Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 1:56 PM
35 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,786 Year: 11,822/19,786 Month: 1,603/2,641 Week: 112/708 Day: 46/66 Hour: 9/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism)
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 15 of 210 (358045)
10-21-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-20-2006 1:03 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 1:03 PM JavaMan has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 25 of 210 (358147)
10-22-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by JavaMan
10-22-2006 7:34 AM


Re: Free Willy
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JavaMan, posted 10-22-2006 7:34 AM JavaMan has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 26 of 210 (358148)
10-22-2006 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by JavaMan
10-22-2006 9:03 AM


Re: chaos theory
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by JavaMan, posted 10-22-2006 9:03 AM JavaMan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by JavaMan, posted 10-23-2006 7:32 AM DominionSeraph has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 27 of 210 (358150)
10-22-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
10-22-2006 1:15 PM


Re: Indeterminism
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 1:15 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 3:40 PM DominionSeraph has responded
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2006 3:45 PM DominionSeraph has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 32 of 210 (358174)
10-22-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
10-22-2006 3:40 PM


Re: Indeterminism
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 3:40 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 7:02 PM DominionSeraph has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 39 of 210 (358204)
10-22-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by nwr
10-22-2006 7:02 PM


Re: Indeterminism
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 7:02 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 41 of 210 (358208)
10-22-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Rob
10-22-2006 8:01 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Rob, posted 10-22-2006 8:01 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rob, posted 10-22-2006 10:06 PM DominionSeraph has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 42 of 210 (358210)
10-22-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nwr
10-22-2006 8:43 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 8:43 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 10:05 PM DominionSeraph has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 45 of 210 (358230)
10-22-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nwr
10-22-2006 10:05 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 10:05 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 10-23-2006 12:11 AM DominionSeraph has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 47 of 210 (358233)
10-23-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Rob
10-22-2006 10:06 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Rob, posted 10-22-2006 10:06 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rob, posted 10-23-2006 1:16 AM DominionSeraph has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 48 of 210 (358234)
10-23-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by nwr
10-23-2006 12:11 AM


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'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 10-23-2006 12:11 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nwr, posted 10-23-2006 1:05 AM DominionSeraph has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 74 of 210 (358441)
10-24-2006 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rob
10-23-2006 1:16 AM


Rob writes:

But if we're given a choice to change, who is responsible then?


The one who gave you the ability to choose + the one who determined what you would choose.

Rob writes:

Yu are using your freedom

You can't use freedom.

And please keep your religious nonsense out of the science forums.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rob, posted 10-23-2006 1:16 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Rob, posted 10-24-2006 12:22 AM DominionSeraph has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 76 of 210 (358443)
10-24-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by nwr
10-23-2006 1:05 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nwr, posted 10-23-2006 1:05 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by nwr, posted 10-24-2006 12:57 AM DominionSeraph has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 77 of 210 (358446)
10-24-2006 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by JavaMan
10-23-2006 7:32 AM


Re: Life isn't a videotape
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by JavaMan, posted 10-23-2006 7:32 AM JavaMan has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 79 of 210 (358451)
10-24-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by JustinC
10-23-2006 4:24 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by JustinC, posted 10-23-2006 4:24 PM JustinC has not yet responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019