Kharakov: I could get knit-picky and say that the challenge was to draw a round square, which you acknowledge is impossible. But that would be beside the point. The point was to state a logical impossibility. I could have asked Occam if he believed that 2 + 2 would ever equal 5, or if there would ever be a married bachelor, all to the same effect. I think I would like to know a little more about 4 dimensional geometry, though. Right. But I'm not an indeterminist either, nor am I a compatibilist. I am not trying to be obtuse. A meaningless question can't have an answer. A little earlier in your post, you said that choice seemed mysterious to you. In the normative sense of the word, I'd disagree with you. When I choose a lottery number, I really don't give a second thought as to whether I picked that number out of necessity or not. In a philosophical sense, however, choice is indeed a mysterious thing. I think you think the same thing, as I feel is evident by your use of the phrase "true choice". Say that after I pick my lotto numbers a philosopher walks up to me and says, "Did you pick those numbers?" I'd respond, "Of course I did," not yet realising that I was in a philosophical argument. Then the philosopher would say something to the effect of "But did you really pick those numbers?" or to use your wording "Was it a true choice?" Then the whole meaning of the word "choice" is lost. Rephrasing the question won't make it any more meaningful.
CS Gedankenexperiment Occam has the choice to type a word that will follow... And he chooses to. It is one choice of multiple ways to describe a choice. He picks this one after randomly rejecting others using a digital randomiser He can choose from all he knows. Thousands. Each is a choice. Occam has no idea what word he will pick. For the option is not yet taken. when he makes the choice, The NOW is a precondition. For there is no past. A precondition that only effects the choice through a setting of possibles. It does not result in the choice made from those possibles. Here it is....NOW.... Occam decides to reach right to the bookcase.. taking a book without looking he decides the 17th word on the 100th page will be the word. [and those numbers are chosen with a digital randomiser, free of determinism] "you" Is that word in the book the 'mind parasites' by colin wilson. Occam chose that word. Through a process. An inderterminate one within the parameters of physical determinism. After it is done....Some will of course say... Well thats what was chosen..So nothing else could have been. But the past does not exist. Only the present. There is no 'past' to talk about. Only a 'memory' of a present that no longer exists. And the future is but a potential based in the now. A potential based in determinism AND choice. Occam cannot see how choice is meaningless. When there is NO existant past or future..Only the now. Well thats occams opinion anyway...Sorry if his explanations and ideas are unclear...He has no formal education whatever is such arenas...His ideas come from his understanding and his imagination. Occam
Mati Agree.. But as in the above.. Choice can utilise probability into it's process. For there is no PAST probability.. We call that the memory of an outcome. There is only the NOW And in that NOW. Probability is indeterminate. Occam thinks determinism and choice is unclear to so many. Because human beings think the past and future are real is some way. Yet occam sees nothing but concepts in peoples heads reaching out from the NOW. Well. thats their choice. Occam
OhhHHhhhHH.... I get it now . Or maybe I get it. Possibly you should use "Kharakov get's it" for your next logical impossibility.
if you choose randomness in order prove that choice is not determined, has not your choice to do so been determined
In ordinary language, the word "choice" is very much meaningful. It only becomes meaningless when used in a philosophical context. The reason behind this is that words are only given meaning by the way they are used, the context. When philosophers argue about the question of free will, they are essentially using words inappropriately. Think of it this way, what business would a scientist have using the word "choice." Yes, a biologist might say that a dog, when two different foods are places before him, chooses one over the other, but that's not what I mean. My point is that a scientist reports facts and that the nature of choice never enters into it. If an omniscient man compiled a big book of all the facts in the universe, I'd be willing to bet that there would be no mention of free will or destiny. Now, some might take issue with the idea that philosophy is, or is anything like, a science, but that would be a different thread entirely. That's no excuse. Formal training helps but is far from necessary in doing philosophy. My real concern is that I can't find the argument in your post. It just seems to be a restatement of "free will is real" over and over again. If I am mistaken, please point out the argument. But if I'm right, then I guess we'll just have to start over. P.S. To Kharakov: The statement you suggested (I forget exactly what it was) is not a logical impossibility.
We're off the original topic, but what the hell. I find the free-will/determinism question to be irrelevant and meaningless. We, I hope we can all agree, have, at the bare minimum, the belief that we experience making choices. I'm going to over-generalize and say the ability to make choices is free-will (I'm actually more in line with Occam, but I'll get to that in a different post). It can go two ways: 1) We do inded have free-will, so we would naturally have the belief that we make choices since we in fact do. 2) We do not have free-will and do not actually make choices, but we do have the illusion that we make choices, so we have the belief that we make choices. Either way, we have the belief that we make choices. Even if all my actions are strictly determined, I have the experience that I have options, and that I choose one option over the other, so the free-will/determinism question is not very relevant or meaningful. However, it is fun.
I fall more in line with Occam's thinking I believe. I hold the position that we have volition--the varied and limited ability to choose action. One could call it limited will. Limited by experience, intelligence, physical ability, knowledge or lack there of, natural laws, fears, and many others that I can't think of right now. All of those limit my ability to choose action. My will, whatever it may be, is limited on all sides.
CommonSense Occam made no excuse. For he erred in no way. He aplogized to any who do no follow his thoughts because he has no understanding of the 'formal' philosophical lexicon of determanism. And as such... Will reject your philosophical 'context' of the word choice. Philosophy is what WE make it. Ordinary language. Choice means choice... and nothing but. It exists. That is all occam wished to state.. And that is his position at this time. If you do not agree.. then show how the gedankenexperiment in occams post of 7.23am of the 15th of june 05. Is invalid. [not a product of reasoned choice] Occam Ps... You refference to choice in science is what Choice is what we use to define the scientific method. It's how it came to be. We chose to use a strict method to define reality accurately. And because that method is not finalised.. we STILL use choice in the forming of it. Choice does not apply in the core of the method because the bits of reality that scientific method defines, are not variables.[in existing] They exist as themselves and nothing else, independeant of human thought. They DEFINE the parameters of choice.. no?
Let me explain a little better. The best way to explain what a logical impossibility is is to first explain what its opposite, logical necessity, is. Statements that are logically necessary include things like "All bachelors are unmarried men" and "2 + 2 = 4". A bachelor, by definition, is an unmarried man. Four is necessarily the sum of two and two. In philosophy, these are called analytic statements which means that they are true by definition or, more technically, that the subject is contained within the predicate. Analytic statements are contrasted by synthetic statements such as "The cat is black" or, well, most other statements. The cat does not necessarily have to be black; it could be yellow or orange or pretty much any other colour you can think of. To tell if a statements is logically necessary, all you have to do is think of the opposite of that statement. In our case, "The cat is not black." Since it is conceivable that the cat could be not black, this tells us that the original statement is not one of logical necessity. Now take the statement "All bachelors are unmarried men". Its opposite, "All bachelors are not unmarried men" is inconceivable; it can never, under any circumstances, be the case. That's how we know that the original statement is one of logical necessity. Kant came up with the analytic/synthetic distinction, but you can find it in Hume if you look hard enough. His most famous synthetic statement was "The sun will rise tomorrow". It's conceivable that the sun could explode between now and tomorrow or that the rotation of the earth could cease. Of course, that probably won't happen, but the point is that there is no logically necessary reason that it couldn't happen. More recently, however, the entire analytic/synthetic dichtotomy has been called into question by the work of Quine and to a lesser extent by Sellars, who are both very interesting. Quine reads very easily actually; Sellars is much harder to get through. Many philosophers today don't trust the distinction, but I still think that it's at least a good heuristic to use when thinking about philosophy, even if it doesn't carry the same weight it once did. Anyway, I hope that helps.
Joker, Whether we have a destiny or not is beside the point of your real question. What your really asking is whether an aesthetic life might be the solution to negative outlooks. However, destiny, negetive outlooks, and aesthetism, all come together in the Nihillistic views of Arthur Schopenhauer. ---'Schopenhauer's violence-filled vision of the daily world leads him on a quest for tranquillity, and he pursues this end by retracing the path through which the will is objectified. Schopenhauer discovers more peaceful states of mind by directing his everyday, practically-oriented consciousness towards more extraordinary, universal and less-individuated states of mind, since he believes that the violence that a person experiences, is proportional to the degree to which that person's consciousness is individuated and objectifying. He believes that with less individuation and objectification, there is less conflict, less pain and more peace. One way to achieve a more tranquil state of consciousness, according to Schopenhauer, is through aesthetic perception.'--- Around here you have to avoid bringing up such topics as destiny or free-will, because they always spark these endless and fruitless debates of determinism vs. in-determinism.
You don't have to apologise for anything. All I'm saying is, if you think that you are somehow less qualified to do philosophy than a formally trained philosopher, you're wrong. What do I mean when I talk about context? Words do not have a very fixed meaning. They do to a certain extent, but the meaning of a word is largely determined by the context it is used in. When I talk about ordinary language, I'm talking about the way we normally use words in everyday speech, which is a far cry from the way we use words in philosophy. There are many contexts in which we use words very differently. Religious context is a striking example. Figure of speech is another. The trouble with philosophical context is that, in many cases, words are used in such an alien way from the way we normally use them that they lose all meaning. We can get into that in a bit more detail a little later, if you like. The problem with your thought experiment is the problem of all thought experiments. It can never be tested. Any experiment that can't be tested, I think, can hardly be called an experiment. See what I mean when I say that philosophy largely abuses language? I suspect you want me to say "a choice". But that's just begging the question. I don't think that choice, creativity, and the like enter into the scientific method at all. The scientific method is used because it is the most accurate way to discover facts about the world that are not a matter of logical necessity. You could, of course, say that our discovery or creation (I'm not sure which you're arguing for) was a choice. But again that begs the question. But the question is whether of not human thought is just as determined as those bits of reality that are independent of human thought.
Why don't you say "Destiny is useless if the person does not feel drawn into it" instead? God might take a while preparing you to enjoy what God will give you...
Never choose the opposite. First drop alcoholism. Things will start to look differently then, as the depression is flushed from your system. If you are lonely is it because you feel cooped up? Then get outside more. If you have too much stuff, then get rid of all that makes you depressed. Bring order into your life. If you can't even give up alcohol then how can you expect to give up the world? Your journey is therefore a failure before you even start.
