I find that way of looking at it to be inspiring. Each decision (as the Thomists might say) is a choice for or against Happiness – which is our universal end. On what does it depend whether we choose it (the good) or not?
(Or was that the same as I said farther up?)
McGrady001: How about a situation where I desire one thing but am frustratingly given/live-with another? Why is this sense different from every other choice?
my real name
Well, I think that whenever an agent chooses some course of action, the agent believes that this course of action is the one most favorable to his own happiness. Beliefs can of course be wrong, and so choices based on them can turn out to be dis-favorable for happiness.
Surely, though, you can think of times in your life where it seems that you chose to act counter to your then present beliefs about what was best to do. One might say that you then suffered from “weakness of the willâ€, which some philosophers view as evidence that an agent’s choices are not entirely determined by the agent’s set of beliefs and desires. However, I think that “weakness of the will†is really just a conflict between beliefs held at different levels, that is, between those held at a ‘rational level’, and those held at an ‘emotional level’.
While human beings can adopt a belief at a rational level simply by coming to understand the reasonableness of the belief, adopting a belief at an emotional level is more difficult. For example, a young smoker may come to recognize, rationally, that smoking is likely to be an ultimately damaging thing for himself when considering the whole of his life, and hence he ought to quit smoking. But, the young smoker continues to decide to smoke anyhow because emotionally, the knowledge that smoking is ultimately bad fails to ‘sink in’, and the emotional-based belief that smoking is good carries more weight than the rationally held belief that it’s bad. In general, whenever one chooses to act counter to how he believes is best to act, I think the reason is just the difficulty of ingraining rationally held beliefs so that they are also held at an emotional level, and one’s emotions carry a lot of weight in determining decisions.
Iss
Ha! Well if they do, the evidently have no choice in the matter!
touche!!
-Imp
So, do you believe in hard determinism?
Your words imply that if a person completely knew their own psychological makeup then it could be otherwise. So do you see ignorance as the only reason that we have to act as if our choices were not determined?
I would argue that having a sense of freewill is essential to the proper functioning of a human being. Human being cannot effectively operate without hope. The model of determinism decreases or eliminates hope. No one can live their life as if every action they took was determined because that would interfere with their operation.
We all live as if we are in control of our actions. Except when someone want to avoid the consequences of their actions, then he or she invokes some form of determinism to absolve him or herself of responsibility. Don’t blame me, blame my parents, violence in the media, video games, too much sugar, too much estrogen, etc.
The problem is not the determinism reduces us to a machine, but that it reduces us to different kind of machine than the one that we are used to being.
Determinism doesn’t necessarily decrease hope. People have believed in fate way before determinism became mainstream. It’s not really new it’s just a scientific twist on a metaphysical idea.
Xanderman,
A person cannot, in principle, entirely know their own psychological makeup, since that would entail viewing one’s own mind from outside one’s own mind. Suppose that a person makes choices based on careful reasoning about what he ought to do. So, the course of action he chooses from a set of possible courses of action would be determined by his reasoning ability, along with his initial beliefs and desires. Suppose that this person takes a very large set of possible sets of initial beliefs and desires, a very large set of possible sets of possible courses of action, and for all possible pairs between the two sets, reasons out what course of action he ought to take. After doing this, the person will have knowledge of how he is determined to choose to act in many of the situations that he may encounter in life; or will he? Whenever he confronts a situation that he had previously reasoned through, such knowledge will affect his initial beliefs that he had used to reason through the situation, and he cannot know whether his initial beliefs will be effected in a way that makes his reasoning lead to a different choice. Or to put it differently, he cannot ever encounter a situation that he had previously reasoned through, because none of the belief-desire sets could be the same.
Accepting that determinism is true does not entail giving up hope. This is simply because one cannot know how things are determined to turn out to be. They may turn out very well, even if thus far things have gone poorly for one.
Let me ask you this: when you choose something, do you choose it for a reason, or are your choices just random? When confronted with a set of possible courses of action, and you choose one particular course of action from that set, can you finish the sentence “I chose it instead of any of the others because…� If you can, then that is what determined you to make the choice that you did, rather than some other choice; and if you can’t, then your choice was made randomly, and hence was not under your control (thus you did not exert ‘free will’). Just because choices are goal-directed, rather than mechanistic, does not mean that they are not determined by the agent’s desire to obtain that goal, along with beliefs about how to obtain it.
Also, what do you mean by putting the “hard†qualifier before “determinism�
Iss
But there is also the tradition of fighting against one’s fate. Even Zeus was tempted to go against Fate, even though Hera was quick to remind him that none of the other gods would follow him if he did so.
cba1067950,
So could you answer my other questions from earlier in this thread? I would be quite grateful if you would.
Wow, good arguement … you’ve convinced me. 
Pleasure principle. Whatever I’m in the mood for. If you wanted me to go more biological I could say that the body makes you crave what you need to survive. Hummingbirds with their higher metabolism eat a diet of 50% or so of sugar because they need the energy.
I wear just about the same thing everyday but I guess the same thing. Pleasure principle or simplicity. If I’m in a rush I put on what I had on the day before.
3)I call them events.
Now mine 
First you can’t be a dualist cause if you are theres really no point in the discussion because you can just say god makes it work but I’ll assume you will play fair.
Have you ever seen a ball float? Have you ever seen something move forever? If you believe the atoms of metals gases and flesh are governed by some sort of elemental force then why not the brain?
Do you usually try to figure out a logical explanation for things or do you just assume they are? Do you believe in the concept of random occurances? If someone does something that you don’t understand the question “why” is usually the immediate response. What do you answer this with? Past events some sort of rational assumption based on genetics or society? Why would you bother asking these questions if emotions or actions could be randomly produced without the effects of the past or genetics or society?
Basically the idea that there is a spontaneous production of events makes logic obsolete and pointless. In a way you eliminate free will that way too because you can never predict what will happen based on past experiences. Fruit loops will never taste the same. Clothing may never keep you warm. Making decisions would result in total chaos. It’s kind of an interesting twist of the butterfly effect. I kinda like it.
Here we go again with determinism. I just got bombarded by Dunamis in another thread with the inductive fallacy. Iss, what do you say to that, you seem like a smart guy, and I share your views, so lets work together and figure out how the hell to shut Hume up once and for all! ARG! As you can tell, Hume’s inductive fallacy has my nuts in a vice… Do you know anything about it Iss? And do you have anything to say about it?
First you can’t be a dualist cause if you are theres really no point in the discussion because you can just say god makes it work but I’ll assume you will play fair.
Ok, I won’t bring up Yu-Gi-Oh, Dualmasters or defending one’s honor in gentlemanly gun-fighting.
Have you ever seen a ball float?
I have seen a beach ball float on the water, but I suspect this is not what you meant.
Have you ever seen something move forever?
I have only lived a limited time, how could I see anything that qualifies as forever?
If you believe the atoms of metals gases and flesh are governed by some sort of elemental force then why not the brain?
Nobody know how the brain functions. More specifically nobody knows exactly how brain produces mind. There is a lot of work being down to investigate this, but for now it is still a mystery. This is an exciting field and it attracts my attention. As soon as we crack this mystery I will be there, reading the published results.
Do you usually try to figure out a logical explanation for things or do you just assume they are?
It depends on the focus of inquiry. Some things do not yield to quick analysis. Some things have counterintuitive explanations.
Do you believe in the concept of random occurrences?
I witness events that I don’t fully understand. Taking the time and energy to figure out what happened is a question of resource management. How important is it for me to know why this happened? What am I willing to spend to get that info? So I chalk some stuff up as just random occurrences.
If someone does something that you don’t understand the question “why” is usually the immediate response. What do you answer this with?
My ideas about how I assume people function. Motivation is a fascinating subject for me.
Past events some sort of rational assumption based on genetics or society? Why would you bother asking these questions if emotions or actions could be randomly produced without the effects of the past or genetics or society?
Interesting modifier you used there, “rational assumption†eh? All of my assumptions that I feel certain about are rational. We can always go more rigorous and ask does me calling them rational make them rational? And if not then what does make them rational or irrational?
Basically the idea that there is a spontaneous production of events makes logic obsolete and pointless.
I think that frequency would have something to do with that. Like if the universe behaves in a logically understandable manner 95% of the time and then spontaneously 5% of the time then logic would be useful most of the time for understanding how the universe behaves, just not all of the time. No prediction of the behavior of the universe could be perfect because there is always some randomness to it. This does not make logic obsolete or pointless, just imperfect.
In a way you eliminate free will that way too because you can never predict what will happen based on past experiences.
Never with 100% accuracy, but we can predict human behavior fairly well.
Fruit loops will never taste the same.
Sometimes they don’t.
Clothing may never keep you warm.
Sometimes they don’t.
Making decisions would result in total chaos.
Sometimes they do.
It’s kind of an interesting twist of the butterfly effect. I kinda like it.
Much of this is pointless. First, define what you mean by “free”. Then define what you mean by “will”. Next, sum up what your definition of “free will” is.
THEN, we can discuss whether or not such exists.
Until then we’re all just shifting around meaninglessly. For instance, if you define free will as meaning that something else “could have happened” if history had repeated, then yes - we have free will because of quantum indeterminancy. But if your answer to that is to shift the definition then expect the argument to go round and round forever.
One definition will yield one answer and another definition will yield another.
Russiantank,
If I remember right, Hume thought that a person is mistaken when thinking that there is a cause-effect relationship between two events which in the past, have always happened one after the other. It’s a mistake because from the fact that B has always followed A in the past, it cannot be logically concluded that B necessarily follows A. This is evident in that we can always imagine that following A, is not B, but rather some other event. Since in any particular case, a cause-effect relationship cannot be discovered, it is hence fallacious to conclude that causality exists in the world.
I think Hume’s mistake is in supposing that our idea of cause comes from observing a world where events happen to follow each other in a consistent way. Instead, human beings just pre-suppose (rather than conclude) that regularity exists in the universe (which implies that events are caused), and then apply the concept of regularity when observing the world. So, the reason that it isn’t fallacious to think that because B has followed A in the past, B thus necessarily follows A, is that it follows logically from the assumption of regularity. The reason we can imagine C, rather than B, following A, is either that the particular instance of regularity that actually exists is not logically necessary (logically, things could have been regular in some other way), or the idea of regularity itself is not logically necessary.
Perhaps we are wrong to assume that regularity exists in the universe, or at least wrong to assume that it exists absolutely. If so, then determinism would be false. However, remember that the truth of free-will (conceived of as an ability to make undetermined choices) requires not only that determinism be false, but also that it be true! This is because in order for a choice to be made under the control of the choosing agent, it must be made for some reason, and hence be determined by that reason. If, among a set of possible courses of action, an agent just choose one course randomly, then the choice was not made under his control (he did not ‘will’ it to happen), and hence cannot really even be called a “choiceâ€. Free-will is absurd because it requires the truth of a logical contradiction, that is, that choices be both determined and not determined.
Iss
DT Strain,
I, at least, have been completely precise about what I mean by “free-willâ€. I’ve defined it as an ability to make choices, such that whenever a choice is made, a different choice could have been made. And since we are talking about choices, rather than mechanistic events, this implies that they must be made for some purpose of the choosing agent.
I’ve argued that this conception of free-will is incoherent. I’ve taken the time to argue against it because it seems to be the dominant conception amongst people. There are also other, more plausible, conceptions of free-will, but my main point in this thread has been to argue against the “undetermined choices†conception.
Iss
Very nice Iss, I like the way you think. And seeing as how I find you intelligent and I see our views are alike, I would like you to read a particular thread of mine. I would greatly apreciate your input. Sorry all for doing this on this thread… Heres the link:
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 43#1631343
I will PM you as well. I am greatly anticipating anything you may have to say!
I’m hoping you know what I meant and made that as a joke because you wanted to ignore it not because you didn’t understand it.
Out of water? And they obviously have to follow the rules of physics. You can make a helium ball float but that’s not what I meant either. Minority report… Tom cruise rolls the ball the guy catches it. Why? Because it was going to fall. That’s a 100% guarentee. You can’t say “Unless there’s a gust of air where it would’ve fallen strong enough to keep it airborn” because then it would’ve 100% have not fallen.
An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon. Everything is being acted upon unless it’s in space but there are rules for space too.
But they know how oxygen hydrogen sodium and the rest of the molecules in the brain work. But regardless you have faith that one day it will be understandable and thus determinable. Given the proper tools one could simplify the brains processes to simple yes/no scenerios. Humans are designed exactly like computers just with organic materials I don’t see why computers can be determinable but humans cannot. Is there a magical component to water or air that humans can’t comprehend? This property creates uncomprehensible events thus creating free will? Is that our logic?
It’s not a matter of time. Things are either all comprehensible or eventually comprehensible or there are things that you don’t think will ever be understandable. If the brain is one of them then give up on logic and figuring anything out because that is the source of our thoughts and it’s not dependable.
Such as?
This makes absolutely no sense. There has to be an action in order to motivate people and you’re totally denying the idea that things are caused by past events.
Rational thinking is another topic. You’re dodging the question. How do you rationalize things? The question isnt what is rational thought.
So 5% of our thoughts are free? And go figure the thing that produces our freedom has been reproduced 8 billion times but only consists of 5% of all randomness on our planet.
So you’re saying you can determine within a very accurate margin what soemone will do next? Strange I thought you were a libertarian. Say you knew all the factors to something… like for example a science experiment with all controlled elements that everyone knows will cause one desired result. How many times do you think that one result will happen consistently when all the elements are lined up exactly the same each time? You should say a limited amount for no reason. No reason = freedom. Even if you were to say a limited amount because a factor went amiss you’d still be a damned determinist because you gave a reason something that could’ve been observed if we were paying attention and factored in. And no just because we can’t predict the future doesn’t mean it’s not based on a chain of uncontrollable events.
I mean they could taste like cabbage a random day of the week say 5% of the time.
Or 30 layers of clothing becoming as thing as a piece of tissue paper because the atomic structure of it isn’t predictable.
It’s all order.
I find myself getting somewhat annoyed at quantum mechanics being constantly pulled out of the hat to support the arguement against determinism. Ever hear of quantum determinism? Quantum mechanics is about as near as resolving the question of determinancy as this thread.
Possibly if we discover wether or not information that falls into a black hole, eventually re-enters our universe, or becomes lost forever, then we will have new insights.
But I don’t like the arguement really, even if the information does dissapear. Seriously the arguement is, assuming you knew the position, and velocity of every particle, then you would be able to determine the future. So its like some super intelligence, or a god. If you are going to go that far, why would this “god”, or “super intelligence” not be able to understand the functions of black holes, or be able to realize what information gets lost, and then just subtract it from the equation.
This is an eternal question. It really will never be resolved. Its all mental masterbation really.
Rounder,
“Possibly if we discover wether or not information that falls into a black hole, eventually re-enters our universe, or becomes lost forever, then we will have new insights.â€
I thought Hawking settled that one at the GR17 meeting. Or is that still up for grabs?
theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/jp_24jul04.html
Dunamis
No still up for grabs, he conceded his bet, because the evidence suggested by string theory leads to the belief that the information re-enters our universe.
I’m almost positive that it was the results that string theorists found while working on black holes, that form in Calabi-Yau space, that brought this on. Its strong evidence, but its not totally conclusive.
For anyone interested in black holes it is interesting what insights string theory gives. (just thought I’d throw that in there) 