Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
There is no argument here under determinism there can be no choice. That would be nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Who decides what is a necessary edit?
How much do they cost?
Do the impoverished have to just live with there weird ugly stupid mutant children whatever happens with the middle/upper class?
Let's say you can edit the male genome to exclude a foreskin. Should that be allowed on religious grounds?
If you can provide the technology cheaply to the masses why not make whatever you consider a "perfect" baby?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't follow your logic. What precisely prevents rational conclusions from being formed just because they are being produced deterministically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Won't only rich people be able to afford the service even if it is only "corrective" wherever you draw your personal line? Does the gap not arrise regardless? Or is "corrective" treatment free or at least affordable/subsidized? And if treatment is available and doctors "ought" to do all they can to improve quality of life oughtn't they "fix" ugly/stupid babies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't discount anything but until we have some concrete evidence (as opposed to testimonial evidence) we cannot know what processes were involved in creating the universe if "creating" is the right word. If you just want to give your best guess you certainly may but guessing is all we can do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Im not talking about reality existing. That is not the claim I am talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Why is it incompatible? Just because we cannot decide what is rational? I have news for you. You do not decide what is rational either way. Conclusions are either rational or not. Your acceptance of them does not change this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
By independent agency I mean a faculty of consciousness that has room to rationally accept beliefs.
Why would an organic brain which runs on chemical reactions be unable to have this capacity?
Please explain how determinstic chemical reactions are a force that can rationally accept beliefs.
Isn't the fact that this appears to be the case enough? Honestly I don't know how human brains work any more than you do but they appear to be deterministic chemical engines which are able to rationally accept beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That you think asking for evidence of your claims is "unreasonable" is a big part of the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have given me no reason to think that you care about my actual objection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I am not the one arguing oughts here. Talk to swangnerok
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What do you mean by independent agency? I think you are implying that deterministic chemical reactions and rational thought are mutually exclusive but you have not demonstrated that they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have never tried to understand my actual objections as far as I know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
A position being the most rational can be the force which compels you to accept it. You DO NOT choose what is rational you come to realize what is most rational.
I understand what you are saying. Your contention here is that if your conclusions are determined by mindless forces your conclusions must be determined mindlessly. This does not logically follow however since you have a mind and your mind determines your conclusions (which is not to say that it in any way chooses your conclusions) and without that mind there would be no conclusions in the first place.
Unless of course you are arguing that nothing is rational. Is that the case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The issue is not with accepting things rationally it is with choosing to accept them rationally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Pleas I'm begging you look up formal logical fallacies and familiarize yourself with the more common ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Given the way things are. That is rather the whole point of this thread I believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Because rational thought and choice are not synonymous.
Created:
Posted in:
If a child is born with a genetic defect that would cause his or her quality of life, and especially his or her childhood, to be markedly lower than that of his or her peers, and it is within the means of scientists and doctors to correct the cause of this, then they ought to do so.
Either scientists ought to use gene editing to improve quality of life or they should not. If attractive intelligent people enjoy markedly higher quality of life why are you arguing against providing beauty and intelligence through gene editing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I said you are using fallacies not that reality is a fallacy. Do try to keep up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I disagree with your conclusion (C). In fact I would say that I have no choice but to accept that position as rational. You do not decide what is rational. You merely recognize it as rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If this is directed at me then I disagree. You can be compelled to accept reason and no freewill is necessary.Determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is indeed true. Agree or disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In order to exist a being needs space to exist in and time to exist during. Unless you can demonstrate that as false yoir claims of a being outside of time and space are nonsensicalOmniscience and free willl are only mutually exclusive to a being that is bound by time, not a being that exists before time, outside of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Let's say 2 tribes are at war. Tribe A tribal chief tells his warriors that their god is on their side, will fight for them, protect them, etc. Tribe B says they have no god, the warriors are on their own. Who's most likely to survive? Tribe A because they have that extra boost of confidence that B doesn't have? Or Tribe B because they are forced to fight a more do-or-die battle, and A is over-confident?And the problem with your scenario is it seems to assume the tribal view of a creator or deity is dangerous.
You have strayed into conjecture. We do not know enough about the two tribes to make an accurate prediction. As for "my scenario" I do not remember presenting any scenario that assumes a deity is dangerous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Let's say 2 tribes are at war. Tribe A tribal chief tells his warriors that their god is on their side, will fight for them, protect them, etc. Tribe B says they have no god, the warriors are on their own. Who's most likely to survive? Tribe A because they have that extra boost of confidence that B doesn't have? Or Tribe B because they are forced to fight a more do-or-die battle, and A is over-confident?And the problem with your scenario is it seems to assume the tribal view of a creator or deity is dangerous.
You have strayed into conjecture. We do not know enough about the two tribes to make an accurate prediction. As for "my scenario" I do not remember presenting any scenario that assumes a deity is dangerous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Unless you rigorously define divine and demonstrate some devinity (other than the desert) I'm afraid that I do not accept this as a valid term. Even if I did you would still need to explain the practical observable difference between a natural and a devine tendency.Since you're open to it not being a natural tendency, how about a (for lack of a more relatable term) divine tendency?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yes. I assume my dog loves me. This is anthropomorphize a nonhuman.You being human, do you display that tendency?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
All I am saying is that a primitive human who runs every time the grass moves is more likely to survive even if it is only a lion one time in fifty, or even one hundred, and that assuming a lion moved the grass is not that dissimilar from assuming a god moved the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If any being knows what we will do, whether that being determined what we will do or not, then we cannot have freewill. Omniscience and freewill are mutually exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you say that "naive realism" comes with its own built in epistemology even if it is not recognized as such by the naive realist?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Well statedlimiting yourself to a label is silly, address issues individually as an individual is the only thing that makes any real sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Want is the right word. Choose is the wrong word. I'm not sure that is what I want but this is an important distinction. You can be compelled to recognize reason. You can have cause to want something but neither is necessarily a choice.
This does not just apply to you and I however. I find the idea of a god with freewill to be logically incoherent as well.
That out of the way what about us did you want to discuss?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you say that one requires an e,listing philosophy or epistemology to recognize these rare apodictic truths?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm not sure what the difference between a natural or unnatural tendency is but humans do tend to display this tendency.Why do you assume that's a natural tendency?
Even if we entertained it from a strictly naturalistic evolutionary viewpoint, it wouldn't make logical sense.
I do not agree. The cave man that assumes a lion moved the grass is more likely to survive than the one who assumes it is the wind even if he is right more often. Nature favors the cautious and caution assumes (dangerous) agency.
I will let you address this since the rest of your argument hinges on this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You mean the post were you misrepresent me and call me evil? Yeah I pretty much ignored that part.
Created:
-->
@Alec
I suppose but it tenders the term "abortionists" redundantvand unnecessary.Would abortion doctor be a good definition?
I could live with gov subsidized birth control for everyone if it reduced abortions. Contraception is cheap.
This is in response to a post that is spe ific to one posters definition of Republican. Unless you specifically agree with his definition this does not apply to you.
Fine. A fetus then ought to be considered a person because of scientific evidence.
Science dies not deal in oughts. It only deals in the objectively verifiable.
Responsibility is similar to sacrifice. A fetus is being required without their consent to sacrifice their life because some guy couldn't keep it in their pants. This is not Republican.
This is in response to a post that is spe ific to one posters definition of Republican. Unless you specifically agree with his definition this does not apply to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Is your argument that intelligent attractive people do not enjoy a quality of life that is markedly above their peers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You mean we would lack freewill? That would seem to logically follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Cogito, ergo sum.
That would seem to logically follow that if I am experiencing something then that experience exists but that would be the exception not the rule. Still point made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
It is in fact only reasonably certain. You are again asking me to violate my epistemology. I will not.
Created: