This is taken from Jonathan MS Pearce.
First syllogism:
1) Every human choice or action is an event.
(2) Every event has its explanatory cause.
(3) Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory cause.
Building upon (3), we have our second syllogism:
(3) Every human choice or action has its explanatory cause.
(4) To have explanatory cause is not to be free.
(5) Therefore, human choice or action is not free. -
See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013 ... acohS.dpuf (http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/11/28/a-syllogism-for-determinism/#sthash.6F1acohS.dpuf)
I reject number 4, on the basis that "to have no explanatory cause" is not what is really meant by the "free" in free will.
I'm not a freewill believer. Freewill is only a illusion.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I reject number 4, on the basis that "to have no explanatory cause" is not what is really meant by the "free" in free will.
^^^ this.
Well as Sam Harris explained free will can't exist because it's either deterministic or random or a mix of both.
But it saddens me in a way cause it means a lot of bad things could not be avoided. However on another hand it means I won't have to blame people so much for what they do.
Quote from: "vsenetak"Well as Sam Harris explained free will can't exist because it's either deterministic or random or a mix of both.
But it saddens me in a way cause it means a lot of bad things could not be avoided. However on another hand it means I won't have to blame people so much for what they do.
I love Sam Harris books.
I have a coupon for free will at krogers.. Buy ten, get one free..
I'm still on the fence regarding determinism. It has very valid and compelling points.
But ... how is spontaneity accounted for? Sam Harris then has a point, and I can be on board with that. It's not all determinism or free will, it likely falls somewhere in between.
Seems like a silly play on words that changes nothing. I no more believe some spook is pulling all strings than I do that the same spook is 'allowing' me to decide.. I know I decide when to eat or shit or anything else and no spook influences it in any way, shape or form.
Quote from: "Shol'va"I'm still on the fence regarding determinism. It has very valid and compelling points.
But ... how is spontaneity accounted for? Sam Harris then has a point, and I can be on board with that. It's not all determinism or free will, it likely falls somewhere in between.
Just because it seems spontaneous to you does not mean it is spontaneous to the laws of physics.
Can you be more specific what you mean by "laws of physics" in that context, just so I have clarity on what you mean by that.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I reject number 4, on the basis that "to have no explanatory cause" is not what is really meant by the "free" in free will.
I could be wrong but I think what is meant here in the idea underlying cause-effect, there is no choice. Once all the factors are taken in as making up the cause, the effect has to follow. There is no choice while "free" implies that there would be several options in regard to the effect after the cause has taken place. Perhaps there are other ideas underlying "cause-effect" and "free will".
Comments.
Quote from: "Shol'va"Can you be more specific what you mean by "laws of physics" in that context, just so I have clarity on what you mean by that.
If I decide to do something spontaneously now without thinking it 5 seconds ago doesn't mean the physical processes in my brain did not lead me to it for a while.
It's like a bomb with timer. You don't see it until it explodes but it was there for a while. Hidden.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Seems like a silly play on words that changes nothing. I no more believe some spook is pulling all strings than I do that the same spook is 'allowing' me to decide.. I know I decide when to eat or shit or anything else and no spook influences it in any way, shape or form.
But that is the problem, who are you that decides when all you are is a thought, and you have to think to make a decision or do it unconsciously. Your thinking is what determines your choice therefore it is determined, and I know you are going to be determined to show I'm wrong. :P #-o Solitary
I think this is largely a situation dependent on each person's perspective and understanding of what free will and determinism really mean. I think to some, determinism resonates as "I'm trapped, with no way out!" and free will meaning "I have the freedom to do whatever the hell I decide when I reach a fork in the road". The way I understand it is basically every decision we make is processed and made based on certain criteria and there's no escaping from that fact. Even if one says "I am going to decide all things today on pure chance, the roll of a dice", is still determinism :)
That's probably the big reason why people can't grapple with the concept of determinism. "What do you mean other things pre-determine my decisions". I personally get that and am OK with that.
But, what about situations where I wake up in the morning and I spontaneously decide to do something.
It depends on what I mean by "spontaneous". To me that means with no forethought or consideration.
How does determinism play into that Can anyone state with a very high degree of certainty (just so I don't use the term "absolute certainty") that, if we were to replay that day, my neurons would fire the same way and create the same sensation of want to do X instead of Y?
Quote from: "Shol'va"But, what about situations where I wake up in the morning and I spontaneously decide to do something.
It depends on what I mean by "spontaneous". To me that means with no forethought or consideration.
How does determinism play into that Can anyone state with a very high degree of certainty (just so I don't use the term "absolute certainty") that, if we were to replay that day, my neurons would fire the same way and create the same sensation of want to do X instead of Y?
Most of the factors that made you respond in the way you did when you woke up were unknown to you. There are thousands and thousands of chemical reactions going on just in your body that might be significant factors in making do what you did this morning. And there are thousands and thousands of external factors going on that can influence you to decide one way or another. So to you, it looked like you were free to do that particular spontaneous deed when you woke up this morning, but were you?
Quote from: "Shol'va"I think this is largely a situation dependent on each person's perspective and understanding of what free will and determinism really mean. I think to some, determinism resonates as "I'm trapped, with no way out!" and free will meaning "I have the freedom to do whatever the hell I decide when I reach a fork in the road". The way I understand it is basically every decision we make is processed and made based on certain criteria and there's no escaping from that fact. Even if one says "I am going to decide all things today on pure chance, the roll of a dice", is still determinism :)
That's probably the big reason why people can't grapple with the concept of determinism. "What do you mean other things pre-determine my decisions". I personally get that and am OK with that.
But, what about situations where I wake up in the morning and I spontaneously decide to do something.
It depends on what I mean by "spontaneous". To me that means with no forethought or consideration.
How does determinism play into that Can anyone state with a very high degree of certainty (just so I don't use the term "absolute certainty") that, if we were to replay that day, my neurons would fire the same way and create the same sensation of want to do X instead of Y?
There is randomness mixed with determinism. So if you replay the day your neurons won't necessarily play out the same way but it's same thing as rolling the dice. If you let dice decide what you will do is this free will? No.
Quote from: "vsenetak"There is randomness mixed with determinism. So if you replay the day your neurons won't necessarily play out the same way but it's same thing as rolling the dice. If you let dice decide what you will do is this free will? No.
If you roll the dice the same way, you will get the same result. Variance in the roll of the dice is what causes the variance in the result of the roll.
I am not sure about neurons though. If you could replay a moment of the past, would you get different results each time? Does it work like a dice that is rolled in exactly the same way (i.e. no variance in results), or does it actually generate truly random variation that is independent of the circumstances? I guess the only true randomness could come from quantum effects, but it would require a good deal of thinking to deduce that. I have only a basic understanding of physics and I am not suited for that. Any volunteers? :D
If we are ultimately complex physical systems subject to physical laws, there isn't much room for freedom. People worry about issues of crime and responsibility (among other associated anxieties)but that has practical responses related to deterrence and protection of others. Neurons operating by chemical-electrical principles lead to actions; brain activity precedes awareness. If our behavior is random swerving as some describe the subatomic world, that seems even worse than the "gear in the big machine".
On the upside, a deterministic view can help us feel part of a larger whole and lighten up on our judgments of others. But this seems rare. Inevitably we deliberate and act as though we are free and conclusions reached on this old question at least overtly seem to have little impact. In theory determinism; in practice mostly free will.
Quote from: "vsenetak"Well as Sam Harris explained free will can't exist because it's either deterministic or random or a mix of both.
So if it's neither deterministic nor random nor a mix of the two, then what could it be? Once you've excluded "can be exactly predicted," "cannot be predicted at all" and the spectrum between, what's left? It seems like "free" here is defined out of existence and thus Harris's statement is meaningless.
Quote from: "Shol'va"I'm still on the fence regarding determinism. It has very valid and compelling points.
But ... how is spontaneity accounted for? Sam Harris then has a point, and I can be on board with that. It's not all determinism or free will, it likely falls somewhere in between.
That kind of thinking is a faulty intuition pump. The trap that incompatibism wants to draw you into is that the choice is "determinism" or "free will" but not both. Daniel Dennet presented a lecture (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lvEepu0OSPw#t=835) that makes the convincing argument that any sort of free will that makes sense
only does so in the context of a deterministic or near-deterministic world.
Real free will is something that had evolved, and works in a mechanistic way — it has to, or it's no good. But that's not the way we view it. To us who use our real free will, it seems mysterious and magical. We have a deep-seated preconception that free will has to be magic or it's not "real free will," even though the actual instances of free will are not magic.
As to "spontaneity," it's probably only because it comes out of the black box of your unconsciousness. You have no idea how this spontaneity comes about in the specific cases of interest, and I think that's enough. These urges may be deterministically generated, but they are by no means predictable on any practical level.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I reject number 4, on the basis that "to have no explanatory cause" is not what is really meant by the "free" in free will.
I could be wrong but I think what is meant here in the idea underlying cause-effect, there is no choice.
Again, that's the faulty intuition pump. Being able to make a choice has nothing to do with cause and effect. In fact, by making a choice in a deterministic universe, you are effecting that cause and effect relationship.
Suppose you knew that the universe was deterministic, and that you knew everything about the universe with enough accuracy to predict what will happen in the future,
except for this little bit of the universe that's happening inside this black box. Does that mean you'll be able to predict what the black box will do? Of course not! It would depend on what's happening in that black box. It also means that you lose precision of what you can predict in the far future because the actions of the black box cannot be taken into account. If the universe is chaotic (and it is), then it gets very much worse the further down the line you go for predicting the future.
It doesn't matter if we knew the universe was deterministic or not: the future
cannot be predicted unless the black box is taken into account. Yet determinism asserts that the future is set by the present, a present we are part of and embedded in. The predictability of a deterministic universe we are part of cannot be realized without taking ourselves into account. To make a choice is to weigh the options available for us and to select from them the action that seems to best realize our motives. The fact that both the weighing and selection, and the origin of our motives have themselves a deterministic mechanism does not negate the fact that the process has happened.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"while "free" implies that there would be several options in regard to the effect after the cause has taken place.
The "free" in "free will," as regarded by compatabilists like myself, means that the agent is not coerced or restrained. It does
not mean that the agent is not internally constrained by interior factors. A choice made because the agent is compelled to it by reason and desire is just the damned point of free will.
In practice, that the agent is not coerced or restrained in their choice is
exactly what we mean by free will. Why should this change when we're analyzing it philosophically, unless you want free will to be magic?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Shol'va"But, what about situations where I wake up in the morning and I spontaneously decide to do something.
It depends on what I mean by "spontaneous". To me that means with no forethought or consideration.
How does determinism play into that Can anyone state with a very high degree of certainty (just so I don't use the term "absolute certainty") that, if we were to replay that day, my neurons would fire the same way and create the same sensation of want to do X instead of Y?
Most of the factors that made you respond in the way you did when you woke up were unknown to you. There are thousands and thousands of chemical reactions going on just in your body that might be significant factors in making do what you did this morning. And there are thousands and thousands of external factors going on that can influence you to decide one way or another. So to you, it looked like you were free to do that particular spontaneous deed when you woke up this morning, but were you?
Can't see anything I disagree on. So, with what you just wrote, I think in my mind it also depends on "how far back" or rather "how much into the nitty gritty" you are willing to consider going when asking the question regarding determinism vs free will. Are we talking at the neuron level firing off, chemical reactions going off, or conscious thought, deliberate consideration of all options, etc etc.
I feel that if we are going all the way to the most basic structure, it devalues the discussion since I think we can all agree at that point, determinism is no longer a question.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"That kind of thinking is a faulty intuition pump. The trap that incompatibism wants to draw you into is that the choice is "determinism" or "free will" but not both.
I think that's where I was going with my statement, albeit poorly worded. I wasn't picturing a line where one end excludes the other; more of a mix of the two.
I like your position on the "free" in "free will". It makes sense.
Quote from: "Biodome"Quote from: "vsenetak"There is randomness mixed with determinism. So if you replay the day your neurons won't necessarily play out the same way but it's same thing as rolling the dice. If you let dice decide what you will do is this free will? No.
If you roll the dice the same way, you will get the same result. Variance in the roll of the dice is what causes the variance in the result of the roll.
I am not sure about neurons though. If you could replay a moment of the past, would you get different results each time? Does it work like a dice that is rolled in exactly the same way (i.e. no variance in results), or does it actually generate truly random variation that is independent of the circumstances? I guess the only true randomness could come from quantum effects, but it would require a good deal of thinking to deduce that. I have only a basic understanding of physics and I am not suited for that. Any volunteers? :D
I think in physics it is proven that either movement of electrons and some other particles are random or they are not random but we can never predict where they go. So either the world is 100% determenistic but we will never be able to predict the future with full precision.
OR the world is not 100% determenistic and the dice can in fact be rolled differently in same circumstances. But both cases do not give us free will. Either our actions are predetermined completely. Or they are predetermined and partially random.
[youtube:3t0wge1o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g[/youtube:3t0wge1o]
Why is there a word "FREEWILL?" It comes from religion which is nonsense to begin with. All that is needed is willpower, where does freedom come into the picture? We either make choices based on unconscious decisions, or conscious ones that require thought before action which are both determined by our genetic makeup and life experiences, as well as intelligence. Everyone thinks the determinism means A therefore B, when in fact it is probably a billion events that happen before B and A. I can will my arm to move up because it is free to do so, but the act itself is still determined by millions of things unconscious to us. You are free to make a choice, but it is still determined by many things and your willpower what choice you make, not freewill. Solitary
I will always view the argument in what I consider to be the classical query as to whether a god(s) knowing the future would ultimately mean pre-determinism as a must and free will as a bust. The new age what with the knowledge of chemical interactions, and now atomical.......yada yada, kinda takes away the fun from the original. The religious are not even aware of the new arguments and are sure not going to grant "anything" power over god abilities.
With that point, I suggest that free-will is a quasi-illusion and always has been. It is free to the point of your ability to make a choice based only on your decision, but pre-determined to the point that the thousands of scenarios outside of your knowledge that directly effect your life and thusly your actions, cannot at any time be considered as they cannot be comprehended.
Surely I have the choice to pull the trigger to shoot the sum-bitch that is charging down the street screaming obscenities as he fires away randomly into houses, but I can never be aware of the multitudes of actions the precipitated the mans actions or mine in the first place that as a historian one would be able to look back and see and follow and say, "WOW, how crazy is that and what is the likelihood that they would meet thirty years later"?
Now perhaps many of you have said the exact same thing using words with more syllables. For that I apologize for your time.
Yada Yada? :lol: Reminds me of a Seinfeld skit, or was that Delores and her clitoris? :shock: :lol: Solitary
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I reject number 4, on the basis that "to have no explanatory cause" is not what is really meant by the "free" in free will.
I could be wrong but I think what is meant here in the idea underlying cause-effect, there is no choice.
Again, that's the faulty intuition pump. Being able to make a choice has nothing to do with cause and effect. In fact, by making a choice in a deterministic universe, you are effecting that cause and effect relationship.
Suppose you knew that the universe was deterministic, and that you knew everything about the universe with enough accuracy to predict what will happen in the future, except for this little bit of the universe that's happening inside this black box. Does that mean you'll be able to predict what the black box will do? Of course not! It would depend on what's happening in that black box. It also means that you lose precision of what you can predict in the far future because the actions of the black box cannot be taken into account. If the universe is chaotic (and it is), then it gets very much worse the further down the line you go for predicting the future.
It doesn't matter if we knew the universe was deterministic or not: the future cannot be predicted unless the black box is taken into account. Yet determinism asserts that the future is set by the present, a present we are part of and embedded in. The predictability of a deterministic universe we are part of cannot be realized without taking ourselves into account. To make a choice is to weigh the options available for us and to select from them the action that seems to best realize our motives. The fact that both the weighing and selection, and the origin of our motives have themselves a deterministic mechanism does not negate the fact that the process has happened.
For me, the black box represents knowledge that is not available. In no way I would see that as making the universe undetermined, unless the black box = magic/God. The same thing with the universe being chaotic. (Chaos theory is based on non-linear equations, for which we don't have the math tools to solve them exactly.)
QuoteQuote from: "josephpalazzo"while "free" implies that there would be several options in regard to the effect after the cause has taken place.
The "free" in "free will," as regarded by compatabilists like myself, means that the agent is not coerced or restrained. It does not mean that the agent is not internally constrained by interior factors. A choice made because the agent is compelled to it by reason and desire is just the damned point of free will.
In practice, that the agent is not coerced or restrained in their choice is exactly what we mean by free will. Why should this change when we're analyzing it philosophically, unless you want free will to be magic?
The compatibilist position is obtained by moving the goalposts: the uncoerced/unrestrained choice is the effect of several causes, many of them unconscious.
Quote from: "Solitary"Why is there a word "FREEWILL?" It comes from religion which is nonsense to begin with. All that is needed is willpower, where does freedom come into the picture? We either make choices based on unconscious decisions, or conscious ones that require thought before action which are both determined by our genetic makeup and life experiences, as well as intelligence. Everyone thinks the determinism means A therefore B, when in fact it is probably a billion events that happen before B and A. I can will my arm to move up because it is free to do so, but the act itself is still determined by millions of things unconscious to us. You are free to make a choice, but it is still determined by many things and your willpower what choice you make, not freewill. Solitary
I love the way you explain free will is bullshit. By the way ,this thread rocks.
Quote from: "vsenetak"I think in physics it is proven that either movement of electrons and some other particles are random or they are not random but we can never predict where they go. So either the world is 100% determenistic but we will never be able to predict the future with full precision.
OR the world is not 100% determenistic and the dice can in fact be rolled differently in same circumstances. But both cases do not give us free will. Either our actions are predetermined completely. Or they are predetermined and partially random.
Yes, electron movement is random. However, their random movement in the subatomic world does not correlate with the movement in the macroscopic world (i.e. our thoughts and actions). Saying that "Electron movement is random, therefore, everything is random" is a non sequitur.
The world is deterministic in nature - you are right. We cannot predict what will happen, since there are too many variables. However, that is compatible with free will if it is defined as a lack of external constraints to act on one's own motivation. We cannot choose between different options, since our choice is pre-determined. However, we can
make that choice, which makes us
free.
Free will as it is defined in the compatibilist view exists and does not interfere with determinism.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"For me, the black box represents knowledge that is not available. In no way I would see that as making the universe undetermined, unless the black box = magic/God. The same thing with the universe being chaotic. (Chaos theory is based on non-linear equations, for which we don't have the math tools to solve them exactly.)
Watch Dan Dennett's lecture. The intuition pump tells you that, if the universe is deterministic, then what happens is unavoidable. Dan Dennett argues that this premise is absolutely false — that whether or not determinism exists, avoiders definitely exist.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The compatibilist position is obtained by moving the goalposts: the uncoerced/unrestrained choice is the effect of several causes, many of them unconscious.
The compatabilist position is that the entire debate amounts to nothing more than a semantics game, and as such the goalposts
should be moved for the debate to be about anything interesting. Your unconsciousness is still
you. The history that shapes your unconscious is what makes you you, so that doesn't change the fact that you are still making the decision. If
you do harm to the society because of some internal fault or upbringing, it is still
you that is the element that society has to deal with. Whether or not we have "free will" in any sense the free will arguments want to argue over does not change the practical situations we have to deal with.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Whether or not we have "free will" in any sense the free will arguments want to argue over does not change the practical situations we have to deal with.
I have no issues with this, I do have issues with trying to introduce any concept of universal determinism. To suggest, and with a healthy understanding of how truly insignificant we are to our own solar system, let alone our galaxy, and laughable to the universe, that any action we have is somehow tied to anything universal is reaching out to incredulity. An atom bomb the size of the earth would not register outside our galaxy which is a grain of sand to the universe. Our actions, any actions, even to abolish the earth, could not be predetermined by a universe that has shown no evidence that it has awareness of anything, as much as we would believe that behaviors of something 1,180 th the size of an atom would have an impact on our behavior. And while I have no doubt that perhaps, somehow, in the world of physics, a single atom can be affected by another a mile away, in a way that I cannot and will never be able to understand, it would be beyond me to believe that an atom 14 billion light years away could in any way be affected by that same atom.
But, I have always had no problem with stating my ignorance of that higher thinky thingy that you guys are more comfortable with.
Quotea single atom can be affected by another a mile away,
This has not been observed with an a subatomic particle or any other, no matter what some people claim. Einstein proved that time is relative and that there is no such thing as simultaneous events. So how can something be observed at one point in space time and an other point in space time at the same time? I realize there is person that was one the top physicist that has gone into the field of parapsychology because of this, but other physicist laugh at him for doing so. Also, the sub atomic world operates by different rules than the macro world and doesn't effect how events in it happen. Think of a road with gravel, a wheel can roll over it in a straight line, but a bee bee could not. Solitary
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"For me, the black box represents knowledge that is not available. In no way I would see that as making the universe undetermined, unless the black box = magic/God. The same thing with the universe being chaotic. (Chaos theory is based on non-linear equations, for which we don't have the math tools to solve them exactly.)
Watch Dan Dennett's lecture. The intuition pump tells you that, if the universe is deterministic, then what happens is unavoidable. Dan Dennett argues that this premise is absolutely false — that whether or not determinism exists, avoiders definitely exist.
The argument against that is this: if you had to go back in time 10 years ago with no knowledge of what happened in those 10 years, would you end up living the same life or a different life? Since this is a rhetorical question, the answer is, you would live the same life, and that's because every decision you've made was based on a certain numbers of factors that caused you to make those choices throughout those 10 years. Repeating exactly those steps would not change anything. You'd end up writing the posts on this forum as you have done in the past. It doesn't mean that your future is already all laid out for you. But it does mean that every decision you make is the result (effect) of thousands of factors (causes), some of which you are aware, some others you're not.
QuoteQuote from: "josephpalazzo"The compatibilist position is obtained by moving the goalposts: the uncoerced/unrestrained choice is the effect of several causes, many of them unconscious.
The compatabilist position is that the entire debate amounts to nothing more than a semantics game, and as such the goalposts should be moved for the debate to be about anything interesting. Your unconsciousness is still you. The history that shapes your unconscious is what makes you you, so that doesn't change the fact that you are still making the decision. If you do harm to the society because of some internal fault or upbringing, it is still you that is the element that society has to deal with. Whether or not we have "free will" in any sense the free will arguments want to argue over does not change the practical situations we have to deal with.
The compatibilists have move the goalpost so that we can feel good that we can believe we have free will. And as you mentioned, there is also a societal component that is necessary in order to justify our judicial system, which is needed for society to survive and adequately function. But many judicial cases fall in the cracks: is a mentally disturbed person really responsible for his/her actions? Etc. These cases arise because we do know that we are far from really having free will, even though we need to pretend that we have. :twisted:
Quote from: "vsenetak"Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g)
In this video he asks people to think of a city, and they do it twice, showing they don't have freewill and they didn't even realize they did it because he asked them to and it was therefore predetermined they would do it. Solitary
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"For me, the black box represents knowledge that is not available. In no way I would see that as making the universe undetermined, unless the black box = magic/God. The same thing with the universe being chaotic. (Chaos theory is based on non-linear equations, for which we don't have the math tools to solve them exactly.)
Watch Dan Dennett's lecture. The intuition pump tells you that, if the universe is deterministic, then what happens is unavoidable. Dan Dennett argues that this premise is absolutely false — that whether or not determinism exists, avoiders definitely exist.
The argument against that is this: if you had to go back in time 10 years ago with no knowledge of what happened in those 10 years, would you end up living the same life or a different life? Since this is a rhetorical question, the answer is, you would live the same life, and that's because every decision you've made was based on a certain numbers of factors that caused you to make those choices throughout those 10 years. Repeating exactly those steps would not change anything. You'd end up writing the posts on this forum as you have done in the past. It doesn't mean that your future is already all laid out for you. But it does mean that every decision you make is the result (effect) of thousands of factors (causes), some of which you are aware, some others you're not.
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
The principle problem of the whole hullabaloo about free will is that there has never been a coherent definition of the "metaphysical free will" that is being argued over. It simply doesn't make sense. Free will is more than just flailing about randomly. The only definition of free will that makes sense is "obeying the law of your own nature," or similar. Regardless of the fact that billions of external causes shaped that nature, it's still your nature. It's still the only way that free will makes any sort of sense, and quite fortunately, determinism does not preclude this.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The compatibilists have move the goalpost so that we can feel good that we can believe we have free will.
Wrong. Compatabilists do not believe that we have the "metaphysical free will" that liberalists and strong incompatabilists argue over. It is clear from every statement from a compatabilist about free will that they do not think that free will (as it actually exists) is magic, or free from the constraints of determinism. "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." A campatabilist's free will is a quite different thing from a liberalist's free will, if the latter is anything at all.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"But many judicial cases fall in the cracks: is a mentally disturbed person really responsible for his/her actions?
That does not negate the larger principle. A mentally disturbed person is unlikely to be corrected through punishment, and they need a different type of help to rejoin society. That fact has no bearing on those who can be corrected by these means.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"These cases arise because we do know that we are far from really having free will, even though we need to pretend that we have. :twisted:
The fact that a lot of us pretend that our free will is a magicical ability to smash fate has no bearing at all on whether free will actually exists. 8-)
QuoteQuote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The argument against that is this: if you had to go back in time 10 years ago with no knowledge of what happened in those 10 years, would you end up living the same life or a different life? Since this is a rhetorical question, the answer is, you would live the same life, and that's because every decision you've made was based on a certain numbers of factors that caused you to make those choices throughout those 10 years. Repeating exactly those steps would not change anything. You'd end up writing the posts on this forum as you have done in the past. It doesn't mean that your future is already all laid out for you. But it does mean that every decision you make is the result (effect) of thousands of factors (causes), some of which you are aware, some others you're not.
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
The principle problem of the whole hullabaloo about free will is that there has never been a coherent definition of the "metaphysical free will" that is being argued over. It simply doesn't make sense. Free will is more than just flailing about randomly. The only definition of free will that makes sense is "obeying the law of your own nature," or similar. Regardless of the fact that billions of external causes shaped that nature, it's still your nature. It's still the only way that free will makes any sort of sense, and quite fortunately, determinism does not preclude this.
Unfortunately, many do link free will with determinism. Often atheists have argued that if God knows everything, including the future, therefore humans have no free will and hence are not responsible for sinning. And so atheists have made the argument: either God doesn't know everything or humans have no free will. It's a bogus argument, and atheists should refrain from using it. As you have pointed out there is no ironclad definition of free will and it has no bearing on determinism.
Quote from: "vsenetak"Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g)
His logic is very strong. I guess he changed my mind. I'll just drop the compatibilist view altogether :)
OK.
I'm an uneducated hick, so some of this is a little over my head, I guess.
But the ability to choose seems axiomatic to me . I cannot choose not to believe in choice. I cannot reason without the ability to choose symbols and arrange them as I choose.
Determinism seems to me like a lot of mental masturbation. A concept that is so patently counter-intuitive is always suspect, in my opinion.
Certainly there are stimuli that determine many of our actions, but not necessarily all of them. Choice takes place as well. I can't explain it, but I don't have to: I can do it.
You really are determined to show that determination isn't so aren't you? :shock: :lol: Solitary
> Determinism seems to me like a lot of mental masturbation. A concept that is so patently counter-intuitive is always suspect, in my opinion.
But there are lots of things that, at first, seem counter-intuitive, but through experiment are shown to be the case. Relativity and almost all of quantum mechanics are examples. The case of determinism in thinking is particularly subject to this, because you are thinking with the very deterministic engine that you are thinking about.
> Certainly there are stimuli that determine many of our actions, but not necessarily all of them. Choice takes place as well. I can't explain it, but I don't have to: I can do it.
That doesn't appear to be the case. "Choice" is an illusion created by the deterministic brain. Neuroscience has shown that choices are actually made by the brain before a person becomes aware of it. It feels like you are making a choice, but you are merely being informed of the choice.
Frank
Quote from: "Solitary"You really are determined to show that determination isn't so aren't you? :shock: :lol: Solitary
I am the DECIDER!!! :lol:
Quote from: "FrankDK"> Determinism seems to me like a lot of mental masturbation. A concept that is so patently counter-intuitive is always suspect, in my opinion.
But there are lots of things that, at first, seem counter-intuitive, but through experiment are shown to be the case. Relativity and almost all of quantum mechanics are examples. The case of determinism in thinking is particularly subject to this, because you are thinking with the very deterministic engine that you are thinking about.
> Certainly there are stimuli that determine many of our actions, but not necessarily all of them. Choice takes place as well. I can't explain it, but I don't have to: I can do it.
That doesn't appear to be the case. "Choice" is an illusion created by the deterministic brain. Neuroscience has shown that choices are actually made by the brain before a person becomes aware of it. It feels like you are making a choice, but you are merely being informed of the choice.
Frank
I was aware of both of those counter-points before writing. I disagree. Not based solely on reasons I can articulate though, I will admit. But based on subjective experience, and an intuitive certainty that I am choosing the words to write now, and that although I am influenced by a multitude of stimuli, ultimately I am the author.
> I was aware of both of those counter-points before writing. I disagree. Not based solely on reasons I can articulate though, I will admit. But based on subjective experience, and an intuitive certainty that I am choosing the words to write now, and that although I am influenced by a multitude of stimuli, ultimately I am the author.
I agree. That's what it feels like. But the truth seems counter to our feeling. Here's another example: Objects around you look solid, but they aren't. They are mostly empty space. There's space between the nucleii of the atoms and the electrons, and even more space between adjacent atoms. That's not the way it feels, but that's the way it is.
Here's another: Reach out and touch some object. It feels like you are touching it, doesn't it? But it turns out, you aren't. When the repulsive force between the electrons in your finger and those of the object becomes strong enough, your finger can't get any closer. You never quite close the gap.
I have the feeling that I chose to write this response, but it was actually composed deterministic processes in by my brain.
Frank
It seems to me that deterministic processes account for the choices I am allowed by my own limitations, but don't account for the dynamic act of choosing. An aspect of life I not only witness, but act upon with selective determination.
Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"Quote from: "Solitary"You really are determined to show that determination isn't so aren't you? :shock: :lol: Solitary
I am the DECIDER!!! :lol:
I agree, but who are you? You are consciousness determined by brain function, or an illusion of a self that is determined to win the argument, when it is actually your brain and body that does the actual deciding that you witness thinking you decided. It's like this sentence that is self referential: This sentence is a lie. :shock: :lol: Solitary
Who am I? I am an emergent synergy that transcends the inanimate. A functioning super-complexity that has become aware of the rest of the universe. Don't underestimate my significance based on the small amount of matter and energy that I consist of. I may be only a speck of dust, but I have the ability not only to record, but to direct some small changes in the universe. That is one of my defining characteristics. It makes me different from an inanimate object. Although I am shaped by deterministic forces, I try to choose my own path as well: and trying to choose is choosing. The words don't appear on the screen at random. I select from my internal library and make new patterns from old ones. Not just a witness to the conversation, but an active participant.
Free ? random.
The entire argument between determinism and free will strikes me as a large excluded-middle fallacy, because it discounts nuanced thought and in particular, judgement.
Many human actions are based upon our judgements of others and those judgements can be wrong. Those judgements can be colored by happenstance events which are themselves not necessarily in the cards.
This argument has always bugged me, as it seems pointless. The concept of free will is no one making choices for you, not that choices are completely independent from stimuli. Yes, the brain is the one that makes the choice, but different brains make different logical conclusions. If your brain makes the decisions, it's still you making the decisions, right?
The incompatibilist debate —which takes it as a postulate that free will and determinism cannot both exist— has never impressed me because nobody has been able to articulate what a 'metaphysically free will' means, how to detect if we have it, nor why having such a thing is desirable. As such, the two sides are quite literally arguing over nothing, and will never produce any conclusion of value.
This is why I am a compatibilist. Until someone can put forward a better definition of free will than 'obeying the law of one's own nature', then I definitely have the only meaningful free will to be had.
Hakurei Reimu wins this thread.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"... then I definitely have the only meaningful free will to be had.
Till someone kicks you in the nuts for no apparent reason. Then suddenly their free will becomes meaningful as well. :wink:
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Hakurei Reimu wins this thread.
And his responses determined you to say that from your will power. :shock: :lol: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Hakurei Reimu wins this thread.
And his responses determined you to say that from your will power. :shock: :lol: Solitary
Doesn't matter how you cut it, determinism made me do it.
:twisted:
I guess it helps if you view the brain as a very complex computer, because that's what it fundamentally is. All the neurons operate by transmitting and receiving electrical impulses and the whole system is based on the movement of electric potentials. You are merely an observer, just like a display connected to a computer. You do what the brain says, and the brain is deterministic, because it is made of particles. You do not choose the movement of particles, the motion is based on Newtonian laws and it might have some degree of randomness in it.
I think we have an illusion of free will. Mainly because we only have a limited experience of the inner workings of our brains. We don't think of a neuron firing from introspection, we never experience this. We have a provisional experience of our own brains thinking, the manifested "I".
I've yet to see an internally consistent definition of free will that doesn't violate the way brains work, even with our limited knowledge.
It isn't a far stretch of the imagination that since our brains are physical entities that, as far as we know, follow the same "laws of physics", then we are equally bound by these same laws.
Without making a Fallacy of Composition, I think unless someone demonstrates the ability to exercise free will, as a part and parcel of the brain, then I don't see how we can know either way.
I think the problem is that we think the thing we call us is an illusion ( A very persistent one, just like reality is, as Einstein pointed out.) and the "we" are consciousness itself with a physical body and brain that make us conscious and deceives us into thinking we are more than just a physical being. As always just my opinion and true, or not. :shock: :-k Solitary
Subjective evidence is relevant to this topic, because it is a discussion of subjective experience itself.
I think that objective analysis would only describe the calculator, when we are talking about the act of pushing the buttons.
It is intuitively overwhelming to try to deny free-will. For this reason, I believe the calculator-within-me is alerting me that determinism is likely false. So I keep going back to the subjective evidence of a lifetime of making choices, that makes me have to step back and laugh at such an extreme position. Most of the universe is dead, random, inanimate, non-goal-oriented. But something of a higher mathematical order is taking place here. Something necessary for you to argue the point in the first place. That's why I think it must be axiomatic that free will exists.
Choice is an illusion. In the exact same circumstances you would make exactly the same choice. It is pre-determined by neuron junctions which you do not control. You can make a "choice" only in the same way that a computer can make a "choice". Neither you, nor the computer has the power to will what you will. You can act on your motives, and that is one of the definitions of freedom (possibly free will as well for some people), but you can not choose you motives. They are pre-determined by your genetics and the environment.
You know, I used to argue all the time in favor of determinism and how free will is an idea that has no sense. I used to until I saw I was wrong. Hell, until I saw that most that discuss this entire topic are wrong.
The reason this entire debate has missed the mark is because since the beginning we have done nothing but mix categories of language. What do I mean? Well, for one we have a very scientific category of language. It is structural, seemingly objective, and unemotional.
The the other side we have a human lens. Which tend to be based on experience, emotions, and life.
So when it comes to the question of determinism and free will, I think this is where we go wrong. Determinism belongs to the physical world. What I mean is it explains the fabric of existence and the continuation of time. Yes, determinism exists. On the grand scheme of things, EVERYTHING is determined. I do not deny that. But let's not take it where it does not have to go.
IF when we speak of free will we mean some sort of mechanical framework that just allows things to happen with no reason, I think we've either lost sight of what free will is or we just never understood it. Free will is not mechanical. It never has been.
Free Will belongs to experience. It does and always has. Our lives, from what we choose to eat, choose to say, and whether we wash or hair or bodies first, ALL OF IT, is experienced as free. It is. You cannot deny this. No determinist, hard as s/he may try, can. We experience every waking moment of our lives as free. That is not to say that all we do is not determined. I am not saying that. I am saying that though determined, our experience of it is free.
The problem we run into then is people saying, "Well, Free Will is an illusion." This is nonsense. How could you call the very lens you live life through an illusion? That makes no sense to me. I understand the desire to say this, but here we mix language and do no justice to the experience of life. What makes us human.
I liken it to the question, "What is love? (Baby, don't hurt me!). If I ask two people this question, imagine these answers.
Person A: Love is when chemical X and Chemical Y are released on give you feeling Z"
Person B: Love is when I saw my baby for the first time. I never knew I could be born again, and I was the moment I had my first kid. Love is those random times I hold hands with my significant other just because. Love is hanging out with my friends and laughing at the stupid things that we laugh about.
Here we have two definitions of love. Person A gave us a mechanical definition of love. Person B gave us an account that was derived through the experience of living and seeing love. Who is correct? Well, I would say they both are. One person gave us how love is created and what it is, the other gave us what we experience as love. Neither is false. One isn't an illusion.
So what I am saying here is we must do justice to what it means to be human. Our lives may be determined, but our experience of what is has always been free.
The movement of my hand may be determined, but I damn well made it move. ;)
Quote from: Biodome on December 10, 2013, 02:55:23 PM
Yes, electron movement is random. However, their random movement in the subatomic world does not correlate with the movement in the macroscopic world (i.e. our thoughts and actions). Saying that "Electron movement is random, therefore, everything is random" is a non sequitur.
The world is deterministic in nature - you are right. We cannot predict what will happen, since there are too many variables. However, that is compatible with free will if it is defined as a lack of external constraints to act on one's own motivation. We cannot choose between different options, since our choice is pre-determined. However, we can make that choice, which makes us free.
Free will as it is defined in the compatibilist view exists and does not interfere with determinism.
I didn't read past this (so likely someone already addressed this) but I wanted to say something, because every time I read this definition of the compatibilist definition, I think how meaningless it is. It just means exactly the same thing as determinism (which they even partly admit because of the whole "it doesn't interfere with determinism" bit).
Why bother to even have this definition of free will? It doesn't include any meaningful use of the words choice or free, it only depends o the word will. I wanted it, therefore it happened, even though it was determined to happen and I didn't have another choice, only the one I made.
It is simply redefining terms very narrowly so you can still maintain a (very flimsy at this point) illusion. I don't understand the point of it.
Quote from: Notthesun on June 26, 2014, 07:05:22 PM
You know, I used to argue all the time in favor of determinism and how free will is an idea that has no sense. I used to until I saw I was wrong. Hell, until I saw that most that discuss this entire topic are wrong.
The reason this entire debate has missed the mark is because since the beginning we have done nothing but mix categories of language. What do I mean? Well, for one we have a very scientific category of language. It is structural, seemingly objective, and unemotional.
The the other side we have a human lens. Which tend to be based on experience, emotions, and life.
So when it comes to the question of determinism and free will, I think this is where we go wrong. Determinism belongs to the physical world. What I mean is it explains the fabric of existence and the continuation of time. Yes, determinism exists. On the grand scheme of things, EVERYTHING is determined. I do not deny that. But let's not take it where it does not have to go.
IF when we speak of free will we mean some sort of mechanical framework that just allows things to happen with no reason, I think we've either lost sight of what free will is or we just never understood it. Free will is not mechanical. It never has been.
Free Will belongs to experience. It does and always has. Our lives, from what we choose to eat, choose to say, and whether we wash or hair or bodies first, ALL OF IT, is experienced as free. It is. You cannot deny this. No determinist, hard as s/he may try, can. We experience every waking moment of our lives as free. That is not to say that all we do is not determined. I am not saying that. I am saying that though determined, our experience of it is free.
The problem we run into then is people saying, "Well, Free Will is an illusion." This is nonsense. How could you call the very lens you live life through an illusion? That makes no sense to me. I understand the desire to say this, but here we mix language and do no justice to the experience of life. What makes us human.
I liken it to the question, "What is love? (Baby, don't hurt me!). If I ask two people this question, imagine these answers.
Person A: Love is when chemical X and Chemical Y are released on give you feeling Z"
Person B: Love is when I saw my baby for the first time. I never knew I could be born again, and I was the moment I had my first kid. Love is those random times I hold hands with my significant other just because. Love is hanging out with my friends and laughing at the stupid things that we laugh about.
Here we have two definitions of love. Person A gave us a mechanical definition of love. Person B gave us an account that was derived through the experience of living and seeing love. Who is correct? Well, I would say they both are. One person gave us how love is created and what it is, the other gave us what we experience as love. Neither is false. One isn't an illusion.
So what I am saying here is we must do justice to what it means to be human. Our lives may be determined, but our experience of what is has always been free.
The movement of my hand may be determined, but I damn well made it move. ;)
Now THIs is the best definition of free-will I've ever heard. However, just because we currently mostly experience it as free, however, if you really pay attention to life as you experience it, you will notice that often we actually do feel not in control of our own situation. Our minds are capable of feeling both as if they are freely doing things, and as if they are but robots doing what we are programmed to do.
Determinism in practice, as opposed to just blabbing about it, could be put to good use in society if people actually were taught to think critically about it more often. Is that poor young black man from the slums doomed to a life of crime? Or can we change his circumstances, change the variables as it were and prevent the bad things before they happen? Determinism, when put in to practice in this way, could do a lot to improve everything from individual personal betterment to large scale social betterment to environmental change.
But I don't hold out a lot of hope for people to start trying to view the world in this way. Most people can't even shed the warm illusion of being a special loved creation at the center of the creators universe.
It's a lot easier to blame people for choosing to be evil or bad, punish them, lock them up, then pat ourselves on the back for being the good guys.
Quote from: Aroura33 on June 28, 2014, 03:02:00 PM
I didn't read past this (so likely someone already addressed this) but I wanted to say something, because every time I read this definition of the compatibilist definition, I think how meaningless it is. It just means exactly the same thing as determinism (which they even partly admit because of the whole "it doesn't interfere with determinism" bit).
Why bother to even have this definition of free will? It doesn't include any meaningful use of the words choice or free, it only depends o the word will. I wanted it, therefore it happened, even though it was determined to happen and I didn't have another choice, only the one I made.
Nobody has provided meaningful definitions of the words "choice" or "free," either. They're simply used as if we knew what they mean, but go ahead and try to define 'choice' or 'free' without reference to themselves and you quickly tie yourself into knots trying to divorce either of them from determinism or plain randomness.
Concepts like "choice" and "free" as well as "will" have to be built from concepts not dependent on them, else you have a stolen concept fallacy. You have to build up what you mean for someone to have "choice" in something, else you're not really saying anything screeching "I didn't have another choice." What would "having another choice" entail here? Nobody seems to know.
The compatibilist position recognizes this: that "choice" has to be built up from 'non-choiceful' mechanisms, and "free" has to be built up from 'non-free' mechanisms. Similarly, "will" has to be built up from 'will-less' mechanisms. This is very much the same way we build up "consciousness" from the 'non-conscious' mechanisms and the mechanisms of "mind" from 'mindless' mechanisms in cognative neuroscience. Why should "free will" and "choice" be any different from "consciousness" and "mind"? Why would free will and choice be any more of an illusion as consciousness and mind themselves?
Quote from: Aroura33 on June 28, 2014, 03:13:35 PM
Now THIs is the best definition of free-will I've ever heard.
Awww, shucks! *blushes*
Quote
However, just because we currently mostly experience it as free, however, if you really pay attention to life as you experience it, you will notice that often we actually do feel not in control of our own situation.
I'm afraid there's a mixture of language games going on here. I, too, at times feel as though I was not in control of a situation. I was forced to do something I did not want. Things happened outside of my control. Those are things that happen, but I'm afraid that is not what I am speaking of, and the fact that those two are real things does not negate anything I said. The fact that you are able to put together that you were not in control is your mind moving freely. Your experience. There is never a time when you or I wake up without our control as our bodies run us across the house making food, getting changed, and cleaning the house. These are all things we do and as we do them we experience them as free. Often times these debates you hear someone say, "I feel as though I made the choice to go to the mall", "I feel like I decided I wanted a cheeseburger and not a quesadilla" or "I feel like I made the decision to forgive my father." None of these things happen in a way that our experience is not free. We do feel like we made those choices. You could never experience life in any other way. I reckon this is Kant's unity of experience stuff. The faculties of the mind are things all humans have and we have in the same way.
Also, I think Determinism is a very important concept. Determinism can only be seen backwards (we cannot know the totality of all in order to know the future), and thus that being the case we should look at situations, understand why they happened, and try and create better outcomes.
Determinism and free will exist. They simply exist in two different realms.
Our minds are capable of feeling both as if they are freely doing things, and as if they are but robots doing what we are programmed to do.
Determinism in practice, as opposed to just blabbing about it, could be put to good use in society if people actually were taught to think critically about it more often. Is that poor young black man from the slums doomed to a life of crime? Or can we change his circumstances, change the variables as it were and prevent the bad things before they happen? Determinism, when put in to practice in this way, could do a lot to improve everything from individual personal betterment to large scale social betterment to environmental change.
But I don't hold out a lot of hope for people to start trying to view the world in this way. Most people can't even shed the warm illusion of being a special loved creation at the center of the creators universe.
It's a lot easier to blame people for choosing to be evil or bad, punish them, lock them up, then pat ourselves on the back for being the good guys.
[/quote]
“We feel that our actions are voluntary when they follow a decision and involuntary when they happen without decision. But if a decision itself were voluntary every decision would have to be preceded by a decision to decide - An infinite regression which fortunately does not occur. Oddly enough, if we had to decide to decide, we would not be free to decideâ€
― Alan Wilson Watts, The Way of Zen
Our minds depend on physical processes, and our decisions are based on our knowledge, or lack of, feelings, emotions, beliefs, all of which determine what we decide to do with our illusion of having freewill with our conscious abilities that are also determined by physical processes. The only way we could have freewill is if we were separate from our physical bodies which we are not. Freewill only comes into the picture if we have a soul that is separate from our physical bodies. There is not one shred of reliable evidence that this is so. This is why so many people think being gay is a choice, or immoral behavior, as well as criminal behavior is. When we want retribution it is to make us feel good, the very reason people are religious, and come up with God giving us freewill. Which is kind of funny when you think about it. It means you are free to be a bigot, prejudice, revengeful, and hateful as long as it is supported by religion and its moral code. Where is freedom involved in that? We have will power, but it is not free and separate from the physical. :borg:
Quote from: Shol'va on December 09, 2013, 02:42:08 PM
I'm still on the fence regarding determinism. It has very valid and compelling points.
But ... how is spontaneity accounted for? Sam Harris then has a point, and I can be on board with that. It's not all determinism or free will, it likely falls somewhere in between.
I like this. It might be the first thing I ever read that makes sense in this never ending debate.
And I told myself I wasn't going to engage in this nonsense anymore. Now there's a case for determinism if I ever saw one.
And of course Solitary copypastes his tired rant about free will, which he does not define. He is literally talking about nothing at all.
Quote from: SGOS on June 30, 2014, 12:18:09 PM
I like this. It might be the first thing I ever read that makes sense in this never ending debate.
I'd like to say that I think what I said is a more informative answer to the debate that anything Sam Harris could say. Harris' comment is a lazy way of putting it.
Quote from: Notthesun on July 01, 2014, 02:58:10 AM
I'd like to say that I think what I said is a more informative answer to the debate that anything Sam Harris could say. Harris' comment is a lazy way of putting it.
Actually, there are a lot of good comments in this thread. I joined late after many good observations were made, and I responded to the first thing that resonated, and my reply then shows up at the end of the list. It almost sounds like I'm disregarding all the replies except that one (which was the first) thing I could make sense out of. That's not the case.
I don't know if this never ending free will debate is simply over my head, or too philosophical in nature to prove the validity of either side, but I've struggled with it for years. Ordinarily, I could just blow something like this off as horseshit, except that some pretty intelligent people seem to have given it a lot of thought, and seem to be pretty convinced of one side of the debate or the other.
What resonates for me in this thread is that the debate heretofore seems to be divided as black or white. I also sense a semantic element is involved, but try as I might, I have never been able to identify what that might be. You can also argue that tiny brain farts exist during one's supposed "free choice" in the selection of vanilla or chocolate, and say that these brain farts come from environmental causes and mysteriously affect your brain without you knowing it. And maybe it's even true, but is seems like a pedantic excess of mental energy.
But simply treating it like that God awful nature/nurture debate seems like nothing more than a meaningless philosophical exercise. Well to me anyway. If everything is determined, but just doesn't seem like it, then I probably shouldn't bother wasting time thinking about it. But matters of degree I can accept. Others may not, but in the end deciding whether I should be watering my lawn right now has a greater effect on my future than arguing nature/nurture or determinism/free will.
But from what I can tell, the debate will never be resolved. As a debate topic, I've yet to encounter anything with such an enduring (and often, annoying) resilience.
@SGOS I totally understand. I am trying to break that black and white fallacy and show it's more complicated than we think, but also rather simple. If you go one page back and see my first post, I think you may like the answer.
Quote from: Notthesun on July 01, 2014, 03:39:29 PM
If you go one page back and see my first post,
I did.
Quote
I think you may like the answer.
I do.
Yay! I'm happy to hear that.