Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

I'm thinking there wouldn't be things seen as fate if we were able to measure everything, which isn't because it is impossible for us to, but because of our incompetence or lack of knowledge or technology. So, it is another interesting point I see raised, Leigha. I see religious ideas as more involved with the concept of freewill.

(Oct 18, 2017 03:12 AM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]I'm thinking there wouldn't be things seen as fate if we were able to measure everything, which isn't because it is impossible for us to, but because of our incompetence or lack of knowledge or technology. So, it is another interesting point I see raised, Leigha. I see religious ideas as more involved with the concept of freewill.

Maybe we're not meant to measure everything, though. I totally get what you're saying, but we only think that we aren't up to the task, because we have accomplished so much, this far. We assume we can know everything...at some point. But, (I think) there are some things that are simply unknowable. 

It's interesting what your thoughts are on freewill. In Christian circles, it's thought that God designed humans with free will, but you are saying that free will is what causes a person to choose to believe in a god. Hmmm.

(Oct 18, 2017 03:24 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 18, 2017 03:12 AM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]I'm thinking there wouldn't be things seen as fate if we were able to measure everything, which isn't because it is impossible for us to, but because of our incompetence or lack of knowledge or technology. So, it is another interesting point I see raised, Leigha. I see religious ideas as more involved with the concept of freewill.

Maybe we're not meant to measure everything, though. I totally get what you're saying, but we only think that we aren't up to the task, because we have accomplished so much, this far. We assume we can know everything...at some point. But, (I think) there are some things that are simply unknowable. 

It's interesting what your thoughts are on freewill. In Christian circles, it's thought that God designed humans with free will, but you are saying that free will is what causes a person to choose to believe in a god. Hmmm.

I see everything as possible given the nature and nurture needed. I agree with Arthur C. Clark that things basically just seem supernatural due to lack of advancement on the observer's part.

(Oct 18, 2017 02:42 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]If happenstance is ''compatible'' with a purely deterministic universe, would we be morally responsible for our actions? Determinism pretty much dictates that people are not responsible for their actions, because those actions were pre-determined and there is no such thing as free will. Determinism assumes that there is an outward force of some kind that has set every action we will ever do, before we do it...in motion. So, I don't know if everything could be random and pre-determined at the same time, because determinism means there is order and design to life.

Happenstance is most often just our inability to predict complex deterministic causes. It is not only compatible with determinism but wholly expected in a deterministic universe. But determinism is not the only mechanism in our universe. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that our universe is indeterministic (probabilistic) as well. Indeterminism allows for causes to have more than one possible effect.

Determinism is not the same as predeterminism. Predeterminism assumes a wholly unbroken chain of cause and effect since the beginning of the universe, while determinism alone only assumes that each effect has one specific cause. And because some things are indeterministic, such an absolutely unbroken chain of causation is very unlikely, allowing free will and moral responsibility to be possible. Now is that alone a compelling argument for free will? No. But such matters don't tend to be compelling either way. IMO, indeterminism allows reasonable doubt that humans lack moral responsibility.

What is determined and what is "random" simply occur as different scales, but both effect one another.

I like that explanation.

But, free will. In this context, there is a lot of discussion among philosophers that free will can simply be that nothing will oppose my own ''free will.'' So, in that sense, determinism could be compatible with free will. But, if free will means that I have a say in my destiny, I have a say in my future, that everything that happens to me largely came from my choices...then, if determinism is a real 'thing,'' then free will would be a mere illusion. Or delusion. So, it is an interesting thing to wonder about. What do you think?

I don't believe in compatibilism between determinism and free will because, as you allude to, it generally requires redefining free will as something less than free will.

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." - Schopenhauer

Compatibilists just seem to claim free will with the smoke and mirrors of simply pushing the ultimate cause of a choice prior to awareness. IOW, instead of the choice being determined, the perception of free will (motive) is. Actual free will only requires that a wholly deterministic chain of causes has indeterminate branches where one event/choice could cause one of several possible outcomes. As long as both outcomes of a choice can actually occur, there's little reason to doubt free will. After all, there are many choices that, once made, we can change our minds about and still choose the other.

(Oct 17, 2017 03:25 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]How can the journey toward subjectively meaningless goals be enjoyable

passing thought as i read this...
billion dollar industrys profit from this.
self development secular & religious coarses that pander to re-aligning a sense of meaning to a process of learnign that is then packeted into a sales product.

it is a multi billion dollar industry JUST in the USA alone.

how does this connect with "Bucket Lists" and the emancipation of women in general ?

women have massive social conditioning/brainwashing directed at them telling them when they have to have this that and the other...
Bucket lists tend to pander to an insecurity process of subjective learned social behaviour.

can you have a Bucket list & still be on the wrong personal path ? (note more brainwashing)

Modern society lifted the gender expectation from men back in the late 90s.
So much so it created a backlash of social insecurity by men AND women feeling insecure from the lack of being told who to be.

that insecurity of gender identity has now been shifted/transferance on to millenials and gender identity
(as gender identity in a ideological social engineering manner propelling political bi-partisanship to try and force people to accept others definition of their gender identity i.e toilet laws i the usa trying to make laws about birth gender to regulate public toilet use and the politicalisation of that to create a dictatorship that will subject people to 3rd party gender testing & labelling without consent).

---

Plagerism of other peoples suffering to use as a badge of respect forced on others to manipulate them into not opposing their dictatorship.

Do you believe that suffering is necessary for positive growth?

this is common in the USA where people (mostly the political right) try and own the suffering of various military personal and then sell it as their own level of authority which they then in turn expect others to bow to.
appeal to authority ?

why does the pollitical right advertise this process of required suffering to validate their management style... while the likes of their actua leaders have no expereince in suffering ?

how does this hypocrisy in morality define the value of "percieved sufering to give a value of merit?"

you can see it being played out continuosely in the political field with DT.
current talk of telephone calls to dead soldiers familiaes etc etc...
it is a core beleif yet a core hypocrisy specially considering the evidence to suggest DT is a draft dodger.


its all very current

(Oct 18, 2017 08:56 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ][snip incoherent prattle]
... labelling without consent).

Quote:Only authoritarians seek to control people's use of language. Read 1984 some time.

Plagerism of other peoples suffering to use as a badge of respect forced on others to manipulate them into not opposing their dictatorship.

Do you believe that suffering is necessary for positive growth?

this is common in the USA where people (mostly the political right) try and own the suffering of various military personal and then sell it as their own level of authority which they then in turn expect others to bow to.
appeal to authority ?

why does the pollitical right advertise this process of required suffering to validate their management style... while the likes of their actua leaders have no expereince in suffering ?

[snip butthurt whining]

"Plagerism (sic) of suffering"? Oh...you mean like using the deaths of kids to push gun control?
You know, compared to the right, who are just actually more patriotic (a fact supported by studies that show patriotic cues, like the flag and anthem, actually result in people thinking and voting as more right-leaning). Appeal to genuine patriotism.

It's not "required suffering". It's honoring people who willing sacrificed themselves for a cause they thought worthy. That is laudable in any context.