Kevin Beal

Luckily for me I was born an atheist and was never propagandized to believe in gods. It was no work for me.

Oh, sorry. I totally misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the Illuminati like the shadowy conspirators who run the world. I wasn't even aware there was an ideology behind it. And I don't know what Nietzsche said about facts, or pretty much anything about his writing, really. I couldn't even use the right "principle". In a lot of ways I'm very much a n00b, especially with regard to the history of philosophy. I don't plan on reading the books you suggested, but I'm curious what you think about it.

I have studied the illuminati a bit (not to the degree you have I'm sure), but the facts, whether these events actually took place, is not, to me, particularly important. But rather the fact that these sorts of things can happen is a problem and statism makes that problem much worse. The message that I took from the video is that it's dangerous getting lost in the details arguing over facts when it's the principals that matter. The 911 conspiracy is another example of this where people get so obsessed with details not realizing that they are being ineffective in actually bringing about positive change: that they come off to most people as weirdos (rightly or wrongly), and push people farther away from critically evaluating the events of 911. "The devil is in the details" is a quote that has been stuck in my mind since I listened to the sunday show. I thought it was pretty profound. Something much bigger than whether or not 6 million jews were murdered by the nazis (which I also doubt). Hope that clarifies why I brought up the video. I think it's relevant and important. Take care!

I think this recent sunday show call is pretty relevant and insightful: [View:http://www.youtube.com/embed/xw78QZF3chg:560:315] In it Stef discusses the purpose of history and the importance of principals over facts. It's a perspective I don't think I've heard before and think applies to most debates even. Highly recommended!

It's the same argument people use for spanking. It doesn't matter if they are cool with it. You can just ask them what would happen if they stopped paying. They would get a letter, then another one, a court summons, a thug at the door and finally kidnapped and stolen from. If they resist the kidnapping effectively, they will be shot. The usual defense that I've heard is that this arrangement (as disgusting as it is) is voluntary because they drive on public roads, went to public school and send their children there etc. (a.k.a. the "social contract"). Except that they have no choice other than to be bound by this "contract" that they never signed or were ever even aware of (maybe) prior to arguing about the role of the state. This, to me, is an absurd defense. Do I or any other private party get to bind infants to a contract and steal their future productivity? Of course not, but the state claims this right and calls it an obligation. If they can't seem to understand what is so obvious to you and I, then you might consider talking to them about their childhoods and how they could be familiar with this sort of conflation between theft and charity.

Whitest Kids You Know (WKUK) - Season 5 - Teacher's Union

So, . . . am I wrong? Did someone explain what Stef's argument was and where the logical errors were in it? Because if not, then that's important. And I'm not a physicist, but I'm trying to point out that indeterminacies do exist in physics (ignoring quantum physics completely). This is to show that the premise of determinism that we just need to account for all the variables and we can determine any outcome is untrue (or not necessarily true). An example of an indeterminate system is explained in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNnQxDVyd8M I'm not saying that things are random and we can't rely on deterministic systems. I am a software programmer. I don't expect that my programs will suddenly do things that don't make sense (that would be an error I introduced logical, wiring or otherwise).

If determinism is simply the pointing out that the universe is causal and one result necessarily follows from another then that's disproven by the simple presence of indeterminacy (which is well established). Physics doesn't say anything about causality. Physics describes very particular properties of matter and energy in a causal universe. If determinism is the claim that free will doesn't describe anything real and is simply an illusion (including Sam Harris's illusion that it's an illusion) even if there is indeterminacy in the same way that rocks don't have free will, then please somebody make that case with reference to Stef's argument against determinism. I haven't read everyone's posts, but it would seem that no determinists are willing to do that. If your not willing to do that, then please consider the possibility that it's psychologically motivated. Here is some recommended listening: Determinism: The Family Back Story Determinism pt 666 Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 1 Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 2 Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 3 Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 4

More information would be needed. Also this is actually an incorrect assumption that we can gather all the necessary variables. Not only is there indeterminism in quantum mechanics, but also in plain ol' vanilla physics (i.e. same state, different result). Also it depends on what you mean by a variable since if "what somebody will choose" is a variable then that's perfectly consistent with a free will position, it's just that you couldn't possibly account for that variable with any certainty. That would make you psychic.

Determinism vs indeterminism is also a false dichotomy, just FYI. In all the debates on determinism that I've had the definition of determinism is changed half-way through to be more inclusive. It starts out as the assertion that free will violates the law of physics in some way that is never actually explained (and thus a true dichotomy) and then when logical problems are pointed out they retreat into this completely unfalsifiable proposition like theRobin is talking about. Just btw, physics doesn't say: instance 1 occurs and then instance 2 out of instance 1. Physics is "The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy." Physics looks at particular instances with concern to the entities' properties, and not some generalized "event 1" => "event 2". Physics couldn't make any sense of that. One property that rabbits have is that they move of their own volition. One property that humans have is that they exercise free will. There is in reality no inconsistency with regard to physics. JanC, have you checked out the debates on determinism that Stef has had beyond this one part of the sunday show? What I always find with people who say that Stef's position on free will is wrong is that they don't know what it is or understand it at all. They also tend to have a really difficult time with UPB and science in general. Something to pay special attention to is the self detonating argument and it will start making more sense. I should know, I used to be a determinist. If I'm wrong and you do understand Stef's position, then make his argument here now. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

But that's not sufficient enough an explanation. You could have the score of the last Mets game incorrect and I'm not going to repeat over and over that actually they scored 7 runs and break the rules of the forum to do so. This point that determinists think they can change people's minds and still be consistent with determinism has been argued repeatedly and (to my knowledge) changed no one's minds, but has caused some noticeable frustration (in me at least, lol). So no, I don't think you can simply claim that your motivation is the truth, that's not enough if that makes any sense.

And you're willing to break the forum rules to make this point, why? Why is i important to you? I can understand why people who accept free will would find it important (because of it's moral implications), but determinists? Are you aware of your own motivations?

Welcome to the boards Jon! What was it that pulled you in?

True, what's your point? The point is what I said. What I said was my point. Okay that's two determinists so far who've stated they aren't responsible for what they do (and two more in the youtube comment thread). One might be led to conclude that this is the point of determinism: to avoid the problems of responsibility (in themselves and others). It also might explain Stef's hesitation to talk about determinism with determinists. Determinism is very anti-UPB: you are responsible, but I'm not. You have to live consistently with you you preach, but I don't.

People who believe in free will are so stupid that that they can't tell the difference between large heavy flying machines and birds. Determinists are smart enough to know there is a difference. If you are a determinist then you don't need to be responsible for the things that you say, or your spelling or your grammar.

But that's not how most people are using the term. When they say determinism, they mean "free will is illusory", and why? Because causality. . . of course. No explanation is apparently needed. You can just say "causality" and that's it, it's done. They are saying that what they are doing is delusional and expect to be taken seriously. And it's not as if determinism explains anything or adds to anyone's understanding. It's just one of those "wouldn't it be crazy if" things like solipsism or astral travel. I've heard different definitions of determinism that attempt to make it and free will not be mutually exclusive, but that always struck me as just word games. Maybe determinism is compatable with free will and maybe god is the universe, but I'm inclined to accept the definitions that most determinists put forward and that it doesn't mean the opposite of that.

I'm sorry. That's sucks. It seems you can't help but say false things

Free will comes into existence the same way that every other emergent property comes into existence. There is no need for the suspension of physical laws or of souls to explain it. In fact, saying there is is begging the question because you assume the validity of determinism in order to make the argument: "there is causality therefor there is no free will". I don't know how free will works or came about except that it's UPB, but I don't need to in order to say that determinism is boloney. Determinism doesn't explain anything, it stops further inquiry. It's the "scientific" equivalent of "god did it".

That's not what anyone said, obviously. Physics has different behavior than quantum physics and until a grand unified field theory exists there are going to be inconsistencies between fields of science, this due to (as was already stated) emergent properties. Biology has properties "laws and rules" that govern it that don't apply to physics and vice versa just as physics and quantum physics have different "laws and rules".

That's a specious argument. Because it's different it's false. By that logic math is "special" and psychology or whatever other field you want is "special".

An emergent property isn't independent like it exists without it's component pieces, but it is absolutely independent in quality. Atoms don't have color, water molecules don't feel wet, particles don't smell or move of their own volition, pinky toes don't think or choose. But obviously, empirically these phenomena exist. To say that a thing is a way because it's component pieces are that way is the fallacy of composition. (Lol, I posted this in the wrong thread before).

Emergent properties absolutely can have properties independent of their component pieces. No atoms have color, no water molecules have the quality of wetness, no molecules smell, no particles move of their own volition, toenails don't make decisions. Most everything in the universe is emergent dependent on it's component pieces but completely different from those component pieces. In fact if you don't accept the theory of the god particle then everything in the universe is necessarily emegergent. That's what reality is. The argument that atoms don't have free will therefor humans don't is the fallacy of composition.

You brought it up...

Lol. Okay, it's not all that important whether or not it's a science. How about the simple proposition that a theory has to be internally consistent at a bare minimum and if it isn't then we don't need to go looking for evidence? Because that's the implication here.

Lol. You should check out the first couple chapters of Human Action by Mises. He explains in great detail how it's a science and later how economics is a science based on praxeology. I understand that the scientific method stresses reproducability in observation and is very empirical. I understand that. Just read the first couple chapters. The audiobook is free thru Mises.org which you can get via iTunes. I would highly recommend it. It might surprise you the importance of apriori reasoning as it also goes into the old battles between the empirical school and other philosophical schools back in the day and the limitations they bumped into. It was a real eye opener for me being allz about the empiricism, baby. UPB is very apriori and I would call it a science, or at least it's very science-like. One of the biggest differences between austrian economics and all the pretenders to the throne is that austrian ecnomics is apriori. It's just that the evidence also supports it. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!