|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can you choose what to believe?
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Rationality and evidence are just as much stories that we tell ourselves as choice is. To call beliefs irrational is meaningless if there's no such thing as rationality.
I wouldn't go that far. Usually rationality and evidence exist within communities. There isn't one rationality or agreement on just what will always count as evidence, but rather shared views in each community.
Apologies if I was unclear. My point was that the experiments that HughWillRidMee is citing as irrefutable evidence for determinism cannot be irrefutable evidence for determinism; if determinism is true then whether or not the experiments are irrefutable evidence is irrelevant to whether or not anybody believes in determinism as a result.
For the record, I think that if rationality is suspect then that weakens the case for religion.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Choice as in a deliberate, conscious decision between options is thought to be a story (not unlike memory) which we tell ourselves.
Choices are made, but the experimental evidence of which I'm aware indicates that they are made subconsciously and the outcome is inevitable.
Similar experiments give us equal grounds to believe that we don't reach our beliefs by processes of logical evaluation of evidence. Rationality and evidence are just as much stories that we tell ourselves as choice is. To call beliefs irrational is meaningless if there's no such thing as rationality.
So there's a paradox: if the experiments give us reason to believe the conclusions you're telling us, then those results aren't true; if the conclusions are true then we have no reason to believe them.
if rationality were just a story then it would exist as a story - belief could still be irrational because it didn't fit with the story though couldn't it?
I think I was unclear. I am discussing these experiments.
The argument is a modus tollens: If A then B; not B; therefore not A either.
If your experiments show that free will and choice are just stories, then on grounds just as strong we can show that rationality is just a story.
Rationality is not just a story (insert all the cliches about science sending people to the moon and curing smallpox).
Therefore the relevant experiments do not give us good grounds to doubt rationality. Therefore, the experiments don't give us good grounds to doubt free will and choice either.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
2 - who are the "others, even within the deterministic community," that you talk of?
You have never heard of compatiblists shuch as Daniel Dennett?
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Choice as in a deliberate, conscious decision between options is thought to be a story (not unlike memory) which we tell ourselves.
Choices are made, but the experimental evidence of which I'm aware indicates that they are made subconsciously and the outcome is inevitable.
Was "unequivocally" now is "thought to be"?
The experiments that I have read of are much too simplistic. They also seem to draw more supposition than true conclusions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
.... if determinism is true then whether or not the experiments are irrefutable evidence is irrelevant to whether or not anybody believes in determinism as a result.......
Not so - I had blithely assumed that I was making conscious choices until I read the books I referred to.
As a consequence of the information gained from those books, including the experimental evidence (which, if accurately reported appears irrefutable), I had no option but to realise that my "free will" was an illusion. Since unconscious choice is based upon the interplay of genetic inheritance and experience it follows that powerful experiences can "tip the scales" - resulting in a new understanding - thus my belief in what you call determinism is directly related to the new input that such irrefutable experimental evidence provides. Technically it is, of course, the outcome of the experiments that is irrefutable evidence - not the act of experimenting
Splitting what may or may not be an important hair - I wouldn't say that I believe in determinism - rather that I, very reluctantly, have no choice but to accept the rationality of determinism (materialism?)
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
2 - who are the "others, even within the deterministic community," that you talk of?
You have never heard of compatiblists shuch as Daniel Dennett?
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
.
Choices are made, but the experimental evidence of which I'm aware indicates that they are made subconsciously and the outcome is inevitable.
Was "unequivocally" now is "thought Choice as in a deliberate, conscious decision between options is thought to be a story (not unlike memory) which we tell ourselvesto be"?
The experiments that I have read of are much too simplistic. They also seem to draw more supposition than true conclusions.
"the experimental evidence seems, quite unequivocally, to disagree with you."
"Choice as in a deliberate, conscious decision between options is thought to be a story (not unlike memory) which we tell ourselves"
I think if you read the contexts it will become clear that there is no inconsistency. The first says that the evidence is that we cannot consciously change our beliefs - the second suggests why we think (erroneously) that we can do so.
I've heard of Daniel Dennett - but not yet read any of his work.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@HughWR
You write
As a consequence of the information gained from those books, including the experimental evidence (which, if accurately reported appears irrefutable), I had no option but to realise that my "free will" was an illusion
So if you'd read some other stuff from scientists who reach different conclusions where would that have left you? You've got a stack of problems with this line of thinking old son. Let's start with incompatibility. If we're programmed to behave as we do, why do we feel the need to make sense of our world and our place within it? That drive for self knowledge is superfluous. You can also say tarra to the fundamental basis of our legal system, which is that we hold people to account for the moral choices we make. If you think about it mate, accountability of any description goes out the window. You miss your sales targets this month is your boss really gonna shrug his shoulders and say "well I 'spose this month you just met a load of contacts that weren't subconsciously primed to buy your product"?
And then we've got studies that tell us that people who are told they don't have free will are more likely to behave in an antisocial manner. If you lie to me, nick me stuff, cheat me in a deal - well that's just the way you've been determined to act.
Believe that if you want mate, but I won't be doing business with you.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
