16 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioOkay. So, you agree that there were (basically) two choices for both you and EvilMeister: save the
Okay. So, you agree that there were (basically) two choices for both you and EvilMeister: save the
child or let the child die.
For you, the choice was rather obvious: the selection of saving the child was one you weighed as
the most valuable option, given the sets of values you hold, your ideals, your confidence as a swimmer,
and so forth.
For E ...[text shortened]... rmined) by your characters.
Are you with me so far, or do you have an objection?
Nemesio
child or let the child die.
For you, the choice was rather obvious: the selection of saving the child was one you weighed as
the most valuable option, given the sets of values you hold, your ideals, your confidence as a swimmer,
and so forth.
For EvilMeister, the choice was similarly obvious: the selection of not saving the child was weighed as
the most valuable option, given the sets of values he holds (to disdain other life, to not get wet, to
not inconvenience himself, and so forth).
That is not to say that both you and EvilMeister are equally moral. All we are doing is understanding
the driving forces behind choices. Both you and EM had the potential option of doing the opposite to
your natures, but your dispositions, characters, values, &c. compelled you to choose what you did.
You each still chose it, but your choices were constrained (not determined) by your characters.
Are you with me so far, or do you have an objection?
Nemesio
KM - I have some thoughts but I'll let you carry on , it all seems Ok so far....
16 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterJesus Christ, why can't you just quote posts like everybody else? Why do you quote everything twice? I can't take it anymore.
Okay. So, you agree that there were (basically) two choices for both you and EvilMeister: save the
child or let the child die.
For you, the choice was rather obvious: the selection of saving the child was one you weighed as
the most valuable option, given the sets of values you hold, your ideals, your confidence as a swimmer,
and so forth.
...[text shortened]...
Nemesio
KM - I have some thoughts but I'll let you carry on , it all seems Ok so far....
16 May 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterOnce again, either something is or is not determined. So, if you are
Do you believe that all mens actions come about as a direct or indirect result of determinism (dictated by natural laws) and randomness such that only one outcome is ever possible to those actions OR alternative outcomes are possible but can be attributed to random chance. ?
asking if I believe that all things are determined, the answer is: no.
Random events do happen. If you are asking that if I think that your
character determines your choices, then the answer is: yes. But, part of
your character is 'free will,' so, just as KM and EM both choose according
to their character, and cannot imagine not choosing according to their
character, they are choosing nonetheless.
Nemesio
17 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's not a big deal Dr. When you look back at your own posts in the database it's not always clear what the other person has said because the computer shortens them. I also like to archive my posts and the responses. The only way of doing this effectively is to copy and paste .
Jesus Christ, why can't you just quote posts like everybody else? Why do you quote everything twice? I can't take it anymore.
All you have to do is skim read in abouit 2 seconds and select my replies . I admit I should maybe mark my replies clearly as KM reply....
18 May 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt just makes it so much harder for everyone to follow if you
It's not a big deal Dr. When you look back at your own posts in the database it's not always clear what the other person has said because the computer shortens them. I also like to archive my posts and the responses. The only way of doing this effectively is to copy and paste .
All you have to do is skim read in abouit 2 seconds and select my replies . I admit I should maybe mark my replies clearly as KM reply....
1. repeat quotes
2. don't get your bold right.
If you want to quote people in the post not the 'quoted section' then delete the content of the quoted section. Also, you could bold the bits you are quoting so that it is immediately clear that you are quoting someone and we don't have to look at the last word in the paragraph to check that is not actually you who said it.
The site designers thought long and hard about the best way to do quotes and you choose to do it all differently.
And if you use Firefox it has a built in spell checker too!
19 May 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadFor some reason I cannot control the bolding. I don't know why it just happens ....probably just random? LOL
It just makes it so much harder for everyone to follow if you
1. repeat quotes
2. don't get your bold right.
If you want to quote people in the post not the 'quoted section' then delete the content of the quoted section. Also, you could bold the bits you are quoting so that it is immediately clear that you are quoting someone and we don't have to lo ...[text shortened]... ose to do it all differently.
And if you use Firefox it has a built in spell checker too!
19 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE--------
Once again, either something is or is not determined. So, if you are
asking if I believe that all things are determined, the answer is: no.
Random events do happen. If you are asking that if I think that your
character determines your choices, then the answer is: yes. But, part of
your character is 'free will,' so, just as KM and EM both choose accord ...[text shortened]... imagine not choosing according to their
character, they are choosing nonetheless.
Nemesio
"Once again, either something is or is not determined. So, if you are
asking if I believe that all things are determined, the answer is: no.
Random events do happen. If you are asking that if I think that your
character determines your choices, then the answer is: yes. But, part of your character is 'free will,' so, just as KM and EM both choose according to their character, and cannot imagine not choosing according to their
character, they are choosing nonetheless."------- NEMESIO
---------------RESPONSE-------------------------
But all things must be determined according to your view. They are either determined by randomness or natural law. There is no room for free will , only the illusion of free will.
What do you mean when you say " but part of your charactor is free will" ? This is what you are supposed to be debating , not assuming. No-one is doubting that human beings make choices or doubting that those choices are experienced as being between real alternatives . The real question is... is this concept consistent with your world view and is the experience illusionary or not. We make choices alright but are those choices free or determined by programming and chance?
I will copy across the same questions I asked whitey and see if you wriggle as much............
-------FROM OTHER THREAD------------
If I have a computer and I run a sophisticated program on it which has the outcome of the computer producing a "decision" is it really free will? Let's say I introduce a random element into the program (similar to many current strategy computer games ) and let the random element blend with the programmed element is the computer exercising free will?
This computer could reach a "decision" internally via "natural" means and programming with some random element involved as well. Is it making a free choice of it's own volition or is it just running a sophisticated program with a complex processor and random elements? Would we hold such a computer responsible for its decision or would we blame the programmer and person who built the computer ?
You see the logical implications of you being "an entirely biological (physical/natural) agent" is that basically you are a walking meat computer with a random element to you. Essentially you are saying that we are the way we are (down to the finest detail) because nature has programmed us to be that way. Nature has made us , like a man has made a PC. Our decisions may not feel "forced" but in this world view there is no room for them to be anything other than as a direct result of our brain structure ( programming) which is determined by nature ultimately.
As Dawkins might put it , its the blind watchmaker and the selfish gene that is driving us. We just think we are sitting in the driving seat.
If you think the computer has free will then it is certainly NOT the same kind of free will I experience (illusionary or otherwise) . If you think the computer doesn't have free will then how do you argue we do have free will when essentially we are no different (in your view) apart from being made of neurons and flesh rather than CPUs and hard drives. ?
In your world view how can we ever be more than just a walking , slightly randomised , highly complex, meat computer? I don't see how you avoid the need for something more to create sentient , meaningful , free will.
Can you explain how you do this? I can only conclude that the "free will" you are on about is not the same as the real free will in which men choose real alternatives in full knowledge of what they are doing without the sense that they are programmed to do the inevitable or make decisions on the flip of a coin (or a bit of both)
I don't understand how you mix randomness and determinism and produce free will. To me that's like mixing water and coal to produce a piano concerto.
(EDIT-The strange thing about this is that we baulk at the idea of being mere meat computers almost as if something somewhere is telling us that we are more than that...how queer!)
19 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterOne flaw this site does have is that bolding that is started in the "originally posted by" box can carry over into the post itself. Often what happens is that the "end bolding" string gets eliminated with [text shortened]. If this happens, just edit your post and put the "end bolding" string as the first thing in your post. Perhaps this is what you assume is a "random" occurence.
For some reason I cannot control the bolding. I don't know why it just happens ....probably just random? LOL
19 May 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI can't even see any end bolding string!
One flaw this site does have is that bolding that is started in the "originally posted by" box can carry over into the post itself. Often what happens is that the "end bolding" string gets eliminated with [text shortened]. If this happens, just edit your post and put the "end bolding" string as the first thing in your post. Perhaps this is what you assume is a "random" occurence.
21 May 07
Originally posted by knightmeister
But all things must be determined according to your view. They are either determined by randomness or natural law. There is no room for free will , only the illusion of free will.
I did not say that all things must be determined. This is what is frustrating
about talking with you.
From the very quotation you cited from my last post, the very first
sentence:
Once again, either something is or is not determined. So, if you are
asking if I believe that all things are determined, the answer is: no.
So, I'm not going to entertain discussing anything else in your post since
it hinges on a false presumption on your part.
I will say this for the computer analogy. Whereas a computer may be
able to indentically predict which choices I might elect, this doesn't necessarily
entail that it has free will. I think that free will requires the ability to be
self-aware, something that a computer crunching out variables or a worm
lacks.
Nemesio
22 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE-------------
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]But all things must be determined according to your view. They are either determined by randomness or natural law. There is no room for free will , only the illusion of free will.
I did not say that all things must be determined. This is what is frustrating
about talking with you.
From the [i]very[ ...[text shortened]... e
self-aware, something that a computer crunching out variables or a worm
lacks.
Nemesio[/b]
I did not say that all things must be determined. This is what is frustrating
about talking with you.
NEMESIO
RESPONSE-------------------------------------------
I KNOW that's not what you said . Read more carefully. The point I was making was that that was what you SHOULD say. In other words what you say is not consistent with your view. If all actions are determined either by chance or programming then all actions MUST be determined in your view. It's logical , but you don't want to accept the logical implications of what you say you believe. We can't make meaningful free choices in such a universe. We just make random ones or programmed ones.
This is what is frustrating about debating with you , you don't accept the uncomfortable logical implications of your own view.
22 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE------------------------
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]But all things must be determined according to your view. They are either determined by randomness or natural law. There is no room for free will , only the illusion of free will.
I did not say that all things must be determined. This is what is frustrating
about talking with you.
From the [i]very[ e
self-aware, something that a computer crunching out variables or a worm
lacks.
Nemesio[/b]
I will say this for the computer analogy. Whereas a computer may be
able to indentically predict which choices I might elect, this doesn't necessarily
entail that it has free will. I think that free will requires the ability to be
self-aware, something that a computer crunching out variables or a worm
lacks. ----NEMESIO
RESPONSE------------------------------
This sounds confused to me. I never said that the computer could predict all your actions or that a computer had free will. The big problem you've got is this. Your world view entails that basically we are just sophisticated meat computers. We process information through connections in cells , and the structure of our brains is programmed by nature (dna, natural world , neuroscience, hormones, etc etc) . We can be nothing more than a meat computer in your view , except for some random element. But even the computer has a random element as well , so how are we different? Logically , when computers get as sophisticated as us then they will develop self awareness? And then be free?
The principle of a computer crunching out decisions is no different from what we do in essence. What's really , really interesting about this is how you then resort to this mysterious thing called "self awareness" which you do not quantify and doesn't really fit in your world view.
The big question is why does a computer not have self awareness? Also , if a computer was really sophisticated with trillions of processors would it develop self awareness? If it did then it would be aware of the decisions it was programmed to make , but would that make it free? How does awareness make the computer free if it is still a mechanical construction? Who knows , it might even develop a sense that it is actually free , but if it did we would know that that was not logical.
I want to know how you LOGICALLY draw a distinction between a meat computer(us) and a mechanical one.
This was always my problem with you , BARR and the compatabilist way of thinking. You are only logical up to a point and then you start creating free will out of nowhere without realising it's not logical on the basis of a mechanical/random world view. You have to work really hard to reconcile this world view with the human experience of having free will. You can't put randomness and programmed determinism into the pot and bring free will out like a magic rabbit. Randomness and programming just makes meat computers , that's all.