Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Mistake that Determinists Make

HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 8:29:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many determinists make a massive mistake when they discuss the idea of free will; they implicitly contend that the notion of free will creates a sort of Cartesian Theater in which the true self resides independently of the rest of the mind. They then draw upon studies that demonstrate that the parts of our mind that we do not control make our decisions for us 0.3 seconds before we do. However, the mind as a whole (all of its machinery) IS the self. The mistake they make is analogous to claiming that only the software is part of the computer and not the hardware that the software contracts to do its work. The mind as a whole is the conscious self and the parts that we "do not have control of" are simply machinery used by the brain to weigh the impact of decisions before we select them.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 1:06:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have never encountered a determinist that made this argument.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 1:12:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 1:09:47 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/7/2012 1:06:45 PM, caveat wrote:
I have never encountered a determinist that made this argument.

I have.

Enough to warrant the generalization?
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 1:15:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 1:12:06 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/7/2012 1:09:47 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/7/2012 1:06:45 PM, caveat wrote:
I have never encountered a determinist that made this argument.

I have.

Enough to warrant the generalization?

It's not a generalization. I didn't say or imply that all determinists argue this. I said "many" determinists make this mistake.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 1:26:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 1:15:29 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/7/2012 1:12:06 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/7/2012 1:09:47 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/7/2012 1:06:45 PM, caveat wrote:
I have never encountered a determinist that made this argument.

I have.

Enough to warrant the generalization?

It's not a generalization. I didn't say or imply that all determinists argue this. I said "many" determinists make this mistake.

lol have you read your post?

Anyway, I sincerely doubt you've met many people who are proponents of this argument. There are much better ones available.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 2:17:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let's suppose that your model is correct. This means decisions are made, and the brain reflects them. This means that when you make a decision, you're not making a decision, but a puppeteer is making your body's decision. It means that the dualist's decision-making process is untestable, unfalsifiable, ineffable and ultimately meaningless. What this does mean, though, is that a determinist essentially dominates all the empirical proof for determinism, and forces out the dualist.

Also, for reference's sake, a dualist can be determinist, and a monist can be a compatibilist or a libertarian.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 8:23:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I have trouble understanding why such an argument must go into That type of detail. Can you help me out.?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL