Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Quote:

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

this statement is illogical because it assumes sufficiency

the following is logical

All humans are composed of cells.
All cells propagate by means of mitosis.
Therefore, mitosis is necessary for human propagation

We are held responsible for our behaviour so let's hope we are.

I appeciate perception's frustration but wonder why we keep banging our heads against the wall. Do we have free will in such matters........

0 Replies

Re: truth
Joe, by definition, all statements of a proof have to be true in order to draw the final conclusion. This is where your syllogisms fail you.

JLNobody wrote:

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).

Joe, bravo. Your logic rivals that of George Bush.

I already made it very clear that what allows my syllogism to work is because indeed, humans are composed entirely of atoms and energy.

If you can make the arguement that corporations are composed entirely of people, then you may have a point. But as it stands, any reasonable person can see that a corporation is more than just a group of people.

Whether on not the first statement of your syllogism is true depends partially on whether on not you consider gametes to be cells. If you do, the second statement should read "All cells propagate by either mitosis or meiosis." And human propagation is essentially a combination of meiosis and mitosis of their cells.

Similarly, even if the first statement of your last syllogism was true. The last statement of the syllogism should read...

The propagation of humans requires an environment that includes gravitational force (under non-artifical conditions). And as anyone who has tried to have sex in space without artificial conditions present can tell you, that's not possible. Unfortunately, anyone who's tried subsequently died due to the lack of oxygen.

If you wish to try and disprove my syllogism, atleast make the effort to come up with a syllogism of your own.

Edit: Gozmo beat me to it.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

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.

And this is exactly why I continue to keep this debate grounded in science.

Without objective supporting evidence, beliefs are dogmatic in nature, inherently no different from religous beliefs.

Sure one can make an arguement that the bible suggests humans have free will and since they believe in the bible, they reject determism. But this isn't an effective arguement against determism.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

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.

Quantum Mechanics is little more than a set of observations and certain calculations that can sometimes predict these observations. We haven't figured out the mechanism behind these observations. But there is simply no explanation for the observations we see in QM. So how can you possibly state that these observations are randomly determined. Doesn't that sound a bit presumptuos.

The neurological signlas you speak of are also generated by atoms, primarily ions interacting with each other

Just because we haven't yet reached the level of precision where we can't predict which sperm will fertilize the egg or which mutations may occur doesn't mean that these processes aren't governed by laws of physics and there isn't a mechanism behind them. Honestly, due to the uncertainity principle, I doubt we will ever be able to predict anything down to such small details. But that doesn't mean that they are random mechanisms. They still obey laws of physics.

Just because we can't predict something doesn't mean that it occurs randomly. The uncertainly principle states that we can't ever PREDICT the exact position and velocity of any object simultanously. Does this mean that these propteties are random?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

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

Finally a valid proof. All girl scout troops will indeed die. Find me a girl scout troop that won't ever die, and i'll show you a human that'll never die.

Edit: Gozmo's is another valid one as well.

All humans are composed of cells.
All cells propagate by means of mitosis.
Therefore, mitosis is necessary for human propagation

See how easy it is JLNobody. I can't figure out why you're having so much difficulty coming up with valid ones inspite of all the attempts you've made.

Could it be that you're so caught up on disproving mine that you're willing to abandon the fundamental rule of a proof, that all statements in the proof have to be valid?

0 Replies

I believe in determism. But I too live my life as if I have free will. That's what has been predetermined for me, to live my life as if I free will. And I hope that all of you are predetermined to behave the same way as well.

0 Replies

I reiterate....

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

A proof is a sequence of true statements that lead up to a certain conclusion. The above syllagone, meets this requirement. Unless you dogmaticly reject fundamental foundations of science as nondualists and relgious individuals do.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

I believe in determism. But I too live my life as if I have free will. That's what has been predetermined for me, to live my life as if I free will. And I hope that all of you are predetermined to behave the same way as well.

Common sense isn't dead after all------I'm sure glad that's over.

Anyone want to tackle "human nature" fixed and unchanging or a product of the environment?

0 Replies

I think some of you equate predetermination to the idea that there is some omnipotent force or something that mapped out a course for everyone ahead of time.

That's not what it suggests at all. Nor are the reasons I believe in hard determinism dogmatic in nature. If you're one of the many who misintepret hard determism to be tied ot religion or something, I urge you to reread my posts and reasons.

0 Replies

Centroles

Perhaps you will find this essay interesting:

http://www.gender.org.uk/conf/1998/sophia.htm

The following is an excerpt:

Perhaps the determinists are suffering from the effects of an arrogant populist gene or a conformity complex. Either way I suspect that we all may soon have to face the fact that the laws of nature are like individuals, only slightly predictable, never a certainty. The conscious mind, the abstract being called self, is a strange attractor, that emerges from the chaos of both biological and environmental systems.

0 Replies

From the very start, the article is flawed. Complex algorithms demonstrably have consistent outcomes.

But more importantly, the article misinterprets the entire point of determinism.

Then it goes off on meaningless rants that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Instead of attacking the argument, it decides to attack determinists in general and makes numerous assumptions about science.

The simple fact is that any abstraction that isn't based on scientific evidence is rooted in dogma.

Until we have evidence that the laws of physics aren't universal, there is no scientific challenge to determinism.

0 Replies

Even from a strictly practical standpoint, if things are indeed random at the microscopic levels, imagine how quickly this randomness should propagate via the domino effect. Things on a macroscopic scale should be downright chaotic.

Yet, light from billions of years in the past is just reaching us giving us a view of the universe that is quite precise, cells display an enormous level of rigidity, chemical reiactions are incredibly precise and replicable with consistent results.

0 Replies

When we look at any isolated individual chemical reaction, we can predict the results with absolute certainity. Of course, taking all the reactions occuring into account simultanously is a task too overwhelming for even the fastest computer. But considering how determinable the results of each of them individually is, where does this indeterminability come from?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

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.

Actually, I think it's the reverse.

Admittedly, Schopenhauer is unusually abstruse on the concept of free will, even though he wrote a good deal on the subject. I never really understood it until I read Leibniz's writings on the principle of sufficient reason. In sum, Schopenhauer believed that everything happened according to the law of sufficient reason: i.e. everything happened because of something else. This applied to humans as well. Thus, human actions occur because of the reasons they occur: in effect, human actions are determined, and so, in a certain sense, not free.

But human actions are caused by "motives," which are the manifestations of the will. The will, however, is not subject to the principle of sufficient reason. It is, in other words, the "groundless grounding." Consequently, although actions are necessarily caused by the will, the will itself is uncaused. In this fashion, Schopenhauer was able to assign moral responsibility to a person's actions: although actions might be determined, and so "un-free," a person's will was "free," and thus a person could be held morally responsible for his/her actions.

As I see it, then, Schopenhauer was a determinist-compatibilist, or a "soft determinist." Was he right? I'm not convinced.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Finally a valid proof. All girl scout troops will indeed die. Find me a girl scout troop that won't ever die, and i'll show you a human that'll never die.

It is indeed a pleasure to discuss these matters with you, Centroles, for, although you are seldom right, you are frequently surprising. So far you have given us "The Sentient Corpse" and "The Amazing Lazarus Dog." And now you offer "The Mortal Girl Scout Troop."

Of course, you're wrong here too, but it is worth a few moments to examine the nature of your error. Let us suppose that there is a Girl Scout troop, at time T1, composed of the following members: A, B, C, D, and E. Over the course of time, the following events occur:
T2: F and G join.
T3: A leaves and H joins.
T4: B and C leave and I and J join.
T5: D leaves.
T6: F leaves and K joins.
T7: E leaves, and L and M join.
T8: A, B, C, D, and E die in a horrible blimp accident, and G and H leave.

Thus, at time T8, the Girl Scout troop consists of the following members: I, J, K, L, and M. Now, at what time did this particular Girl Scout troop "die?" Was it at T8, when the original members of the troop all perished (even though none of them was a member of the troop at the time)? Was it at T2, when the original composition of the troop changed? Was it at T3, when the first original member left? Was it at T7, when the last of the original members left the troop? Or do we need to wait until some subsequent time, Tn, when the last surviving member of the troop dies?

Centroles wrote:

Could it be that you're so caught up on disproving mine that you're willing to abandon the fundamental rule of a proof, that all statements in the proof have to be valid?

You misunderstand the rule. All statements in a syllogism must be logically valid. You, on the other hand, seem to be demanding inductively valid terms, which are simply not required for a logical proof.

0 Replies

For those interested heres a reference to Wittgensteins views on Free Will and Determinism.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lehrer/free_will/wittgenstein2.html

I draw your attention to the following from para 2 which underscores some of my comments above.

<<Applying this strategy of unveiling the wrong use of terms, in the LFW (Lectures on Free Will) Wittgenstein examines which situations of action people would call free and which not. And indeed in many cases the problem of the incompatibility of determinism and Free Will dissolves when we take a closer look at how we use the apparently contradictory concepts in our ordinary life. >>

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Quote:

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

"Atoms obey the laws of physics.'

They also might be effected by psychic powers, god, thought, observation, Kundalini energy, Ki energy, free flow etc.

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

Unfounded.

It is simply not the whole story.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

Of course, you're wrong here too, but it is worth a few moments to examine the nature of your error. Let us suppose that there is a Girl Scout troop, at time T1, composed of the following members: A, B, C, D, and E. Over the course of time, the following events occur:
T2: F and G join.
T3: A leaves and H joins.
T4: B and C leave and I and J join.
T5: D leaves.
T6: F leaves and K joins.
T7: E leaves, and L and M join.
T8: A, B, C, D, and E die in a horrible blimp accident, and G and H leave.

Thus, at time T8, the Girl Scout troop consists of the following members: I, J, K, L, and M. Now, at what time did this particular Girl Scout troop "die?" Was it at T8, when the original members of the troop all perished (even though none of them was a member of the troop at the time)? Was it at T2, when the original composition of the troop changed? Was it at T3, when the first original member left? Was it at T7, when the last of the original members left the troop? Or do we need to wait until some subsequent time, Tn, when the last surviving member of the troop dies?

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

I must confess, twyvel, your logic is far too breathtaking for me to follow. I doubt that I could duplicate the kind of 180-degree reversal that you performed in the space of two short paragraphs. I can only surmise that you would rather contradict yourself than acknowledge that I could be right, even on a minor point such as this.

But in taking both positions, twyvel, you cannot avoid being at least half-wrong. Centroles asserts that every Girl Scout troop dies. Thus, it is most assuredly a question of "when the troop will die," since if one cannot state, with confidence, that there will be a time at which something dies, that person cannot state with any confidence that the thing in question is, in fact, mortal. Since Centroles claims that the troop will die, however, the question may logically be put: "if it will die, when will it die?"

0 Replies

truth
All of these long and convoluted posts ARE breath-taking, indeed. Let me make one comment which will probably reveal my lack of attention to them: Only organisms die; therefore death is what happens only to individuals. Yet, despite the fact that (non-organic) troops cannot die, that does not mean they will never END; they undoubtedly will--given enough time.

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know