DRFseven

Predetermined, to me, always implies some sort of plan, as when people say, "My husband and I were just meant to be together." But, I'm sure that's not what you mean; you probably mean "everything that determined the determination was, itself, determined. So, yes, I agree, in that case. I just don't want to give the impression that I think our mental states are other than the luck of the draw.

John Page

K:

I agree with the deterministic foundations underpinning the process of mind. However, I was more poking at the difficulty of constructing a rigorous proof of "predetermination" due to the level of complexity. Indeed, taking your steps three and four there arises a conflict - in 3 you say we can't predict every single factor yet in 4 you imply all factors are known...

Cheers, John

Kharakov

Hi,

I meant that there is only one possible outcome, not that there is a plan. There doesn't have to be a plan for there to be only one possible outcome.

I used the word "predetermined" to mean "determined beforehand". (www.m-w.com definition 1b)

It would have been better if I had used "determined by all the factors that influence the present moment". Which of course regresses to the previous moment......

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kharakov ]

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kharakov ]</p>

Kharakov

Hi,

4 does not imply that all the factors are known.

4) &lt;snip&gt;we know that&lt;/snip&gt; The outcome of the decision is predetermined because all of the factors that are present at the moment of the decision determine the outcome of the decision.


We do not need to know of all the factors that influence a decision in order to know that the decision is determined by the factors that influence it. In fact, we do not need to know any specific factors in a decision making process to know that there was a reason for the outcome of the decision (the balance of all factors lead to one possible outcome).

1) Only the factors that influence the decision making process have an outcome in the final decision.

Are statements 1 & 4 true?

If they are true, isn't that proof of predetermination? That events (including decisions) are decided by the factors that influence them and have some determining effect upon their outcome? That any time I make a decision it is made by all of the factors that play into it- including my conscious recollection of past experiences (which implies that determinism creates morality because we recall past experiences when we make a decision).

To clarify, I don't know if we will ever be able to gather enough empirical data to predict every single thing that happens (human behaviour, physical interactions, etc.). We can still know that what happens is predetermined though.

-k

John Page

K:

All else aside, your statement above seems to amount to a belief in causality and no more. To prove predetermination I would need to see experimental data. However, one the experiment is run all you have is post factum determination.

Bottom line, we can't predict the future with absolute certainty. I would maintain this is true even for well proven "laws" because we can;t control the environment perfectly. e.g. perform a well known experiment by exposing salt water to sunlight. The water evaporates leaving salt. Somebody adds chemical that reacts with the salt.

gotta go!

Cheers, John

Kharakov

John-

(gonna try to be concise)

I am not writing about predicting the future.

I am writing about causality. Determinism. That only the factors that influence an event determine its outcome. This is a true statement, it is not a belief. There is no other way things can be (do factors that do not influence an event have an effect upon its outcome?).

For experimental data, look at the world around you. You can see examples of causality/determinism every day, in infinite variety. Every true work of science is a stab at the underlying cause of what is happening around us.

If you want to argue that each moment sprung into existence completely independant of every other moment, you can. This would amount to nitpicking based upon the fact that the only thing you can prove absolutly is your own existence and you can only prove this to yourself.

-k

DRFseven

I agree. Folk psychology, however, does not; the popular belief is that, though we may have influences, we have some other way of thinking that does not involve influences.

John Page

K:

....and some argue even the "self" is illusory!!

I admit the nitpicking charge but think I made my point on experimental proof of predetermination requiring time travel - and our will is not free enough to accomplish that relative to our intertial frame of reference.

Cheers, John

A3

Hi Nial,

Finally responding at this point, I regarded the question of free will rather trivialized by a bag of chips.

Wasn’t this historically linked to the religious/phylosofical question: How free is human society if this Higher Power is looking over everything?
It seems to me that this question is totally irrelevant to anyone who subscribes to evolution and does not believe in a higher power. Isn’t evolution based on a kind of free will? Isn’t it based on the drive (will?) of our body cells to become the tallest, richest, smartest, handsomest person or race that ever existed? This may also have been one of the strongest motivators behind WW II. It was by the Germans.
Judging by human action (read the papers) we are, on the physical plane if healthy 100% free to will whatever we want, we are our own judge. IMO any idea that claims we have no free choice, is based on superstition and on an ignorance of God and His operation.
We have no choice over what happens to us, we have the free will how to respond to it.
BTW if we had no free will, God would be the creator of evil&gt;

Regards
Adriaan

DRFseven

So you're saying we cause ourselves? If we did not cause ourselves to be the way we are, we don't have free will. And we don't cause ourselves.