Two personal beliefs and their consequences - Page 8

imported_luckyme · #71 12-11-2005, 04:27 AM

Claim - Free will can't operate because of determinism.

Raises several questions before we accept it by power of repetition.

1) is there determinism? ( in spite of several strong arguments against it). If Determinism can't be proven than there is no obstacle to FW by this claim.
2)Perhaps Determinism is being confused with Fatalism.
3) Can free will operate if there is no determinism? If it can't, what's all the bother about determinism. Perhaps the problem is an ill-conceived notion of FW.

I'm off to bed. good luck with formulating your concepts, luckyme

hmkpoker · #72 12-11-2005, 04:27 AM

My point gave reason and purpose to your problematic ethical off-the-hookness.

If that's still unsatisfactory, then you just need to accept your position and quit yo jibba jabba

Stu Pidasso · #73 12-11-2005, 04:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way you could eat avoid eating the ice cream.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is preventing me from abstaining?

Stu

purnell · #74 12-11-2005, 04:35 AM

Kathleen, you are correct, free will is impossible in a materialistic worldview. However, we are bound to pretend that we have it.

Chez has got it perfectly, IMO. The result is the same either way.

#75 12-11-2005, 04:43 AM

Please re-read this thread.

Good night everyone!

#76 12-11-2005, 05:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way you could eat avoid eating the ice cream.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is preventing me from abstaining?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

You might abstain, but a determinist would argue that that's really what you were going to do all along anyway, so it does nothing to defeat his argument. Determinism says that whatever you do is predetermined, so whether you eat it, don't eat it, pretend like you're going to eat it and then throw it in the garbage really fast, or do something totally unexpected like stick your cell phone in the ice cream, you're not psyching out determinism. they would say that whatever you ended up doing, you were predestined to do all along.

#77 12-11-2005, 08:03 AM

f

Lestat · #78 12-11-2005, 12:11 PM

You guys are (philosophically), WAY over my head on this one! I wish I had more time to partake in this thread. I just want to briefly say I'm a big believer in the pain/pleasure principle, i.e. we are primarily influenced by two motivating factors:

1. The desire to gain pleasure.

2. The need to avoid pain.

Every action we take is motivated in some way by our necessity to either gain pleasure, to avoid pain, or some combination of the two.

The overweight person who does nothing to change his/her condition remains idle either because the pleasure from eating ice cream is greater than the pleasure from being fit and trim. OR... The pain that would come from dieting and exercise is greater than the pain of remaining obese and out of shape.

YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR AXIOMS!!

You can be at your ideal weight. You can have exactly the amount of money you need. You can design your life exactly how you want it. There is give and take, but it is mainly a matter of changing your axioms on what you derive pain and pleasure from.

imported_luckyme · #79 12-11-2005, 01:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Free will and determinism are contradictions not buddies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I tap the ruby slippers and grant you free will. So, elated, you make a choice ( process skipped over for now). How will you implement it? You can't "cause" anything specific to happen unless you have determinism to rely on.
Free will needs determinism. And in more ways than this obvious one.

luckyme

#80 12-11-2005, 02:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If determinism is the opposite of free will, why then would you want to prove free will while trying to prove determinism?? Still no one has given an example of making a choice that hasn't been influenced by past events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laplace's Demon knows all the facts about the past and present and all the natural laws that govern our world, and uses this knowledge to foresee the future, down to every detail.

LaPlace's Demon never lies.

LaPlace's Demon says to you, "I know you are going to eat this bowl of ice cream".

If you could eat that bowl of ice cream but decide not to then determinism is false.

I'm sure I could abstain from eating that bowl of ice cream.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Determinism is the theory that all events are influenced by past events. And therefore, if you were to choose not to eat the ice cream, it could be because you were not hungry, or you were trying to prove determinism wrong. No matter what, there is something causing you to not eat the ice cream. By not eating the ice cream does not disprove determinism.