22 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadGiven a choice between A and B what is the 'reason' for choosing A? You have already stated that on a rerun of the experiment with identical conditions you might choose B. So what is the 'reason'? Answer that or accept that your choice is random. WHITEY
Well maybe you can explain how something that is not caused has meaning? The words meaning, reason etc imply causation. You claim there is no cause but there is meaning and reasons. You are just contradicting yourself over and over.
[b]This is not an appropriate description for God. Self determined and self sufficient causation independent of any exter might choose B. So what is the 'reason'? Answer that or accept that your choice is random.
There is absolutely no obligation on my to accept your two alternatives as being the only two alternatives possible until you prove your premise. You might as well say that I must accept I am wrong because I am wrong.
I have already said that what you regard as self evident is not to me. The reason why one would choose A is the reasons associated with A and if I choose B then likewise. You are unable to conceive of a reasoned choice that is not causally forced by some causal agent . I am able to do this. A reasoned choice that is not causally determined or forced is not an option that you will consider but you continue to express your view as self evident without being honest enough to say that you cannot prove it.
I am free to choose A or B for the reasons that are attached to A or B. I may choose A on one occasion because by an effort of will I decide to surrender to God's will. On another occasion I may not surrender and go my own way (B). Both these options are really open to me (which is what makes it a real choice not a pseudo choice) and I am responsible for either choice based on my own will and my own efforts (eg- I cannot blame forced causation for my actions or say that I was "determined" to do what I did - it's down to me and me only). The reason for me to choose A or B is because I willed either A or B. The rationale for the choice A or B is contained within A and B themselves.
22 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterAre you really unable to see or are you intentionally missing the point? The question is about what is the reason for the reasons for A getting chosen over the reasons for B.
I have already said that what you regard as self evident is not to me. The reason why one would choose A is the reasons associated with A and if I choose B then likewise.
Take an analogy.
I am offered a sweet.
A. My reasons for choosing to take and eat it are that I like sweets.
B. My reasons for refusing it are that I know it will make me fat.
The question being asked is why the reasons A trump the reasons B or vice versa. You are deliberately misunderstanding and saying that the A reasons are the answer sometimes and the B reasons are the answer at other times.
Now answer the question honestly. On a particular run of the experiment A is chosen. What is the reason why A was chosen and not B.
What makes you 'will' one and not the other?
22 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am offered a sweet.
Are you really unable to see or are you intentionally missing the point? The question is about what is the reason for the reasons for A getting chosen over the reasons for B.
Take an analogy.
I am offered a sweet.
A. My reasons for choosing to take and eat it are that I like sweets.
B. My reasons for refusing it are that I know it will make me fat.
T ...[text shortened]... What is the reason why A was chosen and not B.
What makes you 'will' one and not the other?
A. My reasons for choosing to take and eat it are that I like sweets.
B. My reasons for refusing it are that I know it will make me fat. WHITEY
RESPONSE----------------
(Before I start bear in mind that the below does neccesarily not apply to all situations since my argument does not rest on ALL choices being free will choices)
It is a question of will power and effort. I can choose to eat the sweet on the basis that instant gratification is better than dieting or I can choose to go for the long term benefits and miss out in the short term. Now , I may feel and know that dieting is the best way to go. I may reason that logically refusing instant gratification pays off over sticky sweets.
But........ it would be naive to assume that just because I know this that this reasoning alone will automatically cause me to refuse the sweet , it may or may not. We are not always rational creatures. Introspection tells me that what is also needed is effort , committment and willpower. This is something that I can choose to do or not . I can choose to commit to A or B and if I choose B the rationale for this choice will be as above (that dieting is better in the long run). If I choose B then the rationale will be those reasons attached to A ( interestingly in this case I will probably come up with a rationalisation like "oh well , one won't hurt" )
Therefore both choices are possible . Both choices are not random and have a reasoning attached to them and one of them will be chosen by a deliberate committment by me as an act of will. This power to choose by will or effort is available to me and I can use it or not use it. The choice is mine.
Thus A trumps B or B trumps A on the basis of a committment of will which I am free to apply or not apply.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat makes you 'will' one and not the other? whitey
Are you really unable to see or are you intentionally missing the point? The question is about what is the reason for the reasons for A getting chosen over the reasons for B.
Take an analogy.
I am offered a sweet.
A. My reasons for choosing to take and eat it are that I like sweets.
B. My reasons for refusing it are that I know it will make me fat.
T ...[text shortened]... What is the reason why A was chosen and not B.
What makes you 'will' one and not the other?
........Me!
26 Aug 07
so black and white this whole debate, may be there is no free will no determinisem(or however you spell it)no nothing but one vast illution we call us, what im trying to get at is our inability to perceave beyond the fisical and mental boundrys of are perception, lets think Quantem. wher more than one state can exsist at the same momment and place as another, so more than one truthe can be conradictory yet as true as another not to mention all the truthes that are beyond our comprehention..just a thought.
27 Aug 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt seems to me that one of the reasons that it is misleading to call knightmeister's "me" a random choice generator is that it is responsible for its choices, whereas a random process is presumably not.
So the Me is a random choice generator? Since without any changes to you, you sometimes choose A and sometimes B at random, and for no reason.
27 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by GregM"Responsible"? What does that mean in this context? Normally I see that word being used to describe the relationship between an event and a cause. In this way a RNG can be responsible for a particular outcome but you say it's not.
It seems to me that one of the reasons that it is misleading to call knightmeister's "me" a random choice generator is that it is responsible for its choices, whereas a random process is presumably not.
27 Aug 07
Originally posted by GregMWhy do you think that knightmeister's "me" is responsible for its choices but a random process is not? Especially considering that knightmeister's "me" is a random process.
It seems to me that one of the reasons that it is misleading to call knightmeister's "me" a random choice generator is that it is responsible for its choices, whereas a random process is presumably not.
The heart of knightmeister's problem is that he wants to keep the responsibility or 'ultimate cause' internal to his 'me' but cant identify any reason why his 'me' would make one choice and not another. There is really no choice but to accept that the 'ultimate cause' is either external to his 'me' or random in nature. He doesn't want either as the implications conflict with his religious beliefs so he simply ties himself in knots trying to avoid it even to the extent of saying things he knows to be false.
27 Aug 07
Sorry, I intended "responsible for its actions" to mean "can be held to account for its actions, can reasonably be rewarded, punished, etc. for them." You don't reward or punish random number generators based on the results they produce, but you do punish conscious decision-makers. Consider: why do we punish people for moral failures? Because when someone does something morally wrong, one can conceive of the same person in the same set of circumstances having acted differently. Does that mean that the moral decision in question was essentially a random process?
27 Aug 07
Originally posted by GregMYou clearly do not understand the purpose of punishment at all. Knightmeister has a similar problem as he believes in the Christian idea of punishment as a form of payment not as a method of correction.
You don't reward or punish random number generators based on the results they produce, but you do punish conscious decision-makers. Consider: why do we punish people for moral failures? Because when someone does something morally wrong, one can conceive of the same person in the same set of circumstances having acted differently.
In society we punish to correct behavior and occasionally as a form of revenge but that is an evolved tendency not a logical one. We do not punish because of free will as you seem to be claiming. Why God would punish has never been explained to me to my satisfaction.
Does that mean that the moral decision in question was essentially a random process?
knightmeister and you appear to be making that claim but hating the word.
27 Aug 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI suppose the point I am making is more concerned with punishment as justice rather than correction.
In society we punish to correct behavior and occasionally as a form of revenge but that is an evolved tendency not a logical one. We do not punish because of free will as you seem to be claiming.
Do you believe that a punishment can be just?
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by GregMThat is exactly what I am disputing. I do not believe that there exists a coherent concept of punishment as justice without any further meaning. An eye for an eye wont bring your eye back. A punishment can only be called 'just' if there is a reason for the punishment and not when the punishment is just there to be just.
I suppose the point I am making is more concerned with punishment as justice rather than correction.
Do you believe that a punishment can be just?
You probably believe in the typical Christian accounting system where God has a book of sins and a book of just punishments for each sin. But why does he punish? What is the purpose? Is it some natural law that a given sin has a given punishment?
Punishment must have a purpose and is either correctional or revenge. Revenge is little more than an evolved tendency, it is not a natural law.
28 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, nothing of the sort. I've been playing the devil's advocate, but I don't think my line of argument will work without the concept of a just punishment.
You probably believe in the typical Christian accounting system where God has a book of sins and a book of just punishments for each sin.
I don't agree with knightmeister, but instead of attacking the self-consistency of the idea of free will my preferred argument would be to point out that true free will seems to require some choosing entity outside the realm of physics and biology, for which there is no evidence.
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadBoy this is repetitive! I choose choice A because I will that choice--- the determining factor is me. Why do I will choice A over B and for what reason? - the reason is choice A itself and me willing it. Why would I choose choice B instead? - because of the reasons attached to choice B and my willing of choice B over A. The reason is me. There is nothing DRIVING me (ie forcing the choice deterministically or inevitably) - the ultimate choice is mine and mine alone. I tip the balance in favour of A or B. My will can operate in a non forced , non-determined manner , in your mind this means random chance , in my mind it does not. In my mind it simply means that the reason for my choice is not sufficient to FORCE the choice. Therefore , there is a rationale to the choice as well as a free will element.
So the Me is a random choice generator? Since without any changes to you, you sometimes choose A and sometimes B at random, and for no reason.