TonyG666 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Because I think we don't. I think that everything we "do" its in fact what our past wants to do, because we are a product of our past and we don't decide our past. How do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Clarke Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 What exactly do you mean by "everything we do" and "our past"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG666 Posted March 13, 2014 Author Share Posted March 13, 2014 What we do: Everything people do for example surfing internet. Our past: Everything that happened to us. Our birth, our history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Clarke Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 The "past" is not a living organism, so it can not create actions in the objective world. However, a living organism can have history that influences which action, of all possible actions that it could do at that point in time, is chosen as the action that is performed by the living organism. The past of an organism does not change the fact that the organism can choose any action that is possible for that organism to do, but the organism does use the past as a reference point for which action will most likely achieve the most desired preference of the organism at that moment in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew79 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Well, did you decide to post yet another thread on determinism, despite Stefan politely asking people not to, or did you have no choice in your rudeness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 we do decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG666 Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 Marcus, I think that the past doesn't just influences, it decides in the meaning of it influences 100percent of the brain. When I talk about the past I don't say only what we remember, I am talking about the past starting from when I was born or before that. For example, there is someone who tries to win in a competition and loses. There is his friend who says:"Well it's your fault". What I think is that there were several things that made him lose the competition and all these things are things he get from his past. In these I include the capacity for logic, understanding, learning (Intelligence); because I think intelligence is something we are born. Even if it wasn't and it is something we get more and more from life, still, did that person decided to have a life(or past) where he would have enough intelligence to win the competition? Andrew79, sorry than didn't knew. What I also don't know is why he does not want people to post topics on determinism? cab21, why do you think so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Andrew79, sorry than didn't knew. What I also don't know is why he does not want people to post topics on determinism? It's a performative contradiction. By trying to influence others, you're accepting their free will. Have you explored what about your past has led you to this conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Ergys Xhabrahimi, I highly recommend Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room. It's a short, enjoyable book that I have read many times, which addresses your question and free will in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG666 Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 dsayers, Thanks for the critic. I think it's not just accepting free will. If Stefan has a good reason to not make topics like this I am cool. I though that maybe something have happened before I joined which let to creating of a rule of not posting threads on determinism. That's why I asked him why. I think that a big influence that led me to this conclusion is when I hear about people's lives how they went, and mostly why they failed. I am very concentrated in having success in life, and to do that I have gathered information on why people success and why they fail. And it seems to me that no one decides to fail or to success. I see it as an illusion of deciding. For example let's say I am talking about this thing with someone in real life. He tells me that he decides by saying to me that for example after 6 seconds the mouse of his pc will be moved. And after 6 seconds he moves the mouse and tells me that he decide some of the things that happend in his life. And I say, well if I didn't open the conversation about determinism you would not move the mouse. And if my sister didn't explain me what determinism is I would not open the conversation about determinism. If my sister would not study philosophy in school, she would not explain me what determinism is. If she and I would be born with parents trying to convince her to study in university of economics for example she would not study philosophy. And this goes on and on till the start of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 past events don't "want" us to do anything. i consider the past a influence, not a decider. someone who has never heard of a musical instrument is not going to one day want to because a professional performer in that instrument the person has never heard of before but hearing of a instrument is not going to decide for a person that the person will become a professional performer in that instrument. our history can inform us of more options to choose from, but the history itself does not choose options for us is training to win a competition a choice or automatic? each person has things that a person will naturally be better at than others, and those aren't choices, such as hand size and throwing a football. but each person has a area where the person can be great at what they do should they learn about it and choose to train. if someone wants to reach a goal planned in advance, i think reaching the goal is a choice, and it's not automatic that the person will reach or fail the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew79 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Andrew79, sorry than didn't knew. What I also don't know is why he does not want people to post topics on determinism? http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/16582-i-am-closing-down-the-topic-of-determinism/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG666 Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 cab21, When I say "want" I am talking in the figurative meaning of the word. Because I think it influences 100percent of the decisions I use the word "decide". And whoever "decides" something "wants" that thing to happen. Hearing an instrument will give the first influence, a show on tv where the presenter gives a good opinion on a professional performer will give the second influence. After he may question his parents about what do "performers" do, he may get an answer which will influence more him about trying to become a professional performer. For example:"Its a high paying job" or something like that. There might have been several things that influence someone to try to win a competition. I mean everyone knows how people clap to the winner. The winner is filled with proud, and people want that. Andrew79, Thanks for informing. Bad thing this topic will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 cab21, When I say "want" I am talking in the figurative meaning of the word. Because I think it influences 100percent of the decisions I use the word "decide". And whoever "decides" something "wants" that thing to happen. Hearing an instrument will give the first influence, a show on tv where the presenter gives a good opinion on a professional performer will give the second influence. After he may question his parents about what do "performers" do, he may get an answer which will influence more him about trying to become a professional performer. For example:"Its a high paying job" or something like that. There might have been several things that influence someone to try to win a competition. I mean everyone knows how people clap to the winner. The winner is filled with proud, and people want that. the past can influence a person but i mean this as free will and not determinism. people can prioritize which influences are most important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 It's a performative contradiction. By trying to influence others, you're accepting their free will. Have you explored what about your past has led you to this conclusion? People influence their environment without believing that their environment has free will. This is not a performative contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG666 Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 I think their opinion of what is more important for them is influenced 100 percent from the past. For example for someone who people have told him to love family, and convinced him to do so, the most important is family. For someone else most important is something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 well a oppinion can't be influenced from the future, nor is everything a blank slate to be completly redone by the present. so what someone can say "the thoughts you have today will influence who you become tomorrow" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 if my sister didn't explain me what determinism is I would not open the conversation about determinism. If my sister would not study philosophy in school, she would not explain me what determinism is. If she and I would be born with parents trying to convince her to study in university of economics for example she would not study philosophy. And this goes on and on till the start of time. How many people study philosophy and don't explain to [you] what determinism is? You're essentially saying that somebody could not join this forum without first knowing about this forum. Obviously that is true, but you're describing opportunity. Whatever reason you can provide as to why YOU joined the forum, the same could be said about 100s of others who did not. This isn't causal or deterministic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I have a question for you, why make this thread? Why do other people's thoughts on this matter to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG666 Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 cab21, sorry I could not understand what are you trying to say, dsayers, The question you made is because I made the post you quotated, short. When I said:"If my sister didn't explained me what determinism is I would not open a conversation about determinism" I said it short, because the fact that she explained me about what determinism is, isn't the only influence. It is the biggest influence needed enough for me to start this conversation. What I am trying to say is that I think that:" somebody could not join this forum without first knowing about this forum" =true. "Somebody that knows this forum has 100percent of possibilities to join this forum"=false. I am saying that the fact that the person knows this forum is an influencer, huge one or small one that depends on how the other part of the person's past/influence was. I think that the reason why I joined this forum can't be said about 100s others who didn't. Because the reason I joined belongs to my past. 100s other's pasts were different, therefor they may have different futures. cynicist, I think it's impossible to know the real reasons of why people "do" things. Because there are some things that we do that we like and we don't ask ourselves why, and even if we did, still we would get a biased answer from ourselves. Because I think that even WE lie to ourselves by trying to hide things we don't like from our past. What I can say is what I think the biggest influencers might be. The biggest influencer I think is the fact that I am convinced that I am right and that there are almost 90 percent of people who disagree. I think I have the need for other people to get convicted by me in a philosophical argument by telling me I am right. This may come from the past I had when in such conversations people told me I was wrong. This gets connected to the pursue of pride inside me that comes from humility that I had when I was younger, and it goes on and on through my whole past and the whole things that influenced this "past" and their "past"s till the start of time explaining why I made this thread. About why other people's thoughts matter to me I still don't know what can be the biggest influencer but maybe the reason I just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 dsayers, The question you made is because I made the post you quotated, short. When I said:"If my sister didn't explained me what determinism is I would not open a conversation about determinism" I said it short, because the fact that she explained me about what determinism is, isn't the only influence. It is the biggest influence needed enough for me to start this conversation. What I am trying to say is that I think that:" somebody could not join this forum without first knowing about this forum" =true. "Somebody that knows this forum has 100percent of possibilities to join this forum"=false. I am saying that the fact that the person knows this forum is an influencer, huge one or small one that depends on how the other part of the person's past/influence was. I think that the reason why I joined this forum can't be said about 100s others who didn't. Because the reason I joined belongs to my past. 100s other's pasts were different, therefor they may have different futures. That's a highly convoluted way of agreeing with me that exposure leads to opportunity, not a certainty in how the opportunity is addressed, which is what your chain of causality was claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 if someone thinks family is most important in one moment, the person can decide that something else is more important than family the next moment. if you recognize that past events are influencers, then future events are decided past events do not decide future events, but past events do influence future events Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG666 Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 dsayers, I think nothing is certain, that's why I replied that long message. Just so I can explain to you that it's just probabilities. It's impossible for us to use the opportunities because we ourselves don't decide which opportunities will come to our lives. cab21, That person didn't decide what will come for the next moment to change his mind. past events do not decide future events, but past events do influence future events What's the difference? Let's have an example. Let's say someone has to choose between joining Economy School or for example Police Academy. He chooses Economy School. 75% of the influence of the decision was to choose Economy because of the crisis that may have led him to learn more about economy and/or the fact that is a high paying job. 20%of the influence was to choose Police Academy. This influence comes from Hollywood police movies where the cops are shown as heroes. 5% of the influence may come from a single imagination that he had in his mind where he imagined like he saved someone from a robber. Now you may say that well imagination comes from the "present". Well I think something may have happened many times in his past that made him imagine himself as a hero. Maybe a little heroic act he did when he was in college where he felt very good and got complimented. If this person talks to someone about the decision he may say to him that he chose Economy but still has some thoughts that maybe he should have choose Police Academy. I think that 75% of the influence made him to chose Economy, 25% got him those thoughts. He didn't decide to study Economics, his past did. He didn't decided to think about the fact that maybe he should have chose Police Academy, his past did. And ending it by saying, did he decided to be born in that place he was born? Did he decided to have these parents he had (when we know about how strong the parent's influence is when we are kids). Did he decided to have those influences that he had that made him chose Economy and think about Police academy? What if he would be born in Africa, in the highest poverty, in a country in war? Would we be talking about a person that has to chose between 2 kind of schools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 people don't decide every factor in their life. only some of life is decided. "come to a resolution in the mind as a result of consideration" this is a definition of decide "the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself." this is a definition of influence the meanings are very different decide is a resolution in the mind influence is a effect on the mind, but not a resolution in the mind influence is a proccess decide is a end result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 I think nothing is certain You are certain that nothing is certain. That's another performative contradiction. What was your goal in creating this thread? Your title suggests you are curious, though you've behaved as if you're certain. You use your sister telling you about determinism as the result of her studying it as proof. Then when it's pointed out to you that this is not causal and doesn't fit into the deterministic explanation, you just re-assert that we do not choose. This is confirmation bias at best and bigotry at worst. Either way, it's a waste of time. I guess we can add opportunity to the list of words that have no meaning in the determinist lexicon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG666 Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 cab21, well I can't re say again what I said because that's the only thing left. I just suggests you to re-read the post before replying. dsayers, I was very careful if you look at the posts I made to use only the word "think". When I think about something to be true or not I am open to anyone to prove me if I am wrong made to that thing that I think its true. About the other part of your post, well I think you go deep in the psychology and not in the philosophy. About opportunity I made a very big post just to say what I think about it. I was expecting a post to make me start thinking about life not being determined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 dsayers, I was very careful if you look at the posts I made to use only the word "think". When I think about something to be true or not I am open to anyone to prove me if I am wrong made to that thing that I think its true. Yet when I pointed out that "nothing is certain" is a certainty (internally inconsistent), you didn't reply with, "Oh yeah, whoops *blush*." You replied with this quote here. This isn't an indication of somebody that is open to their own fallibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG666 Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 Well of course I posted that quote there. That quote there is the argument to say that you may be wrong saying I was certain. Do you even read my posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 What's the difference? you asked this i told you what the difference was if he makes the choice to study economics, he did choose to study economics he did not decide where to be born, his parents did he did not decide to have his parents, his parents decided to have a baby and it happened to be him he did decide how much weight to put on each influence what if he were born if africa, then he would have different influencers. noone has to choose between two schools, there are many more choices than those 2 choices. what if he was born in africa, then flown to america, he certainly could be making a choice that includes the two schools i would not say it was his decision as a baby to be taken from africa to america, it was the decision of whoever took him from africa to america. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fleming Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 If you want to think about it in an entirely physical way, our decisions are just electricity moving around our brain. Electricity moves along the path of least resistance. So no, we are not really deciding because we have no awareness of this process. All we have is lots of information coming in from our senses which is converted to electrical signals and moves to our brain and comes out the other side as output which then moves our arms, legs, vocal chords, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 That is the how of the execution, not the nature of the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts