Kevin Beal

You're right. That's just my experience. It could be an illusion, to be sure. As far as a mechanism goes, it's too high a level of description to be too useful. My goal is primarily to point to the experience. The Determinist must show that this is an illusion before I can saying anything about it not being an illusion. The OP said that desires are not chosen in one respect, and implied that they are thus chosen in no respect. I showed that more work was necessary to demonstrate this claim. The actual "how" of free will is beyond me. I have very little idea of how consciousness works. I fully admit this. As for your requests, I don't care. I don't like you. You are mean spirited, and without any apparent redeeming qualities. Honestly, I barely read any of your posts. If you are spending a lot of time on it for my benefit, I'd recommend you stopped, because it'll continue to be mostly ignored.

I addressed the positive claims thing in post #132, and the not choosing desires thing in post #4. If that doesn't give you any pause, implying that I've blown right past these things, and finding out that I addressed them directly, as soon as they were brought up, then don't bother responding. People keep trying to say that I haven't addressed something, and when I point out that I have, it's completely meaningless to them. If me pointing out that I have addressed something doesn't change anything for you, then you don't get to say that not addressing things is a problem. That's called "having no null hypothesis," which means: there's no winning with you. You are a fraud if you do that.

Is this circular reasoning? I don't follow... A situation which is predictable, but is not fixed (in the same sense the result of a computer algorithm is fixed) is human behavior. I can predict what my friend is going to say about the food stain I made on my shirt during lunch, but that's not to say that he couldn't, just as easily have ignored it, or help me out in some way. Words like "fixed" and "stimuli" are tricky. Being clear about in what specific respect human behavior is fixed, and in what specific sense arguments are just another kind of "stimuli" is necessary. Something being perceived through some kind of mental process, or taken in via the senses do fit in the definition "a thing or event that evokes a specific functional reaction in an organ or tissue," and my behavior is fixed in a sense, given this definition: "(especially of a price, rate, or time) predetermined and not subject to or able to be changed." But evoking a functional reaction via your eyes, lacks a kind of volitional capacity that is present with thought and other mental states. Similarly, my behavior is fixed in the sense that it already happened and the past is not subject to change, but the way we relate to the future is clearly different than how we relate to the past. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan This everyday experience we have of choosing between multiple options, seeking outcomes that are in our advantage, is ubiquitous. It's impossible to imagine a life without thinking there are preferred states and other possible outcomes within our control, because having a conversation about it in the first place already assumes these things in order to make any sense at all. The Determinist has to show that this is an illusion, and they have to do a damn good job of it. They can't simply say that causes have effects, we don't choose our desires (or thoughts, or beliefs), like these are debate clinchers. I can't simply stop at "Determinism implies no preferred states" and end it there. No Determinist would ever allow me to stop there, like that proves free will. I'm not holding Determinists to a higher standard than I hold myself. I've offered a ton of reasoning, challenges, considerations, rebuttals, etc. If you search for free will or determinism in the forum search, you'll see me in there a lot, adding something new every time. I've spent a whole lot of time thinking about this, reading books on it, engaging in lots of debates, having neutral third parties check my reasoning – I take it very seriously. So, I can tell right away when someone is being lazy about it, and I say so. It doesn't make me right, obviously – I'm just sayin'. P.S. This is only half a response to you kikker. Thank you for putting some effort in your responses.

Welcome to the club

I don't feel like it.

I guess that's supposed to be me? What, are you like 12 years old, or something? Am I supposed to feel foolish? I already rebutted everything you had to say before you came into the thread. I provided these arguments pages ago. I'm not going to go 'round in circles with you. I'm not interested in whatever this is. A torrent of hostility and sarcasm is not how you make a case either, guy. The final conclusion in your syllogism did not follow from the rest of your reasoning, for the reasons I mentioned. You say that I didn't address the argument, and failed to understand it, but you have that exactly backward. You failed to understand mine. Further context is provided in the thread, which you did not read.

Free will is using our capacity for reason to affect our environment toward our own ends. It's not about choosing to believe things you don't believe, choosing the specific content of your own thoughts, desiring things you don't already desire (without having an overriding desire), or any of these things. To the degree that you believe these are relevant considerations is the degree to which you are talking about something other than free will. Do you use your reason to choose the behavior which results in your desired outcomes, or don't you? If you do, then we're in agreement. You may describe it differently, but I just consider that a distinction without a difference, nitpicking, and unproductive. Having desires, beliefs, and intention-in-action – and that these add up (in a sense) to a particular outcome – is not the same thing as describing a deterministic process, as I've showed multiple times already. Determinism is not having logical sequences of events, but rather a sequence of events where no choice occurs, and where reason is epiphenomenal (not itself causal). If you say that reason is causal, consciousness is real, decisions are rational and influenced by subjective factors, then we're saying the same thing; you just happen to be using the term "Determinism" incorrectly.

I say that too. I call it free will. It's because conscious agents have volitional, self generated responses to their environment, which they control. I guess it's obvious, like that's some kind of comment on what I said, or something. Be snarky and cryptic enough, and you win, something, somehow, right? You don't understand why I bring up preferred states. If you think what you're saying is relevant, you're doing a lot worse than a strawman. Your whole response would be a strawman, except it's too lazy to even qualify as that. For the benefit of anyone reading: This is in reference to a time I visited the chat room and took exception to Tundra's moral relativism, saying that murder and child molestation are not evil, but are simply distasteful. And in the same sense that I found his comments there distasteful. The irony was lost on Tundra. I was informed by at least 3 other people also using the chat room that he trolls the chat room regularly, baiting people into bitchy, petty and ridiculous debates. This is a perfect example of how I described Determinists in the post he quoted. The irony will surely be lost on him again. If you're curious about the preferred states thing, it's fully elaborated on by Stef in this video: Happy 4th, people! <3

It wasn't meant as an exhaustive list, guy. I mention those because they are the most common. Your position is a kind of Epiphenomenalism. It's not new.

Hmm. I wonder if the kind of people who are generally attracted to Determinism feel ineffectual / thwarted, and in disowning their own thwartedness, try to infect others with it? That would explain so much! The not listening, the going in circles, the "it is because I say so," the accusations of "magical thinking," being drawn to these debates which go nowhere, etc. I think my arguments for free will are pretty original, fresh, and I try and change it up, come from new angles. Determinists always have the same old boring arguments: "causes have effects, you dumb dumb," "free will is magic." To the Determinist, there are no preferred states. Things are just what they are. So, there is no personal responsibility, because there's no possibility of other states than what is. They can be wrong, be aggressive, can be terrible listeners, process literally nothing, be hypocrites, contradict themselves like crazy, and it's not bad. It just is. How convenient having no preferred states is... I wish that I could operate that way, but my integrity keeps getting in the way. Damn it!

Feeling sore?

Sore loser alert (post #119)

Sam Harris is pretty successful. There are probably others. But yea, that's one motivation, I think. And technically, there is no fallacy fallacy unless he says that the existence of a fallacy is proof of something, rather than evidence, or cause for concern. The fallacy fallacy is not a real fallacy because so few people literally speak in those terms (to say that the presence of a fallacy is therefore proof of some proposition). It would be a problem if we accepted the conclusion of an argument in order to make that argument. That's one of the few actual fallacies out there. The problem is that a debate has to start somewhere, and you can't logically start from "it's an illusion" because the proposition "it's not an illusion" has no possibility of being demonstrated without some kind of argument for it being an illusion, already. And he's a hypocrite too, since he can only say that thoughts are chosen in no respect because they are chosen in no respect. The presence of one respect in which it is not chosen is support for the argument like saying "causes have effects." i.e. it's too obvious to mention, and by itself means nothing for the debate. That's why he must repeat himself in more indignant terms until someone relents, as if it did anything but make him look stubborn.

Some determinists do speak out of experience. They experience a lack of will and control, a lack of the kind of behavior that best captures our free will. If you don't follow your reason despite desire, or fear, then it's kinda true that you don't have free will. And more than that, it could seem like an unreasonable imposition, like being asked to do something huge for little reward, or like it's an entitled expectation. I almost don't think a Determinist should be able to talk about free will, unless they have shown an ability to exercise what they consider the illusion to some degree of proficiency. If they are lazy bums, with little impulse control, then they should probably just shut up.

You have to do something about the dread of anticipating other people's backlash. That's what makes the stress linger. That and feeling insecure in yourself, what you are trying to do. Having good people in your life, who support you, helps you feel the security. But the dread is a little more complicated. If someone is totally horrible to you, then you should probably block them. If they are making good arguments, then there's an opportunity to learn there, and even be humbled (which is way more satisfying than it looks before conceding something). If they are just annoying, going in circles, being pedantic, and all of that, then just let them have the last word.

Yes, I did. It was the whole "listen to my reason, so you can reject reason altogether" thing. Hence the bad listening...

I already explained how it's contradictory in like a half dozen ways. It's almost like you didn't process any of what I said. Determinists are terrible listeners. I already won this debate, like, 5 times over.

All the sadism makes my tummy hurt

Last word! Neener neener neener!

That's not an argument, but a series of events. One thing happened after another. I'm providing a description. But whatever. You don't choose your thoughts anyway, so this is completely pointless. Haha. Oops! That's what I get for assuming. Apparently he has better credentials than I do. I disagree with his conclusions, yes.

No, that's not what I did. I didn't use "I decided" as the premise of an argument. I simply pointed out that this was my experience. You can tell me that I didn't experience it, but that would be ludicrously insane. And yes you did say that you didn't decide therefore you didn't decide. It's the only thing that makes your argument work. The "various things" about thought that don't add up are that they are things you didn't decide (hence the "in one respect, thus every respect" comment). Don't just make stuff up, guy. If I have no control over my thoughts, then maybe you could just go fly a kite. You keep yelling in my ear, with clear indignation, that sound does not exist. Are you completely insane? Well, it doesn't matter if you're insane or not, right or wrong, because you're a Determinist, so things are just what they are, and no preferred states exist. You get to be as irrational as you want. How convenient...

This is ironic. I "didn't decide it" is assuming your conclusion up front. Projection much? The only way I can make sense of your posts is to already assume your conclusion, Mr "you didn't decide that"! Yes, this is a rational decision to make. <- See what I did there..? Yes, and I pointed out that to say something is true in one respect is not to say that it's true in every respect. That's why I immediately followed my statements with that point. Saying something is true in one respect, therefore it's true in every respect, is a really bad argument – especially considering how inescapable it is that we have to assume it is not true in at least one respect, in order for this conversation not to be completely freakin' meaningless. His definition of free will, being that thing which pauses all of the causal events in order to magically change things, is indeed an illusion. If you define a thing as magic up front, then it doesn't matter what the logic is in between the definition and the conclusion, it's still going to be magic by the end. The problem with his arguments (and every other determinist) is to assume that a rational universe necessitates a single outcome and that no conscious process can, of it's own volition, create another outcome. He's a neuroscientist and not a philosopher. His theory of ethics has problems too. I'm inclined to think he should stick to neuroscience.

I don't know how consciousness works. It could all be passive, including the experience of it being active. That may all be true. The reason I think I am actively thinking is because that is my direct first hand experience. I think starting from the default that I am not deluded, and that my consciousness works the way I experience it working, is the way to go. My invitation is to you to prove that it is an illusion. If we start with "it's an illusion" as the default, then I'm not sure what I'd be responding to. I have to respond to the specific respect in which it is an illusion, or else there is way to know if I've successfully defended the proposition. The specific respect in which you claim that my experience of choosing my thoughts is supported by arguments which do not actually make that case, as far as I can tell. I may be a moron, but I don't see what significance there is in having to choose the thought in every respect in order to choose it in any respect. This strikes me as obviously false, and yet you persist in saying it. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this. It seems painfully obvious that I choose my thoughts. This whole conversation is only possible because we assume we choose our thoughts. Maybe we don't choose our thoughts, but I don't have anything I can work with to decide this for myself, for the reasons I already stated. I can't tell if I'm being unclear, I'm wrong, or you're being obtuse. It's a very strange position to be in to argue that I have any amount of control over my own thoughts. Can you understand why I'd be confused?

I decided that I'm going to think about a white elephant. A thought about a white elephant is now in my head. Did I not decide that? Was it not of a white elephant? Is it not a thought? Just because the literal language content of a thought is rarely chosen, doesn't mean we don't choose our thoughts. Some thoughts are not chosen, but others just are. There was an infinity of other possible thoughts you could have had, but you chose to direct your conscious awareness at a particular topic, with a particular intention and think about this. If you didn't, then we have nothing to talk about because you are just a bunch of random thoughts bouncing off of a subject. I'm not going to talk to you if you have no control over your thoughts. That would be a complete waste of time.

When I sat down to read your response, I did it with intention, thinking about what I considered was relevant, disregarding the rest, choosing to consider what relevance it has, and determining if it does indeed support the conclusion that consciousness is completely passive (i.e. not doing thought, feeling, etc.). This is an active process. I chose what to think about. I know what you're saying is false because I proved it empirically with my own conscious experience. Thoughts are not perceptions (sensory data, "seeing that," anticipating, etc.). Not everything that occurs in consciousness behaves the same way, or has the same properties. We don't decide to feel hot when it's 90 degrees outside, obviously, but the whole idea of what it means to "decide" is a product of thought. Deciding is a thinking process. Of course, you don't choose what you believe, how you feel or what you perceive, but so what? What, is free will a totally random, yet decisive process which makes you believe what you don't believe, and perceive what you don't perceive? You act according to your will, in response to your desires and your thinking. It's not random. It's not deciding what is true, or what you believe is true, or deciding to have preferences that you don't have already. I fail to see the relevance here. I mean the latter. Thoughts in response to other thoughts, being self generated, responding to itself, and all that jazz. It may sound like something illogical, but that doesn't make it illogical, obviously. Or maybe the self is something larger, but includes consciousness. I don't know, and I'm not sure why it's relevant. I'm not with Descartes. There is no ghost in the machine. Those are 3 of a dozen reasons or so, yes. Some more include: If thought is not active but passive, then reason is impossible, and arguing for Determinism by appealing to reason is thus contradictory Acting consistently with the knowledge of Determinism leads to negative results in one's life A rational universe doesn't preclude multiple outcomes We live a life where we act on our free will all the time We cannot live without assuming the validity of free will Determinists constantly misrepresent the free will position and thus cannot be trusted to conclude anything meaningful about it and more