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.
So you choose which reasons to use when making a choice? And you don't see the huge chasm labeled "circular reasoning" directly in front of you?See my coin flip example. Change perhaps for no reason since the original choice was based on whim and no reason. Plus in cases where I decided based on a reason for that decision, there may have been reasons for making a different choice and the second time I might chose those reasons as more important, particularly if the reasons came close to balancing each other out and the original choice was more or less a coin flip between the choices, both of which or all of which had equaly good reasons to act on.
Choice is made by "I." "I" am that which chooses.No I am not just a placeholder for that which choses. I am that which choses. How is that circular?
Thanks for explaining - I think I understand better where you are coming from, and, yes, we seem to be in agreement, by and large.From what I can tell, we believe the same thing. From my perspective, my actions are of my own choosing. From an outside perspective I am merely reacting to stimulus in the only way I can. I understand that objectively, there is no choice, because I could have only possibly made one choice.
If I'm still not making sense, I will try again later.
So you choose which reasons to use when making a choice? And you don't see the huge chasm labeled "circular reasoning" directly in front of you?
Choice is made by "I." "I" am that which chooses.
Hello?
The exact same situation can't be repeated. I don't mean if you pick heads or tails after the 1st flip was head and the 2nd flip was tales. I mean if the whole of existences was in the exact same state. You were in the exact same mood, every electron in your brain in the same place as it was. Every atom in the universe in the same exact place, etc.
The end idea here is that for you to make a different choice, something has to be different. If I could account for every possible variable and repeat the same exact coin flip 50 times, I should get the same result 50 times. For me to get a different result would require some difference. Reality is too complex to be able to recreate the same exact situation, so a given situation can happen only once, and in that once, you made a choice, and the only choice you could in that situation.
A choice is based on reasons which are chosen... how?No explain why it is circular reasoning to say I have different reasons for making different choices and I chose which reasons are controling.
A choice is based on reasons which are chosen... how?
Reasons to choose are chosen using other reasons?How are the reasons chosen? With reason and whim and a little bias mixed in.
Reasons to choose are chosen using other reasons?
Can we start talking sense now?
Perhaps the difference is I chose a different whim. You assume the electons in my brain control me. I don't think so. I think I control the electrons in my brain. They fire based on my choice. If I am not firing my electrons, who is doing it?
I don't see it as unreasonable that I observe different reasons for making a decision and I decide based on reason which is the best reason and which will produce the most desirable consequences-or in some cases I simply decide that way because I want to and hang the consequences. Please explain to me why something is not my decision because I had a reason to decide the way I did.
OK, electrons don't fire; neurons do. But neurons firing supervenes on electrons moving.
Anyway, that's beside the point. Let us take for granted that something or things causes the electrons to move. We are ignoring quantum effects here, but we could say that we take it for granted that something determines the chance of an electron moving in a particular way - makes no difference.
So we need to decide what makes the electron move. You, I believe, are proposing that the mind causes it to move. I and other physicalists are proposing that something purely physical causes it to move. We take it that the mind, if it exists, is non-physical, and we take physical to mean "fully explainable in terms of things we usually call physical." A loose definition, but hopefully sufficient.
Now, I hope you'll agree that we know that physical things cause electrons to move. I also think you'll agree that, setting aside the mind for later, we know of nothing that isn't physical which can cause electrons to move, or even do anything.
So you are proposing something which is completely unlike anything we've ever observed - something non-physical causing something physical (electrons moving) without even grounds for believing that it is possible, never mind that it actually happens.
The normal principles of reasoning dictate that we go with the explanation requiring the fewest unnecessary entities - i.e. physicalism.
The problem is that you are saying that you choose based on your reasons, and that you choose those reasons as well. But that choice must either be based on other reasons, or be determined by something else.
If, at some step in this chain, the choice is determined externally, then your choice isn't "free" in the sense that we usually use (although we can arguably shift the meaning with justification) but the chain can't just stretch of into infinity.
Have you really observed consciousness or have your observed the effects of consciousness?
I am not impressed with the argument that my decisions must be determined by forces other than me because you are unable to observe what is making the eletrons or neurons do their thing.
Where is the evidence that any of my choices are determined externally by something other than me?
So consciousness is physical? Am I my consciousness? If so my consciousness is making decisions---therefore I am making decisions.In myself or in other people? In other people, it is only possible to observe the effects of consciousness if consciousness is not just some emergent property of the physical attributes of the brain.
That's not the argument. This argument is just a particular instance of the well-known causal argument for mental-physicalism. The argument goes like this:
Now, there's a bit of beating around the bush we can do re overdetermination and quantum mechanics, but if they come up, we'll deal with them then.
- Mental states cause physical effects
- Physical effects are always caused by something physical.
- Mental states are physical.
You certainly agree with the first premise, but disagree with the conclusion. The argument looks valid so presumably you disagree with premise 2. What reason do I have for arguing premise 2? This is what I was saying - empirical evidence points solely to physical effects have physical causes. If you want to argue otherwise, then you must have a good reason.
Take a choice that you make. Now take the reason for making that choice. Either that reason was internal or it was external. Now take the reason for the reason, and the reason for that, and so on. It can't be internal forever - A) that's infinite regress and B) you haven't existed forever.
So at some point we must step outside your own self and you must be determined by something external. This isn't evidence it's reasoning.
Your only possibility is to appeal to some way of reasons to just pop into existence without any reason themselves. Taking reasons as being the same as cause, here, this is just the same as saying that our choices are merely the product of randomness, which doesn't seem free either.
So consciousness is physical? Am I my consciousness? If so my consciousness is making decisions---therefore I am making decisions.
No there is another possiblity. My reasons for my choice is not what made the choice. I made the choice. I could have made it against all reasons and have done that. I have made choices that all reasons would have said don't do it that way. The break down in your reasoning is the assumtion that I must do something if there is a reason to do it. You reason backwards in that you assume if I decide something there must have been a reason that forced me to do that. Reasons support a decision, but they do not force it.
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?