What is a decision in phoodoo world?

Posted on by

This is a thread to allow discussions about how those lucky enough to have free will make decisions.

As materialism doesn’t explain squat, this thread is a place for explanations from those that presumably have them.

And if they can’t provide them, well, this will be a short thread.

So do phoodoo, mung, WJM et al care to provide your explanations of how decisions are actually made?

2,199 thoughts on “What is a decision in phoodoo world?”

  2. phoodoo,

    http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/03/godwins-darwin.html

    “Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

    “The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi.

    Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

    “For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x.

    Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed “from the very beginning”, and could not have evolved from apes:

    “From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier).

    Like a creationist, Hitler believes that man was made in God’s image, and in the expulsion from Eden:

    “Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i.

    Like a creationist, Hitler believes that:

    “God … sent [us] into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. xiv.

    Like a creationist, Hitler claims Jesus as his inspiration:

    “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them.” – Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order.

    Like a creationist, Hitler despises secular schooling:

    “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people.” – Adolf Hitler, Speech, April 26, 1933.

    Hitler even goes so far as to claim that Creationism is what sets humans apart from the animals:

    “The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.” – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier).

    Hitler does not mention evolution explicitly anywhere in Mein Kampf. However, after declaring the fixity of the fox, goose, and tiger, as quoted above, he goes on to talk of differences within species:

    “[T]he various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.” Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi.

    So, like a creationist, there is some evolution he is prepared to concede — evolution within species, or “microevolution”, to which people like Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe have no objection. It is on the basis of the one part of evolutionary theory which creationists accept that Hitler tried to find a scientific basis for his racism and his program of eugenics.

    Ergo, Hitler did not base his eugenic and genocidal policies on evolutionary theory, but rather on views that are very similar to those held by most creationists and many ID supporters.”

  3. phoodoo:
    Robin,

    If it can be imagined (it can) that an omnipotent God could also allow total free will, then it can occur.

    Little does it matter that your imagination is so confined.

    Ever heard of theological fatalism? Try to explain how you reconcile free will with an omnipotent god with perfect foreknowledge. If god knows every step in the way, decisions are just illusions: you’re forced to choose whatever god knows you’ll do.

  5. dazz,

    That’s an absurd world-time constrained view of anything.

    If a time machine were built does that mean we have no choices? If para-psychic abilities are true, does that mean man never had a choice?

  6. keiths: Dear God,

    I’m begging you. Please send smarter theists to TSZ. Surely you can spare a couple, no?

    Please.

    If the mountain won’t come to Mahomet…

    I know TSZ has an open door and many religious sites don’t but BioLogos may host some of those you seek (with the added benefit of not needing to be sidetracked into defending evolutionary science). Or if you are looking for meatier confrontation, some of Ed Feser’s commenters may be relied on to respond to a good nose-thumbing.

  7. fifthmonarchyman: It’s simple really, Decisions are not the results of material interactions and materialism holds that everything is the result of material interactions.

    If you disagree tell me where to locate a decision so I can weigh and measure it to determine it’s materiel causes.

    Here’s one article. There are others.

  8. fifthmonarchyman: exactly. A moments reflection shows that a computer can not make a decision it can only execute it’s program.

    I’ve been catching up after a few days away. One thing I’ve noticed reading through this thread is that neither you nor phoodoo have actually defined what you mean by “decision”. Do you have an operational definition that doesn’t beg the question?

  10. phoodoo:
    dazz,

    That’s an absurd world-time constrained view of anything.

    If a time machine were built does that mean we have no choices?If para-psychic abilities are true, does that mean man never had a choice?

    Pulling the “timeless” card doesn’t help you avoid the problem in the slightest

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#2.2

    Zagzebski has argued (1991, chap. 2 and 2011) that the timelessness move does not avoid the problem of theological fatalism since an argument structurally parallel to the basic argument can be formulated for timeless knowledge. If God is not in time, the key issue would not be the necessity of the past, but the necessity of the timeless realm. So the first three steps of the argument would be reformulated as follows:

    (1t) God timelessly knows T.
    (2t) If E is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that E.
    (3t) It is now-necessary that T.

    Perhaps it is inappropriate to say that timeless events such as God’s timeless knowing are now-necessary, yet we have no more reason to think we can do anything about God’s timeless knowing than about God’s past knowing. The timeless realm is as much out of our reach as the past. So the point of (3t) is that we cannot now do anything about the fact that God timelessly knows T

    Poor phoodoo and his square-circle God. One doesn’t even need evidence that phoodoo’s god can’t exist, it’s self defeating by definition

  11. Kantian Naturalist: In fact, I do think that animals have minds — or more precisely, that many animals are minded beings. They are correctly described as having sensations, emotions, feelings, desires, volitions, and thoughts. And they are correctly described as having mental properties because of (among other things) the kinds of brains that they have.

  12. Actually I think it’s rather obvious that a God with perfect (fore)knowledge couldn’t be involved in any free decision making. This is more of a robot with no free will whatsoever.

  15. walto: Holy Moly!You and Richard have this whole What If God Were One Of Us? thing entirely figured out!

    🙂

    Of course, there’s more for those who care to think about these sorts of things for even a few moments.

    The whole “outside time” is a great example: any entity “outside time” that was somehow responsible for any “reality inside time” would have existed across all of that time. The instant that “reality inside time” came into existence, the entity “outside time” could have no further influence because everything that could happen “inside time” would have occurred from the perspective of the entity “outside time”. How could it be otherwise? In order for any sort of change to take place, time has to exist (that’s kind of what Einstein proved, right?), so if something is outside time, it doesn’t change and nor could it make any sort of change.

    And so on and so forth…

    Any concept of anything like the gods such theists claim fall apart similarly when really examined.

  16. Robin: Of course, there’s more for those who care to think about these sorts of things for even a few moments.

    Don’t think, it’s all in this dusty old book…

  17. keiths:
    Alan,

    The idea that the “first uncaused cause” must be God is bogus, of course, but I don’t see a problem with the idea of a regress of causes in general, particularly when you’re considering the state of the universe as a whole.

    What precisely is your objection?

    The precision! I think determinism is outdated. Latest models involve fields rather than particles. I’m totally unconvinced that reversible models are going to have better explanatory power than those that take account of the irreversibility of time. At the moment, there is no consensus so I’m sticking with irreversibility of time and the inability to [fully*] derive the past from the present.

    When a line of dominoes topples, what is the problem with seeing things as follows?

    The nth domino toppled because the n-1th domino toppled,
    and the n-1th domino toppled because the n-2th domino toppled,
    …
    and the 2nd domino toppled because the 1st domino toppled,
    and the 1st domino toppled because someone pushed it.

    It isn’t a complete causal account, of course, because it omits causal explanations of how the dominoes came to be set up that way and how the initial push came about.However, it is a correct explanation — the toppling of the j-1th domino really is a cause of the toppling of the jth (unless you doubt the existence of causality altogether).

    Can you model domino toppling? Can you reverse the model? Then it’s not a good model.

    The question is whether quantum effects are ever amplified so as to disrupt determinism at the macro level.The answer is clearly yes — every click of a Geiger counter is an instance of this.In terms of the free will debate, however, what matters is whether the macro-level neuronal determinism is ever disrupted by quantum events. Coyne seems to think that the answer might be no. I disagree, because neurons are nonlinear.If a neuron is already close to its threshold, quantum events should be able to push it over the top, thus amplifying themselves.

    In my indeterminate universe, I don’t need to find quantum effects to introduce the variability that permits** prevents “identical” events to produce** from producing identical results. In my universe it is impossible to step into the same river twice.

    In the end, however, determinism is a red herring with respect to the issue of libertarian free will. Random events aren’t instances of libertarian free will any more than determined events are. The whole notion is incoherent.

    Can’t really argue about libertarian free will other than to say if Rich’s summary is right, then you can’t step into the same river twice!

    Focusing on a particular cause of interest is not the same as simplifying the model. You can do the former without the latter.

    Maps and territory. If you don’t simplify the model, you are looking at the territory. Doable but picking a model that focuses on what you want to test might cost less.

    ETA fully*

    ETA2 **to correct mis-speak!

  18. dazz,

    Ol’Dazz, you quote one old fossil who has as poor an imagination as you, and you think that means something?

    Are you sure you are not Richard?

  20. phoodoo:
    dazz,

    Ol’Dazz, you quote one old fossil who has as poor an imagination as you, and you think that means something?

    Are you sure you are not Richard?

    So my imagination is poor because it can’t figure out logical impossibilities? You really are something else phoodoo. Your complete inability to think this through speaks volumes about your imagination. You creos are notorious for your total lack of any kind of sense for logic, and you are no exception

  21. fifthmonarchyman: It’s simple really, Decisions are not the results of material interactions and materialism holds that everything is the result of material interactions.

    If you disagree tell me where to locate a decision so I can weigh and measure it to determine it’s materiel causes.

    All you have done is repeat an assertion and invite me to disprove it. Do you have any evidence or argument to support your claim? MRIs of people making decisions do show activity in particular brain regions. Is that evidence that the brain is what makes decisions?

  22. phoodoo:
    Patrick,

    I noticed you have never defined what defined means?

    I’m assuming you must know what “means” means, as you just used it in a sentence. So “define” means “explain what a word means”. I suggest “decide” means “to choose one out of more than one available option”. Is that what you mean by “define”?

  23. Robin: The whole “outside time” is a great example: any entity “outside time” that was somehow responsible for any “reality inside time” would have exist across all of that time. The instant that “reality inside time” came into existence, the entity “outside time” would have no further influence because everything that could happen “inside time” would have occurred from the perspective of the entity “outside time”. How could it be otherwise

    Fmm says the Incarnation allows a being outside time to exist in time as well.

  24. phoodoo:
    Robin,

    If it can be imagined (it can) that an omnipotent God could also allow total free will, then it can occur.

    Imaging things does not make them true, Phoodoo.

    But even that is a minor point. The real issue is you’re not considering the implications of omnipotence. The whole reason that humans make choices, stop to consider alternatives, or even stop doing things at all is because we are confined by limited time, limited resources, and limited capability. Omnipotence defies such constraints. There’s no such thing as “alternatives” to something that can do anything with no constraints; any event such an entity consider would simple occur. There could be no such thing as “allow total free will” as any sort of will, free or otherwise, could only be a product of choice and such an entity would have no choice. It would simply do according to its nature; it could do nothing else.

    Little does it matter that your imagination is so confined.

    LOL! It’s not my imagination that’s limited here. Your just can’t seem to grasp the implications of your fantasies.

  25. fifthmonarchyman: exactly. A moments reflection shows that a computer can not make a decision it can only execute it’s program.

    Since you’re a determinist, is this not also true of a human being?

  26. newton: Fmm says the Incarnation allows a being outside time to exist in time as well.

    Religious explanations all seem so ad hoc somehow.

  27. dazz: Actually I think it’s rather obvious that a God with perfect (fore)knowledge couldn’t be involved in any free decision making

    There is a theory that an Omniscient God could have perfect foreknowledge of every possible outcome of free will no matter the choice, free will is intact, God’s knowledge of the future is intact.

  28. dazz,

    1.Can free will and knowledge of the future be imagined Dazz (not by your clearly, but by someone)?

    Would the existence of a time machine mean that you can never make a choice?

    3.If psychic abilities are real, does that mean you are not a decision maker?

  30. phoodoo: I believe that you think you have.

    Actually it doesn’t mean a God that can’t have sex, Richard.

    Of course it does, Phoodoo. What do you think “omnipotent” means? Why do you think organisms have sex? Once you’ve spent a couple of minutes consider those two issues, it should become really obvious that the former could not engage in the latter.

  33. phoodoo:
    Richardthughes,

    Take your time.Actually try reading it.

    Get back to me in a year when you have gotten past the first paragraph.
    After that I can explain to you what the words mean, in cartoons.

    https://www.csustan.edu/history/was-hitler-influenced-darwinism

    Yes I’ve read it. It’s written by a discovery institute fellow, as they try and topple materialism.

    Here’s a decent overview:

    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/02/407-richard-weikart.html

    And a nice picture for your scrap book.

  34. newton: There is a theory that an Omniscient God could have perfect foreknowledge of every possible outcome of free will no matter the choice, free will is intact, God’s knowledge of the future is intact.

    I see no difference between an omniscient god and the physicist’s strict determinism. Either description is static.

  38. Richardthughes,

    He is a Professor of History at California State University. He has a PHD in History from University of Iowa, and he specializes in modern German history.

    Remind me again because I must have forgotten, what’s your credentials Richard? You specialize in nose-tweaking I believe you have said?

  40. phoodoo: He is a Professor of History at California State University. He has a PHD in History from University of Iowa, and he specializes in modern German history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Weikart

    “Weikart is best known for his 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany.[20][21] The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, “provided crucial funding” for the book’s research.[22] The academic community has been widely critical of the book.[4][23] Regarding the thesis of Weikart’s book, University of Chicago historian Robert Richards concluded that “Hitler was not a Darwinian” and “calls this all a desperate tactic to undermine evolution.”[24] Richards expressed an opinion that, “There’s not the slightest shred of evidence that Hitler read Darwin,” and “Some of the biggest influences on Hitler’s anti-Semitism were opposed to evolution, such as British writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose racial theory became incorporated into Nazi doctrine.”[24]”

  41. petrushka: I see no difference between an omniscient god and the physicist’s strict determinism. Either description is static.

    True, if one possesses all knowledge the description is static

  42. newton: Fmm says the Incarnation allows a being outside time to exist in time as well.

    Chuckle …box of hammers comes to mind…

    But let’s consider that for a moment anyway. Somehow (magic) something (timeless/omnipotent) that has/does existed/exists across all time…that has, in an instant of its own existence, experienced/become aware of all that would ever occur within some bubble of time…drops into that time bubble and…what?

    It’s not like such an entity could do anything in time any more than it could do anything outside of time. If (big if) such an entity could somehow incarnate and drop into that time bubble, then low and behold, while it existed outside time and experienced all time in an instant of its existence, it would have experienced/been aware of itself incarnate in time as well (oh…love me them epileptic time paradoxes!) and would be just as powerless to make even the minutest of minute alterations to that time bubble.

    So FMM can conjure up all the “incarnate” explanation for his imagined omni-cidal invisible friend he wants, but such won’t make his fantasies any less…irrational.

  43. Why have we gone from Phoodoo telling us what a decision is to him promoting creationist propaganda?

  44. newton: There is a theory that an Omniscient God could have perfect foreknowledge of every possible outcome of free will no matter the choice, free will is intact, God’s knowledge of the future is intact.

    What’s that theory?

  46. phoodoo:
    dazz,

    1.Can free will and knowledge of the future be imagined Dazz (not by your clearly, but by someone)?

    How would that work in your imagination? If god knows you’ll pick cereal for breakfast, can you freely choose to have bread toasts or anything else other than cereal? Note that timelessness doesn’t solve the problem, because your decisions are still time bound. God’s timeless knowledge should be a higher form of knowledge that involves knowing time bound facts, or else he couldn’t know anything about the time bound realm. Therefore, god knowing “timelessly” all that you’ll ever decide means that you are not free to choose. It’s all “timelessly” determined by god’s perfect knowledge

    phoodoo: Would the existence of a time machine mean that you can never make a choice?

    I don’t know how time machines work. Do you? I know you have a lot of imagination. Time machines don’t exist anyway, so it’s a “mute” point

    phoodoo: 3.If psychic abilities are real, does that mean you are not a decision maker?

    More of the same crap, see above. In fact it helps illustrate your level of delusion. You’re inadvertently comparing god’s knowledge with psychic abilities. It’s a fair comparison since both are nonsensical ideas

  47. Richardthughes,

    Wikipedia Richard? That is your source of knowledge in life? Wikipedia? And you are complaining about the Discovery Institute?

    When will you ever learn?

  48. The Omni-Fantasy Best Friend God of conservatives:

    We imagine a God that knows all, is eternal and exists across all time, and is all powerful, but…

    forgets most of the details and ignores enough for me to make some independent choices,

    forgets it has infinite power from time to time so that I can explain why some things have to be done the hard way,

    and stops being omnipresent and eternal long enough for the future to remain unknown.

    It’s like the Christian omni-god came into existence simply to be the vessel for the idiot ball

  49. newton: There is a theory that an Omniscient God could have perfect foreknowledge of every possible outcome of free will no matter the choice, free will is intact, God’s knowledge of the future is intact.

    Yes. Leibniz discusses that at some length. Ryle has a great paper on it. IIRC, Plantinga and Van Inwagen. Many others too. And it makes sense: knowing that something will happen doesn’t make anything happen.

Leave a Reply