Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

xxFREE WILL CANNOT EXISTxx

GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:46:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:37:56 AM, Smithereens wrote:
A conclusion cannot follow from itself, and because of this, your argument doesn't make any sense.

How can the mutual exclusivity of choosing a first thought be best demonstrated by way of premise conclusion or syllogism?

If choice requires thought, and thought requires choice one cannot create the other as that would be tautologically invalid.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:50:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:37:56 AM, Smithereens wrote:
A conclusion cannot follow from itself, and because of this, your argument doesn't make any sense.

Thanks again for your comment I do have to watch myself on that premise
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:51:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:46:47 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:37:56 AM, Smithereens wrote:
A conclusion cannot follow from itself, and because of this, your argument doesn't make any sense.

How can the mutual exclusivity of choosing a first thought be best demonstrated by way of premise conclusion or syllogism?

Thoughts and choices are interrelated in the sense that choices are contingent upon rational thought in order to exist. Not the other way around. What do you mean to entail by arguing that a first thought cannot be chosen? Thoughts do not need choice at all, its choice that needs thought.

If choice requires thought, and thought requires choice one cannot create the other as that would be tautologically invalid.
Thought does not require choice, thought can infer choice.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 3:00:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:51:59 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:46:47 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:37:56 AM, Smithereens wrote:
A conclusion cannot follow from itself, and because of this, your argument doesn't make any sense.

How can the mutual exclusivity of choosing a first thought be best demonstrated by way of premise conclusion or syllogism?

Thoughts and choices are interrelated in the sense that choices are contingent upon rational thought in order to exist. Not the other way around. What do you mean to entail by arguing that a first thought cannot be chosen? Thoughts do not need choice at all, its choice that needs thought.

If choice requires thought, and thought requires choice one cannot create the other as that would be tautologically invalid.
Thought does not require choice, thought can infer choice.

Very good, that is perfect actually.

I am attempting to demonstrate how a first thought cannot be chosen because I agree thought does not require choice, which suits my model lacking free will. My premise was choice infers thought, therefore choosing a first thought would be as redundant as thinking a first thought.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:48:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

The subconscious throws up data which your conscious decodes to make coherent and creates a plan of action. The actions in turn are reabsorbed by the subconscious whose information-gathering becomes increasingly targeted.

A "first thought", is influenced by previous actions, and hence it is chosen by the decisions you made upon previous data, and this is how a character develops.

A better analogy is that every thought is a reaction to stimuli+ingredients, and no reaction can ever decide its own fate, hence free will is impossible, but only for the naturalist.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 9:04:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Depends how you define free will.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 4:29:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 9:04:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends how you define free will.

A Free Will definition should at least coincide with logic
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 5:48:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 4:29:02 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/23/2014 9:04:27 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends how you define free will.

A Free Will definition should at least coincide with logic

Ok. How do you define it?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 6:44:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

You can choose your thoughts. Suppose I want to think about asteroids. Then I can go read a book about asteroids and have lots of thoughts about them. You might say "but you didn't choose to think about asteroids, something else put that thought in your mind." Then I would respond by saying that to truly have an unrestricted range of thought, I'd have to have everything in my short term memory at once. Which is impossible because there are theoretically infinite thoughts that a person could have.

---

I also don't agree with a). Suppose I have in my conscious memory, the thoughts of

1)doughnuts, and

2)muffins.

I can choose to think about either of them and go into detail. For example I could choose muffins, and then start thinking about all the flavours of muffins and how they are baked and who invented them and what country they originated from and the chemical composition of them and whether or not they could survive the vacuum of space. So I disagree with a), because I can choose a thought to have.
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 7:01:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 6:44:55 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

You can choose your thoughts. Suppose I want to think about asteroids. Then I can go read a book about asteroids and have lots of thoughts about them. You might say "but you didn't choose to think about asteroids, something else put that thought in your mind." Then I would respond by saying that to truly have an unrestricted range of thought, I'd have to have everything in my short term memory at once. Which is impossible because there are theoretically infinite thoughts that a person could have.

---

I also don't agree with a). Suppose I have in my conscious memory, the thoughts of

1)doughnuts, and

2)muffins.

I can choose to think about either of them and go into detail. For example I could choose muffins, and then start thinking about all the flavours of muffins and how they are baked and who invented them and what country they originated from and the chemical composition of them and whether or not they could survive the vacuum of space. So I disagree with a), because I can choose a thought to have.

Short term memory is a well defined neurological mechanism.

For argument sake imagine the theory of a babies first thought. The baby cannot choose to have the thought for they would already have it. Choosing between two thoughts is an attempt to ignore the thought which constitutes the choice between the two. If one chooses muffin over doughnuts you cannot know what it would have like to have chosen the opposite, it would have been impossible from the perspective of our conscious experience. Thoughts just spring into awareness from the darkness of prior cause leading all the way back to a first thought which is logically impossible to choose.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 7:07:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 7:01:06 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/24/2014 6:44:55 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

You can choose your thoughts. Suppose I want to think about asteroids. Then I can go read a book about asteroids and have lots of thoughts about them. You might say "but you didn't choose to think about asteroids, something else put that thought in your mind." Then I would respond by saying that to truly have an unrestricted range of thought, I'd have to have everything in my short term memory at once. Which is impossible because there are theoretically infinite thoughts that a person could have.

---

I also don't agree with a). Suppose I have in my conscious memory, the thoughts of

1)doughnuts, and

2)muffins.

I can choose to think about either of them and go into detail. For example I could choose muffins, and then start thinking about all the flavours of muffins and how they are baked and who invented them and what country they originated from and the chemical composition of them and whether or not they could survive the vacuum of space. So I disagree with a), because I can choose a thought to have.

Short term memory is a well defined neurological mechanism.

For argument sake imagine the theory of a babies first thought. The baby cannot choose to have the thought for they would already have it. Choosing between two thoughts is an attempt to ignore the thought which constitutes the choice between the two. If one chooses muffin over doughnuts you cannot know what it would have like to have chosen the opposite, it would have been impossible from the perspective of our conscious experience. Thoughts just spring into awareness from the darkness of prior cause leading all the way back to a first thought which is logically impossible to choose.

but why can't I just think about doughnuts for 5 minutes, then go and think about muffins for the 5 minutes after I'm done thinking about doughnuts? What's the difference?

You're right that I can't think of both things at the same time. But I can divide up my cognition "man-hours" if you will, to think about everything. So I can choose to think about BOTH doughnuts and muffins if I want.

---

I think you are getting at unknown unknowns with the idea of a baby's first thought. We don't know what we don't know in other words. But in order to know everything we don't know, we'd have to know everything. Which is an infinitely large set and thus impossible. But we can explore any region of this set that we want at any given time, so I think we still have free will.
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:12:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 7:07:57 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 7:01:06 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/24/2014 6:44:55 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

You can choose your thoughts. Suppose I want to think about asteroids. Then I can go read a book about asteroids and have lots of thoughts about them. You might say "but you didn't choose to think about asteroids, something else put that thought in your mind." Then I would respond by saying that to truly have an unrestricted range of thought, I'd have to have everything in my short term memory at once. Which is impossible because there are theoretically infinite thoughts that a person could have.

---

I also don't agree with a). Suppose I have in my conscious memory, the thoughts of

1)doughnuts, and

2)muffins.

I can choose to think about either of them and go into detail. For example I could choose muffins, and then start thinking about all the flavours of muffins and how they are baked and who invented them and what country they originated from and the chemical composition of them and whether or not they could survive the vacuum of space. So I disagree with a), because I can choose a thought to have.

Short term memory is a well defined neurological mechanism.

For argument sake imagine the theory of a babies first thought. The baby cannot choose to have the thought for they would already have it. Choosing between two thoughts is an attempt to ignore the thought which constitutes the choice between the two. If one chooses muffin over doughnuts you cannot know what it would have like to have chosen the opposite, it would have been impossible from the perspective of our conscious experience. Thoughts just spring into awareness from the darkness of prior cause leading all the way back to a first thought which is logically impossible to choose.

but why can't I just think about doughnuts for 5 minutes, then go and think about muffins for the 5 minutes after I'm done thinking about doughnuts? What's the difference?

You're right that I can't think of both things at the same time. But I can divide up my cognition "man-hours" if you will, to think about everything. So I can choose to think about BOTH doughnuts and muffins if I want.

---

I think you are getting at unknown unknowns with the idea of a baby's first thought. We don't know what we don't know in other words. But in order to know everything we don't know, we'd have to know everything. Which is an infinitely large set and thus impossible. But we can explore any region of this set that we want at any given time, so I think we still have free will.

YOU SAID:
But in order to know everything we don't know, we'd have to know everything.

This one had me going

THEN YOU SAID:
Which is an infinitely large set and thus impossible. But we can explore any region of this set that we want at any given time, so I think we still have free will.

I don't know if we can explore the infinite set of knowledge whenever we want, cure for cancer? chicken? egg? The problem is still that we are a slave to whenever we "want" to explore. The thought just arises out of nowhere where else could it come from? prior cause? randomness? None of that is free will? Nothing is free will as it is a paradoxical munchhausen trilemma argument
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:31:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

Let's agree with your premise for the sake of argument. Even if the first thought cannot be chosen, that does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen. It is a non-sequitur, for example, to say that because the first crayon in the box was purple, all of the crayons are purple. The nature of the point of origin does not necessarily characterize what follows.

The conclusion I would draw is this:

P1: Choice requires thought
P2: A first thought cannot be chosen
C1: Not all thoughts result in choice

While not really a syllogism, IMO (as the conclusion doesn't really mirror the wording of the premises), it seems logically valid. You're argument makes the case that not all thought are chosen, therefore, not all thoughts related to making choices. Yet, as long as SOME thoughts are chosen, free will, as per your definition/premise, exists.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:42:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 12:31:53 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

Let's agree with your premise for the sake of argument. Even if the first thought cannot be chosen, that does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen. It is a non-sequitur, for example, to say that because the first crayon in the box was purple, all of the crayons are purple. The nature of the point of origin does not necessarily characterize what follows.

The conclusion I would draw is this:

P1: Choice requires thought
P2: A first thought cannot be chosen
C1: Not all thoughts result in choice

While not really a syllogism, IMO (as the conclusion doesn't really mirror the wording of the premises), it seems logically valid. You're argument makes the case that not all thought are chosen, therefore, not all thoughts related to making choices. Yet, as long as SOME thoughts are chosen, free will, as per your definition/premise, exists.

I am saying if there is no first purple crayon, then there is no way to have a second purple crayon
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:21:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 12:12:09 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/24/2014 7:07:57 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 7:01:06 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/24/2014 6:44:55 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

You can choose your thoughts. Suppose I want to think about asteroids. Then I can go read a book about asteroids and have lots of thoughts about them. You might say "but you didn't choose to think about asteroids, something else put that thought in your mind." Then I would respond by saying that to truly have an unrestricted range of thought, I'd have to have everything in my short term memory at once. Which is impossible because there are theoretically infinite thoughts that a person could have.

---

I also don't agree with a). Suppose I have in my conscious memory, the thoughts of

1)doughnuts, and

2)muffins.

I can choose to think about either of them and go into detail. For example I could choose muffins, and then start thinking about all the flavours of muffins and how they are baked and who invented them and what country they originated from and the chemical composition of them and whether or not they could survive the vacuum of space. So I disagree with a), because I can choose a thought to have.

Short term memory is a well defined neurological mechanism.

For argument sake imagine the theory of a babies first thought. The baby cannot choose to have the thought for they would already have it. Choosing between two thoughts is an attempt to ignore the thought which constitutes the choice between the two. If one chooses muffin over doughnuts you cannot know what it would have like to have chosen the opposite, it would have been impossible from the perspective of our conscious experience. Thoughts just spring into awareness from the darkness of prior cause leading all the way back to a first thought which is logically impossible to choose.

but why can't I just think about doughnuts for 5 minutes, then go and think about muffins for the 5 minutes after I'm done thinking about doughnuts? What's the difference?

You're right that I can't think of both things at the same time. But I can divide up my cognition "man-hours" if you will, to think about everything. So I can choose to think about BOTH doughnuts and muffins if I want.

---

I think you are getting at unknown unknowns with the idea of a baby's first thought. We don't know what we don't know in other words. But in order to know everything we don't know, we'd have to know everything. Which is an infinitely large set and thus impossible. But we can explore any region of this set that we want at any given time, so I think we still have free will.


YOU SAID:
But in order to know everything we don't know, we'd have to know everything.

This one had me going

THEN YOU SAID:
Which is an infinitely large set and thus impossible. But we can explore any region of this set that we want at any given time, so I think we still have free will.

I don't know if we can explore the infinite set of knowledge whenever we want, cure for cancer? chicken? egg? The problem is still that we are a slave to whenever we "want" to explore. The thought just arises out of nowhere where else could it come from? prior cause? randomness? None of that is free will? Nothing is free will as it is a paradoxical munchhausen trilemma argument

Can't I just be stupid and ask you to provide me an example of something you can't think of? And if you can't provide an example, doesn't that mean that you can choose any thought you want?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 12:17:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 12:42:08 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/26/2014 12:31:53 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

Let's agree with your premise for the sake of argument. Even if the first thought cannot be chosen, that does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen. It is a non-sequitur, for example, to say that because the first crayon in the box was purple, all of the crayons are purple. The nature of the point of origin does not necessarily characterize what follows.

The conclusion I would draw is this:

P1: Choice requires thought
P2: A first thought cannot be chosen
C1: Not all thoughts result in choice

While not really a syllogism, IMO (as the conclusion doesn't really mirror the wording of the premises), it seems logically valid. You're argument makes the case that not all thought are chosen, therefore, not all thoughts related to making choices. Yet, as long as SOME thoughts are chosen, free will, as per your definition/premise, exists.

I am saying if there is no first purple crayon, then there is no way to have a second purple crayon

Just because the first thought is not chosen does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen. You've failed to show otherwise--that is why your syllogism failed, because you're trying to prove more than you actually can given the premises of your argument.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 7:35:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 12:17:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/26/2014 12:42:08 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/26/2014 12:31:53 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

Let's agree with your premise for the sake of argument. Even if the first thought cannot be chosen, that does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen. It is a non-sequitur, for example, to say that because the first crayon in the box was purple, all of the crayons are purple. The nature of the point of origin does not necessarily characterize what follows.

The conclusion I would draw is this:

P1: Choice requires thought
P2: A first thought cannot be chosen
C1: Not all thoughts result in choice

While not really a syllogism, IMO (as the conclusion doesn't really mirror the wording of the premises), it seems logically valid. You're argument makes the case that not all thought are chosen, therefore, not all thoughts related to making choices. Yet, as long as SOME thoughts are chosen, free will, as per your definition/premise, exists.

I am saying if there is no first purple crayon, then there is no way to have a second purple crayon

Just because the first thought is not chosen does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen. You've failed to show otherwise--that is why your syllogism failed, because you're trying to prove more than you actually can given the premises of your argument.

YOU SAID:
Just because the first thought is not chosen does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen

MY ISSUE(s):
Semantics will not save you any proposition of a first chosen thought, or a chosen first thought, or a first choice thought will always fall into infinite regress. Even if you had a trillion thoughts to choose from, the choice, and the reason for choosing a particular method, is just another thought. Having a thought infers prior reason to consider. If a thought is to be chosen it must be for a reason which is either chosen or not. If saying you have did choose the first reason, that is only restarting the problem as saying you have asserted another thought which you did not choose until you get to a first thought or never had a first thought ergo never a second either.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 7:50:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:21:59 AM, BradK wrote:
At 6/26/2014 12:12:09 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/24/2014 7:07:57 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/24/2014 7:01:06 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/24/2014 6:44:55 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:21:21 AM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Premise=
Choice requires thought

Conclusion=
a.) A first thought cannot be chosen
b.) Thoughts cannot be chosen.

You can choose your thoughts. Suppose I want to think about asteroids. Then I can go read a book about asteroids and have lots of thoughts about them. You might say "but you didn't choose to think about asteroids, something else put that thought in your mind." Then I would respond by saying that to truly have an unrestricted range of thought, I'd have to have everything in my short term memory at once. Which is impossible because there are theoretically infinite thoughts that a person could have.

---

I also don't agree with a). Suppose I have in my conscious memory, the thoughts of

1)doughnuts, and

2)muffins.

I can choose to think about either of them and go into detail. For example I could choose muffins, and then start thinking about all the flavours of muffins and how they are baked and who invented them and what country they originated from and the chemical composition of them and whether or not they could survive the vacuum of space. So I disagree with a), because I can choose a thought to have.

Short term memory is a well defined neurological mechanism.

For argument sake imagine the theory of a babies first thought. The baby cannot choose to have the thought for they would already have it. Choosing between two thoughts is an attempt to ignore the thought which constitutes the choice between the two. If one chooses muffin over doughnuts you cannot know what it would have like to have chosen the opposite, it would have been impossible from the perspective of our conscious experience. Thoughts just spring into awareness from the darkness of prior cause leading all the way back to a first thought which is logically impossible to choose.

but why can't I just think about doughnuts for 5 minutes, then go and think about muffins for the 5 minutes after I'm done thinking about doughnuts? What's the difference?

You're right that I can't think of both things at the same time. But I can divide up my cognition "man-hours" if you will, to think about everything. So I can choose to think about BOTH doughnuts and muffins if I want.

---

I think you are getting at unknown unknowns with the idea of a baby's first thought. We don't know what we don't know in other words. But in order to know everything we don't know, we'd have to know everything. Which is an infinitely large set and thus impossible. But we can explore any region of this set that we want at any given time, so I think we still have free will.


YOU SAID:
But in order to know everything we don't know, we'd have to know everything.

This one had me going

THEN YOU SAID:
Which is an infinitely large set and thus impossible. But we can explore any region of this set that we want at any given time, so I think we still have free will.

I don't know if we can explore the infinite set of knowledge whenever we want, cure for cancer? chicken? egg? The problem is still that we are a slave to whenever we "want" to explore. The thought just arises out of nowhere where else could it come from? prior cause? randomness? None of that is free will? Nothing is free will as it is a paradoxical munchhausen trilemma argument

Can't I just be stupid and ask you to provide me an example of something you can't think of? And if you can't provide an example, doesn't that mean that you can choose any thought you want?

you would be absolutely correct in assuming I cannot think of that which does not occur to me.

We can choose what we think, but we cannot choose what we want. Choosing what to think is directly stating you had a thought which led to another thought. Wanting what you want is to say you chose the choice which find it's reasoning falling into an infinite regress.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:09:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 7:35:34 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:

YOU SAID:
Just because the first thought is not chosen does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen

MY ISSUE(s):
Semantics will not save you any proposition of a first chosen thought, or a chosen first thought, or a first choice thought will always fall into infinite regress. Even if you had a trillion thoughts to choose from, the choice, and the reason for choosing a particular method, is just another thought. Having a thought infers prior reason to consider. If a thought is to be chosen it must be for a reason which is either chosen or not. If saying you have did choose the first reason, that is only restarting the problem as saying you have asserted another thought which you did not choose until you get to a first thought or never had a first thought ergo never a second either.

This was very confusingly worded, so let's break it down.

1. You state that even if I had a panoply of thoughts from which to choose, my choice of which thought to choose is still a though. Fair enough.

2. You state that a thought must be chosen or not chosen. Sure.

3. It is this last sentence which loses all readability--the grammar is non-existent.

Let me explain my reasoning. Let's assume that the a mind has just been born (also assume it has knowledge at its disposal for the sake of the example), and it will be presented with a sequence of choice. The first thought is that of self-awareness; it realizes it is aware. It is then presented with its first choice: does it dwell on its self-awareness, pondering its own existence, or does it seek out new information? It chooses the latter. It is the presented with its second choice: does it open its eyes and look around, or does it focus on its auditory sense? It chooses the former. This sequence of binary choices could go on for infinity. Yes, the first thought was not chosen.

We could even say, in this example, that the first thought predetermined the first set of choices, and that the first choice predetermined the second set of choice (because one builds on the next.) However, at each stage, there was a meaningful choice, and thus, free will was present.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:22:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:09:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:35:34 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:

YOU SAID:
Just because the first thought is not chosen does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen

MY ISSUE(s):
Semantics will not save you any proposition of a first chosen thought, or a chosen first thought, or a first choice thought will always fall into infinite regress. Even if you had a trillion thoughts to choose from, the choice, and the reason for choosing a particular method, is just another thought. Having a thought infers prior reason to consider. If a thought is to be chosen it must be for a reason which is either chosen or not. If saying you have did choose the first reason, that is only restarting the problem as saying you have asserted another thought which you did not choose until you get to a first thought or never had a first thought ergo never a second either.

This was very confusingly worded, so let's break it down.

1. You state that even if I had a panoply of thoughts from which to choose, my choice of which thought to choose is still a though. Fair enough.

2. You state that a thought must be chosen or not chosen. Sure.

3. It is this last sentence which loses all readability--the grammar is non-existent.

Let me explain my reasoning. Let's assume that the a mind has just been born (also assume it has knowledge at its disposal for the sake of the example), and it will be presented with a sequence of choice. The first thought is that of self-awareness; it realizes it is aware. It is then presented with its first choice: does it dwell on its self-awareness, pondering its own existence, or does it seek out new information? It chooses the latter. It is the presented with its second choice: does it open its eyes and look around, or does it focus on its auditory sense? It chooses the former. This sequence of binary choices could go on for infinity. Yes, the first thought was not chosen.

We could even say, in this example, that the first thought predetermined the first set of choices, and that the first choice predetermined the second set of choice (because one builds on the next.) However, at each stage, there was a meaningful choice, and thus, free will was present.

Reasoning forward shows the randomness by which these choices must necessarily be made.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:24:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:22:00 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:09:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:35:34 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:

YOU SAID:
Just because the first thought is not chosen does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen

MY ISSUE(s):
Semantics will not save you any proposition of a first chosen thought, or a chosen first thought, or a first choice thought will always fall into infinite regress. Even if you had a trillion thoughts to choose from, the choice, and the reason for choosing a particular method, is just another thought. Having a thought infers prior reason to consider. If a thought is to be chosen it must be for a reason which is either chosen or not. If saying you have did choose the first reason, that is only restarting the problem as saying you have asserted another thought which you did not choose until you get to a first thought or never had a first thought ergo never a second either.

This was very confusingly worded, so let's break it down.

1. You state that even if I had a panoply of thoughts from which to choose, my choice of which thought to choose is still a though. Fair enough.

2. You state that a thought must be chosen or not chosen. Sure.

3. It is this last sentence which loses all readability--the grammar is non-existent.

Let me explain my reasoning. Let's assume that the a mind has just been born (also assume it has knowledge at its disposal for the sake of the example), and it will be presented with a sequence of choice. The first thought is that of self-awareness; it realizes it is aware. It is then presented with its first choice: does it dwell on its self-awareness, pondering its own existence, or does it seek out new information? It chooses the latter. It is the presented with its second choice: does it open its eyes and look around, or does it focus on its auditory sense? It chooses the former. This sequence of binary choices could go on for infinity. Yes, the first thought was not chosen.

We could even say, in this example, that the first thought predetermined the first set of choices, and that the first choice predetermined the second set of choice (because one builds on the next.) However, at each stage, there was a meaningful choice, and thus, free will was present.

Reasoning forward shows the randomness by which these choices must necessarily be made.

But the fact is that there is a choice, so free will does exist.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:27:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:24:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:22:00 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:09:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:35:34 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:

YOU SAID:
Just because the first thought is not chosen does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen

MY ISSUE(s):
Semantics will not save you any proposition of a first chosen thought, or a chosen first thought, or a first choice thought will always fall into infinite regress. Even if you had a trillion thoughts to choose from, the choice, and the reason for choosing a particular method, is just another thought. Having a thought infers prior reason to consider. If a thought is to be chosen it must be for a reason which is either chosen or not. If saying you have did choose the first reason, that is only restarting the problem as saying you have asserted another thought which you did not choose until you get to a first thought or never had a first thought ergo never a second either.

This was very confusingly worded, so let's break it down.

1. You state that even if I had a panoply of thoughts from which to choose, my choice of which thought to choose is still a though. Fair enough.

2. You state that a thought must be chosen or not chosen. Sure.

3. It is this last sentence which loses all readability--the grammar is non-existent.

Let me explain my reasoning. Let's assume that the a mind has just been born (also assume it has knowledge at its disposal for the sake of the example), and it will be presented with a sequence of choice. The first thought is that of self-awareness; it realizes it is aware. It is then presented with its first choice: does it dwell on its self-awareness, pondering its own existence, or does it seek out new information? It chooses the latter. It is the presented with its second choice: does it open its eyes and look around, or does it focus on its auditory sense? It chooses the former. This sequence of binary choices could go on for infinity. Yes, the first thought was not chosen.

We could even say, in this example, that the first thought predetermined the first set of choices, and that the first choice predetermined the second set of choice (because one builds on the next.) However, at each stage, there was a meaningful choice, and thus, free will was present.

Reasoning forward shows the randomness by which these choices must necessarily be made.

But the fact is that there is a choice, so free will does exist.

Free Will = Randomness
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:31:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Reasoning forward shows the randomness by which these choices must necessarily be made.

But the fact is that there is a choice, so free will does exist.

Free Will = Randomness

Free will is not to make a choice, it is to make a chosen choice.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 8:31:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:27:44 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:24:50 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:22:00 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
At 6/26/2014 8:09:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/26/2014 7:35:34 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:

YOU SAID:
Just because the first thought is not chosen does not mean that subsequent thoughts cannot be chosen

MY ISSUE(s):
Semantics will not save you any proposition of a first chosen thought, or a chosen first thought, or a first choice thought will always fall into infinite regress. Even if you had a trillion thoughts to choose from, the choice, and the reason for choosing a particular method, is just another thought. Having a thought infers prior reason to consider. If a thought is to be chosen it must be for a reason which is either chosen or not. If saying you have did choose the first reason, that is only restarting the problem as saying you have asserted another thought which you did not choose until you get to a first thought or never had a first thought ergo never a second either.

This was very confusingly worded, so let's break it down.

1. You state that even if I had a panoply of thoughts from which to choose, my choice of which thought to choose is still a though. Fair enough.

2. You state that a thought must be chosen or not chosen. Sure.

3. It is this last sentence which loses all readability--the grammar is non-existent.

Let me explain my reasoning. Let's assume that the a mind has just been born (also assume it has knowledge at its disposal for the sake of the example), and it will be presented with a sequence of choice. The first thought is that of self-awareness; it realizes it is aware. It is then presented with its first choice: does it dwell on its self-awareness, pondering its own existence, or does it seek out new information? It chooses the latter. It is the presented with its second choice: does it open its eyes and look around, or does it focus on its auditory sense? It chooses the former. This sequence of binary choices could go on for infinity. Yes, the first thought was not chosen.

We could even say, in this example, that the first thought predetermined the first set of choices, and that the first choice predetermined the second set of choice (because one builds on the next.) However, at each stage, there was a meaningful choice, and thus, free will was present.

Reasoning forward shows the randomness by which these choices must necessarily be made.

But the fact is that there is a choice, so free will does exist.

Free Will = Randomness

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you succinctly develop your point, please?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
GOD-vs-ITSELF
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 9:38:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Reasoning forward shows the randomness by which these choices must necessarily be made.

But the fact is that there is a choice, so free will does exist.

Free Will = Randomness

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you succinctly develop your point, please?

Restated, free will is not to make a choice, it is to make a chosen choice. If a choice was made without a reason? What does it mean to say you made a choice? Isn't that just to say that something happened?

The defense that one could have done otherwise cannot be supported through a chain of causality.
If You Believe In Free Will, Then Don't Picture A Hippo For One Minute. Starting NOW
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 9:45:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 9:38:36 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Reasoning forward shows the randomness by which these choices must necessarily be made.

But the fact is that there is a choice, so free will does exist.

Free Will = Randomness

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you succinctly develop your point, please?

Restated, free will is not to make a choice, it is to make a chosen choice. If a choice was made without a reason? What does it mean to say you made a choice? Isn't that just to say that something happened?

Simply put, if you want X, but don't want Y, your reason for choosing X is that you want it. I see no reason why the example I provided eliminate "chosen choice" though that seems to add an extra, possibly unnecessary layer of complexity to the issue of free will. I would think that simply making a choice is sufficient, as long as one could have chosen otherwise.

The defense that one could have done otherwise cannot be supported through a chain of causality.

Can you warrant this claim?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 9:53:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 8:09:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
This was very confusingly worded, so let's break it down.

1. You state that even if I had a panoply of thoughts from which to choose, my choice of which thought to choose is still a though. Fair enough.

2. You state that a thought must be chosen or not chosen. Sure.

3. It is this last sentence which loses all readability--the grammar is non-existent.

Let me explain my reasoning. Let's assume that the a mind has just been born (also assume it has knowledge at its disposal for the sake of the example), and it will be presented with a sequence of choice. The first thought is that of self-awareness; it realizes it is aware. It is then presented with its first choice: does it dwell on its self-awareness, pondering its own existence, or does it seek out new information? It chooses the latter. It is the presented with its second choice: does it open its eyes and look around, or does it focus on its auditory sense? It chooses the former. This sequence of binary choices could go on for infinity. Yes, the first thought was not chosen.

We could even say, in this example, that the first thought predetermined the first set of choices, and that the first choice predetermined the second set of choice (because one builds on the next.) However, at each stage, there was a meaningful choice, and thus, free will was present.

I believe the real issue with this is what constitutes a choice, in which IMO the truth is almost exactly the inverse of what most people consider it to be.

So, the first few moments of this person's exists are:

1. "EVENT" (Non-chosen) : "...self-awareness; it realizes it is aware."

2. PRESENTED WITH "CHOICE" : "It is then presented with its first choice: does it dwell on its self-awareness, pondering its own existence, or does it seek out new information?"

3. MAKES A "DECISION" : It chooses the latter.

Now, when I ask what consistitutes the choice, I really mean to simply ask what the word means.. or otherwise what takes place between steps 2 and 3. I can only think of two ways people might connect two events:

A. The decision simply arrives from nowhere.
B. The decision is the result of the influencing factors leading up to it, resulting in their logical outcome.

(When I say "influencing" factors, I'm talking about anything outside of the actual decision itself, not outside of the person making it.)

This is basically tautological in that A is a paraphrased way of saying the events are not connected, and B is a paraphrasing of what it means for two events to be connected. Another option might be to say that we just don't know how the events are connected, in which case free will is an unjustified assertion.

However, I think the most important fact is that most people would not consider A to be an actual choice. If my action simply comes from nowhere, it is a 'choice' only by name, but really it is 'determined' by its own randomness.

It is the fact that I deliberate and structure my actions beforehand that makes them choices. My making connections between the future and the past (cause and effect) is what constitutes my choices, and 'freedom' - a complete lack of structure, of sense, of cause and effect - is what constitutes only those things I haven't applied my will to.

It would be much more sensible to talk about "determined will" and "free events" rather than the opposite. It is precisely the capacity to structure which defines consciousness.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 10:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 9:45:24 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/26/2014 9:38:36 PM, GOD-vs-ITSELF wrote:
Reasoning forward shows the randomness by which these choices must necessarily be made.

But the fact is that there is a choice, so free will does exist.

Free Will = Randomness

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you succinctly develop your point, please?

Restated, free will is not to make a choice, it is to make a chosen choice. If a choice was made without a reason? What does it mean to say you made a choice? Isn't that just to say that something happened?

Simply put, if you want X, but don't want Y, your reason for choosing X is that you want it. I see no reason why the example I provided eliminate "chosen choice" though that seems to add an extra, possibly unnecessary layer of complexity to the issue of free will. I would think that simply making a choice is sufficient, as long as one could have chosen otherwise.

The defense that one could have done otherwise cannot be supported through a chain of causality.

Can you warrant this claim?

Cause and effect essentially amounts to rationality. "I could have done otherwise" means that one's rational faculty was not involved in choosing one thing over the other. If I choose something, I must be using my faculties to do so, not simply making actions out of nowhere (arbitrarily) or being coerced. Hence, if I could equally have done anything else then I was not using my faculty to choose it, it was simply an arbitrary event, which occurred to me, rather than being determined by me.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx