Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 22:27:22 GMT
tpfkar
said: So now you're emulating your hero graham
by misquoting me and then attacking the strawman argument that you have constructed. I never said anything about no humans being the fairest state of affairs for society.
The fact that you really don't see the utter madness in furiously trying to convince anyone of anything while knowing that no matter what you think, no matter what you do, that you cannot change the holy writ one whit. It's not the actions, it's the supposed knowing and not recognizing. It should give you a laugh just thinking about the irony of it. The same failure of basic reasoning that permeates a significant chunk of the ideas you share.
Because nobody ever being able to change their mind about anything is not a requirement of determinism. I won't ever be able to change outcomes to anything other than what they are determined to be. But I am part of that chain of causality, and the outcome will be in some way different due to my existence than it would have been had I not existed.
"Determinism" as you attempt to overwork, has in no way been established. In any case, it really doesn't signify anything. After things are done, they were always going to happen only one way (if you must object over MW, then within one of the worlds). Our choices are components and instruments of that sequence of things, and out consciousness as part of our biology set directions within it. It is insanity to postulate, much less require the insanity of randomness in order for there to be free will; randomness of thought along with the related malady of non sequituritis is strictly the realm of mental illness, a pathology, not of a healthy human consciousness. Almost as mad to suggest that things should not have "reasons" to qualify for anything other than lunacy.
I think that it's fairly well accepted that macroscopic objects behave deterministically, and that would include human brains. But don't forget that anything other than strictly 'compatibilist' free will would be equally disallowed by indeterminism. Randomness is not a requirement for free will, it proves that free will does not exist. Determinism also proves that free will does not exist. There is no room for it on either side of the spectrum.
I'm saying your use of "constrained" and "predetermined" is pointless yapittyap blown up for tendentious purpose. There's not any added layer, there's an outright rejection that in order for there to be free will that things would have to behave in a deranged fashion. Yes our brainand our biology exists as it is and at all because of "reasons". And yes, we as creatures have "free will" to decide and act according to what we want. The only meaningful or even sane depiction of "free will".
Whether things behave sensibly or in a deranged fashion, it is impossible to shoe-horn in 'libertarian' free will. Either way, our behaviour can only ever be directed by processes outside of our conscious control. That makes us. So we have no more free will than a computer, regardless of what you believe about quantum mechanics.
Views on free will are all over the place within secular scientific and philosophic beliefs. And not a one has gone an iota beyond an unestablished belief. If you didn't have ardent overmotives, you could live with that.
Except there is evidence that a machine can predict our choices before we know how we're going to choose.