Rick Horton Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Hey, guys. I'm a newby! I've watched a TON of FDR podcasts and everyday I watch a few Stefan Molyneux videos. I've been into Philosophy as long as I can remember and I have a lot of really solid concepts that I've reached through a lot of rigor, so I've ended up finding y'all. The creme rises to the top! Anyhow, I'd like you to watch my vlog and let me know what your thoughts are, from whether it makes sense, to the general presentation qualities. Thanks. Here's the linkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVoYSFprqH8
Rick Horton Posted February 4, 2013 Author Posted February 4, 2013 I'll add that I know this debate has ended here, as far as discussing it with determinists, but just between us folk, I was wondering if you find it compelling.
suomipoi Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Could you start off by defining what you are talking about. Define: Determinism Define: Free will I had to stop watching since I don't understand the relevance of this video. This could be because there are atleast 10 different kind of determinisms you could be talking about and I don't know which of them (if any) you are talking about. (Determinism Wiki: Logical determinism, Fatalism, theological determinism, etc..) I recently found about how to start thinking about this problem in a new way. The guy in there also provides in a way I understand them.
Kawlinz Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Could you start off by defining what you are talking about. Define: Determinism Define: Free will I had to stop watching since I'm perceiving logical fallacies there. This could be because there are atleast 10 different kind of determinisms you could be talking about and I don't know which of them (if any) you are talking about. (Determinism Wiki: Logical determinism, Fatalism, theological determinism, etc..) I recently found about how to start thinking about this problem in a new way. He also provides in a way I understand them. I've watched the video and I find it only pushes the actual dichotomy further down the line, so to speak.
Rick Horton Posted February 5, 2013 Author Posted February 5, 2013 rebuttals are welcome. I'm not finding it useful to hear about fallacies and dichotomies without a rebuttal on a specific point. I'd like the points addressed, along with the rebuttal to the points. I'm working with the definition of determinism that states that there is no free will, obviously. Thanks.
suomipoi Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 I haven't really found either side of the free will vs determinism debate to be very persuasive. With the following definitions I assume free will to be true. Free will: The power or ability to some times do otherwise than one in fact does. Determinism: All events withouth exception are cause by antecedent events, such that any given state of affairs follows necessarily from those prior events. Found some points in video. 1. "Our senses are instruments of choice making." 2. Senses would be useless in a deterministic world. 3. If you take free will away then filosophy would be useless. Thoughts on those: 1. Senses simply transmit electical signals from different parts of your body. I don't see how choice making has anything to do with this. The decision making (or stimulus response) comes after the signal arrives to the brain. Whether or not the response to this stimulus is caused by free will or determinism is up to debate. 2. Why would senses be useless in a deterministic world? 3. I understood that number 3 is appealing to consequences. Sample below: Believing in Vishnu gives me all good things in life. If I didn't believe in Vishnu I would not get good things in my life. I want to have good things in my life. Therefore Vishnu exists. Philosophy is a good thing in life. If determinism was true there would be no point to have philosophy. I want to be philosophical. Therefore I have free will PS this example might not be the mostly accurate one, but he main idea is this: (Belief in) p leads to good consequences. (Where p is irrelevant o the truth factor of p.)Therefore, p is true.
Rick Horton Posted February 5, 2013 Author Posted February 5, 2013 How "would" senses be useful in a deterministic world? First you have to answer that. I argue they serve no purpose other than as choice making instruments. I pointed out why in the video, but you can rebutt that point. You have to have a counter argument to explain the purpose of the senses in a deterministic world. That is the bar I set. State your case!
Arius Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 How "would" senses be useful in a deterministic world? First you have to answer that. I argue they serve no purpose other than as choice making instruments. I pointed out why in the video, but you can rebutt that point. You have to have a counter argument to explain the purpose of the senses in a deterministic world. That is the bar I set. State your case! Amoebas flee from light. They can only do this because they detect the light. If Amoebas could not detect the light, they would die of dehydration. Amoebas are incapable of choice, but use sensory organs to detect light and dark. Senses are useful for reasons other than decision-making.
Rick Horton Posted February 5, 2013 Author Posted February 5, 2013 Amoebas? Really? You're going to have to be more persuasive than that. We aren't Ameobas. And I haven't read where Amoebas are incapable of choice, but feel free to link me to that. And you need to give those reasons, why senses are useful other than choice making instruments. Give a reason and we can go from there. Now, let me define senses so we don't go out on a less than useful tangent. Sight, Sound, Smell, Touch, Taste. I'm pretty positve I won't get a persuasive rebuttal, but I'm open to hear it. I mean, free will exists...
Rick Horton Posted February 5, 2013 Author Posted February 5, 2013 It's not necessary to define choice. Come on... I believe definitions are very important, too, but not purely to justify distraction, or to make the already simple overly complex.
suomipoi Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Usually the definitions are the most important part of the debate. If we can't agree on terms we are using then it's not worth continuing this conversation.
Arius Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Usually the definitions are the most important part of the debate. If we can't agree on terms we are using then it's not worth continuing this conversation. Agreed.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 Then we won't, but it's a cop out. The premise is understood.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 Now, I will in fact debate the points with others on the forum who choose to be rational. As far as those who have self excluded themselves, I will not.
Kawlinz Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Now, I will in fact debate the points with others on the forum who choose to be rational. As far as those who have self excluded themselves, I will not. I don't think that's a fair assessment at all, FWIW. It is rational to define terms.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 Yes, it is rational to define terms. It is not rational to try and have a debate with a person who wants the word, "choice" to be defined. A person can keep asking for various words in a sentence to be defined all day long. Sometimes it is very important to define a word, but there are some words that if a person doesn't already know what it means, they aren't worth the time to debate. We have to at least be able to converse without pretending we don't know English, guys. I haven't brought up any terms that aren't "pretty" well understood, and like I said, if you need them defined, google is your buddy.
Kawlinz Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Yes, it is rational to define terms. It is not rational to try and have a debate with a person who wants the word, "choice" to be defined. A person can keep asking for various words in a sentence to be defined all day long. Sometimes it is very important to define a word, but there are some words that if a person doesn't already know what it means, they aren't worth the time to debate. We have to at least be able to converse without pretending we don't know English, guys. I haven't brought up any terms that aren't "pretty" well understood, and like I said, if you need them defined, google is your buddy. When you're talking about free will vs determinism, you kinda sorta gotta define choice. Economics, not so much.
Arius Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 It's pretty clear we don't use the word in the same way. We'll never get anywhere if we don't use similar definitions.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 If you don't know the meaning of the word choice, "and I'm not talking about the grade of beef" then I wont play that game of definitions with you. Defining terms is necessary when there could be possible confusion of the definition. Since choice is a word that has no confusion in it's definition, "unless you have a deficiency" it doesn't warrant a copy and paste Merriam Webster dictionary result to satisfy a person who is worth talking to. If you don't know the term, then I'm sorry but I can't waste anymore time with you. For anybody else, I welcome your thoughts, but the define the word "choice" game is not a game I will play.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 I mean it's a philosophy forum, not grade school. I'm supposed to define the word , "choice"? If you don't know what the word, "choice" means, you have problems bigger than philosophy.
Arius Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Do you doubt the sincerity of my question? Perhaps you think I have an ulterior motive? Consider this: I claimed that amoebas don't make choices. You responded by requesting proof of the validity of my claim. The way I use the word "choice" precludes the possibility of Amoebas making choices (I believe comparison of possibilities is an essential component of choice, especially where action is concerned. I do not believe amoebas can idealize behavior, as they apparently lack a mind). As you do not share my understanding of the word (or perhaps the animal kingdom), it is extremely important that we compare definitions (and possibly scientific knowledge). There's an error in the communication protocol. I assume it's definitional, but I could be wrong. I'll make you a promise. I promise I won't ask for definitions as a technique to distract or confuse. I genuinely don't understand how you are using the word, though I am quite interested in understanding your argument.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 We are not single cell organisms, thus we don't have the same limitations as amoebas. That much is clear about choice, and we all "should" know the difference. I don't doubt the sincerety of your question, in which I would just suggest a trip to a dictionary, and you can argue my point with "whichever" definitions you want. My arguments will stand on all of them, and furthermore, I argue in a way that tries as hard as possible to ensure that.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 In other words, I don't need to define them. YOU can use whatever defintion you find in a dictionary you want. The arguments will stand, either way.
Kawlinz Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 I mean it's a philosophy forum, not grade school. I'm supposed to define the word , "choice"? If you don't know what the word, "choice" means, you have problems bigger than philosophy. Kinda pricky, don't you think?
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 It's true. If you "really" don't know what the word choice means, you should be learning more basic English before conversing.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 Just use the definition of choice "of your choice". Just make sure it's a definition of choice, in an English dictionary. That is my new bar, okay. You can reach that bar, no?
Kawlinz Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Just use the definition of choice "of your choice". Just make sure it's a definition of choice, in an English dictionary. That is my new bar, okay. You can reach that bar, no? I can but I'm not going to, have fun with your discussion, sounds like you'll make lots of progress.
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 If you can, than you can use that one, and we can move forward. I don't see any problem with that. Do you?
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 Look. I must apologize if I'm coming across curse. I would absolutely love a gentlemanly debate, and I'd rather have that one than one about the definition of the word "choice" Admittedly, it's somewhat frustrating to try to solve what a person would need to move the discussion further, than what I've offered. I mean totally feel free to use whichever definitions of any of the words I use, in this conversation, but let's start actually conversing about the topic at this point.
Kawlinz Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Look. I must apologize if I'm coming across curse. I would absolutely love a gentlemanly debate, and I'd rather have that one than one about the definition of the word "choice" Admittedly, it's somewhat frustrating to try to solve what a person would need to move the discussion further, than what I've offered. I mean totally feel free to use whichever definitions of any of the words I use, in this conversation, but let's start actually conversing about the topic at this point. Why would anyone want to converse with you about this when asking for a definition is a cop out, irrational, playing games, grade school, and an indication that you don't understand english?
endostate Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 dictionary.reference.comchoice[chois] Show IPA noun, adjective, choic·er, choic·est.noun1. an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.2. the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option: The child had no choice about going to school.3. the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen: This book is my choice. He is one of many choices for the award.4. an alternative: There is another choice.5. an abundance or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of candidates.6. something that is preferred or preferable to others; the best part of something: Mare's Nest is the choice in the sixth race.7. a carefully selected supply: This restaurant has a fine choice of wines.8. a choice grade of beef. adjective9. worthy of being chosen; excellent; superior.10. carefully selected: choice words.11. (in the grading of beef in the U.S.) rated between prime and good. World English Dictionarychoice — n1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting2. the opportunity or power of choosing3. a person or thing chosen or that may be chosen: he was a possible choice4. an alternative action or possibility: what choice did I have?5. a supply from which to select: a poor choice of shoes6. of choice preferred; favourite— adj7. of superior quality; excellent: choice wine8. carefully chosen, appropriate: a few choice words will do the trick9. vulgar or rude: choice language[C13: from Old French chois, from choisir to choose ] Word Origin & Historychoicec.1300, from O.Fr. chois, from v. choisir "to choose," from a Gmc. source (cf. Gothic *kausjan "to taste, test"), from P.Gmc. base *kaus-, *keus-. Replaced O.E. cyre, from the same base, probably because the imported word was closer to choose. Sense of "that which is preferable to be chosen, the flower, the elite" is from 1494, from adj. in this sense (c.1350). Encyclopediachoicein philosophy, a corollary of the proposition of free will-i.e., the ability voluntarily to decide to perform one of several possible acts or to avoid action entirely. An ethical choice involves ascribing qualities such as right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse to alternatives. dictionary.reference.comchoose[chooz] Show IPA verb, chose; cho·sen or ( Obsolete ) chose; choos·ing.verb (used with object)1. to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure.2. to prefer or decide (to do something): He chose to run for election.3. to want; desire.4. (especially in children's games) to contend with (an opponent) to decide, as by odd or even, who will do something: I'll choose you to see who gets to bat first.verb (used without object)5. to make a choice: He chose carefully.6. to be inclined: You may stay here, if you choose.7. (especially in children's games) to decide, as by means of odd or even, who will do something: Let's choose to see who bats first. World English Dictionarychoose— vb , chooses , choosing , chose , chosen1. to select (a person, thing, course of action, etc) from a number of alternatives2. ( tr; takes a clause as object or an infinitive ) to consider it desirable or proper: I don't choose to read that book3. ( intr ) to like; please: you may stand if you choose4. cannot choose but to be obliged to: we cannot choose but vote for him5. nothing to choose between , little to choose between (of two people or objects) almost equal[Old English ceosan; related to Old Norse kjōsa, Old High German kiosan ] Word Origin & HistorychooseO.E. ceosan "choose, taste, try" (class II strong verb; past tense ceas, pp. coren), from P.Gmc. *keusanan, from PIE base *geus- "to taste, relish" (see gusto). Variant spelling chuse is M.E., very frequent 16c.-18c. Only remotely related to choice. The irregular pp. leveled out to chosen by 1200. dictionary.reference.comqual·i·ty[kwol-i-tee]noun1. an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute: the chemical qualities of alcohol.2. character or nature, as belonging to or distinguishing a thing: the quality of a sound.3. character with respect to fineness, or grade of excellence: food of poor quality; silks of fine quality.4. high grade; superiority; excellence: wood grain of quality.5. a personality or character trait: kindness is one of her many good qualities.6. native excellence or superiority.7. an accomplishment or attainment.8. good or high social position: a man of quality.9. the superiority or distinction associated with high social position.10. Acoustics. the texture of a tone, dependent on its overtone content, that distinguishes it from others of the same pitch and loudness.11. Phonetics . the tonal color, or timbre, that characterizes a particular vowel sound.12. Logic. the character of a proposition as affirmative or negative.13. Thermodynamics . the proportion or percentage of vapor in a mixture of liquid and vapor, as wet steam.14. social status or position.15. a person of high social position: He's quality, that one is. adjective16. of or having superior quality: quality paper.17. producing or providing products or services of high quality or merit: a quality publisher.18. of or occupying high social status: a quality family.19. marked by a concentrated expenditure of involvement, concern, or commitment: Counselors are urging that working parents try to spend more quality time with their children. World English Dictionaryquality — n , pl -ties1. a distinguishing characteristic, property, or attribute2. the basic character or nature of something3. a trait or feature of personality4. degree or standard of excellence, esp a high standard5. (formerly) high social status or the distinction associated with it6. musical tone colour; timbre7. logic the characteristic of a proposition that is dependent on whether it is affirmative or negative8. phonetics the distinctive character of a vowel, determined by the configuration of the mouth, tongue, etc, when it is articulated and distinguished from the pitch and stress with which it is uttered9. ( modifier ) having or showing excellence or superiority: a quality product[C13: from Old French qualité, from Latin quālitās state, nature, from quālis of what sort] Word Origin & Historyqualitylate 13c., from O.Fr. qualite (12c., Fr. qualité), from L. qualitatem (nom. qualitas; said to have been coined by Cicero to translate Gk. poiotes), from qualis "of what sort," from PIE pronomial base *kwo- (see qua). Noun phrase quality time first recorded 1977. Qualityof life is from 1943. Quality control first attested 1935. Computing Dictionaryquality definitionThe totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. Not to be mistaken for "degree of excellence" or "fitness for use" which meet only part of the definition.[ ISO8402].(1995-11-10)
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 That's fine. You can start with any one of those definitions you want, okay?
Rick Horton Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 I totally understand, am I'm not forcing you to participate. I won't though, apologize "again". The cards are on the table. If you'd like to converse that's fine, and if you are uncomfortable with me, I'm sure you won't want to have a conversation with me. I get that. But I'm just not going to define a word that I'm going to allow you to choose any one of the dictionary's definition for. I think that's fair at this point on with this thread. I'm not limiting anybody, here. I'm opening up my arguments to all dictionary definitions of the word, "choice" and also, I'm allowing everybody to also do the same with any word in my vlog. You can argue on your choice of definitions from any dictionary with any of my words in the vlog that you need to to further the conversation, or possibly steer it somewhere else. At the point where some definition of some word, calls an argument into question, we can establish an error in my argument. So far there is no error.
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Your argument doesn't present any concrete evidence for the existence of free will. In fact, it shores up the determinist position better. Senses are input devices and input devises are used to determine action, if any. For instance, if we see a lion running toward us, our brain will use past experiences to determine that we should run away. If we didn't have those past experiences to draw from, then our brain would determine another course of action or, perhaps, inaction. As I understand it, the (secular) determinist position is that we have no control over our actions because they are fore ordained through our subconscious mind's assessment of a given situation based upon past knowledge. If that's true, then the senses are, again, mere input devises used to assess our immediate environment and then direct our actions according to stored data. I think that's a plausable explanation of how the human mind functions and I agree that our past actions determine out future actions to a large degree. However, we do not completely understand consciousness and that's where the entire debate over determinism and free will starts... in an attempt to explain the unknown. Those who support the notion of free will argue that we are capable of changing our actions in spite of the fact that the brain uses past experiences to formulate the appropriate action or reaction to a given scenario. Those who support determinism argue that there isn't actually any conscious control to be had over such decisions and because of that, everything is fore ordained. In as much as I understand it, the evidence overwhelmingly supports free will. After all, if our decisions are all unconcious and all based upon past experience, then it stands to reason that we wouldn't be capable of inventing. Unless of course, one argues that our brains are capable of free thought but that said thought takes place in the subconscious mind and thus, is uncontrollable. In any event, I support the notion of free will but your argument doesn't advance the position. I'd also like to offer a critique of the video... there's an element of condescension in the video that also shows up in this thread. In the video, we're treated to a repetition of pointing at the nose, eyes, ears, etc. as if we were children who needed a visual aid in order to relate hearing with the ears, sight with the eyes, et al. Then, in this thread, you've asserted that defining certain words is somehow something that only a child should need to do, even in the face of some logical arguments for those definitions. There's a correlation there that, for me at least, creates quite the disincentive for either debating with you or watching another of your videos.
Recommended Posts