Originally posted by twhitehead
I know of no modern scientist that does not accept quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is all about randomness.
Yes, every scientist recognizes the success of QM. However, some think that the present theory is incomplete and that it is just a statistical formulation of a deeper theory that is deterministic.
See e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem
Originally posted by twhitehead"But our 'will' whatever that may be, must either operate via a deterministic process or a random one."
So far all you have said is a persons decisions cannot be predicted (by other people at least). But this doesn't tell us anything new, nor does it contradict anything I have said.
Either peoples decisions can ultimately be predicted, or they cant. If they cant, they are random. Get used to it. There is [b]no third option.[/b]
My complaint really is these words "deterministic" and "random" since
neither in my thinking describes human will. We are not governed by our
DNA there isn't a code that forces us to drink coffee in the morning or
the read the NY Times for our news so I'd leave deterministic as something
we are just programmed to do as a "no", and random has always meant
to me something without rhyme or reason and when you get actions that
are with reason like, "I wanted too" that is not random. Will is with intent
and that describes it better than the two words you have chosen.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHow do you know, Kelly, that your will is not predetermined, and hence not free?
"But our 'will' whatever that may be, must either operate via a deterministic process or a random one."
My complaint really is these words "deterministic" and "random" since
neither in my thinking describes human will. We are not governed by our
DNA there isn't a code that forces us to drink coffee in the morning or
the read the NY Times for our news ...[text shortened]... th intent
and that describes it better than the two words you have chosen.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, it is not random, it is deterministic. Either your decision had a cause (want) or it didn't. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim "want" was a cause whilst simultaneously claiming you could have chosen otherwise.
"I wanted too" that is not random.
You could say that you were 90% sure to choose it because you wanted to, but the actual choice still comes down to either randomness with a bias factor, or some other cause that deterministically decided the mater.
I fully agree that a thought process is far more complicated than a simple forced option or simple random option, but ultimately there are only the two options.
I nearly said 'a simple as the roll of a die', but in reality that is so complex that it is actually quite hard to tell whether it is truly random or in fact deterministic. But complexity aside, it is one or the other.
Will is with intent and that describes it better than the two words you have chosen.
But 'will' does not describe an alternative option, it only describes a complex system that contains both random and deterministic elements.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPersonally I think we will not agree, because I believe you are just trying
No, it is not random, it is deterministic. Either your decision had a cause (want) or it didn't. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim "want" was a cause whilst simultaneously claiming you could have chosen otherwise.
You could say that you were 90% sure to choose it because you wanted to, but the actual choice still comes down to either randomn ...[text shortened]... it only describes a complex system that contains both random and deterministic elements.
to water this down into a computer programming style of a outcome when
I believe “will” is much greater than that. I can as I have pointed out before
desire something greatly, lust after it even, yet when it comes down to
making a choice turn it down. If the tide of public opinion or the herd is
moving in one direction and to be accepted becomes drinking the Kool-Aid,
whatever that may be, to reject that boils down to making a choice when
the forces surrounding you would have you do something else. Will in the
face of pressure is the only thing that would turn anyone from that which is
easier.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, you really have to think outside your little box sometimes and try to understand your opponent's view a bit more than you actually do. If they don't follow your line of argument is perhaps that you have so many holes in your reasoning, and so many inconsistancies, that you cannot convince anyone.
Personally I think we will not agree, because I believe you are just trying
to water this down into a computer programming style of a outcome when
I believe “will” is much greater than that. I can as I have pointed out before
desire something greatly, lust after it even, yet when it comes down to
making a choice turn it down. If the tide of public opini ...[text shortened]... he
face of pressure is the only thing that would turn anyone from that which is
easier.
Kelly
Sometimes I think you are like a robot, you just follow only one path, like you have no free will at all.
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd I have addressed this issue a number of times. I have not claimed that 'lust' forced you to make any decision. What I am saying it in no way incompatible with what you are saying.
I can as I have pointed out before desire something greatly, lust after it even, yet when it comes down to making a choice turn it down.
What I am saying is that if:
1. Lust does cause you to make a certain decision, then that decision was deterministic (ie it had a cause).
2. If you are not forced by lust, even if lust is the major deciding factor, but you have a very small chance of deciding otherwise, then either there is another cause (maybe you were taught to 'do the right thing' by your parents), or the decision was random.
To simply say 'it is more complex than that' does not provide and alternative explanation.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain, this is beating a dead horse for each of us to simply repeart our
And I have addressed this issue a number of times. I have not claimed that 'lust' forced you to make any decision. What I am saying it in no way incompatible with what you are saying.
What I am saying is that if:
1. Lust does cause you to make a certain decision, then that decision was deterministic (ie it had a cause).
2. If you are not forced by lust ...[text shortened]... To simply say 'it is more complex than that' does not provide and alternative explanation.
points as if that is going to change the other's minds on the matter it isn't
going to. If I'm forced to make a choice it is deterministic, I get that it would
be no different than a computer program running, reality will be what the
programmer put into the system, there would be no will at all with in the
computer itself taking place. Random has no plan or purpose or design
behind it, which is NOT what you get with human choice since we act as
we will that is not random it is alway with cause, sometime piss poor
causes, but causes nonetheless.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you have your opinion of philosophical reasons, rather than scientific reasons? You really think you can reason your way to the Truth?
Again, this is beating a dead horse for each of us to simply repeart our
points as if that is going to change the other's minds on the matter it isn't
going to. If I'm forced to make a choice it is deterministic, I get that it would
be no different than a computer program running, reality will be what the
programmer put into the system, there would be n ...[text shortened]... not random it is alway with cause, sometime piss poor
causes, but causes nonetheless.
Kelly
You want your will to be your own free will that bad so you enter a state of religious certainty.
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is being very closed minded of you. Surely if one of us has a valid point, he should be able to convince the other.
Again, this is beating a dead horse for each of us to simply repeart our
points as if that is going to change the other's minds on the matter it isn't
going to.
Random has no plan or purpose or design behind it, which is NOT what you get with human choice since we act as we will that is not random it is alway with cause, sometime piss poor causes, but causes nonetheless.
Kelly
And causes whether piss poor or otherwise, are deterministic in nature. It seems you have a problem with the words 'deterministic' and 'random' but not with their actual meaning. You do believe your decisions are deterministic, but don't like the label. Maybe it is because you mistakenly interpret 'deterministic' to mean 'forced by external factors'. The factors could just as well be internal too.
I disagree that all my decisions are caused. I am fairly sure that there is a random component in them all.
Originally posted by TenFourScientific, why do you think I'm pitting the philophical against the scientific?
So you have your opinion of philosophical reasons, rather than scientific reasons? You really think you can reason your way to the Truth?
You want your will to be your own free will that bad so you enter a state of religious certainty.
We are defining terms, I dislike his use of two words to prove his point, he
is more than welcome to define them anyway he likes. So when he does so
that means that I'm waxing on philosophically if I dislike his use of terms? I
think not.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead"That is being very closed minded of you. Surely if one of us has a valid point, he should be able to convince the other."
That is being very closed minded of you. Surely if one of us has a valid point, he should be able to convince the other.
[b]Random has no plan or purpose or design behind it, which is NOT what you get with human choice since we act as we will that is not random it is alway with cause, sometime piss poor causes, but causes nonetheless.
Kelly
And c ...[text shortened]... my decisions are caused. I am fairly sure that there is a random component in them all.[/b]
Why would you say that, because you think your point of view should win
out here? Why don't you change your mind? I am perfectly content to say
we can agree to disagree and feel like you have both made your point and
so have I. I don't believe for one second we have to agree on this or any
other matter as long we both give each other a fair hearing what more
could you ask for? If we do change our minds, great, but is just as
acceptable to me to walk way while disagreeing as well. I don't think that
anyone is at fault for not agreeing with me, I do get the impression from
others here that if you do disagree with them you have a flaw in your
make up.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen I think of being forced to make a choice I'm looking at it from both
That is being very closed minded of you. Surely if one of us has a valid point, he should be able to convince the other.
[b]Random has no plan or purpose or design behind it, which is NOT what you get with human choice since we act as we will that is not random it is alway with cause, sometime piss poor causes, but causes nonetheless.
Kelly
And c ...[text shortened]... my decisions are caused. I am fairly sure that there is a random component in them all.[/b]
internal and external forces. As I was pointing out my lust and desires are
internal, the need to fit in is internal as well, the HERD or other forces that
are outside of my control are the external ones. I was covering these in
my discussion with you as well. If those forces are not the only things that
you are refering too, please speak up and tell me what else is there that
is or could cause you or anyone else to act one way or another.
Kelly
Originally posted by TenFourWhat do you mean by "religious certainty", where I think I'm right and
So you have your opinion of philosophical reasons, rather than scientific reasons? You really think you can reason your way to the Truth?
You want your will to be your own free will that bad so you enter a state of religious certainty.
somone else is wrong?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course I think I'm right and should be able to change your mind. I'm sure you think your right too.
Why would you say that, because you think your point of view should win
out here? Why don't you change your mind? I am perfectly content to say
we can agree to disagree and feel like you have both made your point and
so have I. I don't believe for one second we have to agree on this or any
other matter as long we both give each other a fair hearing what more
could you ask for?
I am however perfectly willing to change my mind if you can explain to me an alternative that makes sense to me and seems to be genuine. I am not even demanding proof.
I do not believe you have 'made your point' as I am still unsure what your point is. I know you don't like determinism or randomness but I have not yet pined down what you think the alternative is.