what happens is all predestined or scientifically determined. — christian2017
A Baby has free will but its actions are completely predictable. — christian2017
A Baby has free will but its actions are completely predictable. — christian2017
Wait, are you saying that they have figured, for example,our probability of choosing X in situtation A or that they have figured out that, given certain conditions, we will choose X? The latter does not require letting the events play out (and the main problem becomes incompabilitism's critisms) as you can know what will happen if you know all the variables (and determinism is true). Or do we somehow always choose to do what the events point out to? But the former does not mean that we are "scientifically determined" to do a thing, so it does not seem to be what you're saying.2. they played out and calculated (ran scenarios) what we would all do down to the last detail, i would argue that this was when we had free will. We are completely predictable at this point but we also had free will.
3. The gods let the events play out in real time and at this point what happens is all predestined or scientifically determined.
4. Any slight modification at any given point are also calculated. — christian2017
i would argue that this was when we had free will. — christian2017
yeah, i'm hoping our predictability is taken into account by my christian god. Just as Paul had his doubts about his faith, so do many of us. — christian2017
Okay. So, how does that allow for free will? In that case, we are reducible to events or states in a casual history of events and we have no bearing on what decision we will make. Our decisions were decided by something other than us. (our DNA and our environment). This, i think, does not allow for free will in the "basic desert" sense (i.e. us being blame or praiseworthy for our actions). A baby lacks free will in that sense too.Scientific determinism is a concept that arose in the early 1800s partly due to Newton's work.
As i stated to someone else i see the universe as giant billiards table and our dna as well as our environment completely decide what we will do. I might have inferior dna and a good environment and someone else might have superior dna and a bad environment. — christian2017
it can move its arms, make noises — christian2017
Yes, but it moving it arms or it making noises is essentially a byproduct of primitive responses. It is like saying we choose to react to cute things in a particular way-we do not.
Also, whetever an agent change the world or not does not necessarily entail that the agent has free will or not. You can not be able to do otherwise and still have free will (from a compabitilist perspective, that is, in the basic desert sense)-whetever we have free will in regards to one action or not depends on how the decision was brought about. If, for example, you were told that you had to vote for one way in an election or you would be killed and you did it because you were going to vote for it anyways, you still "freely" choose the action-you deserve blame or praise for it (if, for example, you choose a tyrant, you deserve blame for it, if you choose someone against a tyrant, you deserve praise). — HereToDisscuss
Yes, it does. Howewer, it is primitive in the sense that it behaves exactly like animal counterparts.How is a new born baby's movement primitive or should i say what do you mean by that? I'm sure you would agree the new born baby feels pain as well as positive feelings? — christian2017
Yeah as to the rest of what you said, that is for the most part true. I guess the point i'm making is that the human brain is like a billiards table of particles and those particles are effected by events that occurred billions of years ago. — christian2017
Then, surely, the production of our decisions is not in our control since whetever we will decide one thing or not has been decided not by us, but rather by factors outside our control. The agent has no control over the production of a decision. To quote Derk Pereboom:
"If an agent is morally responsible for her deciding to perform an action, then the production of this decision must be something over which the agent has control, and an agent is not morally responsible for the decision if it is produced by a source over which she has no control." (the incompabitilist initution)
If such a thing is true, then all of our decisions are produced by a source which we have no control over. — HereToDisscuss
Well, but they are not morally responsible for their decisions, are they?i understand completely why you would say that.
On the first part of your post, i would argue both new born babys and even bacteria as well as animals can make decisions. Those decisions however have little to no impact on the world. — christian2017
Especially then you sould understand how determinism has limits once everything is a billiard ball on the table and they (the billiard balls) interact with each other. An outside observer can use the determinism and the laws of the universe and knowledge about the balls to extrapolate what is going to happen, but an actor inside (or on this case, a billiard ball on the table) cannot extrapolate the correct outcome in every situation.i see the universe as a really big pool table or billiards table. — christian2017
i guess you could say the creator creates a blue print (dna) and puts it under stress conditions to test the result. The actions we take our a product of nurture/nature or dna and lifetime events. — christian2017
I open to that we are not responsible for our actions. If we are not held accountable i would be fine with that. — christian2017
i would argue to be completely predictable does not mean something does not have a will of its own but maybe i'm not thinking about it the right way. — christian2017
Is there any need? You would do that only if you did not know the result. Howewer, God would know the result beforehand given that he knows all true propositions and "Agent A, under these conditions, will choose B." is definitely true or definitely false in a deterministic universe. — HereToDisscuss
Well, then the problem is that you do not really argue against people who think that scientific determinism or god or them taken together existing/being true means that we do not have free will but simply say that your spesific concept of free will is different. That does not really even have anything to do with God as your spesific concept of free will does exist irregardless of whetever the world is deterministic or indeterministic or agent-casual libertarianism is true. — HereToDisscuss
Well, i would argue that it can't if that is the case, but there are compabitilists that would argue against it. Howewer, the problem is not merely that determinism is incompabitable with free will, but rather that, in your view, god determines the outcome by creating the set of affairs P that causes agent A to decide B over C and therefore "manipulates" the agent into choosing decisions. The agent has no choice over the matter, only God does. — HereToDisscuss
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.