Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the way I see determinism: if we can know all the inputs, we can also know all the outputs. If we could know every factor concerning the weather, we could know what the weather would do. In this way, determinism is a formula.
So why can we never predict the weather, because there is random movements of molecules involved. Any time there is randomness, their is no hard determinism concerning the outcome because by definition we can not predict what the random variables will do.
I think weather predictions are far more accurate than prophesy. It is based on observable data thanks to satellites. The Gideon fleece method really does not work and it but another folklore tale. There is less randomness in weather and yes for all our predictions, sometimes they do not pan out. Using this as an analogy, were we able to have a 30000 ft view of our supposed destiny, we may make other decisions but usually we are ground zero can see sunshine and a perfect day. Weather still remains very unpredictable. In time man may be able to do something to dissipate a hurricane and IIRC at one time they flew planes into the eye of the storm and fired flares to encourage condensation and precipitation but that turned out to be futile.
Quote:
Let's put another twist on this: suppose Nietzsche is correct: our knowledge: observations and abstractions of reality are shaped based upon our inmost subconscious desires. Because what we observe is controlled by our inmost desires, and we can only abstract based upon what we can observe, then our inmost desires control and shape and determine our reality, unless we can change our inmost desires.
Even our innermost desires are to some extent already influenced by our parents and peers, call it societal norms.
Quote:
Weird. Therefore, the idea of God is simply a pull from our inward desires, but maybe God gave us our inward desires? Why else do we have them? Where did they come from?
They come from where we grew up and the conditions prevalent at that time in our society.
For example, when my wife and I were shacked up in an apartment with the bare necessities, we had a great life. The prevailing norm was that we should marry, have kids buy a house, 2 cars, better furniture etc. We often discussed how much better of we would have been had we not even married and simply kept life simple and basic. Like most we went on the path to impress others which was all smoke and mirrors, we had each other and the little we had was adequate.
We both had upbringings where these "natural" chain of events like marriage and kids was par for the course and living in sin was frowned upon so we eventually went with the flow not really questioning if it is really what WE wanted.
Society has changed over the last 30 odd years and now other dynamics are at play. Legacy employment (getting a job where you mom or dad works) has gone and now (in our case) the market is run by new rules and new jobs for mates. The same stuff exists just with a different cast. Kids now have kids out of wedlock and marriage is not really a biggie anymore, they stay with parents a lot longer than I did.
Quote:
God, if he is allknowing and allpowerful and unchanging is also a formula; God will not do anything that he had not thought of at moment initial when he began -- God would already know the end results of his thoughts before he thought them. That's just weird but it's true. Therefore, everything that happens does so because it is the way god wanted it, because he's all powerful and can change it to how he wants it. If god did give us a will, he did so because he saw and end result that he wanted. This is crap. And that's why God's not like that.
As soon as you introduce a cosmic puppeteer into the equation, none of it makes sense. Seeing this remains an unresolved issue, I am damn certain many folk of yore have pondered this question too.
SeekerSA, you seem to be confusing results of decisions with the decision making process. Actual results are NOT a factor in decision making, only intended results. The nature of deterministic results does not rely on intent.
SeekerSA, you seem to be confusing results of decisions with the decision making process. Actual results are NOT a factor in decision making, only intended results.
Not confused and I never implied what you think I was saying. I have not once said we do not make choices but only stated those choices are always "engineered" and presented to us congruent to external factors outside our control.
I think I have posted enough links and cites to address both arguments. Back up and read them if you missed them.
We are never aware of the actual outcomes and make decisions based on best guesses and/or gut feel at the time. If we were able to more accurately predict each decision, we may have some modicum of free will. We do not.
Theists insist we have free will to choose from their menu, accept god and survive or reject god and perish, heaven or hell. The menu is not really based on anything tangible so it is by way of coercion these decisions are made. Now if they were actually able to present proof that
1. god exists,
2. heaven awaits those that choose and
3. hell awaits those that reject
by way of irrefutable proof, lets pretend a video clip of all three, then the choice becomes a no brainer, one would choose heaven.
If that were the case would it still be considered free will?
How many eat out places are you able to order stuff not on the menu?
Over to you. Please think before you post.
This is your rationale? Really? How about just asking for what you want. If they don't have it, then go to the restaurant that will provide it. Or go to the grocery store and buy the ingredients yourself.
You may be confusing actual free will with minor situations and circumstantial restraints. Also, you may be getting confused by the fact that we live in a relational world and that our lives (and our personal free will) has to intersect with other people and their personal free will.
We can't control others but we can control ourselves. That's how we exercise our free will.
This is your rationale? Really? How about just asking for what you want. If they don't have it, then go to the restaurant that will provide it. Or go to the grocery store and buy the ingredients yourself.
You may be confusing actual free will with minor situations and circumstantial restraints. Also, you may be getting confused by the fact that we live in a relational world and that our lives (and our personal free will) has to intersect with other people and their personal free will.
We can't control others but we can control ourselves. That's how we exercise our free will.
If all you responded to was this simple analogy, clearly you do not understand the difference between determinism and free will.
Why do you think I am confused? It is precisely the as you put it, "relational" why we have no free will, your example of controlling yourself is not what is being discussed here. I am not talking abut stuff like a girl saying no to a boys unwanted advances (if that is what you are thinking?) and yes we do have control in such situations - or do we?
In the dating and mating ritual game we all end up playing sometimes in our lives, there is an instinct that drives us to reproduce. Once paired up where chemistry exists, things will take their natural course. If males were not instinctively aroused by various nuances from females or visa versa they probably would not actively pursue each other where the end game is copulation and barring modern BC methods, nature runs its course and offspring are the result.
In this mating game, it is pretty grey as there is also a lot of what society expects is good behaviour like no sex before marriage, the more scary one of possible STDs and the like. We curb urges and in that way it may seem as free will but this is more like being responsible and not taking risks. However the natural instinct to want to have sex is driven by many factors we do not actively exhibit our will over.
A lot of the dating rituals and peripheral stuff is a script we introduce which makes us civilised and also allows the opportunity to get to know each other. Females generally are the ones seeking men they can trust before allowing the advances as she is the one that carries the burden and risk of pregnancy and also needs the man to stick around and help raise any potential offspring.
Unlike say cats or dogs on heat, humans do not openly exhibit these traits; although during ovulation pheromones are released and males subconsciously pick up on this (still a vague science). Male birds usually have prettier feathers and features they exhibit to attract a female that is ready to breed. All of this is instinctual and generally speaking we have no instinctual control over this; as humans, we apply other facets to shield or exhibit depending on age. In the animal kingdom, they tend to breed when they "come of age" as their lifespans are generally shorter than ours.
In the same way, women pretty much do not have control over their cycles and happens as nature intended ~13 times a year. We men are aroused by the smallest of things so we have even less control than the ladies do. (we are pretty much animals when it comes to this)
As you can see (if this is what you were thinking) even here there is really no free will when you remove the veneers we place around that aspect of living. Nature has predetermined we pursue sex as a way of propagating the species.
Getting out of the bedroom, we tend to choose a mate for reasons we usually are not aware of and again a lot of this will have to do with good looks, health and fitness, the way we groom ourselves to make ourselves attractive to the opposite gender and so on.
In simple evolutionary terms it is the survival of the fittest at work here. This aspect has in fact been altered somewhat and nowadays it is the survival of the most affluent. A rich dude always seem to attract good looking women even if he is not that much to look at. A stud or alpha male generally will not need to have wealth or good standing to be successful in the dating game as he is already a result of good genes. Likewise with the ladies who are good looking, they will garner the most attention even from the lowliest males who will carry their books, help them with their homework, shower them with gifts and so on.
Speaking of looks, this plays out in getting an advantage in applying for employment, Even if the not so good looking one is better qualified, one does tend to see the good looking folk faring better with less competency.
If all you responded to was this simple analogy, clearly you do not understand the difference between determinism and free will.
I don't think the poster is the one confused. As I said in my first post: "If you are going to define "free will" as choice having no consequence of course there is no "free will" and discussion is stupid. If you define it as the capability to make a choice as it is commonly defined there is room for discussion." The only difference between that and what you are saying is that to have "choice" you have to know the consequences. That is just another deterministic outcome: if you know the consequences the choice is obvious and there is no "real choice." We make choices based on what we know and what we hope and those choices effect everything that follows. If those choices are determined, there is no change in the billiard table model. If there is a factor that changes what we know and hope we may have the capacity to make a choice. What happens then is consequence played out with whatever influences other people's decisions may have.
I don't think the poster is the one confused. As I said in my first post: "If you are going to define "free will" as choice having no consequence of course there is no "free will" and discussion is stupid. If you define it as the capability to make a choice as it is commonly defined there is room for discussion." The only difference between that and what you are saying is that to have "choice" you have to know the consequences. That is just another deterministic outcome: if you know the consequences the choice is obvious and there is no "real choice." We make choices based on what we know and what we hope and those choices effect everything that follows. If those choices are determined, there is no change in the billiard table model. If there is a factor that changes what we know and hope we may have the capacity to make a choice. What happens then is consequence played out with whatever influences other people's decisions may have.
I don't think the poster is the one confused. As I said in my first post: "If you are going to define "free will" as choice having no consequence of course there is no "free will" and discussion is stupid. If you define it as the capability to make a choice as it is commonly defined there is room for discussion." The only difference between that and what you are saying is that to have "choice" you have to know the consequences. That is just another deterministic outcome: if you know the consequences the choice is obvious and there is no "real choice." We make choices based on what we know and what we hope and those choices effect everything that follows. If those choices are determined, there is no change in the billiard table model. If there is a factor that changes what we know and hope we may have the capacity to make a choice. What happens then is consequence played out with whatever influences other people's decisions may have.
I have offered many scenarios and definitions, there is no real definition only opinion. You keep harping on about choice. I haver never denied we make choices just that those choices are always influence by factors outside our control - that is not freewill. Choice is not a simple toss of the coin is it?
You pass criticism yet refuse to offer any analogies or examples to be considered for discussion. Thus far, no one has presented anything to make me change my mind which as far as the theists goes and their version of free will, by now we should have had some one making an effort.
Two cars that ess have the same historical origins and are equally reliable and if money is not a too much of a factor what determines your choice? More than just looks to consider. Tell us why you choose one over the other.
Use another comparison if these two have zero appeal
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
