• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

pood said:
In addition we have the little extra filip that I noted earlier and which DBT ignored is that a recent scientific study suggests that wave-function collapse in the brain produces consciousness, and if true that means determinism goes right out the window even at the human level and must be replaced by the probabilistic Born rule for calculating outcomes of events.
Click to expand...
This is getting ridiculous. This is about consciousness and the theory is so far-fetched, you are grasping at straws again. They can try to prove anything, which is called a theory. By the same token, you can try to prove that 1+1=11 and it may sound plausible by some convoluted explanation, but that would mean disproving that 1+1=2. Similarly, you can try your darndest to find theories that reject determinism, but you haven't disproved the FACT that we move in one direction ONLY; the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction (not less) which means our brains can only choose one option each moment in time. He explained clearly that each moment we make a move from here to there, it is because of some discomfort or dissatisfaction otherwise we would remain where we are without moving a hairs breadth.
 
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY." :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”
Click to expand...
What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
I am not splitting hairs, because OF COURSE it COULD be some other way, it just ISN’T.
Click to expand...
No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.
Click to expand...

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.
 
peacegirl said:
pood said:
In addition we have the little extra filip that I noted earlier and which DBT ignored is that a recent scientific study suggests that wave-function collapse in the brain produces consciousness, and if true that means determinism goes right out the window even at the human level and must be replaced by the probabilistic Born rule for calculating outcomes of events.
Click to expand...
This is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You don’t know anything about quantum mechanics or wave function collapse or any of that stuff so don’t even wade into it.
 
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
In addition we have the little extra filip that I noted earlier and which DBT ignored is that a recent scientific study suggests that wave-function collapse in the brain produces consciousness, and if true that means determinism goes right out the window even at the human level and must be replaced by the probabilistic Born rule for calculating outcomes of events.
Click to expand...
This is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You don’t know anything about quantum mechanics or wave function collapse or any of that stuff so don’t even wade into it. I don't have to know your idea that 1=1=11 to know that 1+1=2. Man's will cannot be free for the reasons given and they are sound. You cannot prove that we have libertarian free will, and you certainly cannot make determinism compatible with free will either. Hang it up. You won't win! ;)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY." :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”
Click to expand...
What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
I am not splitting hairs, because OF COURSE it COULD be some other way, it just ISN’T.
Click to expand...
No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.
Click to expand...

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.
Click to expand...

  1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.
Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.
 
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY." :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”
Click to expand...
What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
I am not splitting hairs, because OF COURSE it COULD be some other way, it just ISN’T.
Click to expand...
No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.
Click to expand...

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.
Click to expand...

  1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.
Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.
Click to expand...
No, the quoted material is exactly correct. And, as I’ve already explained bazillions of times in this and other threads, under compatibilism, we expect that under the EXACT SAME conditions, we would get the EXACT SAME result. However it does not logically follow that the result is NECESSARY.
 
A bit more about this “constant conjunction“ business that DBT is suddenly so enamored of, even though it does not support hard determinism.

Hume was talking only about repeatable events that can be independently verified. If I have a ball and open my hand, it falls, always. Hence “opening my hand” and “falling ball” are in constant conjunction. Many observed phenomenon are like this.

But Hume’s own Problem of Induction undermines this. Just because my looking for a black swan and always finding a black swan are in constant conjunction, nothing about this state of affairs proves that the next swan will not be white.

But more to the point, suppose I approach a soft drink machine that stocks Pepsi and Coke. Every time I am observed to pick Coke. So my using the vending machine and picking Coke are in constant junction. Does this prove I am unable to pick Pepsi? Of course not. It just shows that I do not, but in no way indicates a necessity relationship because of course there isn’t any.
 
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY." :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”
Click to expand...
What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
I am not splitting hairs, because OF COURSE it COULD be some other way, it just ISN’T.
Click to expand...
No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.
Click to expand...

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.
Click to expand...

  1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.
Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.
Click to expand...
No, the quoted material is exactly correct. And, as I’ve already explained bazillions of times in this and other threads, under compatibilism, we expect that under the EXACT SAME conditions, we would get the EXACT SAME result. However it does not logically follow that the result is NECESSARY.
Click to expand...
Of course, the result is necessary under the EXACT SAME conditions. This was the whole point of the author stating that determinism cannot dictate in advance what a choice must be. That is not how it works. For example, it could be that a person is deciding whether to rob a bank. It's neither true nor false that he will rob the bank because it hasn't happened yet. He is still ruminating over what he wants to do. Because he thinks he can get away with it and he needs the money (he is in dire stra, he decides to go for it. He could have chosen not to rob the bank. It would entail a contradiction if he didn't rob the bank (such as rocks rolling uphill instead of down). It was not a necessary truth that he must rob the bank because it was set in stone but given the options available to him and how his mind was viewing the situation from his vantage point, this was his preference in the direction of greater satisfaction. He could have chosen not to rob the bank. The question goes right back to "could he have done otherwise once he made up his mind to act." The answer is no, not under those exact same conditions. Looking back, the same individual, given the choice to rob the bank, might have new reasons not to go ahead with it.
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY." :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”
Click to expand...
What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
I am not splitting hairs, because OF COURSE it COULD be some other way, it just ISN’T.
Click to expand...
No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.
Click to expand...

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.
Click to expand...

  1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.
Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.
Click to expand...
No, the quoted material is exactly correct. And, as I’ve already explained bazillions of times in this and other threads, under compatibilism, we expect that under the EXACT SAME conditions, we would get the EXACT SAME result. However it does not logically follow that the result is NECESSARY.
Click to expand...
A necessary truth is one in which a rock always going downhill, not uphill, or it would be a contradiction. There is no contradiction in a contingent truth that is based on an individual's circumstances. It is easy to say a person could have chosen another option when it comes to wrongdoing. This is what it's about, being morally responsible, right? If someone decides to rob a bank, it isn't a necessary truth that he must rob the bank, if he doesn't want to, but he wants to, based on what he thinks is the best choice under his circumstances. It could be that he is in dire straits financially and cannot get the food he needs for his family. To repeat: He could choose not to rob the bank if he feels that there is too much risk involved, but regardless of his reasons, once he decides this choice is the better one, and he acts on it, it could not have been otherwise because not robbing the bank at that moment would have been the least preferable choice and would have gone against his nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Remember: If B (not to rob the bank) was impossible because it offered him less satisfaction under the circumstances (due to his desperation) he was not free to choose A (to rob the bank). This does not mean that looking back he may not have been sorry to have made that choice after getting caught, but at the time, he thought it was the best choice available to him. So, when you say that he didn't have to rob the bank (he had other options) that is true. But he was under a compulsion to do what he thought was best for his family, over which he had no control. Once again, he could have chosen B (hypothetically) had he desired this, but it doesn't change the fact that he was under a compulsion to choose what he thought was in his and his family's best interest, and at that moment it was A, in the direction of greater satisfaction.
 
Last edited:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
peacegirl said:
pood said:
As the saying goes, "what will be, will be" because "IT COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY." :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, as noted, that would be, “what will be, must be.”
Click to expand...
What will be, will be" because it couldn't be any other way IS THE SAME THING AS "what will be, must be." You're splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
I am not splitting hairs, because OF COURSE it COULD be some other way, it just ISN’T.
Click to expand...
No David, it could not be some other way AFTER you have made a choice.
Click to expand...

No, peacegirl, all contingently true propositions remain so even after the fact. Basic logic.
Click to expand...

  1. In philosophy and logic, contingency refers to propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation1. A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false1. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false23. The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy3. Truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false3.
Basic logic, my foot. Logical cobwebs is more like it. It could have been true or false before a choice is made. Contingent just means that our choices are based on previous thoughts, experiences, and events that are pushing us in a particular direction. It certainly doesn't mean that under the same exact conditions, we could have picked a different alternative. It becomes necessarily true or necessarily false only after the act of choosing, not before.
Click to expand...
No, the quoted material is exactly correct. And, as I’ve already explained bazillions of times in this and other threads, under compatibilism, we expect that under the EXACT SAME conditions, we would get the EXACT SAME result. However it does not logically follow that the result is NECESSARY.
Click to expand...
Of course, the result is necessary under the EXACT SAME conditions.
Click to expand...

The result is the same under the exact same conditions, but not necessary.
peacegirl said:
s.
A necessary truth is one in which a rock always going downhill, not uphill, or it would be a contradiction.
Click to expand...

No, a rock always going downhill is not a necessary truth. If you can conceive a possible world at which a rock goes uphill instead of downhill without invoking a logical contradiction, and in the case of the rock you can, then it is a contingent truth. A logical contradiction would be a rock going uphill and downhill at the same time, but then again, under quantum mechanics … well, yeah, there is a whole branch of logic called quantum logic and it differs quite impressively from standard logic.
 
pood said:
A bit more about this “constant conjunction“ business that DBT is suddenly so enamored of, even though it does not support hard determinism.

Hume was talking only about repeatable events that can be independently verified. If I have a ball and open my hand, it falls, always. Hence “opening my hand” and “falling ball” are in constant conjunction. Many observed phenomenon are like this.

But Hume’s own Problem of Induction undermines this. Just because my looking for a black swan and always finding a black swan are in constant conjunction, nothing about this state of affairs proves that the next swan will not be white.

But more to the point, suppose I approach a soft drink machine that stocks Pepsi and Coke. Every time I am observed to pick Coke. So my using the vending machine and picking Coke are in constant junction. Does this prove I am unable to pick Pepsi? Of course not. It just shows that I do not, but in no way indicates a necessity relationship because of course there isn’t any.
Click to expand...
Of course not. One is causal and one has an association. If I put my foot on the accelerator and hit someone, this is constant conjunction. What does this have to do with the fact that man's will is not free for the reasons given?
 
peacegirl said:
steve_bank said:
Keep the faith Papergirl.

View attachment 47898
Click to expand...
it's not about faith Steve.
Click to expand...
It is faith to believe despite thousands of years of reordered human history humans will collectively be something other than what we are.

I was having a conversion with a Washington state cop once and he said over something 'You do not understand, individually people are are smart, collectively they are like sheep'.

Observation trumps philosophical and moral speculation. Observations led to social science and psychology.

For a thousand years the RCC enforced a rigid moral code for the masses ,the educated elitee did not follow but paid lip service.

The relegion of Jesus the prince of peace has led to wars and brutality.

Have you read Huxley's Brave New World? An attempt to genetically engineer universal happiness

Exclusive sexual relationships lead to conflict and unhappiness, so ban exclusive sexual and emotional relationships.

In one of Vonnegut's story a society where everybody is made equal. If you have natural physicall strength you have to wear weights like handicapping a horse in a race..

Point beng there will alwys be inequties, it is the way natuire is. There will always be condct and unhappiness.

A fundmental Buddist view, to live is to suffer. It is inevitable. The quetion is not elmination of sufferng but how to find peace in a relity that is not fundamntaly peacful.

We may be apochng a tipping point of war between Russia and NATO if Ukrine strkes Russia with long range missles supplied by NATO.

We may be nearing a tippng point in the Med East with a war between Isreal, Lebnion, and Iran which will drag us in.

Keep the faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom