• Jeremiah
    1.1k


    Correlation does not necessitate causation. So many people make that mistake, it is likely by far the most common error when assessing "evidence."
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k
    Hard determinism is very black and white, which is why people grasp on to it; however, I think things are a bit more involved, and like I said the concept just has too many holes.
  • GreyScorpio
    98
    My point is that the various possible choices are already chosen for us. From which, follows the effect of the choice.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k


    You are anthropomorphizing cause and effect. Objective cause and effect has no will of its own, that is a human trait.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k
    I think the linear framework humans tend to think in makes hard determinism inviting to people. When we think about cause and effect we tend to think in terms of if A then B; however, what if there was an agent of causation in which if A then B was not true? Instead, as the stream of cause and effect passes through this agent it becomes if A then B or C or D, or even if A then {B, C, D}, or any other possible combination.

    If I have the capacity for reason in such a way that I can assess possible outcomes of cause and effect, and I have force that I can apply to the world around me, then why can't I influence the posterior chain?

    In fact by claiming I am a summation of cause and effect, you place me as part of cause and effect with all the same powers, and if external forces can shape my path, then it seems only reasonable to assume so can internal forces.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.