18 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course, unpredictable is not necessarily uncaused. That is to say that it does not necessarily follow that an event needs to be predictable to occur and that if an unpredictable event does occur, that it has no cause.
Is there a detectable difference between an unpredictable event and an uncaused (random) event.
If two elementary particles collide and one deflects at a given angle, we could not predict the angle at which it would deflect. The question is, is the angle of deflection uncaused or caused but unpredictable and does it really matter if there is no way to distinguish between the two?
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by StarrmanBut the two are indistinguishable nevertheless.
Of course, unpredictable is not necessarily uncaused. That is to say that it does not necessarily follow that an event needs to be predictable to occur and that if an unpredictable event does occur, that it has no cause.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by StarrmanSo you deal with what you feel you know is the reality of life (ie no free will and all the uncomfortable implications of this) by deliberately deluding yourself? I wonder whether the word "illusion" is correct in your case because you sound as if you are perfectly aware that what you believe intellectually is incongruent with what you believe experientially. If by illusion you mean coping mechanism then that is different. You have a need to believe in the free will illusion even though intellectually it makes no sense. I see nothing particularly wrong with this other than the fact that this might lead you to think that this is what theists are doing (ie self consciously believing in free will/God when they know it's bunkum) . However , this is not what many theists are doing . I believe in free will and I also live experientially in accordance with that belief. I could no longer accept your illusion than I could start believing that Santa was real. I know Santa isn't real and it's too late , the cat's out of the bag , I can't convince myself in any meaningful way that Santa is real anymore , the illusion is broken.
Fine you're entitled to your opinion. There's a massive body of evidence to suggest that everything is made up of purely natural substance, the existence of which is controlled by physical forces and can be described by physical laws. Everything acts and is acted upon in line with these processes. No event happens randomly, except on the subjective level ...[text shortened]... based not on a scientific view of the world, but your belief in what? Oh yes, an illusion...
Whether you believe in free will or not is not the issue. The issue is whether your belief is fragmented or coherent. I know I do not always live to what I believe, but I do aspire to it. The idea of convincing myself to believe something to be true when I know in the back of my mind it isn't as a coping mechanism just woulodn't work for me. The fact that it works for you interests me because it's not something I could do for very long if I tried.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by bbarrI think before going any further I need to clarify that I do not think that we always make free choices or that there are many choices that are determined or heavily influenced by other factors. So it's a complex situation. Sometimes a series of choices (like a habit) cause us to be determined to make certain choices later on.
O.K., so let's take some putatively free choice of yours, e.g. your choice to respond to my last post. Now, since it was free it did not have causally sufficient antecedents (that is, there were not prior causes sufficient to bring it about). Further, it was you that directly caused yourself to choose to respond to the post. My question is this: Did you freely choose to cause yourself to choose to respond to my post?
Did you freely choose to cause yourself to choose to respond to my post? BARR
To answer this I would say that if it was a free choice then I simply chose to respond . I would not have had to cause myself to choose to respond I would just have simply chosen.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell, now you've contradicted yourself. You claimed the following above:
I think before going any further I need to clarify that I do not think that we always make free choices or that there are many choices that are determined or heavily influenced by other factors. So it's a complex situation. Sometimes a series of choices (like a habit) cause us to be determined to make certain choices later on.
Did you freely choos ...[text shortened]... nd . I would not have had to cause myself to choose to respond I would just have simply chosen.
In order for my choice to be free I need to be the cause of my own choice and am thus accountable for it.
How would you like to deal with this contradiction? Would you like to take back this previous claim or would you prefer to jettison the new claim that you do not cause yourself to choose when you choose freely?
18 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrLighting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomd detonating unless the fuse is connected to the bomb, and connecting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb detonating unless the fuse is lit. BARR
Of course an effect is dependent in that sense on it's actual cause, but that claim is trivial and not the one that Freaky intended above. At least, I hope that Freaky intended to say something more than that effects are causally dependent on their actual causes; an unenlightening claim to say the least. I thought the dependency Freaky was talking about was ...[text shortened]... thing like a law-like relationship obtaining between types of causes and their typical effects.
I think Freaky was trying to simply state the basic relationship between cause and effect. I feel you have a bit of a misunderstanding reagrding your fuse and bomb idea. I really think this argument is quite flawed. To me , the probability of the bomb detonating would be based on the combined probability of a) someone lighting the fuse (50-50) and b) someone connecting the fuse with the bomb (say 50-50). Both of these need to happen to produce detonation. So if the fuse is lit then that is one less obstacle to the bomb going off. The probability of detonation has gone from 25% to 50% and thus increased. It's one thing to say that the fuse isn't connected to the bomb and another to say that there is a 0% chance it could EVER be connected to the bomb. To say the fuse ISN'T connected is meaningless as far as probability is concerned the real issue is what is it's chances of becoming connected.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by bbarrI would like to deal with it by pointing out that you have interpreted my language too rigidly and precisely (not entirely your fault as I can be sloppy on occasions) .
Well, now you've contradicted yourself. You claimed the following above:
[b]In order for my choice to be free I need to be the cause of my own choice and am thus accountable for it.
How would you like to deal with this contradiction? Would you like to take back this previous claim or would you prefer to jettison the new claim that you do not cause yourself to choose when you choose freely?[/b]
To be the cause of my own choice is just my clumsy way of saying I chose , that's all . The two are one and the same. Thus for me there is no contradiction because I'm just saying the same thing in two different ways , sorry for the confusion.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhen you've finished not only telling me what I believe, but also misrepresenting my position, perhaps you'd like to tell me how my belief is incongruent. I have yet to hear why I cannot know the world is a certain way physically and treat it as if it is another way ontologically. If we employed a kind of Cartesian scepticism and doubted the nature of existence itself, we wouldn't just cease to exist. We'd carry on acting as if we existed, but the fact that none of it may be real would still be there.
So you deal with what you feel you know is the reality of life (ie no free will and all the uncomfortable implications of this) by deliberately deluding yourself? I wonder whether the word "illusion" is correct in your case because you sound as if you are perfectly aware that what you believe intellectually is incongruent with what you believe experien ...[text shortened]... s for you interests me because it's not something I could do for very long if I tried.
I don't think theists believe in free will/god when they know it's bunk. In fact I truly think they are deluded enough to actually believe in magic and faeries.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterShame on him for expecting you to actually state what you mean, instead of some wooly, round about version of it...
I would like to deal with it by pointing out that you have interpreted my language too rigidly and precisely (not entirely your fault as I can be sloppy on occasions) .
To be the cause of my own choice is just my clumsy way of saying I chose , that's all . The two are one and the same. Thus for me there is no contradiction because I'm just saying the same thing in two different ways , sorry for the confusion.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm sorry if my penchant for precision makes it more difficult to interpret your claims. As a general rule, you shouldn't throw around words like "cause" willy-nilly in a debate about causal determinism and free will.
I would like to deal with it by pointing out that you have interpreted my language too rigidly and precisely (not entirely your fault as I can be sloppy on occasions) .
To be the cause of my own choice is just my clumsy way of saying I chose , that's all . The two are one and the same. Thus for me there is no contradiction because I'm just saying the same thing in two different ways , sorry for the confusion.
Anyway, you are now claiming that when you freely chose to respond to my post, you did not cause yourself to choose nor was your choice causally determined by any other factor.
So, what explains your choice to respond to my post? You claim that you "simply chose", but choices are events, and events admit of explanations. One perspicuous explanation for why you chose the way you did is that you had reasons that were causally sufficient to elicit your choice. But you can't avail yourself of this sort of explanation, since on your view free choices don't have causally sufficient antecedents. But if your free choice is uncaused, then apparently there is no explanation for why you chose the way you did. You certainly didn't exert any direct control over your choosing (for that would be to cause yourself to choose; an option you have already disavowed).
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo, throwing an unconnected carburetor into an empty engine casing increases the probability that the car will start?
Lighting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomd detonating unless the fuse is connected to the bomb, and connecting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb detonating unless the fuse is lit. BARR
I think Freaky was trying to simply state the basic relationship between cause and effect. I feel you have a bit of a misunderstandi ...[text shortened]... as probability is concerned the real issue is what is it's chances of becoming connected.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterIn the example given the probability that the fuse would EVER be connected to the bomb (within the time frame of the example) was fixed at 0.
To me , the probability of the bomb detonating would be based on the combined probability of a) someone lighting the fuse (50-50) and b) someone connecting the fuse with the bomb (say 50-50). Both of these need to happen to produce detonation. So if the fuse is lit then that is one less obstacle to the bomb going off. The probability of detonation ha ...[text shortened]... ar as probability is concerned the real issue is what is it's chances of becoming connected.
So, whatever other events take place, as long as the fuse being connected to the bomb is a requirement for the bomb going off, the probability of the bomb going off remains at 0 and is thus totally unaffected by any other events.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by bbarrIn this scenario that you have created, are you playing the part of God?
O.K., so when your deliberations are causally sufficient to bring about your choice, then your choice is not free. Free choices are only those choices that you directly cause. Do you agree with both of these claims?