It is limitlessssssssss.
Oh, I don’t know, you could save most of the population of Burkina Faso (around 15 million) with a million quid, wouldn’t that be worth it??
But you assume that the choice to murder is one made by that person alone. Since theoretically any event can be predicted with the right amount of data, this means that anything that has or will happen is predetermined.
If someone chooses to murder based upon say, anger built up from a previous traumatic event, it stands to reason that their choice was predetermined by that event, which in itself can be predicted. If you trace back the origin of that traumatic experience you would find that it was caused by an equally predictable event.
The illusion of free will comes from our inability to trace back the causes of everything, but if it could be done you would find that everything that has ever happened is due to a single occurance at the beginning of time.
People don’t just choose to do things, they make decisions based upon previous predetermined experiences.
I personally don’t agree with this argument, but I have never found a sufficient rebuttal for it.
First of, ijgs, my point stands that any man has the ultimate potential to make much, much more than 1,000,000 pounds. So, using this reason, if I were to kill one random person in order to get 1,000,000 pounds, while it could be someone who would be worth sacrificing for the greater good, there is a small but key chance that that person will do great things, and ultimately save many more people than a measly million quid could ever save, and to me, that tiny risk is too great.
Second, at baconeggs, while it is true that it would be possible to predict every action ever taken in the universe, that doesn’t change the fact that you are still making a choice. If there was a machine that calculated all out fates, then we would not have truly free will, as it would be dictated and shaped by the machine, but since there is no such machine, we still have a freedom to choose.
Since your actions are shaped by the chemical reactions in your brain, they are by default predicatable and out of your hands. A machine that could calculate fates would simply act as a tool to guide us along a predetermined path. You say freedom to choose yet the reality is that you would have always made the same choice given the same input, and this input is predetermined and unchanging.
The idea is that everything you do is based upon something else, nothing is done completely independantly and therefore will is has limited freedom, if any.
But since we don’t know our own reactions, we still have choice. When making a choice, you still have to think it through, measure your options, etc. If you truly had no free choice, then such preparations would be worthless as you would already have a predetermined choice. And yes, given the same circumstances you would make the same choice, but what does that mean? There is only one way history can proceed, so that is a given. But if we don’t know how that history will proceed we can still make choices.
Firstly, there is a machine that enables other humans to predict your choices; it’s called an fMRI scan and it can be used to predict simple boolean choices up to six seconds before you’re consciously aware of your choice. Fortunately, MRI machines weigh several tonnes and fill a room, so they’re not really a viable choice for mass populace control! 
I personally take issue with the whole predetermination thing, but that’s because I don’t believe in fate even more than I don’t believe in luck! I’m sure that, given enough data, one could propose that everything led back to one foundation event… oh wait… isn’t that the basis for Original Sin?!.. or statistics?!
Secondly, is choice actually a primary, or originating, motivation, or a reactionary one? i.e. if you killed my kids, my reaction would probably be to come after you with a spade. However I would doubtless recoil from the reality of bludgeoning you to death with a garden tool, so I would choose not to do such a thing. Is that a primary choice or a reaction? I would contend that there is no such thing as cause and effect, since this presumes a beginning and an end. Rather there are many ongoing reactions to events.
Someonerandm stated that we “don’t know our own reactions”. I would argue that only the most self-unaware, or psychotic, person is ignorant of their reactions. I am constantly aware of many of my reactions (though possibly not all of them, I grant you). Choice something that happens internally and defines your actual reaction to an event; to continue the example above, I may recoil at the horror of spade bludgeonery, but choose to ignore that and beat you to a bloody pulp. Alternatively, I may choose to let you find your own demise.
While an external agent may be able to detect the moment that the choice occurred before I am aware of it, that doesn’t stop it being my choice and mine alone. Even if I was made aware of my sub-conscious intent, I could still choose to ignore that choice…
Crap, I’m starting to sound like R.D. Laing in his book “Knots”… :fffuuu:
Thank fuck for that, it drives me mad when I can’t think of an argument against to whole predermination thing.
glad to be of service! 
Hey just thought of a metaphor (right word? I don’t know. English never has been my strongest subject) for that. Consider a choice to be a mathematical problem. Yes there is only one it can be answered (don’t get into higher level math, okay?), but you still have to go through the steps to solve it. When you make a choice, there is only one way to proceed, but you have to think to work that way out.
EDIT: Forgot to add the meaning of this. Essentially, the fact that you have to work it out means that you don’t know what to do, which means that this situation is new, which means that life can still surprise you, which is all you really need to know, whether or not you are predestined. So, in effect, who cares? It doesn’t affect how you live your life.
That is assuming math is exactly the same as life, which would be quite an assumption. Ignoring the obvious flaws in math, one simply has to look at the application of math to see that the metaphor falls apart. Science, the application of math, has become separated into two parts, Newtonian and Quantum. One is completely predictable and relies on the math system we know and love, the other is shrouded in mystery and completely unpredictable. Of course, one could argue that with further understanding of Quantum Mechanics it will become as predictable as gravity or magnetism. Fair enough.
Beyond this though, to say there is only one way to approach a mathematical problem isn’t true. In most math one can approach the solving of problems from all different directions, not just one. It is only in the most elementary math that the path you have to follow is set.
Beyond the metaphor, to suggest that there is one end point which is always arrived at by a singular choice implies that every action we take is weighed equally in our minds. However, I know for a fact that oftentimes I don’t even think before I do something, and equally sometimes I over-think things greatly. This means that for every decision I make, whether it be conscious or unconscious, with thought or without, I am following a set, methodical method. To say that these thoughts are all meant to arrive at their conclusion, regardless of their length implies a greater power is at work, which in turn goes back to Someonerandm’s post. Furthermore, emotion is completely unpredictable as it doesn’t work off of any rationale. While your argument may work to a point with logic, it falls apart with emotion. Of course, this conclusion with emotion relies on the idea that emotion is in fact unpredictable, which to this point in our history has been proven time and time again by history itself.
so basically it all comes down to my suggestion that it’s all about reaction, not action…
Nonsense, if you know the person emotion is very predicatable.
right up to the point where the cleave your head with an AXE!!!
A question for you ijgs, as you’ve piqued my interest with this discussion.
How do you reconcile the concept of “free will” with an orderly universe?
Your action-reaction argument is unfortunately very ‘chicken-and-the-egg’ by nature, and ultimately offers no evidence to refute either predetermination or causality. It merely suggests that the first action is unknown. But even then every subsequent reaction, or effect, becomes a first cause for another. A Reaction – Reaction chain is as causal as any Action – Reaction chain, and in fact demonstrates that your responses stem for prior causes themselves.
You’ve assumed that the freedom to choose between one action or another somehow undermines cause and effect, but the reality is that any choice will ultimately be the accumulated effect of any number of prior causes. Consequently, without arguing that our choices are completely free from prior influences, then predetermination must exist.
Some nicely made points there, I’ll see if my debating skills hold up to them!!
Yes, I concede that all the choices that I have made up to this point in my life will strongly tend to inform and shape any future choices that I make. To that extent (and that extent alone, in my personal opinion - and when all’s said and done, this can only ever be personal opinion really, since we’re not able to step outside of the box and gain an objective viewpoint) “predetermination” exists. A better word for it though is “learning”! When bad choices are made, we learn to avoid making them again; equally when good choices are made, we will tend to try and apply that knowledge again in the future. Is “learning” the same as “predetermination”? Predetermination implicitly suggests a prior arrangement of the events & choices of your life, rather than reactions to events & choices in your life.
Whether the choices (and the events that they lead to) are good or bad is only really discovered after they have been made. Sure you can apply previous experience to your choices and try to model likely outcomes (something else humans are very good at), but until you’ve made the choice and have gone through with it you can’t be sure of the outcome - at least, I’ve never been truly sure of many of my choices (for sure, jumping off a building’s a bit of a no-brainer, 6’ walls hurt, 500’ buildings will likely do more than just hurt - but you get my drift!). Some of the “best” choices I’ve made have been the ones that really hurt at the time; it’s only with eagle-eye hindsight that I know that to be true though.
I would argue that choice is a one-way emergent function. You can’t see past the choice you’re about to make and once you’ve made the choice, you can’t know what the outcome would have been if you’ve chosen a different option. However the emergent outcome is deemed “good” or “bad” based on our interpretation of it; i.e. it causes a reaction. By this interpretation one could view the choices of our lives as the “cause” and our reactions to these choices as the “effect”.
In my personal opinion (and this is born out of my personal experience) it doesn’t matter too much WHAT you chose - aside, perhaps, from fatal outcomes - it’s how you reacted to the outcome that matters. Ergo, choice is a perceived phenomenon, rather than an actual one and therefore doesn’t have any “real” existence (and if it does, it’s not in the way that we understand it). Equally, fate or predetermination don’t exist in this model, since the choice was an emergent origin that led to a personal reaction, the sequence was constrained to the choice & outcome. Each choice made is the alpha and omega, there is no “origin choice” that led to where I am today because all choice emerges from our interpretation of our environment.
I will add a caveat to this though; choices are (or can be) societally influenced by family, race, gender and so on. For example, I’m trying extremely hard to be an enlightened father to my kids, but I have no doubt that I’m passing at least some of my prejudices & conceptions on to them. These will inevitably have some bearing on the choices they make; all things being equal though, I am not predetermining my children’s lives since they always have the choice to take another path. Granted there are parents out there who are very dogmatic or enforcing of their opinion. Even this more rigid constraint of opinion can be (and is) broken out of though, by people who realise that they are in control of their reactions, not anyone else.
Of course, this is all just my opinion; it holds true for me (so far, anyhow) and that’s probably all that anyone can honestly say. 
Well, that kind of closes that argument. What next gentlemen?
I’ll welcome any further personal opinions though! Given that that’s how people form their opinions, by sharing them and “seeing what fits” .
Hmmm, next up? Did we get to the bottom of the euthanasia is murder thing (or is that just too tired for words?! haha!)? Failing that, erm… I’m out of ideas right now, 'sbeen a hard day and not enough caffeine!! I’ll have a think, unless anyone else has some juicy suggestions!
Euthanasia aye? My view is always that it is not murder. I’ll just lay down a few arguments.
-
Technically murder is the forceful taking of someone’s life against their will. Euthansia is different in that the victim wishes to die and is asking for assistance in this endevour. Therefore it is not murder on logical grounds.
-
It can be said that euthanasia encourages people to die because the assistant is doing nothing to prevent it. This is not true, the choice to die is entirely up to the victim. As this is their own life they must make their own decisions as to what to do with it. I think preventing suicide should only apply to minors, who don’t have the percieved responsibility to make desicions like that. However, once you’re 18 you should be free to do what you want.
-
Euthanasia is much better than stand-alone suicide as the chance for success is increased. People trying to kill themselves along can often stuff it up, leaving them severely injured and disabled but not dead, as well as hyper depressed. Personally I’d rather be dead.
-
Finally, euthanasia is actually a viable option in this day and age. Humans are extremely overpopulated and this planet isn’t big enough to support us. As bad as it may sound, letting people kill themselves may do a great deal of good in the long run. If you’ve ever seen the film Soylent Green you’ll understand.
[edit] nothing to see here, this isn’t the post you were looking for, move along (bloodyforumplayingupagainmuttercursegrumble)