Total posts: 14,582
-->
@MAV99
choosing between roughly equal options is not properly described as "an intentional act of will"Why?You will say: "it must choose the best option"You are still insisting on your contradiction...
what is essentially a "roll-of-the-dice"
does not qualify
as an "intentional act of will"
Created:
-->
@MAV99
how would you describe these types of sorting functions ?and how would you contrast them with how you describe human sorting functions ?Programming.There is no conscience intentions in computers.
computer programs are definitely "goal seeking"
and computer programs certainly "make a choice"
Created:
-->
@MAV99
(IFF) an intentional act of will is initiated (THEN) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decisionDo you know what the conditions for an absolute necessity in logic?
the term itself "intentional act of will"
requires an action
there is no "intentional act of will"
without action
Created:
-->
@MAV99
That is why we are forced to say possible effects. We can know based reason, order, etc the effects. We do not know them as actually existing, we know them as possibly existing.
we can only imagine "possible effects"
Created:
-->
@MAV99
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?Intellect and will
what part of "intellect and will" are not included in biology + experience ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe what you're talking about has been proven to be fictionReally? Did you search the entire universe and didnt find Slifer the Sky Dragon?
exactly
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Atheists believe that God doesn't exist.
people call themselves "atheists" for any number of reasons
the exact same way
people call themselves "christians" for any number of reasons
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
How do you conclude that "fascism is incompatible with socialism"?
what is your personally preferred definition of "socialism" ?
germany and italy both used the word "socialism" in their propaganda because the word was popular at the time
but they both twisted the definition of the word to suit their own goals
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Actually, atheists know that the God in what's called the bible does not exist.
some make negative claims
and some do not
it is not a requirement for an ATHEIST to profess a specific "disbelief" in any particular god or even gods in general
an ATHEIST is simply, NOT-A-THEIST
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Do atheists believe the God in what's called the bible does not exist?
ATHEISM makes no claim other than "NOT A THEIST"
in the same way a NON-MUSLIM is "NOT A MUSLIM"
in the same way a NON-HINDU is "NOT A HINDU"
in the same way a NON-ASTRONAUT is "NOT AN ASTRONAUT"
in the same way a NON-STAMP-COLLECTOR is "NOT A STAMP COLLECTOR"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What color is the zygote?
a zygote is typically colorless, as it is a single cell and not visible to the naked eye
photograph available here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
I would say that you become good by following a universal truth of ethics, and the real question is, “what is that universal truth”
PRIMAL ETHICS
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you could only do one:
- Purchase a cup of coffee once a day
- Prevent one child from dying from starvation
Then what do you pick and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
So you must think Math is a religion.
apparently they also think believing in keyboards is a religion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Particle and wave are mutually exclusive forms.Temporally speaking, a wavehas a periodicity, and spatially, it is spread out in space, a particle cannothave a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space. A particle has adiscrete location in time and space, a wave does not, a wave spread out over alarger region of space and time. A wave has amplitude and a frequency, itexhibits the phenomena of diffraction and diffusion, a particle does not.
water
ice
steam
are three forms of the same material
nobody ever suggested that forms are immutable
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
You said you were a monist, you supposedly don't believe in duality.
waves and particles can interact
which proves they are not fundamentally dissimilar
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
the keyboard you are typing on qualifies as undeniable and conclusive proofRestating your faith-based assumption and saying it qualifies as undeniable and conclusive proof of your faith-based assumption isn't a proof by any stretch of the imagination. Besides just proclaiming that your faith qualifies as proof, do you actually have an argument?
now you're the one pretending your own keyboard doesn't exist
is this really where you wanted to go with this ?
how the hell did you even type a response ?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?Ability to choose, regardless of influence. Is one definition that I usually speak with.
this sounds like a violation of cause-and-effect
Created:
-->
@MAV99
"Free will" as I am describing, is an essential part of the person, but not the person himself. You do know that you can have parts right? I am assuming you already know the different basic parts of your body. Would you say you are your eye? I do not think so.
if you act intentionally that action is said to be your action
when you act intentionally YOU are taking action
YOU are acting
"an act of will" does not exist without YOU
Created:
-->
@MAV99
The free will becomes a part of the primary cause by freely directing it to one of the various possible effects. It is not that it is free of the universal chain but rather it is one of the determining factors that results in a possible effect that the primary cause can cause and continues the universal chain on its way.
the will is not a primary cause
the will is always contingent
the will is caused
it sounds like you're suggesting "the will is free to choose between options" but those options are never equal
and even when the available options might appear to be roughly equal
choosing between roughly equal options is not properly described as "an intentional act of will"
it's just a roll-of-the-dice at that point
indistinguishable from random
and a random selection is not an intentional act of will
If you want, it is the thing that freely says "do this effect." That is why we hold people responsible for their actions. They directed a cause to a positive or negative effect. If the resultant effect was evil, they get punished. As in the case of willfull murder. If the resultant effect was not evil, as in the case of someone choosing a certain burger at the restuarant for the first time, we need not hold them accountable for any evil.
you keep using the word "freely" without indicating what exactly you believe it is "free" from
Similarly also, this choice of which effect is intentional. Meaning a person did it. If there is no intention, there is no immediate culpability to the effect. As in the case of motor accidents. Culpability is not determined by the fact that you crashed, it is determined by what you chose to do that caused the crash.
well, there is still "criminal negligence"
and "driving while intoxicated"
so, lack-of-intention is not exactly a moral "free-pass"
Created:
-->
@MAV99
do you think it is fair to say that GPT4 decides or chooses which next word to generate ?do you think it is fair to say that GOOGLE decides or chooses which links to list in response to your query and also decides or chooses the order of that list ?No. I do not.
how would you describe these types of sorting functions ?
and how would you contrast them with how you describe human sorting functions ?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
your "must be" is directed only to the foremost option.
the entire construct describes an act of will
you must act
otherwise we're not talking about an act of will
would you perhaps prefer
(IFF) an intentional act of will is initiated (THEN) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decision
Created:
-->
@MAV99
I said We can understand future possible effects.
i still think it's much more accurate to say we can imagine future possible effects
saying we can understand suggests some comprehensive knowledge
of something which, in this case, by definition does not currently exist
Created:
-->
@MAV99
And I disagree that your identity is "biology+experiance"
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
biology and experiance are material causes. They have their effects on the person choosing. But because the will is part of the formal cause, biology and experiance do not determine the will directly. They can only influence it.
what percentage of your will, roughly speaking, would you guess is influenced by your biology + experience ?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
"will" is the principle of intentional action and "free" is the attribute that says it is not determined to "this particular action"It is not saying it is free from a cause. It is saying it is free as regarding the choices available to effect.
the number of options apparently available to you when considering action to attain a goal
those options
are limited
by your ability to imagine them
based on your biology and experience
and your ability to sort those options into a hierarchy of options
is also limited
by your ability to imagine which one is the best
based on your biology and experience
Created:
-->
@MAV99
That doesnt disprove my point that it is still something understood.
it is rather difficult to suggest "i understand the future"
is equivalent to the much more plausible suggestion "i imagine the future"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
I do not find that intellectually honest. Why cant I have certitude about a perfectly logical and consistent argument?
dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
But if that is the philosophy you adhere to, fine! I dont think it answers all questions and it certainly limits knowledge.
of course very few claims are PROVABLY-TRUE
and very few claims are PROVABLY-FALSE
everything else is some level of speculation
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Lastly, This does not answer why free will is a logical-impossibility. All you have done is state some things that you think you know and then labeled them as "premise" and "conclusion"
an intentional act of will cannot be free from previous cause
and any unintended consequence of an act of will cannot be considered intentional
in other words
your will is always bound to your identity which is comprised of biology + experience (which qualify as causes)
will is by definition, caused
your intentional action may be imperfect (not achieving your ideal goal)
but that imperfection does not make your will free
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Your second conclusion: Has nothing to do with what the premises are saying and is introducing a new idea. That is another fallacy.All you are saying there is that if it is not conscience it is not an act of the will. How does that flow from the premises?
c2 is supported by p1
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Hence I am still waiting for the "why" behind your "must be" which I asked for already.
premise four
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Premise 4, look at that! Another option.
premise four is essential in order to illustrate that "choosing not to act" and "inability to act" are not identical
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Premise 3, all you are saying is that there are options. And I would say the hierarchy among options is determined by influences.
ok, so no objection to premise three
Created:
-->
@MAV99
I have a problem with your 2nd premise. I do not think that your goal is something imaginary, but rather is an understood possible outcome. Which means it has to do with understanding. Not the imagination.
you cannot "understand" a potential future
without first IMAGINING a potential future
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
The burden of proof is on you, prove your metaphysical claims.
MONISM is logically-necessary
because if there are two or more fundamentally dissimilar substances
it is logically-impossible for them to interact in any way or even detect each other
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment,
this approach makes "free-will" indistinguishable from an emotion
sure, we have a feeling of "agency"
but that feeling is no more or less valid than something like "love" or "hate"
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Almost every argument against Free Will presupposes determinism
this is false
indeterminism is also obviously incompatible with "free-will"
Created:
-->
@MAV99
I do not have a problem with premise 1. But for the record, The goal is always outside free will so it is not an essential aspect of it. While the goal is helpful to know better the thing, it does not tell us what the thing is.
the essential claim of "free-will" is that it is somehow NOT caused (or not fully caused)
there is no way to describe "an intentional act of will" without referencing a GOAL (and a goal is a cause)
the definition of will
seems to be in direct conflict with
the definition of "free-will"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
That is why I do not adhere to the philosophy that only things that are observable can be known with certitude.
only what is logically-necessary can be "known with certitude"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
So you are making a claim that matter exists.The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, prove the existence of matter.
the keyboard you are typing on qualifies as undeniable and conclusive proof
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
I myself am religious, but my best argument for atheism is that science is always progressing, and therefore the unknown about the universe may soon be known and explained by science.
this is likely true
but it doesn't have anything to do with ATHEISM (which is simply, NOT-THEISM)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
What is the form of an electron, is it in the form of a particle or a wave?
an electron exhibits both particle and wave properties, a concept known as wave-particle duality
an electron has mass
"particle" is a form
"wave" is a form
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
Thomas Aquinas' hylomorphic theory, which posits that form and matter are distinct yet inseparable aspects of physical objects, has been subject to various criticisms. Some argue that this distinction is not as clear-cut as Aquinas suggests, leading to ambiguities in understanding the true nature of objects. Critics point out that if form and matter are indeed inseparable, then it becomes challenging to explain change, as any alteration would imply a change in the object's essence. Moreover, the concept of prime matter, which Aquinas describes as pure potentiality without form, is seen by some as an abstract notion that lacks empirical evidence. This criticism is rooted in the difficulty of conceiving matter devoid of any form, as our sensory experiences always present matter in some form. Additionally, Aquinas' assertion that form is what individuates matter has been contested on the grounds that forms, according to his theory, are universal, whereas individuality is particular. This raises questions about how universal forms can give rise to unique, individual substances. These critiques suggest that Aquinas' theory may not fully account for the complexities of material existence and the dynamics of change and individuality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, and Rex Tillerson’s alleged comment that President Trump was “a moron” brings to reality the words of HL Mencken in the Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920): “As democracy is perfected, the office [of president] represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move towards a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
how are you and i not best friends ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
Yes. That is what "understanding" means. You know the "whatness" of something. You can definitely reason with that.
the "material aspect" seems pretty important, even perhaps fundamental
do you have an example of how this examination of "whatness" is useful ?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Why dont you put it in syllogistic format and we can see better your argument is.
(p1) your intentional conscious will only initiates action (or intentional non-action) in order to achieve a goal
(p2) the goal that motivates your will is an imagined future state that is fully informed by your accumulated knowledge and biological capacity
(p3) humans always have competing, mutually exclusive goals (short-term versus long-term for example) making it necessary to create a hierarchy of goals based on each moment these goals are evaluated (sorted by perceived time-sensitivity and relative cost-benefit based on your accumulated knowledge and current context)
(p4) if you fail to have adequate confidence in your goal hierarchy, no action is taken
(c1) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decision
(c2) if you act without intentional conscious goal seeking, then you are not making an intentional conscious act of will
Created:
-->
@MAV99
It is probably not an option they perceive.
so maybe not exactly fair to say it's an option
Created: