A challenge to show me wrong

[Willamena]

Will is actually when the desired answer is the cause.

Will has occurred only when "you" ("me") is the cause.

 

[Mudcat]

That they do, even myself.

Well your admission to your perception that you do make choices is certainly a start Skwim.

No less so than good reasoning can be equated to a mathematical equation that produces the correct answer. Poor reasoning is like a faulty formula and good reasoning like a good formula. If the chain of cause/effect in reasoning produces the appropriate then it's answer is little different than A² = B² + C²

I think the Pythagorean Theorem typically reads a² + b² = c². Regardless, the fact is that you assume that good reasoning always works out.. like a math formula and bad reasoning leads to errors. I think I understand you.

However, given determinism, there is no real concept of a good formula versus flawed one. People only do what they are programmed to do, so to speak. You might think a person like Jeff Dahmer, in example, was operating with a flawed formula. But I don't suppose you have any more choice about what you think about Dahmer, than Dahmer actually had in the actions, given determinism.

Given determinism, you living a good life (I assume your a good fellow Skwim) is no better than the life Dahmer had. It is just a result.

A problem I have with determinism, is a given propensity we (in general) have to see justice done. However, given determinism, justice is a fallacious principle. By that I mean there are no good grounds to assert values of right or wrong to any given action we perceive.

Yet our own perceptions, would indicate otherwise. We, in general, do assert value judgements of right/wrong things that seem morally implicated.

Determinism robs the notion of an actual right or wrong existing on any grounds.

And you didn't appreciate it because I felt your argument wasn't a good one? Then I suggest you toughen up a bit.

It was just small talk to draw you out a bit. I suppose I had no choice in the matter.

My skin is a bit thicker than that.

However, the fact that you did not think my argument was good, does not decrease it's validity. It is a good argument.

I'll sum it up.

Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we percieve making choices, then we can choose.
Conclusion. We can choose.

Regards,

Mudcat

 

[Storm]

However, the fact that you did not think my argument was good, does not decrease it's validity. It is a good argument.

I'll sum it up.

Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we percieve making choices, then we can choose.
Conclusion. We can choose.

Apologies, but he's right. Your argument is incomplete at best.

 

[Mudcat]

Apologies, but he's right. Your argument is incomplete at best.

Storm, the argument is fair game, however I have no basis to say that your judgement on the matter summarily dismisses the argument without proof.

To be clear, you saying it is incomplete, does not make it so.

Please show your proof that it is incomplete.

Either I will address it and discourse is furthered or I will concede the point.

Regards,

Mudcat

 

[Storm]

Storm, the argument is fair game, however I have no basis to say that your judgement on the matter summarily dismisses the argument without proof.

To be clear, you saying it is incomplete, does not make it so.

Please show your proof that it is incomplete.

Either I will address it and discourse is furthered or I will concede the point.

Regards,

Mudcat

You need to show that our perception is valid for your argument to be successful. You didn't even attempt to do so.

 

[Mudcat]

You need to show that our perception is valid for your argument to be successful. You didn't even attempt to do so.

Now I don't know why I should bother with that. Nor do I think it need to be shown.

I am holding my perception of life, the universe, and everything as a bit of an axiom. As I think you would Storm.

If events that transpire that we both perceive occurring are not true, then I would transfer the burden of proof to those that would argue such.

 

[Skwim]

I think the Pythagorean Theorem typically reads a² + b² = c²

Yeah. He and I went around and around about the labeling of triangles for quite a few years. Needless to say his way prevailed. But I still like mine well enough to use it.

the fact is that you assume that good reasoning always works out..

Not a fact at all. I've often seen good reasoning turned out faulty, sometimes even my own.

However, given determinism, there is no real concept of a good formula versus flawed one. People only do what they are programmed to do, so to speak. You might think a person like Jeff Dahmer, in example, was operating with a flawed formula. But I don't suppose you have any more choice about what you think about Dahmer, than Dahmer actually had in the actions, given determinism.

Your catching on.

Given determinism, you living a good life (I assume your a good fellow Skwim) is no better than the life Dahmer had. It is just a result.

Aren't all lives the result of a lot of things? To be honest, I don't know what you mean by "just a result," but whatever it is I have a pretty good idea my life has turned (resulted) into something better than Dahmer's.

A problem I have with determinism, is a given propensity we (in general) have to see justice done. However, given determinism, justice is a fallacious principle. By that I mean there are no good grounds to assert values of right or wrong to any given action we perceive.

Just as I pointed out in my OP.

Yet our own perceptions, would indicate otherwise.

I think it's pretty obvious we all go through life operating on the principle of free will. We can't help it.

We, in general, do assert value judgements of right/wrong things that seem morally implicated.

Determinism robs the notion of an actual right or wrong existing on any grounds.

Yes it does. Just remember that because this is so doesn't make it fallacious.

It was just small talk to draw you out a bit. I suppose I had no choice in the matter.

No you didn't

My skin is a bit thicker than that.

Good, because survival here isn't easy for the thin skinned.

I'll sum it up.

Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we perceive making choices, then we can choose.
Conclusion. We can choose.

Kind of an invalid syllogism; your major premise is missing a predicate. it's like saying

Premise 1. Horses poop

Premise 1. If horses poop, then they have six legs
__________________________________________________
Conclusion. Horses have six legs​

 

[Mudcat]

Kind of an invalid syllogism; your major premise is missing a predicate. it's like saying

Premise 1. Horses poop

Premise 1. If horses poop, then they have six legs
__________________________________________________
Conclusion. Horses have six legs​

Not at all.

Your analogy is off track.

But if that is your best response to my post, I will let it stand as a loser on you part.

 

[Skwim]

Not at all.

Your analogy is off track.

But if that is your best response to my post, I will let it stand as a loser on you part.

Thank you. As we both know, you couldn't help but fail to explain why my analogy is off track or call me a loser. You had no choice.

 

[Mudcat]

Thank you. As we both know, you couldn't help but fail to explain why my analogy is off track or call me a loser. You had no choice.

I failed to explain nothing. The failure in your analogy was self evident. Given your prose, I would think you realize this.

Why don't you just give it another shot? I hate see such a smart fellow get skinned so quickly by a newbie like me.

 

[Koldo]

Premise 1. We perceive making choices
Premise 2. If we percieve making choices, then we can choose.
Conclusion. We can choose.

Regards,

Mudcat

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that our perception is an infallible method to determine reality. You have to consider that in this topic we are considering the possibility that free will is an illusion.

An illusion is a false impression of reality. By what means do we detect an illusion while under its effect?

One can not always use perception to set reality apart from illusion.
Therefore, in this case, you can not use our perception as proof that something is real.

 

[Mudcat]

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that our perception is an infallible method to determine reality. You have to consider that in this topic we are considering the possibility that free will is an illusion.

An illusion is a false impression of reality. By what means do we detect an illusion while under its effect?

One can not always use perception to set reality apart from illusion.
Therefore, in this case, you can not use our perception as proof that something is real.

Determinism would seem to assert just such a thing. That our will is illusory.

However, such an assertion is baseless. There isn't any proof of it.

One would have to accept a baseless assertion and disregard perception as evidence.

I see no compelling reason to do so. Do you? If so what is it?

 

[Koldo]

Determinism would seem to assert just such a thing. That our will is illusory.

However, such an assertion is baseless. There isn't any proof of it.

One would have to accept a baseless assertion and disregard perception as evidence.

Perception can not be the only mean used to set reality apart from illusion. It is inefficient by itself. Even more it is a subjective perception if i may add.

The determinism claim, as far as i know, does not come from perception alone.

I see no compelling reason to do so. Do you? If so what is it?

Yes, i do.

I will ask you the same question i have asked the other people, and we can start from this point:

By what means do you select between A and B?

 

[Skwim]

I failed to explain nothing. The failure in your analogy was self evident. Given your prose, I would think you realize this.

Why don't you just give it another shot? I hate see such a smart fellow get skinned so quickly by a newbie like me.

Thank you. As we both know, you couldn't help but fail to explain why my analogy is off track or imply I'm at risk of making a fool of myself. However, I'm a brave sort, and in the name of entertainment willing to make a fool of myself, so I await your best shot.

 

[Koldo]

There is: what you call "caused will" isn't will. Will has no cause.
Edit: I should say, no cause other than "you" ("me"), which is a thought.

I think it boils down to, what is a "cause"?

A producer of an effect. :run:

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But we surely don't determine our personality?

'put on' according to Ephesians 4vs23-32 advises to 'put on' the new man or new personality dependent on what we feed our mind on.
Eph [2vs2,3] mentions 'times past' so now [present] be 'new' in the force [dominant spirit] of one's mind.

 

[Falvlun]

And how does this consciousness operate so as to make a selection between A and B?

I don't know, but it's self-aware, which is an important difference from all the other inanimate matter which we study to create these deterministic models.

Personally, I'm with Mudcat. The perception of freewill is awfully strong. Many things may not be what the seem to our senses-- Descartes' demon, we all may be brains in vats-- but I don't find that worldview to be a useful one. I also do not think a purely deterministic model for consciousness has been sufficiently proven, which would, of course, trump perception if that were the case.

 

[Skwim]

I don't know, but it's self-aware, which is an important difference from all the other inanimate matter which we study to create these deterministic models.

Immaterial, but ooookay.

Personally, I'm with Mudcat. The perception of freewill is awfully strong.

Sure is.

I also do not think a purely deterministic model for consciousness has been sufficiently proven, which would, of course, trump perception if that were the case.

And I don't believe anyone has tried to prove such a model.

 

[PolyHedral]

I also do not think a purely deterministic model for consciousness has been sufficiently proven, which would, of course, trump perception if that were the case.

As far as I can tell, the burden of proof lies on anyone suggesting the brain isn't deterministic, because there's no evidence to suggest that the brain interacts with quantum noise, and that's the only non-deterministic element in current physics.

 

[Willamena]

As far as I can tell, the burden of proof lies on anyone suggesting the brain isn't deterministic, because there's no evidence to suggest that the brain interacts with quantum noise, and that's the only non-deterministic element in current physics.

The universe is deterministic, causes do precede effects --we (conscious being) are the ones who determine what cause(s) came before what effect. We put the world in order, that's a faculty of our minds.