Philosophy Discussion Forums

James S Saint wrote: A person never holds an opinion by conscious choice even though they very often pretend or express the "provisional opinion" as a true belief.

There we go; your answer to the question is that you hold provisional opinions as you must, not as you wish, which indicates to me that you probably do not have free will.

However, I don't know one way or the other, so a choice is available to me. I choose to hold the provisional opinion that you might have free will because that opinion motivates me to correspond with you and helps generate an enjoyable dialogue (on my part, anyway). There is no deception involved; I honestly don't know if you have free will or not, and so I am free to hold any provisional opinion I wish about things I don't know.

Whether or not you actually have free will is entirely irrelevent to me.

Abacab wrote:If you assert that we MUST use morality as transcendent objectivity who is the transcender, who decides?

The argument that morality "must" be objective and transcendent means that for morality to have significant value and meaning, then logically it must be transcendent and objective - otherwise it always (logically) boils down to might-makes-right, which renders morality essentially self-refuting and without significant meaning.

People are, of course, free to hold irrational or logically insupportable beliefs about morality; they are also free to not believe in any sort of morality.

If you term QM as something dictated by your and out observational thoughts, you need to show why and how you think it works that way, not by unprovable anecdotes but by hard scientific evidence.

That would follow if I was claiming that my QM intentionality model was true; I'm not claiming it is true. I only claim that in my experience it apparently works. I don't have to be able to tell you how a computer works in order to truthfully claim that it apparently works in my experience.

Whether or not my QM intentionality model actually works, or just coincidentally appears to work, is entirely irrelevant to me.

Not only do you need to show us all reading this thread how it works in practice, you need to show how powerful it is in terms of people and life? Does it make others do your bidding and the universe do your bidding?

Why would I need to do that? I'm not attempting to prove to anyone that the QM Intentionality model works. Look at it this way - if the QMI model works, then nothing can penetrate your intention that it doesn't work. The QMI model can only be demonstrated empirically - by the experiencer themselves.

Meleagar wrote

A lot of people believe that fundamentlist, radical Islam is true; they believe it so much they're willing to blow themselves up and kill bystanders. Does that believed-in Truth liberate?

That`s a fallacious untruth, only a handful of suicide bombers are claiming to be radical islamists, most are not killers even though they fundamentally believe in Islam. In truth the suicide bombers saw Americans kill and bomb their people, and invade them, they had nothing to lose. Their religious beliefs played a secondary role to men with no way out. The media likes to play that its about religion its about money and poverty and losses. anyway I see you like to change words to argue your premise, you deny truth is valuable and chains then in the next post say truth is valid, you change your premise more than shifting sands.

Meleagar wrote:There we go; your answer to the question is that you hold provisional opinions as you must, not as you wish,

No. My answer is that every living being holds opinions as they must and that includes you. Which additionally means that you are merely fooling yourself or lying to us.

Your consistent ploy of altering wording into vagueness and obfuscation implies the effort to both fool yourself and us.

Abacab wrote: I see you like to change words to argue your premise, you deny truth is valuable and chains then in the next post say truth is valid, you change your premise more than shifting sands.

I have been entirely consistent in maintaining the difference between a communicated truth as correpsondence to experience, and a truth believed in as a model that attempts to explain aspects of one's experience.

Truthful communication is very important and necessary, IMO, to establish a useful philosophy. That kind of truth can set one free, and indeed I consider that kind of truth to have set me free. When I was brutally honest about what I did and did not know, and what I actually did and did not experience, it changed my entire outlook on life and philosophy. In my case, communicative truth undermined and destroyed all of my believed-in truth systems.

However, believed-in truth systems, IMO, don't set anyone free; they constrain freedom by programming thought and behavior according to the truth-program. Once one beleives a thing to be true (outside of personal experience), it's almost impossible to convince them otherwise.

James S. Saint wrote:My answer is that every living being holds opinions as they must and that includes you.

Then why are you arguing against an opinion I "must" hold?

Meleagar wrote:Then why are you arguing against an opinion I "must" hold?

Because what you MUST believe depends partly on what other people say and do, the same reason you say things.

James S Saint wrote:

Meleagar wrote:Then why are you arguing against an opinion I "must" hold?

Because what you MUST believe depends partly on what other people say and do, the same reason you say things.

And you must hold the opinion or belief that that is why you are arguing?

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote: Because what you MUST believe depends partly on what other people say and do, the same reason you say things.

And you must hold the opinion or belief that that is why you are arguing?

Honesty requires that I must accept the evidence at hand.

Those who have no concern for honesty are more "free" ..until they cause so much deception that they are imprisoned due to lack of trustability.

James S Saint wrote:
Honesty requires that I must accept the evidence at hand.

Those who have no concern for honesty are more "free" ..until they cause so much deception that they are imprisoned due to lack of trustability.

So, is the reason that you "must" accept an opinion or a belief categorically different from the reasons that others must accept their opinions or beliefs?

It seems to me that you are implying that the cause behind why you "must" hold your views is different from the cause behind why I must hold my views. If so, what are the different causes that makes your opinion (which you must have) honest, and my my opinion (which I must have) dishonest?

Meleagar wrote: So, is the reason that you "must" accept an opinion or a belief categorically different from the reasons that others must accept their opinions or beliefs?

No. They are exactly identical. The difference between us is merely our physical/mental abilities and our particular evidences from experiences.

James S Saint wrote:

Meleagar wrote: So, is the reason that you "must" accept an opinion or a belief categorically different from the reasons that others must accept their opinions or beliefs?

No. They are exactly identical. The difference between us is merely our physical/mental abilities and our particular evidences from experiences.

So, let me see if I have this right:

You and I must hold the views we have by identical causations. I assume you extend that to all people; that everyone holds the views that they must have for the same ultimate causation.

Now let's look at some of your views; you beleive you are honestly arriving at a truthful conclusion when you state that my views are dishonest and do not reflect the way things actually are in my experience.

Yet, we know that many people believe as true entirely untrue things, and believe that they have encountered conclusive evidence for their position but in fact have not encountered such evidence.

People believe all sorts of untrue things, such as the belief that they have encountered compelling evidence for a belief.

Since there is no categorical difference between what causes true and untrue beliefs, or the opinion that a statement is honest or dishonest, then there is no way to distinguish a true statement from a false one, or an honest one from a dishonest one, because what compels us to believe that a statement is true or false could be producing entirely erroneous results. Our belief that a conclusion or determination is honest or logical could also be entirely erroneous, since that which produces our beliefs and opinions is fully capable of error.

If what compels both true and false beliefs and opinions is exactly the same, then there is simply no means by which to discern the difference, because discerning any difference would be arriving at a finding of opinion or belief the same way both true and false opinions are generated in the first place.

There is no escaping the cause which can generate both true and false beliefs and opinions, and no other device available to try and parse true from false, honest from dishonest.

Therefore, your statement that I am engaged in a dishonest perspective cannot have a source any different from that which generated my supposedly dishonest perspective in the first place; your perspective could just as easily be dishonest and untrue, and you have no way of discerning otherwise other than appealing to the same faulty cause that you have already admitted generates everyones beliefs and opinions.

However, I do thank you for demonstrating, at least in this case, the efficacy of my free-will test question, as well as the futility of attempting reasoned argument from a non-free-will perspective.

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote: No. They are exactly identical. The difference between us is merely our physical/mental abilities and our particular evidences from experiences.

So, let me see if I have this right:

You and I must hold the views we have by identical causations. I assume you extend that to all people; that everyone holds the views that they must have for the same ultimate causation.

No. For the same reasons. The particular causes are different for everyone.

I'm not even going to read the rest since you got the premise wrong.

James S Saint wrote:

Meleagar wrote: So, let me see if I have this right:

You and I must hold the views we have by identical causations. I assume you extend that to all people; that everyone holds the views that they must have for the same ultimate causation.

No. For the same reasons. The particular causes are different for everyone.

I'm not even going to read the rest since you got the premise wrong.

So, let me see if I have this right:

You and I must hold the views we have by identical reasons. I assume you extend that to all people; that everyone holds the views that they must have for the same ultimate reason.

Now let's look at some of your views; you beleive you are honestly arriving at a truthful conclusion when you state that my views are dishonest and do not reflect the way things actually are in my experience.

Yet, we know that many people believe as true entirely untrue things, and believe that they have encountered conclusive evidence for their position but in fact have not encountered such evidence.

People believe all sorts of untrue things, such as the belief that they have encountered compelling evidence for a belief.

Since there is no categorical difference between the reasons compelling true and untrue beliefs, or the opinion that a statement is honest or dishonest, then there is no way to distinguish a true statement from a false one, or an honest one from a dishonest one, because what compels us to believe that a statement is true or false could be producing entirely erroneous results. Our belief that a conclusion or determination is honest or logical could also be entirely erroneous, since that which produces our beliefs and opinions is fully capable of error.

If what compels both true and false beliefs and opinions is exactly the same, then there is simply no means by which to discern the difference, because discerning any difference would be arriving at a finding of opinion or belief the same way both true and false opinions are generated in the first place.

There is no escaping the identical reasons which can generate both true and false beliefs and opinions, and no other device available to try and parse true from false, honest from dishonest.

Therefore, your statement that I am engaged in a dishonest perspective cannot have a reason any different from that which generated my supposedly dishonest perspective in the first place; your perspective could just as easily be dishonest and untrue, and you have no way of discerning otherwise other than appealing to the same faulty reason that you have already admitted generates everyones beliefs and opinions.

However, I do thank you for demonstrating, at least in this case, the efficacy of my free-will test question, as well as the futility of attempting reasoned argument from a non-free-will perspective.
_________________

Meleagar wrote:So, let me see if I have this right:

You and I must hold the views we have by identical reasons. I assume you extend that to all people; that everyone holds the views that they must have for the same ultimate reason.

Now let's look at some of your views; you beleive you are honestly arriving at a truthful conclusion when you state that my views are dishonest and do not reflect the way things actually are in my experience.

The honesty issue that you raised by saying that you are just "acting" is not about what is believed, but rather what is being said.

Meleagar wrote:Yet, we know that many people believe as true entirely untrue things, and believe that they have encountered conclusive evidence for their position but in fact have not encountered such evidence.

People believe all sorts of untrue things, such as the belief that they have encountered compelling evidence for a belief.

Since there is no categorical difference between the reasons compelling true and untrue beliefs, or the opinion that a statement is honest or dishonest, then there is no way to distinguish a true statement from a false one, or an honest one from a dishonest one, because what compels us to believe that a statement is true or false could be producing entirely erroneous results. Our belief that a conclusion or determination is honest or logical could also be entirely erroneous, since that which produces our beliefs and opinions is fully capable of error.

Wrong. Two people guess at the shadows coming from outside the cave and come up with different conclusions. A third, more intellectually honest, doesn't conclude until he actually looks outside. But when he comes back in, the others have been raised thinking that no one can know any more than they know and thus the third person's opinion is no better than theirs and they continue to argue.

Or in the Schrodinger's cat proposal, two people haven't observed the cat and thus do not know if the cat is dead or alive, but one has. The two, not being aware that the one has actually seen the cat, keep insisting that the cat is both dead and alive.

All opinions are NOT equal, that saying to make you think they were was just a ploy. Some people, due to their makeup and/or their education/experience, know to not make a conclusion until they have more clear evidence of some kind so their opinions become far more valuable because their judgment is far more trustworthy because they don't presume, but better ensure accuracy.

Meleagar wrote:If what compels both true and false beliefs and opinions is exactly the same, then there is simply no means by which to discern the difference,

The reasons for belief are the same, but the data and the abilities to process that data are NOT the same. Thus what one concludes is not going to be the same as another. That doesn't mean their opinions are equally bad. A scientist and a layman believe things for the exact same reasons, but their experience and perhaps talents are different, but if the subject is about a science issue directly related to the field of the scientist, which are you going to more readily accept?

All people are subject to human constructs, but all people are different and in different circumstances thus their opinions vary. You have to gauge their opinions by their individual abilities and/or experiences. For example, can they show you the logical chain of reasoning they used or can they point to the web link, or a physical example of what they claim. If they can do those things, their opinion gains more credibility because it shows they have evidence for what they claim rather than sheer speculation. That doesn't mean such is required, but it just adds to the probability of accuracy over the one who cannot.

I am one who tends to attempt to show my logic rather than try to show that some famous person already said what I profess. But the weakness in that is that the reader must be of a logical education and talent for them to see whether I was accurate. The intellectually lazy accepts that if Einstein, the Pope, or Aristotle said it, it must be true so in most cases, I would be better off never saying anything original.

James S Saint wrote: All opinions are NOT equal, that saying to make you think they were was just a ploy. Some people, due to their makeup and/or their education/experience, know to not make a conclusion until they have more clear evidence of some kind so their opinions become far more valuable because their judgment is far more trustworthy because they don't presume, but better ensure accuracy.

You are apparently not recognizing the recursive and intrinsic nature of the problem of your position. Your opinion or belief that "some people, due to their makeup ..." is generated by the same reasons that produce both true and false opinions. Your opinion/belief about what separates a good/true belief/opinion from a bad/false belief/opinion is recursively generated by the same reasons (which you said were exactly the same for you and I, and a presume for all people) that generate both true and false, good and bad opinions and beliefs. Your belief that your argument here is a good one is poisoned by the same source that poisons all beliefs and opinions.

I didn't say that all opinions/beliefs were equal; what I said was that you have no reasons that justify your particular beliefs/opinions as true, because they are known to produce at least as many untrue and false beliefs/opinions.

It's a simple mathematical formula; if "reasons" = A, B, C, and opinion/beliefs = X, and all we have that forms any belief/opinion i s A+B+C (exactly identical, in your words). We know that X (the opinions and beliefs of people) in many if not most cases is false, then we are left with no means of establishing a way to justify a belief or opinion that X is true or false. The only way to derive any opinion or belief about the trueness of X or the reasoning proces to gain X is A+B+C.

Therefore, there is no significant reason to consider your X valid and mine non-valid, since we arrive at our respective X's via the exact same reasons and cannot help but arrive at those X's.

Therefore, you and I and insane people and fundamentalists all have identical reasons for believing what we must believe, and no means by which to escape those same reasons when we try to justify our reasoning or conclusion process.

Your argument has invalidated itself. But, I realize you must not believe that, and you must believe your views are true and valid, and you must believe your process for arriving at them is true and valid, just like any insane person or religious fundamentalist must, and for identical reasons.

Fortunately, I don't believe what I must, so therefore I actually have a means of establishing a valid distinction between what I hold as a provisional opinion, and what you and others hold as beliefs or provisional opinions. A+B+C doesn't produce my views; that's why I'm not in the same boat as you, insane people and religious fundamentalists.

I have free will. Do you?

You are apparently suffering from excessive simple mindedness.

The issue is whether one person has any greater reason to believe person A than person B. He himself might be either of those or neither. Or better, let's make it 2 robots and a person trying to decide which to believe.

He can distinguish between them by inquiring which thoughts or actions went into their opinions. Even though both robots are identically made, they have had different experiences, the person would be able to see which robot used or saw which bit of evidence. If one robot never saw related evidence but the other had, the person knows which robot to more believe.

But in addition, because information goes into the mental process of how to evaluate further information, the education of the robots comes into play in that one robot might know to look into the shadows before presuming evidence and conclusion whereas the other doesn't know that yet.

By inquiring of the robots understanding of how to access information, a distinction can be made again so as to know into which to place more confidence.

But still in addition to those, by asking of the robots, what line of logic they each used to formulate their conclusion, one might discover that one robot rushed to conclusion too quickly and didn't account for something that the other robot had taken the time to check.

So even in the case of 2 designed identical robots, variations of opinions come out but can be assessed so as to aid in knowing which to more accredit.

Assuming yourself to be one of those robots, simply inquire the same way of yourself so as to know whether to believe your own conclusion or the one being given to you by some other robot and/or person. The other might have a great deal more direct experience, making your necessary guess work inferior to their direct experience.

"It ain't rocket Science."