Ierrellus

A3,

"Free" will and "determinism" are inextricably complemetary. But since many folks see them as polarities, I find good alibies in them for my specific behavior. I argue determinism when I behave badly and get reprimands and free will when I do something nice and get accolades.

Ierrellus

PAX

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Kharakov

John-

I am not sure that experimental proof would require time travel although I agree that it is not possible for us to predict events accurately with our current level of knowledge. I think prognostication would require knowledge of all the factors that influence the events outcome before the event takes place. (including how each factor influences the event)

This means that we need a perfect understanding of all factors that make up an event in order to predict the outcome of the event.

btw- I was using predetermined to mean 'determined beforehand' in the sense that the outcome was decided beforehand, not predicted before.

Gotta go,

-k

Kharakov

Gotta love the human imagination.

I believe that consciousness is an actual force along with the physical forces that govern matter.

I am a strong believer that the deterministic universe dictates that consciousness modifies future decisions based upon past experiences. I believe that without a deterministic universe there would be no morality, because we would not know whether or not an action would have good or evil consequences without causal connection. Determinism ultimatly dictates that consciousness will learn to be "good" in order to avoid the repition of prior experieces that caused consciousness pain (evil).

I have a lot more to say on this issue- but have to leave for Pittsburgh at the moment. Be back by Saturday night.


-k

John Page

K:

Wow! This one threw me. In your belief, what causes the force of consciousness and what does it act upon?

I conceive as consciousness as the word humans use to describe the awareness of self and, implicitly, the cause of the illusory "I".

Enjoy P'burgh, avoid the cheese and white lights at the end of the tunnel.

Cheers, John

A3

Hi DRFseven
OK I give up.... Who causes us and how?
====================================
Hi Ierrellus
You mean to tell me that if you do something bad it is not you who wants it done, thinks about it, plans it and than does it?
Swedenborg explains we are in total freedom to except the thoughts from hell or to except the thoughts from heaven. Depending on which side we chose, that’s who and what we are, untill the next choice. Like in the stock market, we have our ups and downs but there is one general trend. We are in this world on our own recognizance.
What is the sense of life if a very large part is pre-determent?

Regards
Adriaan

DRFseven

Well, what do YOU think causes us? Our situation (biology/experiences) causes us to be the way we are. In order for us to have caused ourselves, we would have had to have already existed to design ourselves to be the way we wanted ourselves to be, which is nonsense. We inherit our physiology and we encounter things from which we learn ways to be.

A3

Hi DRFseven,
[quote]A3: OK I give up.... Who causes us and how?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, what do YOU think causes us? Our situation (biology/experiences) causes us to be the way
we are.
That might be very remotely true if our brain and mental activities were all there is, in that case we would be no better, no worse, than computers. Even coming from alcoholic or abusive or drug addicted parants we can still brake the cycle. As humans we have a hereditary bag of tendencies, good stuff and bad stuff. We have the choice to follow in the footsteps and make those tendencies our own or not. It can be very, very tough to change for the better but we still can. Most of the time going to a foster home is the best way to get out of a role model rut and make the right choices with the right support.
The 12 steps of Alcoholic Anonymous are also an excellent ladder to climb out of a bad situation. BTW these are, I think, based on Swedenborg’s rules of life. Humanity has lost touch with its Creator the way we have with nature. Now we need a course to survive in nature. Two of the AA rules are of extreme importance. One is we have to recognize we have a problem. Two is we have to acknowledge a higher power and that we can’t do it alone.

Right on! Because (A) there is no such thing as past lifes and (B) practically no one is the way they want to be but keeps trying. Humans, by themselves, could only design tyrants.

Yes, (see above) we may have no choice who’s looks we inherit but we most certainly have a choice how to act. Sometimes younger siblings can also learn from the example of older ones what not to do, to not make the same mistakes. We can have role models all over the place but we have the freedom to choose which ones we will model ourselves after.
To come back to your first question, I believe that our Creator has given us the tools and a lot of advice to be responsible human beings, if we want to be.

Regards
Adriaan

DRFseven

We make choices, but there is no freedom in those choices unless you consider the entire situation the "chooser." Brain state = particular choice among alternatives and situation = brain state. We CANNOT HELP but select the option provided by the "choice wheel" of our reasoning schemes. You are what you eat, so to speak.

Ierrellus

A3,

Swedenborg tried exceedingly hard to unite science and folk belief. Since he could not do this, he opted for mystic assurances of belief. Sorry, but I cant do that. If I find anyone stupid enough to mentally polarize "determinism" and "free will". I am going to stress complementation of the polarities and milk it for all it is worth.

Ierrellus

PAX

kennyminot

In the spirit of mental masturbation, here comes a discussion on the famous topic of 'free willy'. Some might think this is a movie, but, of course, philosophers are excellent at challenging our assumptions and transforming 'common knowledge' into difficult problems. So, it's actually not a movie, but some sort of mysterious thing, which allows us to act divorced from our enviornment. It reminds one of those magic spells in Lord of the Rings. Someone waves their fingers around, whispers a few words, and suddenly things start defying the laws of nature.

But just because it reminds us of a myth -- a leftover from Christian theology -- that does not mean it is a bad myth, or that we should stop believing in it. That's how we run our lives . . . it's a collection of myths and legends, a narrative, pieced together from our interactions with the community. And so we need to ask ourselves why BOTH determinism AND 'free willy' are so damn tempting, and why we spend so much countless hours thinking about it. And I would like to avoid the fancy philosophical questions -- like what would be 'epistemologically justified' to believe or what 'metaphysically' is really real -- because I don't think anybody cares about those questions anyway. They just want to know: what do these beliefs have to do with me? Why should I believe either of these things? Or: was this even a problem until I had the words 'free willy' and 'determinism' to formulate it?

So, if we're going to talk about myths, let's talk about the biggest myth in academic philosophy, the myth of science, and look at why determinism and 'scientific investigation' have become so twined together in our minds. It has to do, of course, with the image of the universe that science has painted, the image that allows scientists to predict the behavior of objects and invent nice little equations that map out the structure of the universe. Because, you see, in order to figure out that planet X will be at point Y in Z amount of hours, you need to have a myth that allows you to trace everything back to an inevitable chain of events, a series of causes that can be analyzed, evaluated, and plunked into equations. And, much to our delight, science has been relatively successful and doing this sort of thing, and it gives us all kinds of nice luxuries, like air conditioning and those little ice chunks that you can buy at the grocery store. So, as intelligent people, we want to believe the 'myth of science' -- the little picture they have painted -- of this universe filled with swirling atoms, curving space-time, and genetic codes. And science is so damn insistant that there is only one way of looking at things . . . through the lens of science . . . and if you don't like it, you are some kind of irrational moron raised on the planet Xeon, where they still happen to believe in things like God and 'free will'. Well, we don't have an obligation to accept the myth of science -- or, even better, we can create a new myth which does not come along with the exclusivist trappings -- and so this picture is by no means inevitable, and by no means the only way of looking at things.

But where does 'free willy' come from? Probably, originally, Christians wanted the idea so they could blame people for not obeying God's will, and I think that Nietzsche makes some convincing arguments along these lines. But: just think about all the areas of your life where things seem spontaneous, where it seems like you are making choices that divorce themselves from the 'massive chain of causation' that science wants you to believe. For example, when you are writing a short story, it certainly doesn't help your creative juices to think: "Woah! Me writing this paper is the product of millions of social, pyschological, and physical causal events, which stretch back several millenium! It was inevitable that I would produce this exact story, at this exact time, because . . ." Give me a break. You want to believe that you are a genius, and that this work spontaneously poured out of your fingertips -- from some brilliant insight that you had while staring at squirrels having sex on the branches of a nearby tree -- and that you are charting territory that could only be charted by you. And, actually, this is precisely the sort of thing writers need to know, in order to be brilliant, and precisely why artists seem so rebellious against this 'deterministic' picture of the Universe. Think about all the other 'amazing' and 'spontaneous' events that don't fit into the deterministic picture. For example, what about falling in love? Do you really want to believe that your 'love' emerged from an inevitable chain of causal events? "Oh, my darling, I love you so much, and I'm so glad that the indifferent Universe unrolled this particular chain of events so I could fall in love with you." Yuck.

But, the truth is, only scientists and philosophers believe these perspectives 'conflict'. NORMAL people run around all the time, happily switching between both perspectives (or: language-games). They think the world is determined . . . when their doctor is prescribing Ritalin medication for their snotty 6-year-old. They believe it is spontaneous . . . when they are having sex with their new 'love interest' in the back of a pickup. Only we -- the intellectual elite -- even think about 'free willy' and determinism.

If you are still having trouble with this, maybe you should use an analogy. Check out this picture: .
To be honest: we switch between different perspectives, different ways of looking at things, EVERY DAY. You're only going to have a problem, I think, if think there is only ONE WAY of looking at things, to limit yourself to only ONE CHOICE. You can be BOTH a determinist and a libertarian. If you want. If you can pull the trick off. It's just like the vase. Look at it one way, you see faces, look at it in another way, and suddenly the vase comes back. Life is like this: we are constantly 'perspective-shifting'. (Or, if you like socio-linguistics, I believe they call this 'code-shifting'). It's just a matter of deciding WHEN and WHERE a certain perspective is important.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: kennyminot ]</p>