all of the laws of the universe created this conversation, along with everything else.... i dont see what your talking about..

your not.. your not giving me the old, 'you cant explain EVERYTHING so your wrong' nonsense are you? i hope not.
Are you expecting me to explain in perfect detail, every single thing that led to this conversation?

ok then, by that same reasoning, we have no choices, we are programmed to do what we do, by evolution.
to assume there is a difference, seems to me, to be a symptom of delusions of grandure. :P

whatever language game you want to play is fine, call it a choice or dont, whatever. doesn't bother me.

hmm... i cant understand your criticism at all..

did the robot or did the robot not, choose to move the blue cube into the blue crate?
clearly it the action was determined by its programming, whether we call it a choice seems irrelevant, what im saying is that we are that robot, just FAR more complex.

as to you comment about this conversation, you say;

"What kind of cockamamie deterministic laws would create such a conversation."

well firstly, its not deterministic laws, determinism is a law, its not made up of laws.. so i dont get that bit.
secondly though, this world, with all its unbelievable complexity lead to this conversation. obviously.

of course, but why would you assume thats the case, i see no evidence of this ability and thus see no reason to come up with explanations for it...
You seem to assume the ability is their, and then you consider that maybe our brains break determinism to make it happen. seems pointless to me.

on your Sam Harris comments, i disagree, i dont think he is as ignorant of the more nuanced views as you think, i think he is arguing (as i am) against the only concept of free will worth arguing over, i see no reason to argue against more nuanced philosophical views of free will.
If you dont support this idea of free will, then whats the problem? so basically i dont understand this criticism you gave. Also, wasn't it basically just an argument from authority? you gave no real argument.

Yes Rich, im saying a person makes a choice in a manner, we are back to the language issue, im saying that a persons brain makes a choice, but its a determine choice,, they could not have done otherwise, considering the history of the universe, it was always going to happen that way.

But they still made their 'choice'.

A computer program controls a robotic arm that sorts out green and blue cubes, the arm 'sees' a blue cube, and 'decides' to grab it and move it into the blue crate.

A choice is made, determinism remains.

I feel like you would be better served if you take a more charitable stance with this discussion, you seem to be searching for flaws in what im saying (and no doubt their are many because language is imperfect) it would be easier for you to get to where i am, to understand what is actually in my head, if you just reel back a bit on the defensiveness... and uh... sorry about this terribly insulting and condescending advice.. i know exactly how it sounds. but i believe its true.

and thats three sentances :P

But quantum states are quite irrelevant, and they don't allow for the free will people claim exists. to claim that something on the scale of a human brain acts in an in-deterministic way is absurd and baseless.

man, i love it when someone misrepresents me, misunderstands 90% of what i say, criticizes me for positions i dont hold, refuses to explain themselves and insists that i manage to understand them on my own, insults me three different ways, and then runs away saying they wont be back, wont read any response or anything. lol.
I mean, im on the internet, i expect this stuff to happen, but still.

goooood riddance.

you are considering a different picture to the one im talking about.. i agree entirely with what you said.

what IM saying, is that if you go to any MOMENT, a single moment, not a period of time, a single instant in time, and everything in the whole universe is a particular way, every atom, every quantum state, all of it (obviosly including your body and brain) then the thing that happens next is determined by the current setup, and we as agents have NO INFLUENCE over that whatsoever. and that is precicely what most people believe free will is, the capacity to overcome determanism, to break it, to do something outside of what is determined by the universe.
If you dont support that notion of free will, then we have no argument.

crying about it? wow. im sorry we couldn't have a more civil and grown up discussion.

im saying that the belief that a person could do different things given the EXACT situation,
— PeterPants

Of course a person can. A person can decide to go left or right. A person then does it utilizing internal energy, which is why we have internal energy to move in the direction we choose.

What is strange is the idea that since deterministic set of laws would so proceed as to concoct a universe where everyone is tricked into an illusion of no choice, except those who know that there is no choice, and for some reason these deterministic laws start unveiling the illusion. — Rich

ok, so here is where most of the misunderstanding lies i believe.

indeed a 'person' can decide to go left or right, im in no way saying they cant. what im saying is that its their brain that does the deciding, it does it based on programming (genes ideas beliefs etc) and the decision is not influenced by your conscious experience of it. but the real point is that if you go back in time to the moment of deciding to turn left, if all the atoms in the universe are exactly as they were, you will turn left every single time. you cant change it, its determined by forces you cant change.

"Of course they can. A person can decide to go left or right. A person then does it utilizing internal energy, which is why we have internal energy to move in the direction we choose.

What is strange is the idea that since deterministic set of laws would so proceed as to concoct a universe where everyone is tricked into an illusion of no choice, except those who know that there is no choice, and for some reason these deterministic laws start unveiling the illusion."

you need to try harder to actually understand what i am saying, because again, your arguing against a position i dont hold.

↪PeterPants
"So, the only one with an issue with considering things outside your own perspective is clearly you, Peter."

"I would love to know what your talking about... please do explain, i would appreciate it.

I made that clear in what I wrote above that sentence. I'm sorry English challenges you so."


no... no you just insulted me without explaining why, i think im very good at considering things from outside my own perspective, you simply asserted im not. please back that up. im not interested in baseless assertions.

"The fact you don't know what "you need to read better" means just further confirms you do. Thanks."

oh, lol, you meant i need to read MORE, right? like read books and things, not that i need to read your comments better... right?

umm... Thanatos, i think you need to step back for a second, because you arguing against an imaginary straw man.

determinism is not an assumption, its all there is evidence for, to assume there is anything outside of determinism is the magical doctrinal assumption.

I say that all thoughts feelings and 'decisions' are deterministic just like everything else we see, you seem to assume that there is something else, based on... what exactly?

i fully understand that, and actually thought i had basically said it..
My point was that this rules out the notion that at a specific instance in time, any given person could do one thing OR another. Its simply not true, in a given situation (the situation includes your brain state etc) you can and will do one thing.

As far as i can see, to think otherwise is to presume the existence of magic.

"So, the only one with an issue with considering things outside your own perspective is clearly you, Peter."

I would love to know what your talking about... please do explain, i would appreciate it.
I spend a LOT of time trying to do this.. and i was under the impression that i was good at it, i do often come up with good predictions based on it... but im open to your criticism. (though i dont understand the hostility, maybe im imagining it)

but what did you mean by 'you need to read better'? i read your comment like nine times, maybe you need to write better? maybe not, im not sure, have i missed something? please let me know.

no separation between our brains and us? really, then you have full awareness of everything happening in your brain? you can control your own heart rate? stop it even?
do you like coffee? why or why not? are you getting my point?

there IS a separation between us and our brains, as i said before, WE are the conscious experience, our brains are highly complex computers which cause us and many other things, we are not our brains, we are but one element of our brains. possibly not even a necessary one. :P

im sorry, i have no idea what the issue is Thantos... how is the 'our brain' a problem?
you have an issue with considering things from outside your own perspective? i dont know how to react to that...

how could that be possible? how could it even make any sense?

for that, we would have to be aware of our decisions BEFORE we made them, and then decide to decide them before we decided them.... its absurd, the whole thing is just ridiculous. 'free will' is magical nonsense.

Just to be completely clear, when i say free will is magical nonsense, im saying that the belief that a person could do different things given the EXACT situation, the exact electric setup of their brain, the exact atomic composition of the universe, the exact quantum states, etc. is magical nonsensical thinking.
dont you think rich?

i was not actually claiming that we 'should' act responsibly, what i was claiming was that if we want a productive society that enables the well being of its proponents, then we ought to take responsibility for what our own brains end up doing. they are after all OUR brains.
If i have a brain tumor and my hand randomly sways and whacks an old lady over, its not my fault that it happened but im still gonna help her back up and apologize.

this is starting to go off topic (which is fine by me) but the way i see it, Humes is/ought 'problem' is a non problem, yet another massive confusion, all ought's come from a goal, it really is as simple as that.

if you want to build a brick wall, you ought to get some bricks.
if the members of a society want to improve the wellbeing of everyone, they ought to take personal responsibility for their actions, even if they are not really ultimately responsible for them.

if you are immoral and dont care about the well-being of conscious beings, then you wont feel the drive to do good stuff. fortunately most of us are moral beings.
There are of course, thankfully, many practical reasons to be moral.

I very much doubt that most brains contain the knowledge that they are themselves determanistic devices.. i felt the need to post this because basically everyone on earth thinks that people can be 'bad' people, they dont see that personality and actions are beyond our control, we are what we are.

"You think my computer has a choice?"

no, i dont thats exactly what im saying, it just responds in a deterministic way to the world around it.

what exactly is upsetting your computer? but lets stop talking like this, its silly, its FAR more practical to speak of people as not just their consciousness, but their body and brain too.
But, i do feel that your actually being far more accurate when you speak of your mind as a separate thing. but its difficult considering our language, so lets not :P

This language game is IMO the main reason people are so confused about this stuff.

generally when i say 'you' i mean your brain, your consciousness, your body etc.
sometimes when i say 'you' i really just mean 'you' as in the consciousness.

i will strive to be more clear when im speaking directly of your consciousness itself.

The must comes from a pragmatic consideration, it would simply be impractical to act the way the world really is, we have to pretend to some degree that people are responsible for their actions in a way that the are not really, just because of the setup of society and whatnot.

you seem to be confusing what is practical for you, as opposed to what is practical for society, im speaking of the latter.

Yes your brain is a part of you, as is you left finger, but you are not your left finger, and you are not your brain, you are consciousnesses itself, you are the experience of experience. your thoughts come from your brain, and YOU come from your brain, there are many aspects to your brain that you have absolutely no control over or access to whatsoever.

Im certainly not suggesting that anyone else is controlling it, your brain is controlling your breathing and your heart beating etc. not you.

Hope that clears up a bit.

Im holding your brain responsible for its content, im not judging you for it because i recognize you have no power over what is there.

Anyway, you should really try to actually understand what people are saying before you start acting like a child and teasing them.

no, i dont think the brain does work to create the illusion, its just a side effect. and i see no problem in dissolving that illusion..

do you actually have any arguments or points? or are you just going to keep playing this silly game?

PS, not just my brain, also the brains of millions of other people, predominantly those who practice eastern meditation. Not that i ever have done so.

" My computerized brain"

ps, its just 'brain' the 'computerized' part is entirely unnecessary, brains ARE computers, clearly.

i dont think it ever was a good illusion, i think it causes great suffering and pain, in the person and in everyone else. people going around feeling vindictive and hatred for other people, believing there are 'bad' people instead of just bad ideas etc.

lol, indeed.

well, i say that your computers being upset at this new understanding (or rather, pretended understanding) is just a symptom of a lifetime of confused thinking about personhood, selfness, etc.

we can go down the hole of what these things actually mean if you want.. it generally helps people understand what i am/am not actually saying.

because seriously, in my experience, everyone misunderstands this idea at first, as demonstrated by their irreverent rebukes. (not that you've really said any of those)

im not actually saying that people don't make decisions, just that we are not the ultimate source of those decisions. im saying that you have NO choice in who you are, or what you do, in any ultimate sense. you still do things.

for practical reasons we must take responsibility for our actions, we still do them, even if we are not ultimately responsible for them.

This is called a nuanced argument, dont discount it just because it does not fit your current understanding of terms like 'responsibility' :P

please do ask questions and check things, because i don't think you quite get what im actually arguing here.


really, the issue is that 'we' are not what you think.. insofar as i believe anyway.
'we' are the conscious experience, the silent witness of experience, we are not our thoughts, feelings or actions, we simply experience those things. but now we lead down a rabbit whole that im quite sure i wont convince you of, that your personal experience of 'deciding' something, is an illusion, a trick. your brain does all the deciding outside of your control or understanding, it then tricks you into thinking you did it. when really the decision is as mysterious to you as anything could be, you don't know how the neurons are firing of in your brain, you don't know what subconscious things are going on behind the scenes.

you seem to have mistakenly assumed that i dont think you are the conscious center of your thoughts and intentions.. our computers are not typing anything, we (humans) are typing ON computers.

we are sentient beings who can think and act, we can rationalize and make decisions, laws are constructed by societies of people and talking about the application of law CAN change the way people think about it, and eventually, change the law itself. not that im even suggesting any changes to law, just the way we think about punishment.

so, whats the problem here Rich? i get you dont seem to like the idea that your a machine, but so what? why should i care about your emotional response to my argument?

You seem to almost be forgetting that the OP was saying that the person struggling in the gutter, is the bad, the one suffering. They were saying that the good action the Good Samaritan did, could not exist without the bad life the gutter-man had.

But, it does not matter, because your point stands anyway, you can always just compliment a happy person, adding goodness to an already good situation.

People have been imagining 'Heaven' for aaaages, what exactly were they imagining if not a place where good exists without evil? how was the 'garden of Eden' supposed to function if not in this very way?
I mention this because the argument that good cant exist without evil is normally used by theists to defend their worldview against the 'problem of evil'.

Clearly our brains are just highly complex and messy computers, they take information in, process it as determined by their design (as set by evolution) and output thoughts and intentions.
The simply fact that ALL our thoughts and intentions can be described as coming from genes and experiences, shows that we are not the originator of our thoughts and intentions, it simply makes no sense at all to say that 'we' created them.
Our brains did, sure. but 'we' ( the conspicuous experience) simply witnessed the result, we took no part in it. just as our bodies pump blood, our brains come up with thoughts entirely outside of our influence.

i feel that this sentence really does eviscerate the notion of 'free will';

'To say that you could have done otherwise, is simply to say that the universe could have been different at that exact point in time'

The most helpful thing for me in understanding depression, was the realization that its basically a very very bad habit. (please don't think i'm trivializing it)

I think expectations of the future is but one part of it,i wouldn't ignore the power of how people view themselves. Thoughts like 'i'm useless' generally speak more about how the person sees themselves then about how they envision their own future.
I gain happiness from the way i perceive myself entirely separated from any view of how my life will be in the future. regardless of what happens in the future, my pride is still a positive feeling now.
having a purpose filled life is great, but i think its importance is a bit exaggerated. simply experiencing positive experiences from moment to moment is all that is required for a happy and fulfilling life.
I think this drive to make something of yourself, to push to be better, to never be happy with who you are and what you have done, is itself a major cause of depression.

I see depression as basically just bad/unhealthy thinking habits, with a wide variety of causes of cause.

The way to fix depression is to train your brain to think more positively, loving kindness meditation is one great tool. this is of course, far more easily said then done.
People need to stop taking passing thoughts so seriously, they don't actually say much about you as a person.

Only immoral men can draw comfort from statement 1, so i largely discount that element.

I find statement 2 to be FAR more insulting to me, because it insults my intelligence, not all fools are men, there are fools everywhere, i CAN however sympathize with the statement that all men are fools, because come on, everyone is a fool, obviously.

as for which is more insulting to men, as a gender, the second, clearly, because its explicitly stating that men can be fools where women cant. its drawing an uncharitable comparison against the only other 'group' that we can really be compared against.

Wow, i cant believe the number of people who cant read a damn diagram, the four quadrant chart is not flawed in the way people here are saying it is.. it has two axis, belief and knowledge, theist / atheist is a statement of belief, Agnostic / Gnostic is a claim of knowledge, its very simple.

it does not 'leave out agnosticism' as some have said, it does not 'confuse belief and knowledge' as others have said, it explicitly distinguishes between them, thats the very point of the thing.

Atheists are NON-theists

agnostics are people who lack knowledge of whatever topic is at hand, Gnostic's are those with knowledge of the topic at hand.

And agnostic is a TYPE of atheist / theist. its a claim of how sure one is, a person who claims to be an Agnostic theist is one who believes in God but recognizes they cant prove it.

Everyone is Agnostic with regards to the existence of God.

Its quite simply really.. we all have mountains of evidence suggesting how dogs will behave, people who haven't seen dogs before will be far more suspicious of them.

We have no reason to believe in a god, so i dont see any fallacy at all, saying we might go to hell if we are wrong is a non starter. There's an infinite number of propositions that have terrible consequences if they are true and we dont believe them, how absurd it would be to consider them all.

Lastly, the whole atheist/agnostic thing is annoying, you seem to think there exist some large portion of 'atheists' who 'believe there is no god'... ive never met a single one of these people, im sure they exist, but they are simply irrational atheists who dont understand how evidence and proof work. Everyone is agnostic about God, because knowledge about such a transcendent thing that defies the laws of reality is categorically unknowable.