us make our own decisions, but He also gives us recommendations on how to utilize the best in ourselves. People with amazing talents squander them all the time. They certainly have the capability for great things. But if they choose not to utilize them, that's a decision that they make. The ability was still there, however. The idea is that people often don't realize just how much they're capable of doing. They have it in them, but they don't recognize it. Either that, or sometimes they just aren't motivated and don't want it enough. It often takes an outside agent to make them aware of their capabilities or to help them see the benefits of reaching for them.

This doesn't really help. You're still shoving monumental decisions off onto some inscrutable "me" that somehow can operate independently of the ideal "me" whenever it's philosophically convenient. The problem is you'll always want for coherent internal motivations for whatever ultimate decision-maker you posit. Why would the base "me" choose to follow God's recommendation or not?

 

[BushwigBill]

Triad, you are still not making any sense to me. I don't see any practical difference between "seeing" and "knowing". The bottom line is that an omniscient God should have full understanding of certainties and possibilities, even if those possibilities depend on the free will of others. He should know what decisions we are going to make even though he doesn't control them. To me that's what it means for a being who exists outside of time to "know everything".

Washington, sorry for the misunderstanding. It seemed to me that you had settled on that definition. As I believe in free will I might try to define meaning as significance granted by relation to a meaningful (i.e. free) being. Let me know if you can think of some way to pin it down under your world view.

Perhaps there is a better answer out there for the origin of the concept of free will in a universe where it doesn't exist. I'd be excited to hear it. As for my analogy, I believe you described the use of free will as a sort of shortcut used to save us the trouble of investigating the factors influencing an action. In a world where free will was obviously illogical, I struggle to see how this habit could lead to a conscious belief in it. The experiment I described illustrates how even the most ingrained unconscious shortcuts can have zero effect on conscious beliefs.

 

[quatona]

With regard to pragmatism, I'm inclined to think that belief in the truth is most likely to "help you toward happiness" in the long run as it would allow you to guide your actions more accurately and result in the desired effects, whatever those may be.

I find the concept of „truth“ to be very problematic, particularly in philosophy. Philosophy is not so much observation as it is the attempt to make sense of the world. What makes sense to whom is dependant on many factors. I suspect that – other than with science – a lot of different and often opposed philosophical are around and no consensus is in sight.

On another note, I have problems seeing the interest in „truth“ as a major factor in your arguments. Maybe I am missing something, but – starting from the thread title, and continuing through all your post – your first and foremost reason to object against determinism is „I don´t like it“ (or, more accurately: „I don´t like the implications that determinism would have to me personally if looking at it under application of my currently held paradigms“.)

I also think that if a belief can be reduced to absurdity by imagining how one might behave if they truly lived by that belief, then that belief is unlikely to be true.

Be that as it may – the first step in applying this methodology would be to find out what one would have to do if they „truly lived by that belief“, and there your arguments so far fall short, because they merely state what you imagine you would do if holding that belief. This is a sufficient reason for you not to adopt the notion in question (actually, I would say it is an essential factor among all those factors that determine you to not adopt this notion), but in order to conclude that this notion is silly, you would have to show that those implications follow necessarily from the notion in question. As far as I can see, you haven´t even attempted to do so, so far.

Exactly what paradigms do you think I have imposed on determinism that are not inherent in the view itself? I need a little more detail if I'm to respond to that statement.

I can´t tell you which paradigms you have imposed on it. I merely observe that you must have imposed some paradigms upon it – else you wouldn´t have come from a simple descriptive notion to prescriptive, normative statements.
I have learned that you draw surprising implications and conclusions from determinism – implications and conclusions that I don´t draw from it. I conclude that there must be other premises involved in your logical deduction – premises that I apparently don´t work from.
Example: Your claim: „Determinism results in meaninglessness.“ I am trying to find out which premises, preconceptions and/or paradigms must be applied to arrive at this conclusion.

Since I, a „determinist“, don´t see how this conclusion follows, I am highly interested in finding out what I am missing. Since you call determinism „silly“ I would expect you to demonstrate that your conclusions necessarily follow from determinism, without involving paradigms that are not inherent in determinism.

What I mean by "not accountable" is that obviously there can be no morality if people are not in control of their actions. It can no longer be said to be "wrong" to cause harm to another person.

I fail to see how that follows. Despite being a determinist I have no problems disapproving of certain actions. I have no idea what about determinism would keep me from it.
What, however, indeed follows is that I can´t blame or judge a person. I am not missing this, though; au contraire, I have come to value this implication highly.

My scenario involves making an effort to override any unconscious beliefs that contradict what I consciously accept as true. So there would have been no chance of my going to the funeral (I just got back by the way) as
it wouldn't have benefited me.

(Caveat: We may use „benefit“ differently.)
So if going to the funeral didn´t benefit you – why did you go?

As it happens, the day before yesterday the wife of a not very close friend died. I am a musician, and he asked me to play at the funeral. Playing at funerals isn´t fun exactly. However, of course I will do it. I expect it to have positive effects, on the husband, the children, the other persons at the funeral, on me. I think there will be a lot of short- and longterm benefits for a lot of people including me, with the only disadvantage that I might feel uneasy for a few minutes.
Quite obviously, you and I draw very different implications and conclusions from determinism. If - beyond explaining how determinism is not for you, which is your perfect prerogative, and not for me to comment on – you want to use your implications as a case against determinism, you would have to show how going to the funeral (or even playing there) is irreconcilable with determinism. You would have to show that if I „truly lived by that belief“ I couldn´t go there.

I would also force myself to do a number of things which I would otherwise feel undesirable in an attempt to reign in any stray subconscious beliefs.

Again, I can fully accept that as a personal statement – it doesn´t make an argument for the idea that determinism is „silly“, though.

I hope your thumb is doing better. One of my psychology textbooks from a few years back said that for mild to moderate pain, it's most effective to try to distract yourself from the pain. In cases of extreme pain, focusing on and analysing the sensation itself (which could include picturing the biological factors) brought greater relief. The unconscious mind can be controlled. Perhaps it can't be entirely controlled, but I don't feel that it would make sense to just accept that we constantly do things that contradict our beliefs, without making any effort to change. Pleasure and pain can be viewed as experiences but they result from subjective interpretations of other experiences and can thus be controlled, at least to an extent.

Yes, I am fully aware that my thoughts have a strong impact on the intensity of pain and pleasure, and I can use a couple of techniques to do that successfully. Yet, that was not what I was talking about. I was saying that specifically the idea „everything is determined“ didn´t help me with easing the pain.

It seems to me that people without free will would exist in a lesser sense.

Yes, and persons who don´t have wings to fly exist in a lesser sense than persons who have.

In the case of a fully determined action I don't see how a person can be said to "do" anything.

Well, ad hoc redefinitions of words aside, of course they can. Just like an apple can be said to fall off a tree and a dog can be said to sleep or bite someone, humans can be said to do all the things they do quite fine – determinism or not.

In a deterministic universe it might be accurate to say that a person is a medium through which an action occurs, but I don't see how one could possibly view that person as an actor.

I can view them as an actor quite fine, in the same way I can view a dog as an actor quite fine – without involving obscure wooly concepts like „the dog is a medium through which the biting occurs“.

To me meaningful existence seems to hang on free will.

And again: That´s your prerogative, and I won´t discuss your entitlement to your personal preferences. What I am waiting for is the logic behind the statement that determinism is „silly“ (i.e. intellectually unsound) and how your implications follow directly from determinism.
IOW: I am convinced that everything is determined. I find everything meaningful quite fine. If you want to call my conviction „silly“, I expect you to show me how I am violating the idea of determinism by experiencing things as meaningful.

I can see how the reality of pleasure and pain (both physical and emotional) and question of whether or not there's a point in doing anything may seem unrelated to determinism, but to me free will seems to be the cornerstone of meaningful existence. Things like pleasure and pain which would otherwise be meaningless find meaning in their relation to a meaningful being.

Well, again: Despite being convinced of determinism, I experience pain and pleasure as highly meaningful. Please show me how I am inconsistent.

And as for the logical obstacle of self-caused events, I think the fact that we exist is a comparable example. Obviously one can trace causality back through procreating parents and then through evolution etc. all the way back to the big bang, but what then? How did we get here and why? Either there are start and end points for existence, or it just continues infinitely through all dimensions, however many there may be. We are left with either infinity or self-causing events, neither of which the human brain can quite comprehend. And if someone had suggested the possibility of a probabilistic world 200 years ago, no-one would have thought it logical, but today we are being forced to get used to it. I really don't think we can afford to rule anything out.

To be honest, I fail to see the relevance of all that for the discussion of determinism. Yes, all explanations for the origin of the universe (including the one that there is no such thing as an origin for the universe) come with counterintuitive or downright exceptional assumptions. I fail to see how that has any bearings on attempts to explain what happens within the universe. Determinism is a pretty good explanation, and it is consistent with what we observe within the universe.



On another note, to me it appears that you are the one ruling things out when calling determinism silly.

As for the idea of a „self caused“ moral agent in myself: It contradicts all my experiences. I find myself being subject to a lot of determining factors, and none of my actions can be said to be uncaused. The idea of monocausality and monoeffectivity, however, is naive. The factors that finally result in an action are countless, as are the effects of a certain action.

 

[BushwigBill]

I'm not suggesting that the truth is entirely knowable, but I think there's good reason to assume that there is an objective truth out there even though it is often clouded by our subjective perception. Would you agree?

Truth is the main factor in my arguments. The title of the thread refers to a new piece of evidence pointed out to me by a friend, which I was struggling to fit into my perception of the truth without having to throw out a ton of other evidence. You're right about me not liking determinism, but that's not why I'm reluctant to accept it. I just can't see how there can possibly be any meaning in a deterministic universe and thus I feel it would be practical to assume free will. Perhaps this is based on paradigms I've attached to determinism but to me it seems to follow necessarily. I think that comparing our actions to those of a falling apple could work for or against determinism. To me it is not exactly and image bursting with meaning.

To be honest I don't see this discussion coming to a conclusion. I think this is primarily because of all of the possible attempted definitions and connotations of the terms necessary to debate the topic. For example what is "meaning" and what does it mean to have "acted".

If you'd like me to prove the "silliness" of determinism, I'm afraid I am entirely at a loss. The "silly" comment was really a bit of a throwaway remark anyway. As I've said before it was really more of an invitation to explain your views to me. But I suppose philosophical debate isn't really the place for shots in the dark so I apologize for the confusion.

I suspect that our disagreement arises more from the paradigms we attach to meaning than to determinism. I'm struggling to pin down the exact differences but I think it's safe to say that I expect a bit more from meaning than you do.

I'm interested to know what sort of actions you might disapprove of and how you might respond. For example if you witnessed two people fighting in public might you try to separate them? Could this be comparable to fixing malfunctioning machines? This is a total tangent. It just interests me.

The funeral did benefit me, but I was supposing that it wouldn't (I wouldn't let it!) if I truly believed in determinism, as meaningful pleasure and pain would cease to exist. Back to the problem of "what is meaning?" I suppose. I feel like some sort of self-deception would be necessary in order to enjoy deterministic life.

I am also a musician. Studying singing full-time at the moment. What instrument do you play? I apologise for all these tangents but I get curious.

I assume you are joking about persons with wings. I seriously think that a person who didn't act wouldn't exist in the same way as one who did. But what does it mean to really "act" or to "exist"?

Quantum physics, which is used to explain what happens within the universe, and is the basis of much modern technology, is highly counterintuitive. Granted, there may be a more intuitive explanation but this is the best we have at present. I officially retract my statement that determinism seems silly if that will satisfy you.

Can you prove deductively the naivety of monocausality without attaching paradigms? Just kidding. I'm not implying that free will is the sole cause of our actions. I'm just saying that based on my understanding of meaning free will would have to play some role in our actions in order for our lives to mean anything.

 

[quatona]

I'm not suggesting that the truth is entirely knowable, but I think there's good reason to assume that there is an objective truth out there even though it is often clouded by our subjective perception. Would you agree?

No, but that does not really matter here.
I don´t even know what "objective truth" might possibly mean in a philosophical context.
So, out of curiosity: What is this good reason you think there is to make this assumption?
Anyways, for purposes of this discussion I am willing to concede that there´s an "objective truth out there" (whatever that might mean) which is clouded by our subjectivity (and this does not only apply in regards to our perception, but also to the processing of those perceptions in our subjective minds).
The interesting question, however, is: How does a subjectively perceiving and processing being possibly discern objectivity? Certainly not by holding perceptions against the standard "What is meaningful to me." - which, as far as I can see, is the standard and criterium you are applying.

Truth is the main factor in my arguments. The title of the thread refers to a new piece of evidence pointed out to me by a friend, which I was struggling to fit into my perception of the truth without having to throw out a ton of other evidence. You're right about me not liking determinism, but that's not why I'm reluctant to accept it. I just can't see how there can possibly be any meaning in a deterministic universe and thus I feel it would be practical to assume free will.

And how do you - being subjective and all - determine what "objective meaning" would be? How do you form your idea of "meaning" if not subjectively - i.e. by asking yourself "what has meaning to me"?

Perhaps this is based on paradigms I've attached to determinism but to me it seems to follow necessarily.

What it actually follows from is your idea of "meaning" and from your idea that there must be not only an "objective truth" but also an "objective meaning" which, on top, you assume to be more or less conforming with your subjective idea of "meaning".

I think that comparing our actions to those of a falling apple could work for or against determinism. To me it is not exactly and image bursting with meaning.

That´s because you are not a conscious apple falling off a tree. If you were, I suspect you would find this event meaningful.
I for one work from a very simple and generic definition of meaning: "Meaning" is when something means something to someone. Pain and pleasure mean something to me, so there is meaning quite fine.
(If the falling apple felt pain its falling would be a meaningful image to me because pain is meaningful to me).
If you are determined to add further prerequisites to this definition, that´s your prerogative, but this part is actually what determines what you perceive as the implications of determinism.

To be honest I don't see this discussion coming to a conclusion. I think this is primarily because of all of the possible attempted definitions and connotations of the terms necessary to debate the topic. For example what is "meaning" and what does it mean to have "acted".

Exactly. The paradigms you are imposing on determinism are wrapped into your special definitions of these terms which inflate the requirements for something to be "meaningful" or an "action" beyond anything that these words generically signify.

If you'd like me to prove the "silliness" of determinism, I'm afraid I am entirely at a loss. The "silly" comment was really a bit of a throwaway remark anyway. As I've said before it was really more of an invitation to explain your views to me. But I suppose philosophical debate isn't really the place for shots in the dark so I apologize for the confusion.

Fair enough and understood.
However, I used the "silly"-thing merely as shortcut for your claim that your conclusions follow necessarily from determinism. If you drop this claim (and concede that your conclusions actually follow from mingling determinism with other ideas/preconceptions you hold), I am fine with ending the discussion. If you keep up this claim I will keep disputing it.

I suspect that our disagreement arises more from the paradigms we attach to meaning than to determinism.

Exactly, that´s what I have been trying to tell you all the time: the implications/conclusions you draw from determinism are not inherent in determinism but in other paradigms you impose on it.

I'm struggling to pin down the exact differences but I think it's safe to say that I expect a bit more from meaning than you do.

Well, as I said for me "meaning" is there when something means something to someone. This is probably not overly demanding, but then again I don´t see much point in inflating the meaning of simple terms into obscurity.

I'm interested to know what sort of actions you might disapprove of and how you might respond.

Ok.

For example if you witnessed two people fighting in public might you try to separate them?

Yes, I might (using peaceful, nonviolent means, that is), depending on the circumstances.

Could this be comparable to fixing malfunctioning machines?

In which the persons would be the "machines" and the fighting "malfunctioning"? No. I just can´t stand violence. It has a negative meaning to me, if you will.

This is a total tangent. It just interests me.

No problem whatsoever. Such tangential questions often help to a better understanding.

The funeral did benefit me, but I was supposing that it wouldn't (I wouldn't let it!) if I truly believed in determinism, as meaningful pleasure and pain would cease to exist.

I have problems understading this. The funeral had meaning to you, it benefitted you. Now, if tomorrow you - hypothetically - couldn´t help but acknowledging determinism this meaning and benefits would suddenly cease to exist? How the heck is that possible?
In which way - if I may ask - did it have meaning to you and benefit you (and in which way - if that´s the case - do you think your presence was meaningful to and benefitted the bereaved), and how could this meaning possibly cease to exist?

Back to the problem of "what is meaning?" I suppose. I feel like some sort of self-deception would be necessary in order to enjoy deterministic life.

Bill, I think I do have understood your feelings. I am not going to dispute your feelings, I am all for you acting upon your feelings. What, however, I have a problem with is that you claim your approach to be the search for "objective truth", and yet every argument of yours comes down to "I feel that way" in the end of the day.

I am also a musician. Studying singing full-time at the moment.

Cool! Bass, bariton or tenor? Which style(s)? Are you hoping to make a living of it?

What instrument do you play? I apologise for all these tangents but I get curious.

That´s fine. I had formal training as a classical guitarist and guitar teacher. I play all sort of styles (except for Jazz), though. I am fortunate in that teaching and playing earns me a living. I consider myself an - at best - mediocre guitaris, but a pretty good teacher.
Btw.I often (and love to) accompany singers and think I am reasonably good at that (I prefer female singers, though ).

I assume you are joking about persons with wings. I seriously think that a person who didn't act wouldn't exist in the same way as one who did. But what does it mean to really "act" or to "exist"?

No, I was dead serious about the comparison. If you are determined to put the standards unreasonably high you will end up with disappointment. If you expect humans to have wings reality will be disappointing. Same goes for demanding humans to be "acting" and "existing" and inflating the meaning of "acting" and "existing" unreasonably.

Quantum physics, which is used to explain what happens within the universe, and is the basis of much modern technology, is highly counterintuitive. Granted, there may be a more intuitive explanation but this is the best we have at present.

I´m not a scientist, so I have to take your word for it.
However, in the philosophical realm, it´s not as easy to find consensus on the best explanation we currently have.

I officially retract my statement that determinism seems silly if that will satisfy you.

Fair enough. However, it´s not so much about my satisfaction.
I´d just like to be able to distinguish between the description of your personal feelings (which is - no doubt - interesting) and claims of yours that allow for a discussion. Different things (both interesting and worthwhile) which ask for different approaches.

Can you prove deductively the naivety of monocausality without attaching paradigms? Just kidding.

"Prove" is a big word. I think I can demonstrate polycausality quite easily.

I'm not implying that free will is the sole cause of our actions. I'm just saying that based on my understanding of meaning free will would have to play some role in our actions in order for our lives to mean anything.

"Mean" to whom? My life means something to me. My premeditations mean something to me, and the fact that the way I premeditate is determined by countless factors doesn´t take away from that meaning in any way. Pain means something to me. The fact that I know that pain is determined by physical processes doesn´t take away from this meaning. Not even the fact that whether I use certain means to affect the depth of the pain is determined by countless factor takes away from the meaning. If it helps any, not even the fact that I´d know that the pain was "but" phantom pain would take away from it.

You were talking about playing the game vs. being a spectator. Within the game of a determined existence I am willing to play it and take it seriously. You are the one who wouldn´t want to play the game.
My sports is Badminton, and when I am on the court I am taking it seriously. I am aware that the matches have no meaning once I have left the court, I am aware that the rules are arbitrary, I am aware that it´s me who generates any meaning within this frame of reference. All this knowledge and awareness doesn´t take away from the pleasure and pain I encounter on the court.
Same goes for my determined existence.

 

[mpok1519]

I'm a Christian. Always have been. But I've always liked to think of myself as pretty free-thinking.

Lately I've been wondering, if God knows everything, He must have known when he created Lucifer that he would rebel against Him. And when He created mankind and gave us free will, He knew that the fall of man would follow.

So my question to everyone is: Why does a loving God create a person, knowing that they will reject Him and go to Hell? And do we really have a choice in whether we accept or reject God, or does it all just come down to the way He chose to create us?

If anyone could shed some light on this for me I would greatly appreciate it.

Because God would forgive the devil if he repented; I think He's still waiting.

 

[quatona]

Bill, mpok´s response to your OP made me aware that everything you and I have been discussing these days was way off the questions you have asked in your OP almost two years ago. I hope you don´t mind. I didn´t mean to derail your thread.

 

[BushwigBill]

I don't think we've come too far off the original topic. In my first post I took determinism for granted and wondered how that could fit in with Christianity. When I wrote my second post (two years later) I had decided not to assume determinism as it didn't seem meaningful to me. And that's been the new topic. So I guess if anyone's to blame for the tangent it's me.

Yes the "objective truth" thing is a bit of a tangent from pragmatism but I think it's relevant to any discussion. If the point of a discussion is to reach a conclusion, but a conclusion is just a subjective construct not resembling anything objective, then I guess you may as well skip the discussion and accept any conclusion you like.

I suppose a good reason to believe in an objective truth is that if our experiences didn't originate from an objective source, we wouldn't see anything that we weren't expecting. There would be no surprises

Being subjective beings does make it difficult to discern objective reality. I think that a good start is to give some thought to the subjective "lenses" through which we view reality (as well as their origins), in order to see how they may be distorting the world around us. For example, an insecure person may take a constructive criticism as a personal attack, but through self exploration they could identify the root of this distortion of reality, and put it right. Once any such distortions are removed, I don't see why we wouldn't be able to trust our perceptions.

This is especially tricky when it comes to defining meaning. I have been wondering if perhaps I have some kind of subconscious ulterior motive for believing in free will and expecting so much from meaning but have struggled to identify anything. Whereas it seems that determinists have the comfort of believing that everything is governed by stable and predictable laws, that their actions still mean something (by some definition), and that either there is no morality or they are not to blame for anything they do wrong. There seems to be a greater psychological payoff in that direction. I don't mean any offense by this and my beliefs are always subject to change so feel free to contradict me.

I do believe there to be objective meaning (or levels of meaning perhaps - or even a whole bunch of things which we just lump together under the word "meaning") and I wont claim to know that it conforms at all with my idea of meaning, but my intention is to do my best to make that happen.

So if the apple were conscious, it's actions would have meaning? So while meaning for me hangs upon free will, for you it hangs upon consciousness. How then, do we define consciousness? If meaning is when something means something to someone, then when does an object become a "someone"?

Exactly, that´s what I have been trying to tell you all the time: the implications/conclusions you draw from determinism are not inherent in determinism but in other paradigms you impose on it.

You have missed the point. Maybe reread the sentence. What I said was that I don't think I am imposing anything extra on determinism but rather that our differences in perception of meaning are what cause us to reach separate conclusions. While you think that I have inflated meaning into obscurity, I think that you have deflated it to the point where it may as well no longer exist. Saying that we create our own meaning (at least I think this is what your definition implies) just seems like a fancy way of saying that there is no meaning. That we have imagined it.

So for you, morality is about the effects of actions on you? You would attempt to end the violence because it displeased you, and not because the actors were harming each other or endangering anyone nearby?

Because I believe that meaning must be objective if it is to exist at all, perhaps I should rather say that I believed the funeral to have had meaning, but I may have been under an illusion. If I were to start believing that I'm no more than an object (like your apple - remember, you draw the line for meaning at consciousness, while I draw the line at free will), then the funeral would not just cease to have meaning. It would never have had meaning in the first place.

The funeral was meaningful to me as it showed me how such a short life (he was 27 I think) can have such a huge impact on so many people. I came to admire the deceased. It also made me appreciate my own brothers. But if I, the deceased, and those who knew him are not meaningful beings, then I am under an illusion.

When I say "I feel that..." I'm not saying that this is a good reason to believe in something, or that my mind is made up. I'm just stating how I feel. I think that this is often a good start though. If the root of the feeling can be identified, it can either be dismissed or lead to a decent argument. So I thought discussing feelings could help.

I'm a baritone. I'm studying a diploma in contemporary music so we cover jazz, blues, pop, rock, latin etc. It's not always my cup of tea but I like to keep an open mind and try anything once. I want to find a classical teacher sometime as well. Just to make myself as versatile as possible. I love any music that's really progressive and original. I mostly listen to rock and metal (and a little electronica) and I sing/growl in a metal band which is fun. I'd like to make a living out of it if I can. Otherwise I have a bachelors degree in psychology which is my "Plan B". I might even combine the two and get into music therapy. I can always find someone from my college to accompany me so I won't be offended if you stick to your ladies

I play a little football (soccer, that is - if you are American), and I enjoy it because it keeps me fit, distracts me from whatever else is going on in my life so that I can relax, and exercises my brain by forcing me to make tactical decisions under pressure. All of these factors have meaning for me off the field. I suspect there is some aspect of your badminton games which is comparable. Am I wrong?

 

[Triad]

He should know what decisions we are going to make even though he doesn't control them. To me that's what it means for a being who exists outside of time to "know everything".

Bushwig, I think you're straying from the gist of your original contention, which was this:

If God knows everything, He must have known when he created Lucifer that he would rebel against Him. And when He created mankind and gave us free will, He knew that the fall of man would follow.
​

You were talking there about certainties – not possibilities. Possibilities are theoretical. I could spontaneously combust, but knowing that's a possibility, nor most any other possibility, has any application to free will.

Triad, you are still not making any sense to me. I don't see any practical difference between "seeing" and "knowing".

It was referenced only in terms of seeing or knowing possibilities. You can see possibilities. I could roll a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 with a single die. But you can't rightly "know" the possibilities, because knowing consists of a singular outcome. Possibilities doesn't narrow it down to a factual entity. A vague reference or general idea shouldn't be confused with knowledge. This is the stuff psychic chicanery is made of. They give you a wide range of outcomes and then claim that it was knowledge. Knowledge must be precise, otherwise it is incomplete. If we're talking about an omniscient being, then we're implying complete knowledge. "Knowing" of a myriad of possible outcomes is different from knowing the outcome.

The bottom line is that an omniscient God should have full understanding of certainties and possibilities, even if those possibilities depend on the free will of others.

I'm saying the possibilities part is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't affect the argument at all.

You're still shoving monumental decisions off onto some inscrutable "me" that somehow can operate independently of the ideal "me" whenever it's philosophically convenient.

Teddy, this is no different fundamentally than the parent-child relationship. Parents have seen what their children are capable of, while the child might be self-doubting or unmotivated. The good parent doesn't attempt to force the child, but to help the child see what they are capable of attaining and then allowing the child to ultimately choose for themselves as they mature.

The problem is you'll always want for coherent internal motivations for whatever ultimate decision-maker you posit.

Don't you recognize this paradigm also in man's struggle between animalistic tendencies and being a moral being? Our base selves would like to kill people when we're angry, but we temper that with rationality and sensibility. This is an example of two selves that we all possess. Our materialistic self vs. our spiritual self.

Why would the base "me" choose to follow God's recommendation or not?

Because the base person is often still intelligent/wise enough to recognize the need for help, even if he/she lacks the strength to accomplish it on their own. The desire to improve can be there even though the drive to do so isn't quite present.

 

[quatona]

Part 2

Because I believe that meaning must be objective if it is to exist at all, perhaps I should rather say that I believed the funeral to have had meaning, but I may have been under an illusion.

Yes, I understand that under these conditions „meaning (Bushwil definition)“ would turn out to be an illusion. I think it would have been a good idea to mention that you use „meaning“ in a very particular definition along with the statement that „with determinism there is no meaning“.

If I were to start believing that I'm no more than an object (like your apple - remember, you draw the line for meaning at consciousness, while I draw the line at free will), then the funeral would not just cease to have meaning. It would never have had meaning in the first place.

Yes, I see how this makes sense in regards to „meaning (Bushwil definition)“.
I have played at the funeral today, and the funeral as well as the music had plenty of „meaning (quatona definition)“ to me and to a lot of others. That all this meaning things have to others is of no importance to you unless it also has „meaning (Bushwil definition)“ I personally find regrettable and, frankly, a bit scary – but that´s just me. If I see a person suffer and can offer comfort the question whether the suffering and the comfort have „meaning (Bushwil definition)“ is about the least of my concern. The meaning that it has to the person is sufficient just fine, for me.

The funeral was meaningful to me as it showed me how such a short life (he was 27 I think) can have such a huge impact on so many people. I came to admire the deceased. It also made me appreciate my own brothers. But if I, the deceased, and those who knew him are not meaningful beings, then I am under an illusion.

Yes, if you assume them to have „meaning (Bushwil definition)“ and you were to find out that there is no such „meaning (Bushwig definition)“ you will be disillusioned.

When I say "I feel that..." I'm not saying that this is a good reason to believe in something, or that my mind is made up. I'm just stating how I feel. I think that this is often a good start though. If the root of the feeling can be identified, it can either be dismissed or lead to a decent argument. So I thought discussing feelings could help.

Oh, don´t get me wrong. It helps more than anything. Just not with an allegedly existing „objective truth“.
After we have - hopefully – got some misunderstandings out of the way all that´s left are feelings and a posteriori rationalizations (definitions that force the conclusions etc.):
You couldn´t endure the idea that there is no „meaning (Bushwig definition)“, and I don´t even expect there to be such, wouldn´t miss it and am fine with there being plenty of „meaning (quatona definition)“.
Since the question whether there is „meaning (Bushwig definition)“ somewhere out there is one of the questions that are (and presumably always will be) purely academic, philosophical and any answers are at best speculations anyways, you are well advised to work from the assumption that floats your boat best. I personally feel quite comfortable because „meaning (quatona definition)“ is demonstrably all around me and the existence of „meaning (Bushwig definition)“ isn´t required for me to find life worth living.

I'm a baritone. I'm studying a diploma in contemporary music so we cover jazz, blues, pop, rock, latin etc. It's not always my cup of tea but I like to keep an open mind and try anything once. I want to find a classical teacher sometime as well. Just to make myself as versatile as possible. I love any music that's really progressive and original. I mostly listen to rock and metal (and a little electronica) and I sing/growl in a metal band which is fun. I'd like to make a living out of it if I can. Otherwise I have a bachelors degree in psychology which is my "Plan B". I might even combine the two and get into music therapy. I can always find someone from my college to accompany me so I won't be offended if you stick to your ladies

Ever done an internet collaboration? Do you have recording facilities?
At some point in my life I considered going into music therapy myself.

I play a little football (soccer, that is - if you are American), and I enjoy it because it keeps me fit, distracts me from whatever else is going on in my life so that I can relax, and exercises my brain by forcing me to make tactical decisions under pressure. All of these factors have meaning for me off the field. I suspect there is some aspect of your badminton games which is comparable.

Sure there are such aspects. But even without those aspects playing badminton as a purpose in itself would have „meaning (quatona definition)“ to me.

 

[BushwigBill]

Quatona, before I reply, I'm interested to know what happened to Part 1. I would just reply to Part 2 but some of my questions may already have been answered.

Triad, my original question deals largely with God's motivation for his various creations, and thus the point of whether or not he knew (not just saw) the consequences of his actions prior to acting is in fact crucial to the discussion. For me an omniscient being (especially one unrestrained by time) has to know everything, certain or possible. Do you or do you not disagree?

 

[quatona]

Quatona, before I reply, I'm interested to know what happened to Part 1. I would just reply to Part 2 but some of my questions may already have been answered.

[insert expletive of the worst kind]
I would also like to know what happened to it.
It was a very long response (part 2 was just the leftover that went beyond the 15000 characters).
Whatever - it´s gone. I haven´t saved it on my computer.
Not sure that I´ll find the time and energy to rewrite it. Please don´t take that for disrespect.

 

[quatona]

Upon rereading part 2 I notice that pretty much everything I wrote in part 1 is reflected in part 2 (what does that tell me? ).

As you can probably tell from part 2 I first - in order to avoid the ongoing equivocations - I distinguished between "meaning (Bushwig definiton)" and "meaning (quatona definition)".

Something that got lost was my request to provide your definition of "meaning" which - if I haven´t missed anything - you haven´t done so far. You have just explained one requirement for "meaning (Bushwig definition)". Since you have introduced "objective meaning" as a term, I´d also like you to tell me whether you use "meaning" and "objective meaning" in different definitions or whether they are synonyms for you. There´s quite a bit of confusion about the precise definitions you are using, on my part.

Should there be anything in your previous post that you would like me to address specifically (and which I probably did in part 1), let me know.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Teddy, this is no different fundamentally than the parent-child relationship. Parents have seen what their children are capable of, while the child might be self-doubting or unmotivated. The good parent doesn't attempt to force the child, but to help the child see what they are capable of attaining and then allowing the child to ultimately choose for themselves as they mature.

Certainly there are multiple unique instances of the interactions which are indicative of the problems I have noted. Ultimately, it matters not who or what is providing the impetus; the disconnect occurs within the whole nebulous notion of "self."

Don't you recognize this paradigm also in man's struggle between animalistic tendencies and being a moral being? Our base selves would like to kill people when we're angry, but we temper that with rationality and sensibility. This is an example of two selves that we all possess. Our materialistic self vs. our spiritual self.

As that is simply yet another way to state the problem, it's odd that you propose it seemingly as some kind of solution.

Because the base person is often still intelligent/wise enough to recognize the need for help, even if he/she lacks the strength to accomplish it on their own. The desire to improve can be there even though the drive to do so isn't quite present.

Again, this is utterly fraught with the multiple-selves problem I have been harping on. Here you posit a "desire" and a "drive" without regard to how they interact or how one might overcome the other. Do "I" control how strong my desires and/or drives are?

It is far too often taken for granted that we intuitively know how these things work, but even a prima facie analysis reveals absurdities and contradictions.

 

[Triad]

For me an omniscient being (especially one unrestrained by time) has to know everything, certain or possible. Do you or do you not disagree?

I agree in principle, on a macro level. It's the application of the possibilities where we seem to be parting ways. An omniscient being must indeed know the parameters of what's possible, however I don't think that's the same as saying that such a being also knows all the precise individual outcomes of those possibilities. He knows that all occurrences will happen within a certain realm. I need to expound on this, and your next statement gives us a backdrop for delving into it further...

Triad, my original question deals largely with God's motivation for his various creations, and thus the point of whether or not he knew (not just saw) the consequences of his actions prior to acting is in fact crucial to the discussion.

You seem to be assuming a priori that our decisions are a consequent of God's decisions. That kind of spoils this inquiry before it gets started.

What if we say that God knew that many people would fail and rebel against Him... but also that He didn't know the specific identities of who those people were until He set them in motion? Does that work for you?

My point is that God could not know something about you specifically without you being created. His knowledge of that fact is dependent on your existence. So to say that God should have known ahead of time what you would be like before He created you is putting the cart before the horse. It's true that He knew all the possible outcomes of all humans without them being created, but that doesn't apply directly to your situation or any other specific situation.

Think of it this way. Try to imagine a specific uncreated being... Imagine a hypothetical being that we'll call T-7841692. Note that this being does not exist, and has never existed. So can God, in His omniscience, tell you whether T-7841692 will accept God if given the chance? Of course He can't tell you that. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. T-7841692 would have to be created first in order for that determination to be made. Thus, it's a little tenuous to be suggesting that God knew what each of us individually would do before we were created.

Biblically, this makes sense as well. If God didn't need to give us a chance to prove ourselves and already knew what each of us would do prior to creating us, there would have been no purpose for giving us bodies and sending us to earth to see if we would keep His commandments.

 

[Triad]

Certainly there are multiple unique instances of the interactions which are indicative of the problems I have noted. Ultimately, it matters not who or what is providing the impetus; the disconnect occurs within the whole nebulous notion of "self."

Couldn't we identify, at least on a societal level, distinctive agents of decision making? Person 1 can be identified separately from Person 2. From there, you take Person 1 on their own, and chart their behavior. Then you combine the influence of Person 2 on Person 1, and chart the behavior again. I think typically you would note a difference with an outside agent, once a suitable one is found. Your good friends can motivate you to do things that you might not normally have the confidence to do. They can serve to draw things out of you that you might not be disciplined enough to draw out of yourself.

Again, this is utterly fraught with the multiple-selves problem I have been harping on. Here you posit a "desire" and a "drive" without regard to how they interact or how one might overcome the other. Do "I" control how strong my desires and/or drives are?

I'd say that we don't control our desires as they stand, but we did control some of their development to this stage, and we can influence them further. Your drive is controlled by you, but an outside agent can enhance the drive (if you let it). I don't think there are black-and-white answers here. I think this all comes in layers.

We can have good intentions (desires), but we may not have the self-discipline to follow through on them. 25% of the population smokes cigarettes, and most of those I know of wish they could stop, but something else inside isn't allowing them to. They are putting the immediate physical impulse above the long-term effects. People do stupid things on impulse, for immediate gratification. They do things that they wish a day later they hadn't done, but at the time, they weren't thinking past that moment. They wanted to indulge in the moment.

I would characterize desires as various reactions basic human impulses, while a drive is even more personal. We pretty much all have impulses to rest, to eat tasty food, to receive affection, to stimulate our minds, and to reach mental and physical stasis, among other things. The specific application of these impulses, however, is unique to the individual. How we each respond to the stimuli makes us unique in who we are.

It is far too often taken for granted that we intuitively know how these things work, but even a prima facie analysis reveals absurdities and contradictions.

I'm just trying to recognize some of the distinctions. I'm not trying so much to describe the process. I don't want to give the impression that the mechanations of life are obvious, because I realize there's more that's hidden than what's evident. My aim in this exercise is to uncover some of the clues. Can we at least recognize that a person tends to respond more favorably when given outside support and companionship? I think that's a start.

 

[BushwigBill]

Triad, my original post assumed determinism and that does sort of spoil the inquiry, but I was wondering if anyone could see a way around that. I now believe that it is not necessary to assume this, even though rejecting it requires an assumption of some rather counterintuitive physical possibilities.

As for omniscience, I believe that God is never restricted to parameters. I think that it is quite possible for him to know what decisions we are going to make without determining those decisions. Our linear, unidirectional perspective of time may make that difficult to understand, but I don't see any logical problem with it.

Quatona, no disrespect taken! I can't blame you for not wanting to rewrite that. I suppose letting you post twice in a row defeats the point of restricting the size of your posts. So the second might have replaced the first.

I'm going to have to think a bit about a definition of meaning (my definition) and get back to you. It might help if you were to explain the relationship between consciousness and meaning (your definition). Maybe you did this in part one. That was what I was most looking forward to

When I say meaning I mean objective meaning. I think we could even call our definitions objective meaning (mine) and subjective meaning (yours). You may think it scary that I require so much of meaning, but I feel that you expect so little of it that it may as well not exist. The "consciousness" tangent may help with this.

Whether or not the suffering of a hypothetical person is meaningful (my definition) depends on their free will. For your definition it would depend only on consciousness. I think I'm going to need this clarified before we can continue. What do you think makes an object/entity/being conscious?

I'm afraid I don't have any decent recording facilities, and I think the broadband connections available here (I live in South Africa) are a bit primitive for online collaborations and such (it's quite slow and our monthly usage is capped at 3GB). This is because we have only one telecommunications company here and they have a ridiculous monopoly. But that's another story

What put you off music therapy?

Now that we have our separate definitions the sports analogy makes more sense. Good job there