Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Jonat3

1. That which is "unexplainable" is "random" NOT vice versa.

2. "Explanation" is sometimes "causal" sometimes "logical" sometimes "teleological" and sometimes "mathematical" and sometimes "mystical". It is ALWAYS LIMITED because the observer defines the scope of the "event window" for particular purposes.

3. "Time", i.e. "past present and future" are psychological projections, not "actualities".

This is the thrust of JLN's argument above.

0 Replies

Quote:

1. That which is "unexplainable" is "random" NOT vice versa.

Only something random is truly unexplainable. And with explainable and unexplainable, i was referring mostly to behaviour patterns. A set behaviour is explainable. And that which behaviour is not set is thus random.

Quote:

2. "Explanation" is sometimes "causal" sometimes "logical" sometimes "teleological" and sometimes "mathematical" and sometimes "mystical". It is ALWAYS LIMITED because the observer defines the scope of the "event window" for particular purposes.

3. "Time", i.e. "past present and future" are psychological projections, not "actualities".

Something like time is a perfect example. Time is indeed a human creation. From the viewpoint of the universe time doesn't exist. The laws applying to time are desciptive at best.
And here is another word that pops up once again. Descriptive. A very important word.
You had the opinion that the universe could only be looked upon from a social viewpoint. I disagree. That's because your viewpoint is also descriptive in nature. We always try to describe reality. However that description is bound to be imperfect. That is because it is impossible to describe the universe/reality perfectly. If we were able to do that, our description would then be prescriptive instead of descriptive, which is impossible.
Because of above argument, one viewpoint cannot adequately describe reality. It is all the different viewpoints unified that give the best description of the universe.
Suppose we could describe reality perfectly. That description would then also allow us to manipulate reality. I believe free will can be manipulated up to a point, since it is part of reality. That is one of the reasons why i think a social viewpoint is not the only way to see the universe, since a social viewpoint alone would not allow us to manipulate the universe. If we saw the world from merely a social viewpoint, we would never have progressed so far technically. Science allows us to manipulate reality. That is why a scientific viewpoint is one of the most accurate viewpoints around.
However, i do realize that a scientific viewpoint alone does not adequately describe the universe. The different viewpoints unified can do that. And it is actually not possible to see the universe from the viewpoint from the universe, since we cannot know how the universe sees us. However, because all viewpoints are descriptive in nature we ARE allowed to do so.

And THIS is why i reject a mere social viewpoint.

0 Replies

truth
Thanks, Fresco, you know my thinking quite well. I do appreciate the ingenuity of Jonat's thought. But let me ask you, Jonat, why you equate causes with reasons. You seem to advocate that material "effects" can be explained in terms of material "causes." AND you say that causal explanation has been achieved upon asking someone their "reason" for making some choice. I see material causes as events PUSHED by antecedent events, i.e., material causation. I see "reasons" (like purposes, intentions, goals, plans, etc.) as PULLED by the future, i.e., by anticipated consequences. My urge to pee is caused by the pain of bladder pressure; my choice to participate in this thread reflects my anticipation of pleasure from learning and teaching.

0 Replies

Quote:

Thanks, Fresco, you know my thinking quite well. I do appreciate the ingenuity of Jonat's thought. But let me ask you, Jonat, why you equate causes with reasons. You seem to advocate that material "effects" can be explained in terms of material "causes." AND you say that causal explanation has been achieved upon asking someone their "reason" for making some choice. I see material causes as events PUSHED by antecedent events, i.e., material causation. I see "reasons" (like purposes, intentions, goals, plans, etc.) as PULLED by the future, i.e., by anticipated consequences. My urge to pee is caused by the pain of bladder pressure; my choice to participate in this thread reflects my anticipation of pleasure from learning and teaching.

Did i say reasons? If if did, i did not mean it in the way you imply (purposes, intentions, etc.). When i ask what is the reason, i mean it more like what was the cause.
And IMO the future doesn't exist. For that matter, the past too. Kinda depends how you see time.

0 Replies

truth
I looked at the last page and find agreement with Adrian and Joe in that this is a moot argument, engaged in for pure entertainment. We are clearly not solving an REAL problem. Joe notes (as I have many times elsewhere) that we will act AS IF we were free to choose, no matter the lack of proof for the validity of the assumption. If there were a God, one of his traits would be the ability to see things from ALL PERSPECTIVES at once; I guess omnicience implies this kind of unlimited perspective. In our case, of course, we are severely limited: Knowing is a function of the knower (i.e., his capacities, limitations, motives, purposes, etc.). If a God were monitoring our discussion he might be declaring that we poor souls are NOT EVEN WRONG. As a function of our limitations we divide the world into the explained and the unexplainable. This exclusiveness reflects our limitations, not the structure of some external reality.
Oh, another theological point. If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

0 Replies

Quote:

I looked at the last page and find agreement with Adrian and Joe in that this is a moot argument, engaged in for pure entertainment. We are clearly not solving an REAL problem. Joe notes (as I have many times elsewhere) that we will act AS IF we were free to choose, no matter the lack of proof for the validity of the assumption. If there were a God, one of his traits would be the ability to see things from ALL PERSPECTIVES at once; I guess omnicience implies this kind of unlimited perspective. In our case, of course, we are severely limited: Knowing is a function of the knower (i.e., his capacities, limitations, motives, purposes, etc.). If a God were monitoring our discussion he might be declaring that we poor souls are NOT EVEN WRONG. As a function of our limitations we divide the world into the explained and the unexplainable. This exclusiveness reflects our limitations, not the structure of some external reality.
Oh, another theological point. If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

I said long ago in this thread that message board arguments were pointless anyway. Perhaps because it is pointless do we like it so much? :wink:

I already plan to live my life normally regardless what the thruth is. Since we are only human, that is all we can do.

Ok, i'm off to sleep now.

*dreams of telling God his plans*

God:"BWAAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH"

0 Replies

truth
O.K. Jonat. Sorry to have misread your use of "reason". My misunderstanding derives from the fact that many people do confound cause (material) and reason (mental) determination. No matter, it gave me a chance to expound the view. I too see the future as non-existent, as well as the past. I like the explanation given by a Rinzai zen master: he balanced a pencil on his finger the pointed to one half of the pencil saying "This is the future. It does not exist yet." Then he pointed to the other side, noting that "This is the past. It no longer exists." He then focused on the middle of the pencil as it balanced on the finger equidistant between the point and eraser. "This is the present", he said, "where the non-existent future becomes the non-existence past. The present thus has no extent, merely the non-existent becoming the non-existent. Yet if there is anything it is in this empty and dynamic present."

0 Replies

Hope you had a good session with God last night Jonat !

And BTW did you "explain" to him/her (or yourself) what you meant by "description" without using that socially acquired set of spectacles we call "language" ? (and by "language" we could include "mathematics" which being relatively "culture free" is the language of "science")

(JLN good pencil balancing !)

Regards fresco.

0 Replies

Centroles

Determinism is (IMHO of course) the most jejune, sterile philosophy ever.

What is the point of looking for answers, discovering, or learning if everything is pre-programmed?

You used computers as an illustration, so allow me to point out that integrated circuits, without which computers could not exist, are dependant upon quantum effects. If there is one thing that quantum physicists agree on it is that causality does not apply on a quantum level. (You must have heard of 'the uncertainty principle') So the very computer that you used to illustrate determinism is not considered determined by any of those who know most on the subject.

However, I will accept that you believe in determinism when you demonstrate that you never look before turning across the traffic. If the outcome of your turning across the traffic is predetermined, what possible use would there be in looking? Or when you demonstrate that you are prepared to sky-dive without a parachute. After all, whether or not you land safely is, according to determinism, already decided and you cannot effect it. But once you accept you can effect events - any events - then determinism collapses.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hope you had a good session with God last night Jonat !

Oh, thanks. But not only did i only sleep 4-5 hours, he had the nerve to laugh in my face! Evil or Very Mad

Quote:

And BTW did you "explain" to him/her (or yourself) what you meant by "description" without using that socially acquired set of spectacles we call "language" ? (and by "language" we could include "mathematics" which being relatively "culture free" is the language of "science")

Ah, and there is ANOTHER important word, called language. Very important. Language is our means to express ideas and concept. Earlier i said it was impossible to convey reality. Of course i may be wrong. It may be merely the limitations of the human language.

Let me give an example. An alien race lands on earth and 2 aliens step out to meet us. Hospitable as we are, we decide to show the aliens around. One alien takes a different road and then he sees what is to us a complex structure with no clearly defined shape. The alien examines the object and returns to meet with the other alien. And then the alien speaks only one word to the other alien. The alien who saw the complex statue decides to stay on earth, while the other leaves for his homeplanet. Later on, the alien who went back home came back to our planet bringing along with him a perfect replica of the complex statue. What took us ten thousands of words involving the design, construction and material of the complex statue only took the aliens one word. That one word conveyed concepts like mathematics, the feel of what the object portrayed, and most likely a few concepts that are unknown to us, etc. Anyway, the aliens and humans further collaborated with each other and we discover that the aliens had no idea what "heat" was (don't ask me from what weird planet they came from). It seemed the aliens had no notion of what concepts like cold and heat were. To us, something like heat is easily understandable, but to the aliens it was not so easy to understand. What only took us one word to describe the concept may take the aliens thousands of word to describe. It would then be something like, the adiabatic process is aproximately -10J, energy level is positive, etc. Or it may even be impossible to describe something like "heat" in their language.

What i'm trying to say is that complexity of language portrays our synchronity with reality. It might be possible to perfectly describe the universe in a different language, but impossible with ours. It might be that the human mind is limited. Or is it perhaps human language that imposes the limitation on our minds? Anyways, the mind is also a part of reality. They are not seperate entities. These viewpoints we have are a product of language, which in turn are a product of our mind, which in turn are a product of reality.
Now that is something to think about, is it not? Tell me if you need an Advil. I'll be happy to give you any time. :wink:

0 Replies

jonat3 wrote:

I can see the misunderstanding here. Actually you are right, but what is the ability to choose? If one would analyze that, one would see that condition 1 and 2 combined would be the ability to choose.

Nope, not even close. Your two conditions (i.e. more than one available choice and an "unforced" choice) both assume the ability to choose, but your position leaves no room for any actual choice. It's as if a waiter in a restaurant told a customer: "we have twenty different menu items, but you can only choose to have the prime rib." To you, jonat, that represents a "choice." But, as I mentioned before, it is a false choice, a choice of one possible alternative. It is, in effect, merely a Hobson's choice.

jonat3 wrote:

And that is where you misunderstand, since you see the ability to choose as a 3rd condition, while it is a combination of both 1 and 2.

And that's where you are wrong.

jonat3 wrote:

I believe i adequately explained the misunderstanding with above argument.

And you're still wrong.

jonat3 wrote:

Matter and Energy are (for now) the base components of the universe. And i'm working with the belief that that is all there is. That's why i'm reasonably certain.

Your conclusion that "love" is either matter or energy is not based on inductive reasoning, since you've never said that there have been any scientific tests confirming your thesis. Rather, your conclusion is based on a deductive syllogism: all things are either matter or energy, therefore that thing is either matter or energy. That's not inductive, that's deductive.

Yet you also adhere to another deductive line of reasoning: if something is either matter or energy, it can be measured. And the logical implication of this syllogism is: if something can't be measured, it isn't matter or energy.

Now, you've said that everything is either matter or energy, which means, if you're logically consistent, that everything can be measured. Yet you've all but conceded that "love" can't be measured, so it can't be either matter or energy. That's logically inconsistent. Either "love" is matter or energy, in which case it can be measured, or else it isn't and it can't. But there is no option to have a thing that is either matter or energy and that is also unmeasurable.

jonat3 wrote:

On a message board talking about a mysterious concept like free will one can only use inductive reasoning, that is all we can do.

No, clearly that's not true. Even you haven't relied solely on inductive reasoning.

jonat3 wrote:

However, reasoning is based on logic. If the logic is incorrect, so is the reasoning.

I wholeheartedly agree.

0 Replies

Quote:

Nope, not even close. Your two conditions (i.e. more than one available choice and an "unforced" choice) both assume the ability to choose, but your position leaves no room for any actual choice. It's as if a waiter in a restaurant told a customer: "we have twenty different menu items, but you can only choose to have the prime rib." To you, jonat, that represents a "choice." But, as I mentioned before, it is a false choice, a choice of one possible alternative. It is, in effect, merely a Hobson's choice.

A=Free will, B=two or more possibilities genuinely open, C=choice must not be forced, D=Ability to choose

According to you A=B+C+D. This is FALSE. The correct form is A=D AND A=B+C.
You talk about "freedom" and "choice". But what is freedom? And what is choice? If one were to ask these, we would stumble upon the same base components as those of free will. Freedom is the ability to choose. Choice is thus free will. Free will is B+C. When you say that we do not have the freedom to choose X, it is the same as traveling back in time killing your parents, thus creating a paradox.

Only if B was a 3rd condition would you be allowed to say that we do not have the freedom to choose X, thus the entire process is deterministic. If you cannot prove that A=B+C+D, your entire argument is based on quicksand.

Quote:

And that's where you are wrong.

Not so.

Quote:

And you're still wrong.

Not so again.

Quote:

Your conclusion that "love" is either matter or energy is not based on inductive reasoning, since you've never said that there have been any scientific tests confirming your thesis. Rather, your conclusion is based on a deductive syllogism: all things are either matter or energy, therefore that thing is either matter or energy. That's not inductive, that's deductive.

You yourself stated that thought is neither energy or matter. And even though that is all that has been found, it has not been conclusively proven that that is all there is. This is clearly inductive reasoning. If you are able to prove it with scientific tests, that is deductive reasoning. Weren't you the one who brought up deductive and inductive reasoning in the first place? How could you not tell the difference?!

Quote:

Yet you also adhere to another deductive line of reasoning: if something is either matter or energy, it can be measured. And the logical implication of this syllogism is: if something can't be measured, it isn't matter or energy.

If there was clear evidence that matter and energy was all there is, that would indeed be deductive reasoning. And also, it is supposed to be "most likely measurable". I already stated before that either matter or energy may have a random element or both. So the implication would be, if something isn't measurable, it's random.

Quote:

Now, you've said that everything is either matter or energy, which means, if you're logically consistent, that everything can be measured. Yet you've all but conceded that "love" can't be measured, so it can't be either matter or energy. That's logically inconsistent. Either "love" is matter or energy, in which case it can be measured, or else it isn't and it can't. But there is no option to have a thing that is either matter or energy and that is also unmeasurable.

It can only be measured if neither matter or energy have a random element. If none have a random element, one can say with certainty that love can be measured, etc. And i never said that love can't be measured. If the universe is deterministic, it can definately be measured. Only to devise a way how wuld be very difficult.

Quote:

No, clearly that's not true. Even you haven't relied solely on inductive reasoning.

That is true. The existence of matter and energy are proven. That part is deductive. However, only if free will was already proven, do you not have to rely on inductive reasoning.
But you are right. To try and prove something, one would need a mix of both deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. I just meant that inductive reasoning is ALWAYS necesary to come close to the thruth.

Quote:

I wholeheartedly agree.

Me too.

0 Replies

Jonat3

You certainly give value for money from the naive realism camp! This example of hypthothetical co-operation between ourselves and aliens presupposes commonality of scale, sensory apparatus, and dimensionality as preconditions even to solving problems of circumlocution regarding the cultural status of "statues". (We might note here on the "cultural relativity front" that even on this planet Pacific Islanders have been reported as "falling about" at the sight of Westerners "walking dogs on leads")

Who was it who said "man is the measure of all things" ? ...and since "measurement" starts from "the nominal" can we not infer that "to change the man means to change the universe".

However we digress somewhat from "free will" so I will look forward to locking horns with you on later threads on these issues.

0 Replies

Quote:

Jonat3

You certainly give value for money from the naive realism camp! This example of hypthothetical co-operation between ourselves and aliens presupposes commonality of scale, sensory apparatus, and dimensionality as preconditions even to solving problems of circumlocution regarding the cultural status of "statues". (We might note here on the cultural relativity front that even on this planet Pacific Islanders have been reported as "falling about" at the sight of Westerners "walking dogs on leads")

Who was it who said "man is the measure of all things" ? ...and since "measurement" starts from from "the nominal" can we not infer that "to change the man means to change the universe".

Whoa.. Even though that was a description of my own post, i must admit i had to read that a few times to understand it. I remember reading something similar somwhere in a book. Not sure how different the examples are. Anyway, i had a somewhat similar idea before i read that book. The book just gave me a better way to word it.

Quote:

However we digress somewhat from "free will" so I will look forward to locking horns with you on later threads on these issues.

Likewise. :wink:

0 Replies

truth
Jonat, do you think that the metaphysical notion of "free will" (as opposed to metaphysical determinism") is the same thing as political freedom? If a man in solitary confinement is "unfree" (because of restraints imposed by other men) to choose--as other prisoners are able to--between two meals, say turkey or ham, does that make him METAPHYSICALLY determined or unfree? I would argue that even the other prisoners who are politically free to choose between the turkey and ham meals are STILL subject to the question, are their choices metaphysically determined or free? We mustn't confound levels of discourse.

0 Replies

Quote:

Jonat, do you think that the metaphysical notion of "free will" (as opposed to "determinism") is the same thing as political freedom? If a man is in solitary confinement and is thus "unfree" (because of restraints imposed by other men) to choose--as other prisoners are able to--between two meals, say turkey or ham, does that make him METAPHYSICALLY determined or unfree? I would argue that even the other prisoners who are politically free to choose between the turkey or ham meals are STILL subject to the question, are their choices determined or free, metaphysically speaking? We mustn't confound levels of discourse.

This entire argument of yours uses a play on words where you lose sight of what freedom actually means. I'm talking about freedom on it's most basic level. If we do not have freedom on basic level, than we won't have freedom on other levels. The choice of eating turkey or ham would then be predetermined, and it would also be predetermined that a prisoner would land himself in jail.

0 Replies

i believe that our genes and our brain neuron patters are like computer programs, you input something (such as suggested hatred) and you get an output. Only its not as consistant as a computer program because the program can change ever so slightly, not just because of the unknown location, direction and velocity of the electron.... but because the human brain has the ability to learn, the ability to change the program. But then again, the input is what changes the program in the 1st place.

0 Replies

truth
Jonat, the error in my last post consisted in my failure to distinguish between choosing between two meals and GETTING the meal one chooses. My setting was wrong: the victim of solitary confinement could choose between the two meals even though the choice would get him nothing. But was his choice metaphysically free or pre-determined? I'm addressing the distinction you made earlier between genuine and coerced choice. Are they the same as metaphycially free and pre-determined choice?
By the way, I have no idea what you mean when you charge me with making a play on words. Feel free to explain, if you wish, and if you feel you are free to make such a wish.

0 Replies

I don't have a lot of time I can spend here tonight.

So let me just address one issue. Whether or not I look both ways before crossing the street has nothing to do with determinsim. It's already predetermined that I WILL cross the street. It's predetermined because I have a predetermined desire to live. If I thought the example has any validity, which I don't and I were to cross the street without looking both ways or stop posing in this thread, that too was a caused by events that have already happened or have been set in motion and is thus predetermined. It might have been because some previous event which I had no control over conditioned me into having a faulty sense of logic, and as a result, I bought into the arguement. That too was predetermined.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying that we can predict the future. The number of causal effects that go on at any one moment and contribute to causing the things we do are nearly infinite. No computer could ever take all those effects into consideration at once to determine what hte outcome will be. What I am saying is that each of those causal effects obey a certain set of rules and thus behave in an identical way each time if all the conditions were truly identical both times. And if such were the case, if in any scenario, there's really only one way it'll play out based on how all the other predetermined events influence it, then the universe truly is predetermined. The only exception to this is if something in the universe truly was random. If it's behavior is truly undetermined. Then the influence it will have on other things is also truly undetermined.

As for the uncertainity principle. All that it states is that both the position and velocity of an object can never be precisely MEASURED. And the only consensus is that we donot know or understand the rules which direct the motion of electrons. It's not yet accepted that there aren't any such rules. Assuming that just because we don't understand what directs their motion, that their motion must be random is jumping the gun in a big way. But nevertheless, I acknowledge that it is conceivable that the behavior of electrons truly is random. And if such were the case then that blows determinsim out of the water. But currently there isn't enough evidence to make that contention.

If it is determined that I

0 Replies

I've got Wittgenstein straining at the leash!

The contexts in which we use the term "free will" are functionally different from those for "choice". Unless we address that, we are going to end up with word salad.
(W: "Meaning is use").

We use "free will" in the arena of social contracts and culpability, in which individuals are subject to concepts of "right and wrong" as theoretical binary absolutes. Once we start equating "morality" to "expediency" and "mitigating circumstances" we reduce the effectiveness of "the legal process" as a social regulator. Hence we have a vested interest in maintaining the viability of the concept of "free will".

Once we bring in "general choice" those vested interests above become irrelevent and we can argue ad infinitum as to the nature of the interaction between internal and external states. However we are prone (by analogy) to ascribing "control" nuances to discussion of such states as evidenced by our very usage of the words "freedom" or "law" at any level where we try to predict behaviour.

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know