-->
@keithprosser
Randomness refers to the unknown timing of an event whereas cause refers to an explanation as to how the event occurred.
Can Morality Be Objective Without God?
Posts
Total:
438
-->
@3RU7AL
Dualists can just gift soul-stuff with any property, as required.
Is consciousness soul stuff?
-->
@Fallaneze
Holding the position that determinism is true cannot be rational because the mindless forces that installed that position in your brain are not rational.
Indeterminism is true.
You are making quite a logical leap that reveals your "intelligent design" presupposition.
You are trying to argue that without an "intelligent designer", humans are "mindless meat-puppets".
You are using backwards reasoning, affirming the consequent.
You presuppose "humans are not meat-puppets", "because they have free-will", therefore, "humans were intelligently designed".
I challenge both of your presuppositions.
Do you believe mice are "meat-puppets"? Do you believe mice have free-will? Do you believe mice are capable of rational decision making?
If mice qualify as "meat-puppets", according to your logic, they must be the product of "mindless forces".
Please explain a fundamental difference between mice and humans that is not accounted for by sheer complexity and natural selection.
-->
@keithprosser
Dualists can just gift soul-stuff with any property, as required.
You can't gift illogical properties.
Not even purely imaginary substances and or beings can have illogical properties.
-->
@3RU7AL
Question and answer key below:
Can mindless forces act rationally? (No)
Are my beliefs determined by mindlessness forces? (Yes)
Is determinism a rational belief? (Therefore, No)
-->
@Fallaneze
Since when did "randomness" refer exclusively to time?Randomness refers to the unknown timing of an event whereas cause refers to an explanation as to how the event occurred.
It is common for computers use random number generators based on their clock.
In these cases, the "time" is always known.
I would suggest that "randomness" is commonly used as a placeholder for "unpredictability" and or "incomprehensible or unknown complexity".
-->
@TwoMan
I'd say "un-coerced" specifically by another human being (which begs the question of how we can know for certain that we are not coerced indirectly by, you know, advertising or propaganda or public relations campaigns).Free will : The ability to make a choice, unimpeded.
All of the factors limiting your options could be considered "impediments" (invalidating your qualifier, "unimpeded").
-->
@secularmerlin
Cause and effect are readily demonstrable. Freewill less so. Until freewill can be established the default is cause and effect
I think you have to ignore an awful lot to dismiss the idea of free will not being readily demonstratable, and I don't believe anyone is denying that causality is a thing.
You can certainly choose to deny that you have a choice.
-->
@3RU7AL
If we use "unimpeded" in the definition of free will, it certainly is a ridiculous thing to believe, because the fact that I can't choose to jump to the moon and back handidly disproves freewill.
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm not sure what you mean by not as they seem. It would seem that you would like to assert freewill without first demonstrating it.
-->
@Mopac
I can make determinations and act on them. I'm not sure what you mean by choice.
Free will is prima facie true. Determinism is not.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say "un-coerced" specifically by another human being (which begs the question of how we can know for certain that we are not coerced indirectly by, you know, advertising or propaganda or public relations campaigns).All of the factors limiting your options could be considered "impediments" (invalidating your qualifier, "unimpeded").
"Un-coerced" is fine with me. Those things you mentioned are considered influences, not coercions. I don't deny that we are influenced by many factors. Those influences are not forcing (coercing) us to make a specific decision. We have the ability to partially or completely ignore them or not in some cases. Again, I'm not stating that all choices fall under the definition of free will.
Limited options does not equate to "no options". All that is needed for free will, as defined, is two or more options rendering your argument invalid.
-->
@Mopac
This is the silliest thing I've read today. You can choose to "try" to jump to the moon which does not mean you can jump to the moon. "Unimpeded" only refers to thought, not physical ability.If we use "unimpeded" in the definition of free will, it certainly is a ridiculous thing to believe, because the fact that I can't choose to jump to the moon and back handidly disproves freewill.
-->
@Fallaneze
Not without explicit, logically coherent definitions.Free will is prima facie true.
You can claim it is axiomatically true until you a blue in the face, but without any logical support, it is only as true as magic fairy dust.
Do you believe "free-will" is exclusive to adult humans?
If so, why would you believe such a thing?
-->
@TwoMan
Do you suppose your thoughts are not "impeded" by your experiences and or historical and or cultural context?"Unimpeded" only refers to thought...
Or even as George Orwell so elegantly illustrates, the very language you are taught constrains (impedes) your thoughts.
-->
@TwoMan
In other words, a dog, a robot and a flea have free-will.Limited options does not equate to "no options". All that is needed for free will, as defined, is two or more options rendering your argument invalid.
I'm pretty sure this is called "compatibilism" and it renders free-will practically meaningless (at least regarding the standard "moral" arguments).
-->
@Mopac
I think you have to ignore an awful lot to dismiss the idea of free will not being readily demonstratable...
Please demonstrate free-will.
And if you merely predict your next action, that is purely causal.
The ability to predict an outcome is the hallmark of determinism/causality.
-->
@3RU7AL
I do not think that impeded is the right word. Again, influences would be more appropriate.Do you suppose your thoughts are not "impeded" by your experiences and or historical and or cultural context?Or even as George Orwell so elegantly illustrates, the very language you are taught constrains (impedes) your thoughts.
Constraint does not mean impeded. It just means options are limited, not non-existent. Impeded means prevented from choosing.
-->
@Fallaneze
Question and answer key below:Can mindless forces act rationally? (No)Are my beliefs determined by mindlessness forces? (Yes)Is determinism a rational belief? (Therefore, No)
Is a tree rational? If not, there is no reason to believe (according to your logic) that it was designed by a rational actor (intelligent designer).
However, you've convinced me to adopt a Deistic (intelligent designer) position.
(IFF) a rational deity is a prerequisite to human rationality (THEN) a rational deity predetermined your entire existence by design.
YOu are essentially a god puppet.
-->
@TwoMan
I do not think that impeded is the right word. Again, influences would be more appropriate.Constraint does not mean impeded. It just means options are limited, not non-existent. Impeded means prevented from choosing.
So, according to your definition, "impeded" requires a rational actor? I mean, "prevented" sounds intentional.
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, a dog, a robot and a flea have free-will.I'm pretty sure this is called "compatibilism" and it renders free-will practically meaningless (at least regarding the standard "moral" arguments).
It is similar to compatibilism. I don't believe in strict determinism nor do I find the word "freedom" appropriate as used by a compatibilist when applied to the definition of compatibilism. I am only arguing based on the definition of free will as "the ability to make a choice, unimpeded". Whether or not that renders free will meaningless is a different discussion and would certainly be a personal opinion.
-->
@3RU7AL
No. By prevented, I only mean no options. Your argument seems to claim that influences remove all options. I deny that.So, according to your definition, "impeded" requires a rational actor? I mean, "prevented" sounds intentional.
-->
@3RU7AL
You can choose to accept proof or not.
It is not useful to deny freewill.
You can change the way you think. Change your attitude. Change your life even. Maybe hearing that causes someone to act on it. Does it matter?
While this is a big mystery, the important thing here is that we at least have the subjective perception of free will, and it is silly to deny that there is reality to this. People are more capable of being cured of their ailments than often yimes is thought.
-->
@TwoMan
It's not a matter of personal opinion if it is based on logic.It is similar to compatibilism. I don't believe in strict determinism nor do I find the word "freedom" appropriate as used by a compatibilist when applied to the definition of compatibilism. I am only arguing based on the definition of free will as "the ability to make a choice, unimpeded". Whether or not that renders free will meaningless is a different discussion and would certainly be a personal opinion.
If dogs and robots and fleas have free-will then they are capable of moral choices, and you'd have to completely revamp the concept of morality in that case.
-->
@TwoMan
No. By prevented, I only mean no options. Your argument seems to claim that influences remove all options. I deny that.
I never suggested all apparent options are removed, but the fact remains, that, in the end, only one option can be chosen, which instantaneously renders any other apparent options purely imaginary (hypothetical).
Your decision to choose that one action is (EITHER) influenced (OR) random.
If it is influenced, then it is inevitable.
If it is random, then it is not a "choice".
-->
@Mopac
It is not useful to deny freewill.
It sound like you don't care if it is real or not.
Are you suggesting that even if the concept itself is incoherent, you believe it is beneficial because of some sort of placebo effect?
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not a matter of personal opinion if it is based on logic.If dogs and robots and fleas have free-will then they are capable of moral choices, and you'd have to completely revamp the concept of morality in that case.
Look, can we stick to people? Dogs only have what is defined as free will in the very loosest sense of the word and certainly do not make moral choices.
If I believe that humans have the ability to make choices and you say yes, but those choices are meaningless, that is an opinion. Are you able to scientifically quantify the meaning of choices?
-->
@Fallaneze
Free will is prima facie true. Determinism is not.
Let me see,
Defending free-will is an appeal to ignorance, exactly like "god in the gaps".
You can't prove free-will isn't hiding somewhere in the black box of my mind.
There is no direct evidence and it is illogical, but it's presumed to be essential and magical and just like my god, I can FEEL it.
Defending determinism is an appeal to evidence.
You see things happen as a result of other previous things that caused them.
This applies to everything we know, and therefore probably applies to everything.
Defending indeterminism is a logical tautology.
Things are either caused or uncaused (indistinguishable from random) and perhaps some mix of the two.
This covers every possible logical avenue.