Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

fresco wrote:

I have scanned this reference and I reiterate my points made previously. Trivial binary choices between tea and coffee are irrelevant to the moral contexts in which we talk about "free will". We can only speak of the utility of the concept not its logical validity (which is based on based on reductionist principles of "causality" in closed physical systems.)

We're not talking about the moral contexts of free will. We're talking about the validity of determinism. Even with the most basic of logic principles, one must conclude hard determinism.

perception, what makes you think hurricanes and snowstorms are not deterministic. if you believe that they too occur at random and don't obey basic laws of physics, your ideas are more obscure than i imagined.

if you disagree with the validity of the logic, or the contentions I have used to make my case, then please question it. Instead though, much of what i've heard thus far sounds like you're argueing simply because you don't want to believe it. This is no different than the logic used by religious fanatics when their claims are challenged by fundamental principles of logic or basic scientific facts.

Terry, only one explanation of Quantum Mechanics takes randomness into account. There is yet no reason to believe this explanation to be more valid than deterministic ones. In fact, basic logic dictates that it should not.

0 Replies

It seems that many of you are missing the point or misreading the arguements. so let me simplify them.

also taken from...

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=512791#512791

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made solely of atoms.
Therefore you (always) obey the laws of physics.

The logic is inescapable, and it leads to hard determinism, but only if you accept the first line.

In essence, if you are a nonphysicalist, you are to free to believe whatever. But if you are person of science, one who accepts scientific findings, theories and explanations, you must accept hard determiinism.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made solely of atoms.
Therefore you (always) obey the laws of physics.

The logic is inescapable, and it leads to hard determinism, but only if you accept the first line.

The logic here is not inescapable. Indeed, what little logic that may exist in this syllogism is eminently escapable. It follows along the same lines as this:
All humans will die.
All corporations are made up of humans.
Therefore, all corporations will die.

It's something like a category error: atoms are one thing, but a group of atoms, forming a person, constitute something else entirely. Thus, positing that the laws affecting the former will equally affect the latter is unwarranted, since the two are not identical.

Now, where's my dead dog, Centroles?

0 Replies

you know just as well as i do that corporations are made up of a lot more than people. why not come up with an analogy that actually makes sense?

but going beyond that, such a category error doesn't even apply to fundamental laws of physics. abstract concepts like death are obviously category dependent. laws of physics are by definition universally applicable to everything in the universe.

i stated in the opening post on the topic that as soon as i find the link, i'll post it. you're welcome to help be look for it or suggest some sites that archive articles.

this debate is and was always meant to be within the realm of science. the only way you can disagree with determinism is if you don't accept the notion of fundamental laws of physics. and you don't accept findings of science until we atleast have evidence to the contrary, your beliefs are inherently dogmatic in which case no one could ever convince you otherwise. And if such is the case, why even partake in this discussion? You obviously stand to gain nothing from it.

0 Replies

Sorry Centroles, but all the last is reductionist nonsense. Firstly you evoke the phrase "universal law" and assume this is axiomatic to "science". It is not. Both "universality and causality" have given at least equal ground to "probability and correlation" even in physics.
Secondly, Joe is correct in his usage of the phrase "category mistake". A reductionist explanation is insufficient to encompass the behaviour of living structures. (Classically- try describing "a dog begging" in terms of atoms and molecules or even neural circuits !)
Finally as a rejoinder to your rejection of my context argument above, NOBODY talks about the "free will" of atoms, or of the "free will" of tea and coffee drinkers except reductionists. Its one of those philosophical games which occupy earnest philosophy students similar to "how do I know he has a pain ?". These questions never arise in "real life" except in highly specific contexts like claiming for injury insurance etc. They are part of the historical debris of the development of philosophical discourse, much of which was exposed and summarily dismissed by Wittgenstein
with his phrase "meaning is use".

0 Replies

a reductionist explanation is more than sufficent to encompass the behavioru of living structures to one who accepts science.

category mistake is a term used to identify two inherently different things. there is no inherent difference between a small conglomeration of atoms and energy (one that must agree does obey fundamental laws of physics) and a large such system such as a human.

i invite you to make this arguement here...

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=5261&page=2&pp=25

the people here seem to have a far deeper understanding of philosophy than anyone on this site including me. truly, many of them there dedicate their whole lives to it. and the consensus seems to be is that the only way that one can choose to not accept determinism is if they choose not to accept science for other interpretations for which there is no evidence, such as nondualism.

and without evidence, beliefs are dogmatic in nature. no different from belief in religion and god.

0 Replies

just about all the issues being brought up here have already been contradicted here...

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=5261&page=2&pp=25

i'm probably simply going to start posting in that thread instead as i am getting tired of the same points being brought up over and over again especially when they often have little to do with the orginal question bosed by the thread and partially because they have already been addressed in the link.

if you're still interested in this discussion, i urge you to do the same as this particular thread seems to be going nowhere fast.

0 Replies

Centroles

I wish you luck in "the big league" and advise you to steer clear of the Wittgenstein team. Twisted Evil

EDIT: Hey, I just noticed you lifted my "Dark Matter" thread there without much intelligent reponse Laughing

0 Replies

truth
Centroles, by "hard determinism" you refer, I assume, to determinism as a cosmological trait. What about "soft determinism" (probabilities and correlations)? Can this also reflect a cosmological trait? If not, why not? I have elsewhere argued that causality is more a reflection of the nature of our minds, i.e., the fact that we find causal explanations "satisfying" (they answer our questions as to the origins or determination of things). But the shape of our minds need not be the shape of the cosmos. The subjective adequacy for humans of causal explanations does not, in itself, give us a picture of the structure of the Universe. Causal explanations are not the same thing as determinism (i.e., epistemology is not ontology, to put it puffily)

0 Replies

truth
Centroles, there can be no objective evidence for the value of the perspecitve of nondualism. The only kind of evidence that persuades individuals of the reality and epistemological value of nondualism is subjective evidence. As I've said elsewhere, there are moments in our lives when experiences convince us of the reality of something, and these experiences cannot be replicated objectively for others. It's a matter of the reality and difference between public and private evidence. Obviously, only the former can have a role in Science. The latter is the only kind available in mystical awareness--that's why one cannot convince others of the reality and value of nondualism. As soon as we talk of evidence, proof, and cause & effect, we are behaving dualistically. And it's why mystics don't prosletyze or even talk--when they are not jerking us around.

0 Replies

JLN

I don't think Centroles has researched the other forum yet. If he did he would find your arguments against absolute determinism. (BTW they have a go at discussing Krishnamurti over there. I can best describe it as "Americans discussing the game of cricket !")

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Terry, only one explanation of Quantum Mechanics takes randomness into account. There is yet no reason to believe this explanation to be more valid than deterministic ones. In fact, basic logic dictates that it should not.

I am not aware of ANY interpretation of QM that does not take randomness into account. Perhaps you could enlighten me? We simply cannot predict what any individual particle will do, only the average behavior of large groups based on statistics.

We can predict that given the conditions of the big bang, stars and galaxies will form but cannot predict the exact makeup of any star system or galaxy. We can predict that self-replicating molecules will form and evolve into life under the right conditions, but cannot predict what species will evolve. We know that certain weather patterns are likely to generate storms, but cannot predict the exact date, strength and path of the next devastating hurricane, no matter how precisely we measure initial conditions. There is simply no way to predict whether the earth's magnetic field will reverse or settle into the same orientation next time around.

Most importantly, we cannot predict which sperm will fertilize which egg, and what random DNA mutations may occur to produce every unique individual who will be born this year and grow up to affect the universe in unpredictable ways with their choices.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

this debate is and was always meant to be within the realm of science. the only way you can disagree with determinism is if you don't accept the notion of fundamental laws of physics.

The laws of physics (such as chaos theory and relativity) do not support your notion of determinism. Yes, our bodies are made up of particles that are subject to physical laws, but following the laws includes reacting to the neurological signals produced by our minds, which are free to make whatever decisions they wish.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

you know just as well as i do that corporations are made up of a lot more than people. why not come up with an analogy that actually makes sense?

Your knowledge of the laws of corporations is almost as flawed as your knowledge of the laws of physics. Let me, however, offer a more prosaic analogy:

All humans will die.
All Girl Scout troups are made up of humans.
Therefore, all Girl Scout troops will die.

Centroles wrote:

but going beyond that, such a category error doesn't even apply to fundamental laws of physics. abstract concepts like death are obviously category dependent. laws of physics are by definition universally applicable to everything in the universe.

I don't dispute that, for instance, the Newtonian laws of motion apply to humans qua physical objects. But then Newtonian laws do not necessarily apply at the atomic or sub-atomic level, just as laws of sub-atomic physics (such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) don't necessarily apply at the level above atoms. Applying one set of rules to everything defies both science and common sense. Otherwise, one would be forced to agree with the "inescapable logic" of the following syllogism:

All humans are composed of cells.
All cells propagate by means of mitosis.
Therefore, all humans propagate by means of mitosis.

Centroles wrote:

i stated in the opening post on the topic that as soon as i find the link, i'll post it. you're welcome to help be look for it or suggest some sites that archive articles.

Sorry, Centroles: your argument, your proof, your dead dog = your obligation to provide the evidence.

Centroles wrote:

this debate is and was always meant to be within the realm of science. the only way you can disagree with determinism is if you don't accept the notion of fundamental laws of physics. and you don't accept findings of science until we atleast have evidence to the contrary, your beliefs are inherently dogmatic in which case no one could ever convince you otherwise.

But if you are truly a doctrinaire non-dualist, then you don't accept the fundamental laws of physics. Why should anyone argue with you when you should be arguing with yourself?

Centroles wrote:

And if such is the case, why even partake in this discussion? You obviously stand to gain nothing from it.

That's an excellent question.

0 Replies

truth
Joe, let's see if I understand the errors you are illustrating in your syllogisms:
All humans will die
All girl scout troops are made up of humans
Therefore all girl scout troops will die

Comment: Troops are "corporations" and corporations have an existence apart from any PARTICULAR collection of human members. As the members of the troop die off the troop/corporation itself can persist by on-going recruitment. Is that right?

next

All humans are composed of cells
All cells propagate by means of mitosis
Therefore, all humans propagate by means of mitosis

Comment: does this not confound effecient and necessary cause? For example, individuals can have sex and achieve conception, but that does not mean that everything else that is necessary will be present. And consider all the "necessary" conditions required for the entire process to occur. For example (one of a countless set of necessary causes), gravity is necessary for mitosis to occur (under non-artificial conditions). Therefore one could say that:

All humans are composed of cells
The propagation of cells requires an environment that includes gravitational force
Therefore all humans propagate by means of gravity

(It is fun to be absurd).

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Comment: Troops are "corporations" and corporations have an existence apart from any PARTICULAR collection of human members. As the members of the troop die off the troop/corporation itself can persist by on-going recruitment. Is that right?

Yes, of course that's right. Corporations and Girl Scout troops have an existence apart from their constituent members, just as a human being has an existence apart from his/her constituent atoms.

JLNobody wrote:

Comment: does this not confound effecient and necessary cause? For example, individuals can have sex and achieve conception, but that does not mean that everything else that is necessary will be present.

Hmmmm, I'll have to think about that. I used the example to illustrate that the rules governing a constituent part do not necessarily govern the entity composed of those constituents. Cells divide by mitosis; people, although composed of cells, do not.

JLNobody wrote:

And consider all the "necessary" conditions required for the entire process to occur. For example (one of a countless set of necessary causes), gravity is necessary for mitosis to occur (under non-artificial conditions). Therefore one could say that:

All humans are composed of cells
The propagation of cells requires an environment that includes gravitational force
Therefore all humans propagate by means of gravity

(It is fun to be absurd).

JLN, your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Laughing

0 Replies

Until all you intellectuals make a determination on determinism-----I'll continue making decisions as though I had a REAL choice and I would encourage Centroles to keep wearing her seatbelt just in case some drunk who might run the stop light hasn't heard of determinism.

0 Replies

truth
Perception, I AGREE. But it's not because I believe in "free will" and disbelieve in "determinism". I just think that we have no choice (pardon the pun) but to live AS IF we were free to express our will.
But remember Schopenhauer's dictim: "You can do as you will, but you cannot will as you will." If you undestand this, explain it to me. Sometimes I think I understand it, other times (like now) I don't. I do think, however, that the first clause--"you can do as you will"--supports the metaphysic of free-will, while the second clause--"but you cannot will as you will"--supports the metaphysic of determinism.

0 Replies

JL

Perhaps he's just as confused as we are but very good at "one upsmanship".

I do wish it could be proven one way or the other----it's times like this that I get very frustrated with philosophical discussion. All we ever get is "more questions and NO answers.

0 Replies

truth
Perception, be careful. Sounds like you are about to throw over philosophy for ideology.

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know