Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Martian

Regulars
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Martian

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. This is the hard part for me to understand. When you call consciousness 'natural' you are saying that it exists based on understandable laws. If you say that consciousness is not understandable based on physical laws, then it is supernatural. There is no difference between saying that a clump of matter has free will and saying that a soul exists to direct that matter. You cannot have it both ways. Only if the mind is based on natural laws, can it be understood to be natural. See the problem? You can't claim that matter can act in an uncaused manner (not natural) without making an equal claim o
  2. I think you're right, because I don't think that that explanation of free will is correct. As far as I can see, it is synonymous with saying that a soul exists. Because, it seems like that is the definition of a magical event. But let me explain what I think free will really is. Sure, our actions are caused by other things. But our brain exists in a way so that it is isolated from physical interactions, meaning that in normal cases the "hardware" (brain) is not being changed by external forces. Also, our minds are influenced only by interaction with information that it receives, for that is
  3. I'm a little bit annoyed by your question dodging. I have gone through the effort to try to get some dialog with you. I want to discuss this with you and find out what you mean. INSTEAD, you preach the same claims to me nonstop from your very first post in this thread, even though I honestly want to know what you're saying. I suppose the neural net between my ears had something to do with it. Since when people use it they happen to go through the process of thinking. So, I guess I did think and choose these questions. I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "burp them up". Is it suppose
  4. Please, explain further. What does a "choice on a fundamental level" mean? Please, explain further. What do you mean by, "We don't know the details of how that comes about biologically"? Do you think that man's mind is fundamental?
  5. I agree with you here. I agree. I was just saying that you can look at yourself "from an outside perspective" to figure out if your parts *were* obeying the laws of physics. Granted, you cannot do this very well in real time because, like you said, it leads to infinite regression. Though, you can still look back and see what happened so that you can check to see if brain contradicted the principle of determinism. But, like I said, that would be silly to check it, just to make sure. Nevertheless, I agree with what you said here. Indeed. I am saying the same thing. People can't shrug
  6. I think I see what you're saying here. But, I want to show you that the idea that is widely accept as an explanation free will, is false. To say that your molecules are not obeying the laws of physics is just a bad inference. It's like assuming that an illusionist is doing real magic. Tell me this, do you think that the matter in your body follows that laws of physics? Tell me this, do you think that the matter in the illusionist's "magic" is following the laws of physics? If you say "yes" to both questions, then you are a determinist. If you say "no" to both questions, then you are not a dete
  7. That is true, we cannot choose our will. But that doesn't matter because that would render the will meaningless. Also, to try to separate the processes within a person's brain that determine his/her choice and the person itself, is not valid. That is because they are the same. [TO ALL] Basically, I agree that free will exists, but I also think that the definition that is commonly used is flawed. Free will is defined as the ability to violate cause and effect laws of matter, while the will itself is based on an irreducible soul. This is obviously false because it violates our objective
  8. I don't see what honesty has to do with it. You haven't shown any contradiction. You haven't even explained how volition can exist without determinism. This is the turning point of the discussion. You are misrepresenting my position by assuming what my claim is. I said I accept volition AND determinism. You are saying they are not compatible. But, you haven't explained why determinism is not compatible with volition. Of course, if you define volition or free will or whatever else as not being deterministic, then yeah, it does contradict the idea of determinism. But, that's not what free wil
  9. Better late than never. I think there is a big misunderstanding of what Determinism is. It appears that things could have been different because of our lack of knowledge about what's going to come next. If you throw a football into the air, which way will it bounce? Oh. Is there a possibility that it will bounce in any direction? Well, yeah, as far as we can tell it could have bounced in any direction, but that is because any minute change in the football will result in it bouncing completely different. We don't see these minute changes. So, the difference in the bounces coupled wi
  10. No. That's a false assumption. In fact, I went to great lengths to describe the mind and how it must exist in a Deterministic world. Yet, you still made the assumption. Well, they have different inertia based on their mass and such, but they still move according to the principle of inertia. I started this topic to answer the question: "Why do Objectivists deny Determinism?" All that I got was empty claims. "It looks as though I have free will through introspection, so Determinism is false." I never got an explaination as to why people think that Free Will does not allow Determinism, o
  11. A man in space will still not be able to violate the laws of physics. He will continue in inertial motion until affected by an external force. But, I agree with the rest of your post.
  12. I'd say that raps everything up nicely. QED
  13. What is your disagreement with Determinism? What are the contradictions? Please state them if you can.
  14. The truth value of Determinism is not dependent on man's ability to predict the future. In the definition of Determinism, "in principle predictable", meant that the future was possible to be predicted ignoring the restrictions of man's ability. Tensorman meant, from what I can tell from the context, that it was not possible to predict the future state of the system if it is part of it. They may seem the same, but they meant different things based on the context. I agree, this was not stated well enough for someone who is trying to understand the concept. I hope this clears it up.
×
×
  • Create New...