Hi CitizensC.pm, It is difficult for me to flesh out the philosophical questions you have in your life stories. Maybe we should go somewhere for a beer (or coffee) and have some longer dialogue. Poor enough I assume there are a few thousands of miles between us...Wouldn't I love that, if you're ever near Colorado, let me know, I'll go out of my way for that beer and talk. Ironically, if the future holds an overseas trip for me, Mogelsberg/St.Gallen area would be it's destination. And I'll be begging you to take me on a tour of CERN. :cheese: But a few undetermined determining factors would have to fall into place, for that adventure. ~ ~ ~ Lawrence does pretty good, I like much of his stuff, but somehow things you've pointed out resonate better, thus are more useful me. Particularly your last post, and it seemed to me that my comment early yesterday echoed some of your points. I myself am not struggling with any life's philosophy, kinda feel like I got that one behind. At this point it's trying to understand what's going on in the head of others... and why the world went in such a self-destructive direction. And also settling into a spiritual resignation that we've passed too many tipping points, and the unraveling is upon us. You know when I started understanding all this, there were still relatively simple choices society could have made to change direction and make substantial positive differences to many future generation - now it's too late…. and I see all these people around walking around in a bubble of their personal planning as if there weren't going to be major upheavals happening with increasing tempo. That's a tough one.
No, to be consistent you would have to agree that no one can make calculations and be motivated to act without being determined to make calculations and to feel motivation.I do agree so I am being consistent. And that is just the same as the rain can't make grass wet without being determined to do so.
Making calculations and feeling motivated do not happen in a vacuum.Quite right they don't, just like rain doesn't. But your point is as equally empty re deliberate actions as it would be if you made it re rain making grass wet. How is that? Lois Because of what it is to act deliberately. It is to make calculations and be motivated to act as a result. Being determined to make the calculations and be motivated to act as a result can't change the fact that we do it, anymore than it can change the fact that rain makes the grass wet. That we think we can act deliberately does not mean we can. Free will is a fantasy. We don't exercise free will, we just think we do. We are determined to feel motivations and to think we are aking calculations before we act, but we can only experience what we define as motivation and make what we think are calculations if we are determined to do it by factrs beyond our control. Can a two-year old make calculations? A mentally deficient person? A person who never learned to make calculations? If they can't do it, then the ability to make calculations is determined by determining factors we have no control over. LL
Think of it this way. You are watching a movie (life). You think that if you clench your fists really hard every time the hero is in trouble, he will get out of the trouble unscathed. Sometimes it seems to "work," so you decide that your fist clenching is "influencing" the unfolding of the "movie." Only the "movie" has already been made and nothing you do can change anything. But you want to think your actions have influence so you continue clenchimg your fists and the hero keeps on getting out of trouble sometimes. You don't want to be told you have no influence because you have decided that would be depressing, so you continue to believe you have it. Now in the real unverse some of your actions may have some influence on tomorrow's "movie" because it hasn't been made yet, but you can't know whether your actions are going to influence it, which ones might influence it, how they will influence it, or how much. LoisLife is not like a movie! By any stretch of the imagine. Can't you do better than ad hoc constructions… that's the realm of creationists and climate science denialist? No, it means you can't inderstand analogy. Young children and poorly educated adults have a problem understanding analogies, too. They seem incapable of relating the analogy to reality. In this example they would say, as you did, that a movie is not life. You have to be determined by factors beyond your control to understand how analogies work. . You apparently lack those determining factors but, of course, you don't realize it. There is a reason IQ tests include analogy questions. Lois
When rain makes the grass wet it IS determined. Without determining influences, the rain would not exist or it would not fall on the grass or it would have no effect on the grass. You might as well say that the rain, using its free will WANTED to fall on the grass and the grass using its free will WANTED to be wet.But Stephen is completely right. The rain makes the grass wet. That the rain is falling of course has causes, it is determined, but that does not mean that the rain does not make the grass wet. Whatever the causes of the rain, it makes the grass wet. Your deliberations have influence on what you do. That your deliberations have causes, that they are determined, does not mean that your deliberations don't have influence. Whatever the causes of your deliberations, they have influence. There is no contradiction between being caused, and being a cause. So there is also no contradiction between your deliberations causing actions, and your deliberations being caused. If your actions are determined by your own wishes and beliefs, then your actions are free. Free will means you can act according your own wishes and beliefs. It does not mean 'having control of your determining factors'. If that was the case steam engines, heaters with thermostates, any servo system, would have free will, because they control their determining factors. See here].
No, it means you can't inderstand analogy. Young children and poorly educated adults have a problem understanding analogies, too. They seem incapable of relating the analogy to reality. In this example they would say, as you did, that a movie is not life. You have to be determined by factors beyond your control to understand how analogies work. . You apparently lack those determining factors but, of course, you don't realize it. There is a reason IQ tests include analogy questions.This is plainly insulting, Lois.
That we think we can "act deliberately" . . .Would you care to define "act deliberately" ?
That we think we can act deliberately does not mean we can. Free will is a fantasy. We don't exercise free will, we just think we do. We are determined to feel motivations and to think we are aking calculations before we act, but we can only experience what we define as motivation and make what we think are calculations if we are determined to do it by factrs beyond our control. Can a two-year old make calculations? A mentally deficient person? A person who never learned to make calculations? If they can't do it, then the ability to make calculations is determined by determining factors we have no control over. LLLL, I wonder if you've taken the time to view
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17445/ Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY? :smirk:
Lois, it has been claimed that you have a habit of ignoring questions, challenges.
The following seems to be a very succinct assessment of the situation.
Can you offer some concise, rational, persuasive responses?
:blank:
But Stephen is completely right. The rain makes the grass wet. That the rain is falling of course has causes, it is determined, but that does not mean that the rain does not make the grass wet. Whatever the causes of the rain, it makes the grass wet. Your deliberations have influence on what you do. That your deliberations have causes, that they are determined, does not mean that your deliberations don't have influence. Whatever the causes of your deliberations, they have influence. There is no contradiction between being caused, and being a cause. So there is also no contradiction between your deliberations causing actions, and your deliberations being caused. If your actions are determined by your own wishes and beliefs, then your actions are free. Free will means you can act according your own wishes and beliefs. It does not mean 'having control of your determining factors'. If that was the case steam engines, heaters with thermostates, any servo system, would have free will, because they control their determining factors. See here].
This was written before catching up on todays comments, I think it’s still work sharing.
Right the complexity of human anatomy and human life is no different than a chemical reaction. Like that's going to help anyone understand anything.It won't. And what of it? Lois, what game are you playing? First off, Is the complexity of human anatomy and human life no different from a chemical reaction, or a movie??? YES or NO ??? Again have you listen to Antonio Damasio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY talk? and how would you incorporate that information into your world view?
Is there some "rule" of humanity that says we have to understand anything? We have no control over "understanding," any more than we have control over anything else. We can think we understand something but we are just as likely as not to have it all wrong. What then? Who are you going to complain to?What's this!? Are you just angry and flaying? Jesus what is a humanistic life about if not the constant striving to better understand the universe around oneself through rational learning from one's own observations and by assessing and digesting the substantive learning others have achieved, you know, in light of the constant flow of new information? Lois, I believe there is no curiosity or science or learning, without a desire to better understand, appreciate the world around us. If it didn't have spiritual and utilitarian value to humans it wouldn't exist. And I'm hearing you say all that is nonsense. :blank: If I misunderstand please explain.
I think it’s worth pointing out that Lois is right about some of this.
She defines LFW well and we don’t have it. Most people do believe in LFW. Probably we all do intuitively, it takes effort to counter the belief.
Citizenschallenge, your resistance to determinism is because you thought you had and want LFW, why else? Remember we were imagining cards behaving indeterministically, and what you came up with is the cards morphing. Indeterminism is weird for us to imagine and at the macro level it’s non existent. It’s not ‘gross’ that if we replayed the tape we’d do the same again, it’s how it is. More importsntly it is how we think, we do think in terms of determinism usually and if you’d answer the question about the golf ball you’d see that.
An important thing is not to insist free will means LFW nor to insist it means CFW, clearly people believe in both, it’s not either or. One is harmful and the other is a concept we need.
The reason to debate this is to be rid of the harmful concept and better understand the useful one.
I think it's worth pointing out that Lois is right about some of this. She defines LFW well and we don't have it. Most people do believe in LFW. Probably we all do intuitively, it takes effort to counter the belief. Citizenschallenge, your resistance to determinism is because you thought you had and want LFW, why else?i think if you looked at the substance of what I've written you could not claim that. It's the formulation and all it's blind to that I object to. Besides most of this has actually been about me trying to understand what others are talking about than trying to "object" to it. But if it doesn't resonate, it doesn't resonate. And yes if it doesn't offer anything constructive - it's not useful in my humble opinion. It's like trying to debate the reality of "time" - what good is it?
And has anyone bothered to listen to Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17445/To me that's the starting point, rather that all this head play of philosophical rationalization and formulaic logic. Thus I wonder why it seems to evoke a collective big bored yawn?
To me that's the starting point, rather that all this head play of philosophical rationalization and formulaic logic. Thus I wonder why it seems to evoke a collective big bored yawn?I wonder that too. I'll relate this to climate change denial since I hope to strike a chord with you. So there is this problem which is we are heating up the planet with green house gas emissions. You get all these deniers who are basically saying 'all these emissions are likely to be benign'. How silly is that, of course not. So there is this problem which is almost everybody believes in LFW. You get these deniers who are basically saying 'belief in LFW is likely to be benign'. How silly is that, of course not. Now you need the formulaic logic to see the problem. You need to know what it means to say "that golf ball could have killed me" and then apply the meaning of 'could have' to ourselves. The point is we didn't have the kind of opportunity we imagine we had to have done otherwise. Always we were prevented by circumstances beyond our control being as they were.
Now you need the formulaic logic to see the problem. You need to know what it means to say "that golf ball could have killed me" and then apply the meaning of 'could have' to ourselves. The point is we didn't have the kind of opportunity we imagine we had to have done otherwise. YOU MEAN LIKE DUCK? Always we were prevented by circumstances beyond our control being as they were.:lol: sorry all I see is presumptuous talk about words, while ignoring the actual flow of life and our place in our own . . . :blank:
When rain makes the grass wet it IS determined. Without determining influences, the rain would not exist or it would not fall on the grass or it would have no effect on the grass. You might as well say that the rain, using its free will WANTED to fall on the grass and the grass using its free will WANTED to be wet.But Stephen is completely right. The rain makes the grass wet. That the rain is falling of course has causes, it is determined, but that does not mean that the rain does not make the grass wet. Whatever the causes of the rain, it makes the grass wet. There is no disputethat the rain makes the grass wet. The question is what made the rain fall on the grass to make it wet? Does the rain have free will? Your deliberations have influence on what you do. That your deliberations have causes, that they are determined, does not mean that your deliberations don't have influence. Whatever the causes of your deliberations, they have influence. Yes, that's true, but it still doesn't prove free will. As long as deliberations are determined, no free will is necessary. The resultant actions come from the determining influences, not from free will. There is no contradiction between being caused, and being a cause. So there is also no contradiction between your deliberations causing actions, and your deliberations being caused. Of course it matters what causes the actions--if scientific iquiry is of any importance to you. A scientist wouldn't say that because we deliberate that means we have free will. If you have no interest in knowing what caused amd controls the deliberations, as long as your investigations stop there, that COULD lead a person completely uninterested in understanding how things work to come up with the fantasy of free will. If your actions are determined by your own wishes and beliefs, then your actions are free. Free will means you can act according your own wishes and beliefs. Yes, that's exctly what it means, and my contention is that it is impossible for anyone to do anything that supersedes their determining factors. Only if you assume your wishes and beliefs happen in a vacuum or as a result of free will. If you wish to avoid in examining origins of beliefs and wishes, and going back as far as possible, then free will is as good an answer as any. You might as well say god did it and be done with the investigation. Why go any further? . It does not mean 'having control of your determining factors'. If that was the case steam engines, heaters with thermostates, any servo system, would have free will, because they control their determining factors. See here]. No, they wouldn't control their determining factors. But your contention is that humans can control their determining factors by force of will. The determining factors of machinery don't change because some of their actions are caused by a program or whoever created and installed the heaters and thermostats. All of the actions of the machinery are determined. You are the one claimimg free will, not me. Does the machinery with automatic systems have free will? Do the factors that determined the machinery's automatic actions become invalid because the machinery can seemingly act without direct control? That seems to be what you are implying. What can't work for machinery can't work for people. We are programmed machines that can't overcome our programming by the magic of free will, no matter how much you want it to be so.
No, it means you can't inderstand analogy. Young children and poorly educated adults have a problem understanding analogies, too. They seem incapable of relating the analogy to reality. In this example they would say, as you did, that a movie is not life. You have to be determined by factors beyond your control to understand how analogies work. . You apparently lack those determining factors but, of course, you don't realize it. There is a reason IQ tests include analogy questions.This is plainly insulting, Lois. If an argument insults you, you should examine why you can't understand analogies. Feeling insulted isn't a good argument. It's more on the level of sayong, "No fair!" and taking your ball and running home.
Oh there I go being rude again. But I mean really all this is about arguing that the past can’t be changed.
Shouldn’t we be concerning ourselves more with the dynamics of understanding who/what we are,
thereby better exerting our will . . . thereby “influencing” the roll of the dice, as our lives speed by?
Besides all this business about “control” and “forcing” this business about “If everything were the same, we must do the same”
Who the hell says that!? Based on what?
There are so many random event’s that influence, sometimes radical change, how we make it through our days,
sure in all some HollyWorld example, you can explain how if you roll back events would be the same, blahblah…
but in the real dynamic world upon this planet, even if you could roll back time,
you could not perfectly roll back and replay the entire unimaginably complex sequence of determined and random event’s
that were part of how you, or me, got through this day of our short life.
Every replaying would producing different results.
So tell me again, what the hell is this philosophizing supposed to tell us about our journey through life. >:(
Lois, why do you ignore this
Lois, it has been claimed that you have a habit of ignoring questions, challenges. The following seems to be a very succinct assessment of the situation. Can you offer some concise, rational, persuasive responses? :blank:but have time for this pettiness?But Stephen is completely right. The rain makes the grass wet. That the rain is falling of course has causes, it is determined, but that does not mean that the rain does not make the grass wet. Whatever the causes of the rain, it makes the grass wet. Your deliberations have influence on what you do. That your deliberations have causes, that they are determined, does not mean that your deliberations don't have influence. Whatever the causes of your deliberations, they have influence. There is no contradiction between being caused, and being a cause. So there is also no contradiction between your deliberations causing actions, and your deliberations being caused. If your actions are determined by your own wishes and beliefs, then your actions are free. Free will means you can act according your own wishes and beliefs. It does not mean 'having control of your determining factors'. If that was the case steam engines, heaters with thermostates, any servo system, would have free will, because they control their determining factors. See here].
If an argument insults you, you should examine why you can't understand analogies. Feeling insulted isn't a good argument. It's more on the level of sayong, "No fair!" and taking your ball and running home.
Oh there I go being rude again. But I mean really all this is about arguing that the past can't be changed. Shouldn't we be concerning ourselves more with the dynamics of understanding who/what we are, thereby better exerting our will . . . thereby "influencing" the roll of the dice, as our lives speed by? Besides all this business about "control" and "forcing" this business about "If everything were the same, we must do the same" Who the hell says that!? Based on what? There are so many random event's that influence, sometimes radical change, how we make it through our days, sure in all some HollyWorld example, you can explain how if you roll back events would be the same, blahblah... but in the real dynamic world upon this planet, even if you could roll back time, you could not perfectly roll back and replay the entire unimaginably complex sequence of determined and random event's that were part of how you, or me, got through this day of our short life. Every replaying would producing different results. So tell me again, what the hell is this philosophizing supposed to tell us about our journey through life. >:(What does any philosophizing tell us about anything? We philosophize because we're determined to do it, whther we come up with rational answers or not. Lois
Yes like duck. So if someone didn't duck they were prevented from ducking by circumstances beyond their control. Now imagine someone saying "it's his own silly fault all he had to do was duck" you see the sentiment doesn't fit with the fact that he was prevented from ducking by circumstances beyond his control. We are immersed in a world full of belief in LFW and as I say you are taking the view the belief is benign without justification.Now you need the formulaic logic to see the problem. You need to know what it means to say "that golf ball could have killed me" and then apply the meaning of 'could have' to ourselves. The point is we didn't have the kind of opportunity we imagine we had to have done otherwise. YOU MEAN LIKE DUCK? Always we were prevented by circumstances beyond our control being as they were.:lol:
sorry all I see is presumptuous talk about words, while ignoring the actual flow of life and our place in our own . . . :blank:It's not presumptuous it's pretty much factual.This is all about the meaning of 'could have'. If you won't check and see for yourself what 'could have' means you won't see what this is all about, something you say you've been trying to do. And the flow of life isn't being ignored exactly it's just it has no relevance to the meaning of 'could have' So if you're serious about wanting to find out about LFW. I urge you to answer the question.
Duplicate
So tell me again, what the hell is this philosophizing supposed to tell us about our journey through life. >:(About the meaning of 'could have', Getting it wrong makes a big difference to our journeys through life, or so many of us say. You need to see through the LFW illusion to see this, and you need to do things like taking the replaying the tape argument seriously to do that.
What does any philosophizing tell us about anything? We philosophize because we're determined to do it, whther we come up with rational answers or not. LoisPhilosophy is very important, especially on a key concept on morality. And I'm sure you don't just argue against LFW for the hell of it. You recognise we'd be better off without it. The replaying the tape thought experiment is very useful as it tells us that LFW is impossible.