madmax2976

<strong> Right. You've asserted all this before. What I?m looking for is evidence that its true. So far all I've gotten is your assertion that "B does not necessarily follow from A" in this non-material realm. Do you have anything other than mere assertion, or wishful thinking to show that its actually true?

Not that this will help of course. If B does not follow from A in this realm then the only way I can understand that is too say there's a completely random factor involved. But randomness sure isn't the path to meaningful choices as far as I can tell.

Not that your claims are problematic of course. Essentially what your saying is: "Given all the considerations at a particular moment in time, a person's biases, knowledge, fears, hopes, dreams, desires, experiences, etc. etc., the person couldn't have chosen any different than they did. Well, this is obviously true, so I fail to see the problem. We can only work and make choices with what we have at the time. It goes without saying that if the information was different, or if a person's feelings were different at the time, they might have chosen differently. No suprise here.

<strong> Human thinking is determined. That's the whole point about making choices - We make determinations based on all the myriad of factors involved. If human thinking is not a determining process, then it would be some kind of random phenomena, which would totally oppose any ability to make meaningful choices.

As for your gravity example, there your just confusing the issue. You've gone from "human thinking" to "brain chemistry" and attempted a poor analogy. Brain chemistry being the determined process it is, allows humans to have the property we call consciousness which provides the ability to think and make choices. If it were not so, we wouldn't be able to think and make choices. This is demonstrably true. Likewise neither gravity nor a rock has the property of "falling", however the determined processes involved allow for the emergent property of falling.

If your attempting to say that you could, given enough data, predict what choice a person would make in a particular situation, then that's fine. I doubt we could ever accurately measure all the variables precisely enough and thus choas math would wreak havoc on your prediction, but putting that aside, I see how it could hypothetically be done. You could analyze all of a person's knowledge, emotions, concerns, beliefs etc. and then make a prediction about what they would decide. And?

I've got this funny feeling that you want to make humans out to be something very special. I've no evidence that we are. We're highly evolved beings capable of abstract thought, but we're still just human animals. We make determinations based on the factors in front of us. Its my hope that we don't make them randomly as that would be a mess.

<strong> Why would you expect a ball to have the property of thinking such that it could make choice? This is very weird.

<strong> How could it be analogous? The property of thinking doesn't emerge from a falling a ball as far as I am aware. It does emerge from the brain chemistry in our heads.

<strong> Well I dealt with the so-called "confusion". Your analogy is a false one and obviously so. Rather than try to argue from an anology I suggest you prove your point first. Analogies are good for explaining something but they are terrible for trying to prove something as they always break down at some point.

<strong> Yes, but so far I think your argument is all wet. Its based on a confusion of the issues and false analogies.

<strong> I have no idea if this non-material realm even exists and you've provided no evidence that it does. Therefore I have no idea if its rational or irrational. Even if I accepted your entire argument without question, it'd amount to: "Believe this because the alternative is ucky". Not much of an argument .

<strong> Wait a minute. What has my showing what materialism can or cannot do have to do with this non-material realm you claim exists? You're the one claiming that this supposed realm is a nondeterministic one. That equates to randomness in my book. I'm asking you to provide evidence for it other than your mere assertion of it. Just as soon as you show how immaterialism can provide for the "preconditions of thinking/evalution" (whatever this means) I'll answer your challenge. Otherwise I'll just chalk this up to a double standard. I'm supposed you provide you the details of how its done in the materialistic world, but all you have to do is assert that it just happens in this non-materialistic world? I don't think so.

<strong> Here's where your fallacy of composition comes to light. Its saying that since the metal and plastic don't have the property of flying, planes made of metal and plastic can't fly, or atoms aren't blue therefore nothing can have the color blue.

<strong> What's logically possible is not all that interesting. Many things, including fairies, leprechauns and goblins are possible. I'm interested in what you can actually demonstrate to be true. So far all your attacks against determinism are based on poor understanding of what determinism is, false analogies, the fallacy of composition and a double standard. Your support for your own view of this non-material realm or attribute is so far non-existent.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

DRFseven

Well, reflexive actions occur in a reflex arc from the sensory neuron (say, in the tip of the finger near the hot iron), directly to a motor neuron in the spinal cord so that we jerk the finger away without needing the extra time to think about it.

Discussions are another matter, entirely; we have reasons for everything we think and say in discussions and all the reasons result from experiences we have had and incorporated into reasoning schemes. We don't get to look at input and say, "I choose to think this is pertinent or true or good or whatever"; instead, we digest it and find out what we think of it according to other stuff we already know.

Steven Carr

'Due to reevaluation of evidence'

Amazing. Somebody tries to defend non-determinism by introducing cause and effect. Is there no end to the illogical nature of Christians?

If there has been a reevaluation of evidence then the circumstances are different. Determinism says that different things will happen with different circumstances.


How does saying 'People will do different things when something has changed' refute determinism, or provide any evidence for non-determinism?

Sotzos 'logic' - B does not necessarily follow from A. After all, if A has changed, then
B might not happen.

No wonder he is adamant that his beliefs have not been determined by rational thought (as he is adamant that his beliefs have not been determined)

Steven Carr

William Lane Craig has a mantra which he repeats , seemingly at every debate.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Now Sotzos 'freewill' decisions are things which begin to exist. They weren't around for ever.

Perhaps Sotzo will agree that they must have a cause, and perhaps Sotzo will tell us what caused his freewill decisions.

Synaesthesia

The question is, can you escape determinism even if you don't believe in it?

DRFseven

Steven, it's not just Christians or other theists; many atheists do the same (at least until they receive input that causes a change in that opinion!).

madmax2976

Just to recap:

- Determinism does not infringe upon our ability to make choices (determinism != predeterminism) Determinism allows us the ability to make choices in the first place, and provide us with a consciousness such that we can contemplate and evaluate issues and make choices.

- We don't know if the universe is 100% deterministic. We just know that its largely deterministic and fortunately so.

- Largely random factors would seem infringe upon our ability to make meaningful choices.

- We have no evidence of an immaterial realm or substance and no evidence that determinism would not still be true there even if we did.

- We have lots of evidence for a material realm in which we do make choices.

I think these points pretty much bury the argument that we can't make choices if determinism is true.

DRFseven

Great summation, madmax!