More about free will

[Skwim]

Cause and effect is only shown to exist when one assumes cause and effect exist.

Absolutely not, and I challenge you to show why this must be true. Simply take the following open-minded approach:

Things only happen in one of two ways.

1)They are absolutely random.
2) They are the result of cause/effect events.
​

Now, if you have a third way I'm all ears. In the meantime, because there is such obvious order to our world I have to reject randomness as the operating function and accept cause/effect, if for no other reason, by default.

But like I say, if you have a third way I'm all ears.

Yet, for some reason control or at least the illusion of control has evolved in some species. If control is irrelevant, how is the illusion beneficial?

I haven't really given it any thought, but off hand I'd say it's a survival tool, just as I believe religion serves as a survival tool for some.

 

[Willamena]

Absolutely not, and I challenge you to show why this must be true. Simply take the following open-minded approach:

Things only happen in one of two ways.

1)They are absolutely random.
2) They are the result of cause/effect events.
​

Now, if you have a third way I'm all ears. In the meantime, because there is such obvious order to our world I have to reject randomness as the operating function and accept cause/effect, if for no other reason, by default.

But like I say, if you have a third way I'm all ears.

Trust me, offering a false dichotomy is not "the open-minded" approach. Tell me, how does a cause determine its effect?

 

[Skwim]

Trust me, offering a false dichotomy is not "the open-minded" approach.

In what way is it false? I await your explanation.

Tell me, how does a cause determine its effect?

That would depend on the cause. But no cause operates in a vacuum. It is abetted by many others causes that culminate in a singular effect. So a more accurate term would be "causes/effect"; however, to keep things simple it is reduced to the more easily handled singular "cause." The implication remains the same: all events are caused.

 

[Willamena]

In what way is it false? I await your explanation.

The false dichotomy is false in that it fails to recognize that there may be any other option.

And before you ask, it doesn't matter what the other option might be. Open-mindedness keeps in mind that there might be.

That would depend on the cause. But no cause operates in a vacuum. It is abetted by many others causes that culminate in a singular effect.

But what determines what effect of the culmination of causes?

 

[Skwim]

The false dichotomy is false in that it fails to recognize that there may be any other option.

If you have no candidate(s) then your objection is moot.

And before you ask, it doesn't matter what the other option might be. Open-mindedness keeps in mind that there might be.

Yeah, I didn't think you had a reasonable answer, and just threw in "false dichotomy" because it's a handy put-down. None of which stands as a credit to your discussion skills.

But what determines what effect of the culmination of causes?

Care to rephrase? As it is it's not making sense.

 

[Willamena]

If you have no candidate(s) then your objection is moot.

Even if I had no other candidate, it would still be a false dichotomy and closed-mindedness to insist on "no other possibility." That's what closed-mindedness is all about.

Care to rephrase? As it is it's not making sense.

If causality is held to be a change from A to B, then I'm just asking why B and not C.

 

[Skwim]

Even if I had no other candidate, it would still be a false dichotomy and closed-mindedness to insist on "no other possibility." That's what closed-mindedness is all about.

We're not talking about close mindedness, YOU were talking about me constructing a false dichotomy---let's stay on point. Here. Let me give you the definition of "false dichotomy," which I easily plucked from Wikipedia (it's a quick source to go to). Emphases are mine.

"A false dilemma (also called black-and/or-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either-or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."
source
​

Did you note the necessity of "at least one additional option"? You failed to produce "at least one additional option" which is why your objection is moot

If causality is held to be a change from A to B, then I'm just asking why B and not C.

But that's not what people hold causality to be. In any case, this is growing kind of tiresome so I think I'll say, Good evening.

 

[Willamena]

We're not talking about close mindedness, YOU were talking about me constructing a false dichotomy---let's stay on point. Here. Let me give you the definition of "false dichotomy," which I easily plucked from Wikipedia (it's a quick source to go to). Emphases are mine.

"A false dilemma (also called black-and/or-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either-or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."
source
​

Yup.

Did you note the necessity of "at least one additional option"? You failed to produce "at least one additional option" which is why your objection is moot

Yup. It's not necessary to produce another option, merely to consider the possibility of, in fact, such.

But that's not what people hold causality to be.

What do they hold it to be?

 

[factseeker88]

Because we cannot rationally make relational claims about unobserved things.

Good point, but first there needs to be a stimulus, something to get our attention before we think or do anything about it.

:yes::yes::yes:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]factseeker88[/FONT]


“[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]