Incompatibilism

[smarterthanone]

Both of you. There is no proof to prove 100% either determinism OR freewill. So simply stating there is not enough proof so free will is not acceptable. Also, there is no math formula or such to prove a concept such as freewill vs determinism. Its more like proving the concept of love. Which we know something about such as brain chemicals but we do not have a formula to prove its existence and every behavior.

On 6/11/2018 at 6:34 PM, Boss said:

1. Was gravity like a falling rock a determined event before the understanding? Anyone answering yes must prove it through evidence like the law of gravity 
Is saying you can determine how the rock falls without evidence reasonable? No. As that is LYING as *You* can't determine it. Only someone with proof can say they can determine it. As you need proof for any of Your claim, if you want to be honest that is. You see, you are claiming you can shoot webs out of your body just because a spider can. Just because a spider can it doesn't make your claim true. You still need to prove your claim. which you NEVER did and probably never will since you dont care for evidence 
   
You are claiming determinism without evidence, I am assuming incompetency or just willfully dishonesty 

So because cave men did not have evidence, the rock was not determined to fall? There was a chance it would float? No mathematical formula proof is needed. Gravity always existed, whether we knew about it or not.

I am not claiming to prove determinism in this statement, I am trying to communicate it is the same kind of situation gravity was before gravity was discovered. The first assumption you must make if you are even going to follow any of my examples or thoughts is first you must assume determinism exists whether we know about it or not before you can follow the example. SMH. Its a thought experiment. You cant just read the example and say determinism doesnt exist so this is trash example. Assume it exists first. Its an example. Damn.

Cavemen intuitively knew about gravity but would ultimately been stumped about a few things regarding gravity. Doesn't mean they walked around saying "no such thing as gravity, no mathematical formula proof so no gravity". Seriously, thats just dumb. And its intuitively obvious that they would have known a rock would fall, even without proving gravity.

 

On 6/11/2018 at 6:34 PM, Boss said:

2. You are the one making the claim and misusing words definitions like "determinism" without evidence of determinism. 

I simply define free will as the ability to recognize choices. And I simply proved that through experimentation by having you reply or not. You have never rebutted it. Just made more unproven claims. 

You can't tell me you can't recognize the choice to reply or not. As #1 you are clearly speaking English so can understand the two choices. #2 will decide right now whether to reply or not. #3 will have no evidence to the contrary, Maybe just unproven claims and misused words like determinism and illusion without actually proving its determined or an illusion. Unlike real determinism or real illusion as I proved with examples in posts above  

Thinking of it, choosing Evidence & reason over No evidence & sophistry is also a choice but if the determinist doesn't think so, then that is one hell of an admission of where the conversation is headed   

 

Well if that is what you define free will then I think there is both free will and determinism. But I actually think free will is what is in Merriam Webster: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Obviously we can do what is called "recognize choices". But you will always use the logic/emotions/workings of your biology to "choose" the same thing.

I actually especially like the merriam webster definition because it says "prior causes", and using this particular specific definition, what action do you ever take that is not influenced by prior causes? None. You invest in the stock market because you have money to invest prior, you are deciding which doctor to see because you got hit by a car prior.

Now is that super simple. Yes. But I am trying to get you to understand something about determinism because if you think recognizing choices is proof of free will, you have no idea what determinism as a concept even is. Yes, in determinism you absolutely recognize choices. So its not proof of anything.

 

On 6/11/2018 at 6:51 PM, RichardY said:

I'm not making another example. If you're saying the therapist determines, how is that not saying that the therapist has freewill. If in contrast the therapist adivses it presupposes both have freewill. If he "diagnoses" that presupposes determinism and he's no longer a therapist. I was pointing out that the language itself has to be reworded(newspeak) or better attended to, if you presuppose determinism.

The therapist is actually a programmed robot. Now forget the robot because a simple software, I hope we can both agree intuitively that it does not have free will. Answer the question about the person getting the psychiatric treatment.

 

On 6/11/2018 at 6:51 PM, RichardY said:

It's not possible, for any  person with high consciousness. Essentially it is, collective solipsism.(Double think) Or the Best of Both Worlds. Laying claim to morality for example, whilst rejecting morality through determinism is not logical. (I read your post on the military internship being immoral)  I try to refrain from thinking what the outcome should be, on the grounds of the question itself, being not possible as such, and any answer being fundamentally corrupting. 

So you believe all thought experiments, since they are all impossible, are fundamentally corrupting? The Trolley problem, Monkeys and typewriters, Schrodinger's Cat and many other very famous thought experiments that are greatly discussed by philosophers... get rid of them, all fundamentally corrupting?

Why would any answer to my thought experiment be fundamentally corrupting? I think you see the point of it and just don't want to go down a road of acknowledging the intuitive evidence of what I provided.

 

[RichardY]

10 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

The therapist is actually a programmed robot. Now forget the robot because a simple software, I hope we can both agree intuitively that it does not have free will. Answer the question about the person getting the psychiatric treatment.

There is no treatment, the therapist is now a robot. Any "treatment" is an assembly line.

10 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

So you believe all thought experiments, since they are all impossible, are fundamentally corrupting? The Trolley problem, Monkeys and typewriters, Schrodinger's Cat and many other very famous thought experiments that are greatly discussed by philosophers... get rid of them, all fundamentally corrupting?

Why would any answer to my thought experiment be fundamentally corrupting? I think you see the point of it and just don't want to go down a road of acknowledging the intuitive evidence of what I provided.

I didn't say that. Because you acknowledge your thought experiment as impossible, but expect me to provide an answer. The trolley problem is ridiculous ,so is the monkey and typewriters as well. Utilitarinism is garbage.

You provide no objective evidence what so ever. You expect me to agree with you, just for the sake of it, which I will not do. The experiment is impossible & illogical, but the psychological reality, maybe very real. I prefer my own mind. Smarter than One.........

[smarterthanone]

8 hours ago, RichardY said:

There is no treatment, the therapist is now a robot. Any "treatment" is an assembly line.

I didn't say that. Because you acknowledge your thought experiment as impossible, but expect me to provide an answer. The trolley problem is ridiculous ,so is the monkey and typewriters as well. Utilitarinism is garbage.

You provide no objective evidence what so ever. You expect me to agree with you, just for the sake of it, which I will not do. The experiment is impossible & illogical, but the psychological reality, maybe very real. I prefer my own mind. Smarter than One.........

So you refuse to answer a possible real life scenario AND you refuse to answer a hypothetical thought experiment. You also think these famous philosophical thought experiments that many many well known and respected philosophers find value in are ridiculous without saying why. Its fine to think so, but the burden of proof is on you. I am a bit curious as to why you are even here? Philosophy of any kind OFTEN deals with hypothetical and non provable things. Do you even find value in philosophy? I am starting to wonder.

[Boss]

18 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

I am not claiming to prove determinism in this statement

 

"Determinism" is a claim and a statement. Now, saying you speculate on or have faith in determinism would be a different statement. 

Determinism does seem like a new faith for people, however, unlike religious people who have faith. Most determinist wont admit they believe it without proof which is what faith is by definition 

Its also not about a math formula, it can be any kind of evidence. But clearly you don't like evidence so I can see why you straw man that  I never asked for such equation, All I ask is for evidence as any rational person should. 
 

 

18 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Obviously we can do what is called "recognize choices". But you will always use the logic/emotions/workings of your biology to "choose" the same thing.

 

Yes, in determinism you absolutely recognize choices. So its not proof of anything.

 

3

I already went over the biology fallacy, yes it can influence and make things more probable. There is evidence for that, like correlation studies and averages. However, to say "Determinism" is just dishonesty as there is zero evidence it's determined.  There is evidence for probability, not determinism, which I hope you don't think both use the same definition. 

Anyways, great, so if you can recognize choices then you clearly recognized your choices in your past and will also recognize the ones in your future  

choice

CHois/

noun

 

1. 1.

   an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

I am glad you recognize the act of your past and future choices. Free will imo
 

18 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Well if that is what you define free will then I think there is both free will and determinism. But I actually think free will is what is in Merriam Webster: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes

 

Also, if you want to disprove this definition ie free will as false, You would need to prove the claim that human choices "are not determined by prior causes"

The opposers of this definition(free will) are claiming that human choices are determined by prior causes.

Determine is a claim, its your choice to use evidence or not to prove your claim. 

Anyways, we both know you reject evidence when it comes to your determinism claims, So like any rationalist, I will reject unproven claims like determinism

 

[smarterthanone]

@Boss Lets just skip this. Answer either or both of my two questions I had asked and I think you will at least see what I am talking about.

1. Robot therapist, can through set programming, say specific things to you in order to alter your future behavior in set ways. If you can't help but cut yourself after a stressful day, the robot says things to you (as is done in normal cognitive behavior therapy) and now you are less likely to cut yourself. Yup its not 100% because the "forumla" is not known, but since you can influence the person to behave a certain way greater than by random chance, that means something not random is there that can alter a persons behavior in a determined way.

2. Duplicate person in same exact space time. Do they make the same choices or different choices and why?

[Boss]

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

@Boss Lets just skip this. Answer either or both of my two questions I had asked and I think you will at least see what I am talking about.

1. Robot therapist, can through set programming, say specific things to you in order to alter your future behavior in set ways. If you can't help but cut yourself after a stressful day, the robot says things to you (as is done in normal cognitive behavior therapy) and now you are less likely to cut yourself. Yup its not 100% because the "forumla" is not known, but since you can influence the person to behave a certain way greater than by random chance, that means something not random is there that can alter a persons behavior in a determined way.

2. Duplicate person in same exact space time. Do they make the same choices or different choices and why?

1. Yea therapy has been shown to be more probable in regards to helping specific human issues. However, as you mentioned, it is trying to influence the person, its not determining their outcome. If it could, then the therapist would have a 100% success rate as it can determine their outcome and just do therapy on the ones that will have positive outcomes.  And if they can't determine their outcome, then it's not determinism. Just probability or speculation 

2. Duplicate means to copy the same to get an identical, so the result will be identical. However, I don't know how this relates to reality. There are identical twins and just because you know the outcome of one twin, it doesn't mean you can determine the other twin. Tho of course as I mentioned, there are strong probabilities in regards to being able to estimate the other twins. Its just not determinable. If it was, then it should be provable with evidence of course,  But the evidence I found in twin studies shows probability, not determinism.

[smarterthanone]

57 minutes ago, Boss said:

But the evidence I found in twin studies shows probability, not determinism.

Probability of determinism. Just like if you didn't know about gravity, you could know greater than random chance the probability that any specific object would fall off a cliff. That is not 100% proof, I agree, but it is absolutely evidence.

[RichardY]

Consistent straw manning. Changing the goalposts. Asking for answers to impossible (which you acknowledge) and illogical questions. Gaslighting. Projection(or Lying), Sophistry, Patronising.

@smarterthanoneFrom now on, my tone will be hostile.

My interests are to harvest knowledge relating to philosophy and psychology from the forum. In terms of doing philosophy, writing on the forum is not doing philosophy, having a show or talking in public to people about ethics, epistemology etc, is doing philosophy. 

[smarterthanone]

6 hours ago, RichardY said:

Consistent straw manning. Changing the goalposts. Asking for answers to impossible (which you acknowledge) and illogical questions. Gaslighting. Projection(or Lying), Sophistry, Patronising.

@smarterthanoneFrom now on, my tone will be hostile.

My interests are to harvest knowledge relating to philosophy and psychology from the forum. In terms of doing philosophy, writing on the forum is not doing philosophy, having a show or talking in public to people about ethics, epistemology etc, is doing philosophy. 

Therapist question is not impossible. It is a real life scenario. So I am not sure why you didn't answer that one. Does it scare you, make you pee in your widdle diaper? You have no excuse for this one, its a real world scenario.

And thought experiments are part of philosophy so to disagree with them maybe explain why but to just call it gaslighting, sophistry and ridiculous, sorry I dont think very many here will accept that. I am asking you to assume something for a thought experiment and you are asking me to assume many great philosophers are gaslighting sophists for putting so much effort into ridiculous things and publishing ridiculous things and thinking ridiculous things are important.

Thread dead Bye.

[RichardY]

Anyone accept what I said was true? Speak now or forever hold your peace? 

Constant projection.

[neeeel]

On 6/10/2018 at 11:38 AM, Boss said:

Determinist by definition claim that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Obviously, they can't prove it unlike real determinable events like gravity. I am also not expecting perfect knowledge just consistency which "determinist" have a hard time determining as maybe they don't even understand what the word determine means. 

Anyways, glad you see determinist as speculative. ie not determinable

A real determinist would make a fortune determining things while the majority don't believe they can be determined. Just by placing bets on the market. 

 

The fact that all events including moral choices are completely determined by previously existing causes, does not mean that WE can determine everything.

 

The fact that someone cant determine things from previously existing causes, does not disprove determinism, I hope you realise that.

 

Quote

My proof of free will? well, you have been proving it to yourself by choosing to reply to me

Here let's see your free will objectively take place again, choose to reply to me or not. either choice of yours proves it. Have fun with your free will

Ugh, this is so dishonest. You are using circular reasoning. You assume free will, and then use the assumption that free will exists to go "Look! you used free will".

The fact that choices appear to take place, does NOT disprove determinism. 

If you believe in free will, then you believe in a soul, or a ghost in the machine. That is the only way that free will can exist, if there is something outside of the causal chain, the causal universe, that makes the choices. There is no evidence for such a thing.

 

[Boss]

6 hours ago, neeeel said:

 

The fact that all events including moral choices are completely determined by previously existing causes, does not mean that WE can determine everything.

 

The fact that someone cant determine things from previously existing causes, does not disprove determinism, I hope you realise that.

 

 

2

 

Do you know what fact means? Do you know how truth is obtained? You have no evidence so the answer to that is you don't know. As far as the strawman claiming I want you to determine everything. I have never claimed such. All I ask is for evidence to prove the claim and definition of determinism. 

 

6 hours ago, neeeel said:

Ugh, this is so dishonest. You are using circular reasoning. You assume free will, and then use the assumption that free will exists to go "Look! you used free will".

The fact that choices appear to take place, does NOT disprove determinism. 

If you believe in free will, then you believe in a soul, or a ghost in the machine. That is the only way that free will can exist, if there is something outside of the causal chain, the causal universe, that makes the choices. There is no evidence for such a thing.

1

I don't assume free will, I defined free will, which was to recognize choice. Which I provided arguments for and which "recognizing choice" was admitted true by smartherthannone.

You love straw manning, claiming souls, ghost in the machine nonsense lol and using a false dichotomy claiming "That is the only way that free will can exist"

You seem to be the dishonest one, claiming facts with zero evidence and using strawman's. All my claims are backed by evidence. Just like the evidence, you will also have with your choice to reply or not  #FreeWill Enjoy 

 

[neeeel]

this is your claim

Quote

A real determinist would make a fortune determining things while the majority don't believe they can be determined. Just by placing bets on the market.

I dont understand how a belief in determinism would allow you to make a fortune determining things. It doesnt follow

I was pointing out that us not being able to determine everything does not disprove determinism, you were giving this as evidence that determinism is false. It isnt evidence of that.

 

Quote

I don't assume free will, I defined free will, which was to recognize choice

yes defining free will as choice assumes free will, since a choice is defined as having the free will to make that choice, its a circular argument. the word "choice" assumes free will is real.

 

Quote

You love straw manning, claiming souls, ghost in the machine nonsense lol and using a false dichotomy claiming "That is the only way that free will can exist"

but it is the only way free will can exist. All physical matter is part of the universe and acts in predictable ways. We are made up of physical matter, which follows the same rules( for want of a better word) as all other matter. Those rules are causal in nature. So either, everything is causal, in which case, determinism, or there is something outside of the causal chain, outside of the predictable actions of matter. In order for something to be outside of the causal chain, it has to be immaterial ( if its material, ie matter, then it again obeys the rules of the universe, and is causal). Usually, the claim of the immaterial comes down to souls, or some sort of spirit( aka ghost in the machine).

 

 

 

 

[RichardY]

7 hours ago, neeeel said:

The fact that all events including moral choices are completely determined by previously existing causes, does not mean that WE can determine everything.

What determines morality?

[neeeel]

Just now, RichardY said:

What determines morality?

Im not sure what you mean?

[RichardY]

1 minute ago, neeeel said:

Im not sure what you mean?

Well if morality is determined what determines it? How is it defined.

[neeeel]

2 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Well if morality is determined what determines it? How is it defined.

Its still not clear what you mean. If something is determined, that means that no "thing" determines it, it happens as part of a causal chain of events. So something we can agree on being determined, a rock rolling down a hill, its part of a long chain of events including the formation of the solar system, the mountains, the rocks, ultimately ending in a path down the hill, which is also determined by the shape of the rock, and the shape of the hill. 

 

So morality is a concept, which exist in thought. Thoughts are causal on the structure of the brain, previous experience, exposure to other concepts etc. 

 

I would guess this doesnt answer your question to your satisfaction, so if you can expand your question further, please do.

 

[RichardY]

 

7 minutes ago, neeeel said:

So morality is a concept, which exist in thought. Thoughts are causal on the structure of the brain, previous experience, exposure to other concepts etc. 

So what does morality mean to you as a concept?

9 minutes ago, neeeel said:

Its still not clear what you mean. If something is determined, that means that no "thing" determines it, it happens as part of a causal chain of events. So something we can agree on being determined, a rock rolling down a hill, its part of a long chain of events including the formation of the solar system, the mountains, the rocks, ultimately ending in a path down the hill, which is also determined by the shape of the rock, and the shape of the hill. 

7 hours ago, neeeel said:

The fact that all events including moral choices are completely determined by previously existing causes, does not mean that WE can determine everything.

 

Ok so who is the WE who determines morality?

13 minutes ago, neeeel said:

I would guess this doesnt answer your question to your satisfaction, so if you can expand your question further, please do.

More an enquiry, generally prefer to hold thoughts in reserve and see how things unfold. 

[neeeel]

Just now, RichardY said:

 

So what does morality mean to you as a concept?

 

Im not sure what you mean? Are you asking me to define the word "morality"?

 

 

Quote

Ok so who is the WE who determines morality?

Again, its not clear what you mean. In deterministic terms, there is no WE who determines morality. all thoughts , including thoughts about concepts, are determined by previous causes and material interactions.

[RichardY]

2 minutes ago, neeeel said:

Im not sure what you mean? Are you asking me to define the word "morality"?

 

Ok so define morality.

[neeeel]

1 minute ago, RichardY said:

Ok so define morality.

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. ( from oxford dictionary)

[RichardY]

 

3 minutes ago, neeeel said:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. ( from oxford dictionary)

But if all causes are determined, how can something be good or bad behaviour. What defines the good or bad behaviour?

[Boss]

23 minutes ago, neeeel said:

yes defining free will as choice assumes free will, since a choice is defined as having the free will to make that choice, its a circular argument. the word "choice" assumes free will is real.

  

but it is the only way free will can exist. All physical matter is part of the universe and acts in predictable ways. We are made up of physical matter, which follows the same rules( for want of a better word) as all other matter. Those rules are causal in nature. So either, everything is causal, in which case, determinism, or there is something outside of the causal chain, outside of the predictable actions of matter. In order for something to be outside of the causal chain, it has to be immaterial ( if its material, ie matter, then it again obeys the rules of the universe, and is causal). Usually, the claim of the immaterial comes down to souls, or some sort of spirit( aka ghost in the machine).

 

3

I never made an assumption of free will(which I defined as recognizing choice). I made an argument in favor of free will which you have not rebutted. In fact, you further proved it.

Anyways, its clear you recognize choice now that you have chosen to reply or not. 

As far as the rest of the universe, yes its true, as far as I know, nothing besides humans can recognize choice because nothing besides humans can reason. 

However, Because humans can reason and recognize choice, this ability(free will) can affect the physical matter. Like our ability to decide which physical Windows or mac computer or physical android or ios phone to use. Or maybe none to just save money for something else. 

Also, I never was interested in disproving "determinism". As since there is ZERO evidence "determinism" exist, you can't disprove what was NEVER there. Its like trying to disprove a God exist. 

All I did was point out "determinism" is an unproven claim with zero evidence. While free will, as I defined it, will objectively take place right now  

 

[neeeel]

Quote

I never made an assumption of free will(which I defined as recognizing choice). I made an argument in favor of free will which you have not rebutted. In fact, you further proved it.

The fact that, under your definition, any action proves free will, should show you that its an incorrect circular argument. Whether I respond, or dont respond, you take as proof of free will. 

whether its choice, or recognising choice, you are assuming that free will exists ( ie the free will to make, or recognise, a choice) and using it in your premise. Its a circular argument. How can you not see this? Just because you defined it in a way that proves your argument, doesnt make your argument valid. Its almost like you are arent reading my posts. 

I have rebutted your argument by showing that its circular. 

 

Quote

While free will, as I defined it, will objectively take place right now  

Yes, because you defined it by assuming free will. The fact that you put smileys after it ( you have done it twice in this thread now), is kind of telling to me.

 

Ok, how about this , I define choice as a determined outcome to a previous sequence of events. Oh, look, a choice was just made, so that proves determinism

(this is a re-phrasing of your argument to show you how you are making a circular argument, it does not mean that I am making this as an actual argument.)

[neeeel]

26 minutes ago, RichardY said:

 

But if all causes are determined, how can something be good or bad behaviour. What defines the good or bad behaviour?

 

This is where I hit a wall. I think determinism is true. So I shouldnt believe in good and bad. But, on some level, I do. This doesnt disprove determinism, just to be clear. But I suppose it does expose some cognitive dissonance on my part.

 

[Boss]

7 minutes ago, neeeel said:

The fact that, under your definition, any action proves free will, should show you that its an incorrect circular argument. Whether I respond, or dont respond, you take as proof of free will. 

whether its choice, or recognising choice, you are assuming that free will exists ( ie the free will to make, or recognise, a choice) and using it in your premise. Its a circular argument. How can you not see this? Just because you defined it in a way that proves your argument, doesnt make your argument valid. Its almost like you are arent reading my posts. 

 I have rebutted your argument by showing that its circular. 

6

Yea, you have not rebutted my argument because nothing is being proved false.  

re·but

rəˈbət/

verb

past tense: rebutted; past participle: rebutted

1. 1.

   claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.

Saying its a circular argument does not prove a falsehood. Saying how a circular argument makes something False would be better. However, just defining or giving examples of circular is not proving falsehood to an argument. 

Also, not every action proves free will, As I just said most actions in the universe cant reason or recognize choice. 

 

18 minutes ago, neeeel said:

Ok, how about this , I define choice as a determined outcome to a previous sequence of events. Oh, look, a choice was just made, so that proves determinism

(this is a re-phrasing of your argument to show you how you are making a circular argument, it does not mean that I am making this as an actual argument.)

1

You define choice as a "determined outcome to a previous sequence of events" 

Where is your proof of the outcome being determined? You are making an unproven claim by saying the outcome is determined without proof

So this is a terrible example as I am not making unproven claims like you are. All my claims are holding true while yours do not. If I made an untrue claim, Feel free to point it out. Just don't just give examples of circular, give examples/rebuts to point out falsehoods. Like I have.

[smarterthanone]

38 minutes ago, neeeel said:

 

This is where I hit a wall. I think determinism is true. So I shouldnt believe in good and bad. But, on some level, I do. This doesnt disprove determinism, just to be clear. But I suppose it does expose some cognitive dissonance on my part.

 

Determinism is true so you have no choice but to believe in morals and good and evil because there is a biological basis in the human brain to decide actions in this way, plus external forces found in prior actions of people past and people around you further enhancing and refining and exposing you to the concept of morals.

[neeeel]

 

 

7 hours ago, Boss said:

Yea, you have not rebutted my argument because nothing is being proved false.  

Saying its a circular argument does not prove a falsehood. Saying how a circular argument makes something False would be better. However, just defining or giving examples of circular is not proving falsehood to an argument. 
 

If I show your argument to be circular that means its invalid. An invalid argument is false. Showing an argument to be false is rebutting an argument

from Wiki:-

Quote

Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion weren't already assumed to be true.

 

Quote

You define choice as a "determined outcome to a previous sequence of events" 

Where is your proof of the outcome being determined? You are making an unproven claim by saying the outcome is determined without proof

So this is a terrible example as I am not making unproven claims like you are. All my claims are holding true while yours do not.

 

Exactly. Wheres your proof of the outcome being due to free will? You are making an unproven claim by saying recognising choice is free will. Your claim is "holding true" because of the way you defined free will. This is why yours is a circular argument.

You missed the whole point of my paraphrasing of your argument. I even pointed out that it wasnt proof of determinism, but a paraphrasing of your argument in order to show you why your argument is circular. Did you read that part?

 

Quote

If I made an untrue claim, Feel free to point it out. Just don't just give examples of circular, give examples/rebuts to point out falsehoods. Like I have.

are you serious? A circular argument is a logical fallacy. If an argument is circular , its false.

eg

P1: The Bible tells us that it is the word of God.

P2: The word of God is infallible.

C1: Therefore the Bible is infallible.

 

[ofd]

Quote

But if all causes are determined, how can something be good or bad behaviour. What defines the good or bad behaviour? 

A large number of positive outcomes determines good behaviour, those get selected for and turn into morality. A group in which members don't steal from each other has more chances of survival than a group where stealing is not seen as morally bad. Over generations, this behaviour becomes engrained in our genetic memory and becomes morality. The groups that had dysfunctional behaviour and a dysfunctional morality were outcompeted by more moralistic groups.

[RichardY]

19 hours ago, neeeel said:

 

This is where I hit a wall. I think determinism is true. So I shouldnt believe in good and bad. But, on some level, I do. This doesnt disprove determinism, just to be clear. But I suppose it does expose some cognitive dissonance on my part.

 

Is some ways Determinism is true in terms of pure empiricism, but it is not, the truth.  Good and Bad are statements of preference. What determines that preference? If you're a determinist, Taste or the Tribe.

Good and Evil, however imply some interaction, which I would say occurs through choice in  a persons morality. Whether Evil is taken as a deprivation of good, and therefore doesn't really exist. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotlian view. Or is a choice in a persons morality & Ethics where they chose to be evil for some pleasure, over acting morally, though it may have caused some discomfort.

 

Quote

[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind. - Ayn Rand

 

40 minutes ago, ofd said:

A large number of positive outcomes determines good behaviour, those get selected for and turn into morality. A group in which members don't steal from each other has more chances of survival than a group where stealing is not seen as morally bad. Over generations, this behaviour becomes engrained in our genetic memory and becomes morality. The groups that had dysfunctional behaviour and a dysfunctional morality were outcompeted by more moralistic groups.

So you would say morality is a mixture of tribalism and genetics? But does being conscious of that, change anything? Would morality therefore not apply towards alien life or undiscovered tribes? 

[Boss]

12 hours ago, neeeel said:

Exactly. Wheres your proof of the outcome being due to free will? You are making an unproven claim by saying recognising choice is free will. Your claim is "holding true" because of the way you defined free will. This is why yours is a circular argument.

You missed the whole point of my paraphrasing of your argument. I even pointed out that it wasnt proof of determinism, but a paraphrasing of your argument in order to show you why your argument is circular. Did you read that part?

3

I gave my argument and proof(which you further helped, thanks)for free will after defining it, I also address the other definition. You can look at earlier posts to find it. Don't you believe you can recognize choice? well luckily actions speak louder than words right  
 

 

12 hours ago, neeeel said:

eg

P1: The Bible tells us that it is the word of God.

P2: The word of God is infallible.

C1: Therefore the Bible is infallible.

 

 

The bible is fallible due to contradictions 
1. eye for an eye

2. turn the other cheek 

You see how I can actually rebut this through proving it false? While you have NEVER rebutted(by definition prove false) instead you just list fallacies that are not pointing out anything as false. Instead, you keep repeating the definition of circular reasoning which everyone knows already and it is unrelated.

Here is an example, You are red herring to the circular reasoning instead of focusing on my argument to prove it false

Just saying a Logical fallacy does not prove something false, you still have to address the argument to prove it false. 

Like I didn't just say "red herring" or defined red herring and call it a day like you have with circular reasoning. I actually pointed out you are only mentioning circular reasoning in your defense while not addressing my argument which proves the red herring. That is how you are supposed to use logical fallacies in regards to proving something false. 

[neeeel]

Just now, Boss said:

I gave my argument and proof(which you further helped, thanks)for free will after defining it, I also address the other definition. You can look at earlier posts to find it. Don't you believe you can recognize choice? well luckily actions speak louder than words right  
 

 

The bible is fallible due to contradictions 
1. eye for an eye

2. turn the other cheek 

You see how I can actually rebut this through proving it false? While you have NEVER rebutted(by definition prove false) instead you just list fallacies that are not pointing out anything as false. Instead, you keep repeating the definition of circular reasoning which is unrelated.

Here is an example, You are red herring to the circular reasoning instead of focusing on my argument to prove it false

Just saying a Logical fallacy does not prove something false, you still have to address the argument to prove it false. 

Like I didn't just say "red herring" or defined red herring and call it a day like you have with circular reasoning. I actually pointed out you are only mentioning circular argument in your defense while not address my argument which is a red herring. That is how you are supposed to use logical fallacies in regards to proving something false. 

 

If your argument is circular ( and it is), it is automatically rebutted, since a circular argument is not valid.

 

Im done with this. You are either not reading my posts, or not understanding them. The way you dealt with my bible example shows that you havent grasped what I am saying.

[ofd]

Quote

But does being conscious of that, change anything?

As Jonathan Haidt put it, you are the rider on the elephant. Sometimes you can change the direction but when the elephant wants to go somewhere you can't do much to stop it.
 

Quote

Would morality therefore not apply towards alien life or undiscovered tribes?  

That depends on the type of alien If they are like us (eusocial apes) we can expect them to have a similar morality if the same evolutionary pressures applied to them. If they are like eusocial insects (ants) they will have a more collectivist morality. As for tribes, their basic morality (don't steal, don't kill within your in-group) is the same as ours.

[Boss]

6 minutes ago, neeeel said:

 

If your argument is circular ( and it is), it is automatically rebutted, since a circular argument is not valid.

 

Im done with this. You are either not reading my posts, or not understanding them. The way you dealt with my bible example shows that you havent grasped what I am saying.

yea you are not understanding how to use logical fallacies to rebut (prove something false). My arguments can only be seen as circular if you only know of 1 way to rebut them. Which is not the case thus not circular. As I kindly pointed out in your bible example, there are multiple ways to rebut the argument at hand. You just have zero rebuttals.

[RichardY]

28 minutes ago, ofd said:

As Jonathan Haidt put it, you are the rider on the elephant. Sometimes you can change the direction but when the elephant wants to go somewhere you can't do much to stop it.

Neutral Monism?, basically where I'm at. I'm going to go with oblivion, when you're organically dead as an entity.

Although force powers and stuff under Idealism, would be pretty awesome. Haven't really looked into subjective idealism, but it looks more plausible than determininsm and less boring. Universal in morality, potentially as well.

 

30 minutes ago, ofd said:

That depends on the type of alien If they are like us (eusocial apes) we can expect them to have a similar morality if the same evolutionary pressures applied to them. If they are like eusocial insects (ants) they will have a more collectivist morality. As for tribes, their basic morality (don't steal, don't kill within your in-group) is the same as ours.

It's an ugly planet, it's a bug planet!!!! Nuke em. Rico.

What if a tribes morality is more nomadic in nature. So theirs levels of hostility to defend hunting grounds, no private property as such, more of a cooperative. Would that potentially mean morality is dependent on personality? Would you say then, that morality is not universal?