admice

Originally posted by admice
I hate determinism and it's consequences...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, that just about sums it up for determinism then, doesn't it?

Cheers, John

Wow, thanks I didn't know it was so easy to be a dictator here. Anything else I can settle for ya?

Getting back to the philosophical part of it tho: I think you are discussing 3 things: the philisophical possibility of causality, tracing causes through both medical and psychological/social means, and moral culpability. Might be easier if you split them out. I'll keep following this thread since I don't remember what I studied about it in college except that I was so bone headed I kept argueing with the dead guys and got a C.

John Page

As to the first, I am arguing that perception cannot occur without causality. i.e. perception is 'caused'. Similarly, assuming our "will" is defined as being 'caused' then in that sense it cannot be "free".

Cheers, John

John Page

Methinks we do.

Cheers, John

Osiris

Causality - The principle of or relationship between cause and effect.

If perception is 'caused' then it is the effect. Now I ask this question: If perception is the effect, what is the cause?

Same goes for "will". If will is the effect, what is the cause?

John Page

"Cause and effect" aka causality is the "cause" for perception. i.e. perception describes differentiation of entities within the environment of the perceiver.

Will can be a (perceived) cause as well as an effect because it (supposedly) resides within the "causal system" of the mind.

Cheers, John

sweep

the 'will' or want, if you will, is caused by need to reduce unfavourable circumstances in and around the body. It is caused by a history of stimuli, including meaning, created by discrepancies in our worldview.

Purposes are molded by belief, and desire, which can be subjugated to other purposes and beliefs as a result of consequences and awareness. Freedom from wants (will) may arise when a person makes sacrifices for the sake of a 'greater good'. Often the choice to do so, even when stimulation (dictated by prior events) still compels us to think and propogate behaviour, is rationalised or justified so that a higher purpose may be realised without the older value system holding sway. This could be viewed as guesswork, since the outcome is idealised, so a being essentially exposes itself to 'new' forces, in order for 'new' influences to shape ones outlook.

perception can be caused, but it can also be caused by a cause. If the cause is to stop wanting, then ones intentions are altered along with perception. By subjugating bodily 'needs' including food, sex, and exogenous chemical stimulus, behaviour and stimulus changes accordingly.

Although initially experience was required to become aware, being the initial cause, a person has to galvanize a conflicting 'weaker' urge, by the act of willing, which is uncaused, (as far as I am aware). Of course the easier option is to keep on making the same choices, leading to the same pitfalls. Stagnation necessitates change, and the 'will' is a prerequisite for doing so.

Infinity Lover

So sircumstances can compell one to do something one would rather not, want what you don't want, the will to go against your will.

Do you see the same paradox I do?

Infinity Lover

For your information, I was the one that went with the "God" vote, even though I'm an atheist... so perhaps some explaination is in order.

The other options didn't properly apply to my opinion. And the way it's presented in the poll, one's concept of a god is open to debat.

I think we act upon what we preceive to want, and this preception could be considered our "god". Thus it's the option closest to my take on free will.

I hope that clears it up.

sweep

no, that isn't what I meant. I was thinking along the lines of needs such as hunger, or simply not having something.

I can see where you might have got confused though.

Infinity Lover

While I'm at it (and aren't we ever so glad I am ), this hardly is the first thread on free will, and undoubtedly won't be the last one.

Does that mean we have free will, because we can all choose to decide we either do or don't have free will, or that we don't because we're incapable of agreeing (taken that we do all want to have questions answered)?

Personally I think that every aspect of us is subject to limitations, including our "free will". We do have free will, but only up to a limited degree, though there's boundless potential within that limitation (confusing, but that's how infinity works)... thus the neverending debat on the subject.