-->
@Fallaneze
You have not demonstrated that these premises are mutually exclusive you have merely made the bald assertion that it is so.
What do you believe?
Posts
Total:
495
-->
@secularmerlin
No. I'm asking you to consider the incompatibility of determinism and rational human beings per the defintion of rational.
-->
@secularmerlin
I have though, many times.
If you're up to it, I'll send you one statement at a time, let me know if you agree or disagree with it, then at the end we'll look at your responses and notice a contradiction.
-->
@Fallaneze
I do not see any necessary incompatibility. Perhaps I simply am misunderstanding you. So far it seems that you are just asking me to accept that they are incompatible before it is demonstrated to be so.
Human thoughts and behaviors, as far as we know, are produced by deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics. Agree or disagree?
-->
@Fallaneze
DisagreeHuman thoughts and behaviors, as far as we know, are produced by deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics. Agree or disagree?
-->
@Fallaneze
Human thoughts and behaviors, as far as we know, are produced by deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics.
there is no specific evidence that it is more. That is as specific an answer as the evidence will support.
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay, so do you agree with the statement then?
-->
@secularmerlin
The underlying concept there can be reversed. What little we understand about the essence of thought and the physical markers of its presence neither confirms determinism or absolves it of truth.there is no specific evidence that it is more. That is as specific an answer as the evidence will support
-->
@Fallaneze
What do you mean agree with? I've told you what I think the evidence supports. I cannot go beyond that without violating my epistemology. Anything beyond our epistemology is by definition pure speculation.
-->
@ArgentTongue
Would you agree that determinism is essentially causation? That if something is subject to cause and effect that it is at least somewhat deterministic in nature?
I cannot make a demonstration simpler than making statements, one at a time, and asking whether you agree or disagree with it. If you aren't willing to do that then we'll leave this as is.
-->
@Fallaneze
Let me say it again and you tell me what specifically is wrong with my answer.
There is no specific evidence that Human thoughts and behaviors are produced by more than deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics.
-->
@secularmerlin
Would you agree that determinism is essentially causation? That if something is subject to cause and effect that it is at least somewhat deterministic in nature?
Causation is a core component of both determinism and hard - determinism, the distinction being that the latter precludes any sort of conscious thought or a 'soul' if you will, with humans being husked automatons defined only by the universe around them.
-->
@secularmerlin
Your statement coincides with mine which states: "Human thoughts and behaviors, as far as we know, are produced by deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics. Agree or disagree?"
Why not just say "agree" and follow it up with your explanation as to why you think that?
-->
@ArgentTongue
Im not sure why you think conciousness would necessitate freewill. Why could we not have conciousness as an emergent quality of the physical universe as determined by cause and effect?
-->
@Fallaneze
There is no specific evidence that Human thoughts and behaviors are produced by more than deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics.And follow it up with your explanation as to why you think that?
Because I see no specific evidence. If you have such evidence please submit it.
-->
@secularmerlin
Why could we not have conciousness as an emergent quality of the physical universe as determined by cause and effect?
Because 'emergent' is an admission we don't understand what is going on. The flocking of birds is truly emergent - we understand it and can model it. Can't really say that about consciousness.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not sure why you think consciousness would necessitate freewill. Why could we not have consciousness as an emergent quality of the physical universe as determined by cause and effect?
Because consciousness entails a specific awareness and acknowledgment of the universe around the entity which has it. By this measure, free will, which is defined as action carried out within the parameters of discretion, and discretion defined as choice, it is clear conscious perception of options inherently constitutes free will.
-->
@keithprosser
That we do not understand is exactly my point. How can we subscribe to one hypothesis over the other?
-->
@ArgentTongue
How do you make decisions?
-->
@secularmerlin
I think its ok to go with a hunch. If its wrong a contradiction will get thrown up somewhere and you start over again.
If you never risk being wrong you never do anything.
-->
@secularmerlin
Without stating whether you agree or disagree with the premises that serve as the foundation of your belief that human beings have no free will there is no sense in trying to reach an endpoint in the discussion.
-->
@ArgentTongue
it is clear conscious perception of options inherently constitutes free will.
It's not clear to me!
-->
@Fallaneze
My foundation is the same as my foundation for not believing in Bigfoot or Santa clause. I see no evidence to support the premise. I understand that you accept it axiomatically but I do not and since you accept it as an axiom you have not bothered to present any evidence instead insisting that I should not need any if I were only as reasonable as you.
-->
@keithprosser
If you never risk being wrong you never do anything.
I can have a speculative conversation but with no way to test our speculation I'm not sure how we could get any closer to the truth of the matter.
-->
@secularmerlin
If you get a contradiction you know you're wrong, I suppose. One never really knows that one is right.
But if its hopeless trying to get closer to the truth, why discuss/debate at all?
-->
@keithprosser
I did not say we could not get closer to truth and I do not agree that it would make striving for truth an unworthwhile pursuit even if we could not.
I only said that speculation does not bring us closer to truth by itself.
-->
@secularmerlin
Here is our conversation:
Me: "Human thoughts and behaviors, as far as we know, are produced by deterministic forces such as chemistry and physics. Agree or disagree?
You: "there is no specific evidence that it is more. That is as specific an answer as the evidence will support."
Me: "Okay, so do you agree with the statement then?"
You: "What do you mean agree with? I've told you what I think the evidence supports. I cannot go beyond that without violating my epistemology. Anything beyond our epistemology is by definition pure speculation."
-->
@Fallaneze
Okay