The insight is the result of a choice by the mind to explore, to learn something new, to create a new idea, and with whom to share it. — MondoR
Otherwise one is just a bowling ball colliding with pins because the Maker [the Big Bang] made all of the decisions at that point in time — MondoR
The Big Bang gets credit for everything. — MondoR
Evidence? It could just be that the insight is a result of atoms bumping into each other. — khaled
You choose to be a balling ball thrown by the Maker. — MondoR
Of course. One can choose to believe any story they wish. — MondoR
Yes, I feel like I am choosing as does pretty much every human being. So why the mythology of determinism? — MondoR
There is no substantiation for it. It's just a story. — MondoR
No reason to believe otherwise. — MondoR
There is zero evidence that physics is deterministic — MondoR
It is just a personal, spiritual decision that one makes on how they wish to think of their life. — MondoR
Some picture themselves as bowling balls, others as marionettes, and others as personal creators. — MondoR
I mean that the future state is a function of the current state, as opposed to fatalism, where the current state is irrelevant to the future state.What do you mean it matters that you go to a doctor???? — MondoR
Why not?It's already Determined. There is no choice. — MondoR
Nope; there's a clear difference.Determinism is a form of fatalism. — MondoR
#!/bin/bash while true; do echo "Which letter will I pick, b or w?" read -rsn1 PROPHECY case $PROPHECY in B|b) echo "I pick W. You lose." ;; W|w) echo "I pick B. You lose." ;; *) echo "Neither? I still pick B. You lose." ;; esac done
Point is: I don’t think freedom is incompatible with determinism. What matters is whether or not you’re doing what you want to do. Not whether or not you can actually do otherwise. — khaled
I don't agree that freedom is compatible with determinism; I've heard plenty of people claim it is so and yet they are never able to explain how it could be. — Janus
I am not sufficiently literate, but I can give you my perspective. I believe that according to your expectation, what we would credit for the moral character of our actions is some entity that sits in the control room of your personality, consults your system of values that is manifested partly externally in your brain and takes executive decisions that affect the outcome. My logic is different. We are actually evaluating your convictions, intentions and desires, and we don't care whether they are deterministically related to the surrounding phenomena. They are yours per-se. There is no control room. You are your personality and system of values.But under determinism I have no control over what my desires are, and which are going to be the stronger in any situation. So, how can I be held morally responsible for something that was never under my control in the first place? — Janus
We are actually evaluating your convictions, intentions and desires, and we don't care whether they are deterministically related to the surrounding phenomena. They are yours per-se. There is no control room. You are your personality and system of values. — simeonz
They are what we identify you as. You don't really "have them" in that sense. We don't blame you for having them, we are more-so blaming them for having you, or having become part of you.If I couldn't bquoteut have had the set of convictions, intentions and desires then how can be held morally responsible, and fairly praised or blamed for having them? — Janus
They are what we identify you as. You don't really "have them" in that sense. We don't blame you for having them, we are more-so blaming them for having you, or having become part of you. — simeonz
I think that you are objecting, because a person could technically abstain from applying their personality. But that is again due to their convictions, values and intentions. So, the personality can have complex internal dynamics and we don't judge its pieces, but the overall effect.I don't think this is true at all. People are not their values. People do have values, intentions and convictions, and sure they are judged on account of them, or at least on the actions which embody them. — Janus
Why are claiming that the person is not their convictions, values and intentions. Are you suggesting dualism? If you are not, what do you propose is the person?Yes, but the point is the convictions, values and intentions must be freely chosen or the person is not responsible for holding them. — Janus
Within human beings, some humans will actually move to come under the sun to bask under it and other will find shade to avoid it. That's a free will behavior that you don't see in objects like rock who always have same consistent behavior all the times to the rays of the sun. — hume
So in my view when we talk about free will, we are restricted to the contextual level where that free will is relevant and not at all levels. — hume
I was more concerned with the conditions to make free will possible, which I was arguing is just fundamentally indeterminism. — Paul S
Free will by its very virtue is a phenomenon of a living agent. It's tied to the notion of choice. This element of choice is the one that creates indeterministic outcomes when the agent interacts with his/her environment for survival. I do not think we can speak of free will in case of non-living things. However, we can certainly speak of indeterminism in case of both living and non-living things. — hume
some humans will actually move to come under the sun to bask under it and other will find shade to avoid it. That's a free will behavior
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.