Free-Will DNE

Comment

Comment by life3 on March 3, 2012 at 9:25pm

When the whole appears more complex and organized than the sum of its parts, why do we assign more to the whole, when it IS the sum of its parts.

Comment by belynda caldero on December 20, 2011 at 10:10pm

Would you want to know?

Comment by Jedi Wanderer on January 20, 2011 at 10:23am

@prytanis: I am also a hard-determinist/incompatablist. I see no reason to suspect that any phenomena (mental or otherwise) aren't actually physical phenomena caused by preceding physical phenomena, nor any reason to believe that we can "choose" to behave in any way which we aren't already impelled to behave by the same.

 

@Howard: though this does seem to mean that choice hasn't got the meaning we generally think it does, i fail to see how that entails that we can no longer think of ourselves as either individuals or as real existing things as opposed to illusions. We are certainly exposed to different phenomena, no one person's experiences are the same as any other, so we are clearly "individuals" in this sense and this counts for something. The statement that we are illusions is either wrong or, I think, a misstated way of saying that choice is an illusion. This I think is correct.

 

Also (@Howard), something may indeed have caused and preceded the big bang, according to some recent work being done in astrophysics (sorry I don't have a source to quote for you, saw a special on the Discover channel or something). As to whether pure determinism has "to be both infinite and meaningless", I think it may or it may not be infinite, and nobody is in any position to know this for sure, so this certainly means that it is therefore possible and quite meaningful.

Comment by Ajita Kamal on January 20, 2010 at 2:53pm

@ Howard- That would depend on what level of thought we are talking about. From the point of view of scientific naturalism, natural is anything that can be described using the scientific method. Anything that can be quantified. If you're talking about philosophical naturalism, there are non-natural things that are subjectively real, but as long as these things do not make objective claims they are acceptable.

Comment by Howard S. Dunn on January 20, 2010 at 2:48pm

@ Ajita - BTW - what exactly would be defined as 'unnatural.'

Comment by Howard S. Dunn on January 20, 2010 at 2:47pm

Okay - but then it must follow that what proceeds from what came before immediately precedes and determines what comes after. Therefore, the word 'choice' has no real meaning. We are no more than nexuses of linkages of cause and effect and, in effect, retain nothing worth defining as individuality and, therefore, are also an illusion.

@ George - did something have to cause the singularity before it exploded? Doesn't pure determinism have to be both infinite and meaningless?

Comment by Ajita Kamal on January 19, 2010 at 2:26pm

@Howard: Instead of 'pre-determined', we could say 'determined', and instead of 'precursory' we can say 'natural'. The determination could proceed at the instant of making a choice, but there are natural causes behind that choice.

Comment by George on December 10, 2009 at 2:12am

What would it mean to say, "the words we type here are without precursory cause"? Does that even make sense?

Comment by Nate on December 10, 2009 at 12:16am

If Free Will DNE - isn't everything we type here predetermined by precursory causes?

Yes it is, Howard. I think you're getting it.

Comment by Howard S. Dunn on December 9, 2009 at 11:43pm

If Free Will DNE - isn't everything we type here predetermined by precursory causes?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page