Determinism vs. Indeterminism

[Anonymouse]

I'd give you a gun if I know you would shoot yourself.

[surferarmo]

[quote="sSsflamesSs"]

We have had several posts converning this philosophy. You should know since you never have anything better to do than go on this forum. We're over it.

Surfer, why so bitter? Girls mistreating you in real life?

You post on the forum just as much as I do. Don't be a hypocrite. It's not flattering.

Incorrect as always flames. No, the girls are treating me well. Look at the post count babe, tell me who is on the forum more frequently.

[sSsflamesSs]

Uh OK, surfer, you got me. Oh Lordy, I'm feeling light-headed.

Um, what was your point again?

[jahannam]

I'll buy you a one way ticket to anywhere you want to go, if you promise not to come back.

wow... r u serious?
make that to IBIZA...
I PROMISE i won't come back 8)

[spiral]

Indeterminism:
1. If an action isn’t determined, then the action is random.
2. If an action is random, then the action is not under the agent's control.
3. If the action isn’t under the agent’s control, then the action isn’t free.
4. So, if an action isn’t determined, then the action isn’t free.

EVERY ACTION IS EITHER DETERMINED OR NOT DETERMINED, BUT NOT BOTH.

CONCLUSION: NO ACTION IS FREE.

If you need me to clarify any of the steps, I'll be glad to do so.

I was reading some old threads, and I came across this one.

I don't understand how you come up with this _

3. "If the action isn’t under the agent’s control, then the action isn’t free."

[sSsflamesSs]

I was reading some old threads, and I came across this one.

I don't understand how you come up with this _

3. "If the action isn’t under the agent’s control, then the action isn’t free."

I didn't come up with it...David Hume did (i.e. Hume's Fork).

But as far as I understand it, if the action isn't under the agent's control, then some other being/entity/whatever must be in control of the action. Hence, the agent is not free to do as s/he pleases (the action isn't free).

PS Old thread, it is. I think I created this thread on the first day of school, two semesters ago, right after lecture. Awww, how cute, what a good little student I am - haha I wish.

[spiral]

But the theory that it must be under some other agent's control is not proven, also, a specific agent is not mentioned, thus one is to assume that "If the action isn’t under the agent’s control" means any agent, since no one agent is mentioned, nor is there a singular connotation made.

Maybe if I read his whole philosophy on this issue I may understand it better.

I never liked Hume though.

[sSsflamesSs]

But the theory that it must be under some other agent's control is not proven,

The agent, in every example, is one being. There is no other agent for each specific action. Let's keep things simple. If the action isn't under the agent's control, then the agent is not free to do as s/he pleases. I already said this.

also, a specific agent is not mentioned, thus one is to assume that "If the action isn’t under the agent’s control" means any agent, since no one agent is mentioned, nor is there a singular connotation made.

The agent can be anyone: you, me, your neighbor. Although it is rather general, once the agent is "picked", it is rather specific. For example, say you are at a bar. You get your drink, and while holding it in your hand, you accidentally trip on someone's foot and spill your drink on your date. Now, was it you that spilled the drink: yes. Was spilling your drink under your control: no. In this example, you are the agent, and everything else outside of you/your mind is the outside force. In this instance, the action was not under the agent's control but under the control of an outside force. Does that make it any clearer?

[spiral]

The agent, in every example, is one being. There is no other agent for each specific action. Let's keep things simple. If the action isn't under the agent's control, then the agent is not free to do as s/he pleases. I already said this.



The agent can be anyone: you, me, your neighbor. Although it is rather general, once the agent is "picked", it is rather specific. For example, say you are at a bar. You get your drink, and while holding it in your hand, you accidentally trip on someone's foot and spill your drink on your date. Now, was it you that spilled the drink: yes. Was spilling your drink under your control: no. In this example, you are the agent, and everything else outside of you/your mind is the outside force. In this instance, the action was not under the agent's control but under the control of an outside force. Does that make it any clearer?

you see, I thought you meant the "agent" was supposed to be an outside force which influenced/determined our actions. As in some sort of force-ie. God, destiny...something like that.

So yeah, I agree, in that case. Everything is pretty much determined, by everything around us. All of our actions, are reactions, so we are not free to act out an action. Only reactions.

[Anonymouse]

Would that be the same David Hume that was making pseudo-scientific justifications for slavery?