Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 5, 2013 at 2:49 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Also, how the hell do I hide this obnoxiously long quote so that you don't have to scroll through everything we already stated multiple times?
"Choice" is a difficult concept to analyze without the metaphysical preconceptions. Specifically, within the classical determinism/free-will debate, the concept of "choice" is regarded as antithetical to determinism. And it is those ideas about choice that inform our view about "control".
[hide]
For example, suppose I go to a restaurant, look over the menu and consider the following factors a) the steak here is good and within budget, b) the lobster is better but expensive, c) the chicken was undercooked last time. Thus, I come to a decision and make the "choice" of ordering steak. Now, a determinist would say that since these factors were processed by my consciousness to give a logical result, there was no actual choice involved. A believer of free-will might argue that "I" had a certain leeway, that the output of these factors was not binding and therefore the element of choice was involved.
[/hide]
[/quote]
Results in:
(December 5, 2013 at 3:18 am)genkaus Wrote: "Choice" is a difficult concept to analyze without the metaphysical preconceptions. Specifically, within the classical determinism/free-will debate, the concept of "choice" is regarded as antithetical to determinism. And it is those ideas about choice that inform our view about "control".
For example, suppose I go to a restaurant, look over the menu and consider the following factors a) the steak here is good and within budget, b) the lobster is better but expensive, c) the chicken was undercooked last time. Thus, I come to a decision and make the "choice" of ordering steak. Now, a determinist would say that since these factors were processed by my consciousness to give a logical result, there was no actual choice involved. A believer of free-will might argue that "I" had a certain leeway, that the output of these factors was not binding and therefore the element of choice was involved.
Or, selectively quote:
Code:
[quote='genkaus' pid='555722' dateline='1386227917']
Where both these positions go wrong is with the assumption that "I" am an observer apart from the actual causal chain. Even the determinist regards the processes that went into the decision making as somehow separate from the "I" - and the question both parties argue over is whether or not that observer can affect the causal chain while remaining separate from it and they give their opinion regarding choice based on it. They assume that if this a-causal observer can affect the causal chain, then he can exert control and has choice and if he can't, then both control and choice are illusions
[/quote]
[i]Your first response here...[/i]
[quote='genkaus' pid='555722' dateline='1386227917']
But if we accept that the observer, the "I", is a part of the causal chain, then the previous idea regarding choice becomes meaningless. Both control and choice cannot come from something beyond but must be a part of the causal chain itself. So, in this scenario, the way we re-examined our idea about free-will (what is it supposed to be free from), we also need to re-examine the idea about choice and control.
[/quote]
[i]Your second response here...[/i]
Results in:
Quote:
(December 5, 2013 at 3:18 am)genkaus Wrote: Where both these positions go wrong is with the assumption that "I" am an observer apart from the actual causal chain. Even the determinist regards the processes that went into the decision making as somehow separate from the "I" - and the question both parties argue over is whether or not that observer can affect the causal chain while remaining separate from it and they give their opinion regarding choice based on it. They assume that if this a-causal observer can affect the causal chain, then he can exert control and has choice and if he can't, then both control and choice are illusions
Your first response here...
(December 5, 2013 at 3:18 am)genkaus Wrote: But if we accept that the observer, the "I", is a part of the causal chain, then the previous idea regarding choice becomes meaningless. Both control and choice cannot come from something beyond but must be a part of the causal chain itself. So, in this scenario, the way we re-examined our idea about free-will (what is it supposed to be free from), we also need to re-examine the idea about choice and control.
(December 5, 2013 at 2:49 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Also, how the hell do I hide this obnoxiously long quote so that you don't have to scroll through everything we already stated multiple times?
"Choice" is a difficult concept to analyze without the metaphysical preconceptions. Specifically, within the classical determinism/free-will debate, the concept of "choice" is regarded as antithetical to determinism. And it is those ideas about choice that inform our view about "control".
[hide]
For example, suppose I go to a restaurant, look over the menu and consider the following factors a) the steak here is good and within budget, b) the lobster is better but expensive, c) the chicken was undercooked last time. Thus, I come to a decision and make the "choice" of ordering steak. Now, a determinist would say that since these factors were processed by my consciousness to give a logical result, there was no actual choice involved. A believer of free-will might argue that "I" had a certain leeway, that the output of these factors was not binding and therefore the element of choice was involved.
[/hide]
[/quote]
Results in:
(December 5, 2013 at 3:18 am)genkaus Wrote: "Choice" is a difficult concept to analyze without the metaphysical preconceptions. Specifically, within the classical determinism/free-will debate, the concept of "choice" is regarded as antithetical to determinism. And it is those ideas about choice that inform our view about "control".
[hide]
For example, suppose I go to a restaurant, look over the menu and consider the following factors a) the steak here is good and within budget, b) the lobster is better but expensive, c) the chicken was undercooked last time. Thus, I come to a decision and make the "choice" of ordering steak. Now, a determinist would say that since these factors were processed by my consciousness to give a logical result, there was no actual choice involved. A believer of free-will might argue that "I" had a certain leeway, that the output of these factors was not binding and therefore the element of choice was involved.
Or, selectively quote:
Code:
[quote='genkaus' pid='555722' dateline='1386227917']
Where both these positions go wrong is with the assumption that "I" am an observer apart from the actual causal chain. Even the determinist regards the processes that went into the decision making as somehow separate from the "I" - and the question both parties argue over is whether or not that observer can affect the causal chain while remaining separate from it and they give their opinion regarding choice based on it. They assume that if this a-causal observer can affect the causal chain, then he can exert control and has choice and if he can't, then both control and choice are illusions
[/quote]
[i]Your first response here...[/i]
[quote='genkaus' pid='555722' dateline='1386227917']
But if we accept that the observer, the "I", is a part of the causal chain, then the previous idea regarding choice becomes meaningless. Both control and choice cannot come from something beyond but must be a part of the causal chain itself. So, in this scenario, the way we re-examined our idea about free-will (what is it supposed to be free from), we also need to re-examine the idea about choice and control.
[/quote]
[i]Your second response here...[/i]
Results in:
Quote:Your first response here...
Your second response here...
This.
My ignore list
No one is here because I can handle all of you motherfuckers!
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
(December 5, 2013 at 9:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: All that Hide thingy means is that I have to click TWICE. AT my age, I need to conserve my clicks.
Wait, an elderly person who knows something besides double clicking?!
My ignore list
No one is here because I can handle all of you motherfuckers!
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
(December 5, 2013 at 9:12 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:
(December 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Wait, an elderly person who knows something besides double clicking?!
Have you tried teaching an adult to use a computer? It took me forever to get them to understand double clicking.
Yes, I have. They always double click everything.
My ignore list
No one is here because I can handle all of you motherfuckers!
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
(December 5, 2013 at 9:12 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Have you tried teaching an adult to use a computer? It took me forever to get them to understand double clicking.
(December 5, 2013 at 9:25 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:
(December 5, 2013 at 9:12 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Have you tried teaching an adult to use a computer? It took me forever to get them to understand double clicking.
What's a "computer"?
It's a device that lets you see nasty images like women's ankles.
My ignore list
No one is here because I can handle all of you motherfuckers!
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).