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 fine and dandy, but it does not an argument make.When I can see something is true, i.e. I can make choices, then it becomes abvious that telling me I cannot make choices or that the choices I make are not made by me, but forced on me is incorrect.
That´s fine and dandy, but it does not an argument make.
On a sidenote: The alternative to "choosing" is not necessarily "being forced", and determinism doesn´t say that "choices are forced upon someone". It says there is no such thing as a choice, in the first place. But I have told and explained that to you countless times before. Your persistent use of this false dichotomy frustrates me. I get the impression you don´t even listen.
Because your experience is not necessarily accurate.I try to listen, but I can't understand how a choice is not a choice, or how there is no such thing as a choice when I experience it very second.
That´s not what I criticized as a false dichotomy. I was talking about the dichotomy "either chosen or forced upon". Determinism means neither.Why is it a false dichotomy to not accept as false what I obseve to be true?
What would you expect to experience if you knew your "choices" were the deterministic outcomes of quintillions of wave-function collapses?I try to listen, but I can't understand how a choice is not a choice, or how there is no such thing as a choice when I experience it very second. Why is it a false dichotomy to not accept as false what I obseve to be true?
Granted but what evidence is there that I am not seeing myself making choices when I think I am?=quatona;41462376]Because your experience is not necessarily accurate.
Unless I am part of the determining factor, I don't understand how my actions can be both my choice and predetermined.That´s not what I criticized as a false dichotomy. I was talking about the dichotomy "either chosen or forced upon". Determinism means neither.
What would you expect to experience if you knew your "choices" were the deterministic outcomes of quintillions of wave-function collapses?
Choice is a convenient, comforting fiction. Causality is unimaginably complex; we can't model determinism even when assured of its validity.
You shouldn't really have to believe one or the other. Metaphysically, belief in "spirit" can allow for the existence of freedom (though arguably, those who assent to such a metaphysic can't explain why); those who believe in a form of reductionism can't believe in freedom -- if all is reduced to physical processes, all is determined, and if all is determined, nothing is "free".
Granted but what evidence is there that I am not seeing myself making choices when I think I am?
They can´t. All I have been trying to tell you is that predetermined does not equal "forced upon". "Forced upon" implies an entity who forces you, which is not necessarily the idea of determinism, and certainly not mine. If you want to seriously discuss an idea it would be better to abstain from keeping paraphrasing it with a term the holder of the idea keeps telling you is not accurately describing it.Unless I am part of the determining factor, I don't understand how my actions can be both my choice and predetermined.
elman said:Again I see no evidence that would cause me to reasonably conclude I am not free to make various choices and I see there are consequences that flow from my choices.
It is obvious that I can make choices.Come on. You were the one claiming something was obvious.
The evidence on the table is what we experience.And I was the one merely saying that "it´s obvious" does not an argument make. You make the claim, you bring the evidence to the table.
I have no experience with my actions being predetermined and my not be able to chose between different options. So far as I can tell that experience is impossible to obtain in this world.As another poster has already pointed out, you would need to be able to distinguish between the experience of "choosing" and the experience of being determined to experience the illusion of being "choosing" in order to make your experience an argument of sorts. Maybe you can help the discussion by describing the difference between those experiences.
It had better be pretty strong logic for me to believe I am being fooled by what I observe. I have not seen that kind of logic presented.You have asked for potential evidence for experiences being inaccurate. One scenario would be that what you experience is a logical impossibility.
If my actions are not forced upon me and if I can determine what my actions are doing to be, then I see no determinism at work. Perhaps we are not dealing with the same definition of determinism.They can´t. All I have been trying to tell you is that predetermined does not equal "forced upon". "Forced upon" implies an entity who forces you, which is not necessarily the idea of determinism, and certainly not mine.
Then tell me what the correct defintion is if mine is incorrect.If you want to seriously discuss an idea it would be better to abstain from keeping paraphrasing it with a term the holder of the idea keeps telling you is not accurately describing it.
Thanks!
I cannot prove a negative is what people say all the time about God not existing. I cannot prove my choices are my own, but I have no reason to believe they are not.You can't prove that you're not a network of physical processes (without a spirit, a soul, or what have you) -- i.e., that "you" is reducable to "material". If you are reducable, you're subject to determinism; this is scientific, though granted quantum physics seems to provide a way out (it really doesn't).
Yes, I know, it is obvious to you. So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Granted but what evidence is there that I am not seeing myself making choices when I think I am?
It is obvious that I can make choices.
Hang on. So far we have merely established that you feel you experience it.The evidence on the table is what we experience.
Since you can´t even tell me how this experience woudl differ from the experience you have you can´t even know what of the two options you experience.I have no experience with my actions being predetermined and my not be able to chose between different options.
Yes, we had that discussion countless times. I have given you the logic behind it, but you preferred to cling to your circular reasoning.It had better be pretty strong logic for me to believe I am being fooled by what I observe. I have not seen that kind of logic presented.
Yes, probably we aren´t. The determinism concept this thread is about, however, can clearly be discerned from the OP, the OPers follow up posts, my responses and the responses of others who tried to explain that which he felt he was missing.If my actions are not forced upon me and if I can determine what my actions are doing to be, then I see no determinism at work. Perhaps we are not dealing with the same definition of determinism.
It´s not about correct or non-correct. You can define it as you wish. You just don´t address the notion that is discussed in this thread, then.Then tell me what the correct defintion is if mine is incorrect.
Because the entire edifice of choice collapses when scrutinized. You've already presented the best defense for "free choice" - that you don't *feel* like your choices are determined - and it's pathetic. You cling desperately to "free choice" because religion and jurisprudence demand it.But why should I believe I am fooling myself? Why should I believe my chosing things is a fiction? Why should I or anyone else be assured of the validity of determinism?
Unless I am part of the determining factor, I don't understand how my actions can be both my choice and predetermined.
So I have evidence my decision are not controlled outside of me or other than by me.=quatona;41493010]Yes, I know, it is obvious to you. So what?
Which is all that is possible.Hang on. So far we have merely established that you feel you experience it.
Correct. All I can know is what I see in front of me. I have no reason to believe it is other than as I see it.Since you can´t even tell me how this experience woudl differ from the experience you have you can´t even know what of the two options you experience.
I don't recall the logic but it did not convince me I am not seeing what I think I am seeing and experiencing. What has circular reasoning got to do with your logic not being convincing enough to override what I see?Yes, we had that discussion countless times. I have given you the logic behind it, but you preferred to cling to your circular reasoning.
My responses are I don't believe your causal chains are all there is if you are leaving my decisions out of the causal chains.Yes, probably we aren´t. The determinism concept this thread is about, however, can clearly be discerned from the OP, the OPers follow up posts, my responses and the responses of others who tried to explain that which he felt he was missing.
It is not about someone forcing someone, but about causal chains.
Why is it that your definition of determinism which I have not yet seen is the correct one?If you want to discuss a different (i.e your personal) idea of "determinism" it would be a good idea to do that in another thread.
What is so hard about that is you keep saying I have no ability to effect my world by my own choices and I do. I do it all the time.It´s not about correct or non-correct. You can define it as you wish. You just don´t address the notion that is discussed in this thread, then.
Determinism does not (necessarily) assume an entity to force something upon you. What is so hard to understand about that?
because you 'are' that thing that determines your actions.
there are 3 'selfs'.
consciousness-the (illusion of) freewill
ego-the self image (the image we have of ourselves)
spirit-the true self
which self are you referring to?
Because the entire edifice of choice collapses when scrutinized. You've already presented the best defense for "free choice" - that you don't *feel* like your choices are determined - and it's pathetic. You cling desperately to "free choice" because religion and jurisprudence demand it.
No, you don´t. You just feel it is so.So I have evidence my decision are not controlled outside of me or other than by me.
...but doesn´t allow for the general "we" you used.Which is all that is possible.
"Choice" is nothing you can see, just as "being determined" is nothing you can see. They are interpretations of what you see.Correct. All I can know is what I see in front of me. I have no reason to believe it is other than as I see it.
Nothing. Your circular logic is completely independent from what I say.I don't recall the logic but it did not convince me I am not seeing what I think I am seeing and experiencing. What has circular reasoning got to do with your logic not being convincing enough to override what I see?
And the question is: is there such thing as a decision for you to make?My responses are I don't believe your causal chains are all there is if you are leaving my decisions out of the causal chains.
I didn´t say it was the correct one. Actually I said the very opposite: That there is no such thing as a "correct" definition. But if you are responding to a definition that is not mine you are not addressing my concept.Why is it that your definition of determinism which I have not yet seen is the correct one?
This part of the discussion was about your idea that determinism means something is forced upon you, and I told you that this is not my idea. If you argue against things being forced upon you you don´t argue against my idea. That was all.What is so hard about that is you keep saying I have no ability to effect my world by my own choices and I do. I do it all the time.
Because there is no third choice; there is caused and there is uncaused. "Chosen" entails some inscrutable third category whose contents are defined almost entirely by a feeling that neither of the other two categories is emotionally satisfying.Yes religion makes no sense if there is no free will, but the reason I believe it is I experience it and I see no logical reason to believe what I experience is not being experienced by me. I have scrutinized the entire edifice of choce and it has not collapsed. I used my free will to do that just as you use your free will to deny its existence. Please tell me what evidence there is that my experience is not as it appears to be.
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?