madmax2976

Your going to have to lay out this reasoning since I can't follow it. Why would the law of non-contradiction be contingent on the material simply because our laws are descriptions of how we observe the world to function? I was talking about the physical laws of nature which is what I thought you were talking about in regards to determinism.

Do you have any evidence that there are entities out there called laws which force phenomena to occur a certain way? Are they visible? What are they made of?

For that matter, can you show me the entity called the "law of non-contradiction". I would like to see what size and color it is.

<strong> So in the immaterial realm, we would presumably have control over every event, even those prior to us making any decisions or actions? In other words, we're unconstrained by anything and thus we are Gods of some sort?

It appears under this argument that unless we have control over every event, your saying we can't possibly have free will. I think I would agree with this, which is why I don't think we have free will. We have the ability to make choices and that is about it. This unconstrained state of being seems a bit fanciful to me. I see no evidence for it.

I don't even see any evidence that we can have a consciousness without a physical brain. I see lots of evidence that our consciousness is extremely dependant on our brain. If I were to assume we could have a disembodied consciousness, then, based on your arguments, I would have to conclude that whatever served as the base for the consciousness (energy sparks of some sort?) would not work in any deterministic fashion. Thus this immaterial consciousness would be a random thing, with thoughts popping in and out willy nilly.
That doesn't seem conducive to "free will" to me.

<strong> I don't follow how you got here either. I agree with this statement, but I don't see the connnection between that and determinism. I suppose you could be saying that we are unable to choose what the truth is because we are determined, but thats not the same as saying the truth regarding something doesn't exist just because our thoughts are determined.

<strong> So the causation would be random rather than determined - I get it. Again, how does randomness provide for the ability to have "free will"?

<strong> But I think it does. Your attributing the characteristics of the parts to the whole. Since molecules don't think and make choices, people can't think and make choices. That seems to fall under the fallacy pretty well to me.

<strong> And likewise planes can't fly if they all reduce to metal and plastic? Since birds reduce to bones, tissue, blood and feathers, perhaps they cannot fly either? Hmmm.

<strong> I repeat that unless determinism is largely true, in either a material or immaterial realm, the making of choices becomes meaningless.

The question is whether we have some control or no control over our actions. Does the consciousness exist such that it allows us to make decisions based on our own wants, needs and desires? Or is the consciousness merely an illusion? I observe that I do have a consciousness and I do make choices. I observe that the world is largely deterministic, allowing me the abilitiy to make meaningful choices. I also observe that my consciousness is highly dependent on my brain and that without a brain, I most likely wouldn't have a consciousness. I may not understand how it all works, but that is the evidence I have at this time.

sotzo

Hi Steven:

Always nice to see somebody ignoring the logic I posted.

Sorry you feel I ignored the logic in your post. I sincerely attempted to understand it before posting a reply.

But I am pleased that you think your beliefs are not determined by rational thought - as you think that your beliefs are not determined - period.

I don't recall saying that my beliefs are not determined "period". My view is that proper cognitive function demands a properly function
brain, but that to reduce all thought (ie, beliefs) to mere function leads to a blur between a truth and its converse.

Could you tell us why your beliefs being random, rather than determined, makes them any more likely to be correct?

I do not believe my beliefs arerandom and I'd be pleased to know what part of my post lead you to that conclusion.

The extent to which a belief conforms with reality is a measure of its truth. The materialist view seems to me to inevitably lead to the inability to perform such a measure since beliefs would not be under our control to choose.
That is beliefs would be analgous to the extension of the knee joint when the patellar tendon is stimulated.

cheers,
jkb

sotzo

Hi Steven:

But we *do* have control over our actions.

I agree.

In fact, even very deterministic things like computers can control other things.

I agree.

If we have a plane controlled by a computer, and the plane crashes because of a bug in the computers program, most sane people (and the TV news anchorman) would say that the plane 'went out of control'.

Yes.

And most viewers of the TV news would know what he meant and would say that the plane was being controlled by the computer before it went out of control and crashed?

I agree. How exactly does this relate to the question of whether or not materialism can result in a non-deterministic view of human thinking?

Why then, do you not want to speak the same English language that the rest of us use?

Because I'm trying out to become the next Tampa Bay area anchorman !

cheers,
jkb

sotzo

Hi Steven:

The more I think about this the more baffling it is. It is possible for me to say that certain statements about World War 2 are true or false, without me having to be able to control what happened in a World War that finished 12 years before I was born.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Our discussion here has nothing to do with control over things such as the historocity of events about which we have belief, but rather control of the beliefs themselves.

Continuing with your WW2 theme, the Holocaust either happened or it didn't. Now, how are you going to make a decision about which view to hold? I imagine you'd say that you'll examine the evidence and come to a conlcusion.

But this whole evidence/conclusion paradigm assumes that you can choose between competing claims. Under your computer/airplane analogy you would simply feed your senses with data (perhaps pictures of prison camps, memoirs from survivors, etc.) and then a result would come out.

I don't know about you, but my experience with evaluating truth claims is not best described by how your computer runs the airplane.

So my beliefs about WW2 are caused by events over which I had no control.

But I'm not arguing that you need to have control over the event itself (see above).

I don't lose any sleep over it - worrying whether or not I am right to believe that WW2 happened.

It's not a question about what we lose sleep over. We're in a discussion forum talking about epistemology. Whether there is any utilitarian value to specific truth claims is not at issue here.

cheers,

jkb

sotzo

Hi Excreationist:

I've replied to your first post and pointed out to you errors in what AtlanticCitySlave posted. Basically what I've said is this:

Sorry...you must know what it is like to post a question and keep track of the plethora of responses.

No, because there could be some uncaused fluctuations of matter/energy or state changes within a materialistic framework.

Such as? What exactly is an "uncaused fluctuation..." and how would that jive within a materialist's view of causation?

Will involves having a plan. Even if our plans are a deterministic result of our memories, environment, etc, we still have plans......

I would agree that having a plan is part of having a will as long as arriving at that plan involved volition. Volition assumes real choices and not an inevitable outcome based on the interaction of brain chemistry alone. You've merely taken the word "plan" as a deterministic result and equated it with the word "plan" as a volitional, will-driven result. This is apples and oranges.

Again, my apologies for not responding to your first post.

cheers,

jkb

excreationist

sotzo:
Such as? What exactly is an "uncaused fluctuation..." and how would that jive within a materialist's view of causation?
Well this is about quantum theory... I've read that matter and energy can appear and disappear at or below the "threshold of existence". Anyway, I thought materialism only states that the physical world is the only thing that exists - that no supernatural realms exist.
You could think of an "uncaused fluctuation" as low-level noise/imperfections. e.g. billiard balls collide in very predictable ways, that allow professionals to do very impressive trick shots. But say that the balls were weighted unevenly inside. There would be some unpredictability but it would be mostly predictable.

I would agree that having a plan is part of having a will as long as arriving at that plan involved volition. Volition assumes real choices and not an inevitable outcome based on the interaction of brain chemistry alone.
In those links I mentioned earlier in this thread, they're saying that according to compatibilists, determinism and free will ARE compatible. Anyway, if you're talking about "real choices" then we don't have them, but we still make decisions.

You've merely taken the word "plan" as a deterministic result and equated it with the word "plan" as a volitional, will-driven result. This is apples and oranges.
Well I'm using "plan" in a deterministic sense. I'm saying that "will" doesn't have to be voliational (free will). If "will" must be free, then why say "free will".... it appears that there can be wills that aren't free.

Again, my apologies for not responding to your first post.
Well thanks for eventually answering me.

madmax2976

I guess we've sufficiently squashed this question into oblivion... Another theist argument bites the dust.

sotzo

MadMax:

I guess we've sufficiently squashed this question into oblivion... Another theist argument bites the dust.

In other words, if theist does not respond within certain timeframe said argument will be deemed defeated.

Shall I pass the same judgement on those in the thread who did not respond to me? I think I'd rather just assume that they were taking care of other responsibilities in this thing we call life (ie, job, kids, etc.) rather than commit the above fallacy.

May I please be granted an extension to this thread until I am released by my employer at 4PM today?

madmax2976

Come now sotzo, get a sense of humor, it'll help you live longer.

I was just makin with a funny, which I thought my grin face would indicate. I hardly thought I had really heard the last comment on this subject.

But it did serve to let me know your still alive and kickin, which is good.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

sotzo

MadMax:

Come now sotzo, get a sense of humor, it'll help you live longer.

Yes, I know. That's why I watch Rushmore and Bottle Rocket over and over again!

I was just makin with a funny, which I thought my grin face would indicate. I hardly thought I had really heard the last comment on this subject.

Sorry, , I admit my minsinterpretation.

But it did serve to let me know your still alive and kickin, which is good.

I'm alive and kickin yes. Unfortuantely, I'm spending too much of my time alive and kickin on airplanes, hence the reason for my lack of response for awhile.

Thank you for your gracious tone and apologies for my hasty generalization.

cheers

jkb