Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

Showing all content posted in for the last 365 days.

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. But it is still a choice. I mean, it doesn't happen by accident. That's why I used the example. It doesn't require more than awareness of hunger, and sight. The last line of my thing isn't as clear as I thought, it means that the choice is 2 distinct outcomes of the same process. Not the potentialities before the process (which definitely would be a probability distribution), but the actualities after. I don't generally like to formalize like that but I thought it was interesting and maybe someone else would also like it.
  3. In another thread, a selection of critters is offered to observe free will. The concept of rolling can certainly be formed from observing a ball, tire, a stone or even a log roll along a stretch of surface. In the case of animals, hunger develops, the quest for food ensues (in the case of humans, this presumes he has learned to identify hunger by some unspecified means.) "Choosing" to look for food does not strike me as what Rand is referring to when she penned: that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, th
  4. To add to this, your additional clarification in the other thread about hydraulic watches only confirms what I'm trying to say. When you describe how something works, that is, how the physical parts move, a material cause by my understanding, what we could call a mechanical cause in this context perhaps, we are only talking about the nature of the things the entity functions with. This might be gears, it might be neurons, but either way, it focuses strictly on the parts. Of course there is appeal in saying that it is sufficient to know the nature of an entity is psychological capacity based on
  5. Yesterday
  6. Why don't you tell me what I should notice rather than saying it louder? Or try explaining it a different way? Clearly it didn't work the first time, why would it work the second time? It's not because I didn't read it. Pasting it again didn't change anything for me. So if my way of thinking is to be rational, and I evaluate the context in such a way that I figure out the rational action I want to take, then always making that choice would be deterministic? Do you see the problem here? Making a deterministic choice. That's a contradiction. You flatly called this deterministic.
  7. This: and this: Because if it never lead to a different choice you would be deterministic. Free will requires that you could have chosen otherwise, without that aspect, you do not have free will. I am open to the idea that some choices, especially important ones core to who you are, will almost certainly always be the same. This part: It does not. Choosing includes everything we are and think and feel etc. when we choose, it is what it is, and generally includes knowing why, in that choice, we make that choice. The part which I think most relevant
  8. For a second there, I forgot that I'm not a Neanderthal. Is there anything I said that leads you to believe that I don't believe in free will? Which part was unintelligible? What was mistaken about a probability distribution implying that not even the person making the choice would know why they chose it? The question I asked was another way of asking what you mean. It gives you a chance to clarify what I think is a problem or contradiction. "Erroneously twisting" is me pointing out the contradiction - contradictions do indeed twist what you mean. It's not because I'm
  9. Four Things 1. Here's an amusing coincidence: The day I forgot to bring a mask with me into three businesses that require them in a row, the CDC changed its mask-wearing guidance for fully vaccinated adults to stop using masks in most situations. I'm vaccinated, but there are a few things I still won't do, on the off-chance my vaccine isn't effective, but I am sometimes surprised at how much head space I have gotten back since then. 2. My cell phone's SIM card sensor died last week, naturally during a two-day period when I needed cell phone service more than I normally would over two week
  10. Thank you for the question by the way. Does my answer clear things up for you?
  11. No. You clearly do not understand or are not trying to understand what I posted. Read it again. Try using abstractions when thinking. Some of us here believe in free will, if you want to propose a determinist theory of human action, you can but I am not going to argue that with you. That pleasure I leave to someone else. Please stop misconstruing what I am saying.. if you do not or cannot understand, the polite thing to do is first ask what I mean. The impolite approach you are using is to prop up something unintelligible resulting from your erro
  12. The philosophy has its own non-contradictory fail-safe built-in. Nice wrap-up. As for the berating, The Romantic Manifesto offers this with regard to art. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work—and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it. There may be a lessor parallel in politics.
  13. Your clarification didn't help. Because you still said it is because you know how things work. So no, I don't really know what was meant. I'm actually not so sure that it should be described as a type of causality. Although maybe we could call information processing something like a type of explanation, something related to Aristotle's 4 causes (as I said before, it doesn't translate into "cause" in the same meaning as English). In that sense it probably could be a type of causality.
  14. That sentence should be read with the one immediately prior to it…. in mind ! After reading this, the recollection of volition as a "type of causality" came to mind. While maybe not quite coming to a full circle comes to mind, grasping free-will/volition as a subtype of causality was raised in this "compatibilism" thread a while back. Consider it a recursive approach: weighing volition as a subtype of causality against determinism as the whole enchilada of causality.
  15. I never said that … I understand you don’t like the way it was worded. I hope you can give me the courtesy of letting it go now that you know what was meant.
  16. A probability distribution in this context means that the person choosing doesn't even know why they choose - it's just a certain chance that they will do what they chose to do. If in this exact context I choose to reply to your post, why would I do anything different if nothing about the context changes if it's repeated?
  17. Then it is not because you know how it works, it's because you know that it is an animatronic dinosaur. Knowing how it works doesn't change what it is.
  18. Thank you for honestly contributing to the discussion, or at least earnestly stepping in, on behalf of ET. ET, please accept my apology if I erroneously invoked a “we” in the context of our discussion. I intended no offence, and if I have wronged you in any way, I apologize. My reply to you ET, was quite sincere.
  19. How does this fix the contradiction between the next 2 sentences? You said that the reason deterministic machines (whatever exactly that means) don't have free will is because you know exactly how they work. I said, to ET that we’ll know it is deterministic because we know how it works… meaning we know what is under the hood, in spite of appearances. As in … an animatronic dinosaur will fool us into thinking it is biological only in the sense that it mimics biological dinosaur on the outside. We will know it’s just an animatronic because we know how it works. I
  20. Not to mention I always love it when they, who are a them and definitely not a we, say how "we" should do anything
  21. Last week
  22. How does this fix the contradiction between the next 2 sentences? You said that the reason deterministic machines (whatever exactly that means) don't have free will is because you know exactly how they work. You made a syllogism. It doesn't change depending on whether one is organic or not, and I don't have a reason to suppose it should. What's the difference between free will as such and human free will? We already know what such minimum behaviors would be. Observe jellyfish, honeybees, alligators, elephants, humans. These range of behaviors are enough to notice free will. Just
  23. That sentence should be read with the one immediately prior to it…. in mind !
  24. I don't understand, we won't really know how to create something with free until we know how free will works, but ... knowing how something works means it is deterministic.
  25. Free will requires that you could have chosen otherwise, absolutely everything about the context the same... the exact same universe, the exact same you (identity). Probability, in the context of "you could have chosen otherwise" means you are more likely to choose certain things than other things. IF we could rewind the universe to when you started making a choice and let you choose again it might be different... but if we could rewind the universe and let you choose again... and rewind it again and let you choose again... and do it over and over... as we approach infinity, there will e
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...