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.
From our perspective or point of view, we are part of interjecting new thoughts or ideas or causes that could change it, etc. But that is only from our perspective or point of view.Inherent flaw in original argument is the fact that if one truly believes this....he's unable to convince those he's unable to convince because of causes that preceded this argument being made....and therefore, they cannot choose to agree.
From the moment you are dropped into the room, a set of deterministic forces start to happen or begin, in your brain and such, etc. And if the exact same you was dropped into that exact same room at that exact same time again, etc, then nothing would change, and everything would be the same, and the exact same set of deterministic foces/processes would happen again, and you'd make the exact same choice(s) again, etc.I'll give you a better scenario....
Imagine you wake up in an empty white room with a door on the right and a door on the left. There's no memory of how you got there, nor anything distinguishing about the doors. They are the same except for their positions.
Which one do you choose to open first and why?
The determinists would have you believe that for some hidden reasons if you chose door on the right....you'll always choose door on the right, no matter how many times we drop you in the room. That seems stupid to me.
I think it's much more likely that at least some times, you'll choose door on the left for the exact same reasons why you choose door on the right. You're confused and want out of the room.
I might ask all you guys that are insisting on free will why you are getting so upset about it, etc.The determinists might argue this isn't a meaningful choice....and I would reply it's still a choice since the options are separate and distinct. If they don't think they're making meaningless choices all the time....ask them why they started this thread?
How did those preceding conditions get set or get decided or become a part of you? We're you born with them from the time you were a baby?So if you're looking for a cause you have to look at the preceding conditions, not the present ones. It's the preceding conditions that caused the preferences that will ultimately determine the choice.
Because we are all a sum of what has come to make up all of our parts at any given moment, caused by prior antecedent conditions or parts going as far back as you want to try and trace it, etc.Might I ask how you propose that we differentiate causation from correlation? Because it seems as though you're saying that they're one and the same thing. For example, there may be a correlation between your preference for coffee over Earl Grey, and your subsequent choice thereof, but how do you prove direct causation?
Everything that precedes the actual choice can be considered to be an antecedent condition. So if I'm walking along the road past a cafe and the waft of coffee makes me thing 'Hey, that smells good. I think I'll have one'. That's a choice that happens in the present determined by something that also happens in the present. Coupled, of course, with my innate preference to drink coffee.I would submit that that's always true... that my preferences preceded the choice, therefore they couldn't have been influenced by any factors present at the moment of the choice. Rather the options present at the moment of the choice are simply the benefactors of those preceding preferences.
So if you're looking for a cause you have to look at the preceding conditions, not the present ones. It's the preceding conditions that caused the preferences that will ultimately determine the choice.
From our perspective or point of view, we are part of interjecting new thoughts or ideas or causes that could change it, etc.
But that is only from our perspective or point of view.
From the moment you are dropped into the room, a set of deterministic forces start to happen or begin, in your brain and such, etc.
And if the exact same you was dropped into that exact same room at that exact same time again, etc, then nothing would change, and everything would be the same, and the exact same set of deterministic foces/processes would happen again, and you'd make the exact same choice(s) again, etc.
I might ask all you guys that are insisting on free will why you are getting so upset about it, etc.
I think it's the perceived loss of agency. That we aren't really in control of our actions. I like the idea that I'm the captain of the good ship HMS Bradskii and it's really difficult to come to terms with the fact that I'm not. It's also very difficult to think that the actions of someone who cuts you off in traffic or breaks into your house or does a lot worse are determined by circumstances beyond his or her control. We want them to be responsible so that we have someone to blame. It's frustrating to not have that option.From the moment you are dropped into the room, a set of deterministic forces start to happen or begin, in your brain and such, etc. And if the exact same you was dropped into that exact same room at that exact same time again, etc, then nothing would change, and everything would be the same, and the exact same set of deterministic foces/processes would happen again, and you'd make the exact same choice(s) again, etc.
I might ask all you guys that are insisting on free will why you are getting so upset about it, etc.
I think it's the perceived loss of agency.
So if I'm walking along the road past a cafe and the waft of coffee makes me thing 'Hey, that smells good. I think I'll have one'. That's a choice that happens in the present determined by something that also happens in the present. Coupled, of course, with my innate preference to drink coffee.
Because we are all a sum of what has come to make up all of our parts at any given moment, caused by prior antecedent conditions or parts going as far back as you want to try and trace it, etc.
No, now you're just reverting to the same mistake. That waft of coffee isn't the cause, it's your precondition concerning coffee that's the cause. No precondition, no cup of coffee. Every choice that you make follows directly from your preferences. And those preferences aren't the result of the external conditions.
Remember Premise #1: We always choose what we prefer.
And the current conditions play absolutely no part in determining those preferences, therefore they can't be the cause.
No waft, no coffee. It triggers the decision. No preference, no coffee.No, now you're just reverting to the same mistake. That waft of coffee isn't the cause, it's your precondition concerning coffee that's the cause. No precondition, no cup of coffee. Every choice that you make follows directly from your preferences. And those preferences aren't the result of the current conditions.
Remember Premise #1: We always choose what we prefer.
And the current conditions play absolutely no part in determining those preferences, therefore they can't be the cause.
Its interesting you answered the question that way. I asked about objective moral truth and you said "No, morality exists". What is existing. That seems to imply its real. Moral realism. But anyway you believe morals are subjective to the person and relative to the context.No, morality exists. We all can make decisions on what we perceive to be right and wrong. That may vary from person to person but that just makes it subjective.
Ok but its an epiphenomena in that its a byproduct or non physical phenomena of something physical. Most importantly being a by product its not a fundemental influence on reality.Correct.
People use that term to head off in all sorts of directions. There are too many varieties for me to give a definitive answer to that.
Ok but I am sure you don't agree that our agency is the capacity to act by free will, self determination rather than being determined. Thats the traditional definition. Its more than just an agent like a robot agent. The agency usually means a degree of control.Yes to all except agency. From Stanford: 'In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity.' We are all agents in that sense.
No thats alright, I am in no hurry. Its probably good to be able to think on it for a bit as I think its quite complex. Well I think its simple but to address the objections of free will is not so simple. Thats why I hesitated to give specific examples because I don't think its that simple. And why I was emphasising the more philosophical approach.Yes.
Incidentally, I can see lots of very long posts in my immediate future. But I am going overseas for a few weeks tomorrow so my replies might by intermittent.
It's not an assumption. It's an observation.If determinism is an unverified assumption and belief about what reality is then your insistence that we measure free will using examples of phsyical causes is also unjustified.
None of us knows the future, or what all the possible outcomes might or could be (from our perspective) so therefore (from our perspective) the possibility of change (or choice) still exists (from our perspective) even though it only comes from the perspective of not knowing everything, etc."You" aren't actually doing anything other than reacting to preexisting causal reasons....stop talking like you have agency if you genuinely believe this.
The mere suggestion that you're trying to change someone's perspective has an inherent element of free will choice. Both that you can choose to do this...and aren't merely reacting...and that the audience can choose to change, and not merely react.
This is another reason why I call this the dumbest argument possible in philosophy. It's not really, it's the second dumbest...but it's close enough. Even if you 100% believe in this I have no doubt that you will act and speak exactly as if you have free will, because we make judgements of value...and they involve the actions/beliefs of others....and the day you no longer judge anyone you would have no need for this discussion.
It's an inherently self defeating argument. If you see others as unable to engage in matters of choice and free will....what possible reason would you have for holding this discussion? It wouldn't really matter to you what anyone believes about anything, would it? It's not their choice.
You're still saying it's an issue of perspective....which implies an element of choice, not causal reaction, not mere light hitting my ocular nerves and a resulting electrical transmission in my brain switching me to one value or another.
What possible reason can you hold for arguing a deterministic description of reality if you genuinely believe in a deterministic view of reality?
If all conditions are always exactly the same in your two door experiment, then a person will make the same exact choice 100% of the time.Let me put it like this Neo....
Assume that I 100% understand your argument about the deterministic nature of reality. Let's even say I admit it's a possibility....but the two door thought experiment will mean you and I cannot know for certain.
Look, I know it annoys you, but I have no other answer to that question other than I feel compelled to.The question is...why argue this if we can be 100% certain that both of us, for the rest of our lives, will act, speak, and believe exactly as if we have free will?
I don't see how this relates to determinism.If you were (hypothetically) checking your mail tomorrow and some maniac hops out of the bushes and stabs you in the gut before running off....you're going to lie there and think that's a bad thing, that shouldn't have happened, and there's something inherently wrong with the situation.
People are made a certain way, and with an inherent morality that tells us certain things are either right, or else wrong, etc. But I still don't see what this has to do with determinism, etc.All thoughts that make no sense because "bad" and "shouldn't" and "wrong" aren't words that make any sense from a genuinely deterministic viewpoint.
It's a play on words due to the limitations of human language, and perspective, because really we don't even "desire" or even have our very own desires really, etc.BTW I don't think I'd agree with premise #1. I'm actually 100% certain we don't always choose what we prefer.
If we could understand even one percent of it, then it might give us a whole heck of a lot more insight, as a species, then some of the ways we are blundering blindly forward right now.If you cannot distinguish the causal elements....can we agree that determinism holds no more explanatory power of human nature or behavior than free will?
Would you expect anything less?This is why I said determinists would make this argument....and bingo, you made it. I guess you assume you had to despite me making your argument for you.
Odd that.
I 100% completely agree with this statement, although I stand on the other side of it, etc.It's not like I'm upset....you'd just imagine someone might have thought about this a little harder in 2000+ posts.
It's not an assumption. It's an observation.
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?