xeren

Then by this definition of democracy, democracy does indeed NOT exist.

Rusting Car Bumper

Oh it doesnt dodge it. It points out that the type of methodology behind the argument that was presented is a determination of how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

It hits the matter on the head. The problem with most free will discussions after rests on the premises (i.e. the definitions of "free will") that don't take into account our conscious experiences.

That is, an argument about freewill, to be complete, would have to account for our experiences as well.

I guess I did. Oops.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

hehe

Can you be more clear? I am interested in why you say so.

DC

xeren

Well, a couple posts ago, you said that if in fact people don't have free will, then democracy doesn't exist... at least not in the way that you described it.

You said that So, like i said, if in fact free will doesn't exist, then your definition of democracy doesn't exist.

BUT

Democracy is simply a "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."

It has nothing to do with predetermination, you can still have people making "caused" decisions regarding their government. As long as the government is run with direct or indirect representation of the population(which it is), we still have democracy.

SO

By the common definition of democracy we can lack free will and still have a democratic government.


-xeren

xeren

I think i understand what you mean by this. Is it?: "if we don't have free will, then how come, as we are making a decision, we can look at our avialable options and actualy choose from among many of them?"

Well(if that is the question you are asking), then i would say, "Yes, you have different options, but when all is said and done, you can only pick one of them, and if you were to go back in time and do it all over again(without the knowledge that you had done it the first time), you would do it exactly the same way, because you would have the same internal and external stimuli acting on you in the same manner.

If you think there is some mechanism inside or outside of us that would causes us to do it differently the second time, I would love to hear it.

Oh, and if anyone says the Soul, i will first get very irrate, and then after i calm down, i will ask you, "how does the soul make decisions?"

Zadok001

The Soul makes decisions by being an entity separate from all physical laws. It is purely rational, and in no way physical. Thus, it cannot be affected by causes or random elements necessary in the argument.

Or, that's what I would say if I disagreed with you. Which I don't.

Our local friendly numerically-based poultry, however, is making a different distinction. He's saying that free will is SOLEY internal - Thus, the *experience* of having free will IS free will in and of itself. So as long as we have no knowledge of our future decisions and their complete repercussions, we have free will.

xeren

Than what IS it affected by? I realize you were just playing devil's advocate, but if the soul is not affected by causes or random elements, then how does it "magically" come to a decision about something? Decisions must either be uncaused or caused, there are not many other options. Adding a soul into the picture just pushes the argument form the brain to an imaginary decision-making center.

<strong> But of course, that is the compatibilist position that people have been speaking of. And i hate (wait no, i love) bringing religion into it, but for Christianity, the compatibilist position is not enough to warrant things like punishment for sins. Without the kind of "strong" free will that even compatibilists agree we don't have, the punishment/reward system of christianity makes little sense.

-xeren

Rusting Car Bumper

"Elected representitives" requires choice. If there is no choice.... We are back to square one. Quoting the dictionary won't help you.

Anyway, I said understand it in that context SPECIFICALLY so that one would try to understand the point bout methodology and not depend on silly dictionary quoting.

I could have extended this type of criticism to any number of things which require free choice and then claimed they do not exist either.

DC

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

xeren

But there is choice. That the choice is caused has no bearing on the argument.

<strong> You make it sound like quoting the dictionary is a bad thing.

So, you're saying, "don't take the REAL definition of democracy, take the one that i made up to help prove my point."

-----

We would not have democracy if we didn't have different people to vote for, but we do. Why did you vote for who you did this year? Because you thought they were the best for the position. That you thought the people you voted for were the best for the position may have been caused, but it was caused by a combination of your knowledge of the candidates and your views on politics.

I'm sorry but i don't see how that's not democracy my poultry friend.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]</p>

Devilnaut

Digital Chicken, why don't you try finding a fault in the argument itself?


As I said you are employing a non-sequitur. Just because choices are not truly "free" doesn't mean they are not choices in the usual definition of the word.