Originally posted by whodeyOr we can accept the logical breakdown:
I will admit one thing and that is the concept of ommipotence is just that, it is an abstract concept that we pretend to know everything about much like the concept of gravity. Therefore, we can go around in circles all day, but at the end of the day there remains the circle. 😉
Omniscience means every choice's result is known
Thus every choice will lead to a given result
Thus every choice essentially only has one option
Thus there are no choices
Thus there is no free will.
Either omniscience doesn't exist, or free will doesn't exist, or neither exists.
Originally posted by doodinthemoodHow then do people fall out of love? I suppose this is not a choice as well? In fact, what should we be held accountable for if anything? Hitler had no free will to do what he did, no? Why then the war crime trials?
To whodey,
I think you're being deliberately deceptive there. That's a very immoral stance. Once again, you ignored my points completely. I don't think you've looked at a single one of my points for the whole of this thread. Here's what I wrote:
Originally posted by doodinthemood
[b]there isn't any choice anyway. If somebody finds you att ...[text shortened]... as possible to suddenly choose not to be in love? No, loving someone isn't a choice.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyOriginally posted by whodey
How then do people fall out of love? I suppose this is not a choice as well? In fact, what should we be held accountable for if anything? Hitler had no free will to do what he did, no? Why then the war crime trials?[/b]
How then do people fall out of love? I suppose this is not a choice as well?
Well yes, obviously? If you'll let me indulge for a second, let's assume love is a choice. Oh no, there's a guy who's attracted to me, but I'm not gay. He's the only person who's ever been attracted to me. I know, I'll flick the switch and choose to love him, bam, we're now in a relationship 🙂 Scenario two, my wife's getting really quite grouchy. I'm starting to fall out of love, I know. I'll choose to love her a bit more, and we won't get a divorce. In this make-believe world where love is a choice, everyone could just choose to love everyone and we'd be set, but love isn't a choice. People wait years and years until they finally meet someone they love. If it were a choice, they would have loved that first person. People also get hurled into depression, knowing they love someone who doesn't feel the same way. If they could choose not to, they could very quickly say goodbye to their mental difficulties.
Love is about as far from a choice as things get.
Originally posted by whodey
In fact, what should we be held accountable for if anything? Hitler had no free will to do what he did, no? Why then the war crime trials?
It's quite possible that people have no free will, this is a completely different debatable matter though. If free will does exist, then the war crime trial's reason seems pretty obvious doesn't it? If it doesn't exist, then they were really just to appease people's inner sense of justice. I don't see what the problem is here?
Originally posted by doodinthemoodIn such a scenerio I guess our debating here is 100% fruitless because we have no choice, rather, we will simply do what we will do and believe what we will believe. It then gets me wondering, why are you posting here? At least, I am doing so with the recognition that I have free will.
It's quite possible that people have no free will, this is a completely different debatable matter though. If free will does exist, then the war crime trial's reason seems pretty obvious doesn't it? If it doesn't exist, then they were really just to appease people's inner sense of justice. I don't see what the problem is here?[/b]
I'm posting here because of your posts currently. If one considers this, I have no free will. Would I be posting this had you not posted? No, it would have said "last poster: doodinthemood" and I wouldn't have clicked the thread. Would I have not responded to a post despite having opinions about it? Also no. Then it's completely meaningless to suggest I have free will. You can swap the names around and this applies to you also.
Originally posted by doodinthemoodIf free will does not exist, why is it that we get so bent out of shape when we feel as though it is being violated? Seems kind of 🙄
I'm posting here because of your posts currently. If one considers this, I have no free will. Would I be posting this had you not posted? No, it would have said "last poster: doodinthemood" and I wouldn't have clicked the thread. Would I have not responded to a post despite having opinions about it? Also no. Then it's completely meaningless to suggest I have free will. You can swap the names around and this applies to you also.
No? I'm saying that all humans feel free, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are. More and more philosophers each day are concluding that there's little reason to believe free will exists. For everything you do, a stimulus, brain process, and result can be identified. So what choice is there about it? If you genuinely think that "I feel free" is a sufficient argument against Ockham's Razor then go ahead and believe in free will, but that's just another leap away from logic.
Originally posted by doodinthemoodSo what you are saying is that we are preprogramed to believe an illusion, namely, that we have free will? It then makes one wonder what other illusions we are preprogrammed to believe, no? Perhaps what you believe is one as well. After all, it seems right to you, but is it? I guess from that perspective it is "choose your illusion", no?
No? I'm saying that all humans feel free, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are. More and more philosophers each day are concluding that there's little reason to believe free will exists. For everything you do, a stimulus, brain process, and result can be identified. So what choice is there about it? If you genuinely think that "I feel free" is a zor then go ahead and believe in free will, but that's just another leap away from logic.
Originally posted by whodey
So what you are saying is that we are preprogramed to believe an illusion, namely, that we have free will?
No, that idea's pretty absurd. What would be the advantage evolutionarily of thinking you're free? I think much more likely is that humans are (basically) logical animals, thus form things in the most logical way they can with the evidence presented to them. With lack of neuroscientific evidence, all we can base the concept of free will on is that fact that when you pick a card out of a deck, it's not always the ten of hearts. The seemingly logical extrapolation is that there is free will. We fall for the illusion just like we fall for most illusions.
Originally posted by whodey
It then makes one wonder what other illusions we are preprogrammed to believe, no?
Well yes. Breathe in through your nose, and you create the illusion of your nose doing work. It feels like your nose is doing the breathing, when in actual fact it's the muscles around your lungs. The way to avoid illusions like this is to not be satisfied with the experience-based evidence but instead look for corroborating scientific evidence. No science says your nose does anything while breathing, so using Ockham's razor, we can ignore the idea that it does, even though it feels like it does. Experimental and observational results give the only known reliable conclusions about experience-based ideas.
Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps what you believe is one as well.
What is it that I believe based soley on experience? If you cite another case like the nose thing (if you close one eye and push your other one around with your finger, it looks like an earthquake) I'll probably recognise the lack of experimental backing to the idea, cease that "belief" and find it pretty cool. I like that sort of stuff. As for everything else, I rely on evidence instead of experience, which is an inpenetrable force of logic in debates.
Originally posted by doodinthemoodWe do things in the most logical way? Yea, tell that to my wife. 😛
Originally posted by whodey
[b]So what you are saying is that we are preprogramed to believe an illusion, namely, that we have free will?
No, that idea's pretty absurd. What would be the advantage evolutionarily of thinking you're free? I think much more likely is that humans are (basically) logical animals, thus form things in the most logical way they can with the evidence presented to them.
One thing about logic is that our capacity for it is dependent upon our ability to use it. For example, I would assume that you have a greater capacity for using logic than you did at age 3. However, as you matured mentally your abilities increased. Do realize, however, that even though you have matured, there are still gaps in your logic. There is still a capacity for greater logic that you will never achieve. Therefore, we are prone to self deciet do to our finite limitations. Does this mean that we throw logic out the window? No. However, it does mean that we should realize that even though we think we know all the answers, in reality, we do not.
Originally posted by doodinthemoodWhat is the difference between evidence and experience, since we acquire (observe) evidence experientially. That’s what empiricism is. Whether it is simple looking, touching, tasting, etc., or is done with various measurement devices in a controlled experment. Or do you mean by “evidence” experience (empirical observation) tested by reason?
[b As for everything else, I rely on evidence instead of experience, which is an inpenetrable force of logic in debates.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyYou started off with a truth, but then extrapolated rather wildly.
We do things in the most logical way? Yea, tell that to my wife. 😛
One thing about logic is that our capacity for it is dependent upon our ability to use it. For example, I would assume that you have a greater capacity for using logic than you did at age 3. However, as you matured mentally your abilities increased. Do realize, however, that even thou ...[text shortened]... that we should realize that even though we think we know all the answers, in reality, we do not.
Logic does not = Knowledge. A person with very little logical capabilities can come to have the same amount of knowledge as a person with greater logical capabilities. That logical deduction is imperfect does not undermine any form of unalterable analysis of evidence.