Intellectually Impoverished

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If we take an 'act' to be something that the agent intentionally does, then you're telling me that whenever you deliberate, you intended it to be as such?
Perhaps I live in a land of Bizarro in comparison to you, but, yes, whenever I deliberate (i.e., think about an issue) it is a result of my intention. Were I incapable of making a decision about s of time: "Look on the amazing achievements of Christi...[/b]

yes, whenever I deliberate (i.e., think about an issue) it is a result of my intention.

So in every single instance that you deliberate, it's the case that you intented to deliberate? Again, I find that incredibly implausible. What, at very bottom, informs your base intention to deliberate? It's an everyday fact that people often form intentions after deliberating on their situation (as a simple example, you find yourself in some sticky situation; you then deliberate on what to do; and based on that you form some intention to act this way or that way as you see fitting the situation). So you're telling me that in every one of these everyday cases, it's not just a case of your deliberating and then forming some intention on the basis of the deliberation. Rather, you're saying that you first form an intention to deliberate and thereby form another intention about what to do based on your deliberation about the situation. Well, what exactly informs this initial intention of yours to deliberate? It cannot be more deliberation on your part, because this above claim of yours would require there to be yet another intention on your part to account for this further instance of deliberation, ad infinitum.

Were I incapable of making a decision about what I think about, my life would be out of control. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it is one of the signature proofs of an adult mind to be able to exercise control over one thoughts and focuses.

Are you, for some strange reason, under the impression that if you were to deny that deliberation is always the result of intention, then you would be committed to the idea that you are "incapable of making a decision about what [you] think about"? Of course there are times when you can decide to focus your thoughts on some thing or issue in particular. That really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not deliberation is, as you claim, inherently an act.

You cannot on one hand argue that deliberation is not an active process and then attempt to support that absurdity by switching to the information aspect of the act: those are two distinct issues.

Huh? Hey, you keep telling me that each and every single time you deliberate, it is the result of some intention on your part. I'm just asking you for an answer to this question: what, exactly, at bottom, informs your intention to deliberate?

Correct me if I’m off-base here, but it sounds as though you are saying that the decision an individual comes to is based entirely on something other than an individual’s will, e.g., the information, genetic make-up, environmentally-derived value systems and etc.

Yes, you're way off-base with this. I haven't yet advocated anything here regarding what an individual's decisions are based on. And I certainly haven't said anything on how the will is connected (or not connected) with information or genetics or environment or anything for that matter. I'm still just trying to understand your claim that deliberation is inherently an act.

Here's an example: an individual happens upon some sudden unexpected fork in the road, so to speak. Now, I think that the individual is then probably just thrust into deliberation on what to do (there is no reason I see to think they intend here to deliberate, and I think it is incredibly implausible that deliberations are always intentional). So, then they deliberate and they choose whichever available option has the support of their reason, based on their knowledge of the situation, their values and motives, their traits of character, their evaluative commitments, etc. This is consistent with my compatibilist understanding of freedom, or personal autonomy. But notice that there is no threat to freedom in denying that deliberation is always intentional. After all, I have just provided you with an everyday case of personal autonomy that nevertheless involved deliberation that was not brought about intentionally.

Under your view in which deliberation is always intentional, I cannot make much sense of the way in which I often just find myself in deliberation. I cannot make sense of it under your view because if your view were correct, then I should always sort of be driving deliberation. If your view were correct, then I should never just sort of find myself in deliberation, and it should never be the case that situations could just thrust me into deliberation.

Here's another example: someone around you claims that P. You begin thinking to yourself, "now is she correct in claiming that P, or not?" And you're off considering this. So you're deliberating about whether or not P is actually the case. Where in there did you intend to deliberate?

I think you’ll need to be a hell of a lot more clear on that “being brought into belief by one’s interpretation of the evidence” part.

Which part of it do you not find clear?

I don’t recall making point number three. My challenge to the insult is that the insult could not have even formed, were it not for the existence of the object in the first place. By that, I don’t mean you cannot insult what doesn’t exist. Instead, I mean you wouldn’t have the level of mental sophistication to even inform the insult, were it not for the ammunition provided by the intended object.

Point number three was supposed to be the conclusion of the argument -- as in the other points make it for you. But, okay, then you argument is even much worse than I thought. Let's all get together and praise Christianity for giving us the ammunition...TO FORM INSULTS! Hooray for Christianity! What intellectual enrichment it has brought us, that it has given us the level of mental sophistication to come up with insults. So, your argument intends to show that without Christianity we wouldn't have the mental sophistication to insult Christianity. Wow, your argument just went from suck to blow.

Christianity spoken of here is to mean specifically the thinking that results from faith based upon the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

What does that mean? Is it some set of beliefs? Or does it also include complexes of dispositions?

That which emanates from these ideas are reasonably connected to Christianity.

That really doesn't help any. How are we supposed to tie Christianity in with each and every seminal achievement of humankind? For instance, surely it was a seminal achievement when writing began and humans started keeping written records. Since your premise 1 claims that Christianity is the fountainhead of every seminal accomplishment that has ever been achieved by man, you should be able to explain to me how I can make sense of the idea that Christianity was the fountainhead of the invention of writing. So, how do I make sense of something that seemingly absurd? Can't we come up with just about any number of counterexamples to your Premise (1)?

True, it was assumed that the reader would know at least a little something about basic history. I did not think it necessary to cover the whole range of particulars in light of already-established and accepted facts.

So, you did not think in necessary to provide any support for your substantial claims about the reachings of Christianity? You just thought it follows naturally from "a little something about basic history" that Christianity is the fountainhead of every seminal accomplishment of humankind? You just think that's any "already-established and accepted fact"? Yikes.

You’ll need to define your use of the term Christianity, of course, just as you insisted of me. Limiting your use of the term to my definition, I think your task will prove to be impossible.

I still don't understand your definition of 'Christianity'.

Interesting analogy. So what was once true and necessary is now no longer either?

No, I was trying to make the point that sometimes there comes a point in development when we rightfully put away things, even things that were formerly useful. Who said anything about true? Your argument has nothing to do with whether or not Christian beliefs are true. Your argument has to do with pragmatic considerations. I'm saying that there can be something invalid about arguing from the fact that something has proved useful to the idea that we should persist in it.

As already pointed out, the conclusion you conferred upon me was not the one I made.

Right, you weren't actually trying to show that it is not the case that Christianity is intellectually impoverished. You just wanted to show that Christianity has given us the "mental sophistication" to engage in insults.

Originally posted by LemonJello
yes, whenever I deliberate (i.e., think about an issue) it is a result of my intention.

So in every single instance that you deliberate, it's the case that you intented to deliberate? Again, I find that incredibly implausible. What, at very bottom, informs your base intention to deliberate? It's an everyday fact that people often form intentions ...[text shortened]... s given us the "mental sophistication" to engage in insults.[/b]

So in every single instance that you deliberate, it's the case that you intented to deliberate? Again, I find that incredibly implausible. What, at very bottom, informs your base intention to deliberate?
It’s called my will.

So you're telling me that in every one of these everyday cases, it's not just a case of your deliberating and then forming some intention on the basis of the deliberation.
Yes. Perhaps some are more consciously made than others.

Of course there are times when you can decide to focus your thoughts on some thing or issue in particular. That really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not deliberation is, as you claim, inherently an act.
Without exception, every deliberation a person makes is an act. Your position that an act mystically becomes something other by virtue of its conscious or subconscious status is indefensible. I have a strong suspicion that you are recognizing this but are simply too stubborn to relent.

Huh? Hey, you keep telling me that each and every single time you deliberate, it is the result of some intention on your part.
This was your response to my challenge of your bait-and-switch tactic. You attempted to support your contention that a verb is--- well, I’m not sure what form of speech you’re calling it--- not a verb, because of that which prompts the action. Either you argue successfully that someone can deliberate without any action, or your ill-advised contention is lost. What prompts the action is a secondary to the first consideration.

Now, I think that the individual is then probably just thrust into deliberation on what to do (there is no reason I see to think they intend here to deliberate, and I think it is incredibly implausible that deliberations are always intentional).
You’ve played your hand by saying the individual “is probably just thrust into deliberation.” This statement shows two things. One, your original statement was undeveloped and lacking in internal support. Two, you’re overlooking the fact that the individual’s choices are not simply this or that road (i.e., an “unforeseen” event now before him): he must also deliberate whether or not he wants to continue on the road he chose at some point in the past. While the this-or-that choice is an unintended choice (he had no way of knowing this exact scenario would be presented to him when he first started out), the underlying and original deliberation carried with it all manner of deliberations as would present themselves along that road. This new wrinkle is simply a by-product of his original, conscious deliberation.

But notice that there is no threat to freedom in denying that deliberation is always intentional. After all, I have just provided you with an everyday case of personal autonomy that nevertheless involved deliberation that was not brought about intentionally.
No one mentioned anything about any threat to individual freedom, and, no you did not.

Under your view in which deliberation is always intentional, I cannot make much sense of the way in which I often just find myself in deliberation.
I cannot speak to the method in which you conduct yourself.

I cannot make sense of it under your view because if your view were correct, then I should always sort of be driving deliberation. If your view were correct, then I should never just sort of find myself in deliberation, and it should never be the case that situations could just thrust me into deliberation.
Let’s get something straight: there is conscious/subconscious and intentional/unintentional deliberation. Of this there is no denying. However, this was emphatically not your original point. You originally stated that belief itself is predominately not a deliberate act; that the belief one holds is a result of something other than intentional deliberation.

Here's another example: someone around you claims that P. You begin thinking to yourself, "now is she correct in claiming that P, or not?" And you're off considering this. So you're deliberating about whether or not P is actually the case. Where in there did you intend to deliberate?
The moment I decided to consider it.

Which part of it do you not find clear?
The entire phrase “being brought into belief by one’s interpretation of the evidence” needs clarification.

Point number three was supposed to be the conclusion of the argument -- as in the other points make it for you.
You couldn’t be more off-base…

Let's all get together and praise Christianity for giving us the ammunition...TO FORM INSULTS! Hooray for Christianity!
… I stand corrected. Here, you are even more of-base than the original statement.

What intellectual enrichment it has brought us, that it has given us the level of mental sophistication to come up with insults. So, your argument intends to show that without Christianity we wouldn't have the mental sophistication to insult Christianity. Wow, your argument just went from suck to blow.
If that’s what the argument was, I would agree. You’ve missed the boat entirely, however.

For instance, surely it was a seminal achievement when writing began and humans started keeping written records.
Really? What does the record show him doing prior to that?

Can't we come up with just about any number of counterexamples to your Premise (1)?
I’m certain you could if you want to side-step the original and main point, i.e., that the world in which we live today was predominately and mainly influenced by Christianity.

So, you did not think in necessary to provide any support for your substantial claims about the reachings of Christianity? You just thought it follows naturally from "a little something about basic history" that Christianity is the fountainhead of every seminal accomplishment of humankind? You just think that's any "already-established and accepted fact"? Yikes.
Only an obstinate mind would refuse to acknowledge the clearly established fact of history: without Christianity, our world would look vastly different. Imagine any scenario in which any other ideology takes over the vacuum created with Christianity’s non-existence, and you will begin to realize how dependent we are on Christianity’s influence.

… there comes a point in development when we rightfully put away things, even things that were formerly useful. Who said anything about true?
So, by useful, you mean to say that tools of development can confer advantage without the benefit of truth?

Right, you weren't actually trying to show that it is not the case that Christianity is intellectually impoverished. You just wanted to show that Christianity has given us the "mental sophistication" to engage in insults.
Surprise! Wrong again. The point was that without Christianity essentially being the ruling ideology, intellectual freedom is non-existent. Thus any elevated status which occurs as a result of this freedom necessarily owes its position to Christianity in the first place. To claim that Christianity is intellectually impoverished is akin to you telling your father he failed to produce anything worthwhile.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So in every single instance that you deliberate, it's the case that you intented to deliberate? Again, I find that incredibly implausible. What, at very bottom, informs your base intention to deliberate?
It’s called my will.

So you're telling me that in every one of these everyday cases, it's not just a case of your deliberating and then for is akin to you telling your father he failed to produce anything worthwhile.

Without exception, every deliberation a person makes is an act. Your position that an act mystically becomes something other by virtue of its conscious or subconscious status is indefensible.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that my position is "that an act mystically becomes something other by virtue of its conscious or subconscious status"? That's not my position. Hell, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. My position on this issue, once again, is that you were mistaken in your statement that every deliberation is an act (again, supposing that we take an act to be something that the agent intentionally does). I think there are any number of cases in which one deliberates, but in which that deliberation was not intentionally brought about.

You attempted to support your contention that a verb is--- well, I’m not sure what form of speech you’re calling it--- not a verb, because of that which prompts the action.

Seriously, are you having trouble reading and comprehending? I never made the (self-contradictory) contention that a verb is not a verb. Let's replay how this all unfolded, shall we? I made the claim that deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process. Note here that 'deliberative' is an adjective, and 'belief formation' is basically a noun. You then countered that I was confused in such a claim because, as you claimed, deliberation is inherently an act.

Then later, I responded with two separate points: (1) No, deliberation is not inherently an act (if we are to take an act as something the agent intentionally does) because we often deliberate without intentionally bringing it about. Of course, I think one can intend to deliberate in certain cases, but deliberation is not inherently an act. (2) Anyhow, regardless, I wasn't talking about deliberation simpliciter; I was talking about deliberative belief formation. By deliberative belief formation, I am talking about belief formation that results from one's deliberating about what is or isn't the case. Even if one intended to so deliberate or such deliberation was intentionally brought about, that wouldn't imply that subsequent belief formation is an active process: it's still the case that one doesn't have active control over the content of belief that may form or even whether or not any belief forms at all, because these things are dictated by the interpretation of evidence.

Now, you can plainly see that nowhere in there did I contend that a verb is not a verb; nor did I contend that "an act mystically becomes something other by virtue of…[whatever]".

Let’s get something straight: there is conscious/subconscious and intentional/unintentional deliberation. Of this there is no denying.

What do you mean there is no denying that there is unintentional deliberation? WTF have we just been talking about? You were the one just denying it, and I have been addressing your claim that all your deliberations are intentional. If you want to retract your claim that deliberation is inherently an act (under the understanding that an act is something the agent does intentionally); and if you want to retract your claim that indeed all your deliberations are the result of intention; then go right ahead and revise your position.

However, this was emphatically not your original point. You originally stated that belief itself is predominately not a deliberate act…

Gee, thanks for finally coming to understand MY point. So, to recap again. I said what I said about deliberative belief formation. Then you said I was notionally mistaken because deliberation is inherently an act and that all your deliberations are the result of intent. Then I responded with basically two points: (1) no, that's mistaken because deliberation is often unintentional and (2) that's hardly relevant to my actual point anyway. Now look where we are: you're now repeating back to me both of MY points in the form of (1) there's no denying that there is unintentional deliberation and (2) that this whole bit about deliberation is hardly relevant to my actual original point. Wow, priceless.

Now, under this mutual understanding, if you still have some problem with my claim that deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process, then we can still address whatever exactly you think the problem is.

I’m certain you could if you want to side-step the original and main point, i.e., that the world in which we live today was predominately and mainly influenced by Christianity.

Uh, but that wasn't the original claim(s) you made. The substantial claims you made were other claims (such that Christianity was the fountainhead of the inspiration of science and indeed for every seminal accomplishment achieved by humans; and such as that, without Christianity, nothing near the freedom and intellectual plane that now exists would exist). Now, you are backpedaling and changing your story as you go.

Only an obstinate mind would refuse to acknowledge the clearly established fact of history: without Christianity, our world would look vastly different.

Of course our world would look different without Christianity. That's not so controversial in itself, and it has really nothing to do with your initial claims that Christianity was the fountainhead of all human achievement; that without Christianity, nothing near the freedom and intellectuality that exists would exist; etc.

The world would look different without cancer, too. The world would look different without [insert just about anything that exists]. What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that there is room for much extended debate regarding whether some of these hypothetical differences would be for the better or the worse – Christianity being one of the ones that provides much source for debate. You don't seem to want to engage this debate at all; you want to just blanketly assert that Christianity was the fountainhead of everything good, and as it regards anything bad, well "Can't blame Christianity for that." Further, you just want to blanketly claim that in addition to Christianity's efficacy in bringing achievement about, it is also somehow necessary in that we could not achieve anywhere near the same level without it. You are so psychologically wed to your Christianity that you fail to bring even a minimal degree of objectivity to such a discussion. That's why you can claim such outrageous things (such as that Christianity is the fountainhead of every seminal human achievement) and still manage to keep a straight face (even if you feel the need to do a little backpedaling now).

So, by useful, you mean to say that tools of development can confer advantage without the benefit of truth?

I don't understand what you're asking. Tools don't have to be truth-apt at all. Training wheels can be useful in our pursuit of bike riding, but training wheels are neither true nor false, as they don't embody any propositional content.

Even discussing things that do express propositional content, they could surely be useful in some sense and yet false. Even if you were right in asserting that Christian beliefs (for example) can be useful in promoting motivations (or whatever) that facilitate our securing things we take to be valuable, what's that got to do with whether or not such Christian beliefs are true or not? If you could somehow get a warrior to believe a bunch of nonsense (such as that if he dies in battle he will persist on in some beautiful afterlife and that great riches and rewards in the afterlife will be provided him commensurate with his intensity displayed in earthly battle), maybe you could produce yourself a hell of a warrior for your purposes of conquest.

At any rate, there is a lot of material for debate concerning how and if religious beliefs, even supposing that they are false or even outrageously false, could confer advantage. This includes discussion of Darwinian explanations of advantage (which could proceed at different levels, such as at the level of gene or individual or group or whatever); or it could include discussion of advantage in the context of memes or memeplexes; or etc, etc. It's a very rich topic.

Surprise! Wrong again. The point was that without Christianity essentially being the ruling ideology, intellectual freedom is non-existent. Thus any elevated status which occurs as a result of this freedom necessarily owes its position to Christianity in the first place.

Like I said, you keep changing the story as you go. I'd like to see you support the claim that without Christianity we would have no intellectual freedom (whatever that even means).

To claim that Christianity is intellectually impoverished is akin to you telling your father he failed to produce anything worthwhile.

How so, exactly?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Without exception, every deliberation a person makes is an act. Your position that an act mystically becomes something other by virtue of its conscious or subconscious status is indefensible.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that my position is "that an act mystically becomes something other by virtue of its conscious or subconscious status"? Th ...[text shortened]... led to produce anything worthwhile.[/b]

How so, exactly?[/b]

My, my. Let's just suspend the horsehit for a second, shall we? I'm not going to go any further with the back-and-forth on something so absurdly obvious as this exceedingly minor point.

You can persist in your belief that deliberation is anything other than an act on the part of the one deliberating. I truly don't give a toss. The contention is patently, demonstrably and painfully flat-out wrong, and you are comically hell-bent on your insistence of it. Have at it.

The underlying issue is that your claim that people make up their minds about their beliefs without (or, possibly, with little) purposeful examination is hogwash. Regardless of all the minute details subconsciously considered in the formation of one's beliefs, there is nonetheless a very conscious, very deliberate act that occurs when people come to their final belief... whether they are able to articulate those details to an outside inquiry or not.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
My, my. Let's just suspend the horsehit for a second, shall we? I'm not going to go any further with the back-and-forth on something so absurdly obvious as this exceedingly minor point.

You can persist in your belief that deliberation is anything other than an act on the part of the one deliberating. I truly don't give a toss. The contention is pate al belief... whether they are able to articulate those details to an outside inquiry or not.

So no actual arguments from you. What a shocker.

You can persist in your belief that deliberation is anything other than an act on the part of the one deliberating....Have at it.

Man, you're just not very careful with how you summarize ideas. That is not anything that I said. I've told you (I think multiple times now) that I think deliberation can be an act, or can be intentional. But what I said is that I deny your earlier claim that deliberation is inherently an act (or "by its very nature" as you said). And, gee, I thought we both ended up in agreement with my claim that deliberation is not inherently an act (where an act is taken to be something the agent intentionally does). Or maybe you are not understanding the implications. You just got done saying that there is no denying that there is unintentional deliberation (which in practice is just another way of conceding the existence of unintentional deliberation). Well, if there are cases where agents deliberate unintentionally; and if an act is something that the agent does intentionally; then it cannot be that deliberation is inherently an act.

The underlying issue is that your claim that people make up their minds about their beliefs without (or, possibly, with little) purposeful examination is hogwash.

You cannot even bother to reword my claims in a faithful manner. What I said is that deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process. That doesn't mean that purposeful examination does not play a role in belief. You can choose to examine (deliberate on) some question -- say, whether or not the earth is flat. But, it is not within your active control to just decide to believe (in any direct or non-ersatz way) that the earth is flat. You can choose to deliberate on some question, but beliefs that grow out of such deliberation will adhere to what you take to be the evidence that bears on the question, in a way that just garners the assent of your intellect.

Regardless of all the minute details subconsciously considered in the formation of one's beliefs, there is nonetheless a very conscious, very deliberate act that occurs when people come to their final belief...

If this is supposed to be a statement regarding general belief, then now you're really talking nonsense. You hold any number of beliefs that have absolutely nothing to do with any acts on your part. If you're reading this, you believe that you are looking at a computer screen. Now when did you undertake an act aimed at bringing that belief about? If you are talking about deliberative belief, then you're still mistaken. Again, you can choose to deliberate about whether or not it is the case that the earth is flat. But we all know you believe it is not the case that the earth is flat, and that really has nothing to do with some act on your part. That belief of yours cleaves to the evidence (similar to a sort of supervenience, your belief on that wouldn't change unless the body of evidence, or your interpretation of it, were to change).

Originally posted by LemonJello
So no actual arguments from you. What a shocker.

You can persist in your belief that deliberation is anything other than an act on the part of the one deliberating....Have at it.

Man, you're just not very careful with how you summarize ideas. That is not anything that I said. I've told you (I think multiple times now) that I think deliberatio ...[text shortened]... n't change unless the body of evidence, or your interpretation of it, were to change).[/b]

I've told you (I think multiple times now) that I think deliberation can be an act, or can be intentional.
You’re using words in a manner inconsistent with their normative use, making distinctions that simply do not exist. The word “deliberation” as you are using it here, is a verb. By your thinking, this verb can be made into something else by virtue of the intention of the person performing the action!

Or maybe you are not understanding the implications.
I’m pretty sure the grasp I have on the topic is firm. Yours however…

You just got done saying that there is no denying that there is unintentional deliberation (which in practice is just another way of conceding the existence of unintentional deliberation). Well, if there are cases where agents deliberate unintentionally; and if an act is something that the agent does intentionally; then it cannot be that deliberation is inherently an act.
“What was that middle part again? The part about the police?”
Here’s the source of your trouble: “and if an act is something that the agent does intentionally.” As any school child can tell you, an act is an act is an act.

You cannot even bother to reword my claims in a faithful manner.
You’re not doing so hot yourself, truth be told.

You can choose to examine (deliberate on) some question -- say, whether or not the earth is flat. But, it is not within your active control to just decide to believe (in any direct or non-ersatz way) that the earth is flat. You can choose to deliberate on some question, but beliefs that grow out of such deliberation will adhere to what you take to be the evidence that bears on the question, in a way that just garners the assent of your intellect.
You are disproving your own point by persisting with this line of nonsense. You are purposefully looking at the issue, and yet despite the mountain of contradictory evidence, you are choosing to believe your original boneheaded contention.

You hold any number of beliefs that have absolutely nothing to do with any acts on your part.
And yet you cannot name one. I think you might be misconstruing “belief” with “thoughts.” Groups and sub-groups, really.

If you're reading this, you believe that you are looking at a computer screen. Now when did you undertake an act aimed at bringing that belief about?
Not long after I asked the question “What is it?”

Again, you can choose to deliberate about whether or not it is the case that the earth is flat. But we all know you believe it is not the case that the earth is flat, and that really has nothing to do with some act on your part. That belief of yours cleaves to the evidence (similar to a sort of supervenience, your belief on that wouldn't change unless the body of evidence, or your interpretation of it, were to change).
This is all well and good (although it wasn’t the original contention), but it fails to address those folks who choose to believe one way or another regardless of the evidence. It also fails to consider all of the details which enter into the formation of a person’s belief, while inferring that evidence and evidence alone determines all outcomes.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I've told you (I think multiple times now) that I think deliberation can be an act, or can be intentional.
You’re using words in a manner inconsistent with their normative use, making distinctions that simply do not exist. The word “deliberation” as you are using it here, is a verb. By your thinking, this verb can be made into something else by v a person’s belief, while inferring that evidence and evidence alone determines all outcomes.[/b]

The word “deliberation” as you are using it here, is a verb.

No, 'deliberation' is a noun. To deliberate is a verb, sure. So what? I don't know whether to laugh or cry when it comes to your inability to sort out notional distinctions. My claim, yet again, was about deliberative belief formation. (Here, 'deliberative' is an adjective in case you didn't notice.) I'm talking about belief that grows out of an agent's deliberation about what is the case. Now, whether or not said deliberation came about intentionally (it may or may not), I'm talking about the belief formation process that may attend deliberation. Try getting with the program.

By your thinking, this verb can be made into something else by virtue of the intention of the person performing the action!

No, see above. And like I said: try getting with the program.

Here’s the source of your trouble: “and if an act is something that the agent does intentionally.” As any school child can tell you, an act is an act is an act.

That an act is an act is merely tautological. I've made it clear -- several times now -- that my denial of your claim (your claim being that deliberation is an act by its very nature) is predicated on the understanding that an act is something the agent does intentionally. Tell you what, I'm just going to repeat below what I already said to you several posts ago. It'd be nice if you would just start paying attention.

I stated (on page 6):

"If we take an 'act' to be something that the agent intentionally does,...I still think you're confused if you think deliberation is inherently an act.
(...)
If on the other hand, you are treating the notion of 'act' such that whenever the agent is doing anything (whether intentionally or unintentionally), the agent is thereby acting...well, then, duh, of course to deliberate is also to act in that sense. That's hardly interesting and it hardly has anything to do with my claim about deliberative belief formation."

This is all well and good (although it wasn’t the original contention), but it fails to address those folks who choose to believe one way or another regardless of the evidence.

That people simply choose to believe one way or another is more or less what my original claim denies. People don't simply choose to believe this or that regardless of what they take to be evidence. Maybe, for example, there are instances where people choose to take something on faith regardless of the evidence. That is another matter, for we can draw notional distinction between faith and belief.

It also fails to consider all of the details which enter into the formation of a person’s belief, while inferring that evidence and evidence alone determines all outcomes.

My claim was in reference to only a certain type of belief formation -- that which grows out of conscious deliberation about what is or isn't the case. I was talking specifically about a limitation on one's ability to exert doxastic control as it relates to a certain class of belief formation -- again, that which may grow out of conscious deliberation, or the consideration of reasons. I am not even addressing, nor have I even pretended here to address, all of the "details" that can enter into belief formation generally.

And, further, nowhere have I made the implication that "evidence and evidence alone determines all outcomes" even when we are restricting attention to deliberative belief formation. I would generally make a claim that evidential reasons are central to deliberative belief formation. But note that it is evidential considerations that are directly at issue, not "evidence and evidence alone". I know you're not too big on notional distinctions, but I think there is one to be made between what actually constitutes evidence and what a person considers to be evidence. And if you want to get into "details" regarding this, then I think there are plenty to get into -- for instance, how evidential considerations are impacted by potentially a host of priors and antecedents (such as regarding social and cultural conditioning, environment and milieu, upbringing and inculcation, education, genetics, and all sorts of potentially interrelated things).

----------------
Are we done discussing your ideas that prompted this thread?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]"Intellectually impoverished."
The phrase has been bandied about by both pseudo- and actual real-live intellectuals who consistently haunt these threads, as a supposed complaint against Christianity and/or the complete canon of Scripture.

In their view (although never with any type of substantiation), Christianity is inferior to their singular a ...[text shortened]... teps possible. It makes one wonder exactly who the intellectually impoverished ones are.[/b]

Recommended.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The word “deliberation” as you are using it here, is a verb.

No, 'deliberation' is a noun. To deliberate is a verb, sure. So what? I don't know whether to laugh or cry when it comes to your inability to sort out notional distinctions. My claim, yet again, was about deliberative belief formation. (Here, 'deliberative' is an adjective in case yo ...[text shortened]... --
Are we done discussing your ideas that prompted this thread?[/b]

No, 'deliberation' is a noun.
Okay, let’s put it this way. If I go for a run, am I “thinging” or am I “acting?”

To deliberate is a verb, sure. So what?
Oh: so you do understand that deliberation is an act.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when it comes to your inability to sort out notional distinctions.
While deciding the turn of your emotion, please face the mirror.

I'm talking about belief that grows out of an agent's deliberation about what is the case.
Whoa. Talk about your notional distinction thingys!

Now, whether or not said deliberation came about intentionally (it may or may not), I'm talking about the belief formation process that may attend deliberation. Try getting with the program.
Golly, that sounds eerily dissimilar to your earlier contention…
“But, it's still the case that deliberative belief formation is not predominantly an active process.”

That an act is an act is merely tautological.
Logically? Rhetorically? You need to be more clear with this “distinction.”

That people simply choose to believe one way or another is more or less what my original claim denies. People don't simply choose to believe this or that regardless of what they take to be evidence.
So much for prejudice. Or tribal loyalties, shame-based societies, peer-pressure and the like.
I really think you may be on to something here…

My claim was in reference to only a certain type of belief formation -- that which grows out of conscious deliberation about what is or isn't the case. I was talking specifically about a limitation on one's ability to exert doxastic control as it relates to a certain class of belief formation -- again, that which may grow out of conscious deliberation, or the consideration of reasons. [emphasis added]
Are you sure you know what you are arguing?

Are we done discussing your ideas that prompted this thread?
Sure! As you are now saying what I’ve been saying all along, no since us arguing!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]No, 'deliberation' is a noun.
Okay, let’s put it this way. If I go for a run, am I “thinging” or am I “acting?”

To deliberate is a verb, sure. So what?
Oh: so you do understand that deliberation is an act.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when it comes to your inability to sort out notional distinctions.
While de ...[text shortened]... b]
Sure! As you are now saying what I’ve been saying all along, no since us arguing![/b]

Ok, I've been watching you and LemonJello slug it out for a while now. Then I had an idly curious thought. Suppose you were both locked in a cell that was slowly filling with tepid water. In order to unlock the door you would have to both sign an agreement on the question of choice and deliberation that lie detecting brain scanners would endorse.

I thought, would you make it?

How would you begin? By agreeing what you both mean by 'choice' perhaps. Then considering the differences in types of belief (implicit/explicit and so on) and the different processes which can be classified as 'deliberation' which relate to these.

I know it is unlikely to happen, but at this point such a process would be much more interesting than this battle has become in my view. But you aren't here to entertain me, so as you were 🙂

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Ok, I've been watching you and LemonJello slug it out for a while now. Then I had an idly curious thought. Suppose you were both locked in a cell that was slowly filling with tepid water. In order to unlock the door you would have to both sign an agreement on the question of choice and deliberation that lie detecting brain scanners would endorse.

I th ...[text shortened]... this battle has become in my view. But you aren't here to entertain me, so as you were 🙂

The real question in that room is: do we have enough time to deliberate, or is there only enough time for action?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The real question in that room is: do we have enough time to deliberate, or is there only enough time for action?

I estimate you have about three hours before you have to tread water. Maybe four until the last pocket of air is gone.

I think you'd make it.

It would be an interesting conversation though.

Mind you, since you are arguing that deliberation is action there isn't a conflict 🙂

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]No, 'deliberation' is a noun.
Okay, let’s put it this way. If I go for a run, am I “thinging” or am I “acting?”

To deliberate is a verb, sure. So what?
Oh: so you do understand that deliberation is an act.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when it comes to your inability to sort out notional distinctions.
While de ...[text shortened]... b]
Sure! As you are now saying what I’ve been saying all along, no since us arguing![/b]

Goo. I don't even know why I bothered.

Oh: so you do understand that deliberation is an act.

No, genius. I understand that it can be an act, but it is also my understanding that it is not (contrary to what you claimed) an act by its very nature. Geez, why is this so hard for you to understand? If I tell you that I am here taking an act to be something an agent does intentionally; then you should really know better than to think that my holding that X is a verb also means that I think X-ing is inherently an act. For instance, breathe is a verb. But it's certainly not the case that in every instance in which you breathe you intended to breathe.

Sure! As you are now saying what I’ve been saying all along, no since us arguing!

Huh? I asked about those ideas that prompted your starting this thread. Are we done discussing those ideas? If so, I'll take leave of this otherwise painful discussion.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Ok, I've been watching you and LemonJello slug it out for a while now. Then I had an idly curious thought. Suppose you were both locked in a cell that was slowly filling with tepid water. In order to unlock the door you would have to both sign an agreement on the question of choice and deliberation that lie detecting brain scanners would endorse.

I th ...[text shortened]... this battle has become in my view. But you aren't here to entertain me, so as you were 🙂

At this point, just give me death.

Originally posted by LemonJello
At this point, just give me death.

🙂