Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]How can accepting an illusion be congruent with rationality?

I wasn't aware illusions were of the same class of things as reason and necessarily connected with them. I have already given you examples.

Are you saying that the only rational thing to do is to live by an illusion knowingly?

If I ...[text shortened]... doesn't follow. Why can't I? You haven't offered a single thing supporting your claim.[/b]

If so , this is impossible because if you know it's an illusion then you can't delude yourself. KM

Again, that statement doesn't follow. Why can't I? You haven't offered a single thing supporting your claim.STAR

Oh come on. In order to live you need to delude yourself into believing that free will actually exists and behave accordingly. If you try and do this whilst at the same time admitting that that free will is an illusion the effect is lost. Have you ever been watching a film and then you start thinking about the acting skills of the actors and how the set is constructed . What happens is the film starts to lose it's effect and you break the illusion. You need to believe the film is real even though you know it's not and so you delude yourself and allow yourself to be temporarily hypnotised in feeling the film is real. Break the trance and acknowledge the film is just acting and the experience starts to go. Is this how it is for you with free will? How hard do you have to work to keep the idea that its just an "illusion" at bay?

My guess is actually not very hard because it's the experience that's real and the intellectual concept of determinism that's the illusion in my opinion.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I still don't know how to answer your question. BTW In many cases I think it's a positive advantage to be less educated . I 'll take wisdom over intellectualism any day.

If it is an advantage to be uneducated, then you certainly hold the upper hand here!

The question is simple:

Do you think that your deliberations influence your choices?

Now, are you telling me that you can't answer this simple question? If you can't, then why should we take anything you have to say about choice or freedom seriously?

Originally posted by bbarr
If it is an advantage to be uneducated, then you certainly hold the upper hand here!

The question is simple:

Do you think that your deliberations influence your choices?

Now, are you telling me that you can't answer this simple question? If you can't, then why should we take anything you have to say about choice or freedom seriously?

Nice one. However , it's truth that holds the upper hand always , not men.

I would say that my deliberations do influence my choices .

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nice one. However , it's truth that holds the upper hand always , not men.

I would say that my deliberations do influence my choices .

Good. Do your deliberations ever causally influence your choices?

Originally posted by bbarr
Good. Do your deliberations ever causally influence your choices?

Causality always implies at least some relationship of dependency between the cause and the effect. For example, deeming something a cause may imply that, all other things being equal, if the cause occurs the effect does as well, or at least that the probability of the effect occurring increases.

However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience."

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Causal

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Causality always implies at least some relationship of dependency between the cause and the effect. For example, deeming something a cause may imply that, all other things being equal, if the cause occurs the effect does as well, or at least that the probability of the effect occurring increases.

However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantu ...[text shortened]... ain valid at the level of human experience."

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Causal

No relationship of dependency is entailed by simple causal ascriptions, since some effects are causally overdetermined. For instance, if you are both shot through the heart and decapitated, then your death is not dependent on either of these causes alone (since either would have been sufficient in the absence of the other), but rather on their disjunction. Further, there are cases where it is only a constellation of causes that are jointly sufficient to bring about some effect, where in the absence of any one of the causes the others don't even raise the probability of the effect occuring. Lighting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomd detonating unless the fuse is connected to the bomb, and connecting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb detonating unless the fuse is lit.

Originally posted by bbarr
Good. Do your deliberations ever causally influence your choices?

You would need to clarify what you mean by deliberations here but yes , I would say that there are occasions when my deliberations do have a causal influence.

I must say that this sounds very restricted and abstract. Is a practical example not more appropriate to avoid generalizations.

I sense a trick coming as well. Lure me into your trap if you please but a bit of transparency might not go amiss.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You would need to clarify what you mean by deliberations here but yes , I would say that there are occasions when my deliberations do have a causal influence.

I must say that this sounds very restricted and abstract. Is a practical example not more appropriate to avoid generalizations.

I sense a trick coming as well. Lure me into your trap if you please but a bit of transparency might not go amiss.

There is no trick here, I'm just trying to understand your position.

Are there ever cases where your deliberations are causally sufficient to determine your choice?

Originally posted by bbarr
No relationship of dependency is entailed by simple causal ascriptions, since some effects are causally overdetermined. For instance, if you are both shot through the heart and decapitated, then your death is not dependent on either of these causes alone (since either would have been sufficient in the absence of the other), but rather on their [i]disjunction[ necting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb detonating unless the fuse is lit.

No relationship of dependency is entailed by simple causal ascriptions, since some effects are causally overdetermined. For instance, if you are both shot through the heart and decapitated, then your death is not dependent on either of these causes alone BARR

However , if these events took place simultaneously then it could be argued that the decapitation was the cause of death because it would kill more quickly and beat the shot to the heart to the job. If one looked into it in more detail one would no doubt find that the point of death was crossed by one or other of the events. The timing of the events would be crucial , but then being well educated you would of course understand the relationship between time and causality?

Originally posted by bbarr
There is no trick here, I'm just trying to understand your position.

Are there ever cases where your deliberations are causally sufficient to determine your choice?

In that case my choice would not be free but determined by a cause. In order for my choice to be free I need to be the cause of my own choice and am thus accountable for it. However , I do think some choices , many infact are determined. We are in many instances slaves to drives and influences (what St Paul would call slaves to sin) but for free will we need something radically different from the mechanistic world we see around us.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No relationship of dependency is entailed by simple causal ascriptions, since some effects are causally overdetermined. For instance, if you are both shot through the heart and decapitated, then your death is not dependent on either of these causes alone BARR

However , if these events took place simultaneously then it could be argued that the decapi ...[text shortened]... being well educated you would of course understand the relationship between time and causality?

So what? The point was that both being shot and being decapitated were sufficient, and hence that the death didn't depend on either alone. The death may actually have been caused by one rather than the other, but this doesn't entail that the death depended on being decapitated since being shot would have sufficed.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In that case my choice would not be free but determined by a cause. In order for my choice to be free I need to be the cause of my own choice and am thus accountable for it. However , I do think some choices , many infact are determined. We are in many instances slaves to drives and influences (what St Paul would call slaves to sin) but for free will we need something radically different from the mechanistic world we see around us.

O.K., so when your deliberations are causally sufficient to bring about your choice, then your choice is not free. Free choices are only those choices that you directly cause. Do you agree with both of these claims?

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., so when your deliberations are causally sufficient to bring about your choice, then your choice is not free. Free choices are only those choices that you directly cause. Do you agree with both of these claims?

Broadly yes , I would say that a free choice is one where there is the real possibility that a different choice could have been made. A free choice would be one that would be impossible to predict (and not because it was random) with any certainty no matter how much information one had at one's disposal (except actual knowledge of the future).

Originally posted by bbarr
So what? The point was that both being shot and being decapitated were sufficient, and hence that the death didn't depend on either alone. The death may actually have been caused by one rather than the other, but this doesn't entail that the death depended on being decapitated since being shot would have sufficed.

I see your point but have you considered that even if this is the case the way the person dies and and the exact timing of their death is caused by a specific chain of events likely to be traced back to one event or another making the decisive blow on his life. So although death (in a general sense) would have occurred anyway. The actual death (in a specific sense) would be caused by one or other of the events , most likely the decapitation. The fact that either event would be sufficient for death does not mean that one of the events was not causally responsible and thus the actual effect (specific death ) IS dependent on a specific event. Your argument only works with woolly generalizations that ignore the fine but significant details. Good job you've got an uneducated twit like me to keep you on your toes.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I see your point but have you considered that even if this is the case the way the person dies and and the exact timing of their death is caused by a specific chain of events likely to be traced back to one event or another making the decisive blow on his life. So although death (in a general sense) would have occurred anyway. The actual death (in a sp ...[text shortened]... t significant details. Good job you've got an uneducated twit like me to keep you on your toes.

Of course an effect is dependent in that sense on it's actual cause, but that claim is trivial and not the one that Freaky intended above. At least, I hope that Freaky intended to say something more than that effects are causally dependent on their actual causes; an unenlightening claim to say the least. I thought the dependency Freaky was talking about was something like a law-like relationship obtaining between types of causes and their typical effects.