A New Discovery
JANISPAULARAFAEL
door of determinsm? If so, let me know.
Robert J. Kolker
JANISPAULARAFAEL wrote:
> Is anyone interested in hearing about a discovery that lies locked behind the
> door of determinsm? If so, let me know.
If you have something to say, then say it.
Bob Kolker
HPO Jury = Malenoid
Don't do it!
----------------------------
The mob of sophists, however, raise against reason
the usual cry of absurdities and contradictions, and though
unable to penetrate to its innermost designs, they none the less
inveigh against its prescriptions. Yet it is to the beneficent in-
fluences exercised by reason that they owe the possibility of
their own self-assertiveness, and indeed that very culture
which enables them to blame and to condemn what reason
requires of them.
Immanuel Kant
JANISPAULARAFAEL
compiled. There is confusion with the meaning of determinism because it is
believed that something external to man is causing him to do the various things
he does. If that is true, then man cannot be held morally responsible. This
discovery reconciles the principle of 'an eye for an eye' with 'turning the
other cheek' and allows mankind to understand an important law of our nature
which has not yet been perceived.
The implications are enormous as this knowledge has the power to prevent what
no one wants: war, crime, and hatred between man and man. I know this sounds
impossible, but if anyone is interested in learning more, please let me know.
Robert J. Kolker
JANISPAULARAFAEL wrote:
> discovery reconciles the principle of 'an eye for an eye' with 'turning the
> other cheek' and allows mankind to understand an important law of our nature
> which has not yet been perceived.
If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his lungs out and pee in his
chest cavity. Girly men forgive their enemies. Real mean kill their
enemies, take their enemy's women and cattle, settle on their land and
think to themselves how good life is.
Bob Kolker
Ean Smit
> If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his lungs out and pee in his
> chest cavity. Girly men forgive their enemies. Real mean kill their
> enemies, take their enemy's women and cattle, settle on their land and
> think to themselves how good life is.
>
before he can forgive. Friedrich Nietzsche
Dim
news:8030606b.03091...@posting.google.com:
I'am new to your forum, but what you are saying here is slightly strange.
1) A man is always responsible for his actions and there is always a choice
2) A man has the right to kill his enemies only when doing so is an
apropriate responce to the threat. If somebody spits on my show, doesn't
mean I have to kill them. If somebody threatens my freedom than I'am
required to kill him.
Larry Allen
EA5Ddimbosto...@204.127.204.17>...
Dear Dim,
Question: If 12 people were in a room listening to a speech made by
one man. And after the speech the 12 listeners were asked to comment
on the goodness or badness, the profoundity or stupdity, the rightness
or wrongess, etc. etc. of the speech (and by implication, the man that
made it), would you still consider the mans speech as being "slightly
strange"?
The point being there is no such thing as a slightly strange speech,
in the absence of the presence of a slightly strange interpretation of
it. Which interpretation requires (by implication), a man interpreting
it.
Of course we live in a world wherein agreement constitutes truth.
So if all 12 agreed the speech was strange, well, by God, it was
strange.
And if all 12 agreed the speech wasn't strange, well, by God, it
wasn't.
And if it was a 50/50 split, well by God, it was....well, you get the
point.
There is no such thing as objective truth. In terms of evaluation.
There are objective facts (and objectives realities) but these are jr.
to subjective interpretations. In terms of personal experience.
Sometimes it is better for a man to spend ten hours of silent
contemplation prior to spending 10 minutes reading the words of
another man, than spending 10 minutes of reading the words of another
man, prior to spending 10 hours in silent contemplation.
His resulting interpretation will be different (sometimes).
Sound strange?
Larry Allen
JANISPAULARAFAEL
about a new discovery that lies locked behind determinism. There is a lot of
confusion about this issue. Most people believe in free will, but in truth our
will is not free, but that does not mean that we are machines or that anything
external is forcing us to do what we do. In fact, nothing causes us to do
anything, but that does not make our will free.
Robert J. Kolker
JANISPAULARAFAEL wrote:
Define what you mean by free will.
Bob Kolker
JANISPAULARAFAEL
free. In the sense that what we choose is of our own desire or volition; we
can interpret that to mean 'of our own free will'. I use that term a lot. I
say, "I did it of my own free will' meaning I did it because I wanted to do it;
nothing made me do it. But that is where the confusion lies because that alone
does not make my will free.
Robert J. Kolker
JANISPAULARAFAEL wrote:
Clarify then. Do you deny free will as it is commonly understood? Or do
you have another definition. Free is commonly understood as follows. You
made a decision to choose alternative A over alternative B. If you have
free will in the manner, if the universe were turned back to the moment
of decision, you could have chosen B over A. That means there was
nothing in the universe that rigidly and rigorously determined your your
choice.
The cpposite of free will is determinism, where all decisions are
dependent on the state of the world at a given instant and there exists
(in principle, if not in fact) a rule which maps the state of the world
into your decisions.
Bob Kolker
JANISPAULARAFAEL
maps out what we choose ahead of time. That is not the case and yet
determinism is true. In fact, if I choose A over B, I could never have chosen
B over A at that exact moment of time, which renders my choice unfree. If I
could have chosen A over B just as well as B over A, then my choice would be
free.
It is true that we are constantly given alternatives which we then weight in
our minds to decide which choice is preferable; but the word 'choice' is
misleading for it assumes we have more than one possibility at any given
moment. We do not. We must pick the alternative that gives us greater
satisfaction. This renders any other choice at that moment an impossibility
because, at that moment, it would be in the direction of dissatisfaction which
our nature will not allow..
Eudaimonus
> The cpposite of free will is determinism, where all decisions are
> dependent on the state of the world at a given instant and there exists
> (in principle, if not in fact) a rule which maps the state of the world
> into your decisions.
The problem here is that you making "free will" into "indeterminism".
We want our choices to be _our_ choices, and to follow forth from _our_
nature - a random decision is no more a real decision than is a forced
decision. Or, to be more theoretical, the problem is that _I_ am part
of "the world", so to say that free will implies that my will is not
determined by the state of the world implies that it is not determined
by me - in which case it is free, but no longer a will!
You see, determinism gives you a will but no freedom, and indeterminism
gives you freedom but no will. Does this mean that there is no such
thing as free will? No, it means that there is something wrong with the
terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
we know that we do have free will.
Mr. V.
Having read this far into the thread on determinism (I understand it's
meaning is versus intentionalism), and finding your post, I feel
obligated to share leads to some very thought provoking insights &
viewpoints. The first is a text titled "Validity in Interpretation"
by Eric Donald Hirsch, Jr., Copyright Yale University Press, New
Haven, Conn. 1967. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 67-13438.
I found Mr. Hirsch's narratives very helpful towards distinguishing
between individual significance (which can masquerade as truth) and
empirical truth, a universal truth, an unequivocal truth. The second
text is
"Being & Time." by Martin Heidegger. Translated by John Macquarrie &
Edward Robinson from 7th German Edition. Copyright 1962. Harper & Row,
Publishers, Inc. New York, N.Y.. Library of Congress Catalog Card
Number: 62-7289. In this, Dr. Heidegger evaluates the basis, even the
entity of "being", & of things Being', & how they are being, etc., &
he sheds light on the errors which creep into the works of
understanding what things are being, and of knowing what & how things
are being, and to what something is referring to while it is being,
etc.
In the arena of the abstract mind of modern man, and his uniquely
human intentionality, we many times sense a divergence & disparity
between what we think and intend to do, and how it is
received/perceived by others. This then furthers the need &
developments towards an exact accounting for & explanation. This bill,
for example, would not be satisfied on the grounds of simple consensus
- particularly if the affirmation of the consensus did not have a
valid basis. Moon rocks are not chocolate pudding; even if I think or
believe they are; even if I say they are; even if we think they are;
even if we all say and believe they are. They just aren't, and cannot
be. So our consensus, though we can believe it is true, cannot
actually BE true - in that example - and so it comes back to the
question of what it is being.
Yapping at the heels of this, like a small dog, intentionality
follows. How the world wants for this but gets that; how the
individual has needs while some or many are never satisified would
never rise above the gray shade of a deterministic world to which all
the living would doubtless have resigned by now. Plodding along like a
phototropic paramecium - predetermined as to which way he will go?
Drifting along like a lost helium balloon in any direction the wind
goes? The words "plan" and "goal" do not exist in the world of
determinism. They are banished in exile in a world which obstructs
progress that is consistent with a plan or goal. A man says "I am
hungry now. What will I have?" By determinism he would starve to
death.
Some food for thought, I think.
Sincerely,
Mr. V.
Robert J. Kolker
Eudaimonus wrote:
> terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
> we know that we do have free will.
What empirical evidience is there that we have free will? Once we make a
decision (whethere it is a random act, quantum process or internally
determined, a firm mapping of our internal states into an act) we cannot
replay the world a compare what we did the first time to what we did the
second time. I have no doubt that we believe we could have chosen
otherwise, but where are the facts to back that belief up?
All we can say, factually, is that at some place and time we decided X
or that we did Y.
Bob Kolker
JANISPAULARAFAEL
> The cpposite of free will is determinism, where all decisions are
> dependent on the state of the world at a given instant and there exists
> (in principle, if not in fact) a rule which maps the state of the world
> into your decisions.
The problem here is that you making "free will" into "indeterminism".
We want our choices to be _our_ choices, and to follow forth from _our_
nature - a random decision is no more a real decision than is a forced
decision. Or, to be more theoretical, the problem is that _I_ am part
of "the world", so to say that free will implies that my will is not
determined by the state of the world implies that it is not determined
by me - in which case it is free, but no longer a will!
You see, determinism gives you a will but no freedom, and indeterminism
gives you freedom but no will. Does this mean that there is no such
thing as free will?
============================
Yes, there is no such thing as free will although we can make choices. But the
choice, once it is made, could not have been otherwise.
===========================
No, it means that there is something wrong with the
terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
we know that we do have free will
==============================
It is a definition problem. The definition I am positing for your
consideration allows you to have the freedom to choose, but it is actually a
delusion since the choice was never a free one. If B is an impossible choice
because I derive less satisfaction than choosing A, I am not free to choose A.
On the other hand, if A is an impossible choice in comparison to B, then I am
not free to choose B.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
============================
We are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Every movement
we make in life is away from that which dissatisfies to that which satisfies.
If we were satisfied to remain in one position, or 'here', we would have never
moved to 'there. Some choices are so obviously superior in value that many
people will say, You gave me no choice. Of course you had a choice. But
remember, the word 'choice' is very misleading for it assumes that you have two
or more possibilities; but in reality this is a delusion because you must, by
your very nature, pick the alternative that offers the greatest satisfaction.
You cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction, therefore it renders one
of the choices an impossibility at that moment in time.
Nothing causes you to act a certain way. In other words, people get all upset
because in a deterministic world, they have no say, they are basically
automatons. But that is not what I saying here. We have a will to do whatever
we want in our lives. Heredity and environment influence how people act.
Someone may pick one thing where someone else will pick another because a
juxtaposition of differences in each case present alternatives that affect
choice. That is why one person will commit a crime and another will not. But
this does not change the direction man is compelled to go.
Larry Allen
@insightbb.com>...
Eudaimonus wrote:
>
> You see, determinism gives you a will but no freedom, and indeterminism
> gives you freedom but no will. Does this mean that there is no such
> thing as free will? No, it means that there is something wrong with the
> terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
> we know that we do have free will.
As much as (a part of me) hates to admit it, (given our previous
exchanges Eudaimonus) this is perhaps the most beautiful declaration I
have ever heard in regard to the distinction between free will, and
the absence of it.
If I could add but one element to your definition, it would be this:
"Every man that comes into this world comes fully equipted with a
psycholgical arsenal that consists of either pistols or cannons".
Larry Allen
JANISPAULARAFAEL
>
> You see, determinism gives you a will but no freedom, and indeterminism
> gives you freedom but no will. Does this mean that there is no such
> thing as free will? No, it means that there is something wrong with the
> terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
> we know that we do have free will.
I am very confused with these replies as I don't know who an individual is
addressing and I never see my posts. Could someone help explain how to post a
reply and get a direct response.
=============================
We do not have free will. We have a will and we choose, but it isn't free at
all.
=============================
As much as (a part of me) hates to admit it, (given our previous
exchanges Eudaimonus) this is perhaps the most beautiful declaration I
have ever heard in regard to the distinction between free will, and
the absence of it.
What distinction are you talking about?
===========================
If I could add but one element to your definition, it would be this:
"Every man that comes into this world comes fully equipted with a
psycholgical arsenal that consists of either pistols or cannons".
=============================
Larry Allen, I don't understand what you are getting at. Could you explain
yourself?
===============================
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:itzbb.403998$Oz4.196480@rwcrnsc54...
>
>
> Eudaimonus wrote:
> > terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
> > we know that we do have free will.
>
> What empirical evidience is there that we have free will?
The concept of "empirical evidence" presupposes free will. If all the
thoughts in your brain are merely there because they had to be there, none
of them are actually "evidence" of anything. They are just there because
they have to be there. You could call this or that evidence but there would
be no way of knowing one way or the other if that is true since you are
simply compelled to call it evidence.
Free will is axiomatic. It cannot be denied without presupposing it and
affirming it.
All cognitive concepts "true and false", "proof", "evidence", "demonstrate",
etc, etc presuppose free will. Hence the attempt to deny free will is
self-contradictory.
Incidentally, if no one to whom you were addressing the question had free
will what would be the meaning or significance of any response you would
receive? None.
> All we can say, factually, is that at some place and time we decided X
> or that we did Y.
"Decide" presupposes free will. "Fact" presupposes free will in the sense of
being able to know when something is or isn't one.
Apart from that, the evidence you have of free will is introspection. You
know you have it. That is the source of your feeling of responsibility for
your actions. When you unjustly yell at your child are you indifferent to it
because you think you had no choice? You know damn well you had a choice.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Larry Allen" <lamoo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:96398ea3.03092...@posting.google.com...
> Eudaimonus <jwsc...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:<3F6E6784.4060501
> @insightbb.com>...
>
> Eudaimonus wrote:
> >
> > You see, determinism gives you a will but no freedom, and indeterminism
> > gives you freedom but no will. Does this mean that there is no such
> > thing as free will? No, it means that there is something wrong with the
> > terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
> > we know that we do have free will.
>
>
> As much as (a part of me) hates to admit it, (given our previous
> exchanges Eudaimonus) this is perhaps the most beautiful declaration I
> have ever heard in regard to the distinction between free will, and
> the absence of it.
He did put it very well.
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:itzbb.403998$Oz4.196480@rwcrnsc54...
>
>>
>>Eudaimonus wrote:
>>
>>>terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
>>>we know that we do have free will.
>>
>>What empirical evidience is there that we have free will?
>
>
> The concept of "empirical evidence" presupposes free will.
No it doesn't. I could have been hard wired to make that enquiry.
That is just a verbal trick to avoid the question. The fact of the
matter is there is no objective evidence that we possess free will. We
think we do, but that does not mean that we do.
> Apart from that, the evidence you have of free will is introspection.
Introspection is neither objective nor verifiable. If a physicist ever
invoked introspection to support a theory he would be laughed right out
of the business. Introspection is dreck.
Bob Kolker
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<jwsc...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>You see, determinism gives you a will but no freedom, and indeterminism
>gives you freedom but no will. Does this mean that there is no such
>thing as free will? No, it means that there is something wrong with the
>terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
>we know that we do have free will.
And just what is "indeterminism"?
dave odden
> >>What empirical evidience is there that we have free will?
> > The concept of "empirical evidence" presupposes free will.
> No it doesn't. I could have been hard wired to make that enquiry.
How about some shouting for emphasis? Empirical EVIDENCE presupposed free
will. Evidence isn't just a chunk of reality, it involves an evaluation: it
says that this fact shows something, and that evaluation involves free will
(it is not automatic).
> The fact of the
> matter is there is no objective evidence that we possess free will. We
> think we do, but that does not mean that we do.
You're gonna tell us now that you were predestined to write that. Just as I
was predestined to write this. If you reply, you were predestined to do so:
equally, if you "refuse" to reply, you were predestined to do that. Good
god, Bob, you're so predestined, albeit totally unpredictable! The concept
of unfree will is so empirically empty as to be the most effective
soporiphic ever invented.
> Introspection is neither objective nor verifiable.
So suppose I were to propose -- in a totally whimsical moment -- that free
will is an axiomatic concept (hmmm), does that change your tune? Are all
axioms 'verifiable and objective', whatever you mean by that? How does "free
will" compare to any other axiom from your favorite domain?
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ueNbb.548108$YN5.369580@sccrnsc01...
>
>
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:itzbb.403998$Oz4.196480@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> >>
> >>Eudaimonus wrote:
> >>
> >>>terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist,
since
> >>>we know that we do have free will.
> >>
> >>What empirical evidience is there that we have free will?
> >
> >
> > The concept of "empirical evidence" presupposes free will.
>
> No it doesn't. I could have been hard wired to make that enquiry.
Aw, we know you don't really believe that and you're just sayin' that cuz
you have to.
>
> That is just a verbal trick to avoid the question.
A verbal trick as compared to what? And what difference would it make if you
are simply compelled to say whatever it is you say?
The fact of the
> matter is...
How would you know? You're just compelled to say whatever it is you say.
>.... there is no objective evidence that we possess free will.
If you are determined what is objective and what isn't?
We
> think we do, but that does not mean that we do.
You mean we're forced to think what we think but we think we're really
thinking but we're not.
If so, and what you are saying is therefore not thinking, what is it?
> > Apart from that, the evidence you have of free will is introspection.
>
> Introspection is neither objective nor verifiable. If a physicist ever
> invoked introspection to support a theory he would be laughed right out
> of the business. Introspection is dreck.
After much introspection this is what you've concluded? So if what is inside
your brain isn't objective and verifiable, what is it? We already know you
don't think it's thinking. Therefore can you give us any reason why we
should pay attention to anything you say - assuming of course you think we
have any choice in the matter, which you don't and therefore in which case
why do you care?
(If you really believed for a minute that all of us on hpo with whom you
have been conversing over these many years were nothing more than automatons
giving you canned responses to your own canned comments, why would you
continue? Except if you had no choice. Is that what you think, that you have
no choice but to participate on hpo? Do you get up in the morning and say,
"Gee I'd really rather go fishing, but I can't. I'm compelled to participate
on hpo.")
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>>.... there is no objective evidence that we possess free will.
>
>
> If you are determined what is objective and what isn't?
Objective is what exists. Anything else is not objective.
Now, without dodging the question, produce on iota of empirical evidence
that *I* (Robert Kolker) have free will.
Since you claim to have free will, surely you can do this simple task.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
dave odden wrote:
>
> So suppose I were to propose -- in a totally whimsical moment -- that free
> will is an axiomatic concept (hmmm), does that change your tune?
No. Because denying free will does not require free will. I could have
been hard wired to deny free will. The point is you do not have a single
empirical fact to prove that *I* have free will. You have an
introspective delusion (which you confuse with knowledge) that *you*
have free will.
Sorry buddy. It ain't an axiom and you have no facts to back you up.
Are all
> axioms 'verifiable and objective', whatever you mean by that? How does "free
> will" compare to any other axiom from your favorite domain?
I have only one axiom. Contradictions don't exist. Everything else in my
kit is synthetic a posteriori. Knowledge based on facts which I have
gotten through my own perceptions. That and good guesses, which are not
axioms.
You are hung on a metaphysical hook. You can't get down without facts.
Now proceed to enumerate facts which prove free will. I will wait, but I
will not hold my breath, since I do not wish to turn purple and die.
Invoking a convenient axiom is nothing but begging the question. And
shame on you for that!
Bob Kolker
Charles Novins
> Now, without dodging the question, produce on iota of empirical evidence
that *I* (Robert Kolker) have free will.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Because you cannot resist responding to free-will claims, I conclude that
you are an automaton.
Andrew Macdonald
....
> You see, determinism gives you a will but no freedom, and indeterminism
> gives you freedom but no will. Does this mean that there is no such
> thing as free will? No, it means that there is something wrong with the
> terms of the debate between the determinist and the indeterminist, since
> we know that we do have free will.
That is how the compatibilist sees the problem. Which is why they put
forward an alternative definition of free that describes our experience
without presupposing indeterminism. That is, they remove the assumption
that you could ontologically do otherwise.
Andrew
dave odden
> The point is you do not have a single
> empirical fact to prove that *I* have free will.
Truth be told, I don't have a single empirical fact to prove that you exist
or are a carbon-based life form. You could be the newest release of Racter
(this thought has crossed my mind, but it seems a rather judgement). But if
you are indeed a human, with normal mental capacity, then since having free
will is a fact about humans, I surmise that you in particular have free
will.
> You have an
> introspective delusion (which you confuse with knowledge) that *you*
> have free will.
Since choice is in the mind (it's a fact about the mind), it is indeed
available to introspection, as are a number of other facts about the mind
(though not all facts about the mind). It can't be a delusion, since it's a
fact, and you can't be "deluded" if you believe a fact. Furthermore, the
fact of free will is observationally supported: the most mundane
observations of human behavior constantly prove that humans have free will.
The alternative you present us with is that choice is externally determined,
a position that enjoys not a shred of empirical support.
> Sorry buddy. It ain't an axiom and you have no facts to back you up.
It is an axiom: it is not only true that humans have free will, it is
self-evidently true. Perhaps you're confused about the nature of axioms
(possible occupational hazard for mathematicians). They are self-evident
truths. I suspect you're thinking of axiom in the sense of "arbitrarily
stipulated statement held to be defined as true", such as your arbitrary
stipulation of the law of the excluded middle (not an intuitionist, eh?).
> Now proceed to enumerate facts which prove free will. I will wait, but I
> will not hold my breath, since I do not wish to turn purple and die.
The 43.6 gigabytes of verbiage volitionally posted by contributors to HPO
(minus the bot-generated spam that occasionally slips through).
JANISPAULARAFAEL
that determinsim is compatable with moral responsibility. Why can I not have a
debate? I am totally ignored.
dave odden
> Fred, this was my thread and no one is listening to my definition which
shows
> that determinsim is compatable with moral responsibility.
Threads here aren't owned. You also can't redefine the concepts of moral
responsibility and determinism.
> Why can I not have a
> debate? I am totally ignored.
For my part, I can't understand what you're going on about. For example, I
can't understand your redefinition of concepts: I can't even tell whether
you're redefining determinism, or free will, or both.
Fred Weiss
"JANISPAULARAFAEL" <janispau...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030923104954...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Sorry, I can't help myself.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I5Wbb.415006$cF.128462@rwcrnsc53...
I dunno. Do you want to know what I think - or what I'm determined to say on
the subject?
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> I dunno. Do you want to know what I think - or what I'm determined to say on
> the subject?
Yet even more evasion. You do not have a single verifiable empircal item
of data to back you up.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
dave odden wrote:
> The 43.6 gigabytes of verbiage volitionally posted by contributors to HPO
> (minus the bot-generated spam that occasionally slips through).
>
That ratio of empirically verifiable statements to byte total is
abysmally low.
Bob Kolker
dave odden
The content of the statements is irrelevant: it's the fact of their
existence.
Charles Novins
news:CXZbb.1520$ai7...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Sorry, I can't help myself.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Knave! You beat me to it. I was compelled to make the same crack!
dave odden
> > Sorry, I can't help myself.
> Knave! You beat me to it. I was compelled to make the same crack!
I felt a strong urge to do likewise, yet strangely I decided "Aw, screw
it.", and declined.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
shows
> that determinsim is compatable with moral responsibility.
Threads here aren't owned. You also can't redefine the concepts of moral
responsibility and determinism.
> Why can I not have a
> debate? I am totally ignored.
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to own a thread, I just want to know that people were able to read
it. It seems that people are in a separate discussion and I'm confused how
these threads work.
----------------------------------------------------------
For my part, I can't understand what you're going on about. For example, I
can't understand your redefinition of concepts: I can't even tell whether
you're redefining determinism, or free will, or both.
===============================
I am redefining determinism. How could you not have understood that if you had
read my previous post. I stated explicitly that because determinism is true,
free will is false; but it isn't what you think it is. We are not automatons,
machines, or cogs in a wheel. We have a will but choice is misleading for it
assumes we have one or more possibilities. In reality, we can only move in one
direction which renders our will anything but free.
=============================
I hope you respond in the next post so I can continue with the discussion. I
don't want to give up that quickly, that is, if you don't.
dave odden
> I am redefining determinism. How could you not have understood that if
you had
> read my previous post.
Because your posts haven't been entirely responsive or clear. State your
redefinition of determininism. A definition cannot show anything. You can
show something, given a definition. If you claim that you have posted a
redefinition of determinism, you could give a Google archive reference to
it.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
=============================
I am not that computer savy, so you will have to bear with me. You are
correct. A definition can only show something, given the definition. When I
use the term 'determinism' I am not referring to a first cause which then makes
a person a product of everything that came before, without any will. That
would negate moral responsibility and make us into robots. The definition I am
positing is to show why will is not free, and why it does not that does not
remove a person's will to do what he wants to do. They are not mutually
exclusive. I am not a compabalist. I am not implying that man's will is free
and not free at the same time. But what I am doing is reconciling the two
opposing ideas that have caused so much confusion. This definition takes into
consideration the fact that man has no choice, but it does not negate moral
responsibility; in fact, it increases it.
dave odden
> I am not that computer savy, so you will have to bear with me. You are
> correct. A definition can only show something, given the definition.
When I
> use the term 'determinism' I am not referring to a first cause which then
makes
> a person a product of everything that came before, without any will. That
> would negate moral responsibility and make us into robots. The definition
I am
> positing is to show why will is not free, and why it does not that does
not
> remove a person's will to do what he wants to do. They are not mutually
> exclusive. I am not a compabalist. I am not implying that man's will is
free
> and not free at the same time. But what I am doing is reconciling the two
> opposing ideas that have caused so much confusion. This definition takes
into
> consideration the fact that man has no choice, but it does not negate
moral
> responsibility; in fact, it increases it.
Here's an example of the problem. I asked you to state your redefinition of
determininism. I grant that you might be planning to do that in the future,
but I would have expected you to do that in your reply. I reproduced what
you did say, and I don't see any redefinition of determinism here. You do
say how you don't use the term, but that isn't a redefinition, that's the
lack of a defintion. You say something about the purpose or supposed
conclusion that might follow from the definition: I didn't ask why you did
this, I asked what you did. I don't care if you're not a compatibalist, and
I don't care what you are not implying. When you speak of "this definition",
you are supposing that the definition exists. I don't see the evidence that
that is so. The simplest way to persuade me that it does is to whip it out.
joe teicher
> the subject?
>
> Fred Weiss
Here is a proof that you have no free will, Fred. I have explained to
you that determinism is fully compatible with all the normal ideas
about human thought and action, and yet you continue to put forth the
same old fale dichotomy of free will vs. being a mindless automaton
directed by outside forces. If you had a choice to update your
beliefs, I certainly hope you would have taken it by now.
Free will is a contradiction. The notion of a completely undetermined
and non-random, irreducible choice is not only inconsistent with the
known laws of physics, it is inconsistent with any possible physical
law. Your mystical desire put man on a pedestal by freeing his mind
from causality is really sickening coming from someone who fetishizes
reason and rationality so much.
If you cannot see how your thoughts and decisions are predicated on
the structure and contents of your brain, then that is because you
lack imagination and introspection, not because you are "free."
Joe Teicher
Robert J. Kolker
joe teicher wrote:
> If you cannot see how your thoughts and decisions are predicated on
> the structure and contents of your brain, then that is because you
> lack imagination and introspection, not because you are "free."
Introspection does not tell how the brain is working. For example no one
can introspect the firing of a neuron. That has to be detected by
electrical means and understood in terms of ion transfer through a
semi-permiable memberane. On the other hand, one can itrospect
intensions, feelings etc. etc. which promotes the illusion that the mind
is independent of the brain, which it isn't. In fact, the mind is the
brain at work. Or alternatively, the doings of a properly operating brain.
Bob Kolker
JANISPAULARAFAEL
shows
> that determinsim is compatable with moral responsibility. Why can I not
have a
> debate? I am totally ignored.
Sorry, I can't help myself.
==========================
You can help yourself before you decide to ignore me (just using this as an
example), but you can't help yourself after the choice is made, for at that
point, you could not have chosen otherwise.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
Knave! You beat me to it. I was compelled to make the same crack!
Charles, you didn't see my answer to that remark. As I said, nothing can
compel you against your will to do anything you do; but once you make a choice,
it could never have been otherwise. Even answering me the way you did was not
of your own free will. This doesn't mean before you make a choice that you
cannot alter it; you absolutely can. This is where the confusion lies because
it is assumed that if one's future is determined, then something is making him
do what he does and he has no say in the matter whatsoever. This is why it is
so important for definitions to be accurate from a debatable point of view.
That is not the definition I am positing.
Nothing is making you do what you do except for you yourself; but that doesn't
make your will free.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<janispau...@aol.com> wrote:
>Nothing is making you do what you do except for you yourself; but that doesn't
>make your will free.
That's true. It doesn't make it free, but self-determined.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
determininism. I grant that you might be planning to do that in the future,
but I would have expected you to do that in your reply. I reproduced what
you did say, and I don't see any redefinition of determinism here. You do
say how you don't use the term, but that isn't a redefinition, that's the
lack of a defintion. You say something about the purpose or supposed
conclusion that might follow from the definition: I didn't ask why you did
this, I asked what you did. I don't care if you're not a compatibalist, and
I don't care what you are not implying. When you speak of "this definition",
you are supposing that the definition exists. I don't see the evidence that
that is so. The simplest way to persuade me that it does is to whip it out.
Before I attempt to explain my definition of determinism, I would like to state
that we can never prove free will true because this would require turning back
the clock to see whether, under the exact same conditions, this person could
have chosen another alternative. Since this can't be done, free will will
always remain a theory.
Eudaimonus
> And just what is "indeterminism"?
The doctrine that our choices are determined by nothing.
Charles Novins
Charles, you didn't see my answer to that remark. As I said, nothing can
compel you against your will to do anything you do; but once you make a
choice, it could never have been otherwise. Even answering me the way you
did was not of your own free will.
> CHARLES NOVINS:
I am trying to follow the conversation. My remark was just meant to inject
a bit of fun. Still, as Dave noted, you are going to have to flesh out your
position a lot better in order for it to make sense. Your position remains
contradictory as far as I can tell.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<jwsc...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>> The cpposite of free will is determinism, where all decisions are
>> dependent on the state of the world at a given instant and there exists
>> (in principle, if not in fact) a rule which maps the state of the world
>> into your decisions.
>
>The problem here is that you making "free will" into "indeterminism".
If indeterminism is the doctrine that says our choices are determined
by nothing, then this doesn't follow from Janis's statement in this
thread that "Nothing is making you do what you do except for you
yourself; but that doesn't make your will free." This is not
indeterminism, but self-determinism.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<Male...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/ObjectionsToFreeWill.html
"Concepts of the nature of human choice fall within three categories:
determinism, indeterminism, and self-determinism. A determinist looks
to actions caused by another, an indeterminist to uncaused actions,
and a self-determinist to self caused actions.
Janis is a self-determinist. His argument boils down to saying that if
the will is determined, even by the self, then it is not free. It is
constrained by our choices of the moment.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
>make your will free.
That's true. It doesn't make it free, but self-determined.
===========================
That is true. We have a say as to what choices we pick; and in that sense we
are self-determined. This does not conflict with my definition of determinism
since I am not saying that there is a first cause, a map of where we are headed
without our input.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
Then this is just garden-variety compatibilism.
.
.
.
.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
I am trying to follow the conversation. My remark was just meant to inject
a bit of fun. Still, as Dave noted, you are going to have to flesh out your
position a lot better in order for it to make sense. Your position remains
contradictory as far as I can tell.
I know it was; but there was some truth in your response. I have a long way to
go to explain what I know to be true. I hope you have the patience to hear me
out. My position is not contradictory at all. So please refrain from jumping
to premature conclusions. :) Janis
dave odden
> Before I attempt to explain my definition of determinism,
So anyhow, you asked why no debate, and I've shown you why.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<janispau...@aol.com> wrote:
>============================
>I know it was; but there was some truth in your response. I have a long w
>ay to
>go to explain what I know to be true. I hope you have the patience to hear me
>out. My position is not contradictory at all. So please refrain from jumping
>to premature conclusions. :) Janis
Janis is right about his position. He's only wrong about it being a
'new discovery.' I guess that depends on what century he lives in. Is
Janis a time-traveler from the past?
Mr. V.
I think the argument is following an error which follows from the
ambiguity view held in a conceptualization of consciousness, whereas
consciousness is univocal, and (I claim) is actually the manifestation
of the soul in contrast with mere brain function.
(To cast this in a different light, I point out Jung said the mind
cannot know the ultimate substance of itself, yet everyday we grow
more knowledgable of the functions & composition of the brain. Hence,
the mind - brain difference grows larger.)
"Free-will" is yet only another term for "consciousness".
These links may likely help penetrate the question with more light:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online1.html
http://research.haifa.ac.il/~antony/papers/Ambiguous.htm
Sincerely,
Mr. V
Mr. V.
With reference to the following excerpt from your previous post:
"... one can i[n]trospect intensions, feelings etc. etc. which
promotes the illusion that the mind is independent of the brain, which
it isn't. In fact, the mind is the brain at work. Or alternatively,
"illusion" seems fuzzy, misleading, & political; and "... doings of a
properly operating brain." doesn't seem to go much better.
To help sort things out, and to keep this marvellous ball rolling, I
would like to contribute some very recent ideas which have evolved
from some solid logical analysis done with also a watchful eye on the
brain wetware. But first, let us ease back on the long-time relied
upon (and unchallenged/unproved) assumptions that all that exists must
inevitably be visible or directly accessible via the senses; and
introduce a concept, even tentatively, that consciousness (itself)
occurs only simultaneously with normal brain organ function (usually);
and that normal brain organ function characterized electro- &
ionochemically only reaffirms atom theory of substances, while the
entity of consciousness itself does not present as figures of atoms &
molecules but as an ongoing, meaningful experience of self and the
indicators of reality available via the senses. In this, let us say
that the brain is a means for the biological retention of temporally
fleeting perceptions, and for the dilation of those perceptions over
time - apart from the world events which brought the first instances
of them to our attention. But that, in this last detail, that the
'data' is recorded and 'available' requires yet another translation
and movement to a realm which we may call 'the consciousness' or 'the
mind'.
The excerpt informs my mind that consciousness is the brain, while my
information is that consciousness uses the brain resources. Saying
that the consciousness is the normal brain organ function is
approximately the same as saying that laws of thought, logic, and the
humanistic dimension of man is explicable in and reducable to terms of
atom theory.
However, atoms travelling through neural highways do not read road
maps. They simply obey charge affinities, while all the memory cells
are all atomically the same & equally accessible. Humans are not even
neurologically hardwired for reading.
Further, the electric stream of electrons which swarm through the
human body, not only within it, but from the objects which we daily
touch, drink & eat, all participate in the charge specific behaviors
of the brain & body. Yet the continuity of the mental self &
consciousness remains unaffected through decades.
So, with these things in mind (no pun intended), we may move forward
in these efforts at developing our understanding of things, without
complicating our progress with unsubstantiated & misleading
assumptions, such as the illusion that mind and brain are not only
identical, but that the latter produces the former, and that the
former utilizes the latter for its only source of input.
Sincerely,
Mr. V.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
> Before I attempt to explain my definition of determinism,
So anyhow, you asked why no debate, and I've shown you why.
============================
Why? Because you are proving to me that you can't because your will is not
free? Are you using this as a proof or something of that order? Please
explain.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
That is exactly why I stated that I am not a compatabilist because man's will
is not free; not free and determined. But there is some truth in the fact that
nothing is forcing us to choose from a number of alternatives. That is true.
We are not determined from some first cause that makes us robots. That is why
I specifically stated that inasmuch as I know man's will is not free, the
definition is not what you think it is. But we cannot have both free will and
no free will. So in conclusion, there is a way to reconicile this problem if
you care to listen. If not, then not.
dave odden
>> So anyhow, you asked why no debate, and I've shown you why.
> Why? Because you are proving to me that you can't because your will is
not
> free? Are you using this as a proof or something of that order? Please
> explain.
The explanation for the lack of debate which I propose is that you don't
appear to comprehend certain simple requests, or perhaps are unwilling to
comply, for whatever reason. I cannot understand your argument, so I tried
to identify the cause of my non-understanding. A simple starting point would
be to ask what your redefinition of "determinism" is (in order to see how
that plays a role in the bigger picture). After a number of exchanges, you
still have not stated what that redefinition is. Instead, you said that
before you attempt to explain your redefinition... well, don't do anything
before. And don't bother explaining your redefinition until you give it in
the first place. It wastes energy to explain why X, without first saying
what X is.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
I don't know what you're talking about "If you care to listen" for. We
all want the attention of others, or we wouldn't be posting to a busy
newsgroup. But the posters who desperately want to be listened to are
generally known as the "cranks." So I'll just try to ignore the
off-hand remarks about being "listened" to and deal directly with your
thesis.
You cannot know that we are not determined by some first cause in the
universe, thus reducing your thesis to untenability.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
'new discovery.' I guess that depends on what century he lives in. Is
Janis a time-traveler from the past?
Malenoid, maybe that's because you are some kind of asteroid from a past life?
I'm not one to be sarcastic but you were with me so I took it upon myself to
answer you back in a sarcastic tone. But that will get us nowhere at all. I
am not into cutting people down. Are you? And secondly, where do you come
from? My name is Janis. That is a woman's name. I am a girl. And it is a
new discovery. How could you know when you didn't even hear it. And this
group is supposed to be open minded. Are you a representative of what is ahead
for me? Please let me know so I will know how to proceed.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
Ok, JANIS who has a woman's name and are a girl, you should just be
grateful I acknowledged your position on self-determinism. You will
not however find me acknowledging any "new discoveries" in philosophy,
because there aren't any -- only re-hashings of the same old questions
and the same old errors.
Larry Allen
d7f...@posting.google.com>...
Dear Mr. V.
I find your prose to be most facinating. You are obviously a learned
man.
I wonder if you would be willing to consider and possibly answer a
question I have wrestled with for many years regarding: "consciousness
and the absence of the awareness of it". (A seeming oxymoron of the
philosophical persuasion).
To wit: your statement: "whereas consciousness is univocal
[unequivocal?], and (I claim) is actually the manifestation of the
soul in contrast with mere brain function", strikes me as implicitly
implying the essence of the soul to be greater than the essence of
consciousness itself. [brackets being my addition].
The reconcilliation of which has eluded me since time itself began,
(for me).
Rstated: The absence of awareness is speculative in nature, and
necessarily so. That is to say, when one awakens from the
"unconsciousness" of sleep, one does not doubt their "unconscious
being" prior to their conscious existance, but such being is
(seemingly) rendered meaningless if the "awareness" of being is
construed as being the essence of life itself. Which it traditionally
is.
Your employment of the word "soul" in this context strikes me as being
provocative.
Are you suggesting the soul is that which is greater than
consciousness itself?
Or are you suggesting that consciousness itself consists of both the
experience of awareness, as well as the experience (via post humous
speculation) of the absence of awareness itself?
Or are you suggesting nothing of the sort (of either possibility)?
I am well versed in the life and times and works of Mr. Jung. And hold
him in the highest and greatest of philoohical esteem.
However, to this question I found no direct answer in his writings.
Though a number of his subtle passages have led me to believe that he
believed our experience of consciousness is akin to a particle of
light believing itself to be the sun.
Which if, is true, renders us all subject to principalities and powers
far above and beyond our present capacity to engage (let alone
control).
The conceptualization of consciousness, being a product of
consciousness, seems to inevitably piss me off, just before it set's
me free.
So to speak.
Larry Allen
Robert J. Kolker
Mr. V. wrote:
> Dear Mr. Kolker,
> I think the argument is following an error which follows from the
> ambiguity view held in a conceptualization of consciousness, whereas
> consciousness is univocal, and (I claim) is actually the manifestation
> of the soul in contrast with mere brain function.
Produce empirical evidence that indicates a "soul" (whatever that is)
exists. I really don't feel like chasing after bojums today.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Mr. V. wrote:
> To help sort things out, and to keep this marvellous ball rolling, I
> would like to contribute some very recent ideas which have evolved
> from some solid logical analysis done with also a watchful eye on the
> brain wetware. But first, let us ease back on the long-time relied
> upon (and unchallenged/unproved) assumptions that all that exists must
> inevitably be visible or directly accessible via the senses;
Produce empirical evidence to the contrary. How do we prove the
existence of something that we cannot perceive?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Mr. V. wrote:
> So, with these things in mind (no pun intended), we may move forward
> in these efforts at developing our understanding of things, without
> complicating our progress with unsubstantiated & misleading
> assumptions, such as the illusion that mind and brain are not only
> identical, but that the latter produces the former, and that the
> former utilizes the latter for its only source of input.
produce empirical evidence that the mind exists independent of the
brain. While you are at it, you might tell me the rest mass of your
mind. If you cannot ultimately ground your notions on emprical data, you
are wasting my time and yours.
Bob Kolker
JANISPAULARAFAEL
all want the attention of others, or we wouldn't be posting to a busy
newsgroup. But the posters who desperately want to be listened to are
generally known as the "cranks." So I'll just try to ignore the
off-hand remarks about being "listened" to and deal directly with your
thesis.
So you are assuming that because I want to be listened to, that I must
therefore be a crank because only the cranks want to be listened to. And this
an acceptable assumption premise to you? That sounds like circular reasoning
to me.
----------------------------------------------------------
You cannot know that we are not determined by some first cause in the
universe, thus reducing your thesis to untenability.
I can't directly but if I prove that man has the ability to choose A over B or
B over A, then I can discredit the fatalistic view of the world; that something
is controlling man's every move and he has no choice in the matter whatsoever.
He does have a choice; and in that sense he can do what he wants to do without
contraint; but what he does is not of his own free will. There is no
contradiction; but if you call me a crank before I barely speak, I can't
imagine what you will call me when we're in a hot debate. Geeze!
JANISPAULARAFAEL
>> So anyhow, you asked why no debate, and I've shown you why.
> Why? Because you are proving to me that you can't because your will is
not
> free? Are you using this as a proof or something of that order? Please
> explain.
--------------------------------------------------
No, I'm not using the fact that I didn't explain it in full as proof that my
will is not free. That has nothing to do with it because I still have the
ability to choose up until the last minute; but that does not make my will
free.
The explanation for the lack of debate which I propose is that you don't
appear to comprehend certain simple requests, or perhaps are unwilling to
comply, for whatever reason. I cannot understand your argument, so I tried
to identify the cause of my non-understanding. A simple starting point would
be to ask what your redefinition of "determinism" is (in order to see how
that plays a role in the bigger picture). After a number of exchanges, you
still have not stated what that redefinition is. Instead, you said that
before you attempt to explain your redefinition... well, don't do anything
before. And don't bother explaining your redefinition until you give it in
the first place. It wastes energy to explain why X, without first saying
what X is.
--------------------------------------------------------
You are right, and your request is a fair one. So I will not delay, but I must
go in a step by step fashion so you don't get more confused. I will begin with
this paragraph. Just bear with me; we will get to the meat of things shortly.
The dictionary states that free will is âThe power of self-determination
regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or
necessity. Made, done, or given of one's own free choice; voluntary.' But
this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held
responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil
since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is
believed that man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do.
These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires
to do or considers right, better or good for himself under his particular set
of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they
feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn't
this the theme of free will?
But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not
desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does
this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers
no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will
does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state
like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born,
growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion
of living, are beyond control.
Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot
find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and for various
reasons doesn't come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or
relief and can't get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is
he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can
easily punish him by saying he didn't have to steal if he didn't want to, which
is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good; in this case almost any other alternative
would have sufficed.
But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act
good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further
credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better
choice of the three that were available to him â" so does this make his will
free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn't want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to
punish him if they didn't want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did
under the circumstances.
In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every
moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot
stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives
the best we can, or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this?
However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire
because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ
mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely
impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to
demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
grateful I acknowledged your position on self-determinism. You will
not however find me acknowledging any "new discoveries" in philosophy,
because there aren't any -- only re-hashings of the same old questions
and the same old errors.
How do you know what I have before I express what I have? And how do you know
there isn't something new on the horizon just because there hasn't been in
recent years? This is a very important discussion because the answer to many
of our problems lies behind the door of determinism. I hope you aren't
threatened by this thought. Are you a proponent of free will or do you take a
neutral stance?? If you are leaning in one direction, you might not even want
to hear what I have to say, which is okay with me.
dave odden
> The dictionary states that free will is The power of self-determination
> regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion
or
> necessity. Made, done, or given of one's own free choice; voluntary.'
But
> this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be
held
> responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or
evil
> since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it
is
> believed that man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants
to, and
> therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do.
Time's up, pens down. Hand in your papers.
Starting at the top, there is no such thing as "the dictionary". There is "a
dictionary", actually there are literally thousands of dictionaries (and I
don't just mean tokens). You would have to consult a specific dictionary. Do
so, and you'll notice a multitude of definitions, so that means you have to
decide which dictionary you will use. So you need to have a clear
understanding of the connection between your argument, and your dictionary.
Let me simplify this aspect of the problem by saying that spouting
dictionary definitions of words is extremely bad practice, it's a kind of
last refuge of scoundrels thing to do in a philosophical argument, and you
don't want to be a scoundrel. Dictionaries are good if you don't know the
spelling or accepted (or variant) pronunciations of words, or they may (or
may not) give a special meaning that you don't know; or, they might define a
word you literally don't know, like "squamulose". Also they're really handy
if you don't actually speak the language.
If you want to know how the term is defined as a technical concept in
philosophy, use philosophical writings, not Webster's.
Now to some of the substance, focus on the part "special faculty of choosing
good and evil". I would say that this is wrong, and should simply be
"special faculty of choosing". The particular choice may be good or evil,
but that's not how you define free will itself. You go on to claim that the
quote was "only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be
held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or
evil". That doesn't follow, at all: the definition is what it is, and you
shouldn't confuse something that could be concluded from the definition with
the definition itself.
The purpose of the definition is simply to identify what you're talking
about. The fact of beng able to chose does not, by itself, mean that
responsibility for actions is actually part of the definition. Note btw that
you totally muddy the water by speaking of actions "considered" evil. Man is
responsible for all of his voluntary actions, period. Now we've covered
responsibility. You want to talk about punishment? It may be proper that a
man be punished for his actions which *are* evil (forget the "considered"
part). That's not part of the definition of free will.
Now, you say...
> These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
> mathematical perception:
Does that mean something? Is this a special technical term from some obscure
philosophical sect (like Kantianism)? Or did you just make that up. I have a
mathematical perception, and I don't see any fallacy.
And now....
> Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires
> to do or considers right, better or good for himself under his particular
set
> of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and
they
> feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to.
Isn't
> this the theme of free will?
No. Apparently you're totally confused about Objectivism, especially
morality. Man is not held responsible for doing what others consider good or
evil: he is held responsible for what *is* evil. You're invoking the
collectivist, second-hander's view of morality.
Put very simply, the initiation of force is immoral, and you may not morally
do it. Sodomy, drunkenness and blasphemy are not immoral in the sense that
force can rightly be used to prevent you from doing it. You need to at least
be on that page before any discussions about free will and responsibility
could be fruitful.
ChronoTrigger
144739.104...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
i agree. i belief we arent victims of our own past.
and u should see freedom in the right perspective (freedom even USA
doesnt tolerate and probably would be very scared of) but people are
searching for it through the history.(which i want to indicate that we
cant define freedom, but we can feel freedom)
the both reasons have the same source: nature. i belief that in our
civilization religion science and nature will be brought together.
for example feelings, has alot to do with with neuro-transmittors.
these transmittors can be influenced by serotonine. (most lookalike
serotonine of humans are coming from the pig, an filthy and unclean
animal) for ppl with no serotonine problem could this be devastating,
cause serotonine helps ppl with ADHD; dyslexia; panicattacks;
schizofrenia?!; manic depression; psychose/neurose; alzheimer and
personally i think alot more, cause of our envrionment (not only
mcDonalds) stimulate our civilization based on insanity.
mostly to see that these problems are growing after each decade.
the latest scientific breakthrough is the serotonine bio chip, a chip
u wear around ur chest, which sent out an 10Hz frequence which
stimulates ur stomach and that stimulates the serotonine amount in the
brains. only its quite expensive.
theres an cheaper alternative: diamons and crystals. humans have
always believed in their healing capabilities since whenever how long
ago, now comes the trick: mountaincrystals (healingstones) absorbes
light/energy and therefore has an frequence of its own, wear one
around ur chest and u should feel immeditely the differenceS. i think
for none serotonine victims crystals wont help.
socialisme failed cause of wrong authority
liberalism failed cause of lack of socialism
now the anarchists speaks: its time to do both.
u cant let a mad man doing some work it will kill him
recover him and he will work without any unhuman political force
__________________________________________________________________________
there's good
there's evil
cause im listining metallica
doesnt mean i'll be sent to hell
JANISPAULARAFAEL
and u should see freedom in the right perspective (freedom even USA
doesnt tolerate and probably would be very scared of) but people are
searching for it through the history.(which i want to indicate that we
cant define freedom, but we can feel freedom)
I don't want to get into a discussion about freedom in general. I wanted to
discuss why will is not free in a scientific sense. Obviously, we are not
victims; we can choose; I've said this over and over again. But that does not
make our will free.
-----------------------------------------------------------
the both reasons have the same source: nature. i belief that in our
civilization religion science and nature will be brought together.
for example feelings, has alot to do with with neuro-transmittors.
these transmittors can be influenced by serotonine. (most lookalike
serotonine of humans are coming from the pig, an filthy and unclean
animal) for ppl with no serotonine problem could this be devastating,
cause serotonine helps ppl with ADHD; dyslexia; panicattacks;
schizofrenia?!; manic depression; psychose/neurose; alzheimer and
personally i think alot more, cause of our envrionment (not only
mcDonalds) stimulate our civilization based on insanity.
mostly to see that these problems are growing after each decade.
--------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's? I don't think so. Neurotransmitters affect mood, that is true.
And there are a lot of depressed people in this world. I wonder why? There
isn't anything to be depressed about, now is there? But nothing can make a
person kill another; not even mental illness, unless that person wants to. We
are messing much too much with people's brain chemistry. We are becoming
guinea pigs for big profit.
------------------------------------------------------
the latest scientific breakthrough is the serotonine bio chip, a chip
u wear around ur chest, which sent out an 10Hz frequence which
stimulates ur stomach and that stimulates the serotonine amount in the
brains. only its quite expensive.
theres an cheaper alternative: diamons and crystals. humans have
always believed in their healing capabilities since whenever how long
ago, now comes the trick: mountaincrystals (healingstones) absorbes
light/energy and therefore has an frequence of its own, wear one
around ur chest and u should feel immeditely the differenceS. i think
for none serotonine victims crystals wont help.
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not into all that. I thought this was an objectivist board. Crystals? I
am a skeptic at heart. Prove it first.
-----------------------------------------------------------
socialisme failed cause of wrong authority
liberalism failed cause of lack of socialism
now the anarchists speaks: its time to do both.
----------------------------------------------------------
It's time to learn something new that might be of benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------
u cant let a mad man doing some work it will kill him
recover him and he will work without any unhuman political force
-----------------------------------------------------
Hey, I think you may need some seratonin. Just kidding!
dave odden
> doesnt mean i'll be sent to hell
That's only because there is no hell. Also, you're a liar. You are not
"ChronoTrigger", nor are you "Alpha Metio".
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<janispau...@aol.com> wrote:
>How do you know what I have before I express what I have? And how do you know
>there isn't something new on the horizon just because there hasn't been in
>recent years? This is a very important discussion because the answer to many
>of our problems lies behind the door of determinism. I hope you aren't
>threatened by this thought. Are you a proponent of free will or do you take a
>neutral stance?? If you are leaning in one direction, you might not even want
>to hear what I have to say, which is okay with me.
You have expressed enough for me to say that since your premises are
false, then the conclusions won't be valid. And regarding one of your
premises, I haven't seen any kind of evidence that there is no first
cause.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<janispau...@aol.com> wrote:
>I can't directly but if I prove that man has the ability to choose A over B or
>B over A, then I can discredit the fatalistic view of the world; that some
>thing
>is controlling man's every move and he has no choice in the matter whatsoe
>ver.
>He does have a choice; and in that sense he can do what he wants to do without
>contraint; but what he does is not of his own free will.
You are saying that man does not have his OWN free will. Then whose
free will is it?
JANISPAULARAFAEL
defining free will. If you want to write back, you are welcome to do so. I
answered you but I can't do it over again as it took too long. Basically, we
didn't get very far because you tore apart everything I wrote. Some of it made
sense but you were nitpicking about little irrelevancies which had nothing to
do with whether what I posted was valid or not.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
first cause. So why are you telling me my premise is false? My goal is to
prove man's will is not free coming from the definition that I put forth. From
there, we can easily see that there is nothing causing a person to do what they
do; they have a will to pick and choose; but that does not make their choice a
free one.
If I can prove that is true (whether you think it is proof enough will depend
on your lack of bias, not on a false premise), then I can show you how this
knowledge can prevent the very things that blame and punishment were previously
necessary.
The implications are huge because it can change our world for the better, but
many people are so stuck in their mode of thought and their own definitions
(which mean nothing if they don't reflect the real world) that they think they
are disproving what is impossible to do, and they will not allow themselves to
see the whole picture.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
Then so far you are all talk and no substance.
The reason the will is considered free is the idea that it cannot be
affected by forces external to it. A free-will is supposed to be free
from compulsion, at least ideally.
.
.
.
.
.
.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
affected by forces external to it. A free-will is supposed to be free
from compulsion, at least ideally.
It is not affected by forces external to it; although heredity and environment
are conditions that affect one's choice; but that doesn't mean there is force
involved in which someone has no say. We are compelled to do what we do even
though it appears as if we are not. Therefore, we have no free choice at all.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<janispau...@aol.com> wrote:
>The reason the will is considered free is the idea that it cannot be
>affected by forces external to it. A free-will is supposed to be free
>from compulsion, at least ideally.
>========================
>It is not affected by forces external to it; although heredity and environment
>are conditions that affect one's choice;
Why do you say "affect" and not "influence"?
>but that doesn't mean there is force
>involved in which someone has no say. We are compelled to do what we do even
>though it appears as if we are not. Therefore, we have no free choice at all.
You don't know that. What special power enables you to see behind the
appearances to know that something is working behind them?
JANISPAULARAFAEL
>affected by forces external to it. A free-will is supposed to be free
>from compulsion, at least ideally.
>========================
>It is not affected by forces external to it; although heredity and environment
>are conditions that affect one's choice;
Why do you say "affect" and not "influence"?
Because that's the word you used. We are all infuenced by our heredity and our
environment, but our heredity and our environment DO NOT CAUSE us to act a
certain way. They create a particular set of conditions that influence our
choice in a certain direction. But, that doesn't mean we had no will to choose
A over B or B over A.
============================
>but that doesn't mean there is force
>involved in which someone has no say. We are compelled to do what we do even
>though it appears as if we are not. Therefore, we have no free choice at all.
You don't know that. What special power enables you to see behind the
appearances to know that something is working behind them?
===========================
Pure unadulterated reasoning. If you understand the reasoning, you will know
that nothing causes people to do what they do. Proof is that nothing can make
you do what you don't want to do. Let me repeat: Nothing in this world has the
power to make you do what you do not want to do for over this you have
mathematical control.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<janispau...@aol.com> wrote:
>The reason the will is considered free is the idea that it cannot be
>>affected by forces external to it. A free-will is supposed to be free
>>from compulsion, at least ideally.
>>========================
>>It is not affected by forces external to it; although heredity and enviro
>>nment
>>are conditions that affect one's choice;
>
>Why do you say "affect" and not "influence"?
>
>Because that's the word you used. We are all infuenced by our heredity an
>d our
>environment, but our heredity and our environment DO NOT CAUSE us to act a
>certain way. They create a particular set of conditions that influence our
>choice in a certain direction. But, that doesn't mean we had no will to c
>hoose
>A over B or B over A.
So we are free of outer causes, but not free of influences, therefore
the will is not free?
>>but that doesn't mean there is force
>>involved in which someone has no say. We are compelled to do what we do
>> even
>>though it appears as if we are not. Therefore, we have no free choice at
>> all.
>
>You don't know that. What special power enables you to see behind the
>appearances to know that something is working behind them?
>===========================
>Pure unadulterated reasoning.
Leave out "unadulterated" and you have "pure reasoning," which is a
method that's been around since ancient Greece.
>If you understand the reasoning, you will know
>that nothing causes people to do what they do. Proof is that nothing can make
>you do what you don't want to do. Let me repeat: Nothing in this world ha
>s the
>power to make you do what you do not want to do for over this you have
>mathematical control.
What is "mathematical control"? Is that to do with the same
axiom-based reasoning that goes into constructing mathematical
systems, or is it just by an analogy?
Would you characterize your method as more Leibnizian (mathematical)
or more Kantian (transcendental)?
joe teicher
045$mp.6...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
> joe teicher wrote:
>
> > If you cannot see how your thoughts and decisions are predicated on
> > the structure and contents of your brain, then that is because you
> > lack imagination and introspection, not because you are "free."
>
> Introspection does not tell how the brain is working. For example no one
> can introspect the firing of a neuron. That has to be detected by
> electrical means and understood in terms of ion transfer through a
> semi-permiable memberane.
That is true, but completely beside the point.
On the other hand, one can introspect
> intensions, feelings etc. etc. which promotes the illusion that the mind
> is independent of the brain, which it isn't. In fact, the mind is the
> brain at work. Or alternatively, the doings of a properly operating brain.
I disagree. I think that introspection shows very clearly that ones
actions are not uncaused. When I introspect, I see a struggle between
my competing desires, the outcome of which at any time is determined
by my physical, emotional and mental state. I don't see my decisions
as irreducible, introspection tells me that they are determined by my
environment and myself.
Joe Teicher
JANISPAULARAFAEL
>>affected by forces external to it. A free-will is supposed to be free
>>from compulsion, at least ideally.
>>========================
>>It is not affected by forces external to it; although heredity and enviro
>>nment
>>are conditions that affect one's choice;
>
>Why do you say "affect" and not "influence"?
>
>Because that's the word you used. We are all infuenced by our heredity an
>d our
>environment, but our heredity and our environment DO NOT CAUSE us to act a
>certain way. They create a particular set of conditions that influence our
>choice in a certain direction. But, that doesn't mean we had no will to c
>hoose
>A over B or B over A.
So we are free of outer causes, but not free of influences, therefore
the will is not free?
---------------------------------------------------------
No, that is not why the will is not free. All I am saying is that the will is
not free but it isn't because something is causing us to do what we do. We do
what we do because we want to do it. We have the will to do it. But that
doesn't make our will free.
-------------------------------------------------------
>>but that doesn't mean there is force
>>involved in which someone has no say. We are compelled to do what we do
>> even
>>though it appears as if we are not. Therefore, we have no free choice at
>> all.
>
>You don't know that. What special power enables you to see behind the
>appearances to know that something is working behind them?
>===========================
>Pure unadulterated reasoning.
Leave out "unadulterated" and you have "pure reasoning," which is a
method that's been around since ancient Greece.
--------------------------------------------------------
So, what's your point?
--------------------------------------------------------
>If you understand the reasoning, you will know
>that nothing causes people to do what they do. Proof is that nothing can make
>you do what you don't want to do. Let me repeat: Nothing in this world ha
>s the
>power to make you do what you do not want to do for over this you have
>mathematical control.
What is "mathematical control"? Is that to do with the same
axiom-based reasoning that goes into constructing mathematical
systems, or is it just by an analogy?
----------------------------------------------------------
Mathematical control means you have absolute control. It is just a synonym for
undeniable, factual, scientific, etc. In other words, you have the power not
to do what you don't want to do. Nothing can make you do anything if you
choose not to, and in that sense the phrase, "I did it of my own free will (or
desire) is absolutely correct.
-------------------------------------------------------
Would you characterize your method as more Leibnizian (mathematical)
or more Kantian (transcendental)?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematical in the sense that this knowledge cannot be denied. It is
equivalent to 1+1=2.
----------------------------------------------------------
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ti%bb.558236$o%2.244685@sccrnsc02...
>
>
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> >
> > I dunno. Do you want to know what I think - or what I'm determined to
say on
> > the subject?
>
> Yet even more evasion.
That presupposes I have choice. Btw, you also have the choice not to engage
in constant "concept stealing" of which this is one of many examples we
continually observe from you.
>You do not have a single verifiable empircal item
> of data to back you up.
You just provided it - unless you want to deny the existence of evasion. You
also provided it in this utterance virtually every word of which is a
"stolen concept" presupposing choice. How for example am I supposed to
"verify" anything if I don't have any control over my thought processes?
Why do you choose not to grasp this? Do you want me to believe that you are
a helpless pawn of your ossified thought processes?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"joe teicher" <joeo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b4cbfeca.03092...@posting.google.com...
> > I dunno. Do you want to know what I think - or what I'm determined to
say on
> > the subject?
> >
> > Fred Weiss
>
> Here is a proof that you have no free will, Fred. I have explained to
> you that determinism is ....yet you continue to ...
That's only a proof that you don't know what a non-sequitur is.
>...If you had a choice to update your
> beliefs, I certainly hope you would have taken it by now.
If I had no choice in the matter why would you care one way or the other?
> Free will is a contradiction. The notion of a completely undetermined
> and non-random,....
That's not what free will is.
>... Your mystical desire put man on a pedestal by freeing his mind
> from causality is really sickening coming from someone who fetishizes
> reason and rationality so much.
"Fetish" and "reason and rationality" are oxymorons, but that aside where
did you get the idea that free will means "uncaused". Of course it's caused.
By you. Nor is it assumed that it is not heavily influenced by who and what
you are. It is therefore most certainly not "random". Just as you wouldn't
expect me to become a socialist or a deist tomorrow nor would I expect you
to suddenly start making sense.
> If you cannot see how your thoughts and decisions are predicated on
> the structure and contents of your brain, then that is because you
> lack imagination and introspection, ....
You mean I lack the ability to choose not to be driven by "the structure and
contents" of my brain?
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> You just provided it - unless you want to deny the existence of evasion. You
> also provided it in this utterance virtually every word of which is a
> "stolen concept" presupposing choice. How for example am I supposed to
> "verify" anything if I don't have any control over my thought processes?
Not at all. Evasion applies to you, who claims to have free will. Now I
ask you, what factual evidence do you have that I (Robert Kolker) have
free will. Do you have any, or do you not?
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iaMcb.430837$Oz4.230073@rwcrnsc54...
Yeah, that no one is smart enough to create a robot as stupid as you are
being in this thread.
Fred Weiss
JANISPAULARAFAEL
Did it just go poof into the night? What is going on here? I cannot have a
decent discussion if my answers are not even recorded. Who is the moderator
here?
Charles Novins
> This is the nuttiest message board I have ever seen.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Respectfully, if so, you must have seen vanishingly few.
JANISPAULARAFAEL:
Where is my last post? Did it just go poof into the night?
CHARLES NOVINS:
It sounded more to me like "FFFFTWIPTTTT."
JANISPAULARAFAEL:
What is going on here?
CHARLES NOVINS:
Seriously, I've had a number of posts that didn't appear lately. It is very
hard to judge why because it could be a defect anywhere among a long chain,
the first links of which are your computer and your ISP.
The good news is that posting the same note a second time has worked for me
in every case. It's still a nuisance, of course, and sometimes it's days
before I notice the first one didn't go. But I recommend you try
re-posting. And always wait a while before doing so to avoid double
posting.
JANISPAULARAFAEL:
I cannot have a decent discussion if my answers are not even recorded. Who
is the moderator here?
CHARLES NOVINS:
Our Fearless Leader is Tim Skirvin, but his moderation is very limited; for
example, he does NOT read the newsgroup posts. Locate the newsgroup's FAQ
for more on him and what he does.
dave odden
Tim is. It's not about the moderator, it's about your machine or the one
your machine talks to. The bot acknowledges your posts when it gets them,
and if you don't get the acknowledgement, blame somebody in the chain of
transmission before the bot. This happens to me all the time -- my main
server turns to crap and fails to send posts, and I've learned the standard
turnaround for different servers. I don't know what's average response time
for AOL, but my RR server usually has a two minute send-to-appear time.
Except on the weekend, when they're mostly processing porn. The most
bulletproof method I know of is Google posting, but it can be slow.
If it doesn't appear, re-send after you've waited a decent interval. I think
it's reasonable to make three tries before giving up. There's a chance that
all three posts will appear which looks a little silly and sometimes people
will kid you if you send a bunch of copies. What you want to avoid doing is
clogging the system with a couple dozen copies.
That said, there are some technical problems which might just maybe have to
do with the Mother Ship, something about subthreads not being properly
identifiable, but it's highly intermittent.
So cut out the paranoia, don't try to affix blame, and simply repost your
message. Humans are fallible: computers are hyper-fallible.
JANISPAULARAFAEL
beginning to wonder. I find it very frustrating to have such an important
contribution to this topic, and it to be broken up this way. There are a lot
of people who are interested in the free will/determinism issue. I just wish
there was an easier way to share ideas.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
Ok, so what we have here, including the rest of your post that I
snipped, is mathematically undeniable reasoning stating that we have a
will that is not free.
So what is it that you have determined through pure reasoning that
prevents our wills from being free?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
It's not the board, it's outlook express. Stop using it.
HPO Jury = Malenoid
<taxs...@free-market.net> wrote:
>JANISPAULARAFAEL:
>What is going on here?
>CHARLES NOVINS:
>Seriously, I've had a number of posts that didn't appear lately. It is very
>hard to judge why because it could be a defect anywhere among a long chain,
>the first links of which are your computer and your ISP.
I used to have that happen to my posts constantly while using outlook
express.
.
.