Fair enough. But again, it wouldn't be "not-irrational" to think you are any different. It would simply be a mad assumption with no basis.
My vague theory is that if a deterministic system is so complex that it is effectively impossible to mredict with 100% accuracy ( too much data required to be calculated) then it is indistingushable from a chaotic system.IOW the iillusion of free will is so complete that it may as well be considered as such. If you could know every single variable (i.e the motion and state of every single particle that has had any effect, direct or indirect on your brain since the beginning of the universe) then you could predict peoples behaviour precisely.The implications on the "meaning" of existence are irrelevant to this. Meaning is a purely subjective sentient construct. We seem to require "meaning" to exist, not the universe
I have (for lack of a better word) 'decided' that that is not so much a fact, but the only "not-irrational" way of looking at it... but not by choice. All the information (input) my mind has been influenced by, including that which it itself has created, shows no reason for it not to be a fact. Sure, the experience of my own consciousness should well lead my mind to believe the opposite as fact; the old "I think therefore I am" adage, but other input my mind has had, created, and processed over my lifetime has lead it/me to question what most see as obvious, and not see it as the paradox it appears to be from the outside.. or should I say, "the inside".
I still don't think that you can consider your thinking to be rational or logical in a deterministic system.If everything, even our thoughts, is predetermined. Then your thoughts are no more rational then mine. Coming up with theories or conclusions in pointless as you have no ability to rationalize them, no more so then anyone else. The only way I can trust anything you say is that if I believe both you and I have free will.
Which 'other' inputs do you mean? Do you mean what to see, hear and taste etc?"I think therefore I am" is what is most obvious to me, my senses come secondary to that. What I see and hear, I have no evidence to trust what I see and hear is real. Everything I learn about the universe, like the laws of physics, the way the brain works etc, ultimately comes through my senses. And I don't trust them as much as as the obvious "I think therefore I am", which is the only thing I truly can trust.
True, but the need for and the meaning of rationale and logic in a deterministic system are completely different than they would be in a system influenced by the random decision processes of conscientiousnesses (so many esses) able to have a physical effect on the system itself. Our thoughts are no more rational than each others. Trust in another individuals thoughts is nothing more than they way you perceive what they're saying, and the way you perceive the strength of their mind and the input it's had during it's existence.
If you were brought up different, or your brain was constructed alittle differently, you would think differently.And since you make decisions with your brain, then what you are thinking right now is determined by something outside of your control.
Take for example a question, 'should people be responsible for their actions?'
This made me go cross-eyed The idea of free will is intriguing - it amazes me that, all factual evidence or spiritual ideas aside, we all still feel like we exercise free will, whether we do or not. Almost like some kind of heuristic (I think thats the term) or something.
For good reason (see below)...and I would contend that it is easier to make rational decisions if you DO have free will!Why? Because whatever decision you make becomes the basis for further action/decision making. Even if you were to have complete randomness, you can still create a semblance of order by following some strict rules.HOWEVER: In the event that you DONT have free will then everything you do is pre-ordained and therefore nothing you do actually matters[1] UNLESS you have some form of creator who falls outside of the wheel of karma/dharma[2] .... who falls prey to the 'creations are my slaves!' argument I put forth earlier~No gods, no mastersNo kings nor their court jesters~
Has anybody considered that this issue may not be black and white?
CHURCH POSITION“In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over the flock by night.” (Luke 2:....THE REALITYWe celebrate the birth of Jesus – Christmas – on December 25, but what evidence is there that Jesus was born on that day? None! One thing we can be sure of, though, is that he most likely wasn’t born in December since the Gospel of Luke tell us that shepherds were tending their sheep in the fields when he was born. In Israel at that time, shepherds stayed outside from approximately June until November.
All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)
It is said that the last recourse of the Bible apologist is to fall back upon allegory. After all, when confronted with the many hundreds of biblical problems, allegory permits one to interpret anything however one might please.-Gene Kasmar, Minnesota Atheists
Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)
Richard Burridge and Graham Gould state that the questioning of Jesus' existence is not accepted by mainstream critical scholarship. Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the Jesus never existed thesis as "effectively refuted". Graham N. Stanton writes, "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher." James Charlesworth writes "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..." Michael Grant believes that the Christ myth theory fails to satisfy modern critical methodology, and is rejected by all but a few modern scholars
"No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..."
