Why is freedom a necessary attribute of a personal being?

[davidv]

Yes, the person performs and is affected by the function of reasoning. I don’t see how freedom comes in as a factor.

That is because you left out terms of the function. Therefore the function does not reflect reality.

 

[blase6]

That is because you left out terms of the function. Therefore the function does not reflect reality.

A person uses the function of reason to consider information to find the best path of action. For any situation, it is assumed that there will be one best path from a personal standpoint. Thus, there should only be one outcome for one situation.

You have to show me how freedom is necessary for the process of reasoning.

 

[davidv]

A person uses the function of reason to consider information to find the best path of action.

Except the person is part of the function and not separate from it.

For any situation, it is assumed that there will be one best path from a personal standpoint. Thus, there should only be one outcome for one situation.

How do you explain the many who do not choose the best path?

You have to show me how freedom is necessary for the process of reasoning.

No I don’t.

Our experience is proof enough the we are free to choose any course we desire.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Assume you are in a situation where you have to choose between X and Y. Thus your mind naturally considers all the pros and cons of X and Y, and comes to a conclusion of whether X is better or Y is better. This can be as simple as a “logarithmic” function. I don’t see why this has to involve freedom.

Because you are not speaking about reason. Instinct does not entail knowledge of why a thing is logical or reasonable. Instinct does not require knowledge of why one should take a particular course of action. It just so happens that how instinct moves a thing is in a beings best interest. However we are not always moved to an end by instinct. We reason to particular ends based on our experience of things, and that requires us to be freely involved in the reasoning process; for if we are not free to understand a particular thing of our choosing then we cannot understand it since we not reasoning. We are not calculators.

 

[blase6]

How do you explain the many who do not choose the best path?

Because the “best path” is subjective, or unique to each individual based on their environment and disposition. A habitual smoker is much more likely to consider buying a pack the best course of action as opposed to someone who has never smoked. The smoker could examine his choice in retrospective and conclude that buying a pack of cigarettes seemed better than abstaining, and thus explaining why he chose that.

 

[blase6]

Instinct does not entail knowledge of why a thing is logical or reasonable.

Assumption does not entail proof.

Instinct does not require knowledge of why one should take a particular course of action.

Another assumption.

It just so happens that how instinct moves a thing is in a beings best interest. However we are not always moved to an end by instinct.

You are thinking of low-intelligence animal instinct. I am thinking of a more intelligent form of instinct.

We reason to particular ends based on our experience of things, and that requires us to be freely involved in the reasoning process; for if we are not free to understand a particular thing of our choosing then we cannot understand it since we not reasoning. We are not calculators.

I am not following you. How does understanding a concept require freedom? I understand what a “bird” is. Did I have to deliberately choose to understand? No. When I came to understand what it was, I was too young to do such a thing with conscious deliberation. It doesn’t logically follow that you need freedom to understand something.

 

[davidv]

Because the “best path” is subjective, or unique to each individual based on their environment and disposition.

How do you know this? Where does objective morality come in?

Does this mean that someone could legitimately claim that if they murdered their neighbor this was the best thing?

A habitual smoker is much more likely to consider buying a pack the best course of action as opposed to someone who has never smoked. The smoker could examine his choice in retrospective and conclude that buying a pack of cigarettes seemed better than abstaining, and thus explaining why he chose that.

Where was the habit when the choice was made to smoke the first cigarette?

 

[blase6]

How do you know this? Where does objective morality come in?

Does this mean that someone could legitimately claim that if they murdered their neighbor this was the best thing?

This comes from my own experience and observation of others. Someone who is not grounded in Christian morality is prone to commit sinful acts, because they appear to be not only good, but better than the moral choice.

Where was the habit when the choice was made to smoke the first cigarette?

Obviously not in existence yet. However, something provoked the person to begin smoking.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Assumption does not entail proof.

You are thinking of low-intelligence animal instinct. I am thinking of a more intelligent form of instinct.

I don’t know what that is. You are either initiating the reasoning process or something out of your control is performing calculations that you cannot possibly understand since you are not the one reasoning.

I am not following you. How does understanding a concept require freedom? I understand what a “bird” is.

Well some things are self evident to our senses. We can see that there are distinctions between objects, without reasoning; and we can learn as children the names and categories that have been assigned to objects. But that does not really mean that we fully understand or know what these objects are. If you want to know how an object operates, if you want to understand the nature of reality then clearly there are cases where we are required to perform calculations and we have to be involved in the reasoning process in order to know and understand why any particular answer is correct.

 

[davidv]

This comes from my own experience and observation of others. Someone who is not grounded in Christian morality is prone to commit sinful acts, because they appear to be not only good, but better than the moral choice.

Does this mean that these are the best things? It seems that you are claiming that murder and rape and fraud and all manner of other evil things are the “best” for some people. If this is what you are claiming, you have not made your case. Not only that but you have seriously denied a core principle of your Catholic faith. Namely, sin is objectively the opposite of the best thing, whether the person admits it or not.

Obviously not in existence yet. However, something provoked the person to begin smoking.

So why bring up habit?

 

[ChainBreaker]

Because the “best path” is subjective, or unique to each individual based on their environment and disposition. A habitual smoker is much more likely to consider buying a pack the best course of action as opposed to someone who has never smoked. The smoker could examine his choice in retrospective and conclude that buying a pack of cigarettes seemed better than abstaining, and thus explaining why he chose that.

1. Much more likely because the smoker has a habit.
2. Much more likely is not determinism since people give up habits all the time.

 

[blase6]

1. Much more likely because the smoker has a habit.
2. Much more likely is not determinism since people give up habits all the time.

I am thinking of deterministic behavior in a much more broader scope than you are; you are thinking that deterministic behavior must be very simple. I do not. There can be a great and complicated combination of factors which lead a person to choose to resist and give up a strong habit.

 

[blase6]

Does this mean that these are the best things? It seems that you are claiming that murder and rape and fraud and all manner of other evil things are the “best” for some people. If this is what you are claiming, you have not made your case. Not only that but you have seriously denied a core principle of your Catholic faith. Namely, sin is objectively the opposite of the best thing, whether the person admits it or not.

By “best path” I mean the motive which appears in the strongest appeal and light to the will. A person may be conscious that the moral option is “better”, as in taught to them from a higher power, but an immoral option may appear more desirable, which prompts the person to choose that option.

So why bring up habit?

Because habit is one of many factors which can cause otherwise immoral or irrational choices to have more appeal to the will.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I am thinking of deterministic behavior in a much more broader scope than you are; you are thinking that deterministic behavior must be very simple. I do not. There can be a great and complicated combination of factors which lead a person to choose to resist and give up a strong habit.

I do not know what you mean by determinism. To me a person is either in control or they are not in control. True reasoning cannot exist in purely deterministic conditions since you have to be able to understand why 2 + 2 = 4 in-order to know 4 is the correct answer. A calculator can produce the correct answers but it does not know that 2 + 2 = 4. A calculator does not function in the same way the human intellect does even though calculation is a part of the reasoning process.

If you are not in control of any of your thoughts, actions, or processes in regards to calculation, then i am having great difficulty understanding how it is that you possess true knowledge and understanding of the fact that everything you are, do, and think is being completely determined; since you would require the freedom to reason and understand in order to come to that conclusion. It’s a contradiction.

Of course you wouldn’t expect me to agree with you if you didn’t think that i had free-will on some level to reason and gain understanding about what you are saying.

 

[blase6]

I do not know what you mean by determinism. To me a person is either in control or they are not in control. True reasoning cannot exist in purely deterministic conditions since you have to be able to understand why 2 + 2 = 4 in-order to know 4 is the correct answer. A calculator can produce the correct answers but it does not know that 2 + 2 = 4. A calculator does not function in the same way the human intellect does even though calculation is a part of the reasoning process.

If you are not in control of any of your thoughts, actions, or processes in regards to calculation, then i am having great difficulty understanding how it is that you possess true knowledge and understanding of the fact that everything you are, do, and think is being completely determined; since you would require the freedom to reason and understand in order to come to that conclusion. It’s a contradiction.

Of course you wouldn’t expect me to agree with you if you didn’t think that i had free-will on some level to reason and gain understanding about what you are saying.

Sorry, it’s just an assumption that reasoning and understanding require freedom. That would make it impossible for animals to have any kind of knowledge, if you agree that knowledge is spiritual. And even computers “understand” things in a sense. We agree that animals and machines do not have freedom, right? So according to your reasoning, an animal cannot grasp any concept. But there is evidence that animals have memory and a limited understanding of simple concepts, especially the more intelligent animals like parrots.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Sorry, it’s just an assumption that reasoning and understanding require freedom. That would make it impossible for animals to have any kind of knowledge, if you agree that knowledge is spiritual. And even computers “understand” things in a sense. We agree that animals and machines do not have freedom, right? So according to your reasoning, an animal cannot grasp any concept. But there is evidence that animals have memory and a limited understanding of simple concepts, especially the more intelligent animals like parrots.

If you are not in control of any of your thoughts, actions, or processes in regards to calculation, then i am having great difficulty understanding how it is that you possess true knowledge and understanding of the fact that everything you are, do, and think is being completely determined; since you would require the freedom to reason and understand in order to come to that conclusion. It’s a contradiction.

Computers do not understand anything; they do not comprehend anything accept in an analogous respect.

I do not know what it means for animals to understand concepts. I have never heard of that. But if they can reason like we do, then they have the freedom to reason.

 

[blase6]

If you are not in control of any of your thoughts, actions, or processes in regards to calculation, then i am having great difficulty understanding how it is that you possess true knowledge and understanding of the fact that everything you are, do, and think is being completely determined; since you would require the freedom to reason and understand in order to come to that conclusion. It’s a contradiction.

Computers do not understand anything; they do not comprehend anything accept in an analogous respect.

I do not know what it means for animals to understand concepts. I have never heard of that. But if they can reason like we do, then they have the freedom to reason.

Sorry, but it appears to me that you don’t have enough logical evidence to say that predetermined understanding is a contradiction. I cannot remember specific examples, but lots of animals have primal knowledge. As in, knowledge that is built-in to the animal. That does not involve freedom. Also, we believe that angels have built-in intellects that they cannot expand, because that would involve learning, and learning happens over time, which angels are not part of.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Sorry, but it appears to me that you don’t have enough logical evidence to say that predetermined understanding is a contradiction. I cannot remember specific examples, but lots of animals have primal knowledge. As in, knowledge that is built-in to the animal. That does not involve freedom. Also, we believe that angels have built-in intellects that they cannot expand, because that would involve learning, and learning happens over time, which angels are not part of.

I don’t know how primal knowledge works or what it involves and neither have i really cared to understand angels, so i cannot comment. Perhaps i am missing something. But if all processes are determined then concepts such as reasoning and understanding don’t make sense; what place do they have in a Predetermined Processes? Like i said processing information and calculation is one thing, but comprehending it doesn’t make much sense if you are not the one doing the comprehending. To do the comprehending you have to self-determine the process, otherwise how can you comprehend why something is in a certain way as opposed to the mere fact that it is.

If you are not actually doing anything that you are doing, then what is the purpose of you. Why are you aware that you are not free. Surely you would have to have the experience of being free or having freedom in order to make the comparison?

 

[blase6]

I don’t know how primal knowledge works or what it involves and neither have i really cared to understand angels, so i cannot comment. Perhaps i am missing something. But if all processes are determined then concepts such as reasoning and understanding don’t make sense; what place do they have in a Predetermined Processes? Like i said processing information and calculation is one thing, but comprehending it doesn’t make much sense if you are not the one doing the comprehending. To do the comprehending you have to self-determine the process, otherwise how can you comprehend why something is in a certain way as opposed to the mere fact that it is.

If you are not actually doing anything that you are doing, then what is the purpose of you. Why are you aware that you are not free. Surely you would have to have the experience of being free or having freedom in order to make the comparison?

I have a superficial sense of being the immediate cause of my own actions, and the teachings from a Church I belong to, stacked against my own reasoning and experience to the contrary. It does not help that the idea of freedom cannot be understood when compared to any other apparent reality of cause and effect.

I think the difference between “calculation” and “comprehension” is that a calculation produces data without awareness, and comprehension involves awareness.

Obviously I am the immediate cause of my own actions. Every person has a sense of that as far as I know, so they assume that they have personal freedom. But the plausibility of freedom erodes when I think about how events are caused.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I have a superficial sense of being the immediate cause of my own actions, and the teachings from a Church I belong to, stacked against my own reasoning and experience to the contrary. It does not help that the idea of freedom cannot be understood when compared to any other apparent reality of cause and effect.

I think the difference between “calculation” and “comprehension” is that a calculation produces data without awareness, and comprehension involves awareness.

Obviously I am the immediate cause of my own actions. Every person has a sense of that as far as I know, so they assume that they have personal freedom. But the plausibility of freedom erodes when I think about how events are caused.

Somethings are just self-evident. You cannot have the experience of freewill if it does not actually exist on some level. You have a concept of freedom because you know that you are free in how you go about doing certain things as opposed to not free. You know what it is like. How is it possible to have an experience of something that does not exist in anyway shape or form? Even an hallucination is based on real world experiences because the brain cannot just produce information out of nothing.

I don’t see what the problem is with self-determinism. It only becomes a problem if it is impossible to have a nature that can freely determine how it will go about attaining a particular ends. There always has to be a motivating factor for our choices, but i don’t see how that means that we are not free. It just means that we are limited to choosing that which is desirable against that which is not.