Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="2PhiloVoid" data-source="post: 77661495" data-attributes="member: 167101"><p>I get all of that, but you seem to be using the same kind of blanket semantics for this that Christian fundamentalists do with their religious language, the difference is that rather than using the word 'God,' Sapolsky uses 'Determinant.' It's an over reliance on universal qualifiers like ALL or ANYTHING or EVERYTHING or NOTHING. These words don't actually clearly identify and measure ALL specific causative agents that are present within a phenomena. They may be present, but simply citing this as true isn't also to say that we've actually captured the whole of a circumstance, phenomena or its causation(s) and effects. Using the word "determines" too easily obfuscates the difference between the various influences that are at work upon us. </p><p></p><p>It's also seems to undercut the actualization of 2nd order thinking. It's almost like implying that we can never, ever be aware of influences upon us and act against them. Just because I have a strong taste, even an addictive taste, for a chocolate chip cookie doesn't mean I'll always decide to grab a chocolate chip cookie for munchie time.</p><p></p><p>No, I think we need better, more precise and specific words than determine or free-will since neither of these words have exacting referents and are used as easy go-to blanket words. I need to see Sapolsky's epistemology in order to calm my knee-jerk reaction to his superlative stance on determinism.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="2PhiloVoid, post: 77661495, member: 167101"] I get all of that, but you seem to be using the same kind of blanket semantics for this that Christian fundamentalists do with their religious language, the difference is that rather than using the word 'God,' Sapolsky uses 'Determinant.' It's an over reliance on universal qualifiers like ALL or ANYTHING or EVERYTHING or NOTHING. These words don't actually clearly identify and measure ALL specific causative agents that are present within a phenomena. They may be present, but simply citing this as true isn't also to say that we've actually captured the whole of a circumstance, phenomena or its causation(s) and effects. Using the word "determines" too easily obfuscates the difference between the various influences that are at work upon us. It's also seems to undercut the actualization of 2nd order thinking. It's almost like implying that we can never, ever be aware of influences upon us and act against them. Just because I have a strong taste, even an addictive taste, for a chocolate chip cookie doesn't mean I'll always decide to grab a chocolate chip cookie for munchie time. No, I think we need better, more precise and specific words than determine or free-will since neither of these words have exacting referents and are used as easy go-to blanket words. I need to see Sapolsky's epistemology in order to calm my knee-jerk reaction to his superlative stance on determinism. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
Top
Bottom