why so angry?

Originally posted by dottewell
A compatibilist account of this might be that you, as a devout Christian, choose to tell your wife because you don't want to lie to her and, while you can see the benefits of keeping quiet, in the end you judge it best (morally, practically, whatever) to have everything out in the open.

Note that the compatibilist is entitled to almost all the same deci coherently explain choice and action? How can even god know we are going to x? And so on.

"A compatibilist account of this might be that you, as a devout Christian, choose to tell your wife because you don't want to lie to her and, while you can see the benefits of keeping quiet, in the end you judge it best (morally, practically, whatever) to have everything out in the open.

Note that the compatibilist is entitled to almost all the same decision-making paraphenalia as you - he can speak of the mind, he can speak of competing reasons (some practical, some physical, some moral).

The only difference is that, in your words, to the compatibilist it is something "internal" that "tips the balance"; to you it is some queer product or action of your immortal soul. The compatibilist can coherently describe this "balance-tipping" element as, in this case, a compelling moral reason; what can you meaningfully say about it, other than this? What is this free something, and how do you think it relates to our reasoning process, our physical desires, our moral motivations? In what sense is it free? If it is the case that our actions can be free in the sense that no possible physical, mental or moral explanation would ever necessitate that we do x, how can we coherently explain choice and action? How can even god know we are going to x? And so on." DOTTY

......The difference in the compatibilist view is that whatever reasoning becomes the most compelling for me it is that reasoning that neccesitates my choice. In this sense although the reasons are competing , there can only be one winner because it will compel or neccesitate that decision. This is because there is nothing in me that is above or beyond nature to enable me to not be compelled by nature's programming.

In the free will version I make the choice for the same reason but that reason is not sufficient to compel me to make that choice. It's a choice I have to make of my own free will. This can only happen if there is something within me that is free of nature and can resist it's programming. This element is the power of God's spirit that is available to men and dwells within us also , enabling the possibility of freedom from programming and determinism.

In the first version I am ultimately nothing but a complicated slave to programming. In the second version I have made a reasoned decision that is not arbitrary but there is nothing in the reason itself that FORCES me to make that decision.

This is where compatabilism breaks down for me . To me every action and choice must be forced ultimately by nature because the cause necesitates the decision. This is true of complex reasoning processes or instinctual movements by a worm . All are happening for reasons that are sufficient to compel or force that decision. And if nature is all that there is that's all it ever can be. The compatabilist idea that some actions are forced externally and some are reasoned internally (and therefore free) is not one that makes sense if you really boil it down properly.

So both look the same but they are not. In free will we can be ultimately held responsible for our actions because we can't say that any cause was sufficient to compel us or make our choice inevitable . In compatibilism one is not able to say this , we can only say that the reason was sufficient to cause us to do it , and what that ultimately means is that the cause necesitates the effect, which means we could not have done otherwise. As you know , it is irrational to hold someone responsible for their actions if what they did was inevitable from their birth.

In my view compatabilism is just determinism masquerading as free will.

Originally posted by knightmeister
.......So the only way out of determinism is randomness and arbitrary indeterminacy? Where does that leave your reasoned and rational decision making? If the only thing that enables you to choose A over B is ultimately Heisenbergs uncertainty principle then how do we make moral and rational decisions? Determinism or randomness ....not much of a choice is it?

Quite simply, some decisions have causes and others have an element of randomness. They are nevertheless still reasoned and rational. Why do you think they are not? Do you not know what reasoned means or rational? Do you not know what a moral decision is?

Originally posted by knightmeister
No ...what it means is that God is not a slave to determinism or causation and can act of his own volition .

Sorry, but that is not a logical deduction as you imply but simply an extra claim you are making and one which you avoided making when I asked.

You can say that anything uncaused is by definition random but that's not an argument because I dispute the definiton in God's case because he is not a random event.
He is not an event so it doesn't apply. However his decisions are events and are therefore either caused or random unless you would like to give us a new definition of random.

He just is. Events have a beginning point God does not. He is not an effect without a cause, but he is the primary permanent eternal reality behind all causes.
So now you are saying that all events are ultimately caused by God or are random. So you admit that your own choices are either caused by God or are random. QED

Originally posted by twhitehead
Quite simply, some decisions have causes and others have an element of randomness. They are nevertheless still reasoned and rational. Why do you think they are not? Do you not know what reasoned means or rational? Do you not know what a moral decision is?

Quite simply, some decisions have causes and others have an element of randomness. They are nevertheless still reasoned and rational. Why do you think they are not? Do you not know what reasoned means or rational? Do you not know what a moral decision is? WHITEY

...If a decision has an element of randomness in it then it maybe that that element is what tipped the balance in favour of one decision or another. If that happens then it's not a rational decision but pot luck basically. If it's not the random element that tips the balance then it must be the determined element (have a cause). In this scenario the decison may be reasoned but it cannot be free of determinism and so therefore is not a real choice on our part. Either way you either lose choice or rationality. In Christian free will you keep both.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry, but that is not a logical deduction as you imply but simply an extra claim you are making and one which you avoided making when I asked.

[b]You can say that anything uncaused is by definition random but that's not an argument because I dispute the definiton in God's case because he is not a random event.
He is not an event so it doesn't app ...[text shortened]... or are random. So you admit that your own choices are either caused by God or are random. QED[/b]

He just is. Events have a beginning point God does not. He is not an effect without a cause, but he is the primary permanent eternal reality behind all causes.
So now you are saying that all events are ultimately caused by God or are random. So you admit that your own choices are either caused by God or are random. QED WHITEY


And this would be true if God has just set everything in motion and then just left us in a universe of determinism ...but he didn't leave us ...He came and shared his nature with us ..and his nature is uncaused

Originally posted by knightmeister
"A compatibilist account of this might be that you, as a devout Christian, choose to tell your wife because you don't want to lie to her and, while you can see the benefits of keeping quiet, in the end you judge it best (morally, practically, whatever) to have everything out in the open.

Note that the compatibilist is entitled to almost all the sam irth.

In my view compatabilism is just determinism masquerading as free will.

You didn't even try to answer the questions as I phrased them, in relation to your own example, did you?

I'm out, too.

Originally posted by vistesd
I might be wrong, but I think there may be a confusion here between acting with a reason, and acting according to some specified “matrix of rationality”.

I would say that a God who is agape acts [b]by reason of that agape. That is, that agape is a sufficient reason for such a God to act in certain ways vis-à-vis the beloved—ways ...[text shortened]... ason”—but of whether love is a sufficient reason? (And I think you know my vote on that one...)[/b]

I don't wish to get bogged down in semantics, but even that formula puts God on the receiving end of motivation from an external force, i.e., love.

In a lucid dream, I moved around a library from tables to shelves, picking up books of my imagination and sitting in chairs of my invention to read stories that haven't been written. Am I the walls of the library, the carpet or the floor, the binding or the pages?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't wish to get bogged down in semantics, but even that formula puts God on the receiving end of motivation from an external force, i.e., love.

In a lucid dream, I moved around a library from tables to shelves, picking up books of my imagination and sitting in chairs of my invention to read stories that haven't been written. Am I the walls of the library, the carpet or the floor, the binding or the pages?

What I have read about dreams is that all elements in the dream are us. There is no separation between the dreamer and the dreamed. Whatever motivates the dream is left behind the scenes, so to speak.

However, even using ye olde “language of accommodation,” we can either say something coherent about God, or we cannot. If all of our language becomes not only limited but meaningless in speaking of God—then there is absolutely nothing to say, and all attempts by anyone to say anything are meaningless. And the language of accommodation is not more or less meaningless vis-à-vis human cognition because it was “written” by God.

If one says that God is agape in the essential sense of 1st John, then agape is not an “external force” to God; nor is it an attribute. The analogy is limited, but it’s a bit like saying, “I am human.” That is not an external force; nor an attribute such as, “I like ice cream.” Being human is not separable from my instantiation: if I am, then I am human.

When you say “God is love,” that statement either carries meaning, or it does not. Even if all you say is that “God is”, you have to have some inkling what that means, if it means anything.

All of this applies to God as creator as well—or, more basically, God as will; or God as a being. Was God “motivated” to create? If not, then creation is a random accident (not that I have a problem with that) caused by some unmotivated “movement” in/of God.

I’m not sure that in your effort to remove all taint of “effect” from God, you aren’t ultimately headed toward unintentionally removing “cause” as well... (not that I have a particular problem with that).

In fact, I think you may well be rendering all God-talk meaningless. And I don’t have a problem with that either. The ground is pre- and non-conceptual, and therefore really ineffable. The only talk that “makes sense” is talk that leads one to stop conceptualizing and just be, aware—use of concept to elicit a non-conceptual response, ala Zen koans, or poetry, or myth. There is really no map of the territory—there are only maps that attempt to conceptualize our experience of the territory; we are implicated in every map.

Either the signifier “G-o-d” has a coherent signified (meaning) or not. Either the sign (signifier + signified) has an actual referent or not. On the other hand, there may be an actuality for which we have no coherent sign—and hence, about which nothing can meaningfully be said.

On the other other hand, what if “G-o-d” is verb...?

Originally posted by dottewell
You didn't even try to answer the questions as I phrased them, in relation to your own example, did you?

I'm out, too.

I was about to but I guess your predetermined disposition to be impatient got the better of you.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I was about to but I guess your predetermined disposition to be impatient got the better of you.

No you weren't, because you can't. Patently, you don't grasp what compatibilism is; you simply can't explain what it means, on your "account", to say you could have acted differently in strictly identical circumstances; you can't articulate what this mysterious god-given unbound volition is, or where or how it figures in an explanation of your having chosen to act in a certain way at a certain time; you can't explain how it's influence renders your actions free rather than simply random; in short you simply don't seem to understand even the fundamentals of a debate that has been raging for hundreds of years, and you don't seem to want to educate yourself.

You had a golden opportunity to engage in a civilised and informative exchange with someone who knows far more than you or I about these issues, and you chose to dodge and obfuscate, and to refuse to acknowledge the strength of points that were made to you even when you had no answer. You don't have to agree, but you should at least listen, and try to understand, and have the humility to ask for clarification if you are not sure what is being asked or said. On several occasions in this thread what you have done is roughly equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!"

And all this, I'm afraid, reflects on your character. You are either too thick-headed or too insecure to even try to understand the other side on its own terms. That's unfortunate, and in this case makes you the lesser man.

So go ahead and start as many threads on free will as you like. Doubtless they will all be jumbled and beside the point. You've already driven away potentially the most valuable contributor to any thread of that type. You are lucky vistesd shows infinite patience with everyone, or there's every chance you'd single-handedly turn this place into an intellectual wasteland.

But perhaps that's the (unthinking) Christian way.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, in my view the source is nature. You are a part of nature. I still blame you and trace your choices back to you.

[b]You see you might as well "blame" the cat for chasing the mouse (which would be silly) .
Not silly at all. If the cat chases my pet mouse then the cat gets a spank. My mums cat knows what it is allowed to chase and what it isn't ...[text shortened]... ent required. Just don't claim that it is logical because it isn't.[/b]

You see you might as well "blame" the cat for chasing the mouse (which would be silly) .KM
Not silly at all. If the cat chases my pet mouse then the cat gets a spank. My mums cat knows what it is allowed to chase and what it isn't allowed too. If it catches a mouse it presents it to my mum. If it catches a bird it hides away somewhere and eats it in private.WHITEY

.....All that proves is that the cat associates a slap with catching birds , how does that give the cat the power to not catch birds? Simple association . Even if you could prove that the cat had some kind of conscience you would still be far away from showing that the cat has any kind of choice.

Originally posted by dottewell
No you weren't, because you can't. Patently, you don't grasp what compatibilism is; you simply can't explain what it means, on your "account", to say you could have acted differently in strictly identical circumstances; you can't articulate what this mysterious god-given unbound volition is, or where or how it figures in an explanation of your having chose ...[text shortened]... tellectual wasteland.

But perhaps that's the (unthinking) Christian way.

I 'm sorry you feel this way. Whether you are right or not is hardly the point right now. I can see that I have put your nose and barrs out of joint although this was not my intention. I will try in future to listen more carefully and take on what is being said.

One thing that would help is if you and barr could drop this "educated" business. I find it incredibly patronising. It's almost like saying " You need to accept before we even start this debate that I know more than you about it and will inevitably be right " This is what it feels like because I too made some good points and had questions of my own that were never answered.

I think my basic problem is that I don't automatically believe that because one has read a load of philosophy and can use fancy words then that means you know more than someone who can't . I never bought that one because to me the world is full of fancy words and clever people who know nothing.

Maybe I should have been a good boy all along and allowed myself to be "educated" instead of thinking that I had something of my own to bring to the table.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, in my view the source is nature. You are a part of nature. I still blame you and trace your choices back to you.

[b]You see you might as well "blame" the cat for chasing the mouse (which would be silly) .
Not silly at all. If the cat chases my pet mouse then the cat gets a spank. My mums cat knows what it is allowed to chase and what it isn't ...[text shortened]... ent required. Just don't claim that it is logical because it isn't.[/b]

As long as you accept that as with humans that 'programming' includes both 'nature' and 'nurture' and a random element as well. Cats can be trained not to chase mice.WHITEY

..BUT the cat would be trained by someone who is also programmed. What is nurtue except a series of pre determined experiences nature gives us? Still trapped in determinism.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, in my view the source is nature. You are a part of nature. I still blame you and trace your choices back to you.

[b]You see you might as well "blame" the cat for chasing the mouse (which would be silly) .
Not silly at all. If the cat chases my pet mouse then the cat gets a spank. My mums cat knows what it is allowed to chase and what it isn't ...[text shortened]... ent required. Just don't claim that it is logical because it isn't.[/b]

Therefore the source of the cause is not man but nature , it has to be.
No, if man is part of nature, then he cannot escape from being the cause. WHITEY

So let's think about this then. The cause or reason of a man's action is himself? So you believe a man can act without anything causing him to act within nature? Not his brain or body or the world in which he lives . What else is there apart from nature (I know , do you)? He may be the indirect cause but the ultimate cause? That would be like saying that the earth is the cause of life, when we all know that if you trace it back further the earth's very existence is dependent on the sun and even further back to the big bang.

Do you believe that if we could understand all there is to know about human actions then we would be able to say about any action "this is what caused this man to do this"??

. If you do then you must refer to the natural world in some way (either evolution, physics , biology , genetics , neuroscience etc etc) . Therefore a man's action are caused by natural phenomenon. If you say no then you are in trouble because you will need to explain a man's actions in reference to something mysterious and non-natural. You may resort to randomness but that would mean that our actions aren't ultimately rational , but just pot luck.

You could also say that the man is the cause or his own actions independent of natural causes , but I doubt you would recognise how radical that statement is.

Do you get it yet. ? All that happens in this universe can in theory be traced back to the big bang so it makes no sense to say man is the cause of his own actions because you can always trace it back to the preceeding cause on which man depends. The ONLY way out of this is to invoke something outside of causality and this universe. Randomness kinda does this but the best we could then say is that our actions are laced with a bit of luck.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, in my view the source is nature. You are a part of nature. I still blame you and trace your choices back to you.

[b]You see you might as well "blame" the cat for chasing the mouse (which would be silly) .
Not silly at all. If the cat chases my pet mouse then the cat gets a spank. My mums cat knows what it is allowed to chase and what it isn't ...[text shortened]... ent required. Just don't claim that it is logical because it isn't.[/b]

The only way out of this is to say that somehow human beings have something "not natural" in them that enables them to be free of nature's dictates, but you wouldn't want to go down that road would you? KM
Whether you go down that road or not it does not get you out of what you perceive to be a problem, it merely submits you to some non-natural dictates or randomness. WHITEY

I agree in a way , it would be just passing the buck. It's like saying God created the universe which just begs the question who created God? The thing is to recognise that the definition of God is that he is not created but always existing. He has no cause and no explanation. With God you have got to the point where explanations stop because you can't go any deeper into reality. God is like existence's prime number , you can't divide him any more.

One thing I have realised is that if one could explain how a free will decision was made then it would prove that it was not infact a free will decision . If I could explain how we have this ability then I would give that choice a cause which would not make it a free choice.

It's like if I was able to expalin how God got there. It would prove that God was not God at all but was dependent on something else to exist. I should then have to call that thing God instead and then you would ask me how that got there (ad infinitum) etc etc