A challenge to show me wrong

[atanu]

Did you have choice in the matter?
Seriously though, if you have reached the conclusion that the axiom that we make choices is indeed baseless, I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

Yes. There is one, but surely not the way people throw the words.

My fault as well Atanu, I didn't realize you were a Hindu and I confess to only a very cursory knowledge of your beliefs. There are virtually no Hindu's in my area. My only direct experience was a three hour car ride with one. It was quite interesting, she seemed devout to her beliefs.

As a side note Atanu, I would like to have discourse with a practicing Hindu such as yourself... Maybe in comparative religions. If you open to that, maybe we could do that sometime.

You are welcome.

To answer the question though. I see the body as a car of sorts, and the mind as driver. I don't see any prerequisite that the body knows the soul, in the sense that the body has the ability to know something in and of itself.

All the best,

Mudcat

Yes. But, if you know about Gita, the Chariot is not driven by mind but by God for those who choose to look beyond mind.

 

[atanu]

Did you have choice in the matter?
Seriously though, if you have reached the conclusion that the axiom that we make choices is indeed baseless, I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

You are the person that makes choices for yourself, likewise I make my own and so forth.

Hi Mudcat

What choices we make other than creating notions of "I am this body-mind" and "I have chosen such and such"?

We do not not know the next moment and we had no control over the past. To use a metaphor, we are like waves on the ocean that come up without knowing how, when and why; and then crash down. Starting from birth to now, I have merely been like a wave. What I am saying is observed and analysed -- with a faculty that I have not created. I do not know what choice people talk about? There is even scientific validation of what I say from Libet experiments. Volitions, it seems, are made before the so-called conscious mind even knows of them. In the mind that is externalised and attached to objects, the happenings are deterministic, IMO. And I am not sure of what is an individual.

Only choice I have made is to question the perception and look further. The choice is there to keep the mind externalised and be subject to natural laws or involute it to its source.

Regards

 

[RubyEyes]

Comments?

I don't think the word choice needs any supposition. Choosing is about picking from possible options according to the standards you prefer. In this we make no comment on why we prefer what we prefer.

However, what is taken for granted in your argument is materialism. What about the soul? It's like when you control your character in a game. The NPCs from the game are completely determined because of the program, but your in-game character starts his own causations with his agency, that comes from something 'exterior': you. The same goes for the real world, you have you own agency, only that it's the 'interior' here: your soul, the sensation of self, which acts through the mind.

 

[Koldo]

I don't think the word choice needs any supposition. Choosing is about picking from possible options according to the standards you prefer. In this we make no comment on why we prefer what we prefer.

However, what is taken for granted in your argument is materialism. What about the soul? It's like when you control your character in a game. The NPCs from the game are completely determined because of the program, but your in-game character starts his own causations with his agency, that comes from something 'exterior': you. The same goes for the real world, you have you own agency, only that it's the 'interior' here: your soul, the sensation of self, which acts through the mind.

Materialism needs not to be taken for granted.
When we play a RPG , our character will always do the same things no matter how many times we play the game. When placed in the same position a thousand times the character will always do one thing and one thing only ( except when the game allows multiple choices, but let us not consider these games for now ).

 

[RubyEyes]

Materialism needs not to be taken for granted.
When we play a RPG , our character will always do the same things no matter how many times we play the game. When placed in the same position a thousand times the character will always do one thing and one thing only ( except when the game allows multiple choices, but let us not consider these games for now ).

I was referring specifically to those games.

A programmed machine in the game can only do what its programmers want.
On the contrary, you can pick those options out of your own preference, from nothing having to do with the game.

Of course there are constraints. The real equivalent would be laws of nature. We can't fall upwards. But this has nothing to do with this issue I think.

 

[PolyHedral]

A programmed machine in the game can only do what its programmers want.

In some cases, the programmer commands it to learn, and it does. At that point, the "it's just a machine" argument falls apart.

 

[Koldo]

I was referring specifically to those games.

A programmed machine in the game can only do what its programmers want.
On the contrary, you can pick those options out of your own preference, from nothing having to do with the game.

The problem is that following the same analogy there is someone else controlling our choices. The only difference would be where this someone resides. In a game the source is external, while in real life the source would be internal and/or hidden.

Of course there are constraints. The real equivalent would be laws of nature. We can't fall upwards. But this has nothing to do with this issue I think.

I will make the same question to you that i have asked several times in this thread to other people:

By what means do you select between A and B?

 

[Willamena]

"I command thee to learn! Learn, dammit!"

 

[PolyHedral]

"I command thee to learn! Learn, dammit!"

More useful than "Go forth and multiply," isn't it?

 

[idav]

"I command thee to learn! Learn, dammit!"

Words of wisdom! "Thou shalt use common sense!"

 

[RubyEyes]

The problem is that following the same analogy there is someone else controlling our choices. The only difference would be where this someone resides. In a game the source is external, while in real life the source would be internal and/or hidden.

That is not the problem, that is the point. The 'someone' is you, your soul. What you identify as 'yourself'.

I will make the same question to you that i have asked several times in this thread to other people:

By what means do you select between A and B?

By my own preference and likes, my personality.

In some cases, the programmer commands it to learn, and it does. At that point, the "it's just a machine" argument falls apart.

A machine may learn, but it cannot acquire the soul that gives it a experience of a self. It's a philosophical zombie. So it's still not controlled by something out of the game, it's all inside. This is similar for all AI.

 

[idav]

A machine may learn, but it cannot acquire the soul that gives it a experience of a self. It's a philosophical zombie. So it's still not controlled by something out of the game, it's all inside. This is similar for all AI.

Depends on what the soul is. Were we to completely map out the brain and find this elusive soul we may very well be able to replicate it. I know blasphemous for wanting to play god.

 

[Koldo]

That is not the problem, that is the point. The 'someone' is you, your soul. What you identify as 'yourself'.

As i have said: someone else is controlling you.
The character in the game is not being controlled by itself, but rather by us.
Using that analogy, there is someone else controlling our actions.

By my own preference and likes, my personality.

Did you choose to have those preferences?
If yes, how?

 

[RubyEyes]

Depends on what the soul is. Were we to completely map out the brain and find this elusive soul we may very well be able to replicate it. I know blasphemous for wanting to play god.

I agree with you, it depends on what the soul is. Since we can't do that now, we're free to speculate. I am of the opinion that you would create a philosophical zombie, with no inner self, a very intricate automata.

Don't worry about blasphemy because of thought experiments. Why would the usage of reason and logic offend Him who gave it to us?

As i have said: someone else is controlling you.
The character in the game is not being controlled by itself, but rather by us.
Using that analogy, there is someone else controlling our actions.

Then you didn't perceive my analogy very well. What makes the character in the game 'someone' is that there's you giving it the will and acting through it. If there were not, it would be like the rest of the machines, not 'someone'. There's no character in the game being 'someone' separate from your controlling of it, in the same way there's no person in you separate from the soul which acts through your mind. So there's never 'someone else'.

Did you choose to have those preferences?
If yes, how?

Some aspects, maybe. You can build it from the inside, but the very basics are influenced by your family and society and your human nature is just that, human nature, which I think is created by God (instincts, et cetera).

 

[Koldo]

Then you didn't perceive my analogy very well. What makes the character in the game 'someone' is that there's you giving it the will and acting through it. If there were not, it would be like the rest of the machines, not 'someone'. There's no character in the game being 'someone' separate from your controlling of it, in the same way there's no person in you separate from the soul which acts through your mind. So there's never 'someone else'.

Ah, that is more clearly stated now.
I had understood it as if the character had also a "mind" of its own.

Some aspects, maybe. You can build it from the inside, but the very basics are influenced by your family and society and your human nature is just that, human nature, which I think is created by God (instincts, et cetera).

So, in other words, you act according to preferences you didn't choose to have when you make choices. Is that correct?

With this in mind, you could not have choosen differently in the past, because you had to act according to something that was/is not under your control ( your preferences ). Do you agree?

 

[RubyEyes]

So, in other words, you act according to preferences you didn't choose to have when you make choices. Is that correct?

This will always be true. I have not chosen to be a man, for example, and many decisions will be conditioned by that. I have not chosen to be human, I have not chosen mankind to sin, etc. I can only choose that which is in my lifetime and when I'm in conditions for doing so (without external wills suffocating my own).

With this in mind, you could not have choosen differently in the past, because you had to act according to something that was/is not under your control ( your preferences ). Do you agree?

I agree, but I don't think that this limits our freedom (if that's where you are going). For example, that I can't make decisions regarding my sex doesn't make me any less free than not being able to breath underwater, or flying to Mars. Freedom is a concept valid only within the things we can do.

 

[Thief]

This will always be true. I have not chosen to be a man, for example, and many decisions will be conditioned by that. I have not chosen to be human, I have not chosen mankind to sin, etc. I can only choose that which is in my lifetime and when I'm in conditions for doing so (without external wills suffocating my own).



I agree, but I don't think that this limits our freedom (if that's where you are going). For example, that I can't make decisions regarding my sex doesn't make me any less free than not being able to breath underwater, or flying to Mars. Freedom is a concept valid only within the things we can do.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[RubyEyes]

Welcome to the forum.

Hello!

 

[Koldo]

This will always be true. I have not chosen to be a man, for example, and many decisions will be conditioned by that. I have not chosen to be human, I have not chosen mankind to sin, etc. I can only choose that which is in my lifetime and when I'm in conditions for doing so (without external wills suffocating my own).


I agree, but I don't think that this limits our freedom (if that's where you are going). For example, that I can't make decisions regarding my sex doesn't make me any less free than not being able to breath underwater, or flying to Mars. Freedom is a concept valid only within the things we can do.

I understand your point. However, i am going deeper than that.

If the root to your decision making process is located in your preferences then all of your choices are created by factors not under your control.

When you, for example, eat fish, have a date or go swim, you are doing it all according to your preferences, and therefore your choices are not under your total conscious control. You merely acknowledge your preferences at the moment and act in accordance to them. Therefore, your preferences are the ones responsible for the choices you make.

 

[RubyEyes]

I understand your point. However, i am going deeper than that.

If the root to your decision making process is located in your preferences then all of your choices are created by factors not under your control.

When you, for example, eat fish, have a date or go swim, you are doing it all according to your preferences, and therefore your choices are not under your total conscious control. You merely acknowledge your preferences at the moment and act in accordance to them. Therefore, your preferences are the ones responsible for the choices you make.

I don't necessarily disagree. But your prefereces are what you are, after all, so you're not being constrained by other wills. This is what being free is, isn't it? It would be physically impossible not to have our preferences influenced by others, but I think that it's important to pick a little something from everyone. The more you know, the freer you can be, because the wider the possible options are.

It seems you're missing the fact that our preferences, our will, is what we are. We are what we do, and we do what we want. So saying that this limits our freedom is devoiding the word 'freedom' of all possible significance.