quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Well, of course, you started it yourself!

I did not, I merely stated that SINCE Christians aren't clear, that an discussion on religion would PROBABLY happen.

You bit the bait.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I guess what you're asking is: Can you choose the option involving more pain? If that's the question, then I would say "no". You cannot chose the option that you expect would give you the least amount of pleasure. I've been presented for a number of cases over the years, where people have thought that this is not true, but I have so far been able to explain them all away, but am of course open to new ideas.

I just tried to disprove that twice and both times I ended up sticking my foot in my mouth because mid explaination I ended up agreeing that it wasn't choice.

In my first argument, I tried to state that one can chose the painful route if in the end they find it more beneficiary and healthy. And then I realized that you in fact wouldn't be choosing the painful route because the end results in happiness.

In my second argument, I tried to dispute that one could be considered choosing to stay in an abusive situation if they have no where else to turn, but then I decided no, that means that they are actually left in the situation by force, not by choice.

What about suicide? On one hand I could see that in the end you decided to end a painful situation. But then again, it could be argued that had you stayed alive, you would have been choosing the lesser of two evils, and in the end, chose the option that would bring the less amount of pain, rather than just not giving yourself the chance and offing yourself.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly What about suicide? On one hand I could see that in the end you decided to end a painful situation. But then again, it could be argued that had you stayed alive, you would have been choosing the lesser of two evils, and in the end, chose the option that would bring the less amount of pain, rather than just not giving yourself the chance and offing yourself.

I would say that the negative consequences of suicide is
1: the pain involved in killing yourself,
2: the sadness you know you will bring those who love you, and
3: if you believe in "something after death", the risk of not knowing if you end up in a situation worse than the one you're in right now.

As to 1, I think that we can agree that it is a non-issue if you're already in pain due to some illness. If you're "only" suffering psychologically then you must somehow value psychological well-being much higher than physical well-being if you take the suicide route. For 2, the same kind of reasoning would say that a person who's already without loved ones (the majority of suicidal people I would venture to claim) has no issues here. And if the suicidal person do have loved ones, it might be that other concerns outweigh this concern.
About 3, then I guess it's a toss up whether you think that the action of suicide is in someway affecting what afterlife you will get, or if you foresee anything happening, if you live on, that will change your afterlife. And again, other concerns might outweigh the risk (like someone about to go broke might run the risk of commiting an armed robbery). Obviously, 3 is not an issue if you don't believe in an afterlife.

I've had suicide pretty close in my life, and can promise you that I have seen situations where people are only living because they know how much they mean to other people, and value not hurting these loved ones more than the relief of not having to live.
As an agnostic who lives as a materialist, I don't myself see any particular reason to live, yet I don't have any reason to kill myself either. If I was put in a situation where I was diagnosed with, say, terminal cancer, that would change, and I would most definitely off myself before too much pain set in, even if it meant that my loved ones would have to do without me for a little while longer than if I endured the natural route to death. Same goes for senility, where suicide would be a great escape from being a lonely undignified baby in a retirement home.

It just depends on your definition of free will. By it's official definition, yes, we have free will. The point of the argument is that whatever you choose, you will have chosen because it is in your nature to do so.

Welcome, and congratulations. I am delighted that you could make it. Getting here wasn't easy... I know. In fact, I suspect it was a little tougher than you realize. To begin with, for you to be here now, trillions of drifting atoms had some how to assemble in an intricate and curiously obliging manner to create you. Its an arrangement so specialized and particular that it has never been tried before, and it will only exist this once. For the next many years we hope, these tiny particles will uncomplainginly engage in all the billions of deft, co-operative efforts necessary to keep you intact... And let you experience the extremely agreeable but generally underappreciated state known as existance.

- Beginning of "A short history of nearly everything"

In resopnse to your question, yes, we control our "inner destiny."
Newtonian physics said that as long as we account for all the variables we can predict where an object will be now and in the future. This lead many to believe everything was on a fixed course.

However, it is clear this is wrong, with the advent of quantum physics.

But, from a pyschological perspective, we create our destiny as well.

As our senses take in expericnes, we tend to code these experiences with our "inner voice." The manner in which we code these experiences form thoughts, which become ideas, which become behaviours, which become personality, which form our habbits, and then ultimately, our habbits form our destiny.

For example, you could wake up in the morning and see that it is raining. You could say to yourself "shit, I hate this weather, it's gonna be such an awful day," or, "yay! I don't have to water my garden today." Our thoughts get shelved into our subconscious, which then form our reality. The difference in the way we code the experience then manifests throughout the day through our personality and habbits, and thus alters inner destiny.

However, many people just fall into traps of conditioning. For example, they blame instead of appreciate, negative outlook versus positive, etc. They get lost in their programming and it builds over time... these people lose control of their free choice. Consciously experiencing life and making sure to actively watch and control your words, and "inner voice" are the best ways to take control of free choice.

I will say something that is socially acceptable but upon close examination makes no sense... such as " I can't believe that just happened!" Or, I sometimes catch myself saying shit like, "I can't go tonight" - when really I mean " I choose not to go." The differences in the way we use words and form thoughts from experiences really trigger big changes in our lives.

Last edited by cap on Aug-10-2005 at 06:34

quote:

Originally posted by cap As our senses take in expericnes, we tend to code these experiences with our "inner voice." The manner in which we code these experiences form thoughts, which become ideas, which become behaviours, which become personality, which form our habbits, and then ultimately, our habbits form our destiny.

do we code those experiences and perceptions completely free of inner & outer elements?

so far, the pleasure vs pain argument is showing we don't.

i can't see myself making a choice that will lead to more pain than pleasure, and that's pretty much the most concrete argument here, it's the nail in the coffin for free will.

if i can't choose the options that brings more pain, i can't really choose, i'm always going to choose the option that brings me the most pleasure in one way or the other, to as far as i know.

i may reverse my outlook on life to deal with uneducated decisions that brought me into pain, so to perceive it as pleasure, but that is again, the most logical decision a machine that is fueled by nothing else but pleasure will do.


if anyone see's a hole in all this, please say so, because it seems like there is ultimately no free will.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

I really like this topic. It's been a while since we've had a philosophical debate. I hope I have enought time to contribute tomorrow.

edit: oh and welcome Psy-T

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I really like this topic. It's been a while since we've had a philosophical debate. I hope I have enought time to contribute tomorrow.

Yeah its really nice!

As for the topic, i dont really have anything to add to whats already said, but im agreeing that there is no such thing as free will. Which is probably my favorite philosohpical theory (mainly because it dissaproves many of our religions! ).

Edit: worth to mention as well, i dont think there is such thing as random either (fuck quantum mechanics), so that means im also a beliver of determism..

Last edited by St_Andrew on Aug-10-2005 at 11:39

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T do we code those experiences and perceptions completely free of inner & outer elements? so far, the pleasure vs pain argument is showing we don't. i can't see myself making a choice that will lead to more pain than pleasure, and that's pretty much the most concrete argument here, it's the nail in the coffin for free will. if i can't choose the options that brings more pain, i can't really choose, i'm always going to choose the option that brings me the most pleasure in one way or the other, to as far as i know. i may reverse my outlook on life to deal with uneducated decisions that brought me into pain, so to perceive it as pleasure, but that is again, the most logical decision a machine that is fueled by nothing else but pleasure will do. if anyone see's a hole in all this, please say so, because it seems like there is ultimately no free will.

Okay, before I start I have to admit that I'm not much of a filosofical person. I usually catch the philosophical threads by the time they're 14 pages long, and I never have the time to catch up.

Anyway, I'll contribute my useless opinion anyway

Psy-T, you mention that you would never make decisions that will lead to more pain than pleasure. I'm guessing you suggest that you will always, by instinct/physics or whatever, make a choice that will lead to your optimal outcome. Suggesting that our choices are already preconceived.. perhaps?? I have a problem with this.....

The reason why I disagree is because of a little thing called "game theory". If you have watched the movie "A Beautiful Mind" with Russel Crowe in it, you'd be familiar with the concept. How does economics come into this discussion? Well, recall the scene in the bar where Crowe's character and his friends are trying to hit on some hot bird.

I'm not going to use the example from the movie but of an example known as "prisoners dilemma". What I will demonstrate is that the logical choices that people make are not always in their own best interest, even though the logical viewpoint would suggest otherwise. What I have show, below, is what is called a 'payoff' matrix, where we have two people, Joe and Bob, who have been questioned by police about a crime.

-----------------------------------Joe--------------------------------
--------------------------Confess------Dont Confess-------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------Confess---------10,10----------0,20------------------------
Bob-------------------------------------------------------------------
------Dont Confess---------20,0-----------1,1-------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The table is read like this: Each prisoner chooses one of the two strategies. In effect, Joe chooses a column and Bob chooses a row. They either confess, or dont confess to the crime. The two numbers in each cell (ie. 10,10 or 0,20) tell the outcomes for the two prisoners when the corresponding pair of strategies is chosen. The number to the left of the comma tells the payoff to the person who chooses the rows (Bob) while the number to the right of the column tells the payoff to the person who chooses the columns (Joe). Thus (reading down the first column) if they both confess, each gets 10 years jail, but if Joe confesses and Bob does not, Bob gets 20 and Joe goes free.

So: How does this situation resolve itself? What strategies are "rational" if both men want to minimise the time they spend in jail? Joe might reason as follows: "Two things can happen: Bob can confess or Bob can keep quiet. Suppose Bob confesses. Then I get 20 years if I don't confess, 10 years if I do, so in that case it's best to confess. On the other hand, if Bob doesn't confess, and I don't either, I get a year; but in that case, if I confess I can go free. Either way, it's best if I confess. Therefore, I'll confess."

But Bob can and presumably will reason in the same way, so that they both confess and go to prison for 10 years each. Yet, if they had acted "irrationally," and kept quiet, they each could have gotten off with one year each.



My point.
Making a choice that leads to 'pain' is often better than a choice that leads to 'pleasure'. Logic is not always "logical", and if logic is merely a result of chemical reactions in our brain, perfected over millions of years, then being able to act irrationally and still coming out on top (or to be in a 'pleasurable' state) is an example of our minds working against the laws of nature..

So, yes, I do believe in free will.

___________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

Last edited by Dupz on Aug-10-2005 at 13:40

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz

well, its still a rational decision, since they both wanted to minimize their time in jail. Just that the approach they both used might not have been the smartest.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew well, its still a rational decision, since they both wanted to minimize their time in jail. Just that the approach they both used might not have been the smartest.

But their rational decision was not rational.. If they both acted irrationally then they both would be in a better state. Isnt this an example of how free will/choice rises above a 'set' precondition?

___________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz But their rational decision was not rational.. If they both acted irrationally then they both would be in a better state. Isnt this an example of how free will/choice rises above a 'set' precondition?

No, because they couldnt know the outcome of the other ones decision. For example, the other one could have reasoned entirly different, for example he might have had a bad concience or whatever, which made him confess. I mean the only reason to confess might not be to minimize time in jail, but perhaps to minimize pressure on himself, ie to minimize pain but in another way. So person A could not know how this person B was reasoning, so instead of taking a risk, he reasoned that its smarter to confess so then i will at least not have to be in jail for 20 years. Thats very ratinal to me!