Do you believe that humans have free will?  I don't.  I have yet to hear compelling arguments for the existence of free will~ prove me wrong A/N.

Views: 177

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Two things ok? One, that our abilities and limitations to predict an outcome is totaly separate and distinct from whether it is predetermined. And two, that every affect has a cause or causes which determines what this affect will be precisely. The trajectory of pool balls is the classic example of this, that acts in a mechanisms way. We also are mechanisms, tho more complicated and organic. The initial position of the balls on the table and the speed and direction of the cue ball also determine the effect.

I am calling these causes predetermined simply because they came before the effect. If you can explain this distinction btwn determined and predetermined to me then ok. But I am seeing it as mere semantic hair splitting like I said.

By George, I think you've got it, Park. Regardless of what a concept has previously been thought to mean, or even what a dictionary says (even though that can be very helpful), a true definition of something includes only its essentials. If a part of something previously thought to be necessary to that thing is found to be in contradiction to the foundations of cognition itself, namely the laws of identity, causality and noncontradiction, then that quality must be removed from the definition and not be considered to exist. By any objective definition, predeterminism cannot exist because the concept of it conflicts with reality. If one means that what will be will be based on physical law only, then they should say that. They would also do well to recognize that this does not validly suggest that the future is written yet or that choice doesn't exist.

Have we agreed that when you put the letters PRE before a word, it is meant to signify that the subject does something before whatever action is implied by the root word? Have we agreed that determine means that preceding matter and energy only are responsible for an event? So how could the existence of an event be existent before it exists?

 

It is freewill that is the illusion, not choice. The only thing that this predeterminism insistence can demonstrate as invalid is that we cannot have a third person omniscient view of reality. Then choice couldn't exist. This omniscient view is the same exact impossibility that God represents. Brains within reality can imagine logically plausible scenarios and act towards the end of one, partly because predeterminism is impossible.

 

Semantic hair splitting, I think, is eventually necessary to gain increasing literal knowledge of the world. The more we can define words with only essential characteristics and use them concretely, the more we will be able to know and communicate.

In answer to your question "who was the choice predetermined by?" My answer is no one. It was determined by conditions is all I am saying. And I am saying it is predetermined simply because the relevant conditions or causes were in place before the affect or outcome.

It is entirely possible that I am using the word predetermined incorrectly. It seems correct to me tho as they come before is all.
We have our social contracts. We pick up our trash, don't molest the kiddies next door, pay our taxes, pretend we all have free will, etc.
I don't pretend I have freewill. Choosing is not pretending we have freewill. Will is dependent.
Pardon my absence please. I had my lawn to mow before dark.
And too, my last two posts are misplaced in that I took so long to type them that they might appear to be in response to the incorrect post. Both of them were responding to posts on the previous page. So please pardon my slow typing as well.

Anyway, I was unaware that "predetermined" implied intent or force. If it does, then I did use the wrong word. Yeah, "determined" is sufficient as it is obvious that whatever causes there are that determine the affect are obviously there prior to the outcome.

As I see it tho you are still equating an ability to predict the outcome w it being determined. I think they are separate. In my smokers brain he will have conflicting urges, or conflicting levels of neuro/chemical signals for each. The choice is determined by which is greater at the time of the choice. The direction and speed of an eight ball is similarly determined by how it was precisely hit by the que ball. We can predict these events to varying degrees of success and precision, but again, I think our ability to predict these events to be entirely separate from it being determined.

I may well be wrong, but I have it in my head anyway, that what we are doing is more miscomunicating rather than disagreeing, except that I am not equating an ability to predict the outcome w it being determined by its causes, and I think you are.


Sure getting to the truth and precision in language are both laudable goals that I donot mean to trivialize. It is just that if my main point is something as trivial sounding as that I do think we can make free choices but these choices are already decided by existing conditions, then I think it best if I add the caveat that I admit it is semantic hair splitting ahead of time.
Park. All I wrote regarding prediction being equated w something being determined was aimed at Mr. Tricoci. We had been having our own exchange going on for a while, and it did seem to me that he was repeatadly done just that. Sorry for y confusion.

I had tho read your post about "predetermined" enabling intent, and that was what determined that I change from "predetermined" to "determined." in my usage.
repeatedly doing

the confusion


entailing intent, sorry
Decided in advance, by whom? By what? Nothing. Nothing is predetermined or predecided. Only determined by preceding events and decided by weighing known information and logical plausibilities based on that information.

I have to disagree. In a deterministic universe, though it may be an unhappy thought, you are the product of events, not the free spirit you'd like to think you are. The equations necessary to predict your future "choices" are unworkably large but, If you don't dwell on it, you can go with the flow and feel comfortable punishing yourself and others for moral transgressions (bad choices).

I've always thought that retribution and punishment should not be goals of a civilized society, but, instead, prevention. Isolate sociopaths, don't torture them directly or indirectly (sending them out into an exercise yard to be shanked).

Exactly. Unfortunately, this mindset is incompatible with Christian morality and the requrements of other faith-based systems.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service