destiny

[joker]

I was feeling good last night. Well of course I was because I was drunk, but I asked myself a question. Is there such thing as a destiny. It has not been proven that there is, but if I have a destiny I think it is to become an aesthetic. It might be the solution to my negative outlook. To get suicide and homicide out of my mind. To show people the mind of a bi-polar youth. The type of shit we misfits go through. That could be my purpose in life.

[PhantomOpus]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aesthetic

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ascetic

[Occam]

It is occams destiny.
To make his own destiny.

Occam

[Art Delfo]

It is occams destiny.
To make his own destiny.

Occam
ture

[Sera Michele]

Destiny is just a romantic notion, there is no evidence or reason to think everything or anything is predetermined - unless it is us personally doing our pre-determining (if that is even a word). So I guess one could definitely say our destiny is what we make of it.

[Common Sense]

Of course there is no proof of fate or destiny or anything like that. How could there be? That being said, there is no proof of free will, either. Arguments in favour of either are nonsense. It's not that the question is unanswerable either; I mean that it is quite literally nonsense, jibberish. I also find it strange how most people use the word "destiny" when referring to things that conceivably could not have happened, like "It was my destiny to fall in love with you." If it is, in fact, destiny, then how could it not happen? Yet no one says "It is my destiny that I should breathe five minutes from now," which could, conceivably, not be the case (I could drop dead right now). But it's certainly far more likely than me falling in love with one particular girl. We use the word "destiny" to refer to something entirely otherworld or remarkable. Destiny is a concept which belongs in art, not philosophy; so is free will.

[Occam]

Of course there is no proof of fate or destiny or anything like that. How could there be? That being said, there is no proof of free will, either. Arguments in favour of either are nonsense. It's not that the question is unanswerable either; I mean that it is quite literally nonsense, jibberish. I also find it strange how most people use the word "destiny" when referring to things that conceivably could not have happened, like "It was my destiny to fall in love with you." If it is, in fact, destiny, then how could it not happen? Yet no one says "It is my destiny that I should breathe five minutes from now," which could, conceivably, not be the case (I could drop dead right now). But it's certainly far more likely than me falling in love with one particular girl. We use the word "destiny" to refer to something entirely otherworld or remarkable. Destiny is a concept which belongs in art, not philosophy; so is free will. Common Sense

Agree.

There is no free will..
But one can make choices. [within possible bounderies]
And these choices create paths that become reality.

We are only free. when we come to a fork in the road.

Occam

AS for destiny...Occam has only ever seen it ...after the fact;)
"Occams destiny is to create his own destiny"
Is the stock answer to any who believe that what will be
has already been decided [predestined]
This is fine for gross physical mater/processes.
But falls down when self aware consciouness is introduced.

[Common Sense]

Common Sense

Agree.

There is no free will..
But one can make choices. [within possible bounderies]
And these choices create paths that become reality.

We are only free. when we come to a fork in the road.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that free will does or does not exist, same goes for fate. I'm saying that the question of free will is meaningless, and something that's meaningless can't have an answer that's true or false. If there are such forks in the road, I'd like to know how I can identify them, so that when I reach one, I'll know it. I can either pick this pen up, or not. Does that qualify as a fork in the road? How could I know? And if I can't know, then how can I use words like "free" or "predestined" in a philosophical/scientific context? If I can't, then what business do I have mascarading those words up as facts? I hope this helps to clarify a little, but is it really so surprising that I'm at a loss for words when the whole subject we are discussing is meaningless? Maybe that's no excuse, in which case I will continue to elaborate further until reaching perfect clarity at some other time.

[Occam]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that free will does or does not exist, same goes for fate. I'm saying that the question of free will is meaningless, and something that's meaningless can't have an answer that's true or false. If there are such forks in the road, I'd like to know how I can identify them, so that when I reach one, I'll know it. I can either pick this pen up, or not. Does that qualify as a fork in the road? How could I know? And if I can't know, then how can I use words like "free" or "predestined" in a philosophical/scientific context? If I can't, then what business do I have mascarading those words up as facts? I hope this helps to clarify a little, but is it really so surprising that I'm at a loss for words when the whole subject we are discussing is meaningless? Maybe that's no excuse, in which case I will continue to elaborate further until reaching perfect clarity at some other time.
Common Sense...

Ah thats the interesting part...
How do we know what a fork in the road is?

Occam suggest...Any situation where you must think about what choice to make. [you ballance choices in your head]
Is a fork in the road.

Suprisingly... is it is a rare thing for most.
Just about all human life is lived on conscious autopilot.

Occam

[Common Sense]

I'm not exactly sure what your position is, Occam. You say there is no free will, yet we are still able to make choices. You go on to say that a fork in the road is a situation in which one must make a conscious decisions. But if you must make a decision, then you have no choice in the matter. Besides, it seems like one could think really hard about any decision at all, no matter how trivial. It seems like you're making more of a point about human nature than a point about metaphysics. Really, I like your effort to naturalize a very confusing metaphysical problem. I have few disagreements about the way you're solving the problem. I just have no idea what your answer is.

[Rodent]

I agree that our freedom to make decisions at any one time eliminates some of the possibilities of DESTINY but.. what about the factors that may influence our decisions at that period of time ie.: emotional state, tendencies passed on from parents, tendencies from previous experience and so on.

So there does exist a certain pull for us to head in a preditermined direction but not enough to make it a certainty. Which comes back to balance, as it allways does.

Rode

[mati]

so the decision at the turn of the road is like a balance where each factor adds its' weight and it comes down to which side has the most. "I do not ascribe to the will, that unintelligible necessity under which we are all supposed to lie like matter. But I ascribe to matter, that intelligible quality, call it necessity or not, which the most rigorous orthodoxy does or must allow to the will"(Hume-Treatise on Human Nature)

[Occam]

I'm not exactly sure what your position is, Occam. You say there is no free will, yet we are still able to make choices. You go on to say that a fork in the road is a situation in which one must make a conscious decisions. But if you must make a decision, then you have no choice in the matter. Besides, it seems like one could think really hard about any decision at all, no matter how trivial. It seems like you're making more of a point about human nature than a point about metaphysics. Really, I like your effort to naturalize a very confusing metaphysical problem. I have few disagreements about the way you're solving the problem. I just have no idea what your answer is. Common Sense

Sorry for the confusion....Occam sort of continues thought on such things from other posts and times and no doubt this leaves holes in his
position in more recent conversations.

Literally
'Free Will' to occam indicates the abillity for will to act 'as it wishes'
Not possible in a reality that limmits action to what is
POSSIBLE for humans. [at this time]
But in the generally accepted human definition of god.
This is the power god has.
Free will..wish it,, and it becomes reality...Acausal creation..

'Choice' is the application of reason/will to opportunities of choice
allowed within the largely deterministic reality we are embedded in.
You have slipped "must make a descision" into your reply to his post.
Occan never said that, but, will let you off..;)

At a fork in the road...
One only needs ONE Option.
The other may be defaulted to by determinism if no choice is made
to utilise the option available to choice.

While falling from a cliff..
*there is the default option.
do nothing. the choice is made to make no choice...and one falls
*Or to grab that handy branch that can save you.

Literally, while driving down the raod..you may notice a turn off.
[option of choice]
*Choose to ignor the option and continue as before.
*Or turn off

Many have said to occam that all reality is determined
That if 4 blank cards are placed before you. All having
a symbol on the other side.
You will ALWAYS pick the same card if the situation was repeated
ABSOLUTELY THE SAME.

Occam believes this to be a result of those people not comprehending
the random factors modern quantum theory has introduced to the
concept.
He believes that in a situation [experiment..all of this is gedankenexperiment. or imagineering]
Where there are 4 rooms with 4 you's all ABSOLUTELY the same.
Then the experiment wil result in different cards being chosen.

Cascading of quantum randomness 'upwards ' into the gross physical world.
Has in occams understanding.
Destroyed the determinist arguement against choice.
And more importantly..The cascading of the resultant choices amongst 6 billion choosing humans produces an adeterministic synergy .

A determinist says observered Reality for example may have had state A
soon after the big bang.
And that state
WILL ALWAYS RESULT, 14 billion years later, IN JENNY SNODGRASS OF COWPOKE KANSAS BREAKING A Nail ON THE DOOR OF HER NEW CHEVY COMPACT at 11:01:12 ..14-5-2005 [human time]

Think about that..then your name.


Occam

[Common Sense]

Common Sense

Sorry for the confusion....Occam sort of continues thought on such things from other posts and times and no doubt this leaves holes in his
position in more recent conversations.
This is philosophy; there's always confusion. But thank you, this post was quite clear.

Literally
'Free Will' to occam indicates the abillity for will to act 'as it wishes'
Not possible in a reality that limmits action to what is
POSSIBLE for humans. [at this time]
Doesn't that suggest a sort of determinism? For example, it could be said that I am destined never to draw a round square because such a thing is logically impossible.

'Choice' is the application of reason/will to opportunities of choice
allowed within the largely deterministic reality we are embedded in.
You have slipped "must make a descision" into your reply to his post.
Occan never said that, but, will let you off..;)
Your exact words were, "How do we know what a fork in the road is?

Occam suggest...Any situation where you must think about what choice to make."

I was paraphrasing but it's the word "must" that is troublesome. Since we're in the existentialism forum, I'll say that existentialists run into a similar problem. Since, so they say, everything we do is a choice, we can do nothing other than choose. They say you can't choose not to choose. And then we run around in philosophical circles for a while. So, you see why I am critical of both sides of the argument.

At a fork in the road...
One only needs ONE Option.
The other may be defaulted to by determinism if no choice is made
to utilise the option available to choice.
I don't entirely understand what you mean here. If there is only one option, then it's not much of a fork. However, you do mention an alternative. It seems like you mean that the alternative is based on the particular nature or disposition of the agent involved, at least that's how I interpret the word "default".

While falling from a cliff..
*there is the default option.
do nothing. the choice is made to make no choice...and one falls
*Or to grab that handy branch that can save you.
In that case, I am clearly not interpretting the word "default" correctly. It would surely be in the nature of anyone but a suicide to grab the branch. Is the default option always to do nothing?

Literally, while driving down the raod..you may notice a turn off.
[option of choice]
*Choose to ignor the option and continue as before.
*Or turn off
So, I decide that I want to go to the mall. I get in my car and drive along my usual route to the mall. I could turn at any intersection, but I don't. Why? Because I'm going to the mall. But that still begs the question, was it my decision to go to the mall, or could it not have happened any other way?

Also, say I'm going to the mall and I discover that I'm running low on gas. Is going to the mall still the default option, or is turning off to go to the gas station?

Many have said to occam that all reality is determined
That if 4 blank cards are placed before you. All having
a symbol on the other side.
You will ALWAYS pick the same card if the situation was repeated
ABSOLUTELY THE SAME.
But that could obviously never be the case. Even if you were to recreate the situation as close as humanly possible, you'd still be picking the card at different times. No experiment could ever be created to prove it one way or the other.

Occam believes this to be a result of those people not comprehending
the random factors modern quantum theory has introduced to the
concept.
He believes that in a situation [experiment..all of this is gedankenexperiment. or imagineering]
Where there are 4 rooms with 4 you's all ABSOLUTELY the same.
Then the experiment wil result in different cards being chosen.
But even then, the four you's all have different relational properties in space. Now, granted in normative science we usually don't have to take into account relational properties of time and space, but this concept is so otherworldly that I think we must. In fact, it's so otherworldly that it falls outside the realm of science all together.

[Occam]

Doesn't that suggest a sort of determinism? For example, it could be said that I am destined never to draw a round square because such a thing is logically impossible.

No.. It suggest we cannot YET draw a round square.
Can a 2 dimensional being draw a sphere?
Yet spheres exist.
Can a 3 dimensional being such as you.. draw a 4 dimensional tesseact?
Not yet.
150 years ago we could not turn near fictional 'electrons' into anything usefull.
NOW THEY ENABLE OUR MODERN WORLD

Your exact words were, "How do we know what a fork in the road is?
Occam suggest...Any situation where you must think about what choice to make."
I was paraphrasing but it's the word "must" that is troublesome. Since we're in the existentialism forum, I'll say that existentialists run into a similar problem. Since, so they say, everything we do is a choice, we can do nothing other than choose. They say you can't choose not to choose. And then we run around in philosophical circles for a while. So, you see why I am critical of both sides of the argument.

Agree .. occams wording was sloppy. A result of so little rational debate even after 40+ years of interaction with humanity.
You say we must choose?
If there is no option not to choose.
Then choice is a lie.
Interesting..no?



I don't entirely understand what you mean here. If there is only one option, then it's not much of a fork. However, you do mention an alternative. It seems like you mean that the alternative is based on the particular nature or disposition of the agent involved, at least that's how I interpret the word "default".

If there is only one option..
THEN OPTIONS EXIST...
That..is all that is important.


In that case, I am clearly not interpretting the word "default" correctly. It would surely be in the nature of anyone but a suicide to grab the branch. Is the default option always to do nothing?

Dont use human nature to survival to corrupt choice.
The default of falling from the cliff is the DEFAULT of all non chosing entities.
The entities you say we are.
No action but falling to destruction.

ANY action other than that is CHOICE.
Be it instinctive or rational..Much choice is instictive. yet we could overcome it so it is not determined
Much choice is also rational..

Thus 747's exist.
Do you deny they exist ONLY BECAUSE WE CHOSE THEM TO.?
Or do you suggest 747's and fission/fusion/fission weapons
and cherry poptarts. and Gilligans island.
Will ALWAYS come about as a result of deterministic forces?

Occam argues That none of these things would exist without choice. No reality could invent gilligans island unless it wanted to.
The very idea is absurd.
We Chose. And in so doing. alter reality.
THAT is our one great power.. multiplied a thousandfold if we
CHOOSE RATIONALLY


So, I decide that I want to go to the mall. I get in my car and drive along my usual route to the mall. I could turn at any intersection, but I don't. Why? Because I'm going to the mall. But that still begs the question, was it my decision to go to the mall, or could it not have happened any other way?

So i decide i'm going to drive down the road..where ever i wish to go.
I see a turn off.. but say hey no ..
I see another turnoff ..i say no...
I see a 3rd.. and say..hey ,, its the 3rd of december today.....

I turn off.

Also, say I'm going to the mall and I discover that I'm running low on gas. Is going to the mall still the default option, or is turning off to go to the gas station?

Which of 3 gas stations do you go to?


But that could obviously never be the case. Even if you were to recreate the situation as close as humanly possible, you'd still be picking the card at different times. No experiment could ever be created to prove it one way or the other.

No.. not at different times.
All start with EXACT same situation.
If there was no choice..
ALL would pick the same card a the same time.
For all started from the SAME position.

But even then, the four you's all have different relational properties in space. Now, granted in normative science we usually don't have to take into account relational properties of time and space, but this concept is so otherworldly that I think we must. In fact, it's so otherworldly that it falls outside the realm of science all together.

Not so
ALL SITUATIONS START EXACTLY THE SAME
This is the power of imagineering.

Imagine 4 universes. all EXACTLY THE SAME.

Do you say the you in each room..in these universes.
All exactly the same.
Will choose the same card?
Occam

PS..

Damn fine conversation...thank you my friend.
For questioning..
And fo questioning well.

[Common Sense]

No.. It suggest we cannot YET draw a round square.
Can a 2 dimensional being draw a sphere?
Yet spheres exist.
Can a 3 dimensional being such as you.. draw a 4 dimensional tesseact?
Not yet.
150 years ago we could not turn near fictional 'electrons' into anything usefull.
NOW THEY ENABLE OUR MODERN WORLD


A round square is a logical impossibility, which means that we will never be able to draw a round square. I don't know if a two dimensional being can draw a sphere because I have never had the pleasure of meeting a two dimensional being. I do not know what a four dimensional tesseact is. Whatever it is you have in mind that electrons do today, that function is not a logical impossibility nor was it impossible (strictly speaking) 150 years ago. But you tell me, what is it that suggests to you that it will one day be possible to draw a round square?


Agree .. occams wording was sloppy. A result of so little rational debate even after 40+ years of interaction with humanity.
You say we must choose?
If there is no option not to choose.
Then choice is a lie.
Interesting..no?No, I do not say we must choose. As I have written before, I think that the notion is meaningless. But you do understand my point that if it is necessary that we exercise free will, then that is just another way of saying that our actions are in some way determined. How do you respond to this?

If there is only one option..
THEN OPTIONS EXIST...
That..is all that is important.

Occam, that doesn't make sense. If there is only one option, then one option exists. Many options certainly do not. Your wording is altogether too cryptic, and I must ask that you clarify.

Dont use human nature to survival to corrupt choice.
The default of falling from the cliff is the DEFAULT of all non chosing entities.
The entities you say we are.
No action but falling to destruction.

ANY action other than that is CHOICE.
Be it instinctive or rational..Much choice is instictive. yet we could overcome it so it is not determined
Much choice is also rational..


So, the default choice is determined by things such as the laws of physics. However, I don't see why there can't be, say, laws of psychology that are every bit as universal as the laws of physics. There could conceivably be universal laws of sociology too. If such is the case, then a person grabbing or not grabbing a branch could potentially be known with just as much certainty as we know a rock thrown from the top of a cliff will hit the ground.


Thus 747's exist.
Do you deny they exist ONLY BECAUSE WE CHOSE THEM TO.?
Or do you suggest 747's and fission/fusion/fission weapons
and cherry poptarts. and Gilligans island.
Will ALWAYS come about as a result of deterministic forces?


I told you, I believe the question to be meaningless. So far I have scarcely offered a positive position. I am only criticizing yours. To clarify once more, I am not a determinist, I am not an indeterminist; the question of free will, I think, is meaningless.


So i decide i'm going to drive down the road..where ever i wish to go.
I see a turn off.. but say hey no ..
I see another turnoff ..i say no...
I see a 3rd.. and say..hey ,, its the 3rd of december today.....

I turn off.


I don't follow.


Which of 3 gas stations do you go to?

Let's say the closest. But why does it matter?

No.. not at different times.
All start with EXACT same situation.
If there was no choice..
ALL would pick the same card a the same time.
For all started from the SAME position.


Of course that is the determinists' argument. But my point is that there is no way to create such an experiment in any where but your mind.

Not so
ALL SITUATIONS START EXACTLY THE SAME
This is the power of imagineering.



You can "imagineer" it all you want to, but if you can't recreate the experiment in the real world, then I don't see why I should pay too much attention to it.


Imagine 4 universes. all EXACTLY THE SAME.

Do you say the you in each room..in these universes.
All exactly the same.
Will choose the same card?No, I say that the question is meaningless. I don't see how there could be 4 me's, all of which being exactly the same. If the me's are in four different universes, then I don't understand how the situation is exactly the same. If the me's are in the same universe, then I don't see how we can all be in the same place at the same time. Even the word "you" suggests that there is only one of me. True, in English the word "you" can be both singular and plural. However, that is clearly not how you're using the word. In French, you'd say "tu's" not "vous'". In German, you'd say "du's" not "ihr's". When we say "you" in the plural sense, we are always talking about two or more different people. If you used "you" in the plural sense to talk about the same person, that wouldn't make any sense. I hope this clarifies my positive position a little better. And now that you have clearly shifted the burden of proof on to me, you may criticize it any way you can.


Damn fine conversation...thank you my friend.
For questioning..
And fo questioning well.Thank you. I look forward to your response.

[Kharakov]

A round square is a logical impossibility, which means that we will never be able to draw a round square.

No logical system is absolutely complete because it can be used to come up with something that does not fit within itself- therefore you always have to add new rules. The new rules will produce new conflicts, which in turn mean you need to make newer rules to define the way to use the new rules.

A square circle can be rendered mathematically in higher dimensional mathematics (explained numberically, not represented graphically), so from one perspective the squircle is a square and another it is a square :)... circle.

[Occam]

Common Sense

Wellmet

Well we seem to have 'tossed about a whole bunch of ideas'
But we miss eachother more oft than not :)
No problem... all minds work differently, and utilise different
perspectives, especially ones who enquire.

Occam will try to draw our thinking towards a a locus.
From what you say you are not a determinist.

You may be interested that occam fought this battle years back.
With himself.
Even the greatest free thinker was just a puppet to his psychology and his premises. Choice seemed a vague and mystical thing;)

Then it became clear

All it takes is for ONE PERSON... to make a true choice.
At that point reality changes fore-ever to a new path.
And Determinism dies.

Do you agree that humans have made such a choice?


Occam

[Kharakov]

All it takes is for ONE PERSON... to make a true choice.
At that point reality changes fore-ever to a new path.
And Determinism dies. A choice based on pre-existing conditions. Don't you think the conditions would determine the choice the person makes? I promise to laugh if you don't...

For example: having experience with both pleasure and pain: do you want to have a painful or pleasure filled life?

[Occam]

A choice based on pre-existing conditions. Don't you think the conditions would determine the choice the person makes? I promise to laugh if you don't...

For example: having experience with both pleasure and pain: do you want to have a painful or pleasure filled life?
Kharakov.

Everything is based on pre-existing conditions. [reality]
Otherwise it would'nt exist.

Those conditions rule out free will and acausal creation/action.
[except to a possible god,, and that is a definition of one]

They do not rule out probabillity paths open to self aware reasoning minds
that comprehend the options and the paths they may lead to.
Within that framework of physical reality it is quite possible to have choice.

Human consciousness is not understood by humans.
Yet you say you know it well enough to state that it is not possible
for such a consciousness to make a rational choice between two options.
[ one of which may be to do nothing.]

Sorry.. Occam does not believe you know any such thing..
He believes human consciousness to be a SYNERGY...
I thing that cannot be totally predicted..
A standing wave of such complexity and inter-relationship with so many factors. Most of which we seem totally ignorant of.
That it is fact 'free' within the parameters of the options.


Occam

[mati]

probability is based on chance, nothing to do with choice

[Common Sense]

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.


From what you say you are not a determinist.
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.

All it takes is for ONE PERSON... to make a true choice.
At that point reality changes fore-ever to a new path.
And Determinism dies.

Do you agree that humans have made such a choice?
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.

[Occam]

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

[Occam]

probability is based on chance, nothing to do with choice
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

[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.OhhHHhhhHH.... I get it now :). Or maybe I get it. Possibly you should use "Kharakov get's it" for your next logical impossibility.

[mati]

if you choose randomness in order prove that choice is not determined, has not your choice to do so been determined

[Common Sense]

Occam cannot see how choice is meaningless.
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.

Well thats occams opinion anyway...Sorry if his explanations
and ideas are unclear...He has no formal education whatever is such
arenas
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.

[Kharakov]

P.S. To Kharakov:

The statement you suggested (I forget exactly what it was) is not a logical impossibility. Ohh. Ok.

[Iconoclast]

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.

[Iconoclast]

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.

[Occam]

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.

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 :D

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?

[Common Sense]

Ohh. Ok.
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.

[m6m]

if I have a destiny I think it is to become an aesthetic. It might be the solution to my negative outlook. That could be my purpose in life.
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.

[Common Sense]

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.
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.

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.
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.

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]
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?

Ps...
You refference to choice in science is what :D
I suspect you want me to say "a choice". But that's just begging the question.

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.
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.

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?
But the question is whether of not human thought is just as determined as those bits of reality that are independent of human thought.

[Sebbi]

I believe that a destiny is useless if it's not chosen.

[Kharakov]

I believe that a destiny is useless if it's not chosen. 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...

[White Feather]

I was drunk... if I have a destiny I think it is to become an aesthetic. 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.