- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,046
- 15,652
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That's not a preference. It's a logical deduction. IF a THEN b.
Upvote
0
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.
That's not a preference. It's a logical deduction. IF a THEN b.And the same would apply to your preference for the belief that we don't have free will?
Sorry. Your last two responses spoke in terms of preferences, so I thought that was the operative word. I didn't know the physics did two different things. Let me re-phrase the question: The same would apply to your logical deduction that we don't have free will?That's not a preference. It's a logical deduction. IF a THEN b.
Yes, that is what it means, and means about everything, etc.I'm trying to understand determinism better. In retrospect, after you buy a particular car, given all past events in the universe and on Earth, do you believe there's absolutely no way you could not have purchased that particular car?
Why can't what we feel represent what is real lol.
I have gone through this before with you. Feelings alone cannot explain everything and its an assumption to think so. Like I said its more than feelings and also involves our embodied experiences. We test our free will everyday and our experience of this is more than feelings.
Actually I think its the other way around. I don't think any dicovery in QP is ever going to prove deterministic. Einstein thought there must be hidden variables to explain the probablistic nature of the quantum world. But none have been found.
QP undermines the deterministic view of physics. There are several interpretations that support the observers choice as part of the equation for influencing reality.
So at the very least there is no definitive interpretation at this point and any claims that determinism fact as far as fundemental reality is unverified and if anything we should be open to ideas like free will, conscious choice and the observer effect on reality as a possibility.
If you truly believe it is not wrong, but might actually be right, and it is not affecting your moral conscience, then you can always try to change people's minds about it, or push for those things to be changed, etc. Because Heaven knows there is a lot of that going on right now, etc. But it could maybe also be right also maybe, etc. Because Heaven also knows that there were a lot of times in the past when it was also, etc. But I guess only time will tell I guess before we truly find out if we have crossed a bridge too far or something like that or not, etc. We may have to pull back or reign some of it back in at some point maybe, etc. "Maybe" anyway, etc. Like I said, time will tell, etc. If we survive it, or don't set ourselves back socially many, many years, etc.
Take Care/God Bless.
Yeah, of course I reason. And after I buy the car it's reasonable to ask 'what determined your decision?' I might be an outdoorsy type so I'd buy a 4 wheel drive. I might be a guy who values thrift, so I buy a hybrid. I might dislike the colour red so I buy a blue one. It's why I prefer one option over the other that determines my choice. And I can't decide to be thrifty if I'm not. I can't decide to like red if I don't.
Generally speaking, our actions will affect others for either better or worse because we share a planet, no judgment is necessary for that to happen. In fact, I can think of many scenarios where a person can do good for others, and the action will not even be realized much less judged. Most people think to ask why bad things happen rather than why do good things happen. Good is usually taken for granted.No.
I'm saying something else. I'm saying you cannot possibly behave "good" without the judgment of others. It doesn't make much sense conceptually.
I've read the underscored line about a dozen times and still don't understand it as a paraphrase of the statement above it. "As I hope others would care about me" is supposed to be an answer of sound reasoning when asking myself HOW I should care for others. I'm simply assuming others don't like suffering or discomfort any more than I do. It seems to me that if I didn't care in the first place, then I wouldn't even think to ask the question.As you hope others would care about you.
In other words, you're hedging your bets against the possibility of you finding yourself in the same situation.
I think that's because when compassion arises there immediately follows a thought of what it's going to cost us, which conjures up a fear. While compassion is a beautiful emotion, it's also a discomfort, and there can be several different arguments we can make within ourselves as to why we should turn away from compassion.This is why so many people would agree we should "feed the hungry" or "shelter the homeless" but you see so few of those people actually do those things. Why? It's how they would want to be treated....but not actually how they act.
That sounds like either virtue signaling or fear of feeling ashamed, or both.There's a disconnect between the way they know others see things, the way they see things...and it's created by the way they want to be seen by others.
I don't like the articulation of the question only because it's subjective. You probably mean to convey that actions speak louder than words, but still, someone can do actions that look good for their own ego. So, if I say "their" actions reflect "their" morals, then objectively compassion isn't realized as the impetus of morality. Meanwhile, I acknowledge that people can turn away from compassion even though those same people would admit that compassion is a goodness, even if they don't realize it is the impetus of morality.What would you say really reflects someone's morals though? The way they act or how they say people should act?
There's a reason why presumption of innocence is reasonable, and presumption of guilt is unreasonable. It's hypocritical because it's unfair. And while it may seem self-serving to the ignorant, it's actually a disservice to oneself when they turn hard-hearted and become leeches in society.I don't know if it's hypocritical....but it is self serving.
All that matters is that it gets done. I believe that those who turn away from compassion will suffer more than if they didn't. Cowardice and guilt are not pleasant feelings. They may get another chance and do what's right.From a resource standpoint, you want to be in a group that "values" feeding the hungry as something positive. In a big enough group, none will notice you don't actually feed the hungry, but it appears you do....because you signal this virtue.
In reality, I'd suggest that most people claiming that the hungry should be fed are those who want others to do the feeding so they won't need to.
If it's done out of compassion, there's nothing to thump one's chest about. That's why I said all that matters is it gets done.I'd suggest those who actually feel it moral to feed the hungry can be found feeding the hungry. They don't have to thump their chest telling everyone what they want others to believe about them.
It wouldn't need to be if there were no corruption.It's unclear why the moral behavior need be articulated if truly felt.
I was just meaning to convey that some choices or actions don't qualify as belonging in the moral/immoral paradigm. But your question now brings to mind that some people can be just standing still, and the inaction judged as immoral. So, I think I'm going to add that the intent would be what qualifies an action as moral, or immoral.It's typically judged in retrospect? Or does the positive/negative effects have to be immediate and direct?
You wouldn't. But is it that hard to believe?Right....and how would we know that you even did this?
You could tell me if you ever cried watching a movie.And because we're in a society that clearly disapproves....I can't really tell you if I did, can I? I would likely risk some rather severe group judgment for no real gain.
I'm trying to understand determinism better. In retrospect, after you buy a particular car, given all past events in the universe and on Earth, do you believe there's absolutely no way you could not have purchased that particular car?
Choosing coffee over tea is hardly a logical deduction.Sorry. Your last two responses spoke in terms of preferences, so I thought that was the operative word.
Some people argue that preferences are the inner 'me' exercising my free will. They're wrong, but it's a tempting argument for them to make, because it feels exactly like a free will decision. But I wouldn't think that anyone would suggest that a logical deduction is an exercise of the same. If I have two children and they each have two children then you don't need free will to work out how many grandchildren I have.I didn't know the physics did two different things. Let me re-phrase the question: The same would apply to your logical deduction that we don't have free will?
Your own video gave the examples from Robert Kane with the examples of the women on her way to an important job interview sees a mugging having to decide what to do and the guy who got angry and broke the glass table. This seems a reasonable explaination which makes sense.Then give an example where an event or a decision was not determined.
I've now got that question in my notes folder so that I can cut n paste it each time. So you can waste your time making that same point over and over again but I don't have to waste time responding to it.
Yeah, of course she is. We all do. There aren't just 'physical determinants' as in events outside ourselves. We are always, and I mean always part of the process. We act according to our preferences as the situation dictates. The self makes the decision. Which yet again, doesn't mean that free will exists.But in choosing one or the other actions she is also taking responisbility for better or worse even though she may not be able to predict what will happen. Thats when the self comes into the picture as opposed to the physical determinants. She is injecting herself into the equation...
Prediction doesn't come into it (although Kane brings it up). You can predict an outcome or not. It has no bearing on free will whatsoever. He wanted to strike the table. That was determined. Whether it actually breaks or not is an unknown and is completely irrelevant up to the point when he strikes it. Whether it then breaks or not will determine his consequent decisions.Or like the guy who breaks the table in anger. The physical determinants may have caused his arm to strike the table but there was no predicted outcome.
My point was if our conscious experiences give additional knowledge about reality apart from our feelings then our feelings may be reflecting that experience rather than our sense perceptions based on physical determinants.Because one precedes the other.
Reality creates a stimuli...the stimuli makes you feel something...that feeling influences how you describe reality.
Now, if I feel differently, that's fine....reality exists independent from feelings. We cannot really prove anyone's feelings correct.
Yes thats more or less what I just mentioned above. But if our experiences tell us something real about what is happening that is beyond sense perceptions then any feelings that come with consciousness may be a reflection of the reality of experience such as belief or intuition of something rather than being the cause of it.Well of course it is....it's experience + feelings.
I don't know. But I think we are pretty close to the bottom. I mean virtual what else could it be. Whatever it is I think its going to be even weirder than QM and certainly not deterministic with a Newtonian cause and effect which is what would be needed.Uh....well....
I agree ultimately we can never know and certainly not to the level of verified science on these matters. Scientific naturalism should stay out of matters like morality and free will as they are philosophical issues.QP just ensures you cannot ever know if determinism is true. There's simply no way to verify or falsify it. There have been experiments showing the majority of people believe choice to be necessary for any type of morality to exist....and even those who claim to believe determinism cannot adjust their views of morality accordingly....so it seems to me the less accurate description of reality than free will.
This is regardless of whether or not either description of reality is true, because truth isn't knowable on this matter.
The observer effect isn't caused by people but mechanical "observers" recording the locations of photons when they hit the observer.
I think that's true. And that may bring emotional comfort to some. But I think the bigger appeal is negative - it simply negates anything other than materialism. If you start from a materialistic perspective, free will is not possible. Atoms can't make decisions, no matter how many there are, no matter how they're arranged. Yet every 4 year old child knows they make free choices. But they'll just deny it based on nothing. It's like the well-educated intellectual's way of saying "I'm taking my ball and going home".The appeal of determinism is its appearance of "completeness". I'm sure long ago you've asked some atheist what created the "big bang" once he volunteered that as an explanation for creating the universe. I'm sure eventually one said "I don't know"....even though most would probably try and turn the question around on you or demand an explanation for something you don't know, etc.
As I indicated in my first example, preferences are just some of the ingredients that can go into a making a decision.Choosing coffee over tea is hardly a logical deduction.
I'm trying to take determinism seriously here, and I wish you could do the same, because with all due respect, it would help you to understand how insanely delusional you sound. It sounds like a man kept in chains in a dungeon, who's fed nothing but rice every day of his life, and has somehow managed to sincerely convince himself that he chooses to eat rice instead of steak, and that he eats rice because it's the reasonable thing to do, while at the same time acknowledging the reality that he's being force fed.Some people argue that preferences are the inner 'me' exercising my free will. They're wrong, but it's a tempting argument for them to make, because it feels exactly like a free will decision. But I wouldn't think that anyone would suggest that a logical deduction is an exercise of the same. If I have two children and they each have two children then you don't need free will to work out how many grandchildren I have.
In the same way, once the evidence had been presented to me, the conclusion was inescapable. I haven't been persuaded to think that it doesn't exist. Just like you don't need to be persuaded to think that I have 4 grandkids.
So how come I know it and others reject my position? Well, me being the type of person I am - and I can't choose to be a different person, I was always interested in biology when I was a kid. I read The Naked Ape (by Desmond Morris) when I was 14 and that started a lifelong interest in evolution. Which led to evolutionary psychology and then on to free will.
Each interest determined the next. Each book led to the next. Each author's argument caused me to look for others, for and against (and I'm still looking for arguments against my position).
Which is another way of saying that we don't make decisions. Which we do for reasons that determine our choices. That's what 'reasoning' is. A robot will take all available information and reach a decision as to the best choice. And it obviously has no free will. If you ask it for the reasons why its chose as it did then it will tell you.Without free will, there's no reasoning.
Well, the thing about being a Christian, or believing in God is, that you don't necessarily always follow the group always, etc, but you follow the group as much as you can, and for as long as you possibly can, and fully obey all it's rules and laws, until it goes against the higher (moral) rules and/or laws of your conscience, or what you think are God's standards or rules or laws, etc. Because if it does that, then that's the point that you no longer follow them, or go against them, etc. But it's pretty much up to the individual to decide when the group is crossing these lines for each one, etc. Because many have gotten it wrong over the years, and still do sometimes, etc. But the groups standards are to always be fully followed and obeyed until they begin going against what you think are the higher rules or laws or moral standards, etc, and at that point you go against them, etc. Non-violently if you can, but there might even become a time where violence is maybe needed and/or is justified or is deemed necessary maybe, etc. But if you have to do that, or if you feel you have to resort to that, then you might just find yourself getting into some very dark or questionable areas concerning your own morality, etc. You shouldn't allow yourself to become no better than who or what you are going or fighting against in order to get victory, etc, because then you maybe just replace them without anything ever being or becoming any different maybe, etc. If you have to become them to defeat them, then you didn't really defeat them, but you just became them, etc, so you have to make sure you don't cross that line, etc.It really depends upon the group, the variance of moral norms, and the means by which moral norms are enforced (if enforced at all)....
Imagine telling the gang of criminals you've been committing felonies with that sometimes it's good to snitch to the police, and cooperate with an investigation into your peers, etc. You'll be lucky to only be cast out of the group.
Or consider how many moral norms within Islam are enforced by the death penalty.
The point is that sure....some norms can be negotiated, sometimes. I expect they're almost certainly negotiated between individuals though....not the whole group.
Generally speaking, our actions will affect others for either better or worse because we share a planet, no judgment is necessary for that to happen.
I've read the underscored line about a dozen times and still don't understand it as a paraphrase of the statement above it. "As I hope others would care about me" is supposed to be an answer of sound reasoning when asking myself HOW I should care for others. I'm simply assuming others don't like suffering or discomfort any more than I do.
It seems to me that if I didn't care in the first place, then I wouldn't even think to ask the question.
Maybe you said hedging your bet because I used the word "hope". I could have said "As I would want to be cared for". But I chose hope because I mean to imply that the actual caring may not always be there in the way I want it to be?
I think that's because when compassion arises there immediately follows a thought of what it's going to cost us, which conjures up a fear.
That sounds like either virtue signaling or fear of feeling ashamed, or both.
I don't like the articulation of the question only because it's subjective. If I say "their" actions reflect "their" morals, then objectively compassion isn't realized as the impetus of morality.
Meanwhile, I acknowledge that people can turn away from compassion even though those same people would admit that compassion is a goodness, and even if they don't realize it is the impetus of morality.
There's a reason why presumption of innocence is reasonable, and presumption of guilt is unreasonable.
All that matters is that it gets done.
Like I said, compassion is a discomfort. It takes a little courage to be willing to sacrifice something so that others don't suffer so much.
But there's also the relief that when you see their suffering end, so does the discomfort of compassion turn to a sense of fulfillment.
My point is that compassion is a deterministic power, and we will react to it either positively or negatively.
It wouldn't need to be if there were no corruption.
I was just meaning to convey that some choices or actions don't qualify as belonging in the moral/immoral paradigm.
But your question now brings to mind that some people can be just standing still, and the inaction judged as immoral. So, I think I'm going to add that the intent would be what qualifies an action as moral, or immoral.
You wouldn't. But is it that hard to believe?
You could tell me if you ever cried watching a movie.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?