-->
@secularmerlin
Under determinism, no. If determinism is false, yes.
free will
Posts
Total:
712
-->
@Mopac
I've done my very very best at least once. Why would this time be any different? I think you just want to pull me back into your circular arguments. I do not believe that you have any intention of trying to understand.
-->
@secularmerlin
The nihilist once again is sucked imto his epistemological black hole, paralyzed by his faithlessness.
Waiting for you help me understand.
-->
@Fallaneze
Determinism is merely cause and effect.
Do you think rational thought has no cause? If something causes rational thought that is determinism.
Do you think rational thought has no cause? If something causes rational thought that is determinism.
Tell me why are you thinking about freewill and rational thought and determinism right now? Is it because you are responding to external stimulus? Did an external stimulus beyond your control cause you to have these rational thoughts?
Did you perhaps read something someone else wrote?
What about that person? Did they not have a rational thought in response to some stimulus they encountered?
Show me were the causal chain breaks down.
-->
@secularmerlin
For the sake of argument let's assume a deterministic universe. How does this change the logical implications that I've talked about?
-->
@Fallaneze
If rational thought exists then the implications are that rational thought can arise from deterministic forces. If rational thought does not exist then this conversation is meaningless and there are no and can be no real implications.
-->
@secularmerlin
Your opening sentence is a non-sequitur.
The claim is that determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is true. Changing the subject to whether rational thoughts exist is muddying the waters.
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't follow your logic. What precisely prevents rational conclusions from being formed just because they are being produced deterministically?
-->
@secularmerlin
The formation of rational conclusions versus rationally accepting a belief are two different things. My claim was as follows:
Determinism cannot be *rationally accepted* if the position is true.
You disagreed with the above statement but have not yet explained how it's compatible with determinism.
-->
@Fallaneze
I just don't see how they are mutually exclusive. I don't understand unless you are just objecting to the word accept. Would you prefer the term formed?
-->
@secularmerlin
They're not mutually exclusive but they are two different things. Since you objected to my claim as it was originally written you should justify your objection to my original claim. I prefer if you would keep the phrase "rationally accept" rather than switching it out with words that have different meanings.
-->
@Fallaneze
Determinism can never be rationally accepted if it is true. One would be compelled to accept or not accept determinism in the same sense that a boulder is compelled to roll down a hill upon the force of gravity.Everything we think and do would be installed by mindless forces. Since mindless forces cannot make rational choices, and since our choices would be the sole product of mindless forces, a choice to accept determinism would not and could not be rational.
It is the word choice I object to on rereading. Choice may simply not be the correct term for the deterministic process that seems to govern if not all events in the universe at least the overwhelming majority. We wouldn't be choosing at all. You have built a definitional truth and prescriptive language is different than descriptive.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
it seems to more like an argument that choice does not exist rather than choice being rational or irrational.a choice to accept determinism would not and could not be rational.
-->
@keithprosser
There is no argument here under determinism there can be no choice. That would be nonsensical.
-->
@secularmerlin
@keithprosser
@Fallaneze
Reason is the only way anyone comes to the conclusion of determinism. Otherwise, experience certainly gives us the perception of choice.
And I believe it is a huge mistake to think that either requires a greater burden of proof when science itself has conclusively proven that it is impossible to account for all variables. Given our experience, It would seem that the possibility of free will cannot be ruled out.
So since it is really kind of an absurd thing to ponder the veracity of either side in this debate and come to a solid conclusion, perhaps that means that we should look at other aspects of this question.
For example, how does the acceptance of free will or the denial of free will effect the psychology of the believer? What is a more useful belief to have? A more beneficial belief to have?
I am of course bias very much so with the opinion that accepting free will empowers a person to free themselves from their mental illnesses, the fetters of passion, the bestial pull of the body, and the oppression of one's environment. The Orthodox Church also has this position. So we see that having free will is part of what it means to be made in the image of God. It is also the reverence for this free will that makes known the evil of compulsion, and a reverence for that image that makes known the dignity of every person and mankind itself.
On the other hand, fatalistic thinking that comes from denial of free will leads to the dehumanizing of the person and the perceived hopelessness of effecting one's situation.
-->
@Mopac
We are not discussing the utility of a belief in freewill. Whether or not it is beneficial to believe you have freewill is completely beside the point.
-->
@secularmerlin
Then the debate over the veracity of free will is absurd and amounts to little more than vain imaginings and philosophical masturbation.
-->
@Mopac
Insisting you kniw the truth of matters that are beyond human epistemology is vain and absurd but that doesntstop you from proclaiming all over everyone's threads when you should be respectfully discussing.
-->
@secularmerlin
This is the original claim I was talked about.
"Determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is indeed true. Agree or disagree?"
You said you disagreed with this. I made no mention of the word choice here.
-->
@keithprosser
I believe determinism cannot be rationally accepted if it is indeed true.
-->
@Fallaneze
Accepting something is not necesarily a choice. That is the equivocation error I an talking about. Determinism does not preclude accepting things just choosing to. Your original claim was true only tautologically and only because of your use of the word choice.
-->
@Fallaneze
One would be compelled to accept
These are your words. What about being compelled to accept something makes acceptance irrational?
-->
@Fallaneze
You also said this and this is nonsense. One does not make choices under a deterministic model. Your original post did not really mean anything.a choice to accept determinism would not and could not be rational.
So you believe determinism that can be rationally accepted even though all beliefs would be installed by mindless, non-rational processes? How does that make any sense?
-->
@secularmerlin
The things I say as you understand them are "beyond human epistemology", but I know this isn't so. Though, for an epistemological nihilist, there isn't much of anything that isn't beyond human epistemology.
Christian theology is fundamentally apodictic truth. If this seems like a bold claim, realize that the only way you can possibly come to know that claim is true is if you are in on it.
And I used to be in the epistemological black hole too. It feels nice to be out of that mess.
But what I am talking about is very much on topic. I am, as per usual, hated without a cause.
-->
@Stronn
Or we truly have freewill.
Please square this circle.
How would you propose the mechanism of freewill functions?
(EITHER) actions are based on instinct, physics, training, experience, and information (OR) non-causal randomness.
No combination or clever mix of information and randomness allow for freewill.
Freewill is a qualitative experiential emotion.
-->
@Mopac
Why do you insist on conflating hate with disagreement. Nobody hates you Mopac we just think your full of shit. I would appreciate it if you would recognize the difference.
-->
@Mopac
And I believe it is a huge mistake to think that either requires a greater burden of proof when science itself has conclusively proven that it is impossible to account for all variables.
All-the-variables are (EITHER) causal or non-causal.
They might be "hidden variables" but we know with 100% certainty that they are (EITHER) causal or non-causal (or some combination of the two).
There is zero alternative. It doesn't matter if you propose the influence of ghosts, angels, spirits, magic, or gods.
Even ghosts and gods (EITHER) act with intent, based on a set goal, guided by their experience (OR) act randomly (or some combination of the two).
All-the-variables are (EITHER) causal or non-causal.
-->
@keithprosser
a choice to accept determinism would not and could not be rational.it seems to more like an argument that choice does not exist rather than choice being rational or irrational.
Simply because our language is built around the presupposition of freewill, does not itself exonerate freewill from its logical incoherence.
-->
@Fallaneze
Your objection to the argument is not clear to me. Beliefs, like determinism, could not be rationally accepted because the forces that would determine which beliefs are accepted are not rational.
All decisions are either logically inevitable (OR) non-causal (random), or a combination of the two.
(IFF) you propose that "the forces that would determine which beliefs are accepted are not rational [logical]." (THEN) you must be suggesting that they are at least in-part, non-causal (random).
This combination of causal and non-causal events is known as (in)determinism.