Freethought & Rationalism Archive

madmax2976 · 06-14-2002, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sotzo:
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.

Ah, livin on airplanes. Been there, done that. You have my sympathy's.

Quote:

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

No problemo. Be awaiting your next post with eager anticipation.

DRFseven · 06-14-2002, 11:24 AM

Quote:

sotzo: Volition assumes real choices and not an inevitable outcome based on the interaction of brain chemistry alone.

How can decisions result from anything OTHER than learning? Just to head off confusion, I'm asking how one could choose one alternative over another, 'freely". I think the word, volition, describes behavior stimulated by inevitable, though possibly covert, conclusions, while the word, "coerced" would involve ostensibly overt conclusions. In both cases, the conclusions would come first, automatically; one would inevitably act on the conclusion that was "found out" by the processing of the information.

Steven Carr · 06-17-2002, 12:40 AM

Curiously many theists say God has create a world of order, a rational world. They say that only a world created by a God can have regular laws , which can be relied upon.

They then say that determinism is false.

Is a world of regular laws ,created by a God, a non-deterministic world?

Steven Carr · 06-17-2002, 12:43 AM

Curiously many theists say God has create a world of order, a rational world. They say that only a world created by a God can have regular laws , which can be relied upon.

They then say that determinism is false.

Is a world of regular laws ,created by a God, a non-deterministic world?

excreationist · 06-17-2002, 03:16 AM

Steven Carr:
I think theists would say that the physical objects within our universe are deterministic - but our souls are not (we have "free will"). And since our souls control our physical bodies, they are also non-deterministic.

Steven Carr · 06-17-2002, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist:
Steven Carr:
I think theists would say that the physical objects within our universe are deterministic - but our souls are not (we have "free will"). And since our souls control our physical bodies, they are also non-deterministic.

I'm sure they would, but it does illustrate an important difference between theists and non-theists. Theists somehow think they are not part of the universe. They are just passing through on their journey from being created by God to going on to Heaven.

DRFseven · 06-17-2002, 05:01 AM

Hey Sotzo, I was wondering if you'd give me your two cents on the following that I posted in response to one of your posts:

Quote:

How can decisions result from anything OTHER than learning? Just to head off confusion, I'm asking how one could choose one alternative over another, 'freely". I think the word, volition, describes behavior stimulated by inevitable, though possibly covert, conclusions, while the word, "coerced" would involve ostensibly overt conclusions. In both cases, the conclusions would come first, automatically; one would inevitably act on the conclusion that was "found out" by the processing of the information.

Steven Carr · 06-17-2002, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sotzo:

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.
cheers,

jkb

One wonders why God went to the bother of creating dopamine,testosterone, adrenaline, endorphines, melatonins, prolactin etc etc, when people just complain if these things work according to the manufacturers specifications.

Some people have no gratitude!

sotzo · 06-17-2002, 02:59 PM

MadMAx:

Why?? Simply because non-materialism is defined that way? Is this just an unsupported assumption? Please provide the evidence that under non-materialism, B would not necessarily follow A.

A non-materialist view that includes human volition (ie, free-will) would permit a condition such that B does not necessarily follow from A. An example of this would be when one changes her mind due to re-evaluation of evidence. A materialist accounting of thinking , by definition would make it impossible for her to choose otherwise.

I submit that unless determinism is largely true, the concept of making choices would be impossible or even meaningless. We would not be able to predict outcomes with any reliability.

I think you are confusing the behavior of the external world with the behavior of the mind. I am not arguing that the external world is devoid of determined patterns. For instance, we predict with high accuracy that the dropped ball will fall since gravity determines that it will. But if human thinking is determined then the very act of predicting that the ball will fall is determined and we could not say that we predicted that the ball would fall but that we were bound to predict that the ball would fall. Put another way:

Brain chemistry would be to prediction/reasoning
what gravity is to the ball.

The ball is completely acted on by gravity with no choice in the matter - it must fall. If thinking is analogous to that phenomenon, then I don't see how we can call what we do on this website "evaluation and reasoning" - both of those presuppose a measure of freedom.

I could hold a loaded gun to someone's head and pull the trigger and it might or might not kill or severely injure them.

See above reply on confusion of external world with mind. Of course, if you are saying that your are going to hold that the relationship between gravity and the ball is the same as brain chemistry and mind/thinking, then I'll applaud you for being a consistent materialist - then I'll question how you can decide between competing truth claims which was the original challenge in the first post.

If the non-materialistic realm (assuming there is such a thing) exists and and was not largely determinstic, things would be random.

If the ball had human volition in said nonmaterialistic realm, then I'd agree. My argument is that, as humans, we are not under the same determined circumstances as the ball and if we are then we do no real "thinking".

Thoughts would just pop into our head for no reason.

If the nonmaterial realm were irrational, I'd agree. But it does not follow that non-materialism equals irrationality because it is nonmaterial.

Actions would have no predictable outcomes.
This would seem to be completely incompatible with any sense of making choices or having "free will".

I disagree unless you can show how materialism can provide the preconditions of thinking/evaluation. If thinking/evaluation is nothing more than interaction of molecules then, as a computer, I wouldn't even be cognizant that I am thinking, much less that I need to change my mind on a particular issue based on such evaluation.

So materialism would seem to be irrelevant to determinism, thus making your question a misguided one. The question really should be: Can we demonstrate under either view, materialism or non-materialism, that choice is really possible?

It is logically possible for the latter and I submit logically impossible for the former since the latter leaves absolutely no room for me to know whether or not I am right or wrong, but is only a series of chemical reactions under the same influence as a ball to gravity.

cheers,
jkb

sotzo · 06-17-2002, 03:07 PM

Hi DRF:

How can decisions result from anything OTHER than learning? Just to head off confusion, I'm asking how one could choose one alternative over another, 'freely". I think the word, volition, describes behavior stimulated by inevitable, though possibly covert, conclusions, while the word, "coerced" would involve ostensibly overt conclusions. In both cases, the conclusions would come first, automatically; one would inevitably act on the conclusion that was "found out" by the processing of the information.

But if the conclusion is arrived at overtly by chemical reactions in the brain, it seems to me you can only have "coercion", in the same way as a ball falls to the ground via gravity.

I would agree that some conclusions are arrived at in this way - (ie, reflex to a hot iron). But is this discussion, for instance, coming from the same phenomenon?

cheers,
jkb

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

06-17-2002, 12:40 AM	#53
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Curiously many theists say God has create a world of order, a rational world. They say that only a world created by a God can have regular laws , which can be relied upon. They then say that determinism is false. Is a world of regular laws ,created by a God, a non-deterministic world?

06-17-2002, 12:43 AM	#54
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Curiously many theists say God has create a world of order, a rational world. They say that only a world created by a God can have regular laws , which can be relied upon. They then say that determinism is false. Is a world of regular laws ,created by a God, a non-deterministic world?

06-17-2002, 03:16 AM	#55
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	Steven Carr: I think theists would say that the physical objects within our universe are deterministic - but our souls are not (we have "free will"). And since our souls control our physical bodies, they are also non-deterministic.

06-17-2002, 02:59 PM	#59
sotzo Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Lakeland, FL, USA Posts: 102	MadMAx: *Why?? Simply because non-materialism is defined* that way? Is this just an unsupported assumption? Please provide the evidence that under non-materialism, B would not necessarily follow A.** A non-materialist view that includes human volition (ie, free-will) would permit a condition such that B does not necessarily follow from A. An example of this would be when one changes her mind due to re-evaluation of evidence. A materialist accounting of thinking , by definition would make it impossible for her to choose otherwise. I submit that unless determinism is largely true, the concept of making choices would be impossible or even meaningless. We would not be able to predict outcomes with any reliability. I think you are confusing the behavior of the external world with the behavior of the mind. I am not arguing that the external world is devoid of determined patterns. For instance, we predict with high accuracy that the dropped ball will fall since gravity determines that it will. But if human thinking is determined then the very act of predicting that the ball will fall is determined and we could not say that we predicted that the ball would fall but that we were bound to predict that the ball would fall. Put another way: Brain chemistry would be to prediction/reasoning what gravity is to the ball. The ball is completely acted on by gravity with no choice in the matter - it must fall. If thinking is analogous to that phenomenon, then I don't see how we can call what we do on this website "evaluation and reasoning" - both of those presuppose a measure of freedom. I could hold a loaded gun to someone's head and pull the trigger and it might or might not kill or severely injure them. See above reply on confusion of external world with mind. Of course, if you are saying that your are going to hold that the relationship between gravity and the ball is the same as brain chemistry and mind/thinking, then I'll applaud you for being a consistent materialist - then I'll question how you can decide between competing truth claims which was the original challenge in the first post. If the non-materialistic realm (assuming there is such a thing) exists and and was not largely determinstic, things would be random. If the ball had human volition in said nonmaterialistic realm, then I'd agree. My argument is that, as humans, we are not under the same determined circumstances as the ball and if we are then we do no real "thinking". Thoughts would just pop into our head for no reason. If the nonmaterial realm were irrational, I'd agree. But it does not follow that non-materialism equals irrationality because it is nonmaterial. Actions would have no predictable outcomes. This would seem to be completely incompatible with any sense of making choices or having "free will". I disagree unless you can show how materialism can provide the preconditions of thinking/evaluation. If thinking/evaluation is nothing more than interaction of molecules then, as a computer, I wouldn't even be cognizant that I am thinking, much less that I need to change my mind on a particular issue based on such evaluation. So materialism would seem to be irrelevant to determinism, thus making your question a misguided one. The question really should be: Can we demonstrate under either view, materialism or non-materialism, that choice is really possible? It is logically possible for the latter and I submit logically impossible for the former since the latter leaves absolutely no room for me to know whether or not I am right or wrong, but is only a series of chemical reactions under the same influence as a ball to gravity. cheers, jkb

06-17-2002, 03:07 PM	#60
sotzo Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Lakeland, FL, USA Posts: 102	Hi DRF: How can decisions result from anything OTHER than learning? Just to head off confusion, I'm asking how one could choose one alternative over another, 'freely". I think the word, volition, describes behavior stimulated by inevitable, though possibly covert, conclusions, while the word, "coerced" would involve ostensibly overt conclusions. In both cases, the conclusions would come first, automatically; one would inevitably act on the conclusion that was "found out" by the processing of the information. But if the conclusion is arrived at overtly by chemical reactions in the brain, it seems to me you can only have "coercion", in the same way as a ball falls to the ground via gravity. I would agree that some conclusions are arrived at in this way - (ie, reflex to a hot iron). But is this discussion, for instance, coming from the same phenomenon? cheers, jkb

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.