Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[Free Willy]

I've never once said that "determinism has been unquestionably proved". Not once in my entire life, and certainly not here on this forum.

What!!!???

S is the system state (internal) and E is the environment (external). I don't understand why you seem unable to grasp this...

So you say, what I want to know is why you, in your last post seem to have conflated S with E.

In other words, I doubt you have sufficiently discriminated between what's an external or environmental factor or internal factor.

[Free Willy]

I've never once said that "determinism has been unquestionably proved". Not once in my entire life, and certainly not here on this forum.

What!!!???

S is the system state (internal) and E is the environment (external). I don't understand why you seem unable to grasp this...

That is non sequitur to the charge of confusing S with E levelled at you.

[Stranger]

So you say, what I want to know is why you, in your last post seem to have conflated S with E.

What makes you think I did?

In other words, I doubt you have sufficiently discriminated between what's an external or environmental factor or internal factor.

It actually doesn't really matter much. If you'd grasped the basic logic, you'd be able to see why.

[Gonnagle]

All atheism is not holding beliefs about the existence of 'Gods' - and that is just about it really. It requires no effort beyond thinking.

So I don't think it compares to theism at all: theism has it's various branches and the plethora of rituals and routines, dogma, tribalism, holy books, special songs and words, priestly classes and copious traditions. It seems to me that, for some at least, theism involves activities and effort - which for some may feel intrinsically worthwhile and reinforces their faith.

Dear Gordon,

Okay, fair enough, I am very happy in my findings, and now that I have free space to think about other wonderful things, I will be very British and mention the weather, terrific weather we are having considering it is still officially spring time and could I also mention well done the Spurs, knowing Spurs fans they will be celebrating this for a very long time, very long time

Oh and just as a aside, you mention activities and effort, yes very true, in Christianity, practice, practice, practice, and yes it does as you put it, reinforce their faith, but I don't think this is just a Christian thing.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

All atheism is not holding beliefs about the existence of 'Gods' - and that is just about . It requires no effort beyond thinking.

So I don't think it compares to theism at all: theism has it's various branches and the plethora of rituals and routines, dogma, tribalism, holy books, special songs and words, priestly classes and copious traditions. It seems to me that, for some at least, theism involves activities and effort - which for some may feel intrinsically worthwhile and reinforces their faith.

I disagree that theism has anything more than believing in god. It can be but that someone is a theists tells you nothing about them or their thinking beyond that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then I must have missed the steps between everything being merely the arrangement of matter and will and morality.
May I ask you to give an outline of what these were, perhaps?

Outlines don't seem to work - the Stranger already tried outlines.

I suggest you give me a scenario / specific example of what you mean when you talk about "will and morality". Then we have a specific instance to apply the steps to. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you may be misconstruing the nature of the claim and what the claim refers to.

So a belief in an objective claim - i.e. I believe that god objectively exists (i.e. I believe it is true for everyone)

and

A belief in a subjective claim - i.e. god exists for me if I believe (i.e. I belief that it is true for me but not necessarily true for everyone).

To an extent both are subjective beliefs but the former refers to an objective claim, while the latter refers to a subjective claim.

I don't think I am misconstruing anything. Beliefs about god consist of a lot more than just a belief about whether god exists or not. My comments were not about the existence of god. In your posts, you can focus on the existence of god if you want, but that is not what my post was about.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sorry, you have both lost me and gone out of your way to insult me, so I'm going to have to give the contract of explaining how and why determinism has been unquestionably proved to another determinist.

Please quote and give the post number where anyone has made any claims to have "unquestionably proved" anything. Who talks like that?

[Gordon]

And it doesn't even involve thinking since we can assume that concrete slabs don't hold beliefs about the existence of 'Gods'.

Concrete slabs don't think: but most people do - but since you fell head-first into your own category error here it maybe that, and concrete slab like, you haven't thought this through very well.

[Free Willy]

Please quote and give the post number where anyone has made any claims to have "unquestionably proved" anything. Who talks like that?

You are right.
What I should have said is that You and Stranger seem convinced that the only type of indeterminacy is randomness.
So whereas he may be right in his logic formulation.
It doesn't demonstrate that randomness is the only form of indeterminacy and also imo both you and he confuse factors of the internal state and the external environment

[Stranger]

What I should have said is that You and Stranger seem convinced that the only type of indeterminacy is randomness.
So whereas he may be right in his logic formulation.
It doesn't demonstrate that randomness is the only form of indeterminacy...

What else do you think can be indeterminate at a fundamental level (i.e. not just unknown to us), and in the context of time and causality?

Since every possible reason/cause for S_t+dt is accounted for by S_t+E_t, how else can anything but randomness account for different possibilities for S_t+dt?

...and also imo both you and he confuse factors of the internal state and the external environment

You still haven't said why you think this or why it even matters...

[Free Willy]

What else do you think can be indeterminate at a fundamental level (i.e. not just unknown to us), and in the context of time and causality?

Since every possible reason/cause for S_t+dt is accounted for by S_t+E_t, how else can anything but randomness account for different possibilities for S_t+dt?

You still haven't said why you think this or why it even matters...
[/quote]And you haven't said why Randomness is the only type of indeterminancy.

[Free Willy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation

[Stranger]

And you haven't said why Randomness is the only type of indeterminancy.

Yes, I have:

Something that happens for no reason is random.

[Stranger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation

The compatibilist sense does not contradict what I'm saying and the incompatibilist sense is rendered incoherent by this reasoning.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You are right.
What I should have said is that You and Stranger seem convinced that the only type of indeterminacy is randomness.

Would help if you gave a specific scenario e.g. an example of a moral choice which does not involve any prior input in making that choice, and if you also say why you think it is not random. I need an example of your 3rd category to see whether it changes my opinion.

So whereas he may be right in his logic formulation.
It doesn't demonstrate that randomness is the only form of indeterminacy and also imo both you and he confuse factors of the internal state and the external environment

What do you mean by "factors of the internal state?"
Are you referring to thoughts - as making a choice/ exerting your will involves thinking?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation

Are you focusing on making a choice after contemplation/ thinking?

[Free Willy]

Would help if you gave a specific scenario e.g. an example of a moral choice which does not involve any prior input in making that choice, and if you also say why you think it is not random. I need an example of your 3rd category to see whether it changes my opinion. What do you mean by "factors of the internal state?"
Are you referring to thoughts - as making a choice/ exerting your will involves thinking?

Things like experience I think are included in the internal state, education was included in the internal state. The question is are these external or internal or in what measure. If getting these in the wrong category is met with a ''so what?'', why ostentatiously present them in the first place.

You talk about making a choice, there is no choice in determinism. Or in Randomness. You must be talking about something else.

Another problem is the uniqueness of complex events for simple determinism or randomness. What is it that totally determines a response. Anything approaching what we call a choice is more complex than anything that informs it.

Reductionism helps your cause as does viewing the self as illusiory.

[Stranger]

Things like experience I think are included in the internal state, education was included in the internal state.

education "the process of teaching or learning, especially in a school or college, or the knowledge that you get from this"

experience "knowledge or skill that you get from doing, seeing, or feeling things, or the process of getting this"

The question is are these external or internal or in what measure. If getting these in the wrong category is met with a ''so what?'', why ostentatiously present them in the first place.

To emphasis that, together, they represent all possible reasons for the subsequent state. Exactly where you put any one thing doesn't matter because it's only the two together that are important to the argument.

Anything approaching what we call a choice is more complex than anything that informs it.

The process of choice-making that you use is a part of you, so it is included in your internal state.

There really is no get-out for this. If something cannot be traced back to reasons, then, to the extent it can't, it is for no reason and therefore random.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Things like experience I think are included in the internal state, education was included in the internal state. The question is are these external or internal or in what measure. If getting these in the wrong category is met with a ''so what?'', why ostentatiously present them in the first place.

Who presented internal vs external states?

You talk about making a choice, there is no choice in determinism. Or in Randomness. You must be talking about something else.

When you refer to learning and experience and determinism, do you mean that if your choices are constrained in any way then you do not consider them to be a real choice?

I need an example to clarify what you mean. E.g I can't choose to post this response in Swahili right now as I have not learned any Swahili. So are you saying posting in English as opposed to Swahili is not a choice as it's determined by the languages I know?

Before I can choose Swahili I need to first be exposed to some Swahili so my brain can get the necessary understanding of Swahili sufficient for me to post in Swahili? Are you suggesting that this determinist constraint means that I have not really made a choice when I post in English as opposed to Swahili?

If I learn Swahili I might have a shot at typing a post in Swahili. Or an alternative is that I type letters randomly and I end up forming a post in Swahili that conveyed what I wanted to convey and could be understood by someone who can read and comprehend Swahili. Apart from these 2 scenarios, what is the other scenario you are suggesting?

Another problem is the uniqueness of complex events for simple determinism or randomness. What is it that totally determines a response. Anything approaching what we call a choice is more complex than anything that informs it.

Reductionism helps your cause as does viewing the self as illusiory.

I agree we don't know what totally determines a response. But doesn't that suggest that a response is either determined (and we don't know everything that determines it) or it's a random response or a mix of the 2? What 3rd option is there that is neither a determinant or random?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why have you ignored my question about why you described what I wrote as a slur?

The sentence I quoted from you directly above my comment. To reiterate, this comment:

'Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

Which comprises a thinly veiled derogatory comment (in this case the inability to discuss things in a complex and nuanced manner) applied to a group of people (in this case atheists) in the form of a lazy generalisation.

So let's try some alternative which also include a thinly veiled derogatory comment applied to a group in the form of a lazy generalisation and see whether you might, just might, see that they could be consider to be a slur.

'Not surprisingly, you as a woman, seem to be only interested in discussing having babies'

'Not surprisingly, you as a jew, seem to be only interested in discussing how much money you'll earn'

'Not surprisingly, you as an black man, seem to be only interested in discussing when you can finish work and go to the pub'

etc, etc

Get the point?

[ProfessorDavey]

It can be explained in evolutionary terms but not exhaustively ...

I think the evidence is pretty compelling. And just because an evidence based explanation is not completely exhaustive is not a reason to reject it. Rather you should continue to do more research to fill in the gaps. What you definitely shouldn't do is reject it in favour of a completely unevidenced goddidit assertion.

... and if that explanation is then reduced or reducible to merely the arrangement of particles then that is a difficulty for you.

Why is that a difficulty - I don't see it as a difficulty at all. Mechanistically this is all just molecules and particles in particular arrangements, but that doesn't mean that the arrangement of those particles isn't of huge importance to the human condition, nor that it isn't the product of evolution.

[ProfessorDavey]

... what the hell does the never justified piece of humanist sanctimonious "Good without God" even mean?

Nice bit of turning a comment completely on its head.

The sactimonious aspect here is the rather common claim of some religions that you cannot be a moral person without reference to god - i.e. claiming that morality is the exclusive preserve of theists.

Humanists make no such sanctimonious claim - I can never recollect a humanist or an atheist claiming that morality is the exclusive preserve of atheists, merely that you don't need to be theist to be moral or ethical. Effectively that atheists are perfectly capable of being eminently ethical people just as much as theists. And the flip side also applies - both atheists and theists can also be completely morally reprehensible.

The point being that whether you are 'good' or not has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in god, but on whether or not you are ... err ... 'good' (which is, of course a subjective concept and open to a range of opinions).

[Free Willy]

education "the process of teaching or learning, especially in a school or college, or the knowledge that you get from this"

experience "knowledge or skill that you get from doing, seeing, or feeling things, or the process of getting this"

To emphasis that, together, they represent all possible reasons for the subsequent state. Exactly where you put any one thing doesn't matter because it's only the two together that are important to the argument.

The process of choice-making that you use is a part of you, so it is included in your internal state.

There really is no get-out for this. If something cannot be traced back to reasons, then, to the extent it can't, it is for no reason and therefore random.

Yes, You’ve said that all factors are included in the formula and then, for reasons not derived from the formula said that these are either determined or random and indeed determiners which themselves are determined Ad infinitude or Ad circulum. On what grounds though?

To the question what else is free of being determined? Agent causation as mentioned earlier.

Secondly, If all is determined by that which has been determined then there is no such thing as choice.

In terms of everything that determines adding together to create a response to what is a unique complex emerged situation, given nothing leading to the emergent possesses that emergence’s property I would like your views on what that does to determinism.

Finally for now, You seem to be suggesting that a universe of infinitely regressed determined causes has no E or environment. That I would have thought that makes the universe itself the agent of causation. In a causal loop that makes everything its own agent of causation.

[Gonnagle]

The sentence I quoted from you directly above my comment. To reiterate, this comment:

'Not surprisingly, you as an atheist, seem to be only interested in discussing if God exists'

Which comprises a thinly veiled derogatory comment (in this case the inability the consider things in a complex and nuanced manner) applied to a group of people (in this case atheists) in the form of a lazy generalisation.

So let's try some alternative which also include a thinly veiled derogatory comment applied to a group in the form of a lazy generalisation and see whether you might, just might, see that they could be consider to be a slur.

'Not surprisingly, you as a woman, seem to be only interested in discussing having babies'

'Not surprisingly, you as a jew, seem to be only interested in discussing how much money you'll earn'

'Not surprisingly, you as an black man, seem to be only interested in discussing when you can finish work and go to the pub'

etc, etc

Get the point?

Dear Prof, Good Morning to you, another day in paradise

Well I get the point, and it is nice you are trying to bring the thread back on topic, another point of Critical thinking is Strawmen, but not to worry, shit happens.

Gonnagle.

PS: There will now be a barrage of posters explaining Strawmen, please don't bother, I know what I am talking about, shit happens.