Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Determinism Revisited
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Determinism Revisited Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Jan 24th, 2004 04:44 PM
kellychaos Couldn't one say that what we have is basically a quasi-"free will"? What I mean to say is that although we have the social paradigms, the legal system, advertising ect that work on our conscious enough to subvert our will, there also seems to be a spark inside of us that acknowledges these influences yet still overcomes them with the imperative feeling that "Though I may have my limitations, I still have SOME choices which are my own." If this feeling was not inside of us, what would we be but a bunch of automotons, putting food in one end and waiting for it to come out the other while our body slowly evolves into worm food. In other words I find that the idea of "free will" is inexorably linked to our will to survive. Some instinct tells to strive for survival while our mind asks "For what?". the "for what?" is possibly creating life ... maybe reaching out socially to other people or maybe just in expressing yourself in some ways to others. That; however, is more like a moment to moment means of expression. I kind of like the Greek ideology of expression in the arts or even warfare gives you immortal life in the hearts of people long after you've perished.
Jan 23rd, 2004 04:35 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
What I'm saying is that there does not need to be a connection between personality and determinism. Personality is something which cannot be avoided - if someone were totally unpredictable, that would still be a personality trait.

I'd hate to get all analytic on your ass, but I think we might be operating under different impressions of just what personality is.
Ok, we could debate personality theory forever, so I'll rephrase my original statement so that we don't get off-topic.

We all seem to acknowledge a type of determinism in that we know it's possible to exercise some measure of control over other people. We've all seen the results: techniques like behaviorism and subliminal advertising work, and they work very well. If we agree that people can be manipulated, just where the hell does the free will come into play?

The irony, I said, is that we suddenly reverse it when we think of ourselves. "Nothing controls my decisions! I have free will!"
Jan 23rd, 2004 04:19 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
It's important because our entire justice system is set up on the premise of free will--the idea that people can freely choose and, as such, are responsible for each and every one of their actions (unless of course, utter insanity can be proven). If free will is an illusion, "justice" and "responsibility" are also illusions.
While I can see your point, some would argue that religion, specifically the Ten Commandments, are a major part of the basis for our legal system. Yet, I've seen religious documentaries where priests and rabbi alike have said that "the apple" is actually a metaphor for self-consciousness/identity. With self-consciousness taken into account, can the idea of "free will" be far behind? And so it seems we have two opposing forces at work in our justice system.


I see our legal system also, in part, as a means to keeps an orderly society. In that respect, it may further be seen as a means to keep in power those that are already in power. The powerful, in most cases, are the rich, n'est-ce pas? I know I'm going out on a limb but follow my argument just for fun. And so, it seems that the legal system is a means for the rich to stay rich by more or less hired protection ... i.e. the local police. Have you ever noticed how the police respond to the nice area of town faster than the bad part of town? That being said, what are we left with but a legal system that basically supports the current status quo with all the inherent paradigms. Is that "free will" in it's purest form?
Jan 23rd, 2004 04:07 PM
The One and Only... What I'm saying is that there does not need to be a connection between personality and determinism. Personality is something which cannot be avoided - if someone were totally unpredictable, that would still be a personality trait.

I'd hate to get all analytic on your ass, but I think we might be operating under different impressions of just what personality is.
Jan 23rd, 2004 04:04 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
I don't endorse behaviorism.

You said that we manipulate determinism, but to be more exact, we manipulate people's personalities. I don't see what's so hard to follow.
"Manipulate determinism"? When did I say that? I'm not even sure what the hell that would mean.

What I did say was that by manipulating people through their personalities we acknowledge that some measure of determinism exists.
Jan 23rd, 2004 03:51 PM
The One and Only... I don't endorse behaviorism.

You said that we manipulate determinism, but to be more exact, we manipulate people's personalities. I don't see what's so hard to follow.
Jan 23rd, 2004 03:09 AM
executioneer wtf i didn't know that keiko died, what happened last i heard he (she?) was in a cage at iceland getting acclimated to semi-wild conditions

-willie
Jan 23rd, 2004 02:40 AM
Dole And no one acknowledged my shit and obscure-ish joke. Bastards.
Jan 23rd, 2004 02:04 AM
sspadowsky THis thread still boring?

*cursory glance*

Yep. Sure enough.
Jan 22nd, 2004 09:41 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
It is shocking to me that you are endorsing behaviorism.
He'll endorse whatever contradicts the person who first contradicted him, even if it doesn't coincide with his ideology. I think he'd rather die than have one of his statements be thought of as wrong.

Oh, and BTW:

Quote:
Originally Posted by I
We all agree with determinism when it comes to our dealings with other people. We manipulate, influence, and condition one another on an almost daily basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickface
You are confusing accepting determinism with accepting personality.
You're really going to have to clarify, because I don't see how that relates to my post in any way.
Jan 22nd, 2004 09:32 PM
theapportioner It is shocking to me that you are endorsing behaviorism.
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:55 PM
The One and Only... You read to much into such statements.

Psychology can't contradict that. All it can do is observe responses and call consistancies personality traits. It can't prove that personality even exists in the way you define it.
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:49 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Personality is merely the observable result of our behavior and decisions. It comes from them, rather than influences them.
Even you know that's a bullshit statement. Not only does it contradict what psychological research has told us, but it stands in contrast to your earlier claim that you are an "introvert by nature."
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:43 PM
The One and Only... Personality is merely the observable result of our behavior and decisions. It comes from them, rather than influences them.
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:22 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Why? Free will is not synonymous with unpredictability.
What the hell are you trying to say?

Personality is a component of determinism because it influences behavior and decisions.
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:13 PM
The One and Only... Why? Free will is not synonymous with unpredictability.
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:07 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
You are confusing accepting determinism with accepting personality.
Personality is a form of determinism.
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:05 PM
The One and Only... You are confusing accepting determinism with accepting personality.
Jan 22nd, 2004 07:03 PM
Brandon Something else I've noticed:

We all agree with determinism when it comes to our dealings with other people. We manipulate, influence, and condition one another on an almost daily basis.

Take, for example, asking for a favor. We approach the person at an appropriate time, we make sure our question is in the proper tone of voice, and we phrase it in just such a way as to increase the odds of a positive answer.

But we always think it's different when it comes to oursleves, don't we? "Nothing controls me. I have free will."
Jan 22nd, 2004 06:19 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I already know that faster than light speed is impossible and I already know why. If that was my point, what was I saying to you? To be more direct, anyone can win any argument if hidden variable X= that thing which will make me win the argument.
Then you are guilty of commiting a false analogy. Variable X is a possibility, while the variable for past-light speed is impossible.


Quote:
Disproving 2+2=5 is not proving a negative, it is disproving a statement. Don't you have teachers? Or have the found your prancing so deterimental to the other students they have asked you to remain silent?
Negative - Logic. Designating a proposition that denies agreement between a subject and its predicate.

Therefore, the statement "2+2 is not equal to 4" is, by definition, a disproven negative.
Jan 22nd, 2004 06:16 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellychaos
Isn't worrying about whether life is hinged on "free will" an argument made in vain, anyway? If all the infinite amount of causes in the universe determine your fate, to include the conditioning that gives you that feeling of "free will", then what difference is there to Joe Sixpack in the falsity of this belief? People base their whole lives on false beliefs of many kinds. One example is that of the various religions. Only one of them can be correct ... maybe not even one ... yet people live productive lives based a variety of false religions. The fact that the idea of free will stems from various religions is an interesting dichotomy in itself. The opposing (to me) ideas seem to keep each other in check. What would life of earth be like with no religions ("imagine there's no heaven") and, yet, everyone believed in free will ... keeping in mind the limits of our mortality. Would the general population just go insane with the knowledge that they have free reign to do anything yet they only have a limited amount of time to do this "anything". Actually, I don't think so. For some reason, people always invent some kind of morality to reel themselves in no matter if religion is involved. Nietzche may not agree with me but I don't think that it's religion that reigns us in so much as ourselves and the seemingly innate intellectual structure of "The Golden Rule".
Arguing in vain? I couldn't disagree more. I feel that it's just the opposite--one of the most important issues in philosophy.

It's important because our entire justice system is set up on the premise of free will--the idea that people can freely choose and, as such, are responsible for each and every one of their actions (unless of course, utter insanity can be proven). If free will is an illusion, "justice" and "responsibility" are also illusions. Punishment for punishment's sake, then, should be done away with, and "moral lapses" would require treatment and reconditioning instead. The common man can go on believing in free will for as long as he wants, but people who know better shouldn't let that illusion influence the way we set up society.

Also, you may have misinterpreted Nietzsche. He believed that while morals were subjective, human creations, they were still vitally important to the structure of a society. He criticized certain religions (particularly Christianity), however, for indoctrinating western society with morals that were life-denying, meaning they went against the grain of what is in the best interest of humanity. He felt we needed to create a new morality, a re-valuation of values that would glorify pride, strength, instinct, and sexuality.

He wasn't even against religion per se, so long as said religion was a reflection of life-affirming values. Pagan polytheism, for example.
Jan 22nd, 2004 04:14 PM
kellychaos Isn't worrying about whether life is hinged on "free will" an argument made in vain, anyway? If all the infinite amount of causes in the universe determine your fate, to include the conditioning that gives you that feeling of "free will", then what difference is there to Joe Sixpack in the falsity of this belief? People base their whole lives on false beliefs of many kinds. One example is that of the various religions. Only one of them can be correct ... maybe not even one ... yet people live productive lives based a variety of false religions. The fact that the idea of free will stems from various religions is an interesting dichotomy in itself. The opposing (to me) ideas seem to keep each other in check. What would life of earth be like with no religions ("imagine there's no heaven") and, yet, everyone believed in free will ... keeping in mind the limits of our mortality. Would the general population just go insane with the knowledge that they have free reign to do anything yet they only have a limited amount of time to do this "anything". Actually, I don't think so. For some reason, people always invent some kind of morality to reel themselves in no matter if religion is involved. Nietzche may not agree with me but I don't think that it's religion that reigns us in so much as ourselves and the seemingly innate intellectual structure of "The Golden Rule".
Jan 22nd, 2004 01:19 AM
Perndog I'm with Max on this one. Either we have free will or we're programmed to believe we do.

In the first case, my own philosophy already strongly advocates personal responsibility.

If, however, personal responsibility is false because everything is determined, then I don't really have a choice of what I want to believe. So if I were to decide that determinism really is true, I could stick to the same philosophy confident that it's not my decision - it's just a product of physical causes.
Jan 21st, 2004 10:15 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Interesting question. I think one has to distinguish feelings from worldviews (which are certainly not feelings). I'm not sure how to "feel" determined, especially as you said, determining causation is very problematic. If the sensation of a "free" conscious will is an emotion of some sort, then it's innate. (Like you can modulate happiness but you don't "teach" someone that happiness).
True.

But I have to wonder--is that "feeling of freedom" really a gut feeling or just a common assumption we hold? Do we really feel as free as we say we do?
Jan 21st, 2004 09:59 PM
theapportioner
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
Another thought:

Defenders of free will often cite man's "inherent feeling of freedom" as if it is, and always has been, a fundamental part of being human. But why do we assume that this "feeling of freedom" is itself not a conditioned response? After all, from a very early age, we are constantly told by parents, religious officials, and authority figures that we are free and totally responsible.

And if it were such a "natural" feeling, why is that many, if not all of the earliest peoples were fatalistic in their worldview?
Interesting question. I think one has to distinguish feelings from worldviews (which are certainly not feelings). I'm not sure how to "feel" determined, especially as you said, determining causation is very problematic. If the sensation of a "free" conscious will is an emotion of some sort, then it's innate. (Like you can modulate happiness but you don't "teach" someone that happiness).
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:37 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.