Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:53 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:26 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:10 pm I don't know if the beginning's doubling is on purpose, but yes, the latter part of the sentence works for me.

Sorry for the doubling at the start of the sentence.

No worries. I figured is was a pasting thing.

Yeah, it was a copy and past issue. It is a shame that I didn't pay attention to my reading.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:38 pmIn order to cause, you need to have the ability to decide and cause too.

I don't think so. Consider a large asteroid hurtling toward the Cretaceous Earth, causing a mass extinction. It has not decided to do that. It has no ability to decide anything. Nevertheless, it has the ability to cause.

So "The ability to decide is necessary in order to cause" is false.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 12:53 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 7:38 pmIn order to cause, you need to have the ability to decide and cause too.

I don't think so. Consider a large asteroid hurtling toward the Cretaceous Earth, causing a mass extinction. It has not decided to do that. It has no ability to decide anything. Nevertheless, it has the ability to cause.

So "The ability to decide is necessary in order to cause" is false.

The decision becomes necessary when there is a conflict of interest, what should I do, where should I go, etc.

I see two problems with "The decision becomes necessary when there is a conflict of interest ..." in this context.

Firstly, if the ability to decide is not always necessary, then it isn't logically necessary and your argument (causation entails ability to decide) fails. I think your argument fails and "The decision becomes necessary when ... " is an admission that is fatal to it.

Secondly, "when there is a conflict of interest, what should I do, where should I go, etc." presumes a conscious mind. That is, this "conflict of interest" condition for causation begs the question. You have assumed here in the premiss the truth of the conclusion you are trying to derive.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:40 pm I see two problems with "The decision becomes necessary when there is a conflict of interest ..." in this context.

Firstly, if the ability to decide is not always necessary, then it isn't logically necessary and your argument (causation entails ability to decide) fails.

No. That does not follow. There are times when a decision is necessary and there are times when a decision is not necessary.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:40 pm I think your argument fails and "The decision becomes necessary when ... " is an admission that is fatal to it.

No.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:40 pm Secondly, "when there is a conflict of interest, what should I do, where should I go, etc." presumes a conscious mind. That is, this "conflict of interest" condition for causation begs the question. You have assumed here in the premiss the truth of the conclusion you are trying to derive.

You choose one of the options that are available instead of hanging around until the end of time.

Hmmm ...

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:32 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:40 pm I see two problems with "The decision becomes necessary when there is a conflict of interest ..." in this context.

Firstly, if the ability to decide is not always necessary, then it isn't logically necessary and your argument (causation entails ability to decide) fails.

No. That does not follow. There are times when a decision is necessary and there are times when a decision is not necessary.

Is it possible you don't understand necessary truths and entailment? It seems like it.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:40 pm Secondly, "when there is a conflict of interest, what should I do, where should I go, etc." presumes a conscious mind. That is, this "conflict of interest" condition for causation begs the question. You have assumed here in the premiss the truth of the conclusion you are trying to derive.

You choose one of the options that are available instead of hanging around until the end of time.

Is it possible you don't understand circular arguments and why they fail? It seems like it.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:00 pm Hmmm ...

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:32 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:40 pm I see two problems with "The decision becomes necessary when there is a conflict of interest ..." in this context.

Firstly, if the ability to decide is not always necessary, then it isn't logically necessary and your argument (causation entails ability to decide) fails.

No. That does not follow. There are times when a decision is necessary and there are times when a decision is not necessary.

Is it possible you don't understand necessary truths and entailment? It seems like it.

I understand what the truth is. It seems that you don't understand what I said.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:40 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:40 pm Secondly, "when there is a conflict of interest, what should I do, where should I go, etc." presumes a conscious mind. That is, this "conflict of interest" condition for causation begs the question. You have assumed here in the premiss the truth of the conclusion you are trying to derive.

You choose one of the options that are available instead of hanging around until the end of time.

Is it possible you don't understand circular arguments and why they fail? It seems like it.

I understand what a circular argument is. It seems that you don't understand what I said.