Free Will

[elman]

But your example meant to demonstrate that you have a choice, whilst it actually didn´t. It just claimed that you have a choice, and added nothing to the previous claim that you have a choice.
The good old circular reasoning:
You have a choice because you can hit or not hit someone.
Because you have a choice you can hit or not hit someone.

Yes I claim to have the ability to hit or not hit. Now show me why I am wrong. It has nothing to do with circular reasoning. It is a fact derived from my observance of realilty.

 

[elman]

You need to show that it is a choice. So far you have just claimed it is.
While we are at it, you may also want to show that having a heart attack is not a choice.

Only to you of the billions of people on earth do I need to show that hitting someone is a choice and having a heart attack is not. Most of us can observe that we control one action, and the other we do not control.

 

[quatona]

Yes I claim to have the ability to hit or not hit. Now show me why I am wrong.

Sure you have the ability to hit or not to hit. You also have the ability to have a heart attack or not. What I would like you to show is how one is a choice and the other is not..

It has nothing to do with circular reasoning.

What you did was circular reasoning. Or maybe I just misunderstood it to be an attempt at reasoning.

It is a fact derived from my observance of realilty.

So it is merely an assumption.

 

[elman]

Sure you have the ability to hit or not to hit. You also have the ability to have a heart attack or not. What I would like you to show is how one is a choice and the other is not..

What you did was circular reasoning. Or maybe I just misunderstood it to be an attempt at reasoning.

So it is merely an assumption.

You do have a point. I don't trust your view of reality.

 

[quatona]

Only to you of the billions of people on earth do I need to show that hitting someone is a choice and having a heart attack is not.

You have met some others.

Most of us can observe that we control one action, and the other we do not control.

Observing is not exactly the apporpriate term here. You interprete your observations.

 

[elman]

Sure you have the ability to hit or not to hit. You also have the ability to have a heart attack or not. What I would like you to show is how one is a choice and the other is not..

What you did was circular reasoning. Or maybe I just misunderstood it to be an attempt at reasoning.

So it is merely an assumption.

I would not use the word merely. I would say yes based on my observation of reality I assume I exist and you exist and I have the ability to hit or not hit you if we were in each others presence, but I do not have the ability to have a heart attack or not.

 

[elman]

You have met some others.

Observing is not exactly the apporpriate term here. You interprete your observations.

Of course I interprete my observations. How else could I use them?

 

[quatona]

Of course I interprete my observations. How else could I use them?

Probably not at all. What I meant was to point out, however, was the difference between observing that some people have heart-attacks and others have not, and intepreting this observation as indicating that they choose to have a heart-attack or not.

 

[quatona]

I would not use the word merely.

I used this word because to me it looked like you were trying to picture it as more than an assumption. I may have been mistaken in this interpretation of my observations, though.

 

[quatona]

You do have a point. I don't trust your view of reality.

Finally we are getting somewhere.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

It´s not a choice to hit someone.
[ Point: Just because two different things can happen there needn´t be a choice - as elman´s argument suggested. In order to show there is a choice you need more than just pointing to more than one possible outcome).

What do you mean there is not a choice to hit someone? Elman is right here. I choose the choice to choose to hit someone. I choose the choice to not hit someone. I choose the choice to think about choosing the choice to hit someone or not hit someone. I think about choosing therefore im capable of choosing through analyzation of the choice. To choose not to choose to hit someone is a choice. To choose to his someone is a choice all of which depend on the condemnation to think about choosing. You cannot not think about choosing. Choices are based off a condemnation that the consciousness has given us.

 

[quatona]

What do you mean there is not a choice to hit someone? Elman is right here. I choose the choice to choose to hit someone. I choose the choice to not hit someone. I choose the choice to think about choosing the choice to hit someone or not hit someone. I think about choosing therefore im capable of choosing through analyzation of the choice. To choose not to choose to hit someone is a choice. To choose to his someone is a choice all of which depend on the condemnation to think about choosing. You cannot not think about choosing. Choices are based off a condemnation that the consciousness has given us.

Congratulations. That´s got to be an absolute record: Twenty times "choose/choice" in ten sentences, but no argument.

I choose the choice to choose to hit someone.

But: Do you choose to choose the choice to choose the choice to hit someone?
And what does that even mean?

You cannot not think about choosing.

Oops. Looks like you shot your own foot here.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

No? I think about choosing. You cant not choose to think. Your consciousness is thinking unless your a non-conscious thing you are incapable of thinking about choosing.

And thank you you might also want to thank Sartre who used the same repetiveness and never lost a philosophical debate.

 

[quatona]

No? I think about choosing. You cant not choose to think. Your consciousness is thinking unless your a non-conscious thing you are incapable of thinking about choosing.

If you are incapable of not thinking you choose, this means you are determined to think you choose.

And thank you you might also want to thank Sartre who used the same repetiveness and never lost a philosophical debate.

So repetitiveness makes you right? I´ll keep that in mind. Arguing takes so much more effort than repeating, after all, and I have a tendency towards laziness.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

haha, touche . I have no way to accurately put a verb such as choosing into an accurate depiction.

You dont think you choose. Its thinking about choosing. You are incapable of just choosing because you are conscious of choosing. A non-conscious animal such as a bird does not think about how fast its going and it can lead to its subsequent affect at hitting a window. Consciousness is what gives us the right to choose. Im not repeating myself. You might want to avoid the repetiveness and look into its actual meaning instead of pondering why i use the same word a number of times. It makes sense. Trust me.

 

[quatona]

haha, touche . I have no way to accurately put a verb such as choosing into an accurate depiction.

So I can´t even know what you are actually talking about when saying choice?

You dont think you choose. Its thinking about choosing.

For starters, I just think about a word you use and what you might mean when saying it.

You are incapable of just choosing because you are conscious of choosing.

A non-conscious animal such as a bird does not think about how fast its going and it can lead to its subsequent affect at hitting a window. Consciousness is what gives us the right to choose.

So far you have merely described consciousness. How did you get to choice? Is there a difference between being conscious and having a choice, in your terminology?

Im not repeating myself.

Oh my, you did.

You might want to avoid the repetiveness and look into its actual meaning instead of pondering why i use the same word a number of times.

What is its meaning.

It makes sense. Trust me.

Replacing arguments by appeals to trust is somewhat misplaced in a philosophical discussion.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

No, i mean i havent thought of a good scenerio that i can represent it as.

If you read more carefully you would see i said "thinking about choosing" not "thinking to choose."

You cannot just choose a choice because you also have to think about choosing a choice....or better said making a conscious choice. You think about the possiblities of the consequences of choosing what your choosing before you choose it. Your not like an animal who enact what they do when they choose to do it because you have to think about enacting.

Consciousness directly affects life...which is based souly on phenomena and the choices you make during those phenomenon. Your consciousness is used to make choices because it is the soul reason that you are human without the consciousness you wouldnt think about the choices you make and it would eliminate thuse this entire argument.

Im not repeating myself, just the words that are used. Each sentence is different and each sentence give a different overview of a different perspective.

Its meaning is that you are responsible for your choices, that you are responsible because you think about every consequence of making that choice. The kids who choose not to love their leader know full well that will be persecuted. The kids who choose to love their leader know full well that if they did not such as the kids who dont they would be persecuted.

 

[quatona]

No, i mean i havent thought of a good scenerio that i can represent it as.

Ok.

If you read more carefully you would see i said "thinking about choosing" not "thinking to choose."

I have read it carefully. "Thinking about choosing" (as in thinking about what you will do next), however, does not make any case for having a choice (at least not in a way that allows to conclude "responsibility" - which again would depend on what you mean when saying "responsibility", though).

You cannot just choose a choice because you also have to think about choosing a choice....or better said making a conscious choice.

The question, however - and independently how many layers you add to "thinking about choosing to choose to choose..." is: Is the way you think about it chosen or is it determined?

You think about the possiblities of the consequences of choosing what your choosing before you choose it.

You are equivocating choice, and the way you put it here is begging the question. Although it is true that I think about what to do next, it is very easily possible that the way I think about it - and hence the result - is not in my control.

Your not like an animal who enact what they do when they choose to do it because you have to think about enacting.

Agreed, but that makes no case for having a choice yet. If anything it makes a case for encountering options. It all depends on how you define choice, and which implications you derive from the idea of "having choice", as defined by you, as well as whether these implicatons can indeed be derived from the concept of choice you hold.
So far we agree that we see options. I also see the options that tomorrow the sun will shine or not. What, however, you want to show is that the outcome is within our control. This is a difficult task, particularly because you first would have to come up with a conclusive definition of the "I", the "self", and an explanation what all you include in this "I". Is, e.g., my genetic code part of the "I"? Then indeed everything that my genetic code determines can be called "my choice". I choose to have blue eyes.

Consciousness directly affects life...which is based souly on phenomena and the choices you make during those phenomenon.

Again you are building the conclusion in the premise. We haven´t yet agreed that we make choices. That we make choices is what you have yet to support. So, for clarity´s sake, I suggest that you say "acting" as long as we haven´t established that a particular action is a "choice". We have to keep in mind that the word "choice" as used in everyday life often has a different meaning than in the philosophical discussion. "Choice" (as in "perceiving option") does not allow to conclude "choice" (as in "being a determining agent").

Your consciousness is used to make choices because it is the soul reason that you are human without the consciousness you wouldnt think about the choices you make and it would eliminate thuse this entire argument.

So far you have merely established that consciousness comes with seeing options.

Im not repeating myself, just the words that are used. Each sentence is different and each sentence give a different overview of a different perspective.

But they all suffer from the same problem: Equivocation.

Its meaning is that you are responsible for your choices, that you are responsible because you think about every consequence of making that choice.

Uh, oh. As long as you haven´t demonstrated that the way I think about it is within my control, you haven´t done anything for establishing "responsibility".
Let´s hypothetically assume my thinking would be programmed. How would I be responsible for it and its results?

The kids who choose not to love their leader know full well that will be persecuted.
The kids who choose to love their leader know full well that if they did not such as the kids who dont they would be persecuted.

We haven´t agreed that they choose. This is what you actually want to show me. The way you approach the issue keeps begging the question.
Apart from that I agree with these statements: "The kids who love their leader know fully..." and "The kids who don´t love...". Now you just have to make a case for love being a choice.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

"I have read it carefully. "Thinking about choosing" (as in thinking about what you will do next), however, does not make any case for having a choice (at least not in a way that allows to conclude "responsibility" - which again would depend on what you mean when saying "responsibility", though). "

Responsiblity for making a choice and its subsequent consequences are your responsiblities, no one else.

"The question, however - and independently how many layers you add to "thinking about choosing to choose to choose..." is: Is the way you think about it chosen or is it determined?"

The layers end I cannot think about chooing the choice to choose to choose to choose..... I can only think about choosing the choice to choose.

"You are equivocating choice, and the way you put it here is begging the question. Although it is true that I think about what to do next, it is very easily possible that the way I think about it - and hence the result - is not in my control."

Its not in your control but you are still responsible for the consequence and action of the choice considering you overviewed the consequence and the possiblities of the outcome of the choice. You know full well the possiblities, thus the possiblity that occurs from the choice is your responsiblity.


"Agreed, but that makes no case for having a choice yet. If anything it makes a case for encountering options. It all depends on how you define choice, and which implications you derive from the idea of "having choice", as defined by you, as well as whether these implicatons can indeed be derived from the concept of choice you hold.
So far we agree that we see options. I also see the options that tomorrow the sun will shine or not. What, however, you want to show is that the outcome is within our control. This is a difficult task, particularly because you first would have to come up with a conclusive definition of the "I", the "self", and an explanation what all you include in this "I". Is, e.g., my genetic code part of the "I"? Then indeed everything that my genetic code determines can be called "my choice". I choose to have blue eyes."

I dont understand what you mean by the "I" are you implying the conscious "I" of the cogito? Or another set of "I" as a differant representation?

"Again you are building the conclusion in the premise. We haven´t yet agreed that we make choices. That we make choices is what you have yet to support. So, for clarity´s sake, I suggest that you say "acting" as long as we haven´t established that a particular action is a "choice". We have to keep in mind that the word "choice" as used in everyday life often has a different meaning than in the philosophical discussion. "Choice" (as in "perceiving option") does not allow to conclude "choice" (as in "being a determining agent")."

The making of a choice is an action, it is an "action of a choice". Thinking about choosing controls the "action of choosing" and thus your choice is dependent on the consciousness.

Ill have to think about it more and get back to you in an edit for this one.

"So far you have merely established that consciousness comes with seeing options."

The use of the consciousness in this scenerio only concerning action, not its other extenstions and manifestations.


"But they all suffer from the same problem: Equivocation."


"Uh, oh. As long as you haven´t demonstrated that the way I think about it is within my control, you haven´t done anything for establishing "responsibility".
Let´s hypothetically assume my thinking would be programmed. How would I be responsible for it and its results?"

By knowing that you are the one thinking and the resposiblity of the consequences of your thoughts are then also on your shoulders.

"We haven´t agreed that they choose. This is what you actually want to show me. The way you approach the issue keeps begging the question.
Apart from that I agree with these statements: "The kids who love their leader know fully..." and "The kids who don´t love...". Now you just have to make a case for love being a choice. "

I think about the consequence of loving, and then make my choice based off the observation of the choices outcomes and possiblities.

I dont know how to do multi-quotes exactly yet so pace yourself =/.

 

[quatona]

Responsiblity for making a choice and its subsequent consequences are your responsiblities, no one else.

Hehe. First you want to conclude responsibility from choice, now you talk about responsibility for making a choice.
"My or someone else´s" is a false dichotomy. I am questioning your concept of "responsibility" altogether. But so far I have to make assumptions, because you haven´t provided any definition for the keyterms of your concept: "choice", "responsibility", "I".

"The question, however - and independently how many layers you add to "thinking about choosing to choose to choose..." is: Is the way you think about it chosen or is it determined?"

The layers end I cannot think about chooing the choice to choose to choose to choose..... I can only think about choosing the choice to choose.

Well, if you can´t think further you have no basis for your concept of choice.

Its not in your control but you are still responsible for the consequence and action of the choice considering you overviewed the consequence and the possiblities of the outcome of the choice.

For the last time: We are discussing whether there is choice or not. Simply using it for a premise doesn´t do the trick.

You know full well the possiblities, thus the possiblity that occurs from the choice is your responsiblity.

But I am doubting that there is a choice, in the first place.
Please clarify what exactly "is your responsibility" means. I have never really understood that term.

I dont understand what you mean by the "I" are you implying the conscious "I" of the cogito? Or another set of "I" as a differant representation?

I am asking what "I" means when you say "I make a choice".

The making of a choice is an action, it is an "action of a choice".

Such circularity makes me all dizzy.

Thinking about choosing controls the "action of choosing" and thus your choice is dependent on the consciousness.

So the thinking controls the choice. Do I control my thinking? What is the "I" that controls my thinking?

The use of the consciousness in this scenerio only concerning action, not its other extenstions and manifestations.

Sorry, I don´t seem to understand this sentence. If it is important, would you be so kind and reword it for me?

By knowing that you are the one thinking and the resposiblity of the consequences of your thoughts are then also on your shoulders.

How does that logically follow, and, first of all, what does "responsibility" mean and imply?

I think about the consequence of loving, and then make my choice based off the observation of the choices outcomes and possiblities.

Yet the awareness of one´s own thinking doesn´t consitute any control.