Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
We have the ability to direct our intentions away from our natural inclinations
Why would we do this unless there was a reason (read a cause)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
And how do you go about choosing what your character will be?Your intentions are a product of your character.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
And how do you go about choosing what you will intend?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Could you for the sake of argument suggest a force that is necessarily under our control?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
When you say people are effected by deterministic forces you mean forces beyond their control correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I agree that our thoughts and behaviors are affected by deterministic forces.
Then this is not under contention.
I disagree that our thoughts and behaviors are produced by deterministic forces.
No other force is in evidence. I am not necessarily arguing that determinism is necessary but it is sufficient and independently verifiable. By contrast some extra unexplainable and unobservable thing called freewill may be sufficient but it is not necessarry or independently verifiable and until it is one or the other I see no reason to accept it prima facie
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If I may
Human thoughts and behaviors, as far as we know, are effected by deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics. Agree or disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I did not say we could not get closer to truth and I do not agree that it would make striving for truth an unworthwhile pursuit even if we could not.
I only said that speculation does not bring us closer to truth by itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If you never risk being wrong you never do anything.
I can have a speculative conversation but with no way to test our speculation I'm not sure how we could get any closer to the truth of the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
My foundation is the same as my foundation for not believing in Bigfoot or Santa clause. I see no evidence to support the premise. I understand that you accept it axiomatically but I do not and since you accept it as an axiom you have not bothered to present any evidence instead insisting that I should not need any if I were only as reasonable as you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
That we do not understand is exactly my point. How can we subscribe to one hypothesis over the other?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
There is no specific evidence that Human thoughts and behaviors are produced by more than deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics.And follow it up with your explanation as to why you think that?
Because I see no specific evidence. If you have such evidence please submit it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ArgentTongue
Im not sure why you think conciousness would necessitate freewill. Why could we not have conciousness as an emergent quality of the physical universe as determined by cause and effect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Let me say it again and you tell me what specifically is wrong with my answer.
There is no specific evidence that Human thoughts and behaviors are produced by more than deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ArgentTongue
Would you agree that determinism is essentially causation? That if something is subject to cause and effect that it is at least somewhat deterministic in nature?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What do you mean agree with? I've told you what I think the evidence supports. I cannot go beyond that without violating my epistemology. Anything beyond our epistemology is by definition pure speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Human thoughts and behaviors, as far as we know, are produced by deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics.
there is no specific evidence that it is more. That is as specific an answer as the evidence will support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I do not see any necessary incompatibility. Perhaps I simply am misunderstanding you. So far it seems that you are just asking me to accept that they are incompatible before it is demonstrated to be so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You have not demonstrated that these premises are mutually exclusive you have merely made the bald assertion that it is so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So the essence of what you are really asking is if I believe that something with reason and understanding can be caused by something which lacks these qualities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
In any case premise 2 should read
P2) deterministic forces, such as chemistry and physics would seem at least partially responsible for human thoughts and behaviors and we have no observable evidence of any non deterministic force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How have you determined that premise 2 and premise 3 are mutually exclusive?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
How do we subject something to destructive testing if we have no good conception of what exactly the thing in question is? How would the universe be perceptible different to us whether or not we each possess an actual self rather than the persistent illusion of self?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't know how we possess those qualities at all and neither do you. The question is immaterial however to the question of whether or not we possess freewill. If freewill could be demonstrated to exist how would it be diminished by having arisen from physics or chemistry?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So the essence of what you are really asking is if I believe that something with reason and understanding can be caused by something which lacks these qualities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Then it is time for an exhaustive definition of rational. If by rational you mean self aware you are asking a different question entirely than if you mean behaves predictably.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Any guess I make would be just that a guess. There is no evidence for or against the idea of self I cannot maintain any belief under those circumstances. I am however prepared to accept self as a conversational convention since it allows is to differentiate between my subjective personal experience and yours whether they are actual or not.
Created:
Posted in:
Physics, chemistry, and other forces that control human thoughts and behaviors are probably deterministic.
It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. If the forces that control human behavior (whatever they turn out to be) are not observably deterministic then I cannot tell if they are in fact causeless but somehow not random, causeless and random or caused in a way that is not readily detectable to me.
I'm sorry but when you say rational do you actually mean able to evaluate evidence, behaves in a predictable manner or possessing self awareness? If noneof these is what you mean then what in fact are you asking?Physics, chemistry, and other forces that control human thoughts and behaviors are probably not rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You have not shown that a rational evaluation of the evidence is not a deterministic process by definition. Is being presented with some evidence not the cause of the evaluation? Are the conclusions not determined by the evidence?
But even if you could/did come to some rational conclusion for no discernable reason that would still be indistinguishable to me from completely random. Also coming to a rational determination for no discernable reason seems like a contradiction.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
You did your best to say that self is a possibly nonreal thing which you do not understand well.
Am I misunderstanding any of the salient points?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If human beings are rational then this rationality was either subject to cause and effect or it is indistinguishable from a random event and also indistinguishable from a deterministic event the cause of which is not apparent to us. You are appealing to something vaguely defined and poorly understood which nevertheless does not address the issue of human epistemology regarding causation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I do not agree that this conclusion necessarily follows. Humans clearly behave rationally (sometimes). This observation remains unchanged whether they are the result of deterministic processes or not. This observation remains true whether the deterministic processes are material or immaterial.
Created:
Posted in:
Indeed that would he immaterial. Arguments stand or fall on their own merrit. Do you find that praising empathy and kindness do not encourage them or that we should not encourage empathy and kindness?I don't care what bigots think.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
Fuck you
Yes this captures the essence of what was describing. Thank you for the illustration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
When did we agree that all causes were necessarily physical? I don't know how we would detect an immaterial thing but if one exists it is either part of some causal chain or it is not. If immaterial objects?/forces?(both these words seem wrong but I cannot think of another) do exist why would they not act causally on each other? In that case you have immaterial determinism (not compatible with freewill) or immaterial indeterminism (indistinguishable from random or even being determined in a way we cannot determine).If thought processes are the product of material cause and effect
We as humans must observe our epistemology and our epistemology only supports two possible conclusions if we are honest. Either we can determine the cause of an event or we do not know why the event is taking place.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
Welcome back poly. The board lacked a certain something while you were gone. Any claim that this quality was good or bad would be completely subjective on my part but I noticed your absence and by that measure it could be said that I missed you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I repeat: explain how human behavior is rational if the forces that control human behavior are not rational.
And I repeat I do not know how/why humans are (sometimes) rational.
It doesn't matter however. Rational thought is either subject to cause and effect (and seems to be since its whole efficacy is in recognizing the link between cause and effect) or the actions/decisions it leads us to are indistinguishable from random.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The idea is that your next mind-state is the result of your freewill operating on your present mind state in away that cannot be reduced to physical cause and effect.
Keith even if we, for the purposes of this conversation, grant that the human mind is subject to some immaterial thing/force called F=freewill that is not subject to physical cause and effect it is still either subject to some (presumably immaterial) cause and effect or its actions/decisions (having no reason behind them) are indistinguishable from random.
The problem is not that I do not understand Fallaneze's argument it is that I find it logically flawed until this issue is somehow resolved.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
It is hard to say. I only have sample size of one and I cannot observe it only ecperience the part if it I am currently engaged in. A subjective individual experience is what it seems like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
In your equation the figure F (whatever it is) must either be subject to cause and effect (whether the cause is material or immaterial) or its actiins/choices are indistinguishable from random. Please explain how calling this hypothetical unexplained unobserved non physical component (F=freewill) gets around this problem
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Explain how human behavior is rational if the forces that control human behavior are not rational.
Do we disagree that humans are (sometimes) rational? Do either of us know how this happened? If I don't know how does that change that freewill is undemonstrable unnecessary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Well if human behavior is determined by physics and chemistry, and neither one are rational, then human behavior can't be rational.
I'm not sure how you determined this but if physics and chemistry aee the only (detectable) determinant of human behavior and if human behavior is rational then rationality observably seems arise from physics and chemistry. In any case sometimes humans are rational and sometimes they are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
You do understand the difference between atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism don't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
I am here in part because I find all mythology fascinating. Even more fascinating is mythology people still believe in. It is a rare opportunity to explore why people hold beliefs they cannot verify. My point is that the reasons you give are far from the only reasons an atheist might frequent this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
No atheism is belief that there is no god. Lack of belief is simply that... Lack of belief. No conviction.
A-theism just means without theism and theism is just belief in some god(s). Any person that does not believe in any god(s) is by definition an atheist. Some atheists may make possitive claims about the nonexistence of god(s) but many simply cannot maintain faith in the absence of sufficient evidence.
If you don't know or care if something exists, do you spend time bringing it up? No.For example. Say there is a man in the high Asian stepped who claims he is decended from Ghengis Khan and is the one true God and the world's savior. If I told you that and you said "nah I don't believe that" would you spend another second thinking about it? No. You hear things daily that you don't believe or care for and don't spend another thought on it.
That depends greatly on how much this man's claims effect me personally. If he insisted tgat corriculum was changed in public schools to reflect his unfounded claims or if 99% of the nations lawmakers supported his claims and passed legislation that reflected this I might spend a lot of time dis cussing it. Even if he had little effect on my life personally I might try my best to understand why he believes this. He sounds delightfully mad.
Atheism is different. It is a deep convicted belief that there is no god just as strong as belief in a god.
I do not speak for other atheists but in my case this is untrue. If presented with incontrovertible evidence of some god(s) I would be forced to believe. Does that seem unreasonable to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
unless you want to argue that physics is rational
Physics is predictable not rational. This allows us to understand our universe rationally and logically but logic and reason are human systems of thought that are useful in making (sometimes incorrect) predictions. Predictions made in this way should have some method of falsification or there is no way to know if they are in fact correct. How do we falsify freewill? How are making a descision and coming to a conclusion testably different from one another?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Even if some supercomputer were built that recognized logic and acted upon it it would still not have freewill it would just be reacting logically. How is human behavior demonstrably different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
There is no reason to think that computers recognize logic or anything else they simply follow their programming but if some hypothetical super computers did recognize logic there is no reason to think they would not still simply follow their programming.
Created: