What if a patient was admitted into your hospital and said that they didn't want any black doctors operating on them? Would it be right to refuse the patient service and kick them out of your hospital? Would you give them what they want?

I don't know what sort of determinism that's supposed to be. It seems odd to call making a choice from a pool of many thousands of things things, say (if one is choosing an album to listen to, for example), "determinism." — Terrapin Station

Are you aware of all the options within the given amount of time? If you were, then how could you ever make the wrong choice?

As I've pointed out many times, I make some choices that are phenomenally random--no reason for them, just pure whim. — Terrapin Station

I don't see how that is possible. It's easy to just make that claim without really exploring an example, isn't it?

If not pre-determined, then are the only choices that are possible are the ones we are aware of? — Harry Hindu

As I pointed out, this has nothing to do with determinism. — Terrapin Station

LOL. Well, I guess I did say "NOT pre-determined", and then asked a question that could be seen as circular.

What we are trying to do is determine if determinism is the case or not. I'm saying that it is because you can only choose options you are aware of. You are also faced with a limited amount of time. These factors, along with many others depending on the situation and the person deciding, determine the choice. When we point to a reason for our decision, we are pointing to the cause of our decision, and our decisions are ultimately based on the pleasure and suffering predicted as the outcome, even those for which we can't really seem to point to some reason, or may not want to admit it to ourselves.

My bread is good, and it really doesn't matter if someone else's bread is better or worse, as long as there is cheese. — unenlightened

Cheese for everyone, or only for those whose bread is "worse"?

Some people don't like bread and like only cheese. Some people are lactose intolerant.

Well, say that we have four possibilities, a, b, c and d, and a completely random, acausal mechanism for selecting them. Once one is selected, the others are no longer a possibility for that particular iteration. But this has nothing to do with determinism. — Terrapin Station

This is just more of your unnecessary mental gymnastics.

What I asked was if someone could choose something that they aren't aware of, and if not, then your limited knowledge, just like your limited time are determining factors (along with others) in the outcome (your decision). You only seemed concerned about what label we use to refer this causal process.

I always thought of you as a woman. — unenlightened

If it really is the "us" that defines the "me", then how is it that you (part of the "us") got this wrong?

How is it that social constructions get anything wrong? How is it that society got the origin of humans so wrong for so long? The answer is that there is this underlying physical reality that relates to the social construction (group-think) in it's degree of accuracy, or truth.

Wikipedia:
Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.

Your decision is determined partially by the choices you are aware of at any given moment. Of course there are other factors (like time available). Like I said, it's a complex algorithm you're using when making decisions.

I'm guessing because you're conflating possibility and actuality. Is it impossible for the person to know about pumpernickel/to know that it's available? In actuality, contingently, they may now know about it, may not know that it's available, but is it impossible for them to know? — Terrapin Station

This was the example you gave:

Say that it's not predetermined that Joe chooses rye bread instead of whole wheat when he orders his sandwich. Well, pumpernickel could be available, too, but Joe might not be aware of this--he didn't look at the menu very carefully, maybe he's never even heard of pumpernickel, etc. — Terrapin Station

In this moment of decision, Joe isn't aware of pumpernickel for some reason or another. Is it possible for Joe to choose pumpernickel in this moment of decision?

Your possibilities are just "what-ifs" for that particular moment, which isn't the case at that particular moment. What is the particular case at that moment is that Joe isn't aware of pumpernickel, and therefore it would be impossible for him to choose pumpernickel in that moment of deciding.

Is it possible for the waiter to interrupt his decision-making and recommend the pumpernickel bread? Sure, but that would still be BEFORE Joe actually made his decision, and would make him aware of pumpernickel and then it would be possible for Joe to choose pumpernickel. My emphasis is on what you are aware of at the moment you decide.

If you're asking whether someone is going to choose something they're not aware of then no (and I noted that we don't experience that phenomenon in the latter part of the post). That doesn't mean that the other choices aren't possible. It's not impossible to know that pumpernickel is available, it's not predetermined that you don't know it's available, it's not impossible to choose it if you know about it, etc. — Terrapin Station

I don't see how it would be possible for pumpernickel to be chosen if they arent aware of it.

At any given moment of decision you have a limited time and limited options. If you're not aware of an option, then it isnt really an option. You can only choose what you are aware of at that moment. Some other moment might be different with different options coming to mind.

No, of course not.

Say that it's not predetermined that Joe chooses rye bread instead of whole wheat when he orders his sandwich. Well, pumpernickel could be available, too, but Joe might not be aware of this--he didn't look at the menu very carefully, maybe he's never even heard of pumpernickel, etc.

If choices are predetermined, however, then presumably choices you're not aware of are never the predetermined choices, since no one seems to have the experience of choosing pumpernickel when they've never heard of it before or when they weren't aware that it was available. — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure that you are using "choice" consistently here.

Is pumpernickel a kind of choice, or a kind of bread? Don't choices only exist inside of minds? Isn't a choice the act of making a decision, or does everything have a characteristic of choice. Are you a choice?

Wouldn't your lack of knowledge be a pre-determined factor for your decision? If you are hindered from making other choices, or being aware of them, then doesn't that affect what decisions you can make?

It is odd that you mention son, brother, father, husband, the latter two as sources of pride, yet don't get sex or orientation as part of identity. — unenlightened

Read what I wrote again.
I said that I don't get making it a major part of one's identity, like some have stated in this thread. I never said that it wasn't part of one's identity. You are conflating some physical characteristic with identity. Sex and orientation are only part of these identities. They aren't identities themselves. You seem to get this because you are saying the same thing as I am in this regard. The identities are what are important as they encompass all of these characteristics. An identity is an amalgam of characteristics, not just one, or even two. I also pointed out that you have no control over your sex or orientation so that it would be ridiculous to be proud of something you have no control over.

Perhaps you can understand this sort of thing in terms of the defaults on an identity profile. White, male, heterosexual, five-fingered, they go without saying, and only 'deviations' need to be mentioned. I always thought of you as a woman. — unenlightened

What this shows is that sex (NOT their identity) is really, really important to you, and that you are a sexist, as if somehow you could glean someone's sex from posts on the internet - as if all women post the same. How sexist.

Suppose determinism is true. What about irrational people e.g. the insane? Aren't they part of the causal web? So, deterministic and irrational. — TheMadFool

Yes, good example. Their irrationality is caused by a neurological anomaly.

As for non-deterministic and rational that's what I'm trying to prove.

Yes, rationality can be construed to be a cause but we have control over it. We can always opt out of it and choose to be irrational but then we would lose touch with reality. — TheMadFool

When we say that someone is irrational, what we're really saying is that the person isn't behaving as if they have common sense or knowledge. From the irrational person's perspective they are acting on their knowledge which is skewed, or limited for some reason. It's not that they are acting randomly. They are acting on their knowledge or perception of the world, just like you and I are doing. It's just that that perception is actually a delusion, or the cause of some kind of amnesia or lack of information that the person labeling the other as "irrational" has. If you know something that someone else doesn't know and you see that that lack of knowledge causes changes in their behavior, those changes would appear to be irrational from your perspective.

So it's not that the irrational person is just behaving in a way that has no cause. It's just that they're acting on an inaccurate or limited information.

I don't really get the idea of using one's race, sex, or orientation as a major part of one's identity, or being proud of these things. These are things in which we are just born with and have no control over or choice in the matter. It is what we do that defines us. I thought we wanted to get away from identifying people based on these attributes in which they have no control over, and look more at how they behave and treat others. To be proud of something you didn't accomplish yourself but were just born with seems unnecessarily divisive, racist, sexist.

My identity has changed quite a bit over my life. My first identity was son, and then I was a brother. I eventually became a friend, best friend, boyfriend, and eventually a husband and father, with all of these identities being cumulative. I was a Christian, but now I'm an atheist. I'm a Systems Administrator, student and coach, among other things. My race, sex and orientation are just minor parts of my identities. Out of all of these identities, I'm the most proud of being a husband and father.

If not pre-determined, then are the only choices that are possible are the ones we are aware of?

If dignity is a zero sum game, then humiliation is how the dignity one is self-evidently born with is taken from one. — unenlightened

Then equality is a pipe-dream for we can only increase our freedom by taking other's away? If that is the case, then it's survival of the fittest.

It isn't a zero sum game. I don't believe it is because I can talk highly of myself without bringing others down, and if others feel threatened by me talking about myself in a positive light, then that isn't my problem, but a problem with their own self-image. There is this thing called "jealousy" that throws a wrench into your idea. Many people like to be the center of attention and any attention others might get takes away from their perceived rightful amount of attention. It seems to me that we can all treat each other with dignity and respect at first and then change our minds when that person shows that they didn't deserve it in the first place.

Because of the asymmetry that Benatar mapped out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar — schopenhauer1

1.the presence of pain is bad;
2.the presence of pleasure is good;
3.the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
4.the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

Benatar's theory is dependent upon morality being objective, when it isn't. Claiming that some state is either good or bad is subjective.

If the absence of pain is good, then how is it that pleasure (which is the absence of pain) isn't good as well? Benatar says that it isn't bad. How is that different from saying that it is good? If there is some other state besides suffering and pleasure (maybe a "neither" category), and that state doesn't qualify as suffering, then the asymmetry seems to show that suffering isn't a state that is experienced most, or even half the time, and therefore would be irrational to prevent life from being created.

Nevertheless, we can analyze, in terms of rationality, our preferences and then pick from them what is reasonable and discard what isn't. The fact that we can do that points to free will of some kind doesn't it? — TheMadFool

In saying that it is rational, are you not saying that it was deterministic as well? Can you give an example of something that is non-deterministic AND rational, or something that is deterministic AND irrational?

If you ask me, I think our ability to change/add/delete our preferences indicates free will. — TheMadFool

But why would we ever change/add/delete our preferences? There must be a reason (cause), no? And in pointing to that cause, are you not explaining the rationality of your decision?

As for causality and free will I propose a gedanken experiment. Imagine a pool table. There are balls on the table subject to causality. At the center of the table is a box with some balls inside it. The box has an opening with a valve that only allows balls to exit the box and not enter it. Now, despite balls moving, hitting in all possible combinations on the table they can't cause anything for the balls inside the box due to the walls of the box. However, the balls inside the box have access to the balls outside through the opening in it (remember there's a valve that allows exit but no entry). Our minds could be like that - protected from causality from without by the skull and other mental barriers but capable of initiating a causal chain both within and without. Free will? — TheMadFool

The walls of the box are part of the causal chain. The balls outside of the box react differently than if the box wasn't there in the first place, and the balls inside increase the density of the box which has an effect on how much the box moves when external balls hit it. In other words, you cannot escape causation unless you completely remove yourself from the world. The world, in essence, is a causal event.

If there's no ontological freedom, you can't actually pick one thing and discard another. You're predetermined to pick one thing and discard another. — Terrapin Station

I wonder: What would the phenomenal difference be between being free to pick one thing and discarding another and being predetermined to pick one thing and discard another?

It seems that in both cases one is aware of multiple options but chooses only one while discarding the others. What determines whether or not the choice was predetermined or not? What does it mean for a choice to be predetermined?

How would you explain your awareness of other minds without using causation? — Harry Hindu

That, my friend, is the million dollar question. We can't answer that question but that doesn't mean free will is impossible does it? — TheMadFool

Of course we can answer it. The answer is, "You can't - at least not without redefining what "awareness", and "other" mean."

I've been thinking about explaining free will within a causal framework but I'm unable to do it. The problem with causation is there's always something that precedes everything in a cause-effect sense. — TheMadFool

As usual with many philosophical debates, the terms that we are discussing are often obscure and incoherent in light of other knowledge that we have. Integrating our knowledge shines a light on these inconsistencies in our definitions. What do you mean by "free will"? What is the "will" and what makes it "free"?

How about this for possibility of free will: Our brains and thus our minds are isolated, sealed off, from the rest of the causal web. I mean, yes, we are effects of the great chain of causation that extends back to the Big Bang but once we're born our minds are put inside a cranium that prevents any external influences and thus the choices we make are ours alone. Of course our proclivities are decided beforehand by our genes which connect back to the Big Bang itself but we can and do make decisions that we don't like, which is an ability to override our constitution. Free will? — TheMadFool

We are part of the causal chain but the human mind is different than an inanimate object. Causality has influence over our thoughts but the mind has the power to cause things itself. Agent causation takes a massive amount of effort and will so most of the time we don't bother with it, but there are times when people do actually exercise true free will. — Jamesk

You seem to be claiming that we are both causes and effects, which plants us firmly within the causal chain - as part of it - not external to it.

Think about it. Do other people's decisions have an effect on you? Do your decisions have an effect on other minds? Maybe not all of them, or maybe in degrees depending on what the choice was about, but there is still a causal chain where it takes time to make decisions, execute them, and then observe the consequences to know if you made the correct decision.

Your reasons are the causes of your decisions. Your goals (ideas about the future in the present - like being content) are the causes of your decisions. Being content, or suffering, are the effects of your decision, which can then lead to other kinds of decisions being made, and so on.

Remember using causation to explain things is really just invidious selection to provide an explanation, this is not the same thing as 'the cause'. — Jamesk

So the difference between a pine cone falling on your head from a tree limb and a person throwing a pine cone at your head is just the explanation for why a pine cone hit you in the head?

No actual human lost out on anything prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

I'm saying that they have. They have lost out on pleasure.

What makes suffering supersede pleasure in that the existence of suffering means that life should be exterminated, yet the existence of pleasure isn't an equal enough reason for propagating it? It seems to me that the existence of pleasure equally counterbalances your reasons for preventing the propagation of life.

If suffering is a good reason to prevent lives from being created, then how is it that pleasure isn't an equally good reason to create lives?

Preventing birth prevents all forms of suffering. — schopenhauer1

It also prevents pleasure as well. Your argument ignores the existence of pleasure and the subjective nature of both. It really comes down to the question, "Is it better to have had pleasure and suffered, or to never have pleasure at all?" I would go with the former all the time.

Now, is that to say that everyone's life is the same with the same amount of pleasure and suffering experienced by everyone? No. That is why I respect the rights of others to make their own choice about whether or not to continue living for themselves. No one should have the power to determine the value of someone else's life based on their own subjective perspective of their own suffering.

Sometimes I use a "random number generator" instead, but I can do more or less the same thing without a random number generator, too. — Terrapin Station

Then why use a random number generator if you can do more or less the same thing?

A random number generator isn't random at all. It uses a complex algorithm to create the illusion of randomness. So, if you can do more or less the same thing, then what you are saying is that you have a complex algorithm that you use to make decisions with that creates the illusion of randomness.

As Chisholm explains it, humans have "a prerogative which some would attribute only to God: each of us, when we act, is a prime mover unmoved. — Walter Pound

You don't see the contradiction?

So the agent causes a thought to occur in his mind.
But nothing within the agent causes the agent to do that.
The fact that the thought comes about seems to be without any kind of explanation.
Even determinists will accept that an agent causes thoughts to occur in his mind, but the question is why does the agent do that and here is where the libertarian free willer has no explanation. It just happens. Why does the agent do anything? It sounds similar to an event that occurs in a quantum vacuum. — Walter Pound

God/Natural selection would be the cause for why some agent does anything.

However, if dualism is allowed then the mind may not be causally bound. It could very well be free. Of course what of causation in the mind plane? Could it be that the mind also is subject to causality? While one can't answer that in the negative neither can we in the affirmative and that provides enough room for the possibility of free will. Do you accept? — TheMadFool

How would you explain your awareness of other minds without using causation?

I think you're alone on that. — frank

I'm not. While I may be in the minority on this left-leaning forum, I'm certainly not alone here, nor the minority outside of this forum. It's just that some people choose to live inside bubbles and don't bother looking at alternative views.

Oh, and Darwin was alone as well.

The alternative to sexism is not that everyone should be exactly the same. It just seems to some people that making everyone the same would undermine the possibility of sexism. I could go on about that, but I don't think it's necessary. — frank

You're right. It isn't necessary because I never advocated for treating people the same, so it would be a straw-man anyway.

What I said is that sexism entails putting people in certain ethnocentric boxes. What these cultures do is attribute some transcendent idea about sex - above and beyond what one's sex entails (one's morphology as it relates to function and behavior) - and then essentially makes this category error by associating this arbitrary image with the real thing. It limits behaviors based on some transcendent notion of sex that doesn't exist outside of their own minds.

The best way to get past sexism (if you're a man) is to learn to think of gender or sex as superficial. Learn to see the person. — frank

Wait, I thought it wasn't about treating everyone the same - as a person?

What you are really implying is that to be treated as a "person" is to be treated "equally" - correct? That is fine. I'm not arguing against that. I'm actually arguing for that. I'm saying that there isn't anything inherently male or female in wearing a skirt, make-up, or having long hair. Men in other cultures wear skirts, make-up, and have long hair. It has nothing to do with one's sex. Claiming that it does is sexist.

We can treat people differently and that doesn't mean treating them unequally. It means recognizing REAL differences within a certain context (like when you go to your gynecologist - not when you are voting), and not making VALUE judgements based on those REAL differences ("inferior" vs. "superior").

I like Mr. Case's classifications because they are simple and intuitive and the audience can thus grasp them immediately. Artificial wasn't really a big issue in 1924, no one had yet thought of cloning, the technological singularity, even the atom bomb was just a theory, also, by definition, artificial can't be a 'natural phenomenon' and thus would not have a place in the four orders unless as a special extension of the fourth order (i.e. man made as a natural phenomenon of humanity). — Necuno

Out of the three posted in this thread (Case's, Comte's and Galuchat's), I prefer Case's as well for pretty much the same reasons you provided.

However, I think "artificial" is more of a traditionalist term that originated from the anthropomorphic idea that human's are special creations, or separate from nature. Humans are the outcomes of natural processes and anything that they create, or invent, is as natural as the process of more complex elements being created inside of star and then littered across the galaxy when the star dies. Birds make nests. Beavers make dams. All species change their environment. It is just a matter of degrees that seems proportional to their morphology. The degree to which humans can manipulate their environment is a result of their unique (special) morphology (bipedalism which leaves two appendages for evolving hands - which have opposable thumbs - and of course large brains).

Sexism is not a man who hates women. Sexism is a set of beliefs that can be embraced by either sex. — frank

The way I define sexism is expecting certain behaviors of someone that has nothing to do with their sexual morphology - like females/women wear dresses, long hair, make-up and shave their legs.

In this sense, both the left and the right are sexist as they have adopted the same ethnocentric view that what is means to be a woman is to wear dresses, make-up, long hair and shave your legs. The only difference is that the left has redefined "gender" as something other than "sex" in order to make themselves not "sexist" when reinforcing their ethnocentrism. They are still engaging in stereotyping, and have simply moved the goal-posts.

Gender and sex are the same thing. We have been using the terms interchangeably and the man/woman to male/female relationship is no different than the buck/doe to male\female relationship. We aren't referring to differences in cultural constructions when using "man" and "woman" as opposed to "male" and "female". We are referring to differences in males and females between species. So "man" and "woman" aren't social constructions either. They refer to the real differences not just between males and females, but the real differences between males and females of different species.

If we really want to eliminate sexism, then addressing ethnocentrism is the way to go.

So we are really born to procreate. Labor is good, but laborers die. How do you maintain the supply? Make sex pleasurable. Oh wait, natural selection did that. Nature just wants us to keep laboring. :wink:

The problem with fallacies is not they aren’t real or that logic somehow doesn’t work, it’s they don’t address a claim being made. If I’m talking about which shops are in my local area, I’m not making claim about how fallacious my argument is or not. My subject of interest is another fact entirely, one which is not actually a fact of my argument at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But if your claim about which shops are in your local area is false, then it isn't a fact at all, but a falsehood. Your "subject of interest" would be lacking in facts.

I asked this a while ago:

Does it make sense to say that some argument is valid yet not true or invalid and true, and if so, is that really an interesting argument? — Harry Hindu

And so far, I've only seen these two examples:

Roses are red.
Violets are Blue.
Therefore Baden is right.

Invalid argument, true conclusion. (true premises as well.) — unenlightened

I am a poster of The Philosophy Forum. Since I dislike fallacies, I am an idiot who can never be trusted. Ergo, there is a fruit shop on my street.” — TheWillowOfDarkness

If these topics are so "interesting", then I'd love to see a thread started on these. :rofl:

I’m sure the fallacy minded will have a lot of fun picking that one apart, finding all the different sorts of missteps in logical inference I’ve made. But what have we said/learnt/discovered about whether there is a fruit shop on my street? Absolutely nothing. The metric which justifies the claim “There is a fruit shop on my street” or gives a reason to reject it hasn’t even been addressed. The fallacies of my argument doesn’t actually give us a reason to conclude the claim should be rejected. I could commit all those fallacies in my argument and it might be true there is a fruit shop on my street. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:clap: You just explained the fallacy fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Isn't it strange that you can't seem to avoid referring to some logical fallacy when it comes to making claims about how to determine what is true or not?

Premises and conclusions are true (or false). Arguments are valid (or invalid). — Michael

And I as I pointed out an argument is only valid if it is logically consistent - that it is not a non sequitur.

So in order for your argument to be valid it must still be logical. An invalid argument IS a logical fallacy.

Why not just sticky this thread. Everyone should bear witness to the fact that Baden is "right".

And I don't care that you got it wrong. It doesn't matter. Again>>The point. — Baden

It wasn't a matter of either one of us being right or wrong. We were simply talking past each other. But you can believe whatever makes you sleep better tonight.

Arguments can't be true. — Baden

Then what are you actually saying with an argument, if not making the case for the fact of some state-of-affairs?

So it is unsurprising that folks like and seek to promote sexual stereotypes. And it is unsurprising that in the end, their arguments reduce to, 'well it's natural'. It is natural; what is unnatural is equality and freedom. — unenlightened

Altruism is a natural behavior of social animals. It is part of what defines them as social.

You also might want to educate yourself on game theory.

Freedom AND equality? Are you so sure that they can coexist?

Invalid argument, true conclusion. (true premises as well.) — unenlightened

Right, so what is valid is what is contextual. An invalid argument is where the premises have no bearing on the truth value of the conclusion. In other words, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises - a non-sequitur - a logical fallacy.

, whereas validity is a property of the argument itself." — Baden

Right, a logical property - where we verify whether or not the argument is a non sequitur.

The new post-truth meme:

and with what I have said. So, we're both right?

Does it make sense to say that some argument is valid yet not true, and if so, is that really an interesting argument?

So, it seems to me that some people in this thread want this forum to have discussions be more like what we see on Facebook.
:confused:

From that same link:
True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound (adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun).
So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid.

Yes, there's alot here beneath engagement. It's the gems one must look out for. It's simple self-respect to know when to ignore someone and their argument when it leads to no interesting discussion. The problem here is not fallacies. It's misplaced pride and an inability to ruthlessly discriminate. No pinned post can fix that.

Those who think philosophy turns on fallacies have yet to leave the play-pen. — StreetlightX

LOL. Post-truth BS in a logical format.

Get real Harry. Do you know the difference between "true" and "valid"? This thread is not about truth at all, it's about validity. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see the difference between something being valid and something being truthful.

Validity: the quality of being well-grounded, sound, or correct

I happen to agree with Willow. Fallacies are so basic as to be entirely philosophically uninteresting. If one is arguing over fallacies, one has ceased to engage in any interesting discussion at all. — StreetlightX

So, the goal of this forum is to have interesting discussions, not truthful discussions? What is "interesting" is subjective, while what is "truthful" is objective, so what is "interesting" is a matter of opinion, while what is truthful isn't.

I can't wait to see this idea implemented in the next "God Exists" thread. :rofl:

Haven't people been banned, or have their posts deleted, for not being logically consistent and continually fail to make their case in a logical manner?