Determinism Invalidates Knowledge and is Therefore Self-Refuting

[fenoglios]

Great vid. Thanks for the essay reference!



[mechnar9]

I mean we should summarise this whole shitty argument into this. Is metaphysical free will (the incompatbilist sort) a neccessary condition upon the possibility to knowledge? 9 out of 10 philosophers don't think so, a bunch of youtube guys do though, I know who I respect more.

[mechnar9]

Thus we see the impossibility of a regress of certainty, as being certain one is certain is the same thing as being certain. Thus the impossibility of absolute knowledge does make knowledge itself impossible. Your simplistic dogma is disposed of.

[mechnar9]

You know they say you can't take an ought from an is, but these arguments for free will try to take an is from an ought!

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

(Part 2)  Secondly, the claim that philosophers think epistemological certainty is impossible, is self-refuting. If knowledge(epistemology) cannot be certain, and we can be sure of nothing, then the claim that we can be certain of nothing epistemically, is itself not certain.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan No, we cannot have absolute certainty, not no certainty at all. This is not contradictory at all, it's basic stuff.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Are you absolutely certain we cannot have absolute certainty?

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan Surer than you are of anything whatsoever.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Fail.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan Good response. Your intellectual capacity is clearly outstanding, I wouldn't expect anything more from an objectivist. You probably think Ayn Rand is a real philosopher.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Well, your comment was worthless. It was a mild insult to me; You patently evaded giving a straightforward answer, and you seem too dense to realize your claim is self-refuting. And then it was false, as I am absolutely sure of something that you can't deny.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan I'm sorry but it's not self-refuting in the slightest, I think you'll find I have most sound academia behind me and you a cult, what you are saying entails we can only have absolute certainty or no certainty at all, it is binary. A fool could see this is error. You are need to realise that I don't need an infinte regress of certainty to hold a position. You can only be certain to some degree, nobody can be certain they're certain, it simply doesn't function that way.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Nah. You just used a strawman argument by claiming I said ("we can only have absolute certainty or no certainty at all"). I never said that. I asked you a simple question and you evaded it. Here it is again: Are you absolutely certain we cannot have absolute certainty? Yes or No.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan Ahh the yes or no dicotomy, preserve of the mentally challenged. The binary nature of certainty is actually a necessary consequence of your argument against those whom maintain the impossibility of absolute certainty. For anything other than absolute certainty lead you down the same sceptical path. Even though you cannot be certain you are certain (it's incorrect thinking), even if we allow this, you cannot be certain you're certain with anything short of absolute certainty.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

And that's why I wrote "fail". Because your position is a failure, and this is obvious because you refuse to answer the question, and just evade and dodge it. It's also obvious how poor your argument is because you resort to insulting me so often.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan Hmm yes a failure that has the backing of the vast majority of the academic community. I don't answer your yes or no dicotomy because your question itself is incoherent, I have had the decency to explain why but this doesn't entail your capacity to comprehend. I insult you because your thinking is bad and you should feel bad.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

I couldn't care less about your insults. They mean less than dirt to me. It has the backing of the vast majority of the academic community? For such a person concerned with academia and philosophy, you sure do commit a lot of logical errors. You just appealed to fallacies of popularity and authority.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan So appeals to authority and popularity are "logical" errors now? I suggest you take a philosophy course someday, learn something of logic and get back to me. I'm hardly saying that the fact that the impossibility of absolute certainty is held by the majority of philosophers makes it an correct view, I'm just highlighting that when you laugh at it being obviously self-refuting, you are laughing at an awful lot of clever bastards that disagree with you.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

So fallacies are not logical errors? LOL!

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan You are correct, an ad hominem for example doesn't involve any form of logical error, it just simply calls you a name. You can't disprove the validity of an ad hominem in a formally logical language. Obviously it doesn't stop it being a waste of time as an argument.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Yourdictionary dott com defines a fallacy at number 3 as ("a false, or mistaken idea; error"). Once again you are wrong. Fallacies are logical errors.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan I'm sorry you have the great all knowing resource of yourdictionary, haven't you made your own appeal to authority? Any phil undergrad knows better than to use an ordinary dictionary for philosophy. Seriously, are all falsehoods due to logical error?

[mechnar9]

Ayn Rand...wrong on metaphysics, wrong on ethics, wrong on aesthetics...

[mechnar9]

All those things you mention are possible under determinism, morality, value the lot, you have absolutely no way to know they are not. Secondly nobody has absolute certainty in any judgement and thats a bloody good thing, objectivism as a philosophy is frankly the most hatefilled dangerous piece of non-philosophy ever written. Philosophy isn't undermining anyone, it's being honest about the certainty we do have, Rand was a right-wing lunatic.

[mechnar9]

Nothing in your supposed volition over your mental activities is inconsistent with determinism. Ayn Rand is a fraud and non-philosopher. Nobody infalliably knows that their thoughts are rational, indeed we have to be sceptical about our thought of what is possible as well as what we know is necessary. Sorry this isn't even an argument, it's a dogma that doesn't want to deal with the apparent sceptical conclusions of determinism that are nothing more the prima facie issues.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 "Sorry this isn't even an argument, it's a dogma"

Actually, it is an argument, and it's one that I made very clear. You didn't even attempt to respond to it.

In your next comment, you will, or you will be blocked.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th Ok I'll bite.

1) All knowledge is based on perception, or perception + induction, or introspection.

2) Introspection is the means by which we justify our true belief, thus producing knowledge

3) Free Will is a mind's capacity to "have volition" over its thoughts. (assumed incompatible with 4)

4) All schools of determinism entail that all thoughts and actions are necessarily dependent upon ancedent factors.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th 5) If I know x, then know the reason why I believe x (e.g I have justification for my belief x)

6) If I do not even have indirect control of my belief x, then my justification for x may be entirely distinct from the "real reason" why x is true.

7) If determinism we must then be sceptical over whether our beliefs are justified.

8) Therefore must be sceptical over our belief in determinism being true.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th 9) Even if we must bite the bullet, and say we can't know determinism but it may still be possible, we must be sceptical over what is possible to.

Premise 3) + 4) may be consistent. See anomalous monism.

What is a "real reason" in 6)? Surely we are outside of epistemology here. Ontological truth, metaphysical truth, I wouldn't expect any less from an objectivist (quiet guffaws), truth is epistemological and intersubjective.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 "I wouldn't expect any less from an objectivist (quiet guffaws)"

Take a look at trick0171's comments. He vehemently disagreed with me but we were able to go back and forth on the issue for a long time because he didn't make snide little remarks like this. All you're trying to do here is intimidate me with condescension. Well, it won't work.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th I'm sorry but objectivism just doesn't get taken seriously in many circles, and for good reason, it makes a mockery of the philosophical tradition. Most philosophers don't waste their time with it. I'll try not to be condescending but in my mind objectivists arn't philosophers, they're people who put their hand in their ears and go nanana at philosophers whilst enjoying feeling sure of themselves.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 " but objectivism just doesn't get taken seriously in many circles"

Yeah, yeah, I know. I don't care. I hate those circles. I'd like to piss on the philosophical tradition. Philosophers have mostly devoted themselves to inventing elaborate systems for the purpose of destroying knowledge and destroying values.

Ultimately, none of this matters. All that matters are the substances of the actual arguments made, whether they're made by Rand, Kant, Hume, or some bum on the street.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

How does Objectivism make a mockery of Philosophical tradition?

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan By expousing the type of epistemological certainty that philosophers have demonstrated impossible. By misinterpreting philosophers and their arguments and by questioning their motives of philosophy in general. It's basically a cult for those who hate philosophers with no good reason.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

(Part 1) First of all, it's espousing, not expousing. Secondly, I am not aware of Objectivists misinterpreting Philosophers or questioning their motives(not that that's a bad thing). The Objectivists I am aware of don't do that. To verify you are being true, I would need an example of Mr Cropper, or PaulMcKeever, or dannidandannikins, or Beethovens7th, or myself, doing what you say. Such that we can know it's true and not just dishonest rhetoric.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan You can start with their mistreatment of Kant and build from there really.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th As a general point self-contradictory arguments are usually weak, this smacks of the Bishop Berkley and his manifest contradiction. Sorry but determinism has got thus far without simplistic "refutation" of this sort

Why is a problem that we be sceptical over our knowledge of what is metaphysically possible, we bloody should be, concievable = possible has long since been disproven.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 I don't care what you think of self-contradictory arguments, just tell me why this one doesn't work. Your control over the operations of your own mind are integral in its entire functioning. The mind literally can not operate any other way. If it did, it wouldn't be a mind, it would be a computer. With free will, you are able to verify whether or not your mental processes were rational, because you controlled them and if you were ever dishonest with yourself during them you would....

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th I've told you why, because "volition" doesn't necessarily contradict the notion at thoughts have metaphysically necessary causes, because the notion that a thought has a "real reason" when it's a thought, not an object but an intension, is inherently flawed, the belief my cat is hungry is a justification for me putting food out regardless of whether that belief was caused by a hallucination or a real cat.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 "I've told you why, because "volition" doesn't necessarily contradict the notion at thoughts have metaphysically necessary causes"

Yes, it does. Choice IS the cause. Of course, it is only within a context. Things happening externally bring certain topics up into your mind, but then you are able to choose whether or not to focus on them, and how exactly to guide your thoughts in considering them.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th And who is the say those "choices" don't have ancedent causes? Of course they do, if they didn't they would be arbitrary, they necessarily must. I suggest you read up on compatibilism and anomalous monism.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 "the belief my cat is hungry is a justification for me putting food out regardless of whether that belief was caused by a hallucination or a real cat."

No. Feeding hallucinations is not justified. You need to accept the primacy of existence over consciousness.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th No you are confusing truth and justification there I believe. As for the primacy of existence over consciousness I wouldn't know where to start with what you mean. If you mean the belief in the existence an mind-independent world of objects I'm an externalist so I hold that world as necessary for consciousness as we have it, it's in epistemology that objectivists make their errors. You simply can't do away with philsophical problems like that.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th Finally because even if we buy the argument completely you haven't actually told us why scepticism regarding our knowledge of what is metaphysically possible is untenable. I would maintain this regardless of the argument anyway so you haven't really taken the argument anywhere that would disprove determinism at least in my opinion.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 "why scepticism regarding our knowledge of what is metaphysically possible is untenable."

You'll have to explain in more detail what you mean by this. Skepticism is the idea that one can literally know nothing (which is also self-contradictory, because a skepticist is making a knowledge claim). I'm all for admitting it when there's things you are not certain of, which people colloquially refer to as "being skeptical." My issue is w/ the philosophical view that certainty is impossible.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th You say that the determinist can't maintain that the thesis is merely possible, because we can't know for certain what is possible due to our lack of knowledge of the orgins of our thoughts, i.e we are sceptical regarding what we can know of metaphysical possibility (this doesn't mean were Cartesian sceptics). Consequently the determinist can't maintain this weaker position, however most determinists would assume we can't know what is metaphysically possible for certain anyway.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 ....know it.

Hell, ultimately in determinism every thing about your mind's functioning would be an illusion. You'd have no idea where any of your thoughts really came from.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th That's just your conjecture, the fact is we can't know anything is 100% epistemological certainty, not what is nor what is possible. It's free will in the sense of metaphysical sense, nobody knows the origin of their thoughts either. Where does this incorrigble knowledge come from? I'm sorry this argument just laughs in the face of modern epistemology, a quick and easy argument for those who defend free will for emotive reasons.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 "Where does this incorrigible knowledge come from?"

Introspection. By introspection, I can review my own past mental processes and know what they are. I can look at this computer and know that it is sitting on a desk, and then by introspection I can review that and realize that that knowledge came from direct perception of reality. The same is true for higher-level abstractions, it's simply more complex.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 "a quick and easy argument for those who defend free will for emotive reasons."

No. Read Binswanger's thesis for more detail if you'd like. There's nothing quick and easy about it.

Keep in mind that by "for emotive reasons" you mean "for the recognition of ANY values, of ANY purpose, of ANY meaning in life whatsoever. For being able to think that raping children is NOT a proper way to behave."

These so-called "emotive reasons" are nothing to sneer at.

[mechnar9]

@Beethovens7th What a naive philosophical fallacy, you are doing the worst type of philosophy, assuming a massive amount about what can't be possible from a single poorly understood concept (poorly understood by all that is) - in this case determinism. You are a dogmatic pessimist in Strawson's sense of the term I suggest you read "Freedom and Resentment" if you want some genuinely clear thinking on this subject matter.

[Beethovens7th]

@mechnar9 In any case, I still maintain that free will is directly perceivable.

[BeRealistic101]

Also, the Randian idea of free will seems really over simplified and naive. When you speak of "you" controlling "your" thoughts, who is the "you" that "you're" speaking of? The Randian version seems like nothing more than accepting the Cartesian Theater without qualm. And this arises precisely because science has advanced beyond such blanket statements about the brain, which this philosophy doesn't seem to acknowledge. The evolution of the human brain is very important to this subject.

[AlexanderLee1]

@BeRealistic101 I've been wondering that for a long time. Who is this spiritual "you," who can supposedly control your brain? Isn't your brain "you"? I think that objectivism sounds suspiciously mystical on this subject.

However, the points Beethovens7th brought up in this video are good. I suppose further scientific study of the brain will resolve this issue.

[BeRealistic101]

I would suggest reading some of Daniel Dennett on this topic. Your idea of free will would be acausal; that is, the will would be logically prior to any reasons which form the basis of the will's action. In this way, the will's choices would not be based on reasons but the mere selection of reasons based on whim, i.e. without cause or reason. To make choices because of reasons you need the will to be causal. And of course we exist in a causal universe, so you have that glaring problem too.

[trick0171]

Horrible logic. Determinism does not imply men can "know nothing", nor that thoughts do not come from the person having them. Knowledge can come about through strictly causal means. Yes, they ultimately are forced through causal means beyond the persons control, but that does not mean they are not thoughts, nor does it mean that the thoughts themself are not correct (True) regarding reality.

(MORE)

[trick0171]

That is like saying a computer cannot calculate 2+2 with accuracy because it is a deterministic system. Utter nonsense. All 4 calegories/premises of Binswinger are fallacious. I recommend the book 'Living Without Free Will' by Derk Pereboom for arguments that are logically sound on this topic. Binswanger and Rand's philosophies are riddled with flaws, fallacies, and unproven premises.

Thanks,

Trick

[Beethovens7th]

@trick0171 Let me guess...."Living Without Free Will" is about how one should CHOOSE to live their life knowing that they don't have free will? Hahaha....okay....

[Beethovens7th]

@trick0171

"Knowledge can come about through strictly causal means."

Okay, but you can never KNOW that the causal means determining YOUR thoughts are rational ones.

Your argument could only be true if we were determined to be rational. Which is obviously not the case, because people disagree.

[Beethovens7th]

@trick0171 Yes, within determinism, it is POSSIBLE that deterministic factors made your thoughts come out true. The point is that you could never KNOW that this was the case. You could never know whether or not your thoughts were determined rationally or determined by some outside factor. They were determined. Something outside of your control made each of them happen, and that something could have been rational or not.

"causal" is not the same thing as "rational." Causal is a metaphysical...

[Beethovens7th]

@trick0171 ...concept, while rational is an epistemological concept.

Did you actually read Binswanger's essay?

[Beethovens7th]

@trick0171 "but that does not mean they are not thoughts, nor does it mean that the thoughts themself are not correct (True) regarding reality."

I didn't say it means that they are not thoughts, or that it means that they are necessarily not correct (at least not directly). What it means is that you have no way of knowing whether or not they are correct.

[trick0171]

@Beethovens7th

I don't know why you keep saying you cannot KNOW (have knowledge) deterministically. Rationality comes about via purely causal means, and so does (logical) knowledge. In fact, it can come about no other way. And yes, I read the essay and various Rand books. Knowledge is entirely (logically) compatible with the idea of determinism.

And yes, you causally "CHOOSE", meaning elect, the only viable option in a deterministic universe.

(MORE)

[trick0171]

FYI - The majority of science is based on causality, therefore it can be considered both physical and metaphysical. Acausality is a metaphysical concept. Also a metaphysical concept can be a rational concept.

(MORE)

[trick0171]

"Your argument could only be true if we were determined to be rational. Which is obviously not the case, because people disagree"

Who ever said everyone was rational? Rationality applies to a methodology of reason (such as logic, science, etc). Causality does not dictate that everyone has the same epistemological stance, nor that they are all "rational".

[Beethovens7th]

@trick0171 You are not reading my comments very carefully, or listening to my video very carefully, or reading Binswanger very carefully. Video response on the way....

[trick0171]

@Beethovens7th

I'm pretty sure I am reading your comment carefully. You are saying that one cannot "know" determinism is true if it is true, because that "knowledge" comes about deterministically. I am saying we can "know" that something follows "logically" based on the methodology of logic...and that the methodology and the knowledge of our use of it can come about through strictly causal (deterministic) means.

(more)

[trick0171]

There are too many flaws in the essay you linked to go over them all in comments. I'm more addressing the points you are raising here.

[Beethovens7th]

Video response uploaded.

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: is Binswanger's requirement for knowing? To know, means to apply a validation process for one's belief. The validation process consists of checking: does one's belief follow from the factors, is there a valid conclusion (belief does follow from factors) or is there an invalid conclusion (belief does not follow from factors). To be a validation process, an ALTERNATIVE needs to be present (valid or invalid conclusion).

[TOMsReasons]

more: If the outcome of the validation process is predetermined, there is no alternative present. Therefore, it is no proper validation process, therefore it is not knowledge.

[trick0171]

@TOMsReasons

"does one's belief follow from the factors, is there a valid conclusion (belief does follow from factors) or is there an invalid conclusion (belief does not follow from factors)"

I agree with this part.

(MORE)

[trick0171]

"To be a validation process, an ALTERNATIVE needs to be present (valid or invalid conclusion)."

I disagree with this part. First you need to prove the premise that "an ALTERNATIVE needs to be present" (meaning the possibility of an alternative outcome for the knowledge), which Binswanger fails to do.

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: there needs to be an alternative in the outcome of the VALIDATION PROCESS.

[trick0171]

@TOMsReasons

The word "OUTCOME" is my concern of what you just stated. If we can clarify what you mean by this that could be helpful. In other words, how can an outcome have an alternative?

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: before you start the validation process, it is not predetermined whether at the end of the validation process, your conclusion will be whether 'belief follows from factors' or whether it will be 'belief does not follow from factors'; the conclusion you draw is the 'outcome' and this conclusion is not predetermined.

[trick0171]

@TOMsReasons

So in this instance you don't really mean "the conclusion", but rather "the possible or potential conclusions that the ACTUAL conclusion could turn out to be". Is this correct?

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: yup, that's how I understand it

[trick0171]

@TOMsReasons

Then yes, then it is that premise, that being that "an alternative possible conclusion needs to be present for validation" that has not been sufficiently proven to me. In fact, I think just the opposite: If a conclusion (outcome) has more than one possiblity, that conclusion would be impossible to verify prior to the actual happening of it. It is the conclusions consistency with determinism (causality) that allows for a verification process.

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: If I want to verify whether a belief follows from factors, the alternative is: 'the belief follows from the factors' or 'the belief does not follow from the factors'. There is no way determining prior to the verification process which one it is going to be. To determine it 'beforehand', would mean that I am already done before I have started it and there would be no need to engage in an additional verification process.

[TOMsReasons]

more: Above all, there is NO NEED to verify the conclusion PRIOR to the actual happening of it, because the verification IS the PROCESS BY WHICH IT IS VERIFIED. Do you want to verify the verification, and verify the verification of the verification, and verify the verification of the verification of the verification, up to infinity? That does not make sense.

[TOMsReasons]

... The fallacious 'mechanistic' Gallilean definition of causality demands that the 'action' of 'verification' is determined by an earlier 'action', and that by an still earlier action and so on. But if you take the Aristotelian version of causality, that entities act according to their nature, i.e. man acts as a volitional being who can think and come to conclusions that are not determined by prior factors, then there is no problem with the verification proces and no need to go back to infinity

[trick0171]

@TOMsReasons

"But if you take the Aristotelian version of causality..."

That is another topic I was waiting for Beethovens7th video on it to address. I have a feeling it is a complete misunderstanding of Aristotelian causality, nor do I think Aristotle would deny Gallilean causality as one or more of his 4 types of "causes".

[trick0171]

You still have not answered the question as to why we need to have a VIABLE alternative possibility that the conclusion COULD turn out to be. Your very verification process dictates the one and only conclusion. Also keep in mind that having a choice between two or more things does not mean that they are all viable. Only one is viable, based on the causality that precedes it.

(MORE)

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: 'and decide on the conclusion of one of them, all deterministically';

either it is predetermined, then it is not a real decision, or it is a decision, but then it can't be predetermined, you can't have both; to call something predetermined AND to claim to have a real decision at the same time does not make sense at all; again, your definition of 'decision' is in fact no decision at all, it makes the concept of 'decision' fully superfluous;

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: Now you have introduced 'viable' and by 'viable' you mean the one that is predetermined. With your assumption of determinism, you get to only one viable alternative, yes. Not assuming determinism, both alternatives of the outcome of the verification process ('...follows...' or 'does not follow' ) are viable, that is: given a non deterministic free choice, BOTH of them are viable.

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: As to why we need to have a viable alternative: otherwise, the whole verification process would not make sense. Why engage in such a useless game if it is predetermined anyway ? Why spend the effort?

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: Do you like using that kind of spaghetti language? Are you saying that even the existence of those two possible outcomes of the verification process ( '...follows...' vs. '...does not follow... ) need a cause ? What do you think can cause these two possible outcomes other than my rational ability and its application in thought ?

[trick0171]

@TOMsReasons

Nonsense. A decision can too be determined. We make decisions all of the time, we are decision making machines. Of course the decisions are derived from preceding causes, but that does not make them any less of a decision.

(MORE)

[trick0171]

If both are "viable", then anything that preceded before them...such as "verification" would not effect the outcome. If such "verification" does effect the outcome, there can be only one viable option, the one that the "verification" dictates. So my question now is, where does the "verification" come from/ Does it just happen, or is it a process that is learned?

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: What do you think is the difference between (holding a belief plus doing a verification process) and (holding a belief and not doing a verification process)? If the outcome of the verification process is predetermined, could I not drop the whole verification process and hold my beliefs without doing the verification process ? Assuming determinism, how could I know that what I am doing during the verification process is related to my belief when the outcome is predetermined anyway?

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: If you use your definition of 'viable' as 'predetermined', then they can't both be viable. I just don't accept your assumption of determinism, instead they are both a possible outcomes before the verification process, and after the verification process is finished, only one of them remains (the verification process eliminates one of them). A verification process does not just happen. Man needs to DECIDE to do a verification process at all when he might as well ignore to do it.

[TOMsReasons]

more: I also think that man needs to learn how to do a verification process and that it can and will include making errors while learning it. He can make errors in regard as to what he thinks is necessary to establish a 'belief' (what the verification process consists of) and he also can make erroneous conclusions (he can think that his belief is established after a couple of steps when in fact he has missed some steps of the proof or he has missed other facts and possibilities).

[trick0171]

@trick0171

Actually, I am not a determinist. I am in incompatiblist who thinks free will is incompatible in both a deterministic and an indeterministic universe. I do however, think that determinism is the more likely scenerio for logical reasons. We have not even addressed this dichotomy yet.

"Man needs to DECIDE to do a verification"

And where does that decision come from? What lead to the decision to do a verification?

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: The ability to decide without prior cause lies within man's nature as a volitional being.

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: You are saying that I could NOT drop the verification process ??? What keeps me from closing my eyes and evading all the facts that are available? What keeps me from taking drugs that blind out my consciousness and make a verification process impossible ? There are billions of people out there who DO hold their beliefs not only WITHOUT a verification process, but who even BELIEVE (literally in the sense of FAITH) things once they have been presented with PROOF AGAINST IT.

[trick0171]

@TOMsReasons

@TOMsReasons

"The ability to decide without prior cause lies within man's nature as a volitional being"

So events happen within the man that do not have a cause? And these events grant the man free will? I think we need to address how an acausal event (meaning completely random event) can lead to a free will. Are these acausal events "willed" events? Do they have a "willer"? If so...how?

[trick0171]

"You are saying that I could NOT drop the verification process ?..."

We were talking about instances in which a person has rational/logical knowledge. I'm not saying you could not do those things...but not in the context of what we consider a "rational" process (at least how these vids seem to be implying rational means). For the output to be a rational one, verification is a necessary causal event (which takes place causally as well btw). :)

[TOMsReasons]

@trick0171: if one step, the first one, of that feedback loop is flawed by being determined, then every step thereafter is flawed by being determined as well. In this way, the whole feedback system is flawed by being determined.

[trick0171]

@TOMsReasons

The same problem exists if determinism does not exist. It is a limitation of knowledge (and the human machine). Hence the reason the notion of "absolute knowledge" is problematic.

(MORE)

[trick0171]

This is why certain methods such as science prefer more than just anecdotal verification: verification through many different human machines, tested many different times, and only probable knowledge needs to be inferred. Some humans (who we deem as having a mental illness) may not be able to properly process at all. We use consistency to determine what humans can or cannot. Your notion of free will does not grant a person perfect knowledge.

I think we are digressing here.

[qtronman]

Man, where is Stuart?

[qtronman]

Good video series! :-)

[angeliaparish]

redline beats your energy drink but your message is fabulous, nonetheless.

[Beethovens7th]

@angeliaparish hehe, thanks. NOS is what I canget here at my school with my meal plan dollars.