Do you convince them to not have kids knowing what's in store for the human race?
— Marchesk

Keeping in mind, of course, that effective, reasonably priced, and widely available contraception - a prerequisite for anti-natalism - wasn't available until about 60 years ago. — T Clark

Okay, no pills. But maybe there were plenty of sheep and ducks in the fields and rivers.

So here you are with the first humans, who naturally think of you as the great ancestral spirit come to give them advice. — Marchesk

Descental spirit. Not ancestral. Otherwise, correct.

It is too late to be antinatalist. If one were going to nip child-bearing in the bud, one would have to have been actively promoting antinatalism to the immediate descendants of Homo Erectus. The day we became Homo sapiens -- hundreds of thousands of years ago -- was the day you should have been out and about preaching antinatalism. Now with 7.2 billion people, it is just too late. It is impossible to convince 7.2 billion people of ANYTHING. — Bitter Crank

Don't blame me. It's hard to be there 200000 years back when you were born only 65 years ago.

Gimme a time machine and I'll do it in a flash.

Antinatalists are trying to save the world form overpopulation. Antinatalism is the key to prevent the complete destruction of mankind and possibly of all life on the globe. Whether through mental-emotional depression, or else due to having the whole thing thought through properly, is a secondary consideration.

Philos means love sophia wisdom. — Fooloso4

"Love wisdom" in ancient Greece may have had a more profane or vulgar connotation. They may have meant, "Fuck wisdom." Meaning, to the heck with wisdom, let's practice hedonism or gambling or hetera worship.

On the other hand "love wisdom" may have meant a total mental-emotional-physical love. Since Greeks believed the Forms were real, existing things, this meant something. It meant that they wanted to experience the ultimate love, not just derivatives of it slated out for cave-dwellers; they wanted to make love to the mind, brain, soup, and body of the embodiment of love, that is, to Aphrodite.

Or it may have meant something totally different. My bet is that Heidegsteinbergerbaumfeld would say, if he were alive today that "philo sophia" ultimately and most profoundly meant, to the ancient Greeks in today's English vernacular, "whatever."

A resounding YES!

People can agree to speak in negative, or negative denying terms (lies) when they want to affirm, confirm, or state things.

"I did not go to bed last night at 8 pm" would mean "I went to bed last night at 8 pm". The utterance is a lie, but it's been agreed that negatories must be taken the other way around.

So it's a new word, antinatalism. There is another new word: pro-suffering.

Anti-baby. Pro-death.

Anti-life. Pro-green.

Anti-john, pro-rape.

Anti-sex, pro-abstinence.

Anti-reason, pro-stupidity.

Anti-good, pro-evil.

etc.

That is, free will isn't posited to save God from responsibility for all bad acts, but it allows for human responsibility for some acts. Without it, you would absolve all humans of all responsibility. — Hanover

Theoretically, all humans are free of responsibility but they still get punished if they do some no-no or boo-boo.

In fact, it's not god that punishes the evil-acting people, but other people. In the USA, and in Canada, mainly through the court system. Although there is vengeance, and the odd vigilante action.

The Christians invented free will? — Hanover

Nobody invented free will. It still is not existent.

I don't know who came up with the notion first. All I know is that Christians use it extensively when they want to avoid responsibility for their god's actions.

"In what capacity did God exist before religion came about, if at all? How do we know this?"

In my humble opinion, before religions' appearance on Earth, god existed either as a cobbler, or as some sort of dinosaur. Or maybe a trilobite. Amino-acid.

To live with the words of the great Ralph Waldo Emerson (my god),

"The god of a carpenter is a carpenter.
The god of a cannibal is a cannibal.
The god of an atheist is an atheist.
The god of a Christian is a Jew."

I have no problem thinking of New Atheists as being atheist fundamentalists. — anonymous66

I agree, with the addition that the only difference between religious fundamentalists and atheist fundamentalists is the yoke R.F.'s wear in terms of their respective religions' dogmas. Atheists are free of dogma. Other than that, they can be as rabid and as devout to atheism as the worse religious fundamentalist you can imagine.

Does what you read, and your interest in philosophy in general carry over to your "everyday life"? — anonymous66

Among the general population, I am outstanding as a man who can argue his points. On philosophy forums I see myself as just about average, but with the common man, I stand out as a teacher.

Consequently, street preachers either run the other way when they see me, or else try to befriend me with buying me a beer, or hugging me, or granting me eternal absolution from all my sins.

I got a:

Randomly Assigned Variables Based On Computer-Clock-seeded Mnemonic Overdrive (237th/238th level)

To the extent that God has given humans free will, as many religions hold, not every person is doing God's work. — Hanover

Grrr... here we go again. Free will. The greatest cop-out invention of Christian dogma.

, I specialised in Ethics and I work in ethics! — Mark Dennis

What's the precept of ethics? What is it, in its most basic?

Okay, so if Kant said pure shit is something that comes out of everyone's mind who writes it down, then we'd be exchanging shit?

So Kant all of a sudden took ownership of reason and of pure reason, and whatever definition he gives it, stands?

You a sheep or a human?

HIS nomenclature applies to HIS writings when he makes references to HIS definitions, but Kant ought not to have hijacked the language. If he says "pure reason" he means written communication. But it does not, ought not to transfer to common language, to the language other people have long before him agreed to use in the way they do.

Statements of reason, pure or not, will have to be expressed in language. — alcontali

This, my dear Alcontali, is false. Reason can be communicated using many, many different forms of communication, other than lingual.

For your information, there are IQ tests even that separate different levels of reasoning ability with nothing but diagrams. Kant would have committed suicide if he heard of this. There are text books with numbers, that would never pass as reasoned texts if you took the numbers out of it. Same with diagrams in textbooks.

Please think things through before committing to their alleged truth.

free will: unrestricted will.

Example:

I have no reason to eat spaghetti with red lime sprinkled with arsenic. I am not insane, or an idiot. I like life, and I like good, tasty food, they types most people would like. I would eat spaghetti with red lime sprinkled with arsenic, because my will would be free from restrictions.

RE: your example. I don't agree with your analysis. But this has been going on for too long. i am tired of this subject, and I wish to abandon it.

In closing, if free will is predetermined, why do some people call it free will? Like those people who call themselves free-thinkers. Whoever thought that name up?

These are not questions I need an answer to. Please, let's leave this topic, which we already pounded to death. If we still have differences, so be it, I'm too pooped out to continue.

The wrongness in other views lies in this:

Those who declare there is weak determinism, declare that their observation is not complete, and their own predictive capacities are reduced to probabilities (if that's what you are insinuating, Terrapin Station.)

It is not wrong of them to realize their observation powers are weak.

But it is NOT determinism they talk about. It's their obeserved perception of determinism in action that they talk about. Yet they call it "determinism", withe the qualifier "weak".

So they use the expression "determinism" in the expression, with a qualifyer. Whereas they don't mean determinism. They mean their perception of determinism.

The wrongness is therefore in the usage of the term "determinism" when they struggle to express something that is related to determinism, but is not determinism.

That is, they use the expression "determinism" both for determinism and for observational power of determinism.

And to use the same word to mean so different things is wrong.

You don't believe that there are other views, or wrong views? — Terrapin Station

Good question. I believe there are other views, and they are wrong. You seem to indicate that there are other views that are not wrong. Specifically about determinism.

If the views are wrong, they ought to be rejected. You believe we should hold on to wrong views and elevate them to the argumenting strength of not wrong views? This is what you give as an impression.

Your argument is that if there's some F (some type of thing) with property φ, then all G, H, I etc.(all types of things) must have property φ? — Terrapin Station

This is not my argument, to be honest. You wrote something I don't understand. If you want to verify what my arguement is, this following is what it is:

Every casue has an effect. Every event has a cause. Therefore determinism is inevitable.

Anyway, your view strikes me as having faith in (strong) determinism, but I'm not sure why you'd have such faith in it — Terrapin Station

Because it's the truth? Have you ever entertained that possiblity?

Your argument is that if there's some F (some type of thing) with property φ, then all G, H, I etc.(all types of things) must have property φ? — Terrapin Station

I am sorry you lost me there. You are talking nonsense, do you realize that? If you make symbols, and want to communicate with those, you must denote their meaning, and the reltionship between them.

What you wrote is sheer gibberish to me. Sorry.

The idea is simply that there are different views, — Terrapin Station

And you seem to be quite happy and comfortable accepting that there are WRONG different views. I am not.

This is what philosophy is about. To beleive the true views and to reject the wrong views.

You are of a special kind of philosopher, who rejects the basic premise of philosophy: to find the truht and to love the wisdom hiding behind false views.

I don't use the qualifiers as an endorsement. — Terrapin Station

So you accept there are differences, without observing and figuring out why there are differnces... leads to the weak logic I talked about, meaning, miixing up knowledge with reality. The knowledge of a limited mind to predict the future while the future is fully predictable.

Very smart to not use qualifiers. You can't be convinced of the sterngth of an argument against your point, much like an ostrich which has its head in the stand can't use his eyesight to see a predator approaching.

Not that I am a predator. But logic is coming to get you and if you don't face it, and hide behind intentional ignorance, then watch out.

If there were in reality weak determinism, then there would be weak Darwinism, weak Relativity Theories, weak Quantum Mechanics, weak arguments and weak minds. Oops, I got carried away. Going back to the stream of things; weak determinism would yield weak truths, weak logic, weak time measurements, weak classical physics, weak laws of thermodynamics, weak gravity.

But none of those can be observed. (Save for the weak arguments and the weak minds.)

So even in empirical trials determinism is only of one kind. Itself.

Thank you for the explanation. Probabilistic phenomena only apply to those thinkers (all humans, basically) who can't fathom or encompass all knowables in an instantaneous state of a deterministic universe and then who can't compute future states from that. The universe is still in a completely deterministic state; probabilities only enter for those who need it, and only those need it who are less well endowed than to include the system in its entirety and make precise predictions from it. Althoug the precise predictions in principle are possible.

So weak determinism is not a philosophical principle, but a phenomenological event applied to some observers of a deterministic system.

In principle, there is only one determinism. No systems exist beside determinism. Those who talk about weak determinism mix up the system as is with the system as it is observed. Those who talk about weak determinism don't even have the insight to realize they are doing a switcharoo... they deceive themselves without even knowing it, by ignorance and by lack of enough insight, and the deception itself is that they take their perceptive capabilities and imbue it on reality.

It's nearly three o'clock in the night at my location. I'm turning in. Good night.
— god must be atheist
Yikes! It's only an hour earlier here. I guess we both got carried away. Fun conversation. — Relativist

You bet. I enjoyed it every bit, too.

You raised an objection which you can't defend.
— god must be atheist

The defense of the objection is that there is no support of strong determinism as a logical principle. The relevance of talking about it as a logical principle is that that's what Devans99 is appealing to in his proof.
16 minutes ago — Terrapin Station

Not everything that DEvans99 says is crap. You can't use things that he says right against him.

Concentrate on things he is wrong about.

But in my humble opinion the best choice of action for you would be to take Mark Dennis's frustrated example, DingoJones' REASONED example and my common sense example, and stopped talking to Devans99 altogether.

The defense of the objection is that there is no support of strong determinism as a logical principle. The relevance of talking about it as a logical principle is that that's what Devans99 is appealing to in his proof. — Terrapin Station

Sure there is support of determinism (there is no divisions between determinism such as "strong" "weak" etc; there is determinism, period). Everything that happens has a cause; every cause has an effect. this is true in an a priori world, and our world emulates that principle. Is it possible to get outside of this chain? I say not. Nothing can happen outside of it. You say this does not hold.

If you want to destroy the principle of determinism, you either name a logical process in which causal chain is impossible, or else show an example of it. Until then you must accept it. By "logical process" I meant a process which is necessarily true in all possible worlds.

You can do neither. So why are you still insisting that determinism is principle not logically sound? Or not logically proven? I don't even know what you mean when you say "support of a logical principle". What do you accept as support and what do you reject as support?

Do you accept reality as support or reality is not enough evidence for support?

Do you accept or not accept as a support the system of a logical series of events in which every action has a cause, and every action has been caused?

WHAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES CAN YOU OFFER?

I daresay none.

So why is this, I ask, for crying out loud, why is this strong mental resistence in you against determinism? You are the follower of some sort of religion? Or a of a cult, or of a kabal, which has among its dogma that there is no determinism?

I would like you to understand that free will is actually consistent with determinism - you too hastily dismissed that. It's as free as it needs to be to hold people accountable (regardless of whether we're talking morality or the law). — Relativist

I think accountability rests on a completely different mechanism. It is not on freedom of will that it rests on; but it rests on the persona who is caused by his internal and external motivating factors to commit an accountable act.

If you name it something else but free, I will buy it. But freedom does not exist in a deterministic world. Freedom is a lack of restrcitions, and as such, everything that happens is restricted to the causes that have been determined already.

It is not consistent to imagine a world where nothing is free (nothign is unrestricted) except the Will.

So please show me this exception. I have nothing but asked of you for this, and now you lecture me on how one such instance invalidates determinism.

Be my guest. Invalidate determinism. I am all ears. Show me that example.
— god must be atheist

You're not understanding me. What I was objecting to was something stated as a logical principle.

I'm avoiding a discussion of whether we experience causality and what does or doesn't count as an example because that's a different topic. — Terrapin Station

I get you. So you avoid discussing something we are discussing. You just want to talk about it as a logical principle.

Whether I understand you or not, is immaterial. You raised an objection which you can't defend. So you decided to talk about it as it were a principle... a Kantian principle? A Form?

I even forgot what we were talking about. You said I can't come from a point of view of determinism. I say you are trying to oppress me, and tell me what I can do and what I cannot do.

I can come from a point of view of determinism because there is no alternative to it. You say there is; I asked you to show it to me; you failed at showing it to me in principle and in action how non-determinism is possible.

Now you want to talk about principles? How do you talk about whether we experience causality without talking about it? If it's a different topic, which you want to avoid, then why did you raise it?

And you declare that I don't understand you.

Well, in a way you're right. I don't understand anyone who wants to talk about the principle of something without talking about that something.

It's nearly three o'clock in the night at my location. I'm turning in. Good night.

How can we nail them to their misdeeds if they don't have a free will? — god must be atheist

This was a rhetorical question which I proceeded to answer. Please read my entire post that contained that. The post answers the rhetorical question, including the causation of encouraging good behaviour and creating accountability. With using the notion of no free will included in the argument.

Dear Relativist, I don't want to go into morality, or ethics, because I wrote a huge paper on it, which I wish to publish but it's not going well, because I have no academic training in philosophy. But I still have some hope of publishing it, and therefore I don't want to deal with morality until I revealed to the world what morality or ethics mean to me. So please I ask you to avoid that part of the topic. Plus whatever can be covered under morality can be covered under law, so please let's stick with law.

If you only consider the fact that everything that occurs is inevitable, you have no basis for holding anyone accountable for their actions. I say they are accountable because they COULD have done something different. They WOULD have done different had they better understood the consequences, By holding people accountable in this way, it encourages more moral behavior. I want everyone to behave more morally, and this will only occur if morally is encouraged. If my program is successful, it doesn't matter much that it was inevitable - my role in it was still important. — Relativist

This is a totally different ball game. You can influence others' behaviour by moral upbringing or by enforcing the law.

Let's focus on the law, and I ask you to do this, because there is no clear definition of morality, there is no absolutes in morality, therefore it is easier to deal with the law, since it is codified, and thus, defined in no ambiguous ways. (Haha. As if. But let's work with law "as if".)

So you insist that people be accountable for their actions. This I support, and indeed, they are. Despite not having a free will.

How can we nail them to their misdeeds if they don't have a free will?

Presumably people are aware of the law. Even if in a rudimentary way. We all know that murder, theft, rape, brutality, abuse, and fraud are all illegal.

They consider the law. If they break the law then simply their choice was to break the law, because they had been predicated to break the law. They had the sum total of the causes that influenced their will to break the law.

If they get caught and convicted and sentenced, then it sends a message to many, many other people: do not break the law because you get into big trouble.

So this will be just one more influencing factor in their behaviour choices. They are going to toy with killing auntie or uncle in the hope of a big inheritance. and therefore they are going to want to kill them, but they will not to kill them, because they are aware of the consequences or with the possible consequences. This will affect their will, and cause their accountability to come into existence.

It was predictable, but that doesn't change the fact that the choice was a product of my internal processing - and I ate what I wanted. If you eat what you want, why would you not consider that your own free choice? — Relativist

here you have to be extremely careful, with the processing of the ideas, Relativist. The choice is yours, but it's not free... it is restricted, and predictable. If it were not restricted, it would not be predictable. Restriction works two ways: it excludes other choices, and makes one choice prevail.

On the other hand you say it's your choice. Your choice, and not of other's. Well, nobody and nothing influences your choice that you make, other than your inner desires and functions. But they are only free from OUTSIDE forces. Your inner world is completely dependent on causal chains, which have outside forces in their formation.

So... there are outside causes that caused your inner choices and wants and desires; and there are outside forces that do not affect your choices.

The trick is to see tha the outside forces have predicated your inner choices; therefore they occurred in the past. Your outside forces in the present have some restricting force (not on your will but on your choice).

You MUST make this distinction between present and past outside forces that on one hand do not restrict your will, and on the other hand, do restrict your will, respectively.

And the main issue that I am trying to drive in, is that your will is CAUSED by your inner world, but it is CAUSED and these causes are themselves caused in turn. Since a cause can have only one effect, or a conglomeration of causes can only have one effect, it follows that the effect is restricted.That is my point. The effect is not free. And the causes that cause that effect are not free, either, they are restricted, by the causes that caused them in turn.

The Grand Canyon's shape and our choices have this in common: they are inevitable. What is unique about ourselves is that we are complex decision-making machines, while the Colorado River is not. The output of a computer program is inevitable, but the computer is still needed to perform the computing that produces that output. Our choices are inevitable, but the workings of our brains are still necessary to reach that inevitable outcome. — Relativist

Things of different complexity still obey determinism. It makes no difference how complex one mechanism is and how simple another one is. They both obey the cause-effect chain to be not broken by some supernatural intervention.

If I do what I want, why wouldn't I consider that a freely willed choice? — Relativist

Because what you want is a product of causes. Not a product of an unrestricted fancy.

Because the big bang did not decide that I would eat corn flakes for breakfast. I made the choice, based on my own desires at the time. If I do what I want, why wouldn't I consider that a freely willed choice? — Relativist

Would you deny any one of the intervening steps of causation as a true step of cause and effect between the Big Bang and your eating Corn Flakes for breakfast? In other words, do you maintain that some of the events in the chain of events between the Big Bang and your eating breakfast was NOT caused?

If your breakfast choice was not predictable by the time of the Big Bang, then there had to be an event that was not caused. Because as long as all causes had effects, and all events had causes, then the choice of your eating breakfast had a direct line of cause-effect chain to the big bang.

The choice has been determined, and it was predictable - but only in principle. In principle, the shape of the grand canyon was predictable at the big bang, the shaping process still required a long series of prior steps to get there. — Relativist

The shape of the grand canyon was not chosen, rather - it was a consequence of the conditions being what they were. Same with our choices - the choices (as choices) were not determined at the big bang; rather, the factors that led to those choices were inevitable. — Relativist

I am sorry, Relativist, but your own simile or parallel is lame. On one hand you say the Grand Canyon has been predictable by the events in the Big Bang; you equated the development of the Will to the development of the Grand Canyon; then you say that the will was not predictable at the time of the Big Bang.

So you self-contradict yourself.

My position is that both the Will and the Grand Canyon were predictable at the time of the Big Bang.