kennethamy;150252 wrote:

Have you any good reason for saying that with my same experiences I could not have chosen chocolate? What is that reason? (Saying things that "there is no duplication of moments" isn't a reason. It is just repeating what you are saying).

Yeah, because you did not choose chocolate. All of the factors in your life leading up to that moment forced you to pick vanilla as evidenced by the fact that you had vanilla. There was never a choice.



I do not have to show that you could not have chosen differently, you already have. You proved that you could not have chosen differently by choosing vanilla.

That is really a terrible argument. How did I prove I could not have chosen chocolate by choosing vanilla? I suppose that had I chosen chocolate, you would say I had proved I could not choose vanilla by choosing chocolate!

The fact that I had a reason for choosing vanilla (I like vanilla is my reason) doesn't show I was forced to choose vanilla. In fact, that I had a reason for choosing vanilla shows that I wasn't forced to choose vanilla. If someone had held a gun to my head, and told me, "Choose vanilla or die!" then I would have been forced to choose vanilla, since I did not want to have vanilla and I was forced to choose it. But how could I have been forced to choose vanilla when it was vanilla that I wanted to have for dessert? You are using words to mean exactly the opposite of what they do mean.

I agree, I think it is overrated and in fact I think the term should be edited because it gives the wrong impression. I think it should be called limited choice because that is more realistic to what free will if it even exists would actually be. There is no actual free will to do as one wills to do. That simply is not possible.

That is really a terrible argument. How did I prove I could not have chosen chocolate by choosing vanilla? I suppose that had I chosen chocolate, you would say I had proved I could not choose vanilla by choosing chocolate!

The fact that I had a reason for choosing vanilla (I like vanilla is my reason) doesn't show I was forced to choose vanilla.

In fact, that I had a reason for choosing vanilla shows that I wasn't forced to choose vanilla.

If someone had held a gun to my head, and told me, "Choose vanilla or die!" then I would have been forced to choose vanilla, since I did not want to have vanilla and I was forced to choose it.

But how could I have been forced to choose vanilla when it was vanilla that I wanted to have for dessert?

You are using words to mean exactly the opposite of what they do mean.

Of course it matters. Like what is true and what is false, do you think that there is any case in which it doesn't matter?

I could accept limited choice I suppose. In which case, YES, limited choice is entirely overrated!

---------- Post added 04-10-2010 at 03:20 PM ----------



Exactly, now you are starting to get it.



Actually, it does. But go on...



See thats where you go wrong. The fact tha you had a reason to choose vanilla shows that you were forced to choose vanilla.



Thats is not correct. If someone held a gun to your head and told you to choose vanilla or die. Then you will live or die based on your experiences and whether or not you are capable of accepting the ultimatum.

You are not following your logic out far enough.




Because you already wanted vanilla made any other option irrelevant. In fact, by preconceiving a desire for it there was no choice to begin with. You deceived yourself all along.



I think you need a new dictionary

I think you may be confusing two different things:

1. I must, if I choose vanilla, choose vanilla.
2. If I choose vanilla, I must choose vanilla.

(Please notice where the term "must" is located in each of the above sentences)

Now, 1. is, of course, true. In fact, it is a tautology, and necessarily true. But 2. is just false. It does not follow from the fact that if I chose vanilla, that I could not have chosen chocolate.

And, of course, 2. does not follow from 1.

This confusion, by the way, is an instance of what is called in logic, "the modal fallacy". It is very prevalent.

I hear what you were saying and if there was a way that a single moment could be duplicated then you would definitely have a point. However, since there is no duplicated moments there are no choices. Free will just doesnt exist, never has and never will.

Yes, another thread on free will (at least I hope it will become a thread). But instead of arguing about whether it is true, I would like to know if anyone believes the idea is overrated. We've had ingrained in our minds that freedom is invaluable, but being free to choose seems to carry just as many bad implications as good. Anyone else?

Let me try to rephrase my question more concisely: Does the supposed value of free will plausibly justify God's creation of a world that permits evil?

Alright, you guys are just splitting hairs here. I am asking that question from the context of Plantinga's supposed refutation of the argument from evil, which says that it is possible for God to not be able to actualize a world in which only good exists, because that would deprive us of free will, and free will, we suppose, is more valuable than no free will.

We can get into the semantics of this if you'd like (I myself tend to do so), but it only conflates the question.

What has the "duplicated moment" to do with it? Why can't something different have happened at the same moment? Or, indeed, why can't the same thing happen at different moments? Whose rule is that? I lift my finger at this moment, and then I lift the same finger in the same way, the next moment. I cannot both lift my finger and not lift my finger the same moment, but, so what? That just logic, not determinism. I just cannot do both the same thing, and also a different thing, at the same time. So? It is still the modal fallacy. You are confusing:

1. Necessarily, if I do X at time, T1, I cannot do not-X at time, T1, with,
2. If I do X at time T1, I necessarily cannot do not-X at time, T1.

1. is true. But 2. is false. And 1 does not follow from 2. It is the same fallacy as I point out in the earlier post.

You are mistaking a non-logical falsity for a logical truth.

Well, I have tried to show you the mistake you have made. Either I did a poor job of explaining or you are not capable of understanding. My reply is lucid so I fear there is no more I can do.

As always you may continue to believe what ever you wish as I will continue to know what I know.

Tris, it may be neither bad explanation or capability of understanding, s/he may just disagree. What can a person do?

Yes, another thread on free will (at least I hope it will become a thread). But instead of arguing about whether it is true, I would like to know if anyone believes the idea is overrated. We've had ingrained in our minds that freedom is invaluable, but being free to choose seems to carry just as many bad implications as good. Anyone else?

I for one believe that the concept of free will is overrated. I don't believe this because being free to choose carries too many bad implications, though. I believe it's overrated because while it may tell us that there is freedom of the will in the absence of coercion, it does not tell us what the actual causes of our actions are. It also begs the question of whether or not the will is conscious or just another unconscious regularity of nature (I believe the that the latter is true). I think that we value the idea of free will so much because it gives us a sense of power and with that power comes responsibility.

I for one believe that the concept of free will is overrated. I don't believe this because being free to choose carries too many bad implications, though. I believe it's overrated because while it may tell us that there is freedom of the will in the absence of coercion, it does not tell us what the actual causes of our actions are. It also begs the question of whether or not the will is conscious or just another unconscious regularity of nature (I believe the that the latter is true). I think that we value the idea of free will so much because it gives us a sense of power and with that power comes responsibility.

On the contrary, we rate it highly because as Kant wrote, "ought implies can". And that means that making ethical judgments implies freedom of the will, so that without freedom of the will, there is no ethics. To judge that a person ought to do X implies that he is able to do X. And, by contraposition, unless a person can do X, it is false that he ought to do X.