poor old hitler

Originally posted by knightmeister
It would be silly to think that I could never had made the choice to pay more attention to road signs (your view) .

And even sillier to think it was all down to random bad luck (your view).

How can you hold someone morally responsible if they just make random decisions? Surely it only makes sense to hold someone responsible if their decisions were determined by who they are.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And even sillier to think it was all down to random bad luck (your view).

How can you hold someone morally responsible if they just make random decisions? Surely it only makes sense to hold someone responsible if their decisions were [b]determined by who they are.[/b]

The problem is that "who we are" is potentially a lot of different things. I am aware of both the careful driver and the lazy careless driver in me at the same time. This static idea that you have that we are rigidly one person and one person only doesn't fit with me. As I said before there is both painter and mass murderer in hitler. His potential to be a painter was something he chose not to bring out.

In this sense my choices are not random but based on a rational knowledge both of who I am and who I could become if I choose poorly. My decisions can also be decided on the basis who I would like to become.

Originally posted by dottewell
No; it requires only that IF they had known, THEN they would have driven more slowly. That can be true, even in a deterministic universe.

Can you understand this?

I understand. But the problem I have is that people do kind of know that they are driving recklessely but employ all sorts of self deception to suppress this knowledge of what they are doing (eg -it'll never happen to me) This is a choice , made sometimes knowingly but then lodged in the unconscious because the person tricks themselves into thinking they have "really good reactions". We have all engaged in this type of thinking at some point and when something happens we can't say "I didn't know".

Originally posted by dottewell
The choice to drive more carefully is always open to us.

The choice to drive more carefully is always open to us....

...........BUT only if it is determined. If it is determined that the choice is not there then it won't be (in your view).

Originally posted by knightmeister
I understand. But the problem I have is that people do kind of know that they are driving recklessely but employ all sorts of self deception to suppress this knowledge of what they are doing (eg -it'll never happen to me) This is a choice , made sometimes knowingly but then lodged in the unconscious because the person tricks themselves into thinking th ...[text shortened]... s type of thinking at some point and when something happens we can't say "I didn't know".

I don't disagree - although of course this has nothing to do with the problem of free will.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The choice to drive more carefully is always open to us....

...........BUT only if it is determined. If it is determined that the choice is not there then it won't be (in your view).

It's not clear what your point is here. I can agree with some interpretations of this statement (e.g. the case where someone is in a persistent vegitative state; obviously they can't make such choices).

I think what you are trying to say here is again based on an assumption that a "free choice" must be incompatible with determinism. I - and others - simply reject this as a false dilemma. So to say its determined whether we can make a free choice, in the way you seem to mean, is wrong. Although whether we do so choose is indeed determined.

Originally posted by dottewell
It's not clear what your point is here. I can agree with some interpretations of this statement (e.g. the case where someone is in a persistent vegitative state; obviously they can't make such choices).

I think what you are trying to say here is again based on an assumption that a "free choice" must be incompatible with determinism. I - a ...[text shortened]... n the way you seem to mean, is wrong. Although whether we do so choose is indeed determined.

Maybe I need to clarify what you mean by the "choice always being open to us". What do you mean by 'us'? Do you mean that a door is open through which we may walk if we choose to? But surely you can't mean that becasue if we choose to implies that we might not choose to.

Do you mean that at any moment I can choose to become a more careful driver and thus become something I am not at that moment in time? Is there a potential "careful driver" in me waiting to emerge.? If so why has it not emerged before? Is it because I chose for it not to emerge , or is because I was waiting for some knowledge to come along that would enlighten me? If so then the choice is not always open to me is it? I need something to happen in the deterministic universe to make it happen. I can't just choose whenever I like , if I could then why have I waited so long?

There's a saying in this book I've got that goes " At any moment I could choose to live my life differently and fulfil my potential. The problem is , which moment shall I choose?"

Originally posted by knightmeister
Maybe I need to clarify what you mean by the "choice always being open to us". What do you mean by 'us'? Do you mean that a door is open through which we may walk if we choose to? But surely you can't mean that becasue if we choose to implies that we might not choose to.

It means we could choose not to. That's a very important difference.

As to why you're not a more careful driver - you tell me.

Originally posted by dottewell
It means we could choose not to. That's a very important difference.

As to why you're not a more careful driver - you tell me.

What do you mean "we could choose not to" ? Do you mean that the choice to become a more careful driver is a real possibilty AND the choice to not become a more careful driver is also really possible?

If you DO mean this then surely this means that we could make a choice that we don't have to make and if we do make that choice then we really could have done otherwise (ie choose not to).

If you say there is a situation where we can either choose or not choose then there are logically two possible outcomes and you are into free will territory.

Originally posted by dottewell
It means we could choose not to. That's a very important difference.

As to why you're not a more careful driver - you tell me.

As to why you're not a more careful driver - you tell me. Dotty

Probably laziness I guess. I'm pretty careful and rarely speed , but there's always room for improvement. Are you a perfect driver? Do you always give 100% concentration all the time?

Originally posted by knightmeister
What do you mean "we could choose not to" ? Do you mean that the choice to become a more careful driver is a real possibilty AND the choice to not become a more careful driver is also really possible?

Not - for the thousanth time - I don't mean that, and I don't have to. Free will doesn't require alternative "real" possibililties. You haven't proved that it does, or ever attempted to. You've simply assumed that it does, despite me and others suggesting a perfectly reasonable alternative.

I'll leave you here.

Originally posted by knightmeister
As to why you're not a more careful driver - you tell me. Dotty

Probably laziness I guess. I'm pretty careful and rarely speed , but there's always room for improvement. Are you a perfect driver? Do you always give 100% concentration all the time?

I'm an excellent driver. Just like Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

😉

All the best.

Originally posted by dottewell
Not - for the thousanth time - I don't mean that, and I don't have to. Free will doesn't require alternative "real" possibililties. You haven't proved that it does, or ever attempted to. You've simply assumed that it does, despite me and others suggesting a perfectly reasonable alternative.

I'll leave you here.

However , I then feel entitled to question what you mean by a choice always being open to us as if it were some kind of open door through which we could walk if we chose. In determinism it is clear that many choices are not open to us (even though subjectively they feel like they might be).

Originally posted by knightmeister
In this sense my choices are not random but based on a rational knowledge both of who I am and who I could become if I choose poorly. My decisions can also be decided on the basis who I would like to become.

Oh come on. You change your story every time you tell it. We established in another thread that in your view when a decision is based entirely on your character then it is not an example of free will and that a free will decision in your view was necessarily random at heart.
This whole discussion is becoming a waste of time because you change your position whenever it suits you but never seem to be able to state your position in clear concise English but rather wait for others to tease it out of you and then you change it.
If I were to mind read I would say that it is important to you that there exists a 'Christian' concept of free will that is incompatible with an 'atheist' concept and that this 'Christian' concept must be obviously correct. It appears that that is far more important to you than what that concept actually is or whether it makes any sense at all.
You also seem to have a very strong need not to be entirely a physical creature ie to have a supernatural part of you that somehow defines you and maintains control over the physical you.
You seem to be struggling with the fact that you are totally unable to provide any evidence for this or in fact justify such a view at all and are willing to go to any length to prove otherwise.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh come on. You change your story every time you tell it. We established in another thread that in your view when a decision is based entirely on your character then it is [b]not an example of free will and that a free will decision in your view was necessarily random at heart.
This whole discussion is becoming a waste of time because you change your ...[text shortened]... in fact justify such a view at all and are willing to go to any length to prove otherwise.[/b]

Oh come on. You change your story every time you tell it. We established in another thread that in your view when a decision is based entirely on your character then it is not an example of free will and that a free will decision in your view was necessarily random at heart.
This whole discussion is becoming a waste of time because you change your position whenever it suits you but never seem to be able to state your position in clear concise English but rather wait for others to tease it out of you and then you change it.WHITEY


RESPONSE----


If you hade been following my posts you would have known that I admitted that I made a pig's ear of my first description of free will. The truth is that I don't know exactly how God achieves this state whereby we are able to select from two possible courses of action. I do know it has something to do with the activity of the Holy Spirit. It also has something to do with how the Holy Spirit is able to offer a course of action to us without forcing it upon us. There is also a combination of reasons why may choose A or B and it is our job to make that selection. This means that there is a reasoning to our selections. I also combine this with my experience of making choices whereby I do feel that the future is not set and that I have my destiny (to an extent ) in my own hands. I also know that cause and effect do not always work predictably and deterministically (whcih was the point of my quantum physics thing). In addition there is also the question of why certain people do not fulfill their potential and why human personality is not fixed. Eg - many of us feel that we could have done something different with our lives.

The bottom line is that if I could answer this question coherently to your satisfaction then I would be a genius and be giving up my day job to pursue a career in philosophy. If I felt that it was Ok to admit that free will does present somewhat of a problem in terms of how to explain it without the immediate insinuation that therefore the idea is bunk then I would do (and am doing).

I am aware that some concepts are incoherent and hard to explain or grasp by others. I find your concept of point A and and circles of time equally difficult , but I have come to see that you honestly believe them as I do free will.