|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: If the hard determinist position is true, then no-one can really be held responsible for their actions Of course they can. That's subjective.
JavaMan writes: On the other hand, if the libertarian position is correct, then the deterministic model that underlies science must be wrong. Nope.
JavaMan writes: My intuition, like that of most people, is that this argument is faulty in some way. I spend a good part of my day putting a lot of effort into choosing between alternatives - it doesn't make much sense to imagine that these choices would have been the same without me putting in the effort to make the choices. You're right -- it doesn't make much sense to imagine that, since such assumes that you can change the past.
JavaMan writes: Now that I've got to the end of this essay, am I entirely free to post it or not to post it? No. "Entirely free" is self-contradictory; as, "that which is locked to nothing," wouldn't be locked to being 'entirely free'.Oh, and it wouldn't be locked to that logic, either. Nor that logic. Nor that. Ain't violations of the law of noncontradiction grand?
JavaMan writes: Or is my action of posting it (or not posting it) already predetermined as I write these words? Is there some entry of true randomness? If not, then yes. Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given. Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: (a) You often hear hard determinists talking about man being an automaton. However, an automaton is a thing that follows a pre-programmed set of instructions, and any organism with a brain works in quite a different way. But the way in which we work only makes us more so. We learn automatically -- our programming changes on-the-fly. For the things normally referred to as 'automatons', this is not automatic.
JavaMan writes: (b) The hard determinist model fails to distinguish between organisms that can make choices and those that can't. The brain is an organ designed to make choices, to separate the organism from immediate stimulus-response mechanisms. If it is nothing but a conglomeration of immediate stimulus-response mechanisms, why make a distinction? The only difference between a single-step and multiple-step is that the increased complexity of the multiple-step can result in you losing track of exactly what's going on in the middle, so you'd fill the middle in with a question mark -- which gives the concept wiggle room. But your concept of the system including wiggle room doesn't mean the real system has any.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: I'm much more impressed by someone predicting the inevitable outcome before it occurs. In my next viewing of Episode IV, the Rebels will blow up the Death Star. If I un-blow-up it using the << button, the Rebels will just blow it up again. Edit: Did it 6 times. (It's chapter 47, BTW.) Rebels done blown it up every time. Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: The possibility of a slight change in random components, that could have affected the outcome, does not in any way relieve the driver of responsibility. The problem is that your random component isn't anywhere in the driver's mental system (which consists of inputs and configuration.) Change it so that it is, and watch what happens: One of the drunk driver's inputs is changed. Instead of the driver being sent an input consistent with that of light reflecting off a child, the universe randomly outputs the image of a school bus in his path. He swerves to miss it (something that wouldn't have happened if the universe wasn't fucking around with his inputs), and he hits the child. If the universe sent him bad data, is he responsible for the result? Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: Are you arguing that if he has a delirium as a result of his drinking, that would somehow relieve him of responsibility? Surely not. Sorry, but your actions conflict with your assertion that you're sure that I'm not arguing that. Try again, and say what you mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: What actions? You asked a question. That would be an action.
nwr writes: What assertion? "Surely not."
nwr writes: My post consisted of a question - admittedly a rhetorical question. Which means it would be an assertion.Tack on the, "surely not," and now we have you disagreeing with yourself. nwr writes: If it could be taken as asserting anything, then it is asserting that you are arguing that, and wrongly so in my opinion. Think things through, and then read my point again.Delirium would be a configuration problem -- not a problem with inputs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Rob writes: That's really the issue with determinism isn't it? Are we, or are we not responsible? Actually, that's independent of determinism. The question is, are you your own creator? If you are, you're responsible. If not, you're not. Nothing else needs to be considered. Oh, and someone please take care of that Fundie claptrap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: If our actions are determined by us, By what formula?
nwr writes: It is only if the actions are determined by factors over which we have no control, Like the formula, perhaps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: There is no mathematical equation that can be used to predict human behavior. So it's random? There really is no method to your madness?
nwr writes: And I don't expect that there ever will be such an equation. If it ain't random, there is one. Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Rob writes: if I choose to stay the way I am, then I become my own creator by imposition of my will No you don't, as you didn't create your will. Whatever is at the beginning of the chain of creating/fiddling is responsible for your will being the way it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: There is no basis for jumping from no equation to random. So you're saying that there's a nonrandom set that cannot be described by an equation?
nwr writes: You appear to be making some seriously mistaken assumptions. It would be a conclusion.So, can you reconcile 'nonrandom' with 'follows no formula'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Rob writes:
The one who gave you the ability to choose + the one who determined what you would choose.
But if we're given a choice to change, who is responsible then? Rob writes: Yu are using your freedom You can't use freedom. And please keep your religious nonsense out of the science forums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: I'm not convinced the expression "nonrandom set" has any meaning. It's the expression of nonrandomness.
nwr writes: The orbit of the moon is usually considered to be nonrandom, but it follows no formula. To model the moon's orbit at 100% complexity, you'd have to take into account every piece of matter's effect on every other piece of matter within a sphere 27.4 billion ly across. The fact that we can't do this doesn't mean the universe can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: Life isn't a videotape. Unsupported assertion.
JavaMan writes: You can't rewind it and play it again to prove that an event was inevitable. Nor do I need to. Burden of proof's on the one who asserts that the Rebels (or anyone else) have freedom.
JavaMan writes: All you can do is assert that it was inevitable because it happened. Over and over again, with no mechanism in sight that would allow for change.
JavaMan writes: Like I said, if you told me what was inevitable before it happened, then I might be impressed. I did. It is inevitable that the Rebels will blow up the Death Star.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Ugh. Try this:
Effects are locked to their causes. Thus, the state of future things is locked to the state of past things.Everything in the past is in a set state; therefore, everything in the future is in a set state. Set = locked into immobility. Anything locked into immobility isn't free.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024