Freethought & Rationalism Archive

irichc · 01-10-2003, 09:45 AM

We can distinguish a SUFFICIENT REASON from a DETERMINANT REASON, which some people confuse with the first one. Sufficient reason shows logic possibility, and determinant reason points logic necessity.

Thus, it's LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that the receptacle capable of containing one litre of water could also contain half litre. But it's LOGICALLY NECESSARY (ex ante) that this receptacle holds the litre or its lower extent, never more, 'cause otherwise it would pour the extra water out. And it's logically necessary (ex post) that it could hold a litre or half litre, but not a WHOLE litre and ONLY half litre at the same time.

According to the mere possibility EX ANTE, it's equally possible that the receptacle got filled with one or half litre, since they share the same notion. According to the possibility EX POST (which is no longer a possibility, but a necessity), it won't be possible that, if only half litre has been filled, we had simultaneously a whole litre in our receptacle.

So, following a DETERMINANT REASON, if the receptacle got filled with only half litre, then IT WASN'T POSSIBLE (ex ante) that it had been filled with a whole litre, as far as it wasn't possible (ex ante) that it had been filled with two litres. And that is nonsense.

Daniel.

Philosophy forum (spanish):

http://boards1.melodysoft.com/app?ID=isegoria

Mageth · 01-10-2003, 10:58 AM

Umm, now I'm thirsty.

What does that have to do with free will? I have free will to pour either a liter or a half a liter of water into a one-liter bottle, but I don't have the free will to pour two liters into a one-liter bottle?

Biff the unclean · 01-10-2003, 11:27 AM

I get the feeling that that isn't "water" he's talking about in his bottle

Keith Russell · 01-10-2003, 12:04 PM

Daniel, you left out half the equation:

Just because a given container can hold a litre of fluid, doesn't mean that you are going to have a litre of fluid available.

If you only have half a litre of liquid, that's all you can pour--no matter how large a container you have at your disposal.

The amount of liquid the container can hold is determined by the container's size--

--but the amount of liquid actually poured into the container is likewise determined by how much liquid was available to be poured.

The above actually supports determinism--not 'free will'. (Whatever that is.)

Keith.

diana · 01-10-2003, 03:19 PM

I see no correlation to EoG here, and little about free will, except that I'm exercising mine to move it to a more appropriate forum.

d

irichc · 01-10-2003, 03:45 PM

1) I define "freedom" as a power of wanting feasible actions.

2) I define "feasible actions" as those which are not mutually contradictory ex ante.

3) Thus, "freedom" is nothing but some type of conscience and judgement, represented by one's will.

4) Therefore, free will is predeterminated to want a limited amount of feasible actions, but it self-determines to choose singularly.

5) Causal predetermination and singular self-determination coexist by means of Pre-established Harmony.

6) The difference between freedom and omnipotence lies in this: the range of choice of a free being is limited, while that attributable to an omnipotent one is unlimited.

7) Unlimited is the power of that who creates something from nothingness, although, being its will ever the same, he could not give in to the temptation of moving away from the principle of sufficient reason.

8) In a few words: freedom and wisdom are not contradictory in God, but the same thing.

9) If a sufficient reason was immanent to soul, without God's intervention, then it would be impossible to match it with its effects. We would want something possible which could never happen, and it makes no sense at all.

10) Then, the soul self-determines without a sufficient reason (but in its limits) and acts according to the sufficient reason. Like God, but restrictedly. In this sense we should understand that man was created in the image of God.

Daniel.

Philosophy forum (spanish):

http://boards1.melodysoft.com/app?ID=isegoria

Mageth · 01-10-2003, 03:59 PM

I'll let the philosophy experts have at the above post, but I must ask, what is this "Pre-established Harmony" that magically appears in (5)?

SRB · 01-12-2003, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irichc
1) I define "freedom" as a power of wanting feasible actions.
2) I define "feasible actions" as those which are not mutually contradictory ex ante.
3) Thus, "freedom" is nothing but some type of conscience and judgement, represented by one's will.
4) Therefore, free will is predeterminated to want a limited amount of feasible actions, but it self-determines to choose singularly.
5) Causal predetermination and singular self-determination coexist by means of Pre-established Harmony.
6) The difference between freedom and omnipotence lies in this: the range of choice of a free being is limited, while that attributable to an omnipotent one is unlimited.
7) Unlimited is the power of that who creates something from nothingness, although, being its will ever the same, he could not give in to the temptation of moving away from the principle of sufficient reason.
8) In a few words: freedom and wisdom are not contradictory in God, but the same thing.
9) If a sufficient reason was immanent to soul, without God's intervention, then it would be impossible to match it with its effects. We would want something possible which could never happen, and it makes no sense at all.
10) Then, the soul self-determines without a sufficient reason (but in its limits) and acts according to the sufficient reason. Like God, but restrictedly. In this sense we should understand that man was created in the image of God.

Daniel.

I'll be blunt: what is written above is total drivel. Most of the sentences are not true or false, but are instead quite meaningless. For example, the phrase "mutually contradictory ex ante" is Daniel's own invention and taken literally it is nonsensical. The sentence "free will is predeterminated to want a limited amount of feasible actions, but it self-determines to choose singularly" is also total nonsense - words are strung together in apparently random fashion. Furthermore, the word "predeterminated" appears in no dictionary that I have ever seen.

The sentence "causal predetermination and singular self-determination coexist by means of Pre-established Harmony" is my personal favourite. What a lot of gibberish!

I won't carry on dissecting every meaningless phrase, aside from reiterating that it simply is not true that if you string words together using the rules of grammar then you will end up with something that makes any sense. I suggest that what is written above could just as well have come straight from the Postmodernism Generator, where words really are strung together at random by a piece of software!

If Daniel actually does have an argument for anything at all, rather than merely a propensity to spout nonsense while trying to sound sophisticated, we have yet to hear it. That goes for any of the claims he has made, here or elsewhere.

SRB

tommyc · 01-13-2003, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SRB
I'll be blunt: what is written above is total drivel. Most of the sentences are not true or false, but are instead quite meaningless. For example, the phrase "mutually contradictory ex ante" is Daniel's own invention and taken literally it is nonsensical. The sentence "free will is predeterminated to want a limited amount of feasible actions, but it self-determines to choose singularly" is also total nonsense - words are strung together in apparently random fashion. Furthermore, the word "predeterminated" appears in no dictionary that I have ever seen.

The sentence "causal predetermination and singular self-determination coexist by means of Pre-established Harmony" is my personal favourite. What a lot of gibberish!

I won't carry on dissecting every meaningless phrase, aside from reiterating that it simply is not true that if you string words together using the rules of grammar then you will end up with something that makes any sense. I suggest that what is written above could just as well have come straight from the Postmodernism Generator, where words really are strung together at random by a piece of software!

If Daniel actually does have an argument for anything at all, rather than merely a propensity to spout nonsense while trying to sound sophisticated, we have yet to hear it. That goes for any of the claims he has made, here or elsewhere.

SRB

haha, oh that Postmodernism Generator is some good shit definately.

Keith Russell · 01-13-2003, 09:53 AM

Daniel said:
1) I define "freedom" as a power of wanting feasible actions.

Well, we can stop right there.

Someone in prison is perfectly capable of wanting feasable actions, in this context probably a means of in the near future.

But, being able to want something, in no way makes the prisoner free.

Far from it.

Keith.

01-10-2003, 09:45 AM	#1
irichc Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Barcelona, Spain Posts: 425	Analogical demonstration of free will We can distinguish a SUFFICIENT REASON from a DETERMINANT REASON, which some people confuse with the first one. Sufficient reason shows logic possibility, and determinant reason points logic necessity. Thus, it's LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that the receptacle capable of containing one litre of water could also contain half litre. But it's LOGICALLY NECESSARY (ex ante) that this receptacle holds the litre or its lower extent, never more, 'cause otherwise it would pour the extra water out. And it's logically necessary (ex post) that it could hold a litre or half litre, but not a WHOLE litre and ONLY half litre at the same time. According to the mere possibility EX ANTE, it's equally possible that the receptacle got filled with one or half litre, since they share the same notion. According to the possibility EX POST (which is no longer a possibility, but a necessity), it won't be possible that, if only half litre has been filled, we had simultaneously a whole litre in our receptacle. So, following a DETERMINANT REASON, if the receptacle got filled with only half litre, then IT WASN'T POSSIBLE (ex ante) that it had been filled with a whole litre, as far as it wasn't possible (ex ante) that it had been filled with two litres. And that is nonsense. Daniel. Philosophy forum (spanish): http://boards1.melodysoft.com/app?ID=isegoria

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-10-2003, 10:58 AM	#2
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Umm, now I'm thirsty. What does that have to do with free will? I have free will to pour either a liter or a half a liter of water into a one-liter bottle, but I don't have the free will to pour two liters into a one-liter bottle?

01-10-2003, 11:27 AM	#3
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	I get the feeling that that isn't "water" he's talking about in his bottle

01-10-2003, 12:04 PM	#4
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Daniel, you left out half the equation: Just because a given container can hold a litre of fluid, doesn't mean that you are going to have a litre of fluid available. If you only have half a litre of liquid, that's all you can pour--no matter how large a container you have at your disposal. The amount of liquid the container can hold is determined by the container's size-- --but the amount of liquid actually poured into the container is likewise determined by how much liquid was available to be poured. The above actually supports determinism--not 'free will'. (Whatever that is.) Keith.

01-10-2003, 03:19 PM	#5
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	I see no correlation to EoG here, and little about free will, except that I'm exercising mine to move it to a more appropriate forum. d

01-10-2003, 03:45 PM	#6
irichc Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Barcelona, Spain Posts: 425	1) I define "freedom" as a power of wanting feasible actions. 2) I define "feasible actions" as those which are not mutually contradictory ex ante. 3) Thus, "freedom" is nothing but some type of conscience and judgement, represented by one's will. 4) Therefore, free will is predeterminated to want a limited amount of feasible actions, but it self-determines to choose singularly. 5) Causal predetermination and singular self-determination coexist by means of Pre-established Harmony. 6) The difference between freedom and omnipotence lies in this: the range of choice of a free being is limited, while that attributable to an omnipotent one is unlimited. 7) Unlimited is the power of that who creates something from nothingness, although, being its will ever the same, he could not give in to the temptation of moving away from the principle of sufficient reason. 8) In a few words: freedom and wisdom are not contradictory in God, but the same thing. 9) If a sufficient reason was immanent to soul, without God's intervention, then it would be impossible to match it with its effects. We would want something possible which could never happen, and it makes no sense at all. 10) Then, the soul self-determines without a sufficient reason (but in its limits) and acts according to the sufficient reason. Like God, but restrictedly. In this sense we should understand that man was created in the image of God. Daniel. Philosophy forum (spanish): http://boards1.melodysoft.com/app?ID=isegoria

01-10-2003, 03:59 PM	#7
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I'll let the philosophy experts have at the above post, but I must ask, what is this "Pre-established Harmony" that magically appears in (5)?

01-13-2003, 09:53 AM	#10
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Daniel said: 1) I define "freedom" as a power of wanting feasible actions. Well, we can stop right there. Someone in prison is perfectly capable of wanting feasable actions, in this context probably a means of in the near future. But, being able to want something, in no way makes the prisoner free. Far from it. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.