|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free will: an illusion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Did you see the Sci-Fi Ch. Mini-series? They did the second one didn't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
No I'm only referring to the film (the one with Sting)
I haven't seen any other dune movie or series. I got the rest of the story from the books and that was a long time ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Granted you haven't begged the question as PY has done in supposing that thinking machines exist (us). But do you not see the horns of the dilemma on which you are caught?
I won't even waste my fingers on typing a response. The offer of stalemate was not proffered because I saw the arguments as equal. It was offered in order that we could move on. You are in an impossible position. The answer to the question must be no in order for the question to be asked. Let's see if Crevo has any more luck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I won't even waste my fingers on typing a response But in pointing to us as examples of thinking, considering, machines you were begging the question. Taking on board the assumption in question 1 of the OP and supposing yes you render yourself a machine and then state that machines can think and consider and answer questions. The only exhibit you offer is us - whose status (free willed vs machines) is the very thing under discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
But in pointing to us as examples of thinking, considering, machines you were begging the question.
Not in the least.All I was doing was pointing out that there can be no valid assumption that this ISN'T the case. Assuming either it is possible or it isn't possible are both erronious and since your entire refusal to move onto the question itself is based on your assumption then....... aking on board the assumption in question 1 of the OP and supposing yes you render yourself a machine and then state that machines can think and consider and answer questions.
Please stop telling me that I said things that I didn't.I never once claimed that we could think in the context of the "agreed upon" assumptions. I, in fact, stated that the assumptions imply that we cannot think at all. That we are NOT thinking. That we are mindless automatons who go through our existence following a carved-in-stone program. All free will is in fact illusion because we can never choose to do something that God knows we WON'T do. His knowing forbids it. That is the inference that your premises logically come out with. The only exhibit you offer is us - whose status (free willed vs machines) is the very thing under discussion.
And even then I don't claim that we are able to actually THINK for ourselves. We are here. That much is obvious. The nature of our reality is what is under discussion. If I unquestioningly accept the premises as laid down then I reach the conclusion that we DO NOT think for ourselves.To reach a different conclusion requires a different premise and you won't let us go there. Our discussion has 2 premises. Not 3. Not 4. just 2. 1 God exists2 God is A.K. Then we ask the question. Do these 2 premises logically imply a lack of free will. You refuse to addres the question because you want to bring a third premise into the fray. 3 Free will and true thought can only exist for a created creature. The question only becomes meaningless when you add this premise. I do not and will not accept this premise. It wasn't part of the original question and as such has no part in this discussion. You cannot arbitrarily exclude a possible outcome of the question based on a premise that does not exist in the context of the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
iano writes:
By machine you mean a being who's future is foreknown? non changeable? In taking on the assumption yourself and supposing a 'yes' you agree that that renders you a machine I will say this only one more time, PLEASE read it. Free will is negated by the presene of an all knowing God. God knows what will happen, there is no alternative to what God knows IF he is all knowing. therefore any choice we feel we are making is illusory. the outcome is known (by an A.K. God) there will be only one outcome. no matter what I do I cannot change the outcome because it is already known. So.. one of two things must be trueeither: 1) God is not all knowing, or 2) We do not have free will. So there are Two possible scenarios available to us to avoid this apparent illogicPersonally I feel answer (1) is more likely (Given that I seriously question the existance of any God anyway). But you can make your own choice. The point I am making is that answers (1) and (2) cannot both be wrong. because logically, if something is foreknown by an all knowing being It cannot be changed or affected. the dilemma is not with the question/proposition I am putting fwd it is is with your beilef that God is all knowing and we have free will THe question is:Does an all knowing God make free will an illusion? My answer is: Yes. so either: God is not all knowing and we have free will or God is all knowing and we have no free will but not both So, I have answered 'Yes' to the question. yet the answer is not illogical, The answer, however, shows the premise to be illogical, so the premise (The coexistance of A.K. god and free will) is flawed, incorrect.we must re examine that premise so that it is not illogical, hence the two options I have outlined above Creavolution writes:
so either:God is not all knowing and we have free will or God is all knowing and we have no free will but not both iano writes:
My personal take would lean more towards free will for me and a god who is not a.k. or does not exist at all.
a 'yes' you agree that that renders you a machine iano writes: The offer of stalemate was not proffered because I saw the arguments as equal. It was offered in order that we could move on. You are in an impossible position. The answer to the question must be no in order for the question to be asked. you have not shown this. I have, above, shown how I can answer the question with a yes. that yes answer shows the illogic of your position and requires that that position be re-evaluated. I really am begining to suspect you're being a little dishonest here iano, If you have nothing to add I suggest you simply move on to the other two points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
iano writes:
this may be the crux of your problem here iano.. the only alternative you see is that we do not have free will..and thus cannot even have this argument(a point you have not sufficiently backed up IMHO) Taking on board the assumption in question 1 of the OP and supposing yes you render yourself a machine and then state that machines can think and consider and answer questionsHowever, I offered two alternatives.. we have no free willor God is not all knowing I have repeatedly shown how a situation where our choices are known before we make them excludes free will. given that we cannot in truth affect those choices.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If I unquestioningly accept the premises as laid down then I reach the conclusion that we DO NOT think for ourselves. To reach a different conclusion requires a different premise and you won't let us go there. If you accept the premise that Crevo put up then you do not think - therefore you do not ask questions. What you must conclude is that because you do think God cannot be all knowing But that is not the question asked by Crevo. This is not about whether God is all knowing or not - that is assumed in the OP. Regarding the question: assuming an all knowing God and the fact that you think means that an all knowing God does NOT render free will illusionary It is not a question of me "not letting you go there". I am dealing with the question asked given the assumptions he posed If you hold to the assumptions and conclude that you do not in fact think then you are in no position, as a mere machine to ask questions - unless you can suggest a way whereby machines can ask questions (whilst not begging the question in assuming we are machines - for that assumes an answer to the question asked)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
iano writes:
you are misprepresenting me here... I gave TWO possible alternatives. If you accept the premise that Crevo put up then you do not think either we have no free will or god is not all knowing. iano writes:
Now.. assume a God who is NOT all knowing.... your free will can survive intact.
Regarding the question: assuming an all knowing God and the fact that you think means that an all knowing God does NOT render free will illusionary Creavolution in the OP writes: - It is my belief that if the Xian doctrine is to be believed, God is all knowing, and outside of time. He knows what will happen, what has happened, and what is happening. Therefore any notion of free will is a myth. We are merely playing out what is inevitable. Given this Predestination, I have the illusion of choice, but in truth there is only one path which can be followed, the one which Your God can see and knows to be true. My bold... so I started saying IF god is all knowing, then we cannot have true free will.If however God is NOT all knowing....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
this may be the crux of your problem here iano.. the only alternative you see is that we do not have free will..and thus cannot even have this argument(a point you have not sufficiently backed It is the crux of your problem - for the assumption in Q1 are yours. Questions cannot be answered by machines - unless you can argue machines answering questions. Avoid following PY in begging the question. It is not my dilemma to back up.
However, I offered two alternatives.. we have no free will or God is not all knowing This is not the issue we are dealing with in Q1. We have assumed God all knowing and work to the conclusions that arise from that. No is the only answer to that I suggest.
I have repeatedly shown how a situation where our choices are known before we make them excludes free will. given that we cannot in truth affect those choices. I know you have - but you are brushing aside the problem you face as soon as you answer yes to Q1. You have to answer 'no' to be able to argue anything at all - which instantly demolishes your subsequent argument. You must first answer 'no' to be able to argue at all
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
we have no free will or God is not all knowing In the dune books, the 'trap' of not knowing the future vs free will is "escaped" by 'not knowing the future too precisely'. There are some pieces of future we all know. I know I am going to die someday. I know everyone I know is going to die. What I don' tknow is HOW I am going to die, when, and what happens on the journey to death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
iano writes:
Weak.. read the opening post.. or my previous post... I describe your position... show it to be illogical.. what are we to do? This is not the issue we are dealing with in Q1. We have assumed God all knowing and work to the conclusions that arise from that. No is the only answer to that I suggest. re-examine the premise. Is God Really All Knowing? If we are to have free will.. the only answer is no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
If you accept the premise that Crevo put up then you do not think - therefore you do not ask questions. What you must conclude is that because you do think God cannot be all knowing
How many more times do I have to say this.the logical outcome of the question is that WE DO NOT THINK! Since you cannot prove that we do, it is an assumption and as such is a third premise which I DO NOT ACCEPT for the duration of this discussion. That things that do not think also do not ask questions is also irrelevent since I accept that the premises come to the logical conclusion that WE DO NOT and CANNOT ask questions.Furthermore I am NOT asking the question. I am right now mindlessly performing an action over which I have absolutely no control. I have no free will to do anything else. Regarding the question: assuming an all knowing God and the fact that you think means that an all knowing God does NOT render free will illusionary
Yes it would. Good job that is NOT what I'm claiming then.That we can think is that third premise that you keep trying to interject. You know, the one that i do not accept. Please stop doing it and just answer the question with ONLY the two premises. It is not possible to include the premise that we can think since whether we actually think or not is part of the conclusion that we are trying to reach. It is not a question of me "not letting you go there". I am dealing with the question asked given the assumptions he posed
Agreed then. The question is "does the existence of an A.K. God negate free will?"I was wrong to go back and question the 2 premises since they ARE accepted. I will not do so any more for the duration of this thread. However as I said before and above, I will NOT accept any other premises, particularly ones which are by definition contrary to the obvious conclusion of the question.
unless you can suggest a way whereby machines can ask questions
Simple. We are programmed to. There is no free thought involved in it whatsoever.
(whilst not begging the question in assuming we are machines - for that assumes an answer to the question asked)
No question being begged here.2 premises one conclusion and no accepted premise that implicitly denies the conclusion as that would be patently stupid to do. If the premises lead to the conclusion that we are unthinking then so be it. I have no problem with that. It just means I am pre-programmed to do exactly what I am doing. No thoughts (except programmed ones) no free will. No logical falacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
ramoss writes:
we have no free willor God is not all knowing In the dune books, the 'trap' of not knowing the future vs free will is "escaped" by 'not knowing the future too precisely'.
exactly, the only way out of this is for God not to be all knowing. otherwise our free will is an illusion.God being all knowing does not mean we cannot be having this conversation.. it merely means that we cannot affect the outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
read the opening post Okay
It is my belief that if the Xian doctrine is to be believed, God is all knowing, and outside of time. He knows what will happen, what has happened, and what is happening. Therefore any notion of free will is a myth. We are merely playing out what is inevitable. Given this Predestination, I have the illusion of choice, but in truth there is only one path which can be followed, the one which Your God can see and knows to be true. Then a little later...
to summarise: (the engineer in me likes to strip things down to the important points) 1) Free will is an Illusion, since God knows what will happen, what choices we will make. Your summary of the important points Crevo. Your position: God knows what will happen = free will an illusion
I describe your position... show it to be illogical.. what are we to do? Er... it should be clear by now that Q1 is not my positon but yours. This is about you showing that the position you hold is logical. I'll offer you a stalemate still - but only because I like you. There is no shame in accepting it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024