Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Event that is neither caused nor random

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 2:01:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Looking for answers.

I have trouble understanding the libertarian position of free-will because I don't comprehend how it rationally explains what type of physical event choice is if it's neither random or caused. What could possibly escape the physical laws of cause and effect as well as indeterminacy? This isn't only about libertarianism though. I'm just curious as to what anyone advocating this view would say.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 2:24:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Both causation and randomness are abstract concepts imposed by the human mind. Such contrasts don't exist in the real world.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 3:34:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 2:24:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Both causation and randomness are abstract concepts imposed by the human mind. Such contrasts don't exist in the real world.

http://debate.org...
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 3:43:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 3:34:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:24:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Both causation and randomness are abstract concepts imposed by the human mind. Such contrasts don't exist in the real world.

http://debate.org...

Are you telling me that you know how to use that meme?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 4:00:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 2:24:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Both causation and randomness are abstract concepts imposed by the human mind. Such contrasts don't exist in the real world.

Is this an absolute? But wait, this absolute basically states that there is no absolute. This means that it is a nothing. What is the difference between "real" and "imposed by human mind"?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 4:21:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 4:00:05 AM, Muted wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:24:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Both causation and randomness are abstract concepts imposed by the human mind. Such contrasts don't exist in the real world.

Is this an absolute? But wait, this absolute basically states that there is no absolute. This means that it is a nothing. What is the difference between "real" and "imposed by human mind"?

False dichotomy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 4:25:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 4:21:00 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/5/2012 4:00:05 AM, Muted wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:24:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Both causation and randomness are abstract concepts imposed by the human mind. Such contrasts don't exist in the real world.

Is this an absolute? But wait, this absolute basically states that there is no absolute. This means that it is a nothing. What is the difference between "real" and "imposed by human mind"?

False dichotomy.

How so? If you"re talking about the absolutes, what is third option? This is besides absolutes and no absolutes. If you"re talking about "real" and "imposed," I must point out that this differentiating criteria was begun by yourself. Is there another option?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 4:31:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 4:25:45 AM, Muted wrote:
At 11/5/2012 4:21:00 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/5/2012 4:00:05 AM, Muted wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:24:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Both causation and randomness are abstract concepts imposed by the human mind. Such contrasts don't exist in the real world.

Is this an absolute? But wait, this absolute basically states that there is no absolute. This means that it is a nothing. What is the difference between "real" and "imposed by human mind"?

False dichotomy.

How so? If you"re talking about the absolutes, what is third option? This is besides absolutes and no absolutes. If you"re talking about "real" and "imposed," I must point out that this differentiating criteria was begun by yourself. Is there another option?

All meaning is the result of conscious interpretation. It's own contradictions has no standing in the real world. It's not that there's a third option. It's that the two we have are inadequate.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 4:41:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 4:31:00 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/5/2012 4:25:45 AM, Muted wrote:
At 11/5/2012 4:21:00 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/5/2012 4:00:05 AM, Muted wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:24:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Both causation and randomness are abstract concepts imposed by the human mind. Such contrasts don't exist in the real world.

Is this an absolute? But wait, this absolute basically states that there is no absolute. This means that it is a nothing. What is the difference between "real" and "imposed by human mind"?

False dichotomy.

How so? If you"re talking about the absolutes, what is third option? This is besides absolutes and no absolutes. If you"re talking about "real" and "imposed," I must point out that this differentiating criteria was begun by yourself. Is there another option?

All meaning is the result of conscious interpretation. It's own contradictions has no standing in the real world. It's not that there's a third option. It's that the two we have are inadequate.

This is rather interesting because the interpretation that all meaning is the result of conscious interpretation is again the result of conscious interpretation which is...It goes in circles.

The two we have is "imposed by the mind" and "real". If both are inadequate, then it must be because there are contradictions in both. I am certain imposition would have contradictions, but how does one differentiate something real from something not when what is considered "real" has contradictions?

What I"m really talking about is that all talk of interpretation is really stuck in a vicious circle. (I do know that I am difficult to understand on occasion, but that may just be the result of the interpretation of your mind :D)
Basically, I"m saying that relativism is self-defeating.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 4:48:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 3:43:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/5/2012 3:34:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:24:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Both causation and randomness are abstract concepts imposed by the human mind. Such contrasts don't exist in the real world.

http://debate.org...

Are you telling me that you know how to use that meme?

Ik, but i needed something. :P
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 4:54:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 4:41:33 AM, Muted wrote:
This is rather interesting because the interpretation that all meaning is the result of conscious interpretation is again the result of conscious interpretation which is...It goes in circles.

The two we have is "imposed by the mind" and "real". If both are inadequate, then it must be because there are contradictions in both. I am certain imposition would have contradictions, but how does one differentiate something real from something not when what is considered "real" has contradictions?

What I"m really talking about is that all talk of interpretation is really stuck in a vicious circle. (I do know that I am difficult to understand on occasion, but that may just be the result of the interpretation of your mind :D)
Basically, I"m saying that relativism is self-defeating.

Nihilism is not an interpretation. It is the lack of one. I do not propose an answer. I dissolve any answers.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:01:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 4:54:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/5/2012 4:41:33 AM, Muted wrote:
This is rather interesting because the interpretation that all meaning is the result of conscious interpretation is again the result of conscious interpretation which is...It goes in circles.

The two we have is "imposed by the mind" and "real". If both are inadequate, then it must be because there are contradictions in both. I am certain imposition would have contradictions, but how does one differentiate something real from something not when what is considered "real" has contradictions?

What I"m really talking about is that all talk of interpretation is really stuck in a vicious circle. (I do know that I am difficult to understand on occasion, but that may just be the result of the interpretation of your mind :D)
Basically, I"m saying that relativism is self-defeating.

Nihilism is not an interpretation. It is the lack of one. I do not propose an answer. I dissolve any answers.
How is nihilism not an interpretation? How is it the lack of one? The lack of an answer would logically lead to nihilism. Would you like to debate the resolution, "Nihilism is not an interpretation of the human mind"? Or since, according to the two criteria, it is not an interpretation, it cannot have been imposed, and thus must be real? This confused child desires answers.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:03:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:01:08 AM, Muted wrote:
How is nihilism not an interpretation? How is it the lack of one? The lack of an answer would logically lead to nihilism. Would you like to debate the resolution, "Nihilism is not an interpretation of the human mind"? Or since, according to the two criteria, it is not an interpretation, it cannot have been imposed, and thus must be real? This confused child desires answers.

My assertion is semantic. Nihilism is the rejection of meaning. An interpretation is an application of meaning.

I don't have time to debate right now but thanks, that's a good one.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:12:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:03:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:01:08 AM, Muted wrote:
How is nihilism not an interpretation? How is it the lack of one? The lack of an answer would logically lead to nihilism. Would you like to debate the resolution, "Nihilism is not an interpretation of the human mind"? Or since, according to the two criteria, it is not an interpretation, it cannot have been imposed, and thus must be real? This confused child desires answers.

My assertion is semantic. Nihilism is the rejection of meaning. An interpretation is an application of meaning.

I don't have time to debate right now but thanks, that's a good one.

You're welcome!
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:16:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:03:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:01:08 AM, Muted wrote:
How is nihilism not an interpretation? How is it the lack of one? The lack of an answer would logically lead to nihilism. Would you like to debate the resolution, "Nihilism is not an interpretation of the human mind"? Or since, according to the two criteria, it is not an interpretation, it cannot have been imposed, and thus must be real? This confused child desires answers.

My assertion is semantic. Nihilism is the rejection of meaning. An interpretation is an application of meaning.

I don't have time to debate right now but thanks, that's a good one.

By the way, interpreting that nihilism is the rejection of meaning is an interpretation in itself. We go round in more circles.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 7:59:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 2:01:06 AM, phantom wrote:
Looking for answers.

I have trouble understanding the libertarian position of free-will because I don't comprehend how it rationally explains what type of physical event choice is if it's neither random or caused. What could possibly escape the physical laws of cause and effect as well as indeterminacy? This isn't only about libertarianism though. I'm just curious as to what anyone advocating this view would say.

There is an inherent assumption in that which is that reality is wholly material. What you say is true (it seems) so far as the material realm is concerned.

This underpins the thinking of many scientists who are deists.

Here is a very interesting Radio 4 discussion about free will, definitely worth listening too, the show "In our time" is superb and always has a colorful mix of experts/proferssors on the panel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 8:02:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also on a similar theme is this fascinating series of audio lectures by a leading researcher into the brain, Prof Ramachandran.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

This requires the ability to play RM (RealPlayer) files.

There are five lectures here - absolutely fascinating and a good backgrounder for anyone interested in "free will".

Harry.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 8:05:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 7:59:05 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:01:06 AM, phantom wrote:
Looking for answers.

I have trouble understanding the libertarian position of free-will because I don't comprehend how it rationally explains what type of physical event choice is if it's neither random or caused. What could possibly escape the physical laws of cause and effect as well as indeterminacy? This isn't only about libertarianism though. I'm just curious as to what anyone advocating this view would say.

There is an inherent assumption in that which is that reality is wholly material. What you say is true (it seems) so far as the material realm is concerned.

This underpins the thinking of many scientists who are deists.

Here is a very interesting Radio 4 discussion about free will, definitely worth listening too, the show "In our time" is superb and always has a colorful mix of experts/proferssors on the panel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Harry.

I was a materialist when I was deist. Religious people are much more likely to believe in immaterial objects than deists since they usually need mind-body dualism. I have yet to see how immaterialism could even lend an argument for free-will though. It makes it more plausible but I don't see it as an argument. (Haven't listened to the discussion yet though. Will do so latter)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 8:13:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually I just remembered though that some neuroscientests believe non-caused events in the brain lend us freedom. I don't see it however. Those events, if truly uncaused, are random and randomness has no place for free-will whatsoever.

Kant though said causality does not apply in the transcendental but I don"t recall him arguing how it gives us free-will exactly, just a refutation of determinism.

Also I do believe in free-will. I'm a compatibilist though so I still believe in determinism.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)