DOOR 17

Originally posted by LemonJello
No. Oh my God. Knightmeister, just stop, alright? Figure out what compatibilism is before you proceed. For instance, why do you think it's called 'compatibilism'?

Because it seeks to say that both free will and determinism are compatable. That the logical implications of determinism do not infringe on human autonomy

Originally posted by dottewell
That simply shows you still don't know the first thing about compatibilism.

"Soft determinism" is characterised by a denial that a free act must be an uncaused/undetermined act.

It has nothing to do with quantum indeterminacy. Rather, is a completely different way of understanding what "freedom" is, in terms of human will. A way you are clearly incap ...[text shortened]... prehending.

Do youself a favour and read a book, or at least look it up on the internet.

Surely all acts are either determined or random or something else? If they are determined then what does it matter how they are. They are forced determined actions . Soft determinism has to be looked at very suspiciously because the implications of determinism are very stark and uncomfortable. It's hardly surprising that soft determinism was invented by someone as a way of avoiding some of the difficulties of free will and determinism. It's like having your cake and eating it.

Neather random actions or determined actions offer much in the way of options or control to the individual.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Surely all acts are either determined or random or something else? If they are determined then what does it matter how they are. They are forced determined actions . Soft determinism has to be looked at very suspiciously because the implications of determinism are very stark and uncomfortable. It's hardly surprising that soft determinism was invented b ...[text shortened]... m actions or determined actions offer much in the way of options or control to the individual.

Determinism leaves all the room in the world for free choice - if by free choice you simply mean selecting (without impediment) a course of action in accordance with beliefs, desires etc.

Some of us do mean this by "free choice", and you're yet to present a non-question-begging reason why we shouldn't.

Originally posted by knightmeister
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.

So now after all this time we find out that you dont know what 'random' means, you dont know what 'forced' means and you dont know what 'caused' means. Oh well, that explains a lot or you incoherency.

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.
Caused means forced. Get it through your head. Unless you meant 'partly caused by'.
When you say 'I allowed it' then you were the cause.

What I am saying is that there are 3 catagories caused (forced) , caused (unforced) and random choices.
You just don't seem to understand what caused means. Get a dictionary, read it. Think about it. Then get back to me when you have realized your error.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So now after all this time we find out that you dont know what 'random' means, you dont know what 'forced' means and you dont know what 'caused' means. Oh well, that explains a lot or you incoherency.

[b]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 ...[text shortened]... nary, read it. Think about it. Then get back to me when you have realized your error.

Caused means forced. Get it through your head. Unless you meant 'partly caused by'.
When you say 'I allowed it' then you were the cause. WHITEY

In a sense you are right , I was the cause because I allowed it but it was also God because he empowered it (or suggested it) . It takes two to tango as it were. I don't see any reason why God should not be able to exert enough influence to make a choice possible but not enough to make it forced. He's good like that you know , he knows just how much to apply.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So now after all this time we find out that you dont know what 'random' means, you dont know what 'forced' means and you dont know what 'caused' means. Oh well, that explains a lot or you incoherency.

[b]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 ...[text shortened]... nary, read it. Think about it. Then get back to me when you have realized your error.

What I am saying is that there are 3 catagories caused (forced) , caused (unforced) and random choices.
You just don't seem to understand what caused means. Get a dictionary, read it. Think about it. Then get back to me when you have realized your error.

RESPONSE---

Again I am talking about a personal influence on us that is not mechanical or determining but personal. Every natural cause has to be forced determinism. But I think God can do something different from the natural world in the sense of being able to suggest , influence and empower without forcing. The spirit requires our co-operation . I grant you this is not without mystery but I see no logical reason why a being free from causality might not offer something a bit different from causality itself.

In this sense I am talking about a situation where two possible causes are possible for two possible actions . Once the action is chosen then the cause for that action is also selected . We surrender to one type of causality or another but both are possible because we are caught evenly between the two.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In a sense you are right , I was the cause because I allowed it but it was also God because he empowered it (or suggested it) . It takes two to tango as it were. I don't see any reason why God should not be able to exert enough influence to make a choice possible but not enough to make it forced. He's good like that you know , he knows just how much to apply.

I never said that a cause could not be a result of two partial causes (God and you). But at the end of the day it is still caused. You are claiming that it is not caused which is false.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Again I am talking about a personal influence on us that is not mechanical or determining but personal. Every natural cause has to be forced determinism.

Where do you get that from? Natural causes are forced determinism? At the very least show some evidence for that claim.

But I think God can do something different from the natural world in the sense of being able to suggest, influence and empower without forcing. The spirit requires our co-operation.
Effectively two partial causes with a function in between which does an amalgamation and decides on a result. But there is still a definite cause or causes. Otherwise there is some random input as well.

I grant you this is not without mystery but I see no logical reason why a being free from causality might not offer something a bit different from causality itself.
In this sense I am talking about a situation where two possible causes are possible for two possible actions. Once the action is chosen then the cause for that action is also selected. We surrender to one type of causality or another but both are possible because we are caught evenly between the two.
In other words the choice is random. Sorry, I know you hate the word, but you are yet to give any definition for it that does not fit perfectly the situation you are describing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Because it seeks to say that both free will and determinism are compatable. That the logical implications of determinism do not infringe on human autonomy

OK, so if my conception of freedom is compatible with strict determinism, then obviously it cannot be the case, as you previously suggested, that my conception of freedom is based constitutively on "radnom [sic] factors" that entail indeterminacy. This is what I find to be so irritating: that you could so seriously distort my view after I have told you again and again what I think freedom is. Given that your last characterization of my view is patently contradictory to my view as expounded by me, it's hard for me to not think you are being disingenuous. Surely, you can understand my frustration.

Originally posted by LemonJello
OK, so if my conception of freedom is compatible with strict determinism, then obviously it cannot be the case, as you previously suggested, that my conception of freedom is based constitutively on "radnom [sic] factors" that entail indeterminacy. This is what I find to be so irritating: that you could so seriously distort my view after I have told you a ...[text shortened]... d for me to not think you are being disingenuous. Surely, you can understand my frustration.

Yes , I understand yuour frustration in a way. It happens to us christians all the time. People think that we are saying something that we are not. Maybe if you stated your position in 2-3 bullet points?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes , I understand yuour frustration in a way. It happens to us christians all the time. People think that we are saying something that we are not. Maybe if you stated your position in 2-3 bullet points?

Free will according to me:
* A decision is made freely if the determining factors (causes) are all internal to the entity that is making the decision or choice.
* A free 'will' decision is when the determining factors are part of the entities will. i.e. it is a conscious and deliberated decision not instinctual or unconscious.
* even if the world is totally deterministic (which I don't believe it is) and all consciousness / memories etc are entirely programmatic or predictable in nature then I still call it free will.

Note that I am not in anyway speaking for LemonJello as he almost certainly has his own understanding of the subject.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Free will according to me:
* A decision is made freely if the determining factors (causes) are all internal to the entity that is making the decision or choice.
* A free 'will' decision is when the determining factors are part of the entities will. i.e. it is a conscious and deliberated decision not instinctual or unconscious.
* even if the world is to ...[text shortened]... yway speaking for LemonJello as he almost certainly has his own understanding of the subject.

Free will according to whitey
* A decision is made freely if the determining factors (causes) are all internal to the entity that is making the decision or choice.

(KM RESPONSE- Making distinctions between internal and external forces seems arbitary . One might ask why is this important since both external and internal forces are capable of forcing the decision in various ways)


* A free 'will' decision is when the determining factors are part of the entities will. i.e. it is a conscious and deliberated decision not instinctual or unconscious.

(KM RESPONSE - One might easily argue that all conscious and deliberated decisions can be traced to the unconscious and the instinctual/evolutionary anyway . How is one to argue that conscious choices are any more free than unconscious ones? One can argue that subjectively they feel more choiceful but does that consitute proof? One could say that an instinctual decision is not free because it is driven by forces of nature but one can also argue that conscious decisions must also logically be driven by nature too)


* even if the world is totally deterministic (which I don't believe it is) and all consciousness / memories etc are entirely programmatic or predictable in nature then I still call it free will.

(KM - RESPONSE- Of course you will call it free will. The question is 'why?' If what one wills is no more free or less driven than a simple organism driven by instinct , which logically you must be in this model , then why call if free will ? One's will is not free of anything in your model. Your will is not determined by you . You are not directing events , the cosmos is directing you. If you want to say that you feel like you are making free decisions and therefore you are , then fine , but don't complain the next time a christian says that they feel like the Holy Spirit is with them so he is)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Where do you get that from? Natural causes are forced determinism? At the very least show some evidence for that claim.

[b]But I think God can do something different from the natural world in the sense of being able to suggest, influence and empower without forcing. The spirit requires our co-operation.
Effectively two partial causes with a funct ...[text shortened]... yet to give any definition for it that does not fit perfectly the situation you are describing.[/b]

In other words the choice is random. Sorry, I know you hate the word, but you are yet to give any definition for it that does not fit perfectly the situation you are describing.WHITEY


Can I ask you , does the quatum world afford any weight to the idea that the relationship between cause and effect is not always straight forward or linear? Does quantum entaglement offer the possibility of backwards relationships between cause and effect? I say this because your model of 'every choice must have a cause and be determined by something preceeding it or else it must be random' does seem to exclude the possibility that other ways of choices being made might exist. The idea that I choose a choice freely with no causal determination forcing me to seems incoherent at first but then so does quantum entanglement and the such like. Is it not possible that we choose freely without there being a direct cause (except our own free volition) and that that choice is not causally driven by anything preceeding it - in this way the reason for the choice becomes the cause after the choice has taken place. We choose the reason and not the other way round. Thus one could say that the choice is not random but also it is not causally driven. A different relationship exists between our choices and the reasoning process - a kind of retrospective causality ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Because it seeks to say that both free will and determinism are compatable. That the logical implications of determinism do not infringe on human autonomy

Provide a logical, non-question begging argument for why a deterministic universe and free will
are mutually exclusive.

Premise 1: We live in a deterministic universe.
Premise 2: We have free will.
Argument: ...

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Provide a logical, non-question begging argument for why a deterministic universe and free will
are mutually exclusive.

Premise 1: We live in a deterministic universe.
Premise 2: We have free will.
Argument: ...

Nemesio

Define free will. What is our will supposed to be 'free' of if it is free. Free of dust ? Free as opposed to very expensive? What freedom are you describing when you talk or free will? You can't be talking about the freedom to choose A or B as real possibilities since that is not afforded by determinism--so what exactly is your will free from in this model?