DOOR 17

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now you are confusing things external to me and things internal to me.
Given a choice A or B external to me, there are two possible options available to me. I choose A. Given a rerun I will still choose A. Put a different person with different programming in my place and he may choose B. So the choice remains open. There were two possible options availab ...[text shortened]... l decision from you as an entity so you cannot possibly claim to be the shaper of your destiny.

There were two possible options available to me but I could only ever choose A WHITEY

Just listen to yourself objectively for a minute. How is B a possible option for you if you are only ever going to choose A? It may be a possible option for a person who is unlike you but that is not what I am refering to.It has to be possible for YOU for it to be possible.

I am asking you if there is another possible life that YOU could have lived and whether YOU could have chosen to live that life as YOU (and not someone else). Logically you will answer no because you have to , but my question is does this feel true for you? Does it resonate within you this idea that YOUR (and not someone elses) life could never have been any other way? Do you REALLY believe this with the whole of your being (and not just your intellect) ?

Originally posted by LemonJello
That happens to be just one of many things that makes your conception of freedom so deeply absurd. Under your view, acting freely does not admit of rational explanation. Under you view, when one chooses freely, one necessarily had insufficient reason for his choice. And I simply do not agree that rationale -- as in some set of servicing reasons -- has ...[text shortened]... my own deliberations and evaluative commitments, can exert causal control over my choices?

Your view entails that free choices are made arbitrarily. Far from providing for it, your view actually completely undermines the notion of personal autonomy. How am I to govern myself if nothing, including my own deliberations and evaluative commitments, can exert causal control over my choices?

RESPONSE-

Boy you love your all or nothing thinking don't you? It's either this or that for you isn't it? Now , I may have missrepresented my conception of free will initially but what I am saying here is that a free choice is not made arbitarily. To be honest I think I made a bit of a pigs ear of it in the T4 argument. What I am saying is that in certain cases it is possible to have a choice over which set of reasons become the cause of my course of action or choice. This entails having a reason for choice A and a reason for choice B but the reason for choice A (say to choose God's way in a particular thing) is not a reason that is robotically going to FORCE the choice on me in a determined fashion. It requires my consent.
The premise behind your argument is that all reasons for all choices have to be causally sufficient to force person X to make that choice otherwise it cannot be said to be a reason for that choice. Whereas I am challenging this idea.

You see only forced determinacy or random indeterminacy , but God through the activity of his spirit makes possible what might call 'unforced determinacy'. In short he gives us the choice of which kind of drivers we want to live according to. Our actions are still driven by reasons and forces and deliberations and who we are but there is more than just one set of reasons we can live by. Its not arbitary and but it's not inevitable either.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Just listen to yourself objectively for a minute. How is B a possible option for you if you are only ever going to choose A? It may be a possible option for a person who is unlike you but that is not what I am refering to.It has to be possible for YOU for it to be possible.

Its hard to get the wording right but yes, I could not choose differently. Another person in the same situation might. But you have already said in another thread that you too are similarly constrained.

I am asking you if there is another possible life that YOU could have lived and whether YOU could have chosen to live that life as YOU (and not someone else).
No. For the important deliberated decisions. As I have said there are many random factors both in many of my decisions and in the actual choices I am faced with.

Logically you will answer no because you have to , but my question is does this feel true for you? Does it resonate within you this idea that YOUR (and not someone elses) life could never have been any other way? Do you REALLY believe this with the whole of your being (and not just your intellect) ?
Yes if feels true to me and yes I REALLY believe this with the whole of my being.
I don't know why we are continuing with this as you have already conceded that you agree with me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This entails having a reason for choice A and a reason for choice B but the reason for choice A (say to choose God's way in a particular thing) is not a reason that is robotically going to FORCE the choice on me in a determined fashion. It requires my consent.

Playing the old "hide it behind a layer" game as in the whole "uncaused cause" argument. You are basically saying that the reasons you are talking about are not part of "you" and that the 'consent' is given by 'you'. Effectively you are attempting to hide the fact that the 'you' that gives the consent must still have a reason to make a choice between the two sets of reasons or it is an effectively arbitrary decision. The choice MUST be either FORCED or ARBITRARY.
The difference between your understanding and ours is that if the FORCED bit is internal we consider it internal and still free. You do not and thus try to run away from it and are still running with no end in sight.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Playing the old "hide it behind a layer" game as in the whole "uncaused cause" argument. You are basically saying that the reasons you are talking about are not part of "you" and that the 'consent' is given by 'you'. Effectively you are attempting to hide the fact that the 'you' that gives the consent must still have a reason to make a choice between the ...[text shortened]... do not and thus try to run away from it and are still running with no end in sight.

The choice MUST be either FORCED or ARBITRARY. whitey

Why? What's your premise? What's your argument?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Playing the old "hide it behind a layer" game as in the whole "uncaused cause" argument. You are basically saying that the reasons you are talking about are not part of "you" and that the 'consent' is given by 'you'. Effectively you are attempting to hide the fact that the 'you' that gives the consent must still have a reason to make a choice between the ...[text shortened]... do not and thus try to run away from it and are still running with no end in sight.

The difference between your understanding and ours is that if the FORCED bit is internal we consider it internal and still free. You do not and thus try to run away from it and are still running with no end in sight

RESPONSE--

No the difference is that I do not make a distinction between whther a forced choice is internal or external . To me , if an action is forced then it cannot be free (whether internal or external) and that's all there is to it. I don't make an arbitrary distinction and say that because the forcing comes from without that this somehow makes the choice forced and if the forcing comes from within this makes the choice more free . This is because in both cases the choices available to the individual are still only one choice. There has been no increase in the amount of options available to the individual , one choice will happen. If you have no external force placed on you you will no doubt make a better choice and one more in line with who you are , but it will be no more or less determined.
A plant that has a rock sitting on top of it cannot grow or achieve the "freedom or growth" that a plant growing normally can . It may grow stunted or sideways instead , the other plant grows normally but it is not the master of it's destiny and it is not making free choices. It's just healthier. It will grow to the extent that determinism dictates it will , so will both plants. One plant is luckier than the other one , but it's got nothing to do with freedom of choice. Both plants can only ever be what they are.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Playing the old "hide it behind a layer" game as in the whole "uncaused cause" argument. You are basically saying that the reasons you are talking about are not part of "you" and that the 'consent' is given by 'you'. Effectively you are attempting to hide the fact that the 'you' that gives the consent must still have a reason to make a choice between the ...[text shortened]... do not and thus try to run away from it and are still running with no end in sight.

Effectively you are attempting to hide the fact that the 'you' that gives the consent must still have a reason to make a choice between the two sets of reasons or it is an effectively arbitrary decision WHITEY

Now this is a more interesting question. It is 'you' that gives consent. And you are right there has to be a reason why you choose between two options . But what if one of the reasons pulling you in one direction as opposed to the other is unable to force you to go that way but instead requires a different relationship between you and the cause of your action. Let's say that the reason for your choice becomes the reason for it AFTER you choose it and not BEFORE. You choose the reason rather than the reason choosing you (or forcing you) . This sounds strange at first but there is some kind of parallel in quantum entanglement is there not? My understanding of quantum entanglement is that it is possible to have an effect becoming the cause of the cause (or cause and effect working backwards in a strange way). In this way one could say that the reason why I chose A was A and if I had chosen B then it would be B , it sort of works backwards. Whichever reason I choose then becomes retrospectively the very reason for the selection. If our normnal understanding of cause and effect is challenged by quatum entanglement then why not the relationship between choices and reasons for choices?

This is probabaly a bit garbled but I thought it was interesting enough to throw out there. The bit I do understand more is the activity of the Holy Spirit. God draws near to us and prompts us to let a different way of living control us. In a way he wants to invade us (excuse the language) so that we kind of do not belong to ourselves any more in the way that we did before. The consent bit is a kind of letting go or dying to self and (and this is important) its not really a deliberation but more of a spiritual act of will on a deeper level than just intellect.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Once again you resort to extremes and parody. No-one is talking about foo dust (except in your own mind) just that there is a certain mystery to it that's all. If you can say to me hand on heart that there has never ever been any choice that you have made that "could have been otherwise" then I will shut up but I bet if you are honest you can't. Do you ...[text shortened]... much much harder to live by aunthentically because it's logical implications are fatalism.

Look, knightmeister. I'm sick of your prancing around from thread to thread shouting "But it couldn't have been otherwise!" and acting like that constitutes some sort of argument against compatibilism. For the last time, if you have some argument against compatibilism that doesn't simply beg the question, then let's hear it.

It was bad enough when your view seemed altogether arbitrary, it's worse now that you've brought out the real reasons why you do your ridiculous metaphysical hoop-jumping: boo hoo hoo, knightmeister "can't live" if he doesn't believe he could have "done otherwise". I'm not interested in beliefs based on appeals to consequences, especially when those beliefs are utterly incoherent. And I can't sympathize with your whining, particularly when -- again -- I and others have already given you good reasons to think that the ability to "do otherwise" is, if anything, incompatible with acting autonomously.

I have absolutely no problems with living, and living well, without the ability to have "done otherwise" because, unlike you, I have a coherent concept of personal autonomy.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The choice MUST be either FORCED or ARBITRARY. whitey

Why? What's your premise? What's your argument?

No argument required. It is in the definition of the words. An arbitrary or random event is one that is not forced (ie unpredictable / not predetermined / uncaused).

Originally posted by twhitehead
No argument required. It is in the definition of the words. An arbitrary or random event is one that is not forced (ie unpredictable / not predetermined / uncaused).

Tsk Tsk! What bad logic ! This is really basic stuff.

Obviously an arbitrary event is not a forced event and vice versa , but how does that prove that there can be no such thing as an event that is not forced or arbitrary but in a third catagory.

Let's use your logic in a different way...An animal must be either a reptile or a mammal . Why? Because a reptile is not a mammal and a mammal is not a reptile..therefore all animals MUST be reptiles or mammals ...it's in the definition of the words...no argument needed!

(The obvious mistake is that this argument does not logically exclude birds or insects and is thus fallacious)

Now please provide a better argument....

Originally posted by LemonJello
Look, knightmeister. I'm sick of your prancing around from thread to thread shouting "But it couldn't have been otherwise!" and acting like that constitutes some sort of argument against compatibilism. For the last time, if you have some argument against compatibilism that doesn't simply beg the question, then let's hear it.

It was bad enough when ...[text shortened]... erwise" because, unlike you, I have a coherent concept of personal autonomy.

I have absolutely no problems with living, and living well, without the ability to have "done otherwise" because, unlike you, I have a coherent concept of personal autonomy. LEMON

So can I clarify this? You really , really believe in the depths of your being (not just intellectually but with your gut feelings as well) that the rest of your life and all your future is ....erhem ...inevitable and determined? Your are fated and always have been fated to live the life you are now living to the precisest detail and there's nothing that you can or could ever do about it?

You REALLY believe this? Doesn't sound much like personal autonomy , sounds more like destiny is making all the decisions for you! But then I don't think you really believe this anyway do you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have absolutely no problems with living, and living well, without the ability to have "done otherwise" because, unlike you, I have a coherent concept of personal autonomy. LEMON

So can I clarify this? You really , really believe in the depths of your being (not just intellectually but with your gut feelings as well) that the rest of your life and ...[text shortened]... ng all the decisions for you! But then I don't think you really believe this anyway do you?

What's there to clarify? I've told you time and time again why I think your view of freedom is incoherent. Yes, I really do believe it is not the case that the ability to do otherwise is necessary for our acting autonomously. In fact, I don't think the ability to do otherwise is compatible with personal autonomy: if it were the case that I could have done otherwise, then that signals a failure of reason and a disconnect between intention/action and my evaluative commitments and character traits. The world is not totally deterministic; but even if it were, in no way do I think that in itself would preclude our acting autonomously.

Since you are clearly needy with respect to continual prompting: do you have any non-question-begging argument against my compatibilism, or not? Again, I'm not interested in question begging, nor am I interested in appeals to emotions/consequences, which seem to be all you can muster.

You want me to take your view even remotely seriously? Provide explanation for your different action at T4; in doing so, show how this event is neither random nor arbitrary and is consistent with personal autonomy. Remember that whatever mysterious and stupefying features God has infixed in you with His foo-foo dust are identically specified at both T0 and T3. Good luck.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Obviously an arbitrary event is not a forced event and vice versa , but how does that prove that there can be no such thing as an event that is not forced or arbitrary but in a third category.

The words are not categories, one is the complement of the other.

Let's use your logic in a different way...An animal must be either a reptile or a mammal . Why? Because a reptile is not a mammal and a mammal is not a reptile..therefore all animals MUST be reptiles or mammals ...it's in the definition of the words...no argument needed!

(The obvious mistake is that this argument does not logically exclude birds or insects and is thus fallacious)
I agree that it is fallacious. But you are using category words to try and disprove an argument based on complement words.
Now if I said and animal must either be a mammal or a non-mammal will you agree that it is a true statement?
'Random' means 'not caused'. An uncaused event is random by definition. If you believe that my definition for the word random is wrong then lets hear yours.

Originally posted by LemonJello
What's there to clarify? I've told you time and time again why I think your view of freedom is incoherent. Yes, I really do believe it is not the case that the ability to do otherwise is necessary for our acting autonomously. In fact, I don't think the ability to do otherwise is compatible with personal autonomy: if it were the case that I could ...[text shortened]... nfixed in you with His foo-foo dust are identically specified at both T0 and T3. Good luck.

You want me to take your view even remotely seriously? Provide explanation for your different action at T4; in doing so, show how this event is neither random nor arbitrary and is consistent with personal autonomy. Remember that whatever mysterious and stupefying features God has infixed in you with His foo-foo dust are identically specified at both T0 and T3. Good luck.LEMON

My revised view on the T4 question is that we do not always act in accordance with our character and that we are not always true to ourseleves and our values . It requires effort and an act of will sometimes to act in line with our best reasonings .In many situations we have both congruent choices that we can make and also choices that betray our true nature. It takes courage sometimes to choose authentically and courage means effort , an act of will on our part etc . This means that in many situations we havce two real choices available to us. T4 could mean that we show integrity or it could mean that we betray who we are or rationalise away the reasons for doing the thing we ought to.

Now will you please stop refering to my previous attempts at the T4 thing because I have already said that I made a pig's ear of it . It took a bit of courage on my part to admit that I fouled up , it was a deliberate choice on my part , and it would have been so easy to fudge my foul up away with doublespeak as well.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The words are not categories, one is the complement of the other.

[b]Let's use your logic in a different way...An animal must be either a reptile or a mammal . Why? Because a reptile is not a mammal and a mammal is not a reptile..therefore all animals MUST be reptiles or mammals ...it's in the definition of the words...no argument needed!

(The obvio ...[text shortened]... tion. If you believe that my definition for the word random is wrong then lets hear yours.

'Random' means 'not caused'. An uncaused event is random by definition. If you believe that my definition for the word random is wrong then lets hear yours.WHITEY

And this is your mistake in understanding me. If you re-read what we have been saying here the discussion is NOT about whether a choice is caused or random but it is about whether a caused event can be forced or unforced.
For example , I have chosen to give my life over to God. This action is caused by the Holy Spirit within me but it was not a forced event , caused but not forced , because I had to allow it to happen via my surrender to the process. I could have resisted. This is only possible because God's spirit is not some mechanical force of nature that will bludgeon me into into doing his will , it's personal and respectful and knows just how to presuade without forcing.

What I am saying is that there are 3 catagories caused (forced) , caused (unforced) and random choices.