Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 15:55:08 GMT -5
But Bob, that's the topic of this debate. And that's why this statement of yours is a begging the question fallacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 16:21:28 GMT -5
Bob, you wrote: "Flips are not fated. They are random." The definition of "random" doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 13, 2014 17:32:46 GMT -5
Bob, you wrote: "Flips are not fated. They are random." The definition of "random" doesn't matter. The definition of "random" certainly does matter. As defined, an act that's random is not the result of anyone's "will." Therefore there is no circularity in the argument. And Lily, when you said "But the flip or no flip was already fated from the time of the Big Bang, and also the result of the flip. Does anyone not see how flipped out this is?", that was begging the question. After all, how do you know that it was fated from the time of the Big Bang? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 19:21:11 GMT -5
I don't know. I am not debating either way. I was simply making a flippin' comment about this flippin' debate because it's useless to debate something that can't be proven. How will the winner be determined? How are you going to know who's right? Oh, but you don't need to say it--it's just an exercise to massage your brain. Massage away. Just don't pass out doing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2014 10:07:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 30, 2014 11:43:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 10:44:41 GMT -5
But isn't the logical conclusion to this argument that your choices are independent of any internal and external factors, including your own desires and habits?
So you choose vanilla over strawberry ice cream, the question whether you prefer one or the other would be nonsensical. Because your preference for vanilla ice cream plays no part in your decisionmaking process, it is completely independent from your will to choose one over the other.
Or for a more extreme example, the only reason why we aren't walking on our hands is because each and everyone of us has deliberately and consciously decided to walk on our feet.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 4, 2014 17:38:34 GMT -5
But isn't the logical conclusion to this argument that your choices are independent of any internal and external factors, including your own desires and habits? Not at all. Your quote mentions "a plurality of futures." Internal and external factors can still play a part, but they do not determine one and only one outcome. No. Preference can still play a part without predetermining one and only one outcome. BTW, vanilla vs. strawberry is a simplistic example. What about cases where there are three, four, or more options? Yes, that is an extreme example. Free will does not mean omnipotence and no advocate of the free will position has ever claimed it has. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 17:54:41 GMT -5
Here's one proof for free will: stop all your thoughts. Can you?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 4, 2014 19:02:58 GMT -5
Here's one proof for free will: stop all your thoughts. Can you? Good one Lily. But, as I said in the previous post, no advocate of free will ever said that it means omnipotence. From the fact that we cannot do everything, it simply does not follow that all our choices are 100% determined. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 20:35:05 GMT -5
So you agree that the opposite of free will is determinsm? I ask that because unless I'm mistaken, mccans has stated that he's not a determinist. Quite confusing.
Anyhow, my point wasn't about omnipotence (super human abilties), but about the nature of thoughts and therefore about thinking. I don't think it would be wrong of me to say that thinking can't be done in a vacuum. There's got to be something there to think about. It may be looking at an apple and thinking about how it would taste and maybe deciding to eat it. It may be hearing a song which brings back memories associated with it and leads to thoughts about the past and maybe regrets and on to deciding to call someone or write a letter, etc. My point is that we don't have control of much of our thoughts or maybe even most of them. And then there's automatic responses leading to behavior such as fight or flight.
Certainly you've heard a song in passing heard or read a phrase, and then find yourself later in the day humming that song and you wonder why, and then you remember you heard it earlier. Or you find yourself saying or writing a phrase and then remember you heard or read it earlier. You didn't specifically choose to do these things. There are many flights of thoughts that run through our heads all the time. And frequenty one thought leads to another. How about when you can't sleep because of unwanted thoughts. You purposely start thinking of something else and before you know, you're back to those unwanted thoughts.
So, what I'm saying is that we're always impinged upon with thoughts running through our minds. We can act on these thoughts or not. We can eat that apple or not. We can decde that we'd better not because it'll spoil our lunch. We can think about the song and just smile (or cry) and then just let it go.
So, I do believe in free will, but not total free will because much of what and how we think are thoughts that come to us unaware and unbidden also we are conditioned by prior experience, our culture, our society, our education, fear of consequences, etc.
Anyway, I've to run now, so I hope this makes some kind of sense.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 4, 2014 22:29:39 GMT -5
So you agree that the opposite of free will is determinsm? I ask that because unless I'm mistaken, mccans has stated that he's not a determinist. Quite confusing. Yes, I agree that free will and determinism are opposites. McAnswer said early in the thread that his view is that we will never be able to conclusively say which one is true. He is just being a devil's advocate here. I agree with you here. Yes Lily, that does make sense. In fact, that is my position too. We don't have to have control over all of our thoughts in order to have free will. Free will just means that we have the ability to have chosen otherwise in many of our decisions. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 10:20:42 GMT -5
But isn't the logical conclusion to this argument that your choices are independent of any internal and external factors, including your own desires and habits? Not at all. Your quote mentions "a plurality of futures." Internal and external factors can still play a part, but they do not determine one and only one outcome. No. Preference can still play a part without predetermining one and only one outcome. BTW, vanilla vs. strawberry is a simplistic example. What about cases where there are three, four, or more options? What about them? The basic problem remains the same: Either external and internal factors influence how you choose, or they don't. If they do, then you cannot say with certainty that you could have chosen otherwise under the exact same circumstances. Or rather - you can, but only if your decisionmaking process is random or irrational. So when we agree that, assuming rational or near-rational decisionmaking, external and internal factors influence how we choose, then that means we could have chosen otherwise if circumstances were different. But Bob, it is physically possible to walk on your hands. Small children can do it if you teach them properly (arguably better than adults, even). So why aren't we seeing people hand-walking down the street because they feel like it? Is it sheer coincidence that everyone has willed not to do that?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 5, 2014 11:51:03 GMT -5
Not at all. Your quote mentions "a plurality of futures." Internal and external factors can still play a part, but they do not determine one and only one outcome. No. Preference can still play a part without predetermining one and only one outcome. BTW, vanilla vs. strawberry is a simplistic example. What about cases where there are three, four, or more options? What about them? The basic problem remains the same: Either external and internal factors influence how you choose, or they don't. If they do, then you cannot say with certainty that you could have chosen otherwise under the exact same circumstances. Or rather - you can, but only if your decisionmaking process is random or irrational. "Influence" does not mean "determined." From the fact that internal and external factors are an influence on our actions, it does not follow that they determine them. No. We could have chosen otherwise even under identical circumstances. Once again, "influence" and "determined" are two different words with different meanings. Under normal circumstances, the choice never comes up, does it? Here's another case. Someone sticks a gun to your head and demands your money or your life. How come we don't have a majority of crime victims choose being shot? From the fact that there are some choices that are more heavily influenced than others, it does not follow that many of our choices could have been otherwise. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 13:50:11 GMT -5
Under normal circumstances, the choice never comes up, does it? Here's another case. Someone sticks a gun to your head and demands your money or your life. How come we don't have a majority of crime victims choose being shot? Bob So the reason why you aren't walking on your hands is because walking on your hands is a life threatening experience that is incompatible with your survival? So what's the practical difference between a situation that is in principle possible but will evidently never come to pass, and a situation that is in principle impossible?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 13:54:17 GMT -5
What about them? The basic problem remains the same: Either external and internal factors influence how you choose, or they don't. If they do, then you cannot say with certainty that you could have chosen otherwise under the exact same circumstances. Or rather - you can, but only if your decisionmaking process is random or irrational. "Influence" does not mean "determined." From the fact that internal and external factors are an influence on our actions, it does not follow that they determine them. You are right. But equally, it does not mean that we can just will these influences to have no power over our behavior like you seem to suggest.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 5, 2014 14:19:19 GMT -5
"Influence" does not mean "determined." From the fact that internal and external factors are an influence on our actions, it does not follow that they determine them. You are right. But equally, it does not mean that we can just will these influences to have no power over our behavior like you seem to suggest. Sorry if I seemed to suggest that these influences have no power over our behavior. They do. My point was that they do not determine our behavior. Bob
|
|