God wants us to love darkness and evil!

[Spiderman]

By what I know, demons are fallen angels who speak against God and His will.



The “curse” meant the man had to work for food and woman had labor pain. I don’t think there is anything inclining to evil, especially when God’s commandments are against evil.



Evil is like darkness, or emptiness, it is what is left when good is not present. So, evil is formed when people are left alone without God (good). Still, God is not doing evil, it is something that comes possible, when God allows people to be without Him.



God didn’t say devil should kill the family. It was devil’s choice and tells a lot about him.
What do you think about a person who in attempt to prove all knowing wrong, kills and tortures and fails in his evil plan?

God pointed Job out and gave the Devil permission to kill his family.

God hardened Pharoah's heart. God cursed the descendants of Ham to be slaves.

God ordered ethnic cleansing and extermination of people.

He wants plenty evil. He could speak up to heretics and confused people and his silence creates all kinds of division, evil, and violence as well. Yes, he wanted his only son violently murdered.

 

[ratiocinator]

Since for you the process is where you put the free will into.

That's where it has to be if it exists at all.

So if you say "all inputs (including the process leading to a certain state of mind) being equal...", free will is included!
So when you define free will as part of (the process) which is constant it's a tautology to conclude that free will is meaningless after. Because you already used it as one of your constant variables in your example!

Err... no. What I've done is said that if the mysterious, ambiguously defined thingy called "free will" exists, then it must reside in the process that changes states of mind. I've then treated the process as a 'black box' (that is, I've made no assumptions about how it works) and asked a simple question about the relationship between its inputs and outputs which must have a yes/no answer - no matter what's in the black box. Even if the contents of the box change with every change of mind, the question is still valid, we just ask it about all instances of change. Either the inputs always fully defined the output or they don't.

In fact the argument is entirely general and can be used to conclude that anything that changes with time is either doing so deterministically or with some randomness. That why a deterministic system is defined as one without randomness.

 

[thomas t]

You said:
Free will cannot possibly be part of a state of mind - it is (if it exists) a process by which one state of mind transforms into another. # 78

you also said:

You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind

This is what you plainly said. But state of mind is part of the input in your example....

Input A: Mind state pre-choice

If the mind state is constant, as you say in #67... there cannot be changes in the process, because the process, as you say, can be shrinked down to changes of mind!

But the process is where you put the free will.

So, effectively you start defining free will as constant in your example.... concluding there is no (changes of) free will.
It's all circular, as I pointed out as early as #75, #71 and #61.

When does this come to an end?

 

[ratiocinator]

If the mind state is constant, as you say in #67... there cannot be changes in the process, because the process, as you say, can be shrinked down to changes of mind!

You can apply the argument to any change of mind, no matter how small, yes

But the process is where you put the free will.

If free will exists then it's about how minds change (obviously).

So, effectively you start defining free will as constant in your example....

No idea where you got this from. It makes no sense at all. The way something changes may be 'constant' in the sense that it always changes in the same way but I've not made that assumption at all.

Every time a state of mind changes, we can ask the question: did the previous state plus the environment fully define the end state, or could the end state have been different for the same initial state and environment?

There is nothing circular about that, it's a simple question that can only have two answers.

 

[thomas t]

No idea where you got this from.

from here:

If you could run things again from exactly the same starting point

the starting point in your example is defined as constant.
The state of mind in turn is part of the starting point.

So, all I have to do now is repeat myself. Again, as I said in my last post:
If the mind state is constant, as you say in #67... there cannot be changes in the process, because the process, as you say, can be shrinked down to changes of mind!

But the process is where you put the free will.

So, effectively you start defining free will as constant in your example.... concluding there is no (changes of) free will.
It's all circular, as I pointed out as early as #75, #71 and #61.

 

[ratiocinator]

the starting point in your example is defined as constant.
The state of mind in turn is part of the starting point.

Okay, that may be my fault - that was actually a different way to consider the problem. I did say that I'd presented more than one argument.

In the current conversation (as I said in my previous post) every time a state of mind changes (every millisecond of every day), we can ask the question: did the previous state plus the environment fully define the next state, or could the next state have been different for the same initial state and environment?

There are only two answers to that question.

If the mind state is constant, as you say in #67... there cannot be changes in the process, because the process, as you say, can be shrinked down to changes of mind!

I also don't think you've understood this. I just meant that we can shrink the time-scale down to an arbitrary degree, so the argument applies to every thought that flits through your mind, not just choices.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I would say God doesn't give a flying (blip) what we believe in. That's deism. A God who doesn't care about us.

 

[1213]

God hardened Pharoah's heart. God cursed the descendants of Ham to be slaves.

Pharaoh’s heart was hardened every time plague ended, should God have made the plagues everlasting to keep pharaohs heart soft?

Please show the scripture about Ham?

God ordered ethnic cleansing and extermination of people.

God doesn’t allow evil people to live eternally. Do you think He should allow evil to continue forever?

Also, I thought you think abortion is good and right, is it not?

He wants plenty evil. ..

Sorry, I disagree with that, I think there is no reason to believe so.

... He could speak up to heretics and confused people and his silence creates all kinds of division, evil, and violence as well. Yes, he wanted his only son violently murdered.

I disagree also with that. People have his message, but they don’t want to accept it and therefore make own messages and replace God with their own ideal gods. I think the problem is not in what God does, but in what people do or don’t do.

There is no reason to think God wanted Jesus to be violently murdered.

 

[thomas t]

Okay, that may be my fault - that was actually a different way to consider the problem. I did say that I'd presented more than one argument.

In the current conversation (as I said in my previous post) every time a state of mind changes (every millisecond of every day), we can ask the question: did the previous state plus the environment fully define the next state, or could the next state have been different for the same initial state and environment?

There are only two answers to that question.



I also don't think you've understood this. I just meant that we can shrink the time-scale down to an arbitrary degree, so the argument applies to every thought that flits through your mind, not just choices.

I understood everything.
It was your wording that said "You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind" (#74).
Again, the process is where you put the free will in.
So it depends on the process in your example.
If this is fix, the free will will be also fix and it's all circular.
As I said.
I suggest we stop our discussion here.

 

[ratiocinator]

I understood everything.

I definitely understand what I'm trying to say and what you are posting is telling me that you don't. That may be my fault for not expressing it well enough, or yours, or some combination of both.

It was your wording that said "You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind" (#74).

Yes - you can apply the argument and questions to every tiny change of mind.

Again, the process is where you put the free will in.

If it exists, that's where it must be - I'm arguing that it's logically impossible (except for compatibilism).

So it depends on the process in your example.
If this is fix, the free will will be also fix and it's all circular.

There's no circularity to fix. Last time you referred to a post when I was making the argument about rewinding time - this is a different way of thinking about it.

Let's take it from the top again.

Each time you think something or make a choice, your state of mind changes, so we have the process with two inputs:

Input A: Initial state of mind
Input B: Environment or circumstances.
Process of change.
Output C: New state of mind.

Free will, if it exists, must be manifest in the process of change. Now we can ask the question: given some specific A and B, will there always be just one possible C? If the answer is yes, then minds are deterministic, if the answer is no, then there must be something happening in the process that has nothing to do with the mind or circumstances, so it must be random. Hence the process is either deterministic or contains a random element.

This is based on the principles I outlined before:

1. The only things that can cause an event are those that are its logical antecedents.
2. Specifically in the case of human choices the only possible antecedents are the previous state of mind and the environment.
   
3. To the extent an event is not caused by something it is caused by nothing.
4. Something without a cause must be random.

So unless one (or more) of them is wrong, free will (except for compatibilism) cannot exist.

To bring it back up to the more human level, everything that goes on in your mind has reasons (unless they're random) and when you make a choice you do so because it's what you want to do most (unless you're being forced) and that is not something you can change - it's just what you want most at the time. That want will be that way for many complex reasons but you have no direct control over those reasons because essentially they are an expression of who you are and the circumstances you find yourself in.

 

[thomas t]

Input A: Initial state of mind
Input B: Environment or circumstances.
Process of change.
Output C: New state of mind.

Free will, if it exists, must be manifest in the process of change. Now we can ask the question: given some specific A and B, will there always be just one possible C? If the answer is yes, then minds are deterministic, if the answer is no, then there must be something happening in the process that has nothing to do with the mind or circumstances, so it must be random. Hence the process is either deterministic or contains a random element.

ok, if you put it that way, it isn't circular. (It was though, if you have the process finished before Input A).
However, as I said in post #73, the process could bring the change. At least you couldn't rule that out.
So, we need to consider
Output C1: New state of mind 1, if it was process 1.
Output C2: New state of mind 2, if it was process 2.

You replied by saying "You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind"

but in this case, even if we are talking about milliseconds, again it boils down to c1 or c2, in case the process is still faster than the milliseconds that your scenario lasts.... or it boils down to circular reasoning if the process is finished before the your scenario even starts.

So this is basically the weakness that I see in your argument: It all depends where you locate the process. If it's finished already before Input A, your resoning becomes circular, because the free will input is finished already at that point, too, as it was a part of the process.
The process is where you located the free will.

 

[ratiocinator]

ok, if you put it that way, it isn't circular. (It was though, if you have the process finished before Input A).
However, as I said in post #73, the process could bring the change. At least you couldn't rule that out.
So, we need to consider
Output C1: New state of mind 1, if it was process 1.
Output C2: New state of mind 2, if it was process 2.

This simply doesn't matter because the question is: given some specific A and B, will there always be just one possible C? If there are two possible processes in a given situation, then there has to be some reason why one is used rather than the other (unless the choice is for no reason and hence random) and the only reasons available are the starting state of mind and the environment. That's the point of making the process a "black box", it simply doesn't matter to the logic what happens inside, including more than one possible process, multiple processes that somehow compete with each other, or anything else.

You replied by saying "You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind"

Yes - right down to the point at which it represents the fastest possible time in which the mind can react or change. If you're at all familiar with calculus, we could even do the equivalent of taking the limit as the time tended towards zero. Effectively that means if you think something is happening faster than some time you've originally chosen, then you can go on making it smaller and smaller to a arbitrary extent. Also, if you think things are happening in parallel (as they almost certainly are) you can apply it to each different branch and to how they are combined at the end to make a choice.

 

[thomas t]

This simply doesn't matter because the question is: given some specific A and B, will there always be just one possible C? If there are two possible processes in a given situation, then there has to be some reason why one is used rather than the other (unless the choice is for no reason and hence random) and the only reasons available are the starting state of mind and the environment. That's the point of making the process a "black box", it simply doesn't matter to the logic what happens inside, including more than one possible process, multiple processes that somehow compete with each other, or anything else.

My answer to the green one: yes: that reason could be free will involved in the process....
but now the bolded part is exactly where it gets circular.
Since you the reasons can only be 1) the state of mind or 2) the environment.... you don't allow for free will interaction to happen.
So, the free will input remains constant throughout your scenario and this is exactly where it gets circular when you conclude that free will is meaningless in your example.
Yeah, obviously, because you did not allow for any changes due to free will inputs.

But we had this already so often.... so now why can't we just stop this?

You first assume: only two reasons available: state of mind or environment. Since free will is part of the process as opposed to state of mind and environment.... you counted the free will out. At the very beginning of your scenario.

So lets stop this merry go round, please....

Yes - right down to the point at which it represents the fastest possible time in which the mind can react or change.

... but then, since it is all real fast, you don't allow for the process to change.
You only allow for the fastest possible process. So it's constant in your example.

But since this is where you located the free will.... you don't allow for free will inputs in your scenario that could possibly prolong it.
So right from the start free will is excluded and it gets all circular.

We had this.
So lets stop this finally!

 

[ratiocinator]

My answer to the green one: yes: that reason could be free will involved in the process....

My whole argument is that there is no logical place for free will because if we examine things logically there can only be determinism or randomness. See the four principles I quoted:

1. The only things that can cause an event are those that are its logical antecedents.
2. Specifically in the case of human choices the only possible antecedents are the previous state of mind and the environment.
   
3. To the extent an event is not caused by something it is caused by nothing.
4. Something without a cause must be random.

If you think one or more are wrong, then say so, otherwise free will is meaningless in the context.

 

[thomas t]

My whole argument is that there is no logical place for free will because if we examine things logically there can only be determinism or randomness. See the four principles I quoted:

1. The only things that can cause an event are those that are its logical antecedents.
2. Specifically in the case of human choices the only possible antecedents are the previous state of mind and the environment.
   
3. To the extent an event is not caused by something it is caused by nothing.
4. Something without a cause must be random.

If you think one or more are wrong, then say so, otherwise free will is meaningless in the context.

here you are outlining your four princilpes of your examples - in generic terms.
Again. As you've done so often, already!
But you said already where exactly it is you located the free will. It is in the process.
However, when you get more specific about it.... this is exactly where it gets circular, since it reads:

Yes - [You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind] right down to the point at which it represents the fastest possible time in which the mind can react or change.

so: if the process MUST BE the fastest possible one... free will options are disabled, because you're requiring it to be part of the fastest possible process. There can only one such thing, so there can't be several options for free will here.

Since this is the outline of your scenario.... you just disbled free will right at the start of your experiment.

It does not help if you just go on repeating the general principles of your example!

 

[ratiocinator]

here you are outlining your four princilpes of your examples - in generic terms.
But you said already where exactly it is you located the free will. It is the process.

Free will, if it exists, must be in the way things change but the point is that you keep trying to add an extra cause (in this case the cause of the process selection) that must violate one of those principles or itself be subject to them.

so: if the process MUST BE the fastes possible one... free will options are disabled

Yes they are, but logically according to the argument - not by assumption.

It's actually you who are being circular here because you start from the view that free will must be inserted somewhere (as if it even has a consistent meaning, which it doesn't). But there is simply nowhere for it to come from unless you think one of the principles is wrong.

The whole point of examining the process of change and then pointing out that we can apply it to arbitrarily small changes or changes to the process itself was to show that there simply isn't anywhere for free will to hide - unless one of those principles is false.

That is the argument. It isn't circular because I started from the basic principles and a 'black box' idea of change and just followed them to their conclusion.

[Edited for typo]

 

[thomas t]

It's actually you who are being circular here because you start from the view that free will must be inserted somewhere

no. You are the one making the bold assertions. You are the one who the onus is on.

I stay with my opinion: In your example you assume the process has to be fastest.
"Yes - [You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind] right down to the point at which it represents the fastest possible time in which the mind can react or change." you said
"it represents tha fastest possible time"... but there is no logical necessity for it to be the fastest one.
Even if you repeat agin the genric principles of your experiment.
These principles alone also work with a slow process:

Each time you think something or make a choice, your state of mind changes, so we have the process with two inputs:

Input A: Initial state of mind
Input B: Environment or circumstances.
Process of change.
Output C: New state of mind.

there is no logical necessity whatsoever for the process of change to be fastest.

I stay with my opinion: it's all circular. Just repeating everything you said does not make it less circular, I'm afraid.

The whole point of examining the process of change and then pointing out that we can apply it to arbitrarily small changes or changes to the process itself was to show that there simply isn't anywhere for free will to hide - unless one of those principles is false.

there is no logic here (the bolded part)....it is declaration passed off as argument, I think. Just reiterating, bolding things and printing them in italics... does not make it more logical.

In the past, whenever I pointed out there is no logic in it just assumption.... you replied by saying "you don't understand!" - of course I do. I simply do not agree with you here, that's all.
This does not mean I do't understand!

That is the argument. It isn't circular because I started from the basic principles and a 'black box' idea of change and just followed them to their conclusion.

the notion of the black box in itself mentions nothing about the speed of the process.
You say, the process has to be fastest - without any logic in it. It's mere declaration.

 

[ratiocinator]

no. You are the one making the bold assertions. You are the one who the onus is on.

That's why I made the argument. I'm still waiting for you to even attempt to refute it instead of pretending it doesn't exist. And, in fact, free will not existing is hardly that much of a bold assertion, it's been debated philosophically for millennia and is pretty much mainstream amongst modern neuroscientists, for example. So in fact, stating that it exists is quite a bold statement and at least requires a better (more precise) definition than the one you cited.

there is no logical necessity whatsoever for the process of change to be fastest.

Once again you don't seem to have grasped the point. There is no assumption about the speed in the initial argument, which is why we can grow it or shrink it as we wish and why, specifically, we can apply it to the smallest possible time and not change the the logic. It's actually more complicated if we grow it because there is then the possibility of mind state feedback and an environment that changes during the process.

there is no logic here (the bolded part)....it is declaration passed off as argument, I think.

No it isn't - I've set out the argument and the principles and if we can apply down as far as we want, then there is (as you yourself pointed out) no room left for free will (except for compatibilism).

You don't seem to get that the argument goes in stages.

1. We construct a black box idea of change.
2. Ask the question about whether the output is always fully defined by the inputs.
3. Apply the four principles to find that the process must be deterministic or contain randomness.
4. Note that we can apply it down to any time-scale we want because we made no assumption about it in the previous stages.
5. Note that everything the mind does is just a collection of the smallest times it can operate over.
   
6. Conclude that the whole functioning of the mind must be either deterministic or involve randomness.

In fact we could go straight from the four principles to that conclusion simply because the functioning of a mind, or anything else that changes over time, is just a series of events - I'm just trying to more fully explain why.

 

[thomas t]

That's why I made the argument. I'm still waiting for you to even attempt to refute it instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

as I said there is no argument, just mere declaration.
That's exactly the same of what I said in # 97. It's time to get off this merry go round, please.

And, in fact, free will not existing is hardly that much of a bold assertion, it's been debated philosophically for millennia and is pretty much mainstream amongst modern neuroscientists, for example. So in fact, stating that it exists is quite a bold statement and at least requires a better (more precise) definition than the one you cited.

you made the assertion that it does not exist, the onus is on you to prove it.

There is no assumption about the speed in the initial argument,

the moment I say that there can be changes in the process.... you answer by saying "you can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind" #74
You wrote in #94: "Yes - [You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind] right down to the point at which it represents the fastest possible time in which the mind can react or change."

So, in order to rule out that there be changes in the process and potential free will which could make a change.... you shring the process down to the fastest one.

So yes it is an asumption that effectively rules out any potential interactionm with free will, which you locate in the process.
So yes it is circular, because the speed of the process is laid out right at the start of your thought experiment.
-----

Just repeating the general layout of your example does not render your remarks about the speed of the process undone.

 

[ratiocinator]

as I said there is no argument, just mere declaration.

So far you seem to have simply not understood or just don't want to fact the fact that you can't refute it.

the moment I say that there can be changes in the process.... you answer by saying "you can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind" #74
You wrote in #94: "Yes - [You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind] right down to the point at which it represents the fastest possible time in which the mind can react or change."

So, in order to rule out that there be changes in the process and potential free will which could make a change.... you shring the process down to the fastest one.

Firstly, even if there can be changes in the process as you suggested in #91, that doesn't help with free will because there would have to be a reason why one process was chosen over the other and then the four principles tell us that the only available causes are the inputs. More than one process plus a way of selecting them is just another (more complex) process.

Secondly, since I made no initial assumption about the length of process, then you'd need to tell me why the argument can only apply to longer processes, i.e. refute that part (stage 4 above) of my argument. All you seem to be saying is "but you can't do that because it would make me wrong".