This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Determinism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If you don't even understand what determinism is in an unqualified sense, there's no point in trying to dissect my explanation behind it.
Post by
Squishalot
... I'm satisfied using it as is =)
Meaning, you're happy to assume for now that the coin toss is random, in the absence of being able to quantitatively determine otherwise?
(Not that it's a bad thing - just summarising.)
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.
So then what is the sufficient cause (another piece of philosophical jargon) of you choosing to do something in my model, since you claim it is deterministic.
Post by
Skreeran
the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.
So then what is the sufficient cause (another piece of philosophical jargon) of you choosing to do something in my model, since you claim it is deterministic.The idea is that any sufficiently advanced decision making machine with the same experiences and data would make exactly the same decision as I do. And that is because my brain is simply a highly developed decision making machine.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The idea is that any sufficiently advanced decision making machine with the same experiences and data would make exactly the same decision as I do. And that is because my brain is simply a highly developed decision making machine.
Again, that's
your
materialistic model. Zerdav is discussing
my
moderate realist model.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Except there are multiple y's. I could beat you over the head with a baseball bat if I decide that is what's best, or I could give you 1000 bucks. My nature is a necessary cause to me being able to do either, not a sufficient cause.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Are you saying that you perceive multiple good decisions and randomly choose one?
I'm saying you freely choose which one is the highest good. Yes, one of them is objectively a higher good, but I've said countless times that I'm not talking about objective good.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The underlined is the key part. You either choose randomly, Or based on something, which then becomes the cause for your decision.
A) A final cause is never a sufficient cause.
B)
False Dichotomy
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't think we disagree at a deep level at all. You keep not understanding the terms I'm using, so I bring in new ones only to have you not understand those either. The final cause is what a thing aims for: it's end. An end is the
necessary
cause of any rational action, but it is in no way the end can be a sufficient cause because someone can try to achieve an end multiple ways (an arbitrary number of ways). Even if the means are insufficient for that end, it was still the end of the action, albeit an unrealized end.
Show me third
you freely choose
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.