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.
There is just the one self, the one who is posting here of my own FREE WILL which is not an illusion--at least I have no reason to believe it is.
A note of caution. Unfortunately, in differentiating between acts that are determined and those thought to be free of cause we often use words like "decide," "chose," "choose," and "choice" for both. Obviously in the determinist world there is no such thing as a "choice" in the free-will sense of the word. No more so than a calculator making a "choice" in adding two numbers. The calculator must display "5" when "2," "+," and "3" are punched in. That said . . . .I enjoy this thread, but this is painful to read.
I think the idea that people make their own choices is a fairly logical conclusion to reach. Realizing that there was really only one possible choice, and therefor no choice at all can be a little mind bending.
Here is what I can come up with for a simple example of how this works. Imagine a simple pocket calculator. You take it out and turn it on. Now let's take a moment in time and call that state 0. This state includes every possible variable about that moment in time. From state 0 you press the buttons '2', '+', '3', '=' and the calculator then shows 5. No matter how many times from state 0, if you follow the exact same procedure, you will end up with the exact same result.
Now, let's take the same idea and expand on it. You are about to walk into a store, but there are two doors you can go through. Now let's create state 0 again. From state 0, you can decide to go through the right door, or go through the left door, or even go through neither door and leave. So let's assume you chose to go through the right door. If we reset things back to state 0, you will choose to go through the right door again, because you've already shows that from a given state, that's the door you will choose.
Now if it were me at state 0 instead of you, I could choose the left door and not the right door, but then I would choose the left door if things were repeated. So the idea is that we each maintain our individuality, but from a given set of circumstances, there is really only one way each of us could act. Because of this, while you think about things, and act a certain way, it is impossible for you to act any other way.
The problem with comparing a human decision that starts a 0 state with that of a calculator that starts at a 0 state is that in a calculator the state actually[I said:is[/I] 0. No other information exists in it that that will impinge on the answer to our problem. In humans no such 0 state exists. We can't erase everything that has transpired up to that point---a necessary condition---to match the 0 state of the calculator. We don't live in a vacuum and our minds don't operate in one. Choosing door A instead of door B requires some kind of mental operation, either conscious, unconscious, or both. And its these operations that bring us to the point (determine) of going through door A . And these mental operations are themselves determine. Other than this your example does have merit. No matter how many times you rewind the film Bogy will always say; "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Yes, this is what determinism would imply (except, of course, that "choose" is not the appropriate term here).Now if it were me at state 0 instead of you, I could choose the left door and not the right door, but then I would choose the left door if things were repeated.
freewill? well, illusion or not, that would be the first one, wouldnt it?
anyway, the point i was making was that there are other ways of thinking of the self that dont involve the idea of freewill.
Thank you for the explanation. I am not convinced we can be certain I would always chose the right door, but your explanation is appreciated.I enjoy this thread, but this is painful to read.
I think the idea that people make their own choices is a fairly logical conclusion to reach. Realizing that there was really only one possible choice, and therefor no choice at all can be a little mind bending.
Here is what I can come up with for a simple example of how this works. Imagine a simple pocket calculator. You take it out and turn it on. Now let's take a moment in time and call that state 0. This state includes every possible variable about that moment in time. From state 0 you press the buttons '2', '+', '3', '=' and the calculator then shows 5. No matter how many times from state 0, if you follow the exact same procedure, you will end up with the exact same result.
Now, let's take the same idea and expand on it. You are about to walk into a store, but there are two doors you can go through. Now let's create state 0 again. From state 0, you can decide to go through the right door, or go through the left door, or even go through neither door and leave. So let's assume you chose to go through the right door. If we reset things back to state 0, you will choose to go through the right door again, because you've already shows that from a given state, that's the door you will choose.
Now if it were me at state 0 instead of you, I could choose the left door and not the right door, but then I would choose the left door if things were repeated. So the idea is that we each maintain our individuality, but from a given set of circumstances, there is really only one way each of us could act. Because of this, while you think about things, and act a certain way, it is impossible for you to act any other way.
But the inability to feel determinism does not prove determinism is true. Chosen does not entail some inscrutiable third category between caused and uncaused. I am one of the causes. What I decide is one of the causes. It may not be and I believe is not the only cause. I am influenced by many things in making my decision, but I am not totally controlled and therefore, I am a cause of somethings that happen.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.
You don't feel like you choose; you feel like your "choice" is not determined. But as I have already explained, determinism entails orders of magnitude more events than can ever conceivably be modeled, so the expectation that something can "feel" determined is unrealistic to begin with.
I have no evidence it is a false feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
So I have evidence my decision are not controlled outside of me or other than by me.
No, you don´t. You just feel it is so.
Determined is not an interpretation of what I see. It is a denial of the reality of what I observe."Choice" is nothing you can see, just as "being determined" is nothing you can see. They are interpretations of what you see.
Where is the circular reasoning?Quote:
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?
Nothing. Your circular logic is completely independent from what I say.
And the answer is it appears there is.And the question is: is there such thing as a decision for you to make?
And without knowing your definition the word becomes unuable.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.
If what I do is not my choice, then why is it not being forced upon me?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.
OK why is it not obvious?On another note: So far I have merely questioned your claim that it´s obvious that you have such a thing as choice.
Yes, this is what determinism would imply (except, of course, that "choose" is not the appropriate term here).
Unfortunately, the same event (with the exact same setup) never repeats, so your example doesn´t make a case for or against anything.
Why do you believe you could not have chosen other than you did?Choice may be a sticky word here, but my point is that while I have say in what I do or what I choose in any given situation (or what I'm calling state), that I couldn't have chosen anything else. So while to me it seems as if I am making a choice, I really couldn't do anything other than what I chose.
The follow up question here is what would cause you to choose the other door?
I´m afraid I don´t understand, xr2.Choice may be a sticky word here, but my point is that while I have say in what I do or what I choose in any given situation (or what I'm calling state), that I couldn't have chosen anything else. So while to me it seems as if I am making a choice, I really couldn't do anything other than what I chose.
"I" is, in this context, merely a placeholder for "that which chooses." Your argument is entirely circular, as quatona has been observing.But the inability to feel determinism does not prove determinism is true. Chosen does not entail some inscrutiable third category between caused and uncaused. I am one of the causes. What I decide is one of the causes. It may not be and I believe is not the only cause. I am influenced by many things in making my decision, but I am not totally controlled and therefore, I am a cause of somethings that happen.
It would have to involve some change in causes or effects. According to your system, the only thing that would change is something about "I." What is it that would change and why?Why do you believe you could not have chosen other than you did?
It would have to involve some change in causes or effects. According to your system, the only thing that would change is something about "I." What is it that would change and why?
"I" is, in this context, merely a placeholder for "that which chooses." Your argument is entirely circular, as quatona has been observing.
Perhaps nothing would cause the choice to be different except whim. If the first choice was whim or for no particular reason then the different choice in the same conditions would also be whim or no particular reason, like chosing heads of tails in a coin flip. Each time I make such a choice, I might make the other choice if the exact situation is repeated because I had no reason to pick the one I did in the first choice.
I´m afraid I don´t understand, xr2.
I really can´t think of any concept of "choice" (other than merely being a synonym for "acting") that I could apply so that these sentences make sense.
The first part of the first sentence appears to contradict the second part: I don´t know what "choosing" means, if you can´t "choose" anything else.
I do understand, though, how one can experience oneself as being "choosing" despite the fact that his actions are determined.
Maybe you can reword your statement for me?
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?