My only problem with hard determinism

[elman]

=FishFace;41733405]1) Do you agree with the causal argument?

Not unless I am one of the causes of my decisions.

2) If your consciousness is making the decisions, then yes, you are making the decisions, but that does nothing to prevent something else make you make the decisions.

Yes it does. If something else is making me make the decision, then it is not my decision being made by me. I think reality is not either or but both. My decisions are partly caused by outside influences and partly cause by me.

When I turn on a light switch, obviously, I make the light come on. But one can just as accurately say that electricity flowing round the wires made the light come on - and I made the electricity flow round the wires. Clearly, the lighting circuit had no choice in turning the light on - because it was entirely determined by your flicking the switch.
Likewise, while it is accurate to say that your consciousness makes your decision, it is still true that your consciousness is not a closed system (especially if you accept the causal argument) and is affected by external causes. Those external causes can equally be said to make your decision.

I don't know about equal, but yes I can see where my decisions are never intirely without the influence of other outside and perhaps some internal factors. But my decisions are not entirly without my input either. There is always that element of my decisions that is not forced by the other factors.

 

[elman]

Then replace "reason" with "cause" and run the argument again.
Your decision had a cause. That cause was either internal or external. If the cause was external, your decision was determined by something other than you. For the timeline on which we're talking, causes always have causes. You can't have an infinitude of causes inside you since you haven't existed forever, so at some point there must be an external cause.
Hence, your decision was externally determined.

Cause and reason works the same way. My decisions are not externally determined because I am one of the causes, perhaps not the only cause, perhaps not as much of the cause as it appears, but me and my consicious self contribute to the decisions and I am not just a tape recorder repeating what has been programed into me. When you say my decision had a cause, I reply yes and I am one of the causes.

 

[granpa]

Where is the evidence that any of my choices are determined externally by something other than me?

'you' are by definition that which makes your decisions therefore your decisions cant be made by something outside yourself. but that doesnt mean that your decisions arent precisely determined by a chain of cause and effect.

 

[granpa]

. My reasons for my choice is not what made the choice. I made the choice. I could have made it against all reasons .

yes you could have. if you had a reason to do so.

 

[FishFace]

Not unless I am one of the causes of my decisions.

Well either you have a counterargument or you don't.

Yes it does. If something else is making me make the decision, then it is not my decision being made by me. I think reality is not either or but both. My decisions are partly caused by outside influences and partly cause by me.

I don't know about equal, but yes I can see where my decisions are never intirely without the influence of other outside and perhaps some internal factors. But my decisions are not entirly without my input either. There is always that element of my decisions that is not forced by the other factors.

The point is that you are postulating some kind of orphaned cause - a cause which does not, itself, have a cause. (otherwise when you say your choice was caused by you, that cause would itself be caused by something else, which would be caused by something else and eventually it would go outside you.) We know of nothing which fits this description - everything seems to have a cause. You need a better reason than the fact that you don't like the conclusion to deny this.

 

[FishFace]

Cause and reason works the same way. My decisions are not externally determined because I am one of the causes, perhaps not the only cause, perhaps not as much of the cause as it appears, but me and my consicious self contribute to the decisions and I am not just a tape recorder repeating what has been programed into me. When you say my decision had a cause, I reply yes and I am one of the causes.

"You" on its own cannot be a cause - the brute fact of your existence doesn't cause any of your decisions.
It would be more accurate to say some mental state of yours causes your decision. But then I ask, what caused your mental state?
If you answer with another mental state, then I will ask again and again, because your mind is not infinite and cannot have infinite states. So at some point you must either say a mental state had no cause - something which is rather unlikely - or that the mental state had a cause that was not a mental state, not part of "you" but some outside influence.

So "you" may have been the cause of your decision, but something else - something that wasn't you - was the cause of that cause, and so also the cause of your decision (causation is transitive, you know.)
So something other than you was the cause of the decision.

 

[granpa]

It would be more accurate to say some mental state of yours causes your decision. But then I ask, what caused your mental state?
If you answer with another mental state, then I will ask again and again...So at some point you must...say...that the mental state had a cause that was not a mental state, not part of "you" but some outside influence.
.

our mental states can be traced back ultimately to our drives which can be traced back to more and more basic drives. our most basic drives, like curiousity, are hard wired into our brains at birth and never cease to operate so there is no need to look beyond that point.

"
So "you" may have been the cause of your decision, but something else - something that wasn't you - was the cause of that cause, and so also the cause of your decision (causation is transitive, you know.)
So something other than you was the cause of the decision.

thats only true if you define 'you' as the ego. the false self that believes it has freewill. it seems to me that the real 'you' is that thing, whatever it is, that acually determines your actions. you are therefore the sum of your drives, values, and priorities.

 

[FishFace]

our mental states can be traced back ultimately to our drives which can be traced back to more and more basic drives. our most basic drives, like curiousity, are hard wired into our brains at birth and never cease to operate so there is no need to look beyond that point.

If that were the case than nothing we ever did could be influenced by anything outside ourselves
Our mental state at t[sub]n[/sub] is a product of our mental state at t[sub]n-1[/sub] and whatever influenced our mind in that period. A "mental state" is the sum of the drives you talk about, as well as memories, thoughts and so on. So a sense datum combines with all of that to produce the next mental state, which combines with more sense data to produce continually varying mental states.

thats only true if you define 'you' as the ego. the false self that believes it has freewill. it seems to me that the real 'you' is that thing, whatever it is, that acually determines your actions. you are therefore the sum of your drives, values, and priorities.

The definition of the self is somewhat more complex. Is the self a continuous entity, or does it make no sense to say that "I" am the same "I" as "I" was ten seconds ago, because my memories, drives, thoughts, emotions and so on are all different? If I am just the sum of those things then "I" continually die as they change. To associate the set of properties with the set of properties at some other time is to appeal to some unchanging property which collects them all together. That property cannot be any of the "drives, values and priorities" that you speak of, nor memories, thoughts or emotions, since none of those things are constant.
If you want to say that these properties can be collected and remain collected as they move through time, then the self must be more than just the sum of those properties.

 

[elman]

'you' are by definition that which makes your decisions therefore your decisions cant be made by something outside yourself. but that doesnt mean that your decisions arent precisely determined by a chain of cause and effect.

There is no reason for me to believe my decisions are completely determined by a chain of cause and effect that does not include me.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Not unless I am one of the causes of my decisions.

Well either you have a counterargument or you don't.

I do and that is it.

Quote:
Yes it does. If something else is making me make the decision, then it is not my decision being made by me. I think reality is not either or but both. My decisions are partly caused by outside influences and partly cause by me.

I don't know about equal, but yes I can see where my decisions are never intirely without the influence of other outside and perhaps some internal factors. But my decisions are not entirly without my input either. There is always that element of my decisions that is not forced by the other factors.

The point is that you are postulating some kind of orphaned cause - a cause which does not, itself, have a cause. (otherwise when you say your choice was caused by you, that cause would itself be caused by something else, which would be caused by something else and eventually it would go outside you.) We know of nothing which fits this description - everything seems to have a cause. You need a better reason than the fact that you don't like the conclusion to deny this.

I have a better reason. I am aware of me being the cause of my decisions. No a decision caused by me does not necessarily have to be entirely caused by something other than me. There is no reason I should believe that to be true.

 

[elman]

=FishFace;41742313]"You" on its own cannot be a cause - the brute fact of your existence doesn't cause any of your decisions.

Why not? Why should I believe I on my own cannot be a cause of one of my decisions?

It would be more accurate to say some mental state of yours causes your decision. But then I ask, what caused your mental state?

A mental state would be the cause if I acted irrationally perhaps, but normal decision making, that comes from have a normal mental state in which the brain is used and conscousness is obtained and decisions are the result---i.e. caused by my brain and consciousness and normal mental state.

If you answer with another mental state, then I will ask again and again, because your mind is not infinite and cannot have infinite states. So at some point you must either say a mental state had no cause - something which is rather unlikely - or that the mental state had a cause that was not a mental state, not part of "you" but some outside influence.

I don't understand what infintie states have to do with this issue. While there is a sense in which I cannot control my mental state, there is also a sense in which I can control my actions regardless of my mental state.

So "you" may have been the cause of your decision, but something else - something that wasn't you - was the cause of that cause, and so also the cause of your decision (causation is transitive, you know.)
So something other than you was the cause of the decision.

Why should I believe that to be true? Why does something other than me have to be the cause of my decisions? Why can I not be the cause of my decisions?

 

[elman]

If that were the case than nothing we ever did could be influenced by anything outside ourselves
Our mental state at t[sub]n[/sub] is a product of our mental state at t[sub]n-1[/sub] and whatever influenced our mind in that period. A "mental state" is the sum of the drives you talk about, as well as memories, thoughts and so on. So a sense datum combines with all of that to produce the next mental state, which combines with more sense data to produce continually varying mental states.



The definition of the self is somewhat more complex. Is the self a continuous entity, or does it make no sense to say that "I" am the same "I" as "I" was ten seconds ago, because my memories, drives, thoughts, emotions and so on are all different? If I am just the sum of those things then "I" continually die as they change. To associate the set of properties with the set of properties at some other time is to appeal to some unchanging property which collects them all together. That property cannot be any of the "drives, values and priorities" that you speak of, nor memories, thoughts or emotions, since none of those things are constant.
If you want to say that these properties can be collected and remain collected as they move through time, then the self must be more than just the sum of those properties.

This changing of self---I have done that many times in my life---changed what I believed to be true and while I have never done that without the influence of factors other than my own decision to do so, there is still that part of the change that was my own decision and not forced on me by anyone or anything. Your view of reality is that we are robots simply reacting to stimuli and therefore not responsible for anything we do and I don't see that as a correct world view. It is not simply I don't like that world view. It is that world view does not fit with what I observe and experience. Yes I could be dilusional, but there is no reason to think so and you have not given me a reason to believe I am delusional.

 

[FishFace]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Not unless I am one of the causes of my decisions.


I do and that is it.

That's not a good counterargument - it merely asserts the falsehood of the conclusion. It neither attacks the logic of the argument nor the truth of any of the premises.

I have a better reason. I am aware of me being the cause of my decisions.

That in no way indicates that you are the cause of them. You probably are, but it also doesn't indicate that nothing caused you to cause your decision.
Also, read, or read about, "Mind Time" by Libet.

No a decision caused by me does not necessarily have to be entirely caused by something other than me. There is no reason I should believe that to be true.

Except for the argument I outlined, which you... appear to have ignored. Either you have an infinite regress, an orphaned cause, or your causing your decision was caused by something external.
Do you deny this trichotomy? If so, what is your alternative, if not, how do you justify having an infinite regress, or having an orphaned cause?

The reason I lay out the argument so simply is so that it's easier to spot mistakes and weaknesses. If you can't find a weakness either in the way I broke down the argument, or in the actual pieces, then you don't have any counterargument at all - for that reason, I ask you to stay inside the parameters I lay out, or attack the parameters. When I give you a trichotomy, simply repeating your assertion is not good enough, because the trichotomy is supposed to show that your assertion leads to absurdities. Therefore you have to attack the reasons I used to come to the conclusion that there are 3 and only 3 options, or pick one of the options and defend it. You have done neither.

 

[FishFace]

Why not? Why should I believe I on my own cannot be a cause of one of my decisions?

Because stating that "the cause of X is me" is different from saying "the cause of X is a mental state of me." A ball rolling into another ball causes the second ball to move. The ball on its own causes nothing - it just sits there. The ball has to be combined with properties of hardness and movement for anything to happen.
Likewise you on your own cause nothing, it is the mental states which make you up that have causative power.

A mental state would be the cause if I acted irrationally perhaps, but normal decision making, that comes from have a normal mental state in which the brain is used and conscousness is obtained and decisions are the result---i.e. caused by my brain and consciousness and normal mental state.

What, other than your mental state, can be the cause of your decision? Remember your mental state is the sum total of everything in your mind at any one time - it includes thoughts, ideas, emotions, memories, immediate sense data and more.

I don't understand what infintie states have to do with this issue. While there is a sense in which I cannot control my mental state, there is also a sense in which I can control my actions regardless of my mental state.

Again you are ignoring my argument and essentially repeating what you've already said. The point of an argument is that, if you follow it, you are forced to the conclusion. You can't just deny the conclusion and leave it at that!
First, let me say that there is no way in which you can control your actions if your mental state does not entirely control those actions. Your mental state - your thoughts, memories, etc, must be the agent behind a decision if that decision is made by you - if something other than your mental state (your thoughts, memories, etc) causes the decision, how can it be you who made the decision?
Now, you say that you (and I will assume you agree that this must mean "one of your mental states") control your decision. So I ask, what controls that control?
Is it another mental state, or is it something outside you? The trichotomy is that, after I ask you this any number of times, your answer must be one of three things:

1. It is another mental state
2. Nothing caused this mental state
3. Something outside me caused this mental state

You can't keep answer (1) - that is where infinite regress comes in. You've not existed forever, so you can't just have infinite mental states.
And you can't answer (3) because then that is admitting that your decision was actually caused by something outside you.
So then you are left with (2) which means you have something which nothing caused. But such things don't exist, as far as we can tell (ignoring quantum mechanics, but as I say, if you want I can form a slightly different version of the same argument which gets around that) so (2) is not a viable option either.
So the only option that isn't absurd is (3). Now, to argue back, you either need to produce a fourth option, or defend (1) or (2).

Why should I believe that to be true? Why does something other than me have to be the cause of my decisions? Why can I not be the cause of my decisions?

... Those statements were a summary of the conclusion of the argument. Is there a point of the argument you wish me to clarify? The idea is that the conclusion (something other than you caused your decision) follows from the argument.

 

[FishFace]

Your view of reality is that we are robots simply reacting to stimuli and therefore not responsible for anything we do and I don't see that as a correct world view.

What's the alternative? That we are suddenly, spontaneously, driven to a decision by some part of us that had no cause? The only type of thing I know of that has no cause is something completely random - are you saying that if we react in an ordered manner to external stimuli we are unaccountable for our actions, but if we are just acting on random, internal stimuli, we are somehow responsible? Weird!

It is not simply I don't like that world view. It is that world view does not fit with what I observe and experience.

What do you observe? That you are the cause of your decisions? Of course, I don't doubt that. But you do not observe that you are not determined by something else to make that decision. You have no experience of that at all.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Your view of reality is that we are robots simply reacting to stimuli and therefore not responsible for anything we do and I don't see that as a correct world view.

What's the alternative?

The alternative is that we have a part to play in our life and our decisions and can effect our environment and destiny.

That we are suddenly, spontaneously, driven to a decision by some part of us that had no cause? The only type of thing I know of that has no cause is something completely random -

I keep saying and you keep missing I am not say the deceision had no cause. I am saying I am the cause.

are you saying that if we react in an ordered manner to external stimuli we are unaccountable for our actions,

If we have no choice in what we do, why should we be accountable?

but if we are just acting on random, internal stimuli, we are somehow responsible? Weird!

We are not acting on random internal stimuli. We are acting on reason and experience and with some knowledge of the consequences of our actions, so that means we are responsible for our actions. That is not weird. What is weird is the suggestion we are not responsible for our actions.


Quote:
It is not simply I don't like that world view. It is that world view does not fit with what I observe and experience.

What do you observe? That you are the cause of your decisions? Of course, I don't doubt that. But you do not observe that you are not determined by something else to make that decision. You have no experience of that at all.

Nor do you and neither of us have any evidence that would support a belief that we are not able to make choices.

 

[granpa]

Your view of reality is that we are robots simply reacting to stimuli and therefore not responsible for anything we do and I don't see that as a correct world view. .

What's the alternative? That we are suddenly, spontaneously, driven to a decision by some part of us that had no cause?


.

well thats what going on here. an inability to see alternatives. people seem to think that we are either robots or we have freewill. maybe there is an alternative.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Why not? Why should I believe I on my own cannot be a cause of one of my decisions?

Because stating that "the cause of X is me" is different from saying "the cause of X is a mental state of me."

I am my mental state. We are one.

A ball rolling into another ball causes the second ball to move. The ball on its own causes nothing - it just sits there. The ball has to be combined with properties of hardness and movement for anything to happen.
Likewise you on your own cause nothing, it is the mental states which make you up that have causative power.

You and I are different from a ball. We have brains and with those brains we can make choices.

Quote:
A mental state would be the cause if I acted irrationally perhaps, but normal decision making, that comes from have a normal mental state in which the brain is used and conscousness is obtained and decisions are the result---i.e. caused by my brain and consciousness and normal mental state.

What, other than your mental state, can be the cause of your decision? Remember your mental state is the sum total of everything in your mind at any one time - it includes thoughts, ideas, emotions, memories, immediate sense data and more.

See above me and my mental state are not two separte people, just one person with just one mental state.


Quote:
I don't understand what infintie states have to do with this issue. While there is a sense in which I cannot control my mental state, there is also a sense in which I can control my actions regardless of my mental state.

Again you are ignoring my argument and essentially repeating what you've already said.

As are you.

The point of an argument is that, if you follow it, you are forced to the conclusion. You can't just deny the conclusion and leave it at that!

When you have reached the wrong conclusion, the only thing I can do is deny your conclusion. I have also denied many of you arguments.

First, let me say that there is no way in which you can control your actions if your mental state does not entirely control those actions.

First let me say that your mental state does not entirly control your actions if your mental state is one of anger for example. You can be angry and still decide to not act on that anger.

Your mental state - your thoughts, memories, etc, must be the agent behind a decision if that decision is made by you

-The agent behind my decisions is me--no agentcy involved

if something other than your mental state (your thoughts, memories, etc) causes the decision, how can it be you who made the decision?

There is no one else that that can be blamed--just me.

Now, you say that you (and I will assume you agree that this must mean "one of your mental states") control your decision.

No as I said I can be in a mental state of anger, but that does not completely control my decisions.

So I ask, what controls that control?

Repeat so I can understand what you are asking.

Is it another mental state, or is it something outside you? The trichotomy is that, after I ask you this any number of times, your answer must be one of three things:

No it does not have to be one of these three things.

It is another mental state

I think we only have one mental state at a time.

Nothing caused this mental state

Many things contribute to our mental state.

Something outside me caused this mental state

Perhaps sometimes.

You can't keep answer (1) - that is where infinite regress comes in. You've not existed forever, so you can't just have infinite mental states.

I don't see how infinite regress whatever that means has anything to do with what we are discussing.

And you can't answer (3) because then that is admitting that your decision was actually caused by something outside you.

I have always admited that our mental state can be effected by things outside of us, which is not saying this is completely the cause or always the cause.

So then you are left with (2) which means you have something which nothing caused. But such things don't exist, as far as we can tell

You keep ignoring my existence. I exist and I am the cause to some extent of my decisions.

So the only option that isn't absurd is (3). Now, to argue back, you either need to produce a fourth option, or defend (1) or (2).

I have been presenting myself as the fourth option since we began this discussion.

Quote:
Why should I believe that to be true? Why does something other than me have to be the cause of my decisions? Why can I not be the cause of my decisions?

... Those statements were a summary of the conclusion of the argument. Is there a point of the argument you wish me to clarify? The idea is that the conclusion (something other than you caused your decision) follows from the argument.

Perhaps in your opinion. I disagree with your arguments and your conclusions.

 

[elman]

=FishFace;41759633]
That in no way indicates that you are the cause of them. You probably are, but it also doesn't indicate that nothing caused you to cause your decision.
Also, read, or read about, "Mind Time" by Libet.

Are you able to comprehend the possibity that we can be part of the cause of our decisions with other things also at the same time being part of the cause of our decisions?

Except for the argument I outlined, which you... appear to have ignored. Either you have an infinite regress, an orphaned cause, or your causing your decision was caused by something external.
Do you deny this trichotomy? If so, what is your alternative, if not, how do you justify having an infinite regress, or having an orphaned cause?

This is gobblegook, not comprehensible. Yes I deny your trichotomy and your infinite regress but I admit I don't know what I am denying. Try speaking English.

The reason I lay out the argument so simply is so that it's easier to spot mistakes and weaknesses. If you can't find a weakness either in the way I broke down the argument, or in the actual pieces, then you don't have any counterargument at all - for that reason, I ask you to stay inside the parameters I lay out, or attack the parameters. When I give you a trichotomy, simply repeating your assertion is not good enough, because the trichotomy is supposed to show that your assertion leads to absurdities. Therefore you have to attack the reasons I used to come to the conclusion that there are 3 and only 3 options, or pick one of the options and defend it. You have done neither.

Reality is what it is. I give you the option to pick one of three assertions, none of which are correct and you insist my perception of reality be limited by your three assertions.

 

[quatona]

I have a better reason. I am aware of me being the cause of my decisions.

Ok, you posit that the person´s feeling that he has made a decision is the criterium.
What does that mean for persons who feel a certain action was not their decisions?
Are you going to be consistent in your criterium?