Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[Tassman]

Yes, but not wholly!

This makes you a 'compatabilist', as am I, which means that free-will is limited within a determined universe.

But determinism means our decisions are determined, our mental states are determined as well as everything else around us.

Except that our mental states are themselves part of the deterministic process; they contribute in determining what will happen. Think of it as a feedback loop.

[lee_merrill]

This makes you a 'compatabilist', as am I, which means that free-will is limited within a determined universe.

Well, I'm not a compatibilist in the traditional philosophical sense, I believe free decisions can be made, though they are influenced as you say, by our subconscious and so on.

Except that our mental states are themselves part of the deterministic process; they contribute in determining what will happen. Think of it as a feedback loop.

Yet a deterministic feedback loop is just as determined by its inputs as a linear process is (i.e. a process without loops).

Best wishes,
Lee

[Tassman]

Well, I'm not a compatibilist in the traditional philosophical sense, I believe free decisions can be made, though they are influenced as you say, by our subconscious and so on.

If your decisions are influenced by our subconscious memories then they are not totally "free decisions", this is the point.

Yet a deterministic feedback loop is just as determined by its inputs as a linear process is (i.e. a process without loops).

Except that our mental states and choices are in and of themselves a part of the deterministic process. You have already acknowledged that our decisions are influenced to some degree by our subconscious memories of past events. But they are real choices nonetheless.

[lee_merrill]

If your decisions are influenced by our subconscious memories then they are not totally "free decisions", this is the point.

I agree with you here.

Except that our mental states and choices are in and of themselves a part of the deterministic process. You have already acknowledged that our decisions are influenced to some degree by our subconscious memories of past events. But they are real choices nonetheless.

Well, I don't know how you can call them real choices if they are deterministic.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you here.


Well, I don't know how you can call them real choices if they are deterministic.

Blessings,
Lee

They are potentially choices for compatibilism.

[Sparko]

You use objective verifiable evidence to determine the moon exists. Without the objective verifiable evidence the reasoning is subjective, personal preference, and the moon becomes green cheese.

I go with Aristotle's concept of first-principles and human reasoning. He was the first to develop the concept.

Source: https://alyjuma.com/first-principles/

In every systematic inquiry (methodos) where there are first principles, or causes, or elements, knowledge and science result from acquiring knowledge of these; for we think we know something just in case we acquire knowledge of the primary causes, the primary first principles, all the way to the elements. It is clear, then, that in the science of nature as elsewhere, we should try first to determine questions about the first principles.

The naturally proper direction of our road is from things better known and clearer to us, to things that are clearer and better known by nature; for the things known to us are not the same as the things known unconditionally (haplôs). Hence it is necessary for us to progress, following this procedure, from the things that are less clear by nature, but clearer to us, towards things that are clearer and better known by nature. (Phys. 184a10–21)

© Copyright Original Source

And yet to even have the concept "objective verifiable evidence determines reality" you have to use, wait for it, ... REASON.

[JimL]

And yet to even have the concept "objective verifiable evidence determines reality" you have to use, wait for it, ... REASON.

Duh. Objective verifiable evidence is not a concept.

[Tassman]

Well, I don't know how you can call them real choices if they are deterministic.

Well what sort of "choices" would you call them seeing as you have acknowledged that our decisions are influenced by our subconscious memories of past events?

[Sparko]

Duh. Objective verifiable evidence is not a concept.

Are you a moron? You have to first come up with the idea that what you observe corresponds with reality. That is a concept. Then you can use that concept to determine what is true using objective verifiable evidence. Reasoning always comes first. And the only way to determine if reasoning is a valid method of finding the truth is to use reason itself. So it is a first principle that cannot be reduced further.

[Tassman]

Are you a moron? You have to first come up with the idea that what you observe corresponds with reality.

Yes. But in science first you must make the observation, the reasoning follows on from that.

That is a concept. Then you can use that concept to determine what is true using objective verifiable evidence. Reasoning always comes first. And the only way to determine if reasoning is a valid method of finding the truth is to use reason itself. So it is a first principle that cannot be reduced further.

This is merely a metaphysical argument. You are using “first principle” in the Aristotelian sense of a foundational axiom or assumption. But whilst this may result in a valid deductive argument, it won’t necessarily be a true one.

[Sparko]

Yes. But in science first you must make the observation, the reasoning follows on from that.

How can you not understand that you have to reason out the idea that observation is a way to find out facts before you can observe things to find out facts? You have to be able to think before you can come up with any sort of "scientific method"

Thinking/reasoning always comes first. And you can't reduce it any further.

[JonathanL]

How can you not understand that you have to reason out the idea that observation is a way to find out facts before you can observe things to find out facts?

There's no way he doesn't understand it. He's just being intentionally obtuse.

[Sparko]

There's no way he doesn't understand it. He's just being intentionally obtuse.

With Tassman and JimL it is hard to tell the difference between that and complete idiocy.

[JimL]

How can you not understand that you have to reason out the idea that observation is a way to find out facts before you can observe things to find out facts? You have to be able to think before you can come up with any sort of "scientific method"

Thinking/reasoning always comes first. And you can't reduce it any further.

Do you think about nothing often?

[JonathanL]

Do you think about nothing often?

Come on now, if the gender tag under your username really is correct you would know that thinking about nothing is about as easy as breathing air if you're a male.