i agree. how can there be a reaction without an initial action to react to?
How can there be an action without motivation?
How can there be a motivation without stimulus?
How can there be stimulus without something entirely different?
How can there be something else without it having all of those properties as well?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
aren't some actions merely spontaneous thus requiring no motivation.
No
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree. Everything is unconsciously completely purposeful.
At the same time, free-will happens at a subjective level of experience. Subjective experience is not able to be reduced to mathematics. Subjective experience does not happen on the level of 3-d length/width/height, even though it is fully correlated to it. Subjective experience cannot be proven/disproven and therefore is unreachable by math/science for the simple reason that is is NOT objective as math/science is--it is self-evidently subjective, and by fundamental definition NOT objective.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Mathematics implies reason. Reason implies choice. Choice implies will. To suggest that "free-will is mathematically impossible" is to suggest an anti-concept stating that something can invalidate its own root.
how do reflexes have motivations? you do not need any brain function for reflexes to occur.
Yes you do, you need a nervous system, which consists of Neurons. The brain, spinal column and some stomach tissue contain neurons. This is the nervous system. When a doctor taps the knee of a patient, the kicking is the reflex action, and the hammering of the knee is the motivation.
For every cause there is an effect, conscious awareness is irrelevant to that, and I argue has no deliberating function in decision making. Awareness of pain, for example, is necissary, it is not necissary for the awareness of this pain to make decisions about it's awareness, that is handled by primarily subconscious activity.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Wow, here is an interesting Augustine quote I stumbled across.
"That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist; from the beginning of the human race until the time when Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christianity."
St. Augustine 354 C.E.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Mathematics implies reason. Reason implies choice. Choice implies will. To suggest that "free-will is mathematically impossible" is to suggest an anti-concept stating that something can invalidate its own root.
Will does not imply free-will.
This is the problem with this discussion, it always has been since ancient times. When a philosopher is going on about free-will, they are not referring to will, they are two different things, but so often the two are confused.
It's a mathematical impossibility because it suggests that a variable can determine it's own variability. For example, let us represent will with variable 'A'. A deterministic statement would be as follows; X + Y + Z = A. Let's suppose that A already has a value, as it would be ridiculous to assume that will could not have a value at any time. Another valid deterministic statement would be A + B + C = A; adding B and C to the existing value of A. To humanize this, let's suggest that A is the will to eat chocolate, B is the state of mind and C is environmental influence. In this case the will is subject to other variables.
Now, free-will suggests a will that is not subject to other variables, a will that is 'free from physical and divine determinants' X, Y, Z, B and C cannot be part of the equation for A to be free. So the statement would look like this A = A. Mathematically A would not change. Using computer programming language this free-will would be represented by A != A, or A is not equal to A, an impossibility. If I were to make a do/until loop in C++:
do
{
Some code
Until ( A != A )
}
this loop would run forever, it's an endless loop because A is always equal to A.
I hope this helps illustrate the circular nature of the concept of free-will and how it's a mathematical impossibility.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Hehe...will implies value. And that implies the conscious recognition and selection of that which you hope to obtain and achieve.
This is the problem with this discussion, it always has been since ancient times. When a philosopher is going on about free-will, they are not referring to will, they are two different things, but so often the two are confused.
Confused by only you, apparently, since I rarely find arguments that refer to will as "causeless".
It's a mathematical impossibility because it suggests that a variable can determine it's own variability. For example, let us represent will with variable 'A'. A deterministic statement would be as follows; X + Y + Z = A. Let's suppose that A already has a value, as it would be ridiculous to assume that will could not have a value at any time. Another valid deterministic statement would be A + B + C = A; adding B and C to the existing value of A. To humanize this, let's suggest that A is the will to eat chocolate, B is the state of mind and C is environmental influence. In this case the will is subject to other variables.
Now, free-will suggests a will that is not subject to other variables, a will that is 'free from physical and divine determinants' X, Y, Z, B and C cannot be part of the equation for A to be free. So the statement would look like this A = A. Mathematically A would not change. Using computer programming language this free-will would be represented by A != A, or A is not equal to A, an impossibility. If I were to make a do/until loop in C++:
do
{
Some code
Until ( A != A )
}
this loop would run forever, it's an endless loop because A is always equal to A.
I hope this helps illustrate the circular nature of the concept of free-will and how it's a mathematical impossibility.
:rolleyes:
Yet all of this was dependent on reason. In a deterministic world, reason is an impossibility.
How come you never ask yourself the basic question: if my ideas are determined, how can I have any ability to test these ideas against reality and determine truth? In other words, if you are not responsible for your own knowledge and the application of that knowledge, how do you know God isn't just fucking with you?
Hehe...will implies value. And that implies the conscious recognition and selection of that which you hope to obtain and achieve.
Will implies choice. Where do you get value? There is no conscious selection of anything. That's an illusion. There are only selections we are conscious of.
Confused by only you, apparently, since I rarely find arguments that refer to will as "causeless".
No, I just finished reading a book on this subject, not to mention all the other online research I've done. This confusion is expressed many many times.
:rolleyes:
Yet all of this was dependent on reason. In a deterministic world, reason is an impossibility.
How is that so?
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
Reason implies causality, it's based on causality. Without causality; is without reason. Our minds are dependent on our brains, and our brains cause our reason, by any definition that you choose. Perhaps when we discover disembodied minds we can reassess that, but that's not likely to happen, is it?
How come you never ask yourself the basic question: if my ideas are determined, how can I have any ability to test these ideas against reality and determine truth? In other words, if you are not responsible for your own knowledge and the application of that knowledge, how do you know God isn't just fucking with you?
Umm, what God? The Christian God? Yahweh is based on the premise that we have free-will to choose the path to Heaven or to Hell. In the absence of free-will, the Christian God makes no sense.
This issue of testing my ideas has been done forever. How could Democritus and Leucippus in 500 B.C. know that matter is made up of atoms without testing or observing it? Furthermore Ben Libet's experiments, Dr. Michael A. Persinger's experiments, etc... The issues been beaten to death, it's the masses of mindless drones that reject it, because it's more socially awarding to believe what everyone else believes.
"Everything happens through immutable laws, ...everything is necessary... There are, some persons say, some events which are necessary and others which are not. It would be very comic that one part of the world was arranged, and the other were not; that one part of what happens had to happen and that another part of what happens did not have to happen. If one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that of destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason badly; others not to reason at all others to persecute those who reason." - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Will implies choice. Where do you get value? There is no conscious selection of anything. That's an illusion. There are only selections we are conscious of.
Value stems from consciousness. Value is the conscious recognition of that which makes life possible, and the rejection of that which stands opposed to it.
You say it's an "illusion". That's wonderful since that would imply the value of recognizing reality. As a determinist, you have no tool to recognize reality. The contents of your mind are simply inserted into it. Those contents have no real validity relative to your existence, and you've disarmed yourself of the only tool that makes you, you: reason: the willful acceptance of knowledge as a value that can only extend from a willful agent.
No, I just finished reading a book on this subject, not to mention all the other online research I've done. This confusion is expressed many many times.
No, you invented a strawman that doesn't live here and you continuously argue against it.
How is that so?
I said it above, but I'll let someone else say it here:
"Determinism denies the existence of any element of freedom or
volition in man's consciousness. It holds that every action, desire and
thought of man is determined by forces beyond his control.
But if man believes what he HAS to believe; if he is not free to test his
beliefs against reality and to validate or reject them; if the actions and
content of his mind are determined by factors that may or may not have
anything to do with reason logic and reality; then he can never know if his
conclusions are true or false. If his capacity to judge is not free there is
no way for a man to discriminate between his beliefs and those of a raving
lunatic. (Or to assert as truth the postulate of determinism.)" -David King
"The doctrine of determinism contains a central and insuperable contradiction - an EPISTEMOLOGICAL contradiction - a contradiction implicit in any variety of dererminism, whether the alleged determining forces be physical, psychological, environmental or divine. In fact, Man is neither omniscient nor infallible. This means: (a) that he must work to ACHIEVE his knowledge, and (b) that the mere presence of an idea inside his mind does not prove that the idea is true; many ideas may enter a man's mind which are false. But if man believes what he HAS to believe, if he is not free to test his beliefs against reality and to validate or reject them - if the actions and content of his mind are determined by factors that may or may not have anything to do with reason, logic and reality - then he can never know if his conclusions are true or false....But if this were true, no knowledge - no CONCEPTUAL knowledge - would be possible to man. No theory could claim greater plausibility than any other - including the theory of psychological determinism." -The Objectivist Newsletter,1963
Reason implies causality, it's based on causality. Without causality; is without reason. Our minds are dependent on our brains, and our brains cause our reason, by any definition that you choose. Perhaps when we discover disembodied minds we can reassess that, but that's not likely to happen, is it?
Reason does imply causality, as well as the recognition of causality. I've already given you causal trail of free-will dozens of times on this board. Your response every time has amounted to nothing more than "no, that's not right" or "you're myopic".
Umm, what God? The Christian God? Yahweh is based on the premise that we have free-will to choose the path to Heaven or to Hell. In the absence of free-will, the Christian God makes no sense.
Hehe....the argument is that Yahweh is the creator of free-will. I told you a long time that you and the religiouso are not that different. You should be able to recognize the similarity when you consider your own thoughts on responsibility for man's capacities -- both you and the Christians are very serious of ensuring that each and every man is a slave to that which owns him. They call theirs "God". You call yours "causality". Your aims are quite the same.
Value stems from consciousness. Value is the conscious recognition of that which makes life possible, and the rejection of that which stands opposed to it.
You say it's an "illusion". That's wonderful since that would imply the value of recognizing reality. As a determinist, you have no tool to recognize reality. The contents of your mind are simply inserted into it. Those contents have no real validity relative to your existence, and you've disarmed yourself of the only tool that makes you, you: reason: the willful acceptance of knowledge as a value that can only extend from a willful agent.
No, you invented a strawman that doesn't live here and you continuously argue against it.
I said it above, but I'll let someone else say it here:
"Determinism denies the existence of any element of freedom or
volition in man's consciousness. It holds that every action, desire and
thought of man is determined by forces beyond his control.
But if man believes what he HAS to believe; if he is not free to test his
beliefs against reality and to validate or reject them; if the actions and
content of his mind are determined by factors that may or may not have
anything to do with reason logic and reality; then he can never know if his
conclusions are true or false. If his capacity to judge is not free there is
no way for a man to discriminate between his beliefs and those of a raving
lunatic. (Or to assert as truth the postulate of determinism.)" -David King
""The doctrine of determinism contains a central and insuperable contradiction - an EPISTEMOLOGICAL contradiction - a contradiction implicit in any variety of dererminism, whether the alleged determining forces be physical, psychological, environmental or divine. In fact, Man is neither omniscient nor infallible. This means: (a) that he must work to ACHIEVE his knowledge, and (b) that the mere presence of an idea inside his mind does not prove that the idea is true; many ideas may enter a man's mind which are false. But if man believes what he HAS to believe, if he is not free to test his beliefs against reality and to validate or reject them - if the actions and content of his mind are determined by factors that may or may not have anything to do with reason, logic and reality - then he can never know if his conclusions are true or false....But if this were true, no knowledge - no CONCEPTUAL knowledge - would be possible to man. No theory could claim greater plausibility than any other - including the theory of psychological
determinism." -The Objectivist Newsletter,1963
Reason does imply causality, as well as the recognition of causality. I've already given you causal trail of free-will dozens of times on this board. Your response every time has amounted to nothing more than "no, that's not right" or "you're myopic".
Hehe....the argument is that Yahweh is the creator of free-will. I told you a long time that you and the religiouso are not that different. You should be able to recognize the similarity when you consider your own thoughts on responsibility for man's capacities -- both you and the Christians are very serious of ensuring that each and every man is a slave to that which owns him. They call theirs "God". You call yours "causality". Your aims are quite the same.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That definition of determinism is the definition of indeterminism. Nice play on the subject, but it's quite wrong.
I haven't seen any causality for Free-will. You haven't given any reason for it. And if you had, then the will would be caused and not free.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If your knowledge is determined, how do you know is it correct?
Observation
Hehe...."if you had answered my question, I would have been right regardless of what you said". You're sure you're not religious???
That's not what I said. I said if will has a cause, it's not free.
"neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events."
- Albert Einstein
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Observation is wonderful. Unfortunately, observing something doesn't prove a thing in a world where you cannot freely apply reason to what you observe. Go ahead and observe all you want.
That's not what I said. I said if will has a cause, it's not free.
"neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events."
- Albert Einstein
Like I said, you're arguing against a strawman. No one here is saying that free-will is some spectral concept unrelated to physiology.
Oh...and if you want to trade Einstein, try this one:
"Out yonder there is this huge world, which exists independently of us
human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at
least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking."
Kind of means Einstein likes to contradict himself too.
Observation is wonderful. Unfortunately, observing something doesn't prove a thing in a world where you cannot freely apply reason to what you observe. Go ahead and observe all you want.
Why can't I apply causality to what I observe? I do it all the time, we all do.
Like I said, you're arguing against a strawman. No one here is saying that free-will is some spectral concept unrelated to physiology.
Oh...and if you want to trade Einstein, try this one:
"Out yonder there is this huge world, which exists independently of us
human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at
least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking."
Kind of means Einstein likes to contradict himself too.
Wow dude. That quote by Einstein doesn't imply human or divine will. It's a totally unrelated quote. Now I see why you don't understand the concept. No worries, it's a difficult concept to grasp and few will ever understand it.
"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Why can't I apply causality to what I observe? I do it all the time, we all do.
Hehe...because you can't apply anything. You are determined. Whether or not "you" "apply causality" has nothing to do with you. You either will, or your won't. Reason implies that you can, or cannot, freely.
Wow dude. That quote by Einstein doesn't imply human or divine will. It's a totally unrelated quote. Now I see why you don't understand the concept. No worries, it's a difficult concept to grasp and few will ever understand it.
You wonder why people impugn you? It's one thing to be condescending to an opposing idea, it's another to be condescending to the author.
But I won't lose any sleep over not "understanding" your ideas. After all, it's not my fault. And you understanding them is not your success. Puppets do as they are told.
"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein
Hehe....funny how the "invisible piper" wouldn't really fit into your "observation" model, eh?
Hehe...because you can't apply anything. You are determined. Whether or not "you" "apply causality" has nothing to do with you. You either will, or your won't. Reason implies that you can, or cannot, freely.
'I' as the sum of my determinants. An entity of organic life in it's totality.
'I' am determined to suspect that 'I' am determined. 'I' am determined to apply causal inference to reality. Causal inference is a very deterministic system.
You wonder why people impugn you? It's one thing to be condescending to an opposing idea, it's another to be condescending to the author.
But I won't lose any sleep over not "understanding" your ideas. After all, it's not my fault. And you understanding them is not your success. Puppets do as they are told.
That's right, and I should not apologize for my state of mind, as it is the result of determinants. But I will, for it's biosocial merit.
Hehe....funny how the "invisible piper" wouldn't really fit into your "observation" model, eh?
The "invisible piper" is figurative. It may simply be a set of fundamental rules, as opposed to an actual entity. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.
"All things in nature proceed from certain necessity and with the utmost perfection" - Benedict de Spinoza, a.k.a, Baruch Spinoza
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
'I' as the sum of my determinants. An entity of organic life in it's totality.
Hehe...congratulations. You have quite the view of yourself.
'I' am determined to suspect that 'I' am determined. 'I' am determined to apply causal inference to reality. Causal inference is a very deterministic system.
You are determined to apply causal inference to reality??? Cool. Unfortunately, you can easily be determined to be completely incorrect in your application. And since you have no free reason to actually measure your determinants against, you have no ability to claim truth.
That's right, and I should not apologize for my state of mind, as it is the result of determinants. But I will, for it's biosocial merit.
I'm not asking you to apologize. Funny, however, that you choose to apologize instead of absolving yourself of any responsibility for success, as my earlier post implicated.
The "invisible piper" is figurative. It may simply be a set of fundamental rules, as opposed to an actual entity. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.
"All things in nature proceed from certain necessity and with the utmost perfection" - Benedict de Spinoza, a.k.a, Baruch Spinoza
Cool. So you see now how the Christian God and your determinants share more in common than in difference? Probably not.
Hehe...congratulations. You have quite the view of yourself.
You are determined to apply causal inference to reality??? Cool. Unfortunately, you can easily be determined to be completely incorrect in your application. And since you have no free reason to actually measure your determinants against, you have no ability to claim truth.
Yes, a newborn child is evidence of causal inference as innate in humans. I don't know where you are trying to go with the rest of your logic, but it's not working.
I'm not asking you to apologize. Funny, however, that you choose to apologize instead of absolving yourself of any responsibility for success, as my earlier post implicated.
I didn't say that.
Cool. So you see now how the Christian God and your determinants share more in common than in difference? Probably not.
No, they share very little in common.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes, a newborn child is evidence of causal inference as innate in humans. I don't know where you are trying to go with the rest of your logic, but it's not working.
I didn't say that.
No, they share very little in common.
Meh...this beats "you're myopic" or just plain "no, you're wrong".
Augustine: Why would you want to know that? For the cause of the will means there is no sin, and no one to label a sinner. We must only look at the will it's self.
Oh great! That makes a lot of sense. We can't label people sinners if we look too deep into human nature, so let's just stop at that place where we can blame people. Don't get too close to disproving your own religion, I guess that's the idea.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I finished that Augustine book today and I gotta say, it's some of the most rubbish I've ever read on Free-will. He talks about the fundamentals of free-will very very briefly, the rest of the book reads like a Catholic Preacher. Worst of all, I couldn't make sense out of any of it.
Example; He says that the reason children are born with terminal illnesses, is not because they sinned, but because their parents sinned.
Well, holy shit, we are all screwed. I'm sure someone in my family line did something God wouldn't like. I've done a number of things myself.
Anyway, the basic feel of the book is that you must submit to God and obey the eternal law. I could have been reading the Bible, I swear it. It had footnotes citing the Bible. It's only reference is the Bible.
But probably my biggest problem is this; Evodius asks why two people would will something different and what is the cause of this variation? This is one of my biggest concerns with the free-will concept. But Augustine responds "Why would you want to look any further?" he rationalizes, if something does cause it then there can be no sin, and no sinner. So... he goes back to preaching from the Bible. Evodius didn't get another chance to speak before Augustine said "Well, we can talk about this forever, but we are out of book space."
Exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't make any sense. There is literally only two pages in this 125 page book that deal with the philosophical question of free-will. I just sat through hours of religious preaching and none of it made any sense to me, including the parts on free-will. It's unfortunate that this doesn't get me any closer to understanding Christians, in-fact, it boggles my mind how the key religious icons like Augustine can think like this. Furthermore how can you run out of book space? The book was only 125 pages.
But, none of these questions are addressed in the Bible either. When it comes down to it, I don't think any follower of God knows what the fuck any of it means. Out of all that rambling came a few good phrases, "Do unto others..." etc.. Which probably already existed 100,000 years or so before Moses.
I'm seriously not convinced that the solution to the question of Free-will is the Bible.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm seriously not convinced that the solution to the question of Free-will is the Bible.
You already have it anyway.
And before dissing Augustine remember you don't live in the same time/culture/city/country. I wonder what your philosophical tricks would have looked like at that time.
Comments
How can there be an action without motivation?
How can there be a motivation without stimulus?
How can there be stimulus without something entirely different?
How can there be something else without it having all of those properties as well?
aren't some actions merely spontaneous thus requiring no motivation.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No
so how do you explain reflex actions then ryan?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Reflexes have motivations
At the same time, free-will happens at a subjective level of experience. Subjective experience is not able to be reduced to mathematics. Subjective experience does not happen on the level of 3-d length/width/height, even though it is fully correlated to it. Subjective experience cannot be proven/disproven and therefore is unreachable by math/science for the simple reason that is is NOT objective as math/science is--it is self-evidently subjective, and by fundamental definition NOT objective.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This is yet another stolen concept. Reflexes have causes. Decisions, however, have motivations.
I doubt you would ever say that the carbon dioxide motivates global warming, would you?
Hehe...you have it backwards.
Mathematics implies reason. Reason implies choice. Choice implies will. To suggest that "free-will is mathematically impossible" is to suggest an anti-concept stating that something can invalidate its own root.
how do reflexes have motivations? you do not need any brain function for reflexes to occur.
Yes you do, you need a nervous system, which consists of Neurons. The brain, spinal column and some stomach tissue contain neurons. This is the nervous system. When a doctor taps the knee of a patient, the kicking is the reflex action, and the hammering of the knee is the motivation.
For every cause there is an effect, conscious awareness is irrelevant to that, and I argue has no deliberating function in decision making. Awareness of pain, for example, is necissary, it is not necissary for the awareness of this pain to make decisions about it's awareness, that is handled by primarily subconscious activity.
"That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist; from the beginning of the human race until the time when Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christianity."
St. Augustine 354 C.E.
Will does not imply free-will.
This is the problem with this discussion, it always has been since ancient times. When a philosopher is going on about free-will, they are not referring to will, they are two different things, but so often the two are confused.
It's a mathematical impossibility because it suggests that a variable can determine it's own variability. For example, let us represent will with variable 'A'. A deterministic statement would be as follows; X + Y + Z = A. Let's suppose that A already has a value, as it would be ridiculous to assume that will could not have a value at any time. Another valid deterministic statement would be A + B + C = A; adding B and C to the existing value of A. To humanize this, let's suggest that A is the will to eat chocolate, B is the state of mind and C is environmental influence. In this case the will is subject to other variables.
Now, free-will suggests a will that is not subject to other variables, a will that is 'free from physical and divine determinants' X, Y, Z, B and C cannot be part of the equation for A to be free. So the statement would look like this A = A. Mathematically A would not change. Using computer programming language this free-will would be represented by A != A, or A is not equal to A, an impossibility. If I were to make a do/until loop in C++:
do
{
Some code
Until ( A != A )
}
this loop would run forever, it's an endless loop because A is always equal to A.
I hope this helps illustrate the circular nature of the concept of free-will and how it's a mathematical impossibility.
Hehe...will implies value. And that implies the conscious recognition and selection of that which you hope to obtain and achieve.
Confused by only you, apparently, since I rarely find arguments that refer to will as "causeless".
:rolleyes:
Yet all of this was dependent on reason. In a deterministic world, reason is an impossibility.
How come you never ask yourself the basic question: if my ideas are determined, how can I have any ability to test these ideas against reality and determine truth? In other words, if you are not responsible for your own knowledge and the application of that knowledge, how do you know God isn't just fucking with you?
Will implies choice. Where do you get value? There is no conscious selection of anything. That's an illusion. There are only selections we are conscious of.
No, I just finished reading a book on this subject, not to mention all the other online research I've done. This confusion is expressed many many times.
How is that so?
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
Reason implies causality, it's based on causality. Without causality; is without reason. Our minds are dependent on our brains, and our brains cause our reason, by any definition that you choose. Perhaps when we discover disembodied minds we can reassess that, but that's not likely to happen, is it?
Umm, what God? The Christian God? Yahweh is based on the premise that we have free-will to choose the path to Heaven or to Hell. In the absence of free-will, the Christian God makes no sense.
This issue of testing my ideas has been done forever. How could Democritus and Leucippus in 500 B.C. know that matter is made up of atoms without testing or observing it? Furthermore Ben Libet's experiments, Dr. Michael A. Persinger's experiments, etc... The issues been beaten to death, it's the masses of mindless drones that reject it, because it's more socially awarding to believe what everyone else believes.
"Everything happens through immutable laws, ...everything is necessary... There are, some persons say, some events which are necessary and others which are not. It would be very comic that one part of the world was arranged, and the other were not; that one part of what happens had to happen and that another part of what happens did not have to happen. If one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that of destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason badly; others not to reason at all others to persecute those who reason." - Voltaire
Value stems from consciousness. Value is the conscious recognition of that which makes life possible, and the rejection of that which stands opposed to it.
You say it's an "illusion". That's wonderful since that would imply the value of recognizing reality. As a determinist, you have no tool to recognize reality. The contents of your mind are simply inserted into it. Those contents have no real validity relative to your existence, and you've disarmed yourself of the only tool that makes you, you: reason: the willful acceptance of knowledge as a value that can only extend from a willful agent.
No, you invented a strawman that doesn't live here and you continuously argue against it.
I said it above, but I'll let someone else say it here:
"Determinism denies the existence of any element of freedom or
volition in man's consciousness. It holds that every action, desire and
thought of man is determined by forces beyond his control.
But if man believes what he HAS to believe; if he is not free to test his
beliefs against reality and to validate or reject them; if the actions and
content of his mind are determined by factors that may or may not have
anything to do with reason logic and reality; then he can never know if his
conclusions are true or false. If his capacity to judge is not free there is
no way for a man to discriminate between his beliefs and those of a raving
lunatic. (Or to assert as truth the postulate of determinism.)" -David King
"The doctrine of determinism contains a central and insuperable contradiction - an EPISTEMOLOGICAL contradiction - a contradiction implicit in any variety of dererminism, whether the alleged determining forces be physical, psychological, environmental or divine. In fact, Man is neither omniscient nor infallible. This means: (a) that he must work to ACHIEVE his knowledge, and (b) that the mere presence of an idea inside his mind does not prove that the idea is true; many ideas may enter a man's mind which are false. But if man believes what he HAS to believe, if he is not free to test his beliefs against reality and to validate or reject them - if the actions and content of his mind are determined by factors that may or may not have anything to do with reason, logic and reality - then he can never know if his conclusions are true or false....But if this were true, no knowledge - no CONCEPTUAL knowledge - would be possible to man. No theory could claim greater plausibility than any other - including the theory of psychological determinism." -The Objectivist Newsletter,1963
Reason does imply causality, as well as the recognition of causality. I've already given you causal trail of free-will dozens of times on this board. Your response every time has amounted to nothing more than "no, that's not right" or "you're myopic".
Hehe....the argument is that Yahweh is the creator of free-will. I told you a long time that you and the religiouso are not that different. You should be able to recognize the similarity when you consider your own thoughts on responsibility for man's capacities -- both you and the Christians are very serious of ensuring that each and every man is a slave to that which owns him. They call theirs "God". You call yours "causality". Your aims are quite the same.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That definition of determinism is the definition of indeterminism. Nice play on the subject, but it's quite wrong.
I haven't seen any causality for Free-will. You haven't given any reason for it. And if you had, then the will would be caused and not free.
Answer this question:
If your knowledge is determined, how do you know it is correct?
Hehe...."if you had answered my question, I would have been right regardless of what you said". You're sure you're not religious???
That's not what I said. I said if will has a cause, it's not free.
"neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events."
- Albert Einstein
Observation is wonderful. Unfortunately, observing something doesn't prove a thing in a world where you cannot freely apply reason to what you observe. Go ahead and observe all you want.
Like I said, you're arguing against a strawman. No one here is saying that free-will is some spectral concept unrelated to physiology.
Oh...and if you want to trade Einstein, try this one:
"Out yonder there is this huge world, which exists independently of us
human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at
least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking."
Kind of means Einstein likes to contradict himself too.
Why can't I apply causality to what I observe? I do it all the time, we all do.
Wow dude. That quote by Einstein doesn't imply human or divine will. It's a totally unrelated quote. Now I see why you don't understand the concept. No worries, it's a difficult concept to grasp and few will ever understand it.
"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein
Hehe...because you can't apply anything. You are determined. Whether or not "you" "apply causality" has nothing to do with you. You either will, or your won't. Reason implies that you can, or cannot, freely.
You wonder why people impugn you? It's one thing to be condescending to an opposing idea, it's another to be condescending to the author.
But I won't lose any sleep over not "understanding" your ideas. After all, it's not my fault. And you understanding them is not your success. Puppets do as they are told.
Hehe....funny how the "invisible piper" wouldn't really fit into your "observation" model, eh?
'I' as the sum of my determinants. An entity of organic life in it's totality.
'I' am determined to suspect that 'I' am determined. 'I' am determined to apply causal inference to reality. Causal inference is a very deterministic system.
That's right, and I should not apologize for my state of mind, as it is the result of determinants. But I will, for it's biosocial merit.
The "invisible piper" is figurative. It may simply be a set of fundamental rules, as opposed to an actual entity. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.
"All things in nature proceed from certain necessity and with the utmost perfection" - Benedict de Spinoza, a.k.a, Baruch Spinoza
Hehe...congratulations. You have quite the view of yourself.
You are determined to apply causal inference to reality??? Cool. Unfortunately, you can easily be determined to be completely incorrect in your application. And since you have no free reason to actually measure your determinants against, you have no ability to claim truth.
I'm not asking you to apologize. Funny, however, that you choose to apologize instead of absolving yourself of any responsibility for success, as my earlier post implicated.
Cool. So you see now how the Christian God and your determinants share more in common than in difference? Probably not.
Yes, a newborn child is evidence of causal inference as innate in humans. I don't know where you are trying to go with the rest of your logic, but it's not working.
I didn't say that.
No, they share very little in common.
Meh...this beats "you're myopic" or just plain "no, you're wrong".
Until next time, Ahnimus.
Evodius: What causes the variation of will?
Augustine: Why would you want to know that? For the cause of the will means there is no sin, and no one to label a sinner. We must only look at the will it's self.
Oh great! That makes a lot of sense. We can't label people sinners if we look too deep into human nature, so let's just stop at that place where we can blame people. Don't get too close to disproving your own religion, I guess that's the idea.
Example; He says that the reason children are born with terminal illnesses, is not because they sinned, but because their parents sinned.
Well, holy shit, we are all screwed. I'm sure someone in my family line did something God wouldn't like. I've done a number of things myself.
Anyway, the basic feel of the book is that you must submit to God and obey the eternal law. I could have been reading the Bible, I swear it. It had footnotes citing the Bible. It's only reference is the Bible.
But probably my biggest problem is this; Evodius asks why two people would will something different and what is the cause of this variation? This is one of my biggest concerns with the free-will concept. But Augustine responds "Why would you want to look any further?" he rationalizes, if something does cause it then there can be no sin, and no sinner. So... he goes back to preaching from the Bible. Evodius didn't get another chance to speak before Augustine said "Well, we can talk about this forever, but we are out of book space."
Exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't make any sense. There is literally only two pages in this 125 page book that deal with the philosophical question of free-will. I just sat through hours of religious preaching and none of it made any sense to me, including the parts on free-will. It's unfortunate that this doesn't get me any closer to understanding Christians, in-fact, it boggles my mind how the key religious icons like Augustine can think like this. Furthermore how can you run out of book space? The book was only 125 pages.
But, none of these questions are addressed in the Bible either. When it comes down to it, I don't think any follower of God knows what the fuck any of it means. Out of all that rambling came a few good phrases, "Do unto others..." etc.. Which probably already existed 100,000 years or so before Moses.
I'm seriously not convinced that the solution to the question of Free-will is the Bible.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
And before dissing Augustine remember you don't live in the same time/culture/city/country. I wonder what your philosophical tricks would have looked like at that time.