17 Apr 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf there are cases when a claim is not true, then you don't believe it
Your argument only works with woolly generalizations that ignore the fine but significant details.
to be true. That is, 2+2 isn't generally 4; it's always 4.
In what sorts of occasions do your deliberations not causally influence
your choices?
Nemesio
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by frogstompDon't be a wiseass. My mathematical analogy presumed decimal mathematics.
In base 3 too???
If it didn't presume it, no one could make any statements about the
general nature of any mathematical statement without excessive
qualifiers.
As it pertains to bbarr's question -- about deliberations' causal relationships
to choices -- there is no 'other system.' There is no 'knightmeister-prime'
system. Either his deliberations do or do not have a causal relationship
to the choices he strives to make.
Nemesio
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by bbarrWouldn't this be most cases, within the capacity of the person's
Are there ever cases where your deliberations are causally sufficient to determine your choice?
ability to effect the choices in the first place? Take the issue of playing
the lottery. I generally do not play because it's a statistical absurdity
and the money is best put into the bank. My rational deliberations
allow me to conclude this. However, every now and then, I get an
irrational urge and, on my 'gut' I buy a ticket. That is a non-rational
deliberation. Sometimes I get the urge but I surpress it using reason,
this is an example of a rational deliberation winning out over the
irrational one. And vice versa when the urge is too strong. My
deliberations alone are influencing my choices.
Sometimes the urge to play overwhelms me and, when I go to play,
I realize I left my wallet at home. And so, my choice to play was
overwhelmed by circumstances which made it impossible for me to do
so.
Or, if I decide I am going to run into a burning building to save someone
but the flames are too hot for me to physically exercise this choice.
Am I even answering the question you're asking? 😕
Nemesio
*-This example is hypothetical. I never play the lottery. Also, I've never
seen a burning building in person, so I've never had the opportunity to
make the choice about that either.
17 Apr 07
The basic problem is that knightmeister insists that there exists an entity he calls himself and that entity makes decisions that are independent of an external cause. He however does not explain how that entity makes its decisions whether random or by some definite process or by a process that includes some random inputs. He simply describes the process as "free" but does not explain what that word entails other than declaring that it is neither random no causal.
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadMaybe it's because I don't have the background in epistemology(?) that I ought, but I cannot
The basic problem is that knightmeister insists that there exists an entity he calls himself and that entity makes decisions that are independent of an external cause. He however does not explain how that entity makes its decisions whether random or by some definite process or by a process that includes some random inputs. He simply describes the process ...[text shortened]... s not explain what that word entails other than declaring that it is neither random no causal.
conceive of a system where one's deliberations weren't causally linked to one's choices. I was just
sorta hoping that bbarr (or anyone) would flesh out this idea some (since KM is very likely not to
give helpful answers).
Nemesio
17 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterO.K., so let's take some putatively free choice of yours, e.g. your choice to respond to my last post. Now, since it was free it did not have causally sufficient antecedents (that is, there were not prior causes sufficient to bring it about). Further, it was you that directly caused yourself to choose to respond to the post. My question is this: Did you freely choose to cause yourself to choose to respond to my post?
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).
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by NemesioThere is no coherent view where one's deliberations are not causally linked to one's choices. To divorce one's deliberations from one's choices is to divorce what one takes to be reasons from one's choices. That is, it alienates persons themselves from their choices.
Maybe it's because I don't have the background in epistemology(?) that I ought, but I cannot
conceive of a system where one's deliberations weren't causally linked to one's choices. I was just
sorta hoping that bbarr (or anyone) would flesh out this idea some (since KM is very likely not to
give helpful answers).
Nemesio
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by NemesioThat is a problem when somebody use the word "always", especially when it isn't.
Don't be a wiseass. My mathematical analogy presumed decimal mathematics.
If it didn't presume it, no one could make any statements about the
general nature of any mathematical statement without excessive
qualifiers.
As it pertains to bbarr's question -- about deliberations' causal relationships
to choices -- there is no 'other system.' There is no ...[text shortened]... s do or do not have a causal relationship
to the choices he strives to make.
Nemesio
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by bbarrDo you agree that if a choice is not caused by something then it is essentially random?
There is no coherent view where one's deliberations are not causally linked to one's choices. To divorce one's deliberations from one's choices is to divorce what one takes to be reasons from one's choices. That is, it alienates persons themselves from their choices.
18 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterFine you're entitled to your opinion. There's a massive body of evidence to suggest that everything is made up of purely natural substance, the existence of which is controlled by physical forces and can be described by physical laws. Everything acts and is acted upon in line with these processes. No event happens randomly, except on the subjective level of human perception. This negates the notion of free will. I'm offering you a view of how one can deal with that situation. Clearly you either accept what I call the illusion, or you believe in free will, based not on a scientific view of the world, but your belief in what? Oh yes, an illusion...
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 tr real and the intellectual concept of determinism that's the illusion in my opinion.
18 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanThat is not the case. The word random essentially means unpredictable. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle basically means that nothing is predictable to a 100% accuracy and hence everything in the universe has an element of randomness.
No event happens randomly, except on the subjective level of human perception.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI disagree, the word unpredictable means unpredictable. I use the word random to suggest an uncaused event, one which arises through no necessary connection to anything. With this in mind the HUP is all well and good in describing measuring or predicting something, but it doesn't say anything about the nature of random conception or cause and necessary effect.
That is not the case. The word random essentially means unpredictable. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle basically means that nothing is predictable to a 100% accuracy and hence everything in the universe has an element of randomness.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by StarrmanIs there a detectable difference between an unpredictable event and an uncaused (random) event.
I disagree, the word unpredictable means unpredictable. I use the word random to suggest an uncaused event, one which arises through no necessary connection to anything. With this in mind the HUP is all well and good in describing measuring or predicting something, but it doesn't say anything about the nature of random conception or cause and necessary effect.
If two elementary particles collide and one deflects at a given angle, we could not predict the angle at which it would deflect. The question is, is the angle of deflection uncaused or caused but unpredictable and does it really matter if there is no way to distinguish between the two?