is this right that Pre-marital sex is ok

Originally posted by TacDavey
The problem I pointed out with the argument could be made with any other person as an example other than the thinker and still be valid. Make no mistake. I'm not saying the problem with the argument rests with the thinker. I'm saying there is a problem with the argument, and was using the thinker to illustrate and prove it.

You proved nothing. You barely even managed to create the beginnings of an argument. A deterministic mind is no more or less trustworthy than a free one.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think I need to do this in order for the point I was making before to be valid, though, as I wasn't actively arguing something outside of physical human brain activity

nonsense, of course you are.

it makes no sense to point out that Digi's method is erroneous without suggesting there is another way. If the only way people can know things is through their experiences, and this is a flaw, but there are no other ways to do it, how does your criticism make any sense? You are inherently suggesting a different way of knowing, one that must be different than a materialist/deterministic view of the brain.

Originally posted by TacDavey
but rather pointing out a potential flaw in the Digi's original premise.

well, you might have to explain why it is a flaw though. You have pointed out an aspect of Digi's argument (his conclusion comes from available evidence, not on a priori decisions), not what is inherently problematic about it.

I certainly wouldn't call using one's senses to know reality a flaw...

Originally posted by TacDavey
I wasn't arguing any position at the time. I was simply pointing out what I thought to be a flaw in the initial reasoning.

man, you ran away from this one fast... why not just say "whoops" instead of this type of dodging, it was a bad argument, happens to the best of us.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This doesn't seem to solve the problem, though. Even if you build up knowledge about something that doesn't change the fact that you have no real control over what conclusions you draw from that knowledge or even how that knowledge is interpreted. In the end, you are still left with the fact that this idea is the result of forces that are outside of your control.

?

think about what you are saying.

this is essentially arguing that the only reliable knowledge is that which we are innately aware of without any experience of the world. Like, guess how we learn that the muscles to move our eyes correspond to changes in our gaze position? sensory experience! guess how we learn to make noise in order to communicate desires? sensory experience!

I'm really having trouble thinking of innate knowledge that has no basis whatsoever in experience. Like, we don't "know" to breath or have our heart beat, those are reflexive and we only learn that we must maintain them by sensory experiences of their cessation. How would we ever know to eat, or that eating would satiate hunger, if we had never experienced food? even things like innate fears of objects like snakes or spiders require the experience of those stimuli before we would have any knowledge of being afraid of them.

At just a very basic level, what you are saying is nonsense.

Further, if you don't extend your point to its logical conclusion, you are basically arguing for being blinded by your own biases. If you aren't letting your experience of stimuli determine what you believe, you are believing something in direct contradiction to what you can see. This is blatant lunacy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So you're saying that we are really nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains? We're just kind of running on a track like a train?

If we have no real control over our actions or thoughts, then isn't the person who thought up this idea just running on predetermined stimuli as well, and if this is the case, then how can you trust that the idea is valid? If the idea was born not from the thinker, but from stimuli that we have no real control over, how can you trust those stimuli to make a logically sound theory?

Well, inamilist and Sym are doing well enough showing problems with this line of thinking.

But basically, it matches with evidence. All human behavior is explainable via empirical, deterministic processes, and we have direct evidence to suggest that our conscious awareness of reality has next to nothing to do with our reactions and behaviors.

As in said, it's a burden of proof thing at this point. My model matches evidence. The burden is on you to show why I'm wrong. Because, frankly, if empiricism could be defeated so easily by an armchair philosopher, it would not be what it is today.

And besides being an ad hominem attack, as Sym mentioned, the beauty of science is that it shows us how reality works. Someone formed this idea because they observed it. But instead of being formed simply by a rogue thought, it came about because of controlled and repeated tests that show us how the universe works.

Because the "predetermined stimuli" that help a person form this opinion are the literal workings of the universe. It's the most trustworthy conclusion we have, by a large margin. You're acting as though being a product of causes that preceded you is bad. That is exactly what you are, at all times.

Of course, we could devolve this into an argument of subjective reality, where none of us can claim to know anything with absolute certainty. But not only does that make EVERYONE impotent to form an opinion, it denies that empirical evidence still suggests probability of likelihood in an inherently uncertain world. This is also a strength of science, because we work with data and facts, but unlike religions that have to make excuses when something in their doctrine is disproven, refinement of knowledge is built into the system.

Still, at a basic level, I feel like denial of determinism is something akin to denial of gravity, to use my earlier ball example. You drop a ball, it falls to the ground. We're just complex balls, with different forces interacting - not just gravity. But the outcomes are every bit as inevitable. To say that determinism doesn't exist, to me, is literally the same as saying the ball didn't have to fall. It's utterly nonsensical. It matches evidence, common sense, and if it weren't true, we'd be violating causality with literally every action or thought we make. If you want to believe that the rest of the universe works according to set rules, but humans can ignore those rules entirely, be my guest. To me, that's crazy talk.

So try to strip any emotional response out of this. We don't want to think of choice as an illusion - it's a natural instinct. But what people don't usually realize is that, determined or not, we can't predict our actions or anyone else's, so life is every bit as spontaneous and exciting with or without a Christian's idea of free will.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I did admit that the potential for harm, by itself, is not justification for calling something wrong. In the same way, though, the potential for NO harm also does not constitute right or wrong actions, as again, an action that has a 9 out of 10 chance of harming children is not right, even though there is a 1 out of 10 chance no one get's hurt.

The degree to the potential for harm is relevant to determining if an action is right or wrong, and I have already provided my reasoning behind thinking premarital sex is more harmful than not.

Well then here is where we disagree. Take out children and immature idiots, and you're left with maybe a few hundred thousand acts of sex a day in the country, most of which are contributing directly to love, or at least harmless gratification and stress relief, in our society. And the fact that most out-of-wedlock babies happen to people who probably shouldn't be having babies, is the biggest reason obscuring the fact that cared-for, loved children of single parents have functionally equivalent opportunities in the country.

A normal, rational adult shouldn't have to be labeled as sinful or wrong because some teenagers can't keep it in their pants.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You proved nothing. You barely even managed to create the beginnings of an argument. A deterministic mind is no more or less trustworthy than a free one.

That's what I was saying, though. A mind that has no free will cannot truly be trusted to produce logical ideas, because the idea's it produces are simply predetermined and the person thinking of the idea has no control over making it.

Originally posted by inimalist
nonsense, of course you are.

it makes no sense to point out that Digi's method is erroneous without suggesting there is another way. If the only way people can know things is through their experiences, and this is a flaw, but there are no other ways to do it, how does your criticism make any sense? You are inherently suggesting a different way of knowing, one that must be different than a materialist/deterministic view of the brain.

Obviously I was suggesting there was an alternative, but I never actually went into what that alternative was. I was pointing out a flaw, not providing another solution. It's possible to do one and not the other.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, you might have to explain why it is a flaw though. You have pointed out an aspect of Digi's argument (his conclusion comes from available evidence, not on a priori decisions), not what is inherently problematic about it.

I certainly wouldn't call using one's senses to know reality a flaw...

It isn't about using senses, it's about idea's and thinking. Senses will tell us what things smell like and what color something is. Ideas are different. They require us to create something, sometimes using sensory data. The problem I see with the way Digi is claiming it is set up is that the act of creating an idea or theory is not something based on our critical thinking or intuitiveness. Any idea we make will be an idea we were always going to make and is not controlled by us. We didn't actually make the idea, so why should we trust an idea that was born, not from our rational thought, but from stimuli that we have no real control over?

Originally posted by inimalist
?

think about what you are saying.

this is essentially arguing that the only reliable knowledge is that which we are innately aware of without any experience of the world. Like, guess how we learn that the muscles to move our eyes correspond to changes in our gaze position? sensory experience! guess how we learn to make noise in order to communicate desires? sensory experience!

What? How was I saying that at all? I said that ideas formed from predetermined stimuli cannot be truly trusted to form a logically valid truth. I didn't say idea's formed from sensory data could not be trusted to form a logically valid truth.

Originally posted by Digi
But basically, it matches with evidence. All human behavior is explainable via empirical, deterministic processes, and we have direct evidence to suggest that our conscious awareness of reality has next to nothing to do with our reactions and behaviors.

As in said, it's a burden of proof thing at this point. My model matches evidence. The burden is on you to show why I'm wrong. Because, frankly, if empiricism could be defeated so easily by an armchair philosopher, it would not be what it is today.

None of that solves the problem I posed, though. Even with supposed evidence, you still have to get around the problem if the argument is to succeed.

Originally posted by Digi
And besides being an ad hominem attack, as Sym mentioned

It wasn't an ad hominem. The point could have been made using any other person and any other idea and still be saying the same thing I was saying. The point being made was not about the person, it was about how the system was supposedly set up.

Originally posted by Digi
, the beauty of science is that it shows us how reality works. Someone formed this idea because they observed it. But instead of being formed simply by a rogue thought, it came about because of controlled and repeated tests that show us how the universe works.

But it came about whether the guy wanted it to or not. It wasn't born from his rational thinking, it was born from a set of predetermined variables. It was always going to come about. Logic had nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Digi
Because the "predetermined stimuli" that help a person form this opinion are the literal workings of the universe. It's the most trustworthy conclusion we have, by a large margin. You're acting as though being a product of causes that preceded you is bad. That is exactly what you are, at all times.

That's what I disagree with though. And I never said it was "bad", I said it couldn't be trusted to form logical ideas because logic plays no role in the idea's birth.

Originally posted by Digi
Of course, we could devolve this into an argument of subjective reality, where none of us can claim to know anything with absolute certainty. But not only does that make EVERYONE impotent to form an opinion, it denies that empirical evidence still suggests probability of likelihood in an inherently uncertain world. This is also a strength of science, because we work with data and facts, but unlike religions that have to make excuses when something in their doctrine is disproven, refinement of knowledge is built into the system.

Still, at a basic level, I feel like denial of determinism is something akin to denial of gravity, to use my earlier ball example. You drop a ball, it falls to the ground. We're just complex balls, with different forces interacting - not just gravity. But the outcomes are every bit as inevitable. To say that determinism doesn't exist, to me, is literally the same as saying the ball didn't have to fall. It's utterly nonsensical. It matches evidence, common sense, and if it weren't true, we'd be violating causality with literally every action or thought we make. If you want to believe that the rest of the universe works according to set rules, but humans can ignore those rules entirely, be my guest. To me, that's crazy talk.

Once again, though, that doesn't solve the problem I posed earlier. If we are forced by outside influences to make predetermined ideas, how can we truly trust those idea's to be logical when logic played no part in their birth?

Originally posted by Digi
Well then here is where we disagree. Take out children and immature idiots, and you're left with maybe a few hundred thousand acts of sex a day in the country, most of which are contributing directly to love, or at least harmless gratification and stress relief, in our society. And the fact that most out-of-wedlock babies happen to people who probably shouldn't be having babies, is the biggest reason obscuring the fact that cared-for, loved children of single parents have functionally equivalent opportunities in the country.

A normal, rational adult shouldn't have to be labeled as sinful or wrong because some teenagers can't keep it in their pants.

Only one of my stats was concerning teenagers. The rest of my points have not been focused on youth, they apply to everyone.

Tac, you're actually close to hitting on some relevant points about the subjective filter through which we perceive reality. However, you're focusing on an irrelevant aspect of it, and also only selectively applying it.

Let me try to build up to an answer to your question. Because I see where your head's at, and it's a tough concept to wrap around, but not impossible.

How do we build our perception of reality? Our senses. Whatever we think or believe, it's a result of that. And, if we want to know something better, how do we do it? We study it, we scrutinize it, we look more closely, and we form a better understanding of it.

Second part: Not to flirt with tautology, but whatever the universe does, however it acts, is exactly how it functions. So in observing the universe, we are perceiving a form of truth.

So you want to know why our senses are trustworthy, and thus why empirical testing in a deterministic world can be trusted? Because we are perceiving truth. Our minds might imperfectly interpret what we observe, meaning we can't be 100% certain of anything. But we can get closer to the truth by observing reality.

So the causal, deterministic forces behind our perceptions are universal truths that we are able to observe in some manner. They are the only way we actually have of knowing reality - otherwise thought and belief wouldn't even exist.

The alternative is, you just make stuff up that has no basis in reality. Which sounds better to you?

...

I'd also pose a challenge to you: what's the logical alternative to determinism? How is there NOT some cause behind each action, whether larger human actions or infinitesimal atomic reactions? How does something happen, ever, with no prior cause? Or, perhaps more specifically, how can we violate the cause/effect rules of the universe to make a choice that is incongruent with every cause leading up to the decision? If every synapse in your brain fires in such a way that you're going to pick vanilla, and nothing changes in brain state, how do you pick chocolate? And again, we know that the decision is made before you are aware of it.

How anyone perceives reality as anything but deterministic boggles my mind. How do they imagine anything functions? I guess the physical laws that make sure we have planets and stars and solar systems and oxygen and water and life stop working once they try to affect some fleshy carbon lifeforms.

Originally posted by Digi
Tac, you're actually close to hitting on some relevant points about the subjective filter through which we perceive reality. However, you're focusing on an irrelevant aspect of it, and also only selectively applying it.

Let me try to build up to an answer to your question. Because I see where your head's at, and it's a tough concept to wrap around, but not impossible.

How do we build our perception of reality? Our senses. Whatever we think or believe, it's a result of that. And, if we want to know something better, how do we do it? We study it, we scrutinize it, we look more closely, and we form a better understanding of it.

Second part: Not to flirt with tautology, but whatever the universe does, however it acts, is exactly how it functions. So in observing the universe, we are perceiving a form of truth.

So you want to know why our senses are trustworthy, and thus why empirical testing in a deterministic world can be trusted? Because we are perceiving truth. Our minds might imperfectly interpret what we observe, meaning we can't be 100% certain of anything. But we can get closer to the truth by observing reality.

So the causal, deterministic forces behind our perceptions are universal truths that we are able to observe in some manner. They are the only way we actually have of knowing reality - otherwise thought and belief wouldn't even exist.

The alternative is, you just make stuff up that has no basis in reality. Which sounds better to you?

But, if we are to form ideas and theory based off of those universal truths, don't we have to make a choice about how we apply the information we learn from the universe? It's up to us to use that information to create theories and ideas, but we have no real control over what theories and ideas we make out of that information. Unless you want to claim that the stimuli that control our actions will always take the information and make a universally truthful theory. Which I see no reason to assume they would do, and which obviously isn't the case, considering how many theories and ideas there are swimming around the world.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd also pose a challenge to you: what's the logical alternative to determinism? How is there NOT some cause behind each action, whether larger human actions or infinitesimal atomic reactions? How does something happen, ever, with no prior cause? Or, perhaps more specifically, how can we violate the cause/effect rules of the universe to make a choice that is incongruent with every cause leading up to the decision? If every synapse in your brain fires in such a way that you're going to pick vanilla, and nothing changes in brain state, how do you pick chocolate? And again, we know that the decision is made before you are aware of it.

How anyone perceives reality as anything but deterministic boggles my mind. How do they imagine anything functions? I guess the physical laws that make sure we have planets and stars and solar systems and oxygen and water and life stop working once they try to affect some fleshy carbon lifeforms.

Well, obviously I personally would say there is more to us than just our fleshy carbon bodies.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But, if we are to form ideas and theory based off of those universal truths, don't we have to make a choice about how we apply the information we learn from the universe? It's up to us to use that information to create theories and ideas, but we have no real control over what theories and ideas we make out of that information. Unless you want to claim that the stimuli that control our actions will always take the information and make a universally truthful theory. Which I see no reason to assume they would do, and which obviously isn't the case, considering how many theories and ideas there are swimming around the world.

Fair enough, though I'd point out that your objection here isn't to determinism itself, but to the idea of it in humans.

I'm still waiting on what the plausible alternative to determinism is, and how it works in a ways that defies causality.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, obviously I personally would say there is more to us than just our fleshy carbon bodies.

And we're back to burden of proof. Again, all human behavior can be explained via biological and neurological phenomenon. We know you believe in a soul, but to me that's nonsense without something to back it up, either logically or empirically.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Obviously I was suggesting there was an alternative, but I never actually went into what that alternative was. I was pointing out a flaw, not providing another solution. It's possible to do one and not the other.

That is really just a cop out though, isn't it?

You are implicitly suggesting that there is not only an alternative, but superior way of knowing the universe that is not reliant on "deterministic stimuli". For your criticism to have any validity, you have to show that your way produces superior results. If something is flawed, but still the best, it is hardly a criticism to point out the flaws. That we only experience the universe through imperfect sensory apparatuses is true and interesting in itself, but barring some other and better way, how is it a "critique" to point out that it is imperfect?

Originally posted by TacDavey
It isn't about using senses, it's about idea's and thinking.

oh this will be good...

Originally posted by TacDavey
Senses will tell us what things smell like and what color something is. Ideas are different.

this is easily shown to be wrong, as your two sentences are not even internally consistent.

There are many ways to define what a sense is, but the definition you are using includes an identification of what the stimuli is, not simply the experience of it (which I actually agree with, but I'm sure your next post will require me to explain why it actually doesn't matter which definition we use). This is evident from both of your examples: "What things smell like" and "What colour something is" require much more than the primary sensory cortex to know. To know something is red, you have to have an "idea" (to use your term) of what red is in the first place. Similarly with smell. If you know what something's smell is, you have an idea about it. Thus, by your own definitions, sensory experiences are ideas.

alright, next sentence...

Originally posted by TacDavey
They require us to create something, sometimes using sensory data. The problem I see with the way Digi is claiming it is set up is that the act of creating an idea or theory is not something based on our critical thinking or intuitiveness.

a) intuitiveness? ok, so, this is exactly what I meant by innate knowledge that you brushed aside. What possible intuitiveness does a human have that doesn't come from sensory experiences of the world. How we control our muscles and move comes from sensory experience ffs.

b) critical thinking skills develop over childhood as children go through developmental stages that encourage different types of interactions with the environment. critical thinking itself will not develop in isolation of external stimuli, and in fact, requires it. The entire foundation of what any individual's "critical thinking" capacity entails is derived from their interaction with external stimuli. Your cart is on the wrong end of your horse, critical thinking is a result of sensory experience.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Any idea we make will be an idea we were always going to make and is not controlled by us. We didn't actually make the idea, so why should we trust an idea that was born, not from our rational thought, but from stimuli that we have no real control over?

easy. we live in a universe where things are fairly constant. If i drop a ball, it falls at a predictable speed given gravity. our "rational thinking" is largely based on such contingencies in nature.

Think of it this way. Imagine you went into a universe where all sensory experiences were changed. Something producing the effect of "hot" or "cold" on your skin was not related to its temperature. Colour no longer signified borders between objects. You know, not simply "the laws of physics" work differently, but the qualities of stimuli work entirely differently from how they do in our universe.

If what you are saying is true, you would suggest a person could be taken from our universe and dropped in this one, and they would be capable of making rational decisions within that universe. Really think about this, how could that be possible? If the sensation of falling had no relation to what you know the sensation of falling to indicate, how could you even begin to rationally choose things in this universe?

Originally posted by TacDavey
What? How was I saying that at all? I said that ideas formed from predetermined stimuli cannot be truly trusted to form a logically valid truth. I didn't say idea's formed from sensory data could not be trusted to form a logically valid truth.

so sensory data that isn't predetermined? how would you define this?

Originally posted by Digi
Fair enough, though I'd point out that your objection here isn't to determinism itself, but to the idea of it in humans.

I'm still waiting on what the plausible alternative to determinism is, and how it works in a ways that defies causality.

And we're back to burden of proof. Again, all human behavior can be explained via biological and neurological phenomenon. We know you believe in a soul, but to me that's nonsense without something to back it up, either logically or empirically.

My alternative would be a soul. I would say that logical theories and ideas created by humans are only really possible if there is more to us than preset actions running on a track. If you want to hold that there is no free will or choice, then you cannot hold that there are truly logical theories or ideas, and as such you would be admitting that the theory that we have no free will is itself not logical. The alternative is to admit we have free will and choice, which would indicate that there is more to us than the physical parts we can observe, since these parts all by themselves do not allow for true free will.

Originally posted by inimalist
That is really just a cop out though, isn't it?

You are implicitly suggesting that there is not only an alternative, but superior way of knowing the universe that is not reliant on "deterministic stimuli". For your criticism to have any validity, you have to show that your way produces superior results. If something is flawed, but still the best, it is hardly a criticism to point out the flaws. That we only experience the universe through imperfect sensory apparatuses is true and interesting in itself, but barring some other and better way, how is it a "critique" to point out that it is imperfect?

Because it's imperfect? If something is flawed, you don't need to have a better solution in order to point out that it's flawed. If I point out a fallacy in an argument, but don't offer an argument supporting something else, that doesn't change the fact that the first argument was fallacious. Or to put it simply, I don't have to tell you that 2 + 3 = 5 in order to tell you that 2 + 3 = 7 is wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is easily shown to be wrong, as your two sentences are not even internally consistent.

There are many ways to define what a sense is, but the definition you are using includes an identification of what the stimuli is, not simply the experience of it (which I actually agree with, but I'm sure your next post will require me to explain why it actually doesn't matter which definition we use). This is evident from both of your examples: "What things smell like" and "What colour something is" require much more than the primary sensory cortex to know. To know something is red, you have to have an "idea" (to use your term) of what red is in the first place. Similarly with smell. If you know what something's smell is, you have an idea about it. Thus, by your own definitions, sensory experiences are ideas.

That's stretching it quite a bit. At the very least, you are not using "idea" in the same way I was. I'm talking about something we create, not something we experience. Even if it is based off of things we experience, it's still something we piece together ourselves personally.

Originally posted by inimalist
a) intuitiveness? ok, so, this is exactly what I meant by innate knowledge that you brushed aside. What possible intuitiveness does a human have that doesn't come from sensory experiences of the world. How we control our muscles and move comes from sensory experience ffs.

b) critical thinking skills develop over childhood as children go through developmental stages that encourage different types of interactions with the environment. critical thinking itself will not develop in isolation of external stimuli, and in fact, requires it. The entire foundation of what any individual's "critical thinking" capacity entails is derived from their interaction with external stimuli. Your cart is on the wrong end of your horse, critical thinking is a result of sensory experience.

Sensory experience plays a role, sure. I never said it didn't. I'm talking about what we DO with the sensory experiences.

Originally posted by inimalist
easy. we live in a universe where things are fairly constant. If i drop a ball, it falls at a predictable speed given gravity. our "rational thinking" is largely based on such contingencies in nature.

This still doesn't solve my problem. Think of all the ideas and theories that exist in the world. If what you are saying is true, then they are all nothing but predetermined theories and ideas that the person was forced to create. Yet they can't all be right. So that right there shows that these predetermined theories do not necessarily produce truths.

Originally posted by inimalist
Think of it this way. Imagine you went into a universe where all sensory experiences were changed. Something producing the effect of "hot" or "cold" on your skin was not related to its temperature. Colour no longer signified borders between objects. You know, not simply "the laws of physics" work differently, but the qualities of stimuli work entirely differently from how they do in our universe.

If what you are saying is true, you would suggest a person could be taken from our universe and dropped in this one, and they would be capable of making rational decisions within that universe. Really think about this, how could that be possible? If the sensation of falling had no relation to what you know the sensation of falling to indicate, how could you even begin to rationally choose things in this universe?

I actually see absolutely no reason to think someone placed in that position wouldn't be able to make decisions or choices. It would be very confusing for them, and they would likely have a hard time getting around, but I see no reason why their ability to think rationally would be taken away simply because color doesn't mean the same thing in that world. It would be no different than you or me suddenly loosing all our senses. Would we suddenly loose the ability to think rationally? No. Why would we?

Originally posted by inimalist
so sensory data that isn't predetermined? how would you define this?

I think the confusion is the world stimuli. I'm not necessarily talking about sensory information when I say that. I'm talking about experiences in general. The past things that make us do things.

Originally posted by TacDavey
My alternative would be a soul. I would say that logical theories and ideas created by humans are only really possible if there is more to us than preset actions running on a track. If you want to hold that there is no free will or choice, then you cannot hold that there are truly logical theories or ideas, and as such you would be admitting that the theory that we have no free will is itself not logical. The alternative is to admit we have free will and choice, which would indicate that there is more to us than the physical parts we can observe, since these parts all by themselves do not allow for true free will.

Oh, I like something you said here: "these parts all by themselves do not allow for true free will."

So, you admit that, minus a soul, free will doesn't exist. And...what is your evidence for a soul exactly?

But see, even that isn't satisfactory to me, because even if a soul exists, how does it affect anything if not causally? The presence of a soul does not, by itself, invalidate determinism. It just provides another mechanism to act in a causal manner.

Basically I'm asking you how anything can work if not causally. I don't think you're fully grasping the idea that you're claiming that humans can violate physics with our choices. A soul, though entirely unproven and essentially an appeal to magic/authority/etc., would only give us something not possessed by other animals. It wouldn't change the fact that we exist in a universe governed by physical laws that even our bodies must adhere to.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because it's imperfect? If something is flawed, you don't need to have a better solution in order to point out that it's flawed. If I point out a fallacy in an argument, but don't offer an argument supporting something else, that doesn't change the fact that the first argument was fallacious. Or to put it simply, I don't have to tell you that 2 + 3 = 5 in order to tell you that 2 + 3 = 7 is wrong.

well, there is a difference between "offering a critique" and "pointing out a flaw", but this is entirely semantic and uninteresting, so whatever

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's stretching it quite a bit. At the very least, you are not using "idea" in the same way I was. I'm talking about something we create, not something we experience. Even if it is based off of things we experience, it's still something we piece together ourselves personally.

Sensory experience plays a role, sure. I never said it didn't. I'm talking about what we DO with the sensory experiences.

a) you are simply moving the goalposts here. Any part of cognition that I demonstrate as being based on sensory experience you can simply say, "oh, not that part".

b) I'm sort of a pedant with this brain stuff, so could you explain what part of this process you are talking about when you say "what we do". This sounds like you are making an appeal to dualism, some sort of ghost in the shell argument. Is that it? You think the soul is this little guy in your head turning sensory information into these new and different experiences? lol, the soul is the thalamus.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This still doesn't solve my problem. Think of all the ideas and theories that exist in the world. If what you are saying is true, then they are all nothing but predetermined theories and ideas that the person was forced to create. Yet they can't all be right. So that right there shows that these predetermined theories do not necessarily produce truths.

you just changed the entire parameters of the debate. You said, initially, that you couldn't trust things based on [sic] "predetermined stimuli", now, it is simply, "they do not necessarily produce truths"

ok, conceded; what is better? whats the fix? if there is no better way, what is your point?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I actually see absolutely no reason to think someone placed in that position wouldn't be able to make decisions or choices. It would be very confusing for them, and they would likely have a hard time getting around, but I see no reason why their ability to think rationally would be taken away simply because color doesn't mean the same thing in that world. It would be no different than you or me suddenly loosing all our senses. Would we suddenly loose the ability to think rationally? No. Why would we?

well, there are two problems.

1) of course we would. How would a person with no sensory experience, say, get away from a fire, or reason through a puzzle? or wait, is this like your "ideas", "rational thought" doesn't mean anything I can prove doesn't fit with your point...

2) that isn't remotely comparable to the scenario I described. This person still lives in a world where there memories all follow a reliable contingency between stimuli and the way we process and interpret them. Their problem is they are receiving no input. The scenario I described is that the input is so foreign that our brain has no ability to interpret it in a meaningful way. For you to say, "oh ya, of course they can reason" is like you saying "oh ya, of course I can speak a language I don't understand".

additionally, you seem to be assuming that "rationality" is this thing removed from direct contextual experience. This is that dualism thing again... Like, really, what aspect of human consciousness would you like to have explained through neurological means?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I think the confusion is the world stimuli. I'm not necessarily talking about sensory information when I say that. I'm talking about experiences in general. The past things that make us do things.

so memory? please, don't be afraid to go into specifics with your theories of human cognition and behaviour here, I think I can keep up.

Originally posted by Digi
Oh, I like something you said here: "these parts all by themselves do not allow for true free will."

So, you admit that, minus a soul, free will doesn't exist. And...what is your evidence for a soul exactly?

But see, even that isn't satisfactory to me, because even if a soul exists, how does it affect anything if not causally? The presence of a soul does not, by itself, invalidate determinism. It just provides another mechanism to act in a causal manner.

Basically I'm asking you how anything can work if not causally. I don't think you're fully grasping the idea that you're claiming that humans can violate physics with our choices. A soul, though entirely unproven and essentially an appeal to magic/authority/etc., would only give us something not possessed by other animals. It wouldn't change the fact that we exist in a universe governed by physical laws that even our bodies must adhere to.

Except the soul isn't bound by physical restrictions. A brain functions like a machine. A soul does not. It's a spiritual element, not a physical one. I would say a soul is the only way truly logical ideas and theories can be produced. I assume you believe logical theories and ideas can be produced, so the only explanation I can see is a soul.

Though this is really irrelevant to the initial debate isn't it? There are other theories about the world besides determinism are there not? The point was whether or not determinism was a valid reason supporting premarital sex, not whether we have souls or not.

Originally posted by inimalist
a) you are simply moving the goalposts here. Any part of cognition that I demonstrate as being based on sensory experience you can simply say, "oh, not that part".

I don't know what you mean here. I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying. I fully accept that theories and ideas are based on sensory experience.

Originally posted by inimalist
b) I'm sort of a pedant with this brain stuff, so could you explain what part of this process you are talking about when you say "what we do". This sounds like you are making an appeal to dualism, some sort of ghost in the shell argument. Is that it? You think the soul is this little guy in your head turning sensory information into these new and different experiences? lol, the soul is the thalamus.

I'm talking about when we form a theory or idea. We don't sense a theory or idea, we create it based off of what we sense. It's still up to us how to piece the information together, which is why there are so many different ideas and theories in the world. The problem is that if we have no free will, we don't choose how we create theories and ideas, so we cannot trust that the theories and ideas we create will be geared toward truths.

Originally posted by inimalist
you just changed the entire parameters of the debate. You said, initially, that you couldn't trust things based on [sic] "predetermined stimuli", now, it is simply, "they do not necessarily produce truths"

That isn't changing the debate, that's basically saying the same thing. We can't trust predetermined ideas and theories because predetermined ideas and theories don't necessarily produce truths.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, conceded; what is better? whats the fix? if there is no better way, what is your point?

Initially, my point was to respond to Digi's claim about premarital sex, which was being defended at one point by determinism. So I pointed out the flaw I saw in determinism.

Originally posted by inimalist
1) of course we would. How would a person with no sensory experience, say, get away from a fire, or reason through a puzzle? or wait, is this like your "ideas", "rational thought" doesn't mean anything I can prove doesn't fit with your point...

There would obviously be things they wouldn't be able to rationally do. That doesn't mean all rational thought is taken from them. They would still be able to rationally think about a number of things that don't involve that world specifically. Perhaps they think about the multiverse theory as a possible explanation for how this world exists.

Originally posted by inimalist
2) that isn't remotely comparable to the scenario I described. This person still lives in a world where there memories all follow a reliable contingency between stimuli and the way we process and interpret them. Their problem is they are receiving no input. The scenario I described is that the input is so foreign that our brain has no ability to interpret it in a meaningful way. For you to say, "oh ya, of course they can reason" is like you saying "oh ya, of course I can speak a language I don't understand".

That isn't correct. All it means is that they cannot produce any theories about the sensory data of that world. It does not mean they suddenly become unable to think rationally. Actually, they might very quickly learn that the sensory data is off, and thus produce an idea that they are in a world where the sensory data is different than their own. Sounds pretty rational to me.

Originally posted by inimalist
additionally, you seem to be assuming that "rationality" is this thing removed from direct contextual experience. This is that dualism thing again... Like, really, what aspect of human consciousness would you like to have explained through neurological means?

The part that can produce logical theories that are not predetermined or run on a set track.

Originally posted by inimalist
so memory? please, don't be afraid to go into specifics with your theories of human cognition and behaviour here, I think I can keep up.

I'm talking about everything that determinism claims run our lives.

lets focus on this:

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm talking about when we form a theory or idea. We don't sense a theory or idea, we create it based off of what we sense. It's still up to us how to piece the information together, which is why there are so many different ideas and theories in the world. The problem is that if we have no free will, we don't choose how we create theories and ideas, so we cannot trust that the theories and ideas we create will be geared toward truths.

So, I'm going to try a "black box" model of cognition just to make sure I understand what your position on this is.

This first part represents what I believe both of us agree is a deterministic, physical system of the brain, where we have physical stimuli (sound waves, photons, chemicals, pressure changes, etc) interacting with our sensory organs (skin, tongue, nose, ears, eyes), moving into the brain, first to the perceptual system, then onto memory systems and forming what would be these "low level" perceptual "ideas" or whatever you call them, such as "red" or "rose". This conscious experience is influenced by the continuing flow of information from the perceptual system and the memory systems, but also informs new memories. In very broad terms, this is known as the bottom-up perceptual system, as it is almost entirely reliant on the stimuli that is incoming into the brain from the world around us:

Further, we both agree that this "bottom-up" perception influences, but is not solely responsible for our theories and ideas, so we can add them to the model, being influenced by conscious experience and memory, and themselves influencing how we consciously experience things:

Additionally, we agree that there is at least another influence on theories and ideas, one that is responsible for some type of broader organization of very simple environmental contingencies (fire is hot) into larger theories about the universe (heat can be used as a source of power for machines). So, lets call this thing X. I'm going to present both of those models then describe where I think we disagree:

inimalModel:

TacModel:

ok, so, the main differences:

a) X in my model is contained within the brain, physical and deterministic. X in your model is outside the brain, non-physical and non-deterministic.

b) The influence of "deterministic stimuli", or the "physical world" on X is much smaller in your model than in mine. I would suggest X is as much a product of the physical world as our ideas and thoughts are influenced by X, whereas you suggest that X has a much stronger influence on our ideas than the physical world does on X, as it is not a product of the physical world (actually, I'm not even sure if the smaller arrows are necessary, possibly the one from memory, but you have continuously argued for some type of "innateness" to X).

c) The arrows highlighted in red in your model are unexplainable by appealing to physical laws of the universe.

so, to show my model is superior, I would have to:

a) show that X is contained within the brain

b) show the bottom-up system is as influential on X as X is on the formation of ideas

c) show that the influence of X on conscious experience and on the formation of theories and ideas can be explained physically

before we go further, let me know if this seems like an accurate appraisal to you. I want to know what I'm arguing for, so I don't spend the time explaining something just for you to say "well, sure, that is physical, but this other ambiguous thing I can't define isn't".

Originally posted by TacDavey
Except the soul isn't bound by physical restrictions. A brain functions like a machine. A soul does not. It's a spiritual element, not a physical one. I would say a soul is the only way truly logical ideas and theories can be produced. I assume you believe logical theories and ideas can be produced, so the only explanation I can see is a soul.

Ok, so your hypothetical soul might not be bound by physical restrictions, but the body and mind still are. So how does the soul compel the body to defy causality? I don't see this as being able to be reconciled. Either it is a causal entity, or it is impotent to affect the body/mind because the body and mind remain bound by the laws of reality.

You've still done nothing to explain how something, anything, happens that isn't deterministic. And in doing so, you're essentially claiming that choices happen that have no cause or reason whatsoever.

Also, there's no evidence for a soul whatsoever, etc. but you seem to be ignoring that. Your argument, as such, amounts to "well, magic, therefore not science."

Originally posted by TacDavey
Though this is really irrelevant to the initial debate isn't it? There are other theories about the world besides determinism are there not? The point was whether or not determinism was a valid reason supporting premarital sex, not whether we have souls or not.

Debate something long enough, as we've been doing, and you eventually start to get to the heart of your disagreements. And for us, it's worldview and determinism/free will. When we talk about morality, we're discussing different things because of our differing worldviews. The conversation will necessarily devolve to this, because we disagree on fundamental aspects of reality that influence literally every aspect of our opinions. I can't debate morality with you when I disagree with your approach to it. That led us here.

lol, I just showed the girl I'm seeing my models....

this has produced the most sever fight we have had in our relationship to this point...

I think this is a good thing.. 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I just showed the girl I'm seeing my models....

this has produced the most sever fight we have had in our relationship to this point...

I think this is a good thing.. 🙂

Ha. I'm always surprised at the varied objections people come up with against determinism. My brother and I fought over it once too. We seem almost hardwired to hate it for whatever reason, despite the fact that it has no net affect our ability to experience joy in life (and the discovery of "choice" even if we know the possibility of multiple options to be illusory).

It took me a couple years and some reading into philosophy of the mind (which involves a lot of layman's neuroscience) to really start coming around to abject materialism. Even discarding the idea of a soul, the idea of consciousness as a separate, non-physical entity is a tempting one.

But like, even minus the neuroscience that you're ready to pounce with, how the universe, or even non-physical aspects of religious dogmas, operate in any way that isn't causal is completely beyond me. If we proved a soul tomorrow, it would still need to follow some kind of logical pattern to interact with the physical world or it wouldn't make sense. I think I probably instinctively always thought that, even when I was Christian.

Originally posted by Digi
Ha. I'm always surprised at the varied objections people come up with against determinism. My brother and I fought over it once too. We seem almost hardwired to hate it for whatever reason, despite the fact that it has no net affect our ability to experience joy in life (and the discovery of "choice" even if we know the possibility of multiple options to be illusory).

It took me a couple years and some reading into philosophy of the mind (which involves a lot of layman's neuroscience) to really start coming around to abject materialism. Even discarding the idea of a soul, the idea of consciousness as a separate, non-physical entity is a tempting one.

But like, even minus the neuroscience that you're ready to pounce with, how the universe, or even non-physical aspects of religious dogmas, operate in any way that isn't causal is completely beyond me. If we proved a soul tomorrow, it would still need to follow some kind of logical pattern to interact with the physical world or it wouldn't make sense. I think I probably instinctively always thought that, even when I was Christian.

actually, it was a neuroscience argument, lol

she got really upset about the arrow from "perceptual system" to "conscious experience"... she had a good point, but hell if I'll back down!

EDIT: but, no, I totally agree in general. arguments against determinism seem to be more knee jerk than coherent in some grand theory. Thankfully, I actually don't come across many people who are dualists in what I do, so I don't have a lot of experience with the whole free will debate thing.

lol, oh. Yeah, ok. I don't know the exact argument, but from that description I can imagine the nature of it.

My only gripe is that you have a dividing line between the physical world and the brain.

Also, for f*ck's sake, send some of the brainy atheists to the American midwest.

Originally posted by Digi
lol, oh. Yeah, ok. I don't know the exact argument, but from that description I can imagine the nature of it.

dude, it got out of control... she got like seriously pissed, almost went home at one point

Originally posted by Digi
My only gripe is that you have a dividing line between the physical world and the brain.

as i tried to explain to her... *ahem*... Its more a model that eases communication about the subject than something that represents a proper biological or neurological model.

I actually agree, in a lot of ways, individuals and the environment can be seen as interacting elements of a singular system, but in terms of the way I wanted to frame the debate, it sort of made sense to be like "here are the stimuli, here are the processes of the brain".

Originally posted by Digi
Also, for f*ck's sake, send some of the brainy atheists to the American midwest.

they're all mine

Lol on all counts. In seriousness though, I hope you don't break up over cognitive science. Would make a decent story though.