You haven't understood what I'm saying. Call it grit, call it character, whatever: it can maybe be developed or change, but not on its own.
Circumstance, including other people, can change it for better or worse, but you can't change it on your own. You are exactly what you are. Without input from outside, you'll never turn into anything that isn't already implicitly there.
To explain it in computer science terms, since this is HN: suppose you have a method which takes no input. Even if it's self-modifying code, can it change into something else? Can it "improve"? No. Whatever it will turn into after overwriting its own code is essentially already there.
You have all the "character", "grit", whatever, that you started off with. If you get some or lose some throughout your life, it's from outside yourself: it can go either way, and you can't take credit for it anyway. This is something that all sorts of pagans, and Christians, have understood for thousands of years, but the modern Horatio Alger "conservative" doesn't understand it.
You appear to be saying that we have no free will because our choices are decided by us and we are the result of our environments. Your self-modifying code argument is that the result is already essentially there from the beginning because that's what the code says to do.
That is not a Christian view as I understand their philosophy. I am not one myself.
I think a better analogy would be self-modifying non-deterministic code. You cannot say in advance what the result will be. The state before execution is not equivalent to the eventual result, because different results are not equivalent to each other and equivalence is transitive. So it can indeed improve. Or get worse.
If the source of that non-determinism (or at least some of it) is our choices then yes of course those choices are constrained or sometimes determined by circumstances or our current past-determined states but that does not mean we do not have the ability to influence our future states.
We have the power to better ourselves even if we don't have the power to directly determine our internal states.
No, free will is really quite beside the point. You can believe the choice is real, whatever you put in that, but the choice will still be based on what you are, and you can't change it, other than based on either 1. what you already are, in which case it isn't really a change, or 2. Something outside of you, input.
Nondeterminism changes nothing for the argument, in fact I mentioned it explicitly already.
You didn't mention it explicitly or otherwise. Why lie? That's such a weird thing to do. I can read your comment and catch you in the lie so easily.
Free will is the entire point. You are saying "the choice will [be] based on what you are, and you can't change it". That is precisely an argument that our choices are determined, not free.
>other than based on either 1. what you already are, in which case it isn't really a change, or 2. Something outside of you, input.
You have just ignored what I said. You cannot say that you haven't changed your character because the change was brought about by your own choice, for the reason I already gave: you have free will, so your choices are not determined, so the results can vary.
You cannot say that A and B are equivalent states because B is reachable from A, when C which is clearly distinct from B is also reachable from A, and the choice between B and C is nondeterministic (free).
To make it more concrete, you have free will. You choose to challenge yourself or not by doing something difficult. That choice is free. It is chosen from among constrained options but it is still a choice. We make constrained choices all the time. They're still choices.
Some people can't afford to buy musical instruments. Of those that can, some choose to buy one and some do not. Of those who do buy one, some choose to practice and some do not. You cannot expect anyone to believe that that choice is free but also that the person that chooses to learn an instrument and practice and develop is identical in character to the same person if they had exercised their choice differently and instead sat on the couch and watched TV.
People make choices. Free choices. Those choices result in the development of their personalities, the development of skills, etc. Those choices are not predetermined by their existing character. There is no external input necessary for your character to change and yet clearly, logically, their character also was not already there. The potential for it may have been there, latently, but so what? Everyone has the potential to have good character. Everyone could be a better person than he is.
You haven't understood what I'm saying. Call it grit, call it character, whatever: it can maybe be developed or change, but not on its own.
Circumstance, including other people, can change it for better or worse, but you can't change it on your own. You are exactly what you are. Without input from outside, you'll never turn into anything that isn't already implicitly there.
To explain it in computer science terms, since this is HN: suppose you have a method which takes no input. Even if it's self-modifying code, can it change into something else? Can it "improve"? No. Whatever it will turn into after overwriting its own code is essentially already there.
You have all the "character", "grit", whatever, that you started off with. If you get some or lose some throughout your life, it's from outside yourself: it can go either way, and you can't take credit for it anyway. This is something that all sorts of pagans, and Christians, have understood for thousands of years, but the modern Horatio Alger "conservative" doesn't understand it.
You appear to be saying that we have no free will because our choices are decided by us and we are the result of our environments. Your self-modifying code argument is that the result is already essentially there from the beginning because that's what the code says to do.
That is not a Christian view as I understand their philosophy. I am not one myself.
I think a better analogy would be self-modifying non-deterministic code. You cannot say in advance what the result will be. The state before execution is not equivalent to the eventual result, because different results are not equivalent to each other and equivalence is transitive. So it can indeed improve. Or get worse.
If the source of that non-determinism (or at least some of it) is our choices then yes of course those choices are constrained or sometimes determined by circumstances or our current past-determined states but that does not mean we do not have the ability to influence our future states.
We have the power to better ourselves even if we don't have the power to directly determine our internal states.
No, free will is really quite beside the point. You can believe the choice is real, whatever you put in that, but the choice will still be based on what you are, and you can't change it, other than based on either 1. what you already are, in which case it isn't really a change, or 2. Something outside of you, input.
Nondeterminism changes nothing for the argument, in fact I mentioned it explicitly already.
You didn't mention it explicitly or otherwise. Why lie? That's such a weird thing to do. I can read your comment and catch you in the lie so easily.
Free will is the entire point. You are saying "the choice will [be] based on what you are, and you can't change it". That is precisely an argument that our choices are determined, not free.
>other than based on either 1. what you already are, in which case it isn't really a change, or 2. Something outside of you, input.
You have just ignored what I said. You cannot say that you haven't changed your character because the change was brought about by your own choice, for the reason I already gave: you have free will, so your choices are not determined, so the results can vary.
You cannot say that A and B are equivalent states because B is reachable from A, when C which is clearly distinct from B is also reachable from A, and the choice between B and C is nondeterministic (free).
To make it more concrete, you have free will. You choose to challenge yourself or not by doing something difficult. That choice is free. It is chosen from among constrained options but it is still a choice. We make constrained choices all the time. They're still choices.
Some people can't afford to buy musical instruments. Of those that can, some choose to buy one and some do not. Of those who do buy one, some choose to practice and some do not. You cannot expect anyone to believe that that choice is free but also that the person that chooses to learn an instrument and practice and develop is identical in character to the same person if they had exercised their choice differently and instead sat on the couch and watched TV.
People make choices. Free choices. Those choices result in the development of their personalities, the development of skills, etc. Those choices are not predetermined by their existing character. There is no external input necessary for your character to change and yet clearly, logically, their character also was not already there. The potential for it may have been there, latently, but so what? Everyone has the potential to have good character. Everyone could be a better person than he is.