Total posts: 387
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Unless the thing doing the causing is 'self', or 'you'.
That is one way to think of it.
I think that the only way you can look at choice as an illusion is if you believe that the human mind is a purely mechanistic device that has no ability to direct thoughts to an unpredictable outcome. I don't see it that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If something caused you to do something you have been compelled you did not choose.
That is both a logical and semantic distinction that I disagree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes it is.Cause and effect is not compatible with freewill.
The state of the universe at a given point in time "A" causes me to consider options by reasoning with my subjective human mind "B" which causes me me to take an action "C".
Cause and effect intact, a choice was made as per the definition of free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How can we ever confirm that we couldn't have chosen differently? We certainly appear to be making choices. Every human on earth experiences the phenomenon of making choices. Are you certain that making a choice is an illusion? I can't prove my proposition and you can't prove yours. All I can do is say that there are other plausible explanations for free will. One example is from Daniel Dennette. He says the following:How could we ever confirm that we could have chosen differently than we actually did?
"The model of decision making I am proposing, has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision."
I'm not saying that I completely agree with that but it is as reasonable an explanation as the theory that choice is an illusion. Since I find no evidence that the phenomenon that I and everyone else experiences is an illusion, I place a higher probability on the likelihood that we do actually make choices and thus free will is real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
I suppose I should "choose" my words carefully then.alright, but you'll be explaining that to your future A.I. overlords.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
How about neural network computers. Do they have free will?
Again, based on the strict definition, I suppose they could be thought of that way however that is not how free will is generally regarded. Terminology can always be twisted to mean something that was not intended. Free will is generally considered a human phenomenon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Rolling dice would be considered random. Reasoned thought is not random. I suppose technically, free will could be thought to include randomness based on it's definition but that isn't how it is generally regarded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
As I stated earlier, choosing between multiple possibilities is the definition of free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't accept that determinism is always in effect in the material world. Indeterminism has been widely accepted. I am not a dualist but simply think that thought "A" does not necessarily lead to thought "B". It could possibly lead to thought "C" instead. That just means "choice" is real, not an illusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
I think of determinism as "this must lead to that". I don't think of human thought that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
Regarding choices, I'm saying that a cause may produce more than one possible effect which is "determined" through the process of reasoning. I think the human mind is not bound by "hard determinism".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
The definition from Wikipedia...
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
Says nothing about an uncaused cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lernaean
Good and bad are objective only as they fit into a subjective moral standard.
I look at morality this way - one creates a moral standard such as "striving for the most amount of well being and the least amount of suffering for everyone" (good) being at one end of a spectrum and "the most amount of suffering and least amount of well being for everyone" (bad) being at the other. That is a subjective moral standard that most people would probably agree with. Any action that anyone takes can objectively be determined to be more good or bad as it applies to that standard.
It gets complicated when priorities are not in agreement.
In the case of littering, it can be argued that an eyesore has been created, there are possible negative environmental effects, someone may be inconvenienced by having to clean up the litter, etc. That can objectively be shown to be "bad" based on the above subjective moral standard. The person littering, however may place far more importance on their own convenience, rejecting those points as trivial and objectively place that action on the good side of the standard. That is why we don't always agree on moral issues. We have different priorities which have more or less weight when measured against a predetermined standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If I held a belief that could not possibly be disproved even if it was false, that would be a problem.
And yet billions of people do have religious beliefs that cannot be falsified one way or the other. I prefer to say "I don't know".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
In the spirit of this thread, you might ask why I believe you?
The only reasons I can come up with are because it is the charitable thing to do and because I have no reason not to. Obviously the reasons for my previous assumption were merely coincidences.
Believing someone because you haven't been given reason to disbelieve them seems like a flimsy foundation to stand upon but, here we are. How many other beliefs do you suppose are predicated on the fact that there is no reason as of yet to disbelieve? How many are based on coincidental assumptions that have yet to be falsified?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If some other two people had the same similarities would you say the same is possible of those two?
Yes.
If I were to say such a thing then I would be speaking the truth.
Fair enough. I'll take you at your word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, of course not. I would then have no reasons to hold that particular belief. Are you saying that you and secularmerlin are not the same person?If none of these things were true, would you still believe it to be likely that SM and myself are the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I have reason to believe that you and the former poster know as secularmerlin are one and the same. My reasons for this are...
Your polite conversational style.
Your general use of language.
Your spelling and grammatical errors.
The relative timing of your arrival and secularmerlin's absence.
The fact that secularmerlin created a thread with this same title on DDO.
This is not a belief of 100% certainty but merely reasons for a belief that I am considering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Yes it is a tautology. It just doesn't sound like it when it is worded "the universe exists".-.> I believe all that exists exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Is the impossibility of nonexistence the reason you believe the universe exists, or is there some other reason?
I believe it because it is the only logical option.
I'm afraid I've given you the one assertion that can't logically be challenged. I assume you are trying to get at the inescapable premise that one cannot be 100% certain of (almost) anything as everything we perceive could conceivably be an illusion. I can't argue against that other than to say that it really serves no purpose to live in such a state of solipsism.
Speaking of solipsism, I can say with 100% certainty that I exist. I cannot supply proof of what "I" am so all I can say with certainty is that I exist as "something". The reason I believe I exist is because I am conscious, however you wish to define that word. Even if I were a computer program, I would still be something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am 100% sure because nonexistence is impossible. I define the universe as "all that exists".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I believe that the universe exists.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
I see. What you are calling the "best" explanation for a fine-tuned universe, I call just another possible explanation with no more plausibility than other current possible explanations such as Hawking's "top-down cosmology" which is supposedly testable and which I don't fully understand.The best explanation for the fine-tuned universe proposition indicates intelligent design. This alone would rationally justify belief that an intelligent creator of the universe exists.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Do you believe "evidence" must be something tangible or can evidence just be informational?Is a belief rationally warranted only when "proven" true or is a belief rationally warranted when it's more plausibly true than false?
Just out of curiosity, what evidence or information do you use to justify your belief that the existence of God is more plausibly true than false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
we will be subject to the whims of the Tyranny of the Thin Skinned.
I would say that we have already reached that point. Look at the activity in the last few years on college campuses for example.
The rule making process should have the goal of making as few rules as necessary with as few exceptions as possible and based on easy to understand principles with the express purpose of being durable over long periods of time.
As the podcast showed, it is relatively simple to blur the line between compliance and violation of a rule. It is also a blurry line between libertarian freedom and aggressive political correctness. Also, a computer intelligence might have difficulty determining intent which should be taken into consideration in my opinion. As for being durable over a long period of time, I think society (or should I say the powers that be) would need to be a little less worried about the vocal minority and take their complaints with a grain of salt. Not dismissive but not over reactive. That is the blurry line to be navigated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That was interesting. I hadn't heard about that at Facebook.
Law is codified mob rule.
What other options are there? Is there a middle ground between mob rule and anarchy? Should society be more or less tolerant of potentially offensive content or actions when the feelings of a few people can sway an entire policy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I was referring to actual written and enforceable laws. Some are very specific, some are more universal. My point being that the law attempts to eliminate personal intuition from the equation and requires everyone to follow the same moral standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
In your opinion, does anything exist out there apart from mathematical disparities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Wouldn't you agree that the reflected wavelengths that we perceive as color are real?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I would argue that we shouldn't allow our intuition to dictate our morals. I can think of many scenarios where that would lead to bad consequences. That's why we have laws; so that despite the fact that everyone's intuitions are different, we all must adhere to the same moral precepts nevertheless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The difference is deism supposes the origin was something conscious and hence god-like; atheists suppose it was an unconscious and naturalistic process.
Is that necessarily the case? Is an atheist also an adeist by definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you believe that God does not exist it does set certain boundaries for logical coherency. It makes much more sense for an atheist to be a physicalist than an idealist.
I don't see how atheism promotes one over the other.
It would make no sense if an atheist believed that human beings have intrinsic worth.
Intrinsic worth can be self determined.
It would not make sense for an atheist to believe that nature has any sort of purpose.
If you mean a sense of purpose other than to continue to live and flourish, possibly.
It wouldn't make sense to believe that consciousness is fundamental.
Perhaps not for a hard atheist, but an agnostic can accept that as a possibility.
Created:
Posted in:
On another forum there was an argument about whether atheism is a belief system. Atheists generally argued no, theists generally argued yes. Since atheism is not a set of beliefs nor does it necessarily lead to one, I said no.
Theism includes and/or leads to a set of beliefs and in that respect is a belief system.
Does deism lead to a set of beliefs and therefore become a belief system? I don't think so. What do you all think?
Created:
Posted in:
Believing that a God exists is more probable than tooth fairies (in my opinion) but without evidence remains speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
most atheists identify themselves with lacking belief in God but where I'd disagree is that atheists who identify themselves this way don't find it more probable that God doesn't exist.
That may be true. However, there is more than one kind of God in which not to believe. There is the notion of deism which would solve the paradox of existence but is only one of an unknown number of possibilities. I give that theory a higher probability than that of theism which provides no evidence of any personal interaction between God and sentient beings. Rather than thinking of it as a complete lack of belief, I consider each possibility to have a higher or lower probability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
... or does it correspond to something higher than ourselves? Just a thought
Since I am not a theist, the probability I give that possibility is low.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Do you think that the human conscience is strictly an instinctual, evolutionary thing or is it societal and learned? Or a combination of those things? I lean towards a bigger mix of societal and learned.Presumably whatever the seeming upside of rape is, it is not good for the species so we evolved to feel a sort of mental pain to help block doing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
That is correct. It takes a conscious mind to give it meaning.By itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Ok, then what I said must be true - the human moral conscience itself has no meaning.
No meaning to whom or what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Where do you think meaning comes from? It takes a mind to give something meaning otherwise as many here have pointed out it is just "quanta". "Qualia" is the meaning given to "quanta".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How wouldn't the human moral conscience be meaningless? It wouldn't correspond to how we should conduct ourselves. There's no higher meaning there.
Human conscience would be meaningless if everyone thought the way you are describing. They don't so it isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
It's not a matter of whether it can happen, it's a matter of whether this is really what morality boils down to. Raping people is good as long as somebody believes it is and there's no moral highground for those who believe otherwise. The human conscience is a meaningless discomfort.
That is the price of freedom. The freedom to think as you like. I don't think the human conscience is meaningless for most people. For some, unfortunately, it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Ok, so one who desires control and pleasure, but initially felt held back by their conscience, can intellectually justify their desire to rape innocent women by considering it good. If their conscience is still bothering them they just begin valuing dishonesty more than honesty. And it's not as if their conscience even meant anything in the first place. Discomfort from their conscience would be like indigestion after eating tacos.
Yes that can happen. Why do think there are so many criminals in the world? Partially because everyone has a different moral standard. That is why we have laws. Laws are meant to define and enforce moral standards because people, left to their own devices, will not always behave in a way that is beneficial or benign to society at large. If you are saying this is not the case, I disagree. If you are saying it shouldn't be the case then I agree. Do you have a specific point that you are trying to make?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Do you think there are no people who believe that dishonesty is a good trait? A compulsive liar comes to mind. A devious businessman who wants to win at any cost. Lots of people think dishonesty is good in the right circumstance. Little white lies are considered good by many. Yes, this is all malleable stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Your conscience is based upon your moral standards. If it is in conflict with your desires and you can still justify immoral conduct then you are not being honest with yourself.One who desires control and pleasure, but initially felt held back by their conscience, can intellectually justify their desire to rape innocent women by considering it good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Okay, so you and the jihadists just have different opinions, neither one is better. Nothing would rationally compel someone to either side. It's rational for jihadists to wage jihad.
I consider my opinion to be better and, I assume, so do you. You would likely be more compelled to join my side because our moral standards are more in alignment. It is rational for a jihadist to wage jihad if they believe that jihad is "good". It is also my prerogative to stop them if that violates my moral standards. "Morality" and "rational" are subjective terms relative to the person using them. You keep trying to use them in an objective sense and I keep trying to put them back in a subjective sense. I think this is the entire basis for our disagreement. You believe these are objective terms and I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Since the term "rational" is relative to the person using it, yes.Ok, I'll rephrase. Neither your moral standards nor their moral standards are more rationally warranted. It's wholly dependent upon subjective opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
An obvious false premise, the Big Bang whether brought on by free will or not can both be argued for infinite regress.
Infinite regress is logically impossible. If time were to travel back infinitely it would logically never be able to reach the present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Equally rationally warranted? I can't say that. That implies some kind of 3rd person objectivity. I can only say that my standards are rational to me and their standards are rational to them.And your moral opinion would be considered irrational relative to their moral standards. Your moral standards and their moral standards are equally rationally warranted. Correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So to be clear on your position, you believe that even if people hold opposite moral views than you, there is no rational difference between their opinion and yours.
I can rationally understand how a person would come to the opposite opinion if the moral standard they are using is different than mine. I am probably using the word "rational" in a different context than you. Their opinion would be considered irrational as pertaining to my moral standards.
Created: