Hatred is also a choice, and I will leave it at that.

[Chiki]

Your entire post is just wrong or nonsensical, or both. What does "hatred" being a word have anything to do with getting rid of it? It's a word which describes a real life phenomenon. You must be one confused person.

[jiodi]

Sorry for not being clear enough. The concept of hatred being a man-made construct is separate from the fact that we do not inherently need to feel it, or act on it. It was a leading point.

You realize not every post and every disagreement with what you say is a personal attack on you, right? Instead of assuming I have no clue what I'm talking about why not try and think critically about where I'm coming from? Based on your response it seems like you only read the specific words you feel like reading, adopt an inference that allows you to seem superior and then respond as though the opposing argument is nothing but silliness. It does not make for good conversation or debate. Nothing is gained by acting superior or treating each other like fools.

[Chiki]

Sorry for not being clear enough. The concept of hatred being a man-made construct is separate from the fact that we do not inherently need to feel it, or act on it. It was a leading point.

You realize not every post and every disagreement with what you say is a personal attack on you, right? Instead of assuming I have no clue what I'm talking about why not try and think critically about where I'm coming from? Based on your response it seems like you only read the specific words you feel like reading, adopt an inference that allows you to seem superior and then respond as though the opposing argument is nothing but silliness. It does not make for good conversation or debate. Nothing is gained by acting superior or treating each other like fools.

I'm not assuming you have no clue on what you're talking about. I know you have no idea what you're talking about. The things you say are incoherent at best and silly at worst. That doesn't make me superior to you, but there's nothing wrong with pointing out that you're clueless. I'm also not sure why you think I take this as a personal attack.

I think you really need to just step back and think about your arguments before you post.

I still have no idea why you think the concept of hatred has anything to do with the feeling of hatred being a choice. There is nothing to do with them whatsoever, apart from the concept of hatred describing hatred. I can't even understand why you'd think jumping from the idea of hatred being a concept to the feeling of hatred being a choice is a valid inference. It's such a nonsensical claim that I can't even argue against it; I don't know what to argue against.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Chiki

[jiodi]

I already conceded the point that the feeling of hatred is not a controllable one. Not a choice. I admitted that, given the context of the argument, dondon was correct.

And I apologize for assuming you were taking it as a personal attack. It was the only way I could relate to why you would respond the way you do. You may not realize it, but you present yourself with a vacuous sense of superiority that tempts anyone trying to present a point or make any sort of intellectual headway to want to argue tangents and fight over semantics.

[Phoenix Wright]

honestly, i'm not sure why anyone still gives olwen the time of day. even if he has good points--few and far between--his behavior on this board mirrors the type of person in real life that has an insatiable need to (pretend to) be the smartest person in the room. either most people don't feel the same way as i do, which is very possible, or just have way more patience than i do.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Rehab]

No offense to Chiki but please do not get Chiki started about semantics, Jiodi

:p

hatred and love aren't choices because you can't change the way that a certain person is or the way a group behaves or what have you. with 'love' as the example, there exist character traits and behaviors in your partner that you find extremely admirable/cute/attractive, and because you can't change any of those properties, you can't change the way you feel, either. same with hate, though instead of being attracted to one another you repel.

so, instead of having the "choice," time is the one answer when it comes to powerful emotions.

do you guys that 'hate' things ever actually devote thinking power to hating that thing? like, the exact opposite of love, in this case? i don't think i've ever actually hated anything because i don't think about things i heavily dislike, usually--they just don't ever come to mind unless brought up by someone or something else.

Have you never reflected on something that you felt strongly (about a person, an idea, an action), and then come to a conclusion that produced an emotion which was at all different from the first one you experienced? One might say that constitutes a "choice," and I've seen it happen both in others and in myself.

Emotions may have origins that are outside of our control, but people have incredible capacities for self-invention (and reinvention) and critical analysis throughout their lives, which actually can lead the base emotion that something conjures in them to change. One might not be able to consciously change the way one feels about something to the way they wish they felt about it on a dime, but they can change how they think about it relatively easily by doing some more critical analysis than they have before,* which can lead to them changing what they think about it, and therefore how they feel about it.

*for example, by listening to what somebody else thinks about it, and thinking about it from the other person's perspective

Keeping that in mind, I don't think that saying time is what changes our emotions does us justice, because "time" is just the space in which the things that do or don't happen to (and around) us occur. I think we have more of an active part in determining the ways in which we respond or don't than just, like, waiting. Or that we can have a more active part, at least.

Like, some things about myself that I was proud of half a decade ago, I disdain and/or regret now, and not simply because I'm older, but because I heard more about them and, yes, I guess one could say "devoted thinking power to reflecting on them." I suppose it might be odd to say I think I can feel in my gut any way I want about something, but I can at least make a choice to look for reasons to feel differently about something. I might not end up loving, I don't know, Stalin, just by deciding I want to (for some reason? bear with me), but if I chose to read a biography about the guy, I think I might come out with feelings about him that are somehow different from what I have right now,* in good part just because I'll be presented with new information to react to.

*I suppose I might consider that a reason to read a biography about someone on some level, to set out to change the way I feel about them

Edited April 8, 2014 by Rehab

[Makaze]

Dondon is using a definition covering the base reaction to a stimulus. It seems no one disagrees with his assertion about that definition.

Dondon, it may be time to acknowledge that your debate topic died when it was first spoken. Whatever the dictionary may say, the concept people use is something deeper.

What has been talked about is the internal struggle to quell that base reaction, or instead feed it so that it becomes character defining well beyond the original stimulus. Comparatively, the dislike associated with hatred is not something that exists when you get angry, but is something that lives on and affects future decisions even without negative stimulus in the scenario. Rage and hatred are distinct. Based on the posts, this definition is the better understood and used of the two among the people here.

Using the casual soft determinism present in this thread, the second definition makes hatred a choice because you do not 'hate' something until you have reflected on what was done and decided to feed the base reaction despite having the option not to.

I am still baffled at the antics this section gets up to.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Makaze

[jiodi]

It really is a faith-vs-science-type argument. I fell into it by assuming too much.

If you consider hatred simply the feeling of the emotion, then it is not a a controllable thing.

I think the argument here is it is not possible to feel hate as an emotion, but rather you have to explicitly decide that it is hate that you are feeling.

Why I was saying it's all man-made is because when an emotion bubbles up in us, we are each responsible for defining what that emotion is. What you feel as hatred may not be the same thing another person calls hatred, even if the chemical reaction going on in your brain is the same.

It makes these lofty, abstract terms like love and hate subjective, and thus, a choice.

[Phoenix Wright]

No offense to Chiki but please do not get Chiki started about semantics, Jiodi

:p

Have you never reflected on something that you felt strongly (about a person, an idea, an action), and then come to a conclusion that produced an emotion which was at all different from the first one you experienced? One might say that constitutes a "choice," and I've seen it happen both in others and in myself.

Emotions may have origins that are outside of our control, but people have incredible capacities for self-invention (and reinvention) and critical analysis throughout their lives, which actually can lead the base emotion that something conjures in them to change. One might not be able to consciously change the way one feels about something to the way they wish they felt about it on a dime, but they can change how they think about it relatively easily by doing some more critical analysis than they have before,* which can lead to them changing what they think about it, and therefore how they feel about it.

*for example, by listening to what somebody else thinks about it, and thinking about it from the other person's perspective

Keeping that in mind, I don't think that saying time is what changes our emotions does us justice, because "time" is just the space in which the things that do or don't happen to (and around) us occur. I think we have more of an active part in determining the ways in which we respond or don't than just, like, waiting. Or that we can have a more active part, at least.

Like, some things about myself that I was proud of half a decade ago, I disdain and/or regret now, and not simply because I'm older, but because I heard more about them and, yes, I guess one could say "devoted thinking power to reflecting on them." I suppose it might be odd to say I think I can feel in my gut any way I want about something, but I can at least make a choice to look for reasons to feel differently about something. I might not end up loving, I don't know, Stalin, just by deciding I want to (for some reason? bear with me), but if I chose to read a biography about the guy, I think I might come out with feelings about him that are somehow different from what I have right now,* in good part just because I'll be presented with new information to react to.

*I suppose I might consider that a reason to read a biography about someone on some level, to set out to change the way I feel about them

I have.

Good points, you, Jiodi, and Makaze. Not that I was very confident in my answer to begin with, but given the--in my opinion--better definition of "hatred," I'd say I define hatred as a choice as well.

[Chiki]

honestly, i'm not sure why anyone still gives olwen the time of day. even if he has good points--few and far between--his behavior on this board mirrors the type of person in real life that has an insatiable need to (pretend to) be the smartest person in the room. either most people don't feel the same way as i do, which is very possible, or just have way more patience than i do.

Lol. The average folk often tend to give smarter people a really hard time because they can't comprehend the views that they present. An example of this is Chomsky, who is probably one of the smartest people in history. His political views are rejected by most of the average folk and accepted by most intelligent, educated people. It's just the same situation here. It's not really your fault if you can't understand the views and arguments I present, but you should realize that many do take them seriously.

Makaze, I would really like that mind reader of yours. It's amazing how you know what definitions people use so reliably.

[Phoenix Wright]

Lol. The average folk often tend to give smarter people a really hard time because they can't comprehend the views that they present. An example of this is Chomsky, who is probably one of the smartest people in history. His political views are rejected by most of the average folk and accepted by most intelligent, educated people. It's just the same situation here. It's not really your fault if you can't understand the views and arguments I present, but you should realize that many do take them seriously.

Makaze, I would really like that mind reader of yours. It's amazing how you know what definitions people use so reliably.

"smart people think what i think and average people think otherwise." careful, you jerk your dick any harder you're likely to pull it right off there, bud.

of course, you could always back up your claim.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[jiodi]

Lol. The average folk often tend to give smarter people a really hard time because they can't comprehend the views that they present.

Always assuming an argument against you is "the common folk not understanding you" is projection. Delusion has no place in real discussion.

An example of this is Chomsky, who is probably one of the smartest people in history.

Okay, we're off to a good start here. You are using an example to back up your claim that the plebs just don't understand your arguments. Let's see where it goes. . .

His political views are rejected by most of the average folk and accepted by most intelligent, educated people.

Cite examples. What political views? How have they been implemented to a degree that can back up this claim? Who are the intelligent, educated people? What defines "most"? This is all conjecture without a more substantial "example".

For instance, this sentence embodies a format of "example-making" used by Bill O'Reilly on the "Talking Points" segment of his show. He uses phrases like "most fair-minded Americans believe" and "the grief-peddlers say" without citing a source or evidence to back up his claim. However, he will use a poll or bring some stupid guest on that represents the worst part of the opposing argument to make his claims look substantiated.

He does this because he wants his viewers to have a skewed image of the opposing argument, just in case there is data or evidence that can back up the other side, weakening his own ill-contrived argument.

It's just the same situation here. It's not really your fault if you can't understand the views and arguments I present, but you should realize that many do take them seriously.

This is a demeaning statement with no basis in fact. You have just compared yourself to Chomsky after stating that he was one of the most intelligent men in history. You're trying to rustle jimmies at best and at worst you actually think you are the smartest guy in the world.

Makaze, I would really like that mind reader of yours. It's amazing how you know what definitions people use so reliably.

The sheer balls of this sentence is what's really amazing. Makaze could run intellectual circles around you, just based on what's been said in this thread alone.

I assume you're young, so I have tried to be pretty level-headed with you, but it's really sad to see someone so far up their own ass. You shit up all the threads I've seen you post in, you give zero substance and treat everyone else like they're stupid. I hope for your sake that you eventually learn that you aren't god's gift to mankind, because it's going to come back to bite you in the ass one day.

tl;dr: Bill O'Reilly is better than you.

[Makaze]

Makaze, I would really like that mind reader of yours. It's amazing how you know what definitions people use so reliably.

Check aisle three with the rest of the posts. High shelf.

[Chiki]

Always assuming an argument against you is "the common folk not understanding you" is projection. Delusion has no place in real discussion.

Okay, we're off to a good start here. You are using an example to back up your claim that the plebs just don't understand your arguments. Let's see where it goes. . .

Cite examples. What political views? How have they been implemented to a degree that can back up this claim? Who are the intelligent, educated people? What defines "most"? This is all conjecture without a more substantial "example".

For instance, this sentence embodies a format of "example-making" used by Bill O'Reilly on the "Talking Points" segment of his show. He uses phrases like "most fair-minded Americans believe" and "the grief-peddlers say" without citing a source or evidence to back up his claim. However, he will use a poll or bring some stupid guest on that represents the worst part of the opposing argument to make his claims look substantiated.

He does this because he wants his viewers to have a skewed image of the opposing argument, just in case there is data or evidence that can back up the other side, weakening his own ill-contrived argument.

This is a demeaning statement with no basis in fact. You have just compared yourself to Chomsky after stating that he was one of the most intelligent men in history. You're trying to rustle jimmies at best and at worst you actually think you are the smartest guy in the world.

The sheer balls of this sentence is what's really amazing. Makaze could run intellectual circles around you, just based on what's been said in this thread alone.

I assume you're young, so I have tried to be pretty level-headed with you, but it's really sad to see someone so far up their own ass. You shit up all the threads I've seen you post in, you give zero substance and treat everyone else like they're stupid. I hope for your sake that you eventually learn that you aren't god's gift to mankind, because it's going to come back to bite you in the ass one day.

tl;dr: Bill O'Reilly is better than you.

What made you think that was a personal attack on you? :P I'm not so sure he can run "intellectual" circles around me. Honestly though, that doesn't matter. I don't really care if you're clueless or if I know something better than someone. That doesn't make anyone superior to anyone else. I don't think anyone is better than anyone else. I don't even think there is good or bad at all.

Using the casual soft determinism present in this thread, the second definition makes hatred a choice because you do not 'hate' something until you have reflected on what was done and decided to feed the base reaction despite having the option not to.

You're just confusing the word "choice" with the ability to reflect here. Or if you're not confusing it, you're taking it for granted and it's misleading. Choosing is not the same thing as reflecting before doing an action. Choosing is the ability to do x as opposed to y; if you merely reflect before doing an action, that's not the same thing as a choice.

One can imagine a person, being controlled like a puppet with every action being decided by some computer. The person has the ability to self-reflect prior to doing some action which was decided by the computer. Does that person have the ability to make a choice? Obviously not. Despite the fact he can reflect on doing some action, the action was already decided for him, so he obviously does not have the ability to make choices.

This is pretty much the same argument as any hard determinist would use for real life. If every decision you make has already been decided by the laws of nature, it just doesn't follow that the ability to self-reflect is the same as the ability to make a choice.

There's an ideal definition of hatred which we're seeking. It's not just a matter of semantics and different senses of hatred; there can be different senses of a word, but hatred is probably not one of them.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Chiki

[jiodi]

What made you think that was a personal attack on you? :P I'm not so sure he can run "intellectual" circles around me. Honestly though, that doesn't matter. I don't really care if you're clueless or if I know something better than someone. That doesn't make anyone superior to anyone else. I don't think anyone is better than anyone else. I don't even think there is good or bad at all.

I didn't take it as personal attack on me. I just get jimmierustled watching a discussion go so far off track that it isn't even relevant anymore (which, if that is what you were going for, congratulations).

The fact that someone concedes a point to you doesn't make them intellectually inferior, which is exactly my point. Where are the examples of you realizing that you were wrong about something and admitting it? If there are then I retract my more acidic statements about you.

The big thing here is how you come off. You can have the ideals you claim but when most of your posts are inane and insulting most will infer that you assume superiority to most likely hide some insecurity that equates being wrong to the evilest of sins.

You're just confusing the word "choice" with the ability to reflect here. Or if you're not confusing it, you're taking it for granted and it's misleading. Choosing is not the same thing as reflecting before doing an action. Choosing is the ability to do x as opposed to y; if you merely reflect before doing an action, that's not the same thing as a choice.

One can imagine a person, being controlled like a puppet with every action being decided by some computer. The person has the ability to self-reflect prior to doing some action which was decided by the computer. Does that person have the ability to make a choice? Obviously not. Despite the fact he can reflect on doing some action, the action was already decided for him, so he obviously does not have the ability to make choices.

This is pretty much the same argument as any hard determinist would use for real life. If every decision you make has already been decided by the laws of nature, it just doesn't follow that the ability to self-reflect is the same as the ability to make a choice.

There's an ideal definition of hatred which we're seeking. It's not just a matter of semantics and different senses of hatred; there can be different senses of a word, but hatred is probably not one of them.

Reflecting on an emotion felt is how you define what that emotion was. Take that puppet person and abstract them out to software. The software is running on hardware, which ultimately dictates what it can and cannot to. The software is responsible for utilizing the data that is being fed to it and interpreting it.

Let's take a program and name it EmotionProcessor that receives signals from the hardware based on physical things happening to it (overheating, someone punts it, new heat sink to keep it running cooler, a soft voice telling it its loved).

The EmotionProcessor receives these raw signals and then has the task of producing an internal response to send off to a, let's say, ReactionProcessor program.

Someone kicks the box and a signal representing "ow wtf the asshole kicked me" is sent to the EmotionProcessor. The EmotionProcessor then runs algorithms on it to decide how the box feels about the kick. This calculation is so complex that each box can react differently and decide on a different emotion to send to the ReactionProcessor.

Some EmotionProcessors produce a "Fucking HATE the kicker" message to the ReactionProcessor while some may produce a "Eh, no big deal" message.

We do not just outright hate something as a base reaction. We process the negative emotions and choose that we hate it.

This is why we have a Malcom X and a MLK reacting to the same atrocities in different ways.

Edited April 9, 2014 by jiodi

[Chiki]

Reflecting on an emotion felt is how you define what that emotion was. Take that puppet person and abstract them out to software. The software is running on hardware, which ultimately dictates what it can and cannot to. The software is responsible for utilizing the data that is being fed to it and interpreting it.

Let's take a program and name it EmotionProcessor that receives signals from the hardware based on physical things happening to it (overheating, someone punts it, new heat sink to keep it running cooler, a soft voice telling it its loved).

The EmotionProcessor receives these raw signals and then has the task of producing an internal response to send off to a, let's say, ReactionProcessor program.

Someone kicks the box and a signal representing "ow wtf the asshole kicked me" is sent to the EmotionProcessor. The EmotionProcessor then runs algorithms on it to decide how the box feels about the kick. This calculation is so complex that each box can react differently and decide on a different emotion to send to the ReactionProcessor.

Some EmotionProcessors produce a "Fucking HATE the kicker" message to the ReactionProcessor while some may produce a "Eh, no big deal" message.

We do not just outright hate something as a base reaction. We process the negative emotions and choose that we hate it.

This is why we have a Malcom X and a MLK reacting to the same atrocities in different ways.

I don't understand how this post has anything to do with choice being the ability to self-reflect vs. the ability to do otherwise, which was the debate.

Here is the debate. Makaze thinks hatred is a "choice" as long as you have the ability to self-reflect while hating something. But this is not an intuitive definition of choice at all; indeed, according to my view, choice is the ability to do otherwise, and it fails against the intuitive puppet test. Assuming someone was being controlled like a puppet, but they had the ability to self-reflect prior to doing an action, would that make the puppet's actions "choices?" Clearly not.

I once thought free will was the ability to self-reflect prior to doing an action, after taking a graduate level class on it. But I'm no longer convinced.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Chiki

[jiodi]

I don't understand how this post has anything to do with choice being the ability to self-reflect vs. the ability to do otherwise, which was the debate.

The debate is "is hate a choice". The debate of "is choice the ability to self-reflect or the ability to do otherwise" is tangentially related.

The EmotionProcessor execution IS self-reflection. You cannot hate or love without first reflecting on what you are feeling and branding it so. Raw emotional responses sent to you from fundamental functionality in your brain must be processed and decided upon by your conscious mind.

Hell, a lot of the time people feel emotions without being able to define them in any way. They are these crazy feelings that are indescribable. Why? We do not yet have the capacity to define them as anything at that given time. Sometimes you think what you're feeling is hate and decide that that is the most apt word for the emotion.

Now, I have already conceded there is a grey area of "was it already hate before it was processed" that's iffy and if you define hate as the actual raw emotion itself then no, hate is not a choice. Self-reflection of that hate is simply how you define the emotion.

But I don't believe these emotions are defined before the self-reflection/processing/higher level brain functioning stuff happens. We receive signals that are raw emotion and we parse it out and define it based on our own subjective definitions of abstract emotional terms.

How often do we say we "hate" things like tv shows or characters in a movie or a flavor of jelly bean? There are some that don't like the taste and have a flair for the dramatic, and there are those that receive a bubbling, seething, negative response to the jelly bean that they can only describe as hate. And then there are those that get the same bubbling, seething, negative response and realize it's really just they're allergic to popcorn flavored jelly beans and they're going to shit their pants.

[Chiki]

You cannot hate or love without first reflecting on what you are feeling and branding it so.

There's two issues with this. This is scientifically false. Animals seem to be able to hate and love things without having the ability to reflect on things. You kinda need language to be able to think carefully about things in the first place; you need language to be able to reason well. The article below illustrates that even animals can fall in love.

Secondly, this is also just obviously false. Reflecting means to think carefully about something. You don't need to think carefully about something to hate/love it; for example, have you ever heard "love at first sight?" Love is not caused by self-reflection. It's just an automatic reaction we have towards something without reflection. http://www.economist.com/node/2424049'>See this article for more details. http://www.economist.com/node/2424049

Edited April 9, 2014 by Chiki

[Makaze]

You're just confusing the word "choice" with the ability to reflect here. Or if you're not confusing it, you're taking it for granted and it's misleading. Choosing is not the same thing as reflecting before doing an action. Choosing is the ability to do x as opposed to y; if you merely reflect before doing an action, that's not the same thing as a choice.

One can imagine a person, being controlled like a puppet with every action being decided by some computer. The person has the ability to self-reflect prior to doing some action which was decided by the computer. Does that person have the ability to make a choice? Obviously not. Despite the fact he can reflect on doing some action, the action was already decided for him, so he obviously does not have the ability to make choices.

This is pretty much the same argument as any hard determinist would use for real life. If every decision you make has already been decided by the laws of nature, it just doesn't follow that the ability to self-reflect is the same as the ability to make a choice.

There's an ideal definition of hatred which we're seeking. It's not just a matter of semantics and different senses of hatred; there can be different senses of a word, but hatred is probably not one of them.

I thought I was careful to specify that the choice I was using was in reference to the casual soft determinism people were using in the thread.

Personally, I think that choice is impossible. But in this thread, people are using a soft deterministic definition of choice. That means that when you reflect on something and recognize the possibilities before picking one, the end result is a choice. They also tend to believe there is a balance point between strength of feeling and ability to reflect, but it gets them by most of the time. There is a problem with that mentality, of course:

Two students miss an exam. Student A says his grandmother died—most teachers would say this is a valid excuse and allow Student A to makeup the exam. Student B says his goldfish died—most teachers would say this is not a valid excuse and not allow Student B to makeup the exam. Hospers says who are you to say this is or isn’t a valid force to prevent attendance or studying? How do you know what the grandmother meant to Student A? How do you know what the goldfish meant to Student B? Soft determinism is useless because you can’t get into someone’s head and say what is or isn’t valid.

But that has little relevance since soft determinism is being assumed.

Think about why I set soft determinism aside for my answer next time I do it.

[Chiki]

I thought I was careful to specify that the choice I was using was in reference to the casual soft determinism people were using in the thread.

Personally, I think that choice is impossible. But in this thread, people are using a soft deterministic definition of choice. That means that when you reflect on something and recognize the possibilities before picking one, the end result is a choice. They also tend to believe there is a balance point between strength of feeling and ability to reflect, but it gets them by most of the time. There is a problem with that mentality, of course:

First off, most philosophers who are soft determinists (compatibilists) do not think free will is the ability to self-reflect. Most think it's the ability to do otherwise. See http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lewis/Are_we_free_to_break_laws.pdf for a contemporary defense of compatibilism on the ability to do otherwise.

What makes you think people were using "casual soft determinism?" I'm pretty sure everyone thinks "choice" refers to the ability to do otherwise (I'm 99% sure dondon and I were both using it in this sense, and almost as sure for everyone else). That's the first, intuitive conclusion people come to on what a choice is. On the other hand, choice being the "ability to self-reflect" is a more sophisticated, technical definition, based on arguments for hard determinism. You can't expect the people here to think that.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Chiki

[Makaze]

First off, most philosophers who are soft determinists (compatibilists) do not think free will is the ability to self-reflect. Most think it's the ability to do otherwise. See http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lewis/Are_we_free_to_break_laws.pdf for a contemporary defense of compatibilism on the ability to do otherwise.

What makes you think people were using "casual soft determinism?" I'm pretty sure everyone thinks "choice" refers to the ability to do otherwise (I'm 99% sure dondon and I were both using it in this sense). That's the first, intuitive conclusion people come to on what a choice is. On the other hand, choice being the "ability to self-reflect" is a more sophisticated, technical definition.

I was going on the assumption that the ability to do otherwise is evidenced by the ability to reflect because there is no way to determine that someone chose to do 'otherwise'. The use of 'otherwise' implies there is a default action. How do you determine what the default action is? Do these defaults differ from person to person? How do you tell who is acting against which default impulses?

Say I have a base impulse to hit you. Say I decide 'otherwise', and do not hit you. The impulse to resist was also a base, no?

I say casual because they did not think about the specifics. They probably did not even know enough to call it soft determinism. Hence, casual.

Does it matter at this point?

Edited April 9, 2014 by Makaze

[Original Alear]

Makaze, I would really like that mind reader of yours. It's amazing how you know what definitions people use so reliably.

Dondon's defintiion was here:

on semantics: this is a red herring. there are no "alternate" definitions of hatred that include consequential actions or possess the caveat of the sentiment being uninformed. hatred is "a feeling of intense dislike." that's it. i don't really care about your definition of hatred. so i mostly agree that what one chooses to do with his hatred is mostly divorced from possessing the feeling itself, but the consequent action is not part of the definition.

And Makaze's depiction of that definition was this (obviously, but still including it for completion's sake):

Dondon is using a definition covering the base reaction to a stimulus. It seems no one disagrees with his assertion about that definition.

I would say Makaze misinterpreted what Dondon said (and I'm not going to bother spelling out why since I assume people will agree with me upon making the comparison), but since Dondon's definition of hatred seems far more narrow than what most people would agree with, I still think Makaze's point stands. Makaze's definition is also not entirely irrelevant as it is a definition other people in the thread are, or were, discussing.

You're just confusing the word "choice" with the ability to reflect here. Or if you're not confusing it, you're taking it for granted and it's misleading. Choosing is not the same thing as reflecting before doing an action. Choosing is the ability to do x as opposed to y; if you merely reflect before doing an action, that's not the same thing as a choice.

One can imagine a person, being controlled like a puppet with every action being decided by some computer. The person has the ability to self-reflect prior to doing some action which was decided by the computer. Does that person have the ability to make a choice? Obviously not. Despite the fact he can reflect on doing some action, the action was already decided for him, so he obviously does not have the ability to make choices.

I don't think it's confusion. Choosing would be as you say from the point of view of determinism VS free will. But even accepting determinism, one can argue that people are different and an individual's makeup causes them to make choices differently than other people when placed in roughly the same position to make a decision. Even if a person presented with two or more possibilities was really unable to decide on any choice but the one they actually ended up making (whether because of some computer making them a puppet or just their individual will and instincts or what have you), the process of selection is something I think most people would consider a choice. Much like what dondon is doing with hatred, I think you are doing with choice - confining a word's meaning to be more narrow than it actually is.

Just because I do not believe choices are made entirely free (freely?) of conditions which influence those choices does not mean I disbelieve in choice.

[Chiki]

I was going on the assumption that the ability to do otherwise is evidenced by the ability to reflect because there is no way to determine that someone chose to do 'otherwise'. The use of 'otherwise' implies there is a default action. How do you determine what the default action is? Do these defaults differ from person to person? How do you tell who is acting against which default impulses?

Say I have a base impulse to hit you. Say I decide 'otherwise', and do not hit you. The impulse to resist was also a base, no?

I say casual because they did not think about the specifics. They probably did not even know enough to call it casual determinism. Hence, casual.

Does it matter at this point?

Doing otherwise has nothing to do with the ability to reflect, though (like my previous example showed). People understand when you just say "do otherwise." There's no need to be presumptuous and assume people can read your mind when you say "ability to reflect."

Here is a way to decide if someone chose to do otherwise:

if she did so act, the past would have been different. It merely indicates that a person who acted a certain way at a certain time possessed abilities to act in various sorts of ways. Had she exercised one of those abilities, and thereby acted differently, then the past leading up to her action would have been different. To illustrate how comparatively mild such a claim about an agent's ability and the past might be, think about a logically similar sort of claim that is simply about what would be required for an agent to act differently. For example, consider the claim, If I were dancing on the French Riviera right now, I'd be a lot richer than I am. Certainly this claim does not mean (at least not given my dancing skills) that if I go to the French Riviera to dance, I will thereby be made richer. It only means that were I to have gone there to tango, I would have to have had a lot more cash beforehand in order to finance my escapades.

Going back to the very first posts, does anyone actually think you can choose not to hate something such that you no longer hated it? For example, if a Jew hated Hitler, could they say "well, hate is petty, I give up on hating Hitler" and stop hating him just instantly like that? In the same way that I decided to lift up my laptop just now? Probably not. It's obviously not a choice. I think they'd have some sort of reaction to Hitler whenever they saw him.

On the other hand, it does seem as if choice is involved in a very limited, restricted sense. For example, one could try to force themselves to read articles about Hitler daily and just maybe stop hating him. But it still seems as if it's mostly out of your control.

But even accepting determinism, one can argue that people are different and an individual's makeup causes them to make choices differently than other people when placed in roughly the same position to make a decision.

That's a part of determinism (genetic makeup). I'm not sure why you say "even accepting determinism" here.

Just because I do not believe choices are made entirely free (freely?) of conditions which influence those choices does not mean I disbelieve in choice.

I think what you're trying to say here is that people can still choose things even if they can't do otherwise?

Here's an argument in favor of your view. Imagine Jones was about to kill a man named Black. Smith put a mind-controlling chip inside Jones's head, which makes it so that Jones will always kill Black no matter what, even if he decides not to kill Black. Let's say Jones decided to kill Black. Does Jones have free will, even though he can't do otherwise? Maybe.

Maybe free will is not the ability to do otherwise, but the ability to decide to do otherwise. Notice that this is still at odds with hatred being a choice, though. You can delude yourself into saying you'll stop hating something, but that doesn't really work.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Chiki

[Makaze]

Two points...

Doing otherwise has nothing to do with the ability to reflect, though (like my previous example showed). People understand when you just say "do otherwise." There's no need to be presumptuous and assume people can read your mind when you say "ability to reflect."

Here is a way to decide if someone chose to do otherwise:

Why do they understand? Doing otherwise has everything to do with the ability to reflect. Given two options and two impulses, one for each, one would, by default, choose the one with the stronger impulse every time. In this scenario, the other option was not an option. They could not have done otherwise. The only way that they could make a decision out of line with their inherent reactions to the situation would be through reflection.

Reflection also makes sense because it allows compatibility between soft determinism and hard determinism: As you say, ability to reflect does not make one ultimately able to choose outside of their confines. One's own reflections could be planned. I think this is the case. At least, a scenario where you are led to reflect and one where you reflect of your own will are indistinguishable. Thus, all choice is a meaningless concept.

Choice, then, becomes a matter of scope. You might say that reflection itself defines choice or that when you reflect, you are making a choice. I can abide that definition for the sake of argument. I can observe that you do, in fact, reflect. Calling that reflection choice is a simple matter of perspective.

I cannot observe the possibility that your reflection would have ended any other way, given the same environment.

Going back to the very first posts, does anyone actually think you can choose not to hate something such that you no longer hated it? For example, if a Jew hated Hitler, could they say "well, hate is petty, I give up on hating Hitler" and stop hating him just instantly like that? In the same way that I decided to lift up my laptop just now? Probably not. It's obviously not a choice. I think they'd have some sort of reaction to Hitler whenever they saw him.

On the other hand, it does seem as if choice is involved in a very limited, restricted sense. For example, one could try to force themselves to read articles about Hitler daily and just maybe stop hating him. But it still seems as if it's mostly out of your control.

Yes. Using hate in the nurtured, long term resentment sense, it is possible to let go of your attachment to the past. You cannot choose not to be angry if it happens again*, but you can choose to let go of a stimulus that is long since past.

*I may be able to make myself a more cool headed person over time, but I would not be able to reliably control my reaction in particular instances.

I think what you're trying to say here is that people can still choose things even if they can't do otherwise?

Here's an argument in favor of your view. Imagine Jones was about to kill a man named Black. Smith put a mind-controlling chip inside Jones's head, which makes it so that Jones will always kill Black no matter what, even if he decides not to kill Black. Let's say Jones decided to kill Black. Does Jones have free will, even though he can't do otherwise? Maybe.

Maybe free will is not the ability to do otherwise, but the ability to decide to do otherwise. Notice that this is still at odds with hatred being a choice, though. You can delude yourself into saying you'll stop hating something, but that doesn't really work.

Are you implying that if your body does something, you yourself consciously do it? I do not understand your scenario.

Have another, I suppose. Say that I choose to kill you, but I miss and only wound you. I would argue that what "I" did was choose to make an attempt to kill you. To say that I chose to kill without qualifications would be stupid because killing you requires things from the environment that I do not have control over. My gun can fail to fire or my arm can spasm. These are not things that "I" do.

When you say 'can do otherwise', do you mean 'can choose another option' or 'can create a different outcome'? Because the first relates to the will, but the second does not.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Makaze

[Roy: Marquess of Pherae]

An important role model in my life told me "hate is an emotion for the weak."