Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-2010, 07:51 PM #148
Fubarius
Yep, it's orange.
 
Fubarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Richmond, WI
Annual Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Fubarius supports our troops
Fubarius has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
No one said that a greater want negated a lesser want, merely that the action will satisfy the greater want over the lesser one. It's analogous to two forces pulling on an object - obviously the greater force wins out. So I do suppose that one force "negates" the other in a sense. But it's not as though the other force doesn't exist, it simply does not become a decision.
You haven't factored in the cause from which a want can be greater or lesser than another want.

The magnitude of any particular want in a person is effected by instincts, internal influences, external senses, and experiences.

Now, take the sum total of all instincts, internal influences, external senses, and experiences. I don't know what you call it, but I call it a person. The self. "I".

Any one instinct, internal influence, external sense, or experience may cause a want, but the sum total of all can alter the magnitude. Since I am the sum total of all, then I alter the magnitude.
Fubarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 02-12-2010, 09:06 PM #149
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubarius View Post
You haven't factored in the cause from which a want can be greater or lesser than another want.

The magnitude of any particular want in a person is effected by instincts, internal influences, external senses, and experiences.

Now, take the sum total of all instincts, internal influences, external senses, and experiences. I don't know what you call it, but I call it a person. The self. "I".

Any one instinct, internal influence, external sense, or experience may cause a want, but the sum total of all can alter the magnitude. Since I am the sum total of all, then I alter the magnitude.


That doesn't mean it isn't determined. If "you" are the sum total of those things then "you" are an illusion. Your alleged decisions and choices are just physical processes like anything else.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 09:31 PM #150
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
I think the issue here is either unprovable, or I don't have the capacity/knowledge to prove it.

I think it is very likely that this argument as a deterministic viewpoint is correct, I can't doubt that. However, I believe that we have, somehow, free agency. If I could prove it or show a line of reasoning that would lead to a conclusion that we have agency, I would negate my own argument because said agency would have sufficient cause. I believe that, due to some factor be it randomness in the quantum universe, sum of physical processes, God, the Devil or some random factor I just don't know, we as human beings have free agency. The determination of what a want is lies in that free agency.

Again, i'm arguing that if I could prove free agency empirically, I would in fact disprove said agency because it would rely on purely physical factors whose origin are external to the free agent. Our ability to distinguish, create, or react to factors/wants is not rooted in any other property of our beings.

In other words, a "want" is not based in physicality but consciousness. I feel that phenomenology gives a good defense in consciousness not being purely physical reaction and I therefore would base my argument in Dasein. As for actually explaining the details of that defense, I've said multiple times before that I lack the intellectual fortitude to distill it properly for the format of a forum post. hell, I'm sure I don't fully get it.

So basically, this argument is not invalid, not wrong, but we are agents who can create wants separate and/or superior to physical factors. We magick them out of thin air, perhaps?
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 09:35 PM #151
Fubarius
Yep, it's orange.
 
Fubarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Richmond, WI
Annual Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Fubarius supports our troops
Fubarius has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
That doesn't mean it isn't determined. If "you" are the sum total of those things then "you" are an illusion. Your alleged decisions and choices are just physical processes like anything else.
Actually my personal belief is that humans are greater than the sum (I'm sure RamboPreacher would agree with me on this one), but that's not really pertinent at the moment.

There has to be identity to have this discussion in the first place. Does a "person" have free will? If there is no "person", just a mobile pile of cells and physical processes then the question is moot to begin with. Might as well throw "I think, therefore I am" right out the window with it.

Denying free will is to say that a "person" is LESS than the sum of all instincts, internal influences, senses, and experiences. It says that any one want will automatically override the total, instead of being influenced by the total.

Also it seems to be no longer a case of causality, but back to determinism/indeterminism.
Someone call all the quantum physicists and tell them that the cat is most certainly dead, or not dead, and if they knew their stuff they would have predicted the outcome before opening the box. I'm sure they'd be glad to know.
Fubarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 09:47 PM #152
Fubarius
Yep, it's orange.
 
Fubarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Richmond, WI
Annual Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Fubarius supports our troops
Fubarius has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
So basically, this argument is not invalid, not wrong, but we are agents who can create wants separate and/or superior to physical factors. We magick them out of thin air, perhaps?
It might be better to say that all wants have a cause, but a cause will not create the same want predictably.

"I became a cop because I saw my Father mugged while I was a child".

"I became a mugger because I saw my Father mugged while I was a child".

Both choices have the same root cause, but the want is altered by the "self" to the point of opposite decisions. And since the potential number of instincts, internal influences, senses, and experiences is effectively infinite it's effectively indeterminate which choice will be made.
Fubarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 11:50 PM #153
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubarius View Post
It might be better to say that all wants have a cause, but a cause will not create the same want predictably.

"I became a cop because I saw my Father mugged while I was a child".

"I became a mugger because I saw my Father mugged while I was a child".

Both choices have the same root cause, but the want is altered by the "self" to the point of opposite decisions. And since the potential number of instincts, internal influences, senses, and experiences is effectively infinite it's effectively indeterminate which choice will be made.
I like the cut of your jib.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 11:50 PM #154
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
I think the issue here is either unprovable, or I don't have the capacity/knowledge to prove it.

I think it is very likely that this argument as a deterministic viewpoint is correct, I can't doubt that. However, I believe that we have, somehow, free agency. If I could prove it or show a line of reasoning that would lead to a conclusion that we have agency, I would negate my own argument because said agency would have sufficient cause. I believe that, due to some factor be it randomness in the quantum universe, sum of physical processes, God, the Devil or some random factor I just don't know, we as human beings have free agency. The determination of what a want is lies in that free agency.

Again, i'm arguing that if I could prove free agency empirically, I would in fact disprove said agency because it would rely on purely physical factors whose origin are external to the free agent. Our ability to distinguish, create, or react to factors/wants is not rooted in any other property of our beings.

In other words, a "want" is not based in physicality but consciousness. I feel that phenomenology gives a good defense in consciousness not being purely physical reaction and I therefore would base my argument in Dasein. As for actually explaining the details of that defense, I've said multiple times before that I lack the intellectual fortitude to distill it properly for the format of a forum post. hell, I'm sure I don't fully get it.

So basically, this argument is not invalid, not wrong, but we are agents who can create wants separate and/or superior to physical factors. We magick them out of thin air, perhaps?

Dude...that was an extraordinarily dogmatic post. It's good to see your heart is in it but come on, am I supposed to take that seriously as a philosopher? It's not difficult AT ALL to imagine how human action could be causally determined. We're arrogant in assuming we have this power. Do you not agree this is a rather huge ontological commitment?

It's easy to see how from a "higher" view, our actions would be extremely predictable. Does an ant have free will, an ape? You can't be ready to admit that. So really what this is based on is a an inability to admit our bindings because it's so against how we feel.

4-dimensionalism is the best way of explaining time I've heard, especially how it matches so perfectly with relativity, and it actually suggests determinism. So if we're inferring from relativity that we live in a 4-d universe, then we've discovered determinism without even looking for it.

My gut feeling is we do have free will, but no argument is even close to adequate. I've been trying to pick up a copy of being and time but so far unsuccessful. Maybe Heidegger will change my mind, but right now the consequence argument of determinism is the strongest out there and you know it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubarius View Post
Actually my personal belief is that humans are greater than the sum (I'm sure RamboPreacher would agree with me on this one), but that's not really pertinent at the moment.

There has to be identity to have this discussion in the first place. Does a "person" have free will? If there is no "person", just a mobile pile of cells and physical processes then the question is moot to begin with. Might as well throw "I think, therefore I am" right out the window with it.

Denying free will is to say that a "person" is LESS than the sum of all instincts, internal influences, senses, and experiences. It says that any one want will automatically override the total, instead of being influenced by the total.

Also it seems to be no longer a case of causality, but back to determinism/indeterminism.
Someone call all the quantum physicists and tell them that the cat is most certainly dead, or not dead, and if they knew their stuff they would have predicted the outcome before opening the box. I'm sure they'd be glad to know.


You can use the words "person, "self," and "identity" however you want. Why couldn't a pile of cells becomes self aware? You have to show how that couldn't be the case if you want to strongly purport a free will argument. Also determinism wouldn't restrict things only to wants, that's just laureate's specific argument.

Undoubtedly there our factors that at least influence our decisions and influence doesn't even seem like it could be described under a theory of free will. This is what I've been saying forever: in trying to prove free will, the consequences violently oppose our current paradigm. Nothing makes sense at all if you say free will is possible, it;s self-contradicting in that way.

And there is such a lack of understanding of quantum physics that we can't infer that it somehow shows we have free will.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 12:04 AM #155
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Dude...that was an extraordinarily dogmatic post. It's good to see your heart is in it but come on, am I supposed to take that seriously as a philosopher? It's not difficult AT ALL to imagine how human action could be causally determined. We're arrogant in assuming we have this power. Do you not agree this is a rather huge ontological commitment?

It's easy to see how from a "higher" view, our actions would be extremely predictable. Does an ant have free will, an ape? You can't be ready to admit that. So really what this is based on is a an inability to admit our bindings because it's so against how we feel.

4-dimensionalism is the best way of explaining time I've heard, especially how it matches so perfectly with relativity, and it actually suggests determinism. So if we're inferring from relativity that we live in a 4-d universe, then we've discovered determinism without even looking for it.

My gut feeling is we do have free will, but no argument is even close to adequate. I've been trying to pick up a copy of being and time but so far unsuccessful. Maybe Heidegger will change my mind, but right now the consequence argument of determinism is the strongest out there and you know it.
Heidegger will change your mind. have you read anything on Dasein? All I can say is, I read Heidegger, I thought he was stupid. I read Heidegger, I thought I didn't get it. I read Heidegger, free will is possible.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life

Last edited by hsilman : 02-13-2010 at 12:07 AM.
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 08:29 AM #156
markcheb
surrender...don't move
 
markcheb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: across the Jordan river
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
what does that suppose to mean? like really, what does that even mean?
I was just messing with you is all, the second part about my sig anyways.

But to keep somewhat OnT. Seems like you had to sort through a whole series of "wants" ei - what"s Brents name? where can I find it? why is Mark posting in response? do I wish to read his sig?... etc. to ask me a question.

Life rarely presents choices of just either A or B but more like a a whole series of wants one sorts through to arrive at either A or B.

My thought is, if there is such a thing as free will, is this:

The minutia wants we face each moment are governed by the larger wants we have in our lives. These larger or more abstract wants are the ones that we may choose. So it's not as important to know that your wants dictate your lives as it is to know what you want.

- As I'm sure when you started this thread your want wasn't to ask me about a semi-trolling post that I have a tendency to make at times.
__________________
Which thief ~~ are you?
ChristKrew #185
Anointing foreheads with the paintball for a while now.
Where's God? - Read Luke 15:11-32
markcheb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 01:28 AM #157
GFX260
Jesse Day
 
GFX260's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cartersville, Ga
GFX260 supports Team VICIOUS
GFX260 is for the Gunfight
if we really don't have free will, then we have been blessed with an infallible illusion of it which is good enough for me.
GFX260 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 05:48 PM #158
RamboPreacher
Player not a Pro.
 
RamboPreacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Iowa
RamboPreacher is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
...I have no desire to "look down" on you or anyone.
then...
Quote:
Your entire outlook is philosophic ****. No scientist or philosopher worth anything would take things you say seriously...
well alrighty then.
__________________
Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
Founder of the CPPA - Christian Paintball Players Association
Member of: Christ Krew #82

"I believe, in order to understand" or "I understand in order to believe": Augustine/Anselm (paraphrase)
"Science, and especially physics is not about 'truths' - It's about forming beliefs that are less false"; Dr. S. James Gates, Jr.
RamboPreacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 06:04 PM #159
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamboPreacher View Post
then...

well alrighty then.
That still doesn't change the logic behind his argument. It saddens me that you take the easy way out like this, when really you should be striving to understand the argument. Just shows the judeo-christian mentality.
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 06:08 PM #160
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
That still doesn't change the logic behind his argument. It saddens me that you take the easy way out like this, when really you should be striving to understand the argument. Just shows the judeo-christian mentality.
hey, **** you buddy.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 06:27 PM #161
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
hey, **** you buddy.
GET THE **** OFF MY LAWN
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 06:46 PM #162
bigbootyhos
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
hey, **** you buddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
GET THE **** OFF MY LAWN


You boys been whackin' off in my tool shed?
bigbootyhos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 06:49 PM #163
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbootyhos View Post


You boys been whackin' off in my tool shed?
LOL HAHAHAHHAA
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 11:38 PM #164
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamboPreacher View Post
then...

well alrighty then.


What don't you understand? This isn't a matter of "I think I'm more intelligent than you so I'm going to try to make you look stupid." It's not even that I'm bashing your argument because I don't agree with it. You don't understand the basic rules of logic, literally a dead weight on discussion.

This isn't just my opinion. This is stuff that's in textbooks, including those on law. You made gave a point/example which you thought was a counter-example to Laureate's argument (when it obviously was not by any coherent interpretation of the rules of logic), and then proceeded to argue about it for a few posts. That's just wasted space. Seriously, isn't it?

We both post here and argue like this with each other because we're trying to get at least something out of it. That means it's in our best interests to make the discussion of this subforum as acute as possible. That's what I'm trying to do. If I'm going to butt**** around on here weekly I might as well attempt to make it not such a big waste of time in the long run.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 01:52 AM #165
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
What don't you understand? This isn't a matter of "I think I'm more intelligent than you so I'm going to try to make you look stupid." It's not even that I'm bashing your argument because I don't agree with it. You don't understand the basic rules of logic, literally a dead weight on discussion.

This isn't just my opinion. This is stuff that's in textbooks, including those on law. You made gave a point/example which you thought was a counter-example to Laureate's argument (when it obviously was not by any coherent interpretation of the rules of logic), and then proceeded to argue about it for a few posts. That's just wasted space. Seriously, isn't it?

We both post here and argue like this with each other because we're trying to get at least something out of it. That means it's in our best interests to make the discussion of this subforum as acute as possible. That's what I'm trying to do. If I'm going to butt**** around on here weekly I might as well attempt to make it not such a big waste of time in the long run.
awwww shhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii it
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump