Hi, Prince Thrash.
I think you've misunderstood a couple of my statements:
| Prince Thrash writes: ...Bluejay believes that a motivating factor is a type of determinist agent. |
I said
attributing an action to a motivating factor is a deterministic
argument: I did not say a motivating factor is a deterministic
agent.
The observation that a certain behavior is a response to an external stimulus doesn’t give any information about how that stimulus is translated into that response, so it doesn’t tell us whether the response is compulsory or volitional.
For instance, we both think Dr Adequate’s hunger motivates him to eat.
You interpret this as an input-output, stimulus-response engine whereby the motivating factor compels the response to follow.
I (for the purposes of this debate) interpret it as a free-willed decision process whereby Dr Adequate evaluates the motivating factor(s) and selects what he deems to be an appropriate response.
Both viewpoints involve external stimuli, and responses to those stimuli.
Do you have any reason to reject the notion that Dr Adequate’s response is a decision based on evaluation of the motivating factor?
If you do, you haven’t shown it to us yet.
If you don't, then the argument you presented in your opening post is inconclusive.
-----
| Prince Thrash writes: As [Bluejay] said, even the presence of the "personality" is counter to free will. |
And, I didn’t say that either. Again, I said
attributing an action to a personality is a deterministic
argument, not that a personality itself is a deterministic
agent.
A personality is a syndrome that influences and/or results from the decisions a person makes. It may be a compulsory syndrome that dictates inexorably the person’s response in each situation; or it may serve as an advisor, to modulate the input(s) into a free-willed, decision-making process; or, it may not even be an influence at all, but just an external expression of the sum total of past decisions.
But, arguing that a syndrome influences one's decisions is not the same as arguing that the syndrome is solely responsible for those decisions.
-----
| Prince Thrash writes: I believe you've inferred that I'm trying to convince some specific group? |
That was my original thought, yes. A logical argument is always an attempt to convince somebody of something.
But, regardless, your argument still needs to address real theistic positions; otherwise, it doesn’t accomplish anything. As it stands, your argument is just a statement of the fundamental concept of determinism, which doesn’t really grant it any power to draw meaningful conclusions.
-----
| Prince Thrash writes: Again, the "will" can be said to be phenomenally apparent... The *freedom* of that will, however, must be deduced/applied to that phenomenon, and is not evident within the phenomenon itself. |
When you argue against religious beliefs, you don’t get to start with the premise that the religious belief is wrong: you have to
demonstrate that the belief is wrong.
Religious people believe that God’s will is free will: if this belief is correct, then it fully resolves the problem you introduced in your opening post, and the contradiction that you’re seeing doesn’t actually exist.
So, you have to show that your argument still holds true,
even if God really does have free will. Otherwise, your simple logical exercise is inconclusive.
Edited by Bluejay, : "Modulate" was the word I wanted.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2