why so angry ? part 2

Originally posted by SwissGambit
My programming and character is to enjoy drinking beer in the car. I'm not free to choose otherwise. At least, that's what I told the cops, but they didn't buy it for some reason.

And the reason they didn't buy it is because they suspect that like them you have something in you that enables you to overide your programming.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Do you not see that the worm is also making rudimentary choices? You see those choices as driven by the worms instinct. The worm is not free because it is not in the driving seat , instinct is.

A worm does not make choices. In order to make a choice, you must be able to discern between
more desirable an ...[text shortened]... peculiar and idiosyncratic. Does this mean that I am somehow less free?

Nemesio[/b]

QUOTE--------------

I don't know about you, but I have a few very, very close friends who know me intimately.
Very often, they will tell me that they knew in advance exactly how I would react to certain information
or events. Often these events are very specific and complicated, and the reactions that I have are
peculiar and idiosyncratic. Does this mean that I am somehow less free?

Nemesio

RESPONSE--------------

You are no less free of course (in my world view) because you have free will. What I am trying to argue is that logically in your world view you shouldn't if you can make 100% accurate predictions.

Please try to understand that I am trying to get you to realise that you take something for granted which your intellectual world view excludes. The whole mental process involves in unlearning what you unconsciously assume. If I am right and free will is true then my task becomes harder because you will experience free will and then argue from there. I am being rhetorical all the time. I am taking what you say you believe and then thinking about what that would logically mean for me.

I have literally no idea how you manage to turn your ice cream scenario into free will. To me it just looks like fudge. It has to be less free because the outcome is inevitable. How do you mentally juggle your way out of this?

Originally posted by knightmeister
QUOTE--------------

I don't know about you, but I have a few very, very close friends who know me intimately.
Very often, they will tell me that they knew in advance exactly how I would react to certain information
or events. Often these events are very specific and complicated, and the reactions that I have are
peculiar and idiosyncratic. Doe ...[text shortened]... less free because the outcome is inevitable. How do you mentally juggle your way out of this?

Can you please explain to me why it is an impossible to predict how someone is going to choose
with 100% accuracy?

You seem to think that some contradiction is entailed here -- that somehow it's not a choice if it
can be predicted -- and I don't see it.

In the situation with the drowning child, like you, I wouldn't hesitate to save the child. Anyone who
knows me would say the same -- there is a 100% probability that I would choose to save the child.
I have no reason to doubt the same of you.

Why do you feel this doesn't reflect a free choice?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Can you please explain to me why it is an impossible to predict how someone is going to choose
with 100% accuracy?

You seem to think that some contradiction is entailed here -- that somehow it's not a choice if it
can be predicted -- and I don't see it.

In the situation with the drowning child, like you, I wouldn't hesitate to save the child. Any ...[text shortened]... to doubt the same of you.

Why do you feel this doesn't reflect a free choice?

Nemesio

QUOTE------

Can you please explain to me why it is an impossible to predict how someone is going to choose
with 100% accuracy?

RESPONSE-----

I would have thought this obvious. One can never really know if the prediction was 100% accurate because the instance only occurrs once. If you could repeat the exact same instance then you could do a statistical analysis , but you can't. You could make 1000's of predictions about different human choices and do it that way. But if you could do that with 100% accuracy you would be a billionaire and a god. Stocktraders do this all the time but they don't get to 100%.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Can you please explain to me why it is an impossible to predict how someone is going to choose
with 100% accuracy?

You seem to think that some contradiction is entailed here -- that somehow it's not a choice if it
can be predicted -- and I don't see it.

In the situation with the drowning child, like you, I wouldn't hesitate to save the child. Any ...[text shortened]... to doubt the same of you.

Why do you feel this doesn't reflect a free choice?

Nemesio

QUOTE---

You seem to think that some contradiction is entailed here -- that somehow it's not a choice if it
can be predicted -- and I don't see it. NEMESIO

RESPONSE---

I know you don't see it. If you did you wouldn't be debating with me. All mechanisms make choices. A cloud chooses to rain , but we don't call it choice because we don't ascribe our our subjective human values onto the cloud (eg self , awareness , sentience) . Clouds do what clouds do because they are clouds. Humans do what humans do because they are humans. Humans are a lot more complicated than clouds but the principle is the same. From the outside the human being is just a biological mechanism just like clouds , worms etc . In theory if we knew all there was to know about any one human being then we would be able to predict his every action 100%. This would then make it difficult nay impossible to distinguish him from a cloud because he would be JUST AS predictable as the cloud in everyway. In terms of choice it would be no more possible to say that he made a choice than the cloud. The only distinction would be that subjectively the human being would be under the illusion that he was in control of his destiny , whereas from the outside we would already have figured out his destiny long ago.

The thing to understand is that in this scenario we can only make a distinction between ourselves and a cloud by refering to subjective experience. Logically from the outside there is no reason to make this distinction. Logically we do not believe clouds are making choices the same as us.

Originally posted by knightmeister
All mechanisms make choices. A cloud chooses to rain , but we don't call it choice because we don't ascribe our our subjective human values onto the cloud (eg self , awareness , sentience).

Well, no wonder you don't agree with compatibalism! You think clouds make choices! Wow! That is
the most bizarre and confused understanding of the idea of 'choosing' that I think I've ever seen.

Self, awareness and sentience aren't subjective values in the sense they are the matter of opinion,
like whether Chunky Monkey is, in fact, a good ice cream flavor. They are real and actual characteristics
which may or may not describe an entity. We have them, worms and clouds don't. I'm going to assume
that there is no debate on this matter -- whether we have awareness and whether clouds and worms
don't.

I'm taking choice to have the standard meaning: one in which an entity elects option A over another
because it believes that A will best serve its interests. Clouds and worms don't have interests, so
clouds and worms do not make choices.

If you define 'choice' differently, of course you're going to have bizarre conclusions. So, if you object
to my definition, perhaps you can elucidate on why and offer your own definition.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, no wonder you don't agree with compatibalism! You think clouds make choices! Wow! That is
the most bizarre and confused understanding of the idea of 'choosing' that I think I've ever seen.

Self, awareness and sentience aren't subjective values in the sense they are the matter of opinion,
like whether Chunky Monkey is, in fact, a good ice cream ...[text shortened]... inition, perhaps you can elucidate on why and offer your own definition.

Nemesio

QUOTE---

Self, awareness and sentience aren't subjective values in the sense they are the matter of opinion,
like whether Chunky Monkey is, in fact, a good ice cream flavor. They are real and actual characteristics
which may or may not describe an entity. We have them, worms and clouds don't. I'm going to assume
that there is no debate on this matter -- whether we have awareness and whether clouds and worms
don't.

I'm taking choice to have the standard meaning: one in which an entity elects option A over another
because it believes that A will best serve its interests. Clouds and worms don't have interests, so
clouds and worms do not make choices.
NEMESIO

RESPONSE-----

Of course , I know that worms don't choose as such , you are missing the point...I am arguing in the way you should be. I am playing devils advocate to get you to think about something you may have not thought about before. Will you go there with me? ...

One could say that a worm selects to rise to the surface of the ground when it senses the pitter patter of rain drops. It makes a choice or selection to rise to the surface based on it's best interests. However , it probably isn't aware of why it is doing this and doesn't go through a complicated set of deliberations to do this or have a belief system associated witrh the selection. In fact it has no option but to rise . It just does it because it is caused to do so by its programming and nature . Biological determinism ensures the worm does as it's told. The worm is a biological mechanism. It obeys.All animals and plants are programmed by nature to act according to their own interests. Why do you single out humans as being especially different in this area?

Now I know this is an anxiety provoking thought but try anyway. We are also biological mechanisms (according to you) . Nothing more . Nothing less. We are like huge , complex worms with a nervous system so advanced that we experience self awareness (your view?). But how are we logically different from the worm. We make selections based on our programming that are caused selections. Caused by what? Caused by our very biological nature and structure. We are what we are because of biological factors . We do what we do via caused biological determinism. We do as we are told , we have to do what our biological nature dictates what we do. The only way we can override biological determinism is by having something in us that is not subject to normal biological causality. Your world view does not have this. To you we are meat computers. We obey indirectly , but we still must obey. Our subjective experience doesn't fit with this , but ruthless logic dictates that it can be no other way. Indirect determinism is the only logical position in your world view.

This is what I mean by indirect determinism. The worm is subject to direct determinism. We are subject to indirect determinism. The processes by which our programming and biological nature dictate our actions and choices are far more advanced BUT indirectly it's logical (if one subscribes to your world view) that we are just as much subject to determinism as the worm , it's just it takes a bit longer for nature to pull our strings. It gives us a whole series of processes to go through first , but in the end it subtley has its way. It's the logical implication of your world view.

Within that process of deliberation and selection and self awareness you manage to concoct some idea that our actions are less determined than the worms . Presumably it's because there is a greater distance between the causation and the effect in us. What you miss is that the principle is exactly the same.
Just because we make selections in a different way from a worm does this logically mean we are more free? How can this be? There is only one possible outcome for the worm when the rain comes. When I see the cheesecake there is only one possible outcome for me also. How are we logically different?

Ask yourself this. If our choices are different from the worms then how have we become free of causal biological determinism? We are biological machines , worms are biological machines. How does self awareness mean that we have more choice if our choices are indirectly determined?

Another question might be that if I tip a set of dominos over the first domino is determined and caused to fall by me. Is the last domino any more free than the first because it's at the end of the sequence?

In your world view you are not an entity that has the option of "electing " A over B because whatever you do , think or choose is caused directly or indirectly by biological causation (just like the worm). If I knew everything there was to know about you I could predict your "choices" with the same accuracy as the worms selections. The fact that you subjectively feel the ice cream to be a possible option is irrelevant because it never is (in your view)

The only way out of this is to posit something within you that is not subject to biological causation and determinism, something that will separate you substantially from a worm. And it's not there in your world view......but it is in mine. I realised when I was an atheist that there was something in my conception of humanity and my subjective experience of choice that there was something there in me that shouldn't be there logically , but I had to be ruthlessly logical with myself to get there. It's gonna hurt!

Originally posted by knightmeister
All animals and plants are programmed by nature to act according to their own interests.

Kelly made a similar claim with regards to humans. Do you care to back it up with evidence? I would say that most animals and plants are programmed to act according to what would in most circumstances be the best interest of their species. To conclude that all decisions are actually in the best interests of the individual is not correct.

Now I know this is an anxiety provoking thought but try anyway.
Why does it give you anxiety to realize that you are an animal? Do you realize that a significant number of the opponents of evolution suffer from similar anxiety and are often driven to telling outright lies in order to try and keep that anxiety under control?

Our subjective experience doesn't fit with this ...
You have repeatedly made this claim but are yet to provide any evidence. I for one am not aware of such an 'experience'.

The only way out of this is to posit something within you that is not subject to biological causation and determinism, something that will separate you substantially from a worm.
Although this cures your nature phobia it doesn't affect the basic problem of causation other than your attempts to claim that once you invoke God you can throw logic, meaning and anything else of consequence under the carpet of 'goddunit' and pretend your problem is solved. Your decisions are either caused or random - live with it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Kelly made a similar claim with regards to humans. Do you care to back it up with evidence? I would say that most animals and plants are programmed to act according to what would in most circumstances be the best interest of their species. To conclude that all decisions are actually in the best interests of the individual is not correct.

[b]Now I know ...[text shortened]... pretend your problem is solved. Your decisions are either caused or random - live with it.

QUOTE-

Why does it give you anxiety to realize that you are an animal? Do you realize that a significant number of the opponents of evolution suffer from similar anxiety and are often driven to telling outright lies in order to try and keep that anxiety under control?

RESPONSE-

I know , I have argued against a few of them and the anxiety is there unconsciously because they cannot reconcile evolution with their knowledge of God. They know God is real but intellectually they can't see how evolution fits in . I have no such anxiety because I have always believed evolution to be true . I have always thought we are animals , but then again , I have come to believe that we are very special spiritual animals

Originally posted by twhitehead
Kelly made a similar claim with regards to humans. Do you care to back it up with evidence? I would say that most animals and plants are programmed to act according to what would in most circumstances be the best interest of their species. To conclude that all decisions are actually in the best interests of the individual is not correct.

[b]Now I know ...[text shortened]... pretend your problem is solved. Your decisions are either caused or random - live with it.

QUOTE--

Our subjective experience doesn't fit with this ...KM
You have repeatedly made this claim but are yet to provide any evidence. I for one am not aware of such an 'experience'WHITEY

RESPONSE-

So let me ask you. Have you ever made a choice and then looked back on it and thought that you really could have made a different choice instead? Are you suggesting that your subjective experience is that you are walking along a pre-destined timeline from which you cannot depart? Have you never made a choice that you regret and wish that you could re-wind time and make the different choice
that you could have made instead? Wow!!!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Kelly made a similar claim with regards to humans. Do you care to back it up with evidence? I would say that most animals and plants are programmed to act according to what would in most circumstances be the best interest of their species. To conclude that all decisions are actually in the best interests of the individual is not correct.

[b]Now I know ...[text shortened]... pretend your problem is solved. Your decisions are either caused or random - live with it.

QUOTE-- Your decisions are either caused or random - live with it.

RESPONSE--

Me thinks you protest too much! The question is whether I have self determination or not. My free actions are caused by me with a little help from my brain and body.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Kelly made a similar claim with regards to humans. Do you care to back it up with evidence? I would say that most animals and plants are programmed to act according to what would in most circumstances be the best interest of their species. To conclude that all decisions are actually in the best interests of the individual is not correct.

[b]Now I know pretend your problem is solved. Your decisions are either caused or random - live with it.

QUOTE----
Kelly made a similar claim with regards to humans. Do you care to back it up with evidence? I would say that most animals and plants are programmed to act according to what would in most circumstances be the best interest of their species. To conclude that all decisions are actually in the best interests of the individual is not correct.
RESPONSE---

Dawkins would argue that we are under the influence of the selfish gene so our actions may look like self intertest but are actually gene driven. All animals act according to self preservation except when the gene pool dictates otherwise. What's your point? You seem to love to pick up on any slight thing you can find in anything I say these days. I would prefer you answer my point on the free will/destiny thread than be mooching around here looking for something to pick up on.

Originally posted by knightmeister
...so our actions may look like self intertest but are actually gene driven. All animals act according to self preservation except when the gene pool dictates otherwise.

That adds up to a meaningless statement. All actions are driven by X except when they aren't.
My point? My point was that both you and kelly are claiming that the actions of all animals including humans are fundamentally selfish which is a false statement and not borne out by either observation or the predictions of evolution. Kelly went further and claimed that as observation contradicted the assumed programming it meant that the programming was being overridden.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That adds up to a meaningless statement. All actions are driven by X except when they aren't.
My point? My point was that both you and kelly are claiming that the actions of all animals including humans are fundamentally selfish which is a false statement and not borne out by either observation or the predictions of evolution. Kelly went further and cla ...[text shortened]... vation contradicted the assumed programming it meant that the programming was being overridden.

No , I don't believe that the actions of all animals are selfish becasue I believe the animal we call humans to be capable of love and selflessness. The problem is you can't spot when someone is playing devils advocate or arguing rhetorically. I would like to see you address the issue of how indirect determinism and direct determinism are different in your mind (although on the other thread you started to say that worms are just as responsible as humans). It would be curious if you started saying that clouds are equally responsible and to held to account as human beings , but I doubt you willl tamper with such preposterousness. You will then be forced to find something that logically distinguishes between a cloud and a human being and shows how human actions are less inevitable than a clouds actions. I doubt you will be able to do this logically and will probably start saying that we are more responsible because we are more responsible , thereby appealing to some quality which sentient beings are supposed to have which cannot be accounted for logically.

BTW- Have you given up on the other thread. I did sense that I had you by the proverbials on the Hitler thing. Are you able to prove that Hitlers actions were predestined because you know his future? Thought not. Never mind , they can stop polishing the philosophy prize.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It would be curious if you started saying that clouds are equally responsible and to held to account as human beings , but I doubt you will tamper with such preposterousness.

I think I have already made a claim somewhere that clouds are responsible for their actions. Are you saying that Hurricane Katrina was not responsible for the devastation in new Orleans? Who was then? Did God do it?
The critical think is the 'held to account' bit. I have already said that I don't believe in the Christian view of a vast accounting book in heaven with a row for each sin and a punishment next to it. I believe that punishment has other purposes and that punishing a cloud would be stupid.

You will then be forced to find something that logically distinguishes between a cloud and a human being and shows how human actions are less inevitable than a clouds actions.
It has nothing to do with the inevitability of actions or free will as you call it. A storm for example is in no way inevitable.
Though I have been much looser in my definitions for choice and blame than others in these threads, I think it is important to note that punishment is only really meaningful if an entity has a consciousness or at the very least a method of recording. For any entity that can be trained, it is effective to use either punishment or reward to achieve a desired behavior.

BTW- Have you given up on the other thread. I did sense that I had you by the proverbials on the Hitler thing. Are you able to prove that Hitlers actions were predestined because you know his future? Thought not. Never mind , they can stop polishing the philosophy prize.
Not sure which thread you mean as there are so many. I have not intentionally given up on any threads so if you let me know which one I can go and post.