Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Where does causal determination lie?

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 8:49:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If we arbitrarily divide a continuum of events into distinct segments for the sake of comprehension, then there can't be any free will. Can anyone tell me where an actual, epistemic divide between cause and effect occurs?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 9:13:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 8:49:43 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If we arbitrarily divide a continuum of events into distinct segments for the sake of comprehension, then there can't be any free will. Can anyone tell me where an actual, epistemic divide between cause and effect occurs?

Epistemic divides don't occur in cause and effect....... Luck does not exist, Free will does not exist, Time travel can not exist.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 9:38:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 8:49:43 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If we arbitrarily divide a continuum of events into distinct segments for the sake of comprehension, then there can't be any free will. Can anyone tell me where an actual, epistemic divide between cause and effect occurs?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Are you just claiming we don't have free-will? Or questioning the nature of causal relationships? The question seems ambiguous.
"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)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 10:06:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 9:38:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/14/2012 8:49:43 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If we arbitrarily divide a continuum of events into distinct segments for the sake of comprehension, then there can't be any free will. Can anyone tell me where an actual, epistemic divide between cause and effect occurs?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Are you just claiming we don't have free-will? Or questioning the nature of causal relationships? The question seems ambiguous.

The second one. We arbitrarily divide events into "cause" and "effect," but these are simply for the sake of practicality- events are a continuum rather than a series of distinct events. What I'm asking here is for some explanation of what actual divide there could be between a cause and an effect because there needs to be one if free will exists (free determination needs an splitting point in order to exist).
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 10:07:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 9:13:36 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 11/14/2012 8:49:43 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If we arbitrarily divide a continuum of events into distinct segments for the sake of comprehension, then there can't be any free will. Can anyone tell me where an actual, epistemic divide between cause and effect occurs?

Epistemic divides don't occur in cause and effect....... Luck does not exist, Free will does not exist, Time travel can not exist.

That's what this implies. I'm just wondering if there could be more to the problem.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 10:27:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 10:06:36 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/14/2012 9:38:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/14/2012 8:49:43 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If we arbitrarily divide a continuum of events into distinct segments for the sake of comprehension, then there can't be any free will. Can anyone tell me where an actual, epistemic divide between cause and effect occurs?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Are you just claiming we don't have free-will? Or questioning the nature of causal relationships? The question seems ambiguous.

The second one. We arbitrarily divide events into "cause" and "effect," but these are simply for the sake of practicality- events are a continuum rather than a series of distinct events. What I'm asking here is for some explanation of what actual divide there could be between a cause and an effect because there needs to be one if free will exists (free determination needs an splitting point in order to exist).

I don't understand why there needs to be in order for there to be free-will. But I'm a compatibilst so I fully accept causal determinism as well as free-will. But on the libertarian point of view, I believe it's an incoherent concept so I don't think they can solve it in any way. Of course, people like Michio Kaku claim non-caused events in the brain allows us to be free, but those events, if truly not caused, are random and randomness can't possibly allow for free-will so I don't see any argument there. When my foot hits the soccer ball, it causes it to move. You could say my foot moving and the ball moving are two different events, but it's all entirely connected. There is no divide but free-will does exist.
"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)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 10:35:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 10:27:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/14/2012 10:06:36 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/14/2012 9:38:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/14/2012 8:49:43 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If we arbitrarily divide a continuum of events into distinct segments for the sake of comprehension, then there can't be any free will. Can anyone tell me where an actual, epistemic divide between cause and effect occurs?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Are you just claiming we don't have free-will? Or questioning the nature of causal relationships? The question seems ambiguous.

The second one. We arbitrarily divide events into "cause" and "effect," but these are simply for the sake of practicality- events are a continuum rather than a series of distinct events. What I'm asking here is for some explanation of what actual divide there could be between a cause and an effect because there needs to be one if free will exists (free determination needs an splitting point in order to exist).

I don't understand why there needs to be in order for there to be free-will. But I'm a compatibilst so I fully accept causal determinism as well as free-will. But on the libertarian point of view, I believe it's an incoherent concept so I don't think they can solve it in any way. Of course, people like Michio Kaku claim non-caused events in the brain allows us to be free, but those events, if truly not caused, are random and randomness can't possibly allow for free-will so I don't see any argument there. When my foot hits the soccer ball, it causes it to move. You could say my foot moving and the ball moving are two different events, but it's all entirely connected. There is no divide but free-will does exist.

I'm not sure about compatibilism (or whether we actually have "free" will- the entire argument seems to be hinged on how one defines free). I do, however, accept that determinism should have no bearing on ethics or punishment. I'd just like to know if anyone is against this position, because I know popculturepooka is a libertarian free-will advocate.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 10:52:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 10:35:59 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/14/2012 10:27:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/14/2012 10:06:36 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/14/2012 9:38:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/14/2012 8:49:43 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If we arbitrarily divide a continuum of events into distinct segments for the sake of comprehension, then there can't be any free will. Can anyone tell me where an actual, epistemic divide between cause and effect occurs?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Are you just claiming we don't have free-will? Or questioning the nature of causal relationships? The question seems ambiguous.

The second one. We arbitrarily divide events into "cause" and "effect," but these are simply for the sake of practicality- events are a continuum rather than a series of distinct events. What I'm asking here is for some explanation of what actual divide there could be between a cause and an effect because there needs to be one if free will exists (free determination needs an splitting point in order to exist).

I don't understand why there needs to be in order for there to be free-will. But I'm a compatibilst so I fully accept causal determinism as well as free-will. But on the libertarian point of view, I believe it's an incoherent concept so I don't think they can solve it in any way. Of course, people like Michio Kaku claim non-caused events in the brain allows us to be free, but those events, if truly not caused, are random and randomness can't possibly allow for free-will so I don't see any argument there. When my foot hits the soccer ball, it causes it to move. You could say my foot moving and the ball moving are two different events, but it's all entirely connected. There is no divide but free-will does exist.

I'm not sure about compatibilism (or whether we actually have "free" will- the entire argument seems to be hinged on how one defines free).

Entirely true. And I think compatibilists define it best. (I'll be doing a debate with socialpinko on it shortly btw)

I do, however, accept that determinism should have no bearing on ethics or punishment. I'd just like to know if anyone is against this position,

Determinism has huge effects on ethics. It's one of the main reasons why I'm against the death penalty. It's entirely unjust to send someone to his death when really all he was was just unlucky. And changing from hard-determinism to compatibilism made little change to my ethical beliefs of determinism.

because I know popculturepooka is a libertarian free-will advocate.

Have you read his debate with 000ike?
"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)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2012 10:55:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/14/2012 10:52:50 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/14/2012 10:35:59 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/14/2012 10:27:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/14/2012 10:06:36 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 11/14/2012 9:38:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/14/2012 8:49:43 PM, MouthWash wrote:
If we arbitrarily divide a continuum of events into distinct segments for the sake of comprehension, then there can't be any free will. Can anyone tell me where an actual, epistemic divide between cause and effect occurs?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Are you just claiming we don't have free-will? Or questioning the nature of causal relationships? The question seems ambiguous.

The second one. We arbitrarily divide events into "cause" and "effect," but these are simply for the sake of practicality- events are a continuum rather than a series of distinct events. What I'm asking here is for some explanation of what actual divide there could be between a cause and an effect because there needs to be one if free will exists (free determination needs an splitting point in order to exist).

I don't understand why there needs to be in order for there to be free-will. But I'm a compatibilst so I fully accept causal determinism as well as free-will. But on the libertarian point of view, I believe it's an incoherent concept so I don't think they can solve it in any way. Of course, people like Michio Kaku claim non-caused events in the brain allows us to be free, but those events, if truly not caused, are random and randomness can't possibly allow for free-will so I don't see any argument there. When my foot hits the soccer ball, it causes it to move. You could say my foot moving and the ball moving are two different events, but it's all entirely connected. There is no divide but free-will does exist.

I'm not sure about compatibilism (or whether we actually have "free" will- the entire argument seems to be hinged on how one defines free).

Entirely true. And I think compatibilists define it best. (I'll be doing a debate with socialpinko on it shortly btw)

I do, however, accept that determinism should have no bearing on ethics or punishment. I'd just like to know if anyone is against this position,

Determinism has huge effects on ethics. It's one of the main reasons why I'm against the death penalty. It's entirely unjust to send someone to his death when really all he was was just unlucky. And changing from hard-determinism to compatibilism made little change to my ethical beliefs of determinism.

No it doesn't; I'll explain why later. Tired right now.

because I know popculturepooka is a libertarian free-will advocate.

Have you read his debate with 000ike?

No, but I will.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)