For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
By what criteria for "rational" vs "irrational" ?
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:46 amDeep.
depth requires relations, void is not even shallow.
Which is why I reject foundationalism...
coherentism is it's own foundation, it makes little sense at all.
My experiencees disagree.
Not when you are stuck staring at an empty point in space.
I already pointed it out, but let me state it again.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:42 am As to 1 decision ever second, that means the decision as 1 second is composed of either sub decisions and/or a deterministic model leading to the decision as fundamentally an undefined state of randomness.
You want to quantify the decision by degrees, when in all truth the degree is contradictory by it's own nature and effectively is just made up. The math section observing the proof where two 90 degree angles are not equal justifies this claim.
You've uncovered the principle of explosion and you are having fun blowing everything up.
And you are leveraging infinities to obliterate everything in sight. You'll get bored eventually.
I have no patience for infinities.
Creative Destruction is the correct "law", and bored?...younare the one claiming an absence of patience.
No, because my premise is paradox which observes a medical synthetic terms as always present. I claim void as origin.
Actually the nature of self interest has an inherent problem of definition relative to the fact all relations constitute a sense of self. Kindness to a stranger can be a completely selfish and morally justifiable act when viewing the stranger as an extension of oneself.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:20 am "There are other definitions, sure, these definitions basically say the same thing, namely being able to choose without constraint and without compulsion."
There's a difference between the ones I posted and the one your dad used. That difference is critical.
As for the rest: all your dad is saying is 'the individual always operates out of self-interest'. This is not a remarkable observation. I'm made that observation many times in-forum.
I'm not seein' how my being self-interested makes me sumthin' other than a free will.
Being self-interested in 'sane'.
I must eat or I die, I must drink or I die, I must self-defend or I die, I must eliminate bodily waste or I die, and on and on.
Free will is and never was about omnipotence/omniscience or unfettered choice (in the same way a 'free market' has nuthin' to do with gettin' goods gratis). And it ain't about 'good & evil' either (hint, hint). Free will (agent causation) is only about the individual choosing (I must eat but I choose when, where, and what; I choose how little or much I exert myself in gettin' food or the food I want; I choose whether 'law' will prohibit me in gettin' food, etc.). The agent is bound up in the world, within and without. Influences (some primally powerful) abound, but there are are no 'determiners' of the agent.
To the extent your dad and me agree: great!. Where we disagree it's cuz he has a cockeyed notion of 'free will' (which is not a quality, characteristic, trait, or substance but is a person, an individual, the agent).
And I already pointed out that you are abusing the principle of explosion.
This is the problem with valuing symmetry. You miss the elephant in the room.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:59 am 1. All rationality is the individuation of one irrational into another.
2. All irrationality the absence of individuation.
3. However all irrationals, are premised in rationals (irrational numbers as a continuum of rational numbers) as a continuum.
4. Rationality leads to irrationality, irrationality leads to rationality.
5. Rationality and Irrationality exist through eachother as 1 which is irrational; hence true because all unity is true.
6. Rationality and irrationality are separate as 2 which is rational; hence false because they are contradictory.
7. Points 1 through 7 are simultaneously true, false and neutral.
Free will is an astute observation about the human condition.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:20 am "There are other definitions, sure, these definitions basically say the same thing, namely being able to choose without constraint and without compulsion."
There's a difference between the ones I posted and the one your dad used. That difference is critical.
As for the rest: all your dad is saying is 'the individual always operates out of self-interest'. This is not a remarkable observation. I'm made that observation many times in-forum.
I'm not seein' how my being self-interested makes me sumthin' other than a free will.
Being self-interested in 'sane'.
I must eat or I die, I must drink or I die, I must self-defend or I die, I must eliminate bodily waste or I die, and on and on.
Free will never is and never was about omnipotence/omniscience or unfettered choice (in the same way a 'free market' has nuthin' to do with gettin' goods gratis). And it ain't about 'good & evil' either (hint, hint). Free will (agent causation) is only about the individual choosing (I must eat but I choose when, where, and what; I choose how little or much I exert myself in gettin' food or the food I want; I choose whether 'law' will prohibit me in gettin' food, etc.). The agent is bound up in the world, within and without. Influences (some primally powerful) abound, but there are are no 'determiners' of the agent.
To the extent your dad and me agree: great!. Where we disagree it's cuz he has a cockeyed notion of 'free will' (which is not a quality, characteristic, trait, or substance but is a person, an individual, the agent).
But , Peacegirl, the quote from Henry is a definition of absolute or uncaused, Free Will. Can you not see that? How can you or anyone else act independently of natural, social, or divine restraints? If uncaused will were possible, which it is not, how could you act with reason and forethought?henry wrote:
"the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints"
I agree.
Show me where the difference is critical.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:20 am "There are other definitions, sure, these definitions basically say the same thing, namely being able to choose without constraint and without compulsion."
There's a difference between the ones I posted and the one your dad used. That difference is critical.
Of course we all do things in self-interest even when we're altruistic.henry quirk wrote:As for the rest: all your dad is saying is 'the individual always operates out of self-interest'. This is not a remarkable observation. I'm made that observation many times in-forum.
Very true, but that was not his proof that man's will is not free.henry quirk wrote:I'm not seein' how my being self-interested makes me sumthin' other than a free will.
Being self-interested in 'sane'.
I must eat or I die, I must drink or I die, I must self-defend or I die, I must eliminate bodily waste or I die, and on and on.
Henry, you are not following him. There is no agent causation (or determiners) where a prediction can be made with 100% accuracy, or where a particular choice has been made in advance, in other words, without our consent. This does not turn us into blind automatons which many people fear determinism does. You are going by the old definition, which says if free will is false, the opposite is that we are caused by antecedent events. This is where the crux of the problem lies. IN THE DEFINITION. Remember, a definition is only as good as the reality it reflects. Try to understand this one excerpt. Don't rush through it to try to prove him wrong.henry quirk wrote:Free will never is and never was about omnipotence/omniscience or unfettered choice (in the same way a 'free market' has nuthin' to do with gettin' goods gratis). And it ain't about 'good & evil' either (hint, hint). Free will (agent causation) is only about the individual choosing (I must eat but I choose when, where, and what; I choose how little or much I exert myself in gettin' food or the food I want; I choose whether 'law' will prohibit me in gettin' food, etc.). The agent is bound up in the world, within and without. Influences (some primally powerful) abound, but there are are no 'determiners' of the agent.
His notion of free will is not cockeyed. For the purposes of the free will/determinism debate, free will means that we are able to choose A or B equally, without necessity or compulsion. Where did you think he took the agent out of the equation? Let's stay on the same page.henry quirk wrote:To the extent your dad and me agree: great!. Where we disagree it's cuz he has a cockeyed notion of 'free will' (which is not a quality, characteristic, trait, or substance but is a person, an individual, the agent).
You are constraining the context artificially. What do A and B represent?
Yes, we use our reasoning to determine what we should do next. And, yes, our choices are limited by our present life situation and the realities that go with it. Taking a trip to Saturn is not something we can do, so that is not a choice we are considering. But we can choose between a BLT sandwich or an egg sandwich or not eating either. We are compelled to choose the option that gives us the greater satisfaction regardless of the options being considered and regardless of the importance of those differences. Obviously, some differences are much more important in their choice value than others, so it takes a more careful consideration to decide which choice to go with, but that doesn't change the direction our desire forces or compels us to take.
Some times they are. Some times they aren't.
False trichotomy. What is it that I 'really' want? To eat. Or to eat a BLT sandwich?
So you are saying that we have no choice between immediate satisfaction or delayed satisfaction?
Yes. Long-term thinking is INCREDIBLY important to me. So important that I am willing to endure short-term discomfort for long term gains.
There actually is a universal answer, but the way determinism is correctly defined, it does not force a choice on anyone like a domino where we have no say. I think the fear is that we would become robots. But it's a mistaken conception.Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:04 pmSome times they are. Some times they aren't.
Some people are able to see more options than others.
Some people have the uncanny skill to ignore options that are obvious to a 5 year old.
Some days you may be tired and emotional so you can't think out of the box.
Some days you may be on your A-game and see all options with perfect clarity.
You still have some say towards engineering your surroundings, and your social circle, and your mental state, and your emotional state so THAT you are on your A-game as often as possible. Some people are so anxiety-ridden that their only solution around their own brains is medication.
There is no absolute and universal answer here. Everybody is different. I don't know what makes you the best version of you.
It's not a false trichotomy because it was just an example. You could have many choices that you are thinking through to determine which choice is the most preferable in your case.Logik wrote:False trichotomy. What is it that I 'really' want? To eat. Or to eat a BLT sandwich?
And a week-old toasted cheese would be your preference, for whatever reason. Maybe you didn't want to go out and buy more food. Maybe the tomato in the BLT sandwich was rotten and you didn't realize until you took a bite. This doesn't change the direction we are compelled to go. Remember, we are not talking about options before making a choice. We are talking about the choice that we were compelled to make based on our (being the agent) thought process. We can't leave the agent out, which the present definition does, causing a lot of confusion.Logik wrote:Maybe I am just being fussy? It's BLT or nothing!
Maybe I am starving? I will settle for a week-old toasted cheese!
Nooo Logik, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that each individual, given his experiences, may get greater satisfaction out of delaying a choice for a greater pay-off (so to speak) later on. This is HIS preference in the direction of greater satisfaction. Some people get greater satisfaction, based on their life experiences up to this point, along with their genetics, to choose an immediate gratification as their preference, even if they know it may not be in their best interest in the long run.Logik wrote:So you are saying that we have no choice between immediate satisfaction or delayed satisfaction?
It's called time-preference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference
That's exactly right. You have gained enough experience to know that immediate gratification is only immediate and gives you no personal gain in the long run. So you choose to delay what you believe is in your best interest therefore your choice, your preference, in the direction of GREATER SATISFACTION is to hold off for a greater reward later. This in no way disproves what I'm talking about. It confirms it.Logik wrote:Yes. Long-term thinking is INCREDIBLY important to me. So important that I am willing to endure short-term discomfort for long term gains.
Delayed gratification gives me satisfaction! So I choose not to choose some options.
Some people have more self-discipline and tolerance of discomfort than others.
You can even go as far as calling me a masochist, but you can't claim that masochism is a bad thing if applied to combating the harm caused by 'immediate gratification'