Trick of the Language?

@medium-density,

Quote:

However I still think there's room for if not lay-chatter then a more universally comprehensible dialogue.

Well put Med. Though we can't decide anything for sure we can skirt around The Basic Truth, conveying a bit of hopeful insight buttressing Intuition (or refuting it)

0 Replies

@medium-density,

Quote:

For instance I still don't understand the specific relevance of naive realism to the question of free will.

Naive realism assumes that that "things exist independent of observers", but from an existentialist viewpoint, "things" are only evoked as cognitive foci when a seamless continuity between actor and world is interrupted. (Are you "thinging the chair" that you are sitting on ? Smile

...well you are now !) At the point of interruption verbal observation kicks in which evokes "self" and and "thing specification according to the will/intentions of self". It may be irrelevant to the general "sitting intention" that I pass you a "stool" rather than "a chair" or a "box". Such classifications captured by words are shorthand for fulfillment of alternative requirements of "self". None of them have meaning outside fulfilling human functionality. And that can be said for all potentially focal "objects". The "tree in the forest" has been willfully selected by you for the purposes of an argument. What we call "trees" may have no existence as such to birds say engaged, in what we call "perching". For birds," trees", "rocks", "telephone poles" etc are functionally equivalent and part of a seamless continuity of action.

So the argument is that
1."Reality" is species specific, not (naive realistically) independent.
2. Humans segment their world into "selves", and "objects" through the socially acquired medium of language.
3. "Selves" which by definition are "actors like others" axiomatically have "will"

1 Reply

@fresco,

*Belated eureka* So on the naive realist account free will is as extant as any other thing we thing in human experience. Yes? We create the universe by describing it, essentially.

Are you with the existentialists on this point?

And that we axiomatically have will I think is undisputed, but is that will free? It seems to me that we can still discuss whether or not will is free within this existentialist framework...?

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Originally Heidegger distinguished between "authentic" and "unauthentic" living. The first implies the exercise of "free will by self" whereas the second implies a blind following of "conditioning" ("self" as a sheep). Later he gave more prominence to role of language as a general pre-conditioning agent which bounded the limits of "free will". As already stated, this is captured by his "language speaks the man". Wittgenstein (who was not labelled "an existentialist") appeared to agree based on his celebrated one-liner "the limts of my language are the limits of my world".

My own position is more towards post-modernism like that of Derrida who attempted to transcend ordinary language by the introduction of neologisms and by exposing the inevitable dichotomies of normal language in which the meaning of words is ephemeral and contextually contrastive relative to other words. Derrida said that one pole of a dichotomy is "priviledged" as authoritative by a proponent who fails realise the essential existence of the other pole which gives his position meaning. i.e "free will" and "determinism" are necessarily co-existent.

And, I lean also towards the position that this transcendence is mirrored in some esoteric philosophies such as Buddhism, in which "self", "will" and "determinism" become aspects of everyday transactional living, but dissolve into insignificance when that transactionalism is "seen for what it is". (Buddhists would say "illusory")

1 Reply

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

It now seems clear that you're making a god of the gaps argument, which Ibeelieve is a mistake. People have always invoked god where the limit of science during their time becomes apparent. Even Newton did it when he couldn't resolve the gravitational complexities of the wider solar system.

Newton's acknowledgment referred to the fundameltal unsolvability of the known equations associated with the problem of three bodies influenced by mutual gravitational attraction. He was both a believer and an accomplished mathematician. He had developed a fundamental and then new breakthrough scientific principle and was referring to its equally fundamental, built in limitations - a point relevant to our discussion. The limitations associated with with the three body problem still exist and will always do so - never mind the fact that we got to the moon in a series of short term numerical solutions based on approximations of the equations and continuous tracking data . I believe that many such invocations of god involve such basic enduring limits, though there indeed have been many that were merely references to things utknowable, not yet understood.

medium-density wrote:

Science of course is officially agnostic on the god question, as it is agnostic in principle on a majority of questions. The point I would seek to make is that theism is no alternative to materialism or science. In a way this discussion is another proof of that assertion: I asked "...what will theism say about the determinants of our actions outside the diagram of "genetic, cultural and environmentsl/experience conditioning"?", and of course you were either unable or unwilling to provide an answer.

I do agree that neither theism nor science are alternatives to the other - they operate in different domains. I did not evade any question that you posed. Theism doesn't "say" anything, and there are many different concepts of god or a creator out there and as many different concepts of man's relationship to such a creator. I happen to believe that I do have a free will, though many or most of my choices can be roughly explained in terms of my experience and environment. Most heroin addicts never give up the drug and remain in control of the powerful physical adaptations resulting from the use of that drug. However, some do.

More to the point, science cannot as yet explain all human choices and behavior. Moreover, there are fundamental reasons (which I have tried to outline here) to believe it will never be able to do so - or at least meet the fundamental scientific test of such knowledge, and that is the ability to reliably predict future behavior in individual cases (as opposed to statistical forecasts & central tendencies).

2 Replies

@medium-density,

Getting back to the OP

Quote:

One second our lives seem to have this infinitely changeable, possible quality, and, after the point at which something happens, things suddenly look like they were destined always to be. Is this right?

No Med I'd say not. Maybe it's a purely semantic issue but the determinist has this fixed notion the Whole Megillah is set up in detail before, at, and after that moment

Quote:

Is the above a totally or even partially true statement?

The latter because I'm sure a few of us might agree with your take

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

….it will never be able to do so - or at least meet the fundamental scientific test of such knowledge, and that is the ability to reliably predict future behavior

True in a purely literal sense Geo. However, according to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, no scientific test can prove anything

……while according to the same principle, the freewill idea is like that of abstraction: It's an analogue not digital issue with unfettered liberty at the left end and absolute determinism at the right

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Derrida said that one pole of a dichotomy is "priviledged" as authoritative by a proponent who fails realise the essential existence of the other pole which gives his position meaning. i.e "free will" and "determinism" are necessarily co-existent.

So you're saying you go along with Derrida, who seems to suggest that free will and determinism (though contradictory) are both equally valid? In terms of the modern philosophical discussion of free will this would make you a compatibalist?

I have difficulty reconciling the two as "necessarily co-existent", except insofar as they clearly both exist as concepts in the human mind and appear in our language. Really mustn't the real-world existence of one preclude the real-world existence of the other?

Perhaps that question won't compute with you, since some of the other ideas you've invoked around this thread suggest that you find the notion of a real-world dubious... I wonder how far you take that view?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The limitations associated with with the three body problem still exist and will always do so...

I was ignorant of this fact, and the point I should have made was that Newton only invoked god where his (and our) ignorance forced him to. So from this view invoking god is another way of throwing in the towel, or accepting a bogus conclusion where no other can be found.

Quote:

More to the point, science cannot as yet explain all human choices and behavior. Moreover, there are fundamental reasons (which I have tried to outline here) to believe it will never be able to do so - or at least meet the fundamental scientific test of such knowledge, and that is the ability to reliably predict future behavior in individual cases (as opposed to statistical forecasts & central tendencies).

It seems very likely that there are questions which aren't scientifically tractable, and if you're not making the mistake of inserting god into the gaps in our understand, you're making the mistake of inserting free will there. I think you're making both those mistakes, as it happens.

To go over the argument again: If there remains a mystery at the heart of a choice you or I have made (or an element of randomness) how can the choice's inscrutability (or its' caprice) be attributed to our freely exercised will?

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Thanks for re-addressing my initial curiosity.

Quote:

Quote:

One second our lives seem to have this infinitely changeable, possible quality, and, after the point at which something happens, things suddenly look like they were destined always to be. Is this right?

No Med I'd say not. Maybe it's a purely semantic issue but the determinist has this fixed notion the Whole Megillah is set up in detail before, at, and after that moment

I was and am very much open to the idea that the above statement is simply describing how it seems, or a perception error. However I'm not sure it is only semantic. What if determinism is true? Wouldn't that mean the unlikely statement above is a more or less accurate picture of the causation matrix with respect to human affairs?

1 Reply

Just want to relate a quick explanation of my weeklong absence from the thread for what it's worth: The hospitalisation of a loved one necessarily reorders one's priorities...

The loved one is recovering, as is my appetite for this discussion. Hope yours hasn't dimmed overmuch.

0 Replies

@medium-density,

Quote:

I was and am very much open to the idea that the above statement is simply describing how it seems, or a perception error.

It certainly does seem that way, but I wouldn't call it a "perception error," as the more perceptive are I think more likely deterministic

Quote:

However I'm not sure it is only semantic. What if determinism is true?

Yes indeed, what if

Quote:

Wouldn't that mean the unlikely statement above is a more or less accurate picture of the causation matrix with respect to human affairs?

As there were several statements above I'm not sure to which one you're referring or in what way. If you mean would determinism set humanoid conduct, why of course it would, absolutely

Quote:

The loved one is recovering,

Happy to be so advised

Quote:

as is my appetite for this discussion.

Neither has mine abated

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

As there were several statements above I'm not sure to which one you're referring or in what way. If you mean would determinism set humanoid conduct, why of course it would, absolutely

For quick clarity I was referring to:

"One second our lives seem to have this infinitely changeable, possible quality, and, after the point at which something happens, things suddenly look like they were destined always to be. Is this right?"

Quote:

Neither has mine abated

Very glad to hear it.

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Quote:

Perhaps that question won't compute with you, since some of the other ideas you've invoked around this thread suggest that you find the notion of a real-world dubious... I wonder how far you take that view?

I take the pragmatists view that is is useless trying to distinguish between "appearance" and "reality".

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Quote:

Wouldn't that mean the unlikely statement above ["One second our lives seem to have this infinitely changeable, possible quality, and, after the point at which something happens, things suddenly look like they were destined always to be. Is this right?"] is a more or less accurate picture of the causation matrix with respect to human affairs?

Forgive me Med but as an oldster fighting off Alz's I can see about seven possible answers, but let me guess: You're asking whether the statement itself, not the q of whether it's right, seems reasonable to most of us, in which case

Yes
….probably

However if you're asking whether it "is a more or less accurate picture of the causation matrix", then you're inquiring whether its conclusion is valid, in which case I can only tentatively agree, as I'm not exactly a determinist

I'd be happy to respond in more detail as I'm almost indefatigable, but don't want to bore you further

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I take the pragmatists view that is is useless trying to distinguish between "appearance" and "reality".

But presumably you do distinguish between appearance and reality? Even the most ardent relativist would be forced into making such a distinction at certain points. So where do you draw the line?

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

You inferred what I was asking correctly, no forgiveness necessary.

It just seemed curious to me that what looks an unlikely statement on the face of it could turn out to be deeply true. I think if this is a deterministic universe then that statement holds.

Quote:

I'd be happy to respond in more detail as I'm almost indefatigable, but don't want to bore you further

More detail is always welcome. As is more discussion. Going back to another earlier statement of mine: "We are caused beings" -if this is all that you need to grant in order to consider determinism as true in human affairs then why wouldn't you? If "determinism" has too much philosophical baggage then why not invoke a new appellation? "Causationism", perhaps. Or something less literal and clunky...

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Quote:

You inferred what I was asking correctly, no forgiveness necessary.

Aha again Med you've made my day, maybe well into the evening

Quote:

It just seemed curious to me that what looks an unlikely statement on the face of it could turn out to be deeply true. I think if this is a deterministic universe then that statement holds.

Well, Med, yes, no. Depends on to which statement you have reference as unlikely, what precisely is considered true, and how you define "determinism"

Quote:
…..., but don't want to bore you further

Quote:

More detail is always welcome. As is more discussion.

Careful there, Med

Quote:

Going back to another earlier statement of mine: "We are caused beings" -if this is all that you need to grant in order to consider determinism as true in human affairs then why wouldn't you?

Of course I would but forgive me Med, no offense, your q seems tautologic. Maybe you could rephrase it

Quote:

If "determinism" has too much philosophical baggage

To me it doesn't. I see it as everything laid out in advance, before the present, at the present, after the present. Simple

Quote:

then why not invoke a new appellation? "Causationism", perhaps. Or something less literal and clunky...

Sure, why not. But by this new term what exactly do you mean

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Quote:

It just seemed curious to me that what looks an unlikely statement on the face of it could turn out to be deeply true. I think if this is a deterministic universe then that statement holds.

Well, Med, yes, no. Depends on to which statement you have reference as unlikely, what precisely is considered true, and how you define "determinism"

1. I'm talking about the statement we've been discussing which appears in my original post which started the thread.
2. What precisely is considered true... I'm not sure of the context in which you pose the question, but to talk generally about truth I suppose beyond flapping a folder full of peer-reviewed studies backing up what I say what we consider true is all up for discussion. The only constraints I'd seek to impose on this is some deference to logic, empiricism, or failing that just having good reasons to believe something is true.
3. I would probably define determinism as the view that, in principle, the universe is predictable and runs according to laws of causation. I.e. if you could freeze frame the universe and could know the position of every atom then you would be able (based on current positions and past trajectories) to predict their next move.

Though I'm inclined also to simply say determinism is the view that things are caused and nothing more.

Quote:

Of course I would but forgive me Med, no offense, your q seems tautologic. Maybe you could rephrase it

No I find it quite hard to stay off the tautologies, I often find a pleasing irony in them. Also this subject is fairly tautologies to me, in that free will feels like a philosophical nonstarter; the debate is over before it has begun. But to get to the needed rephrasing, I just really wanted to ask what keeps you from fully embracing determinism as defined by me in this post? By "Causationism" I mean the same.

3 Replies

@medium-density,

Hi, MD
Sorry to hear about your loved one. You have my best wishes in regard to his/her recovery and your fortitude in dealing with the crisis.

I noticed that you have a sort of "God of the gaps" view of free will in relation to determinism. I think I understand now your view of determinism.
I think our general confusion is what would "free will" be to you. You have defined it (to my understanding) merely as the polar opposite of determinism.

MD wrote:

3. I would probably define determinism as the view that, in principle, the universe is predictable and runs according to laws of causation. I.e. if you could freeze frame the universe and could know the position of every atom then you would be able (based on current positions and past trajectories) to predict their next move.

Like a discussion of God, if you ask someone if they think it exists, you will get many different responses depending on what "God" means.
If you are asking me what "free will" means I would say that it is un-caused causation. For a visual metaphore, if you were taking the clockwork universe view (which I think you do) then this would be like a gear in the clock spinning without being spun by some other gear.

I happened to be a realist (unlike some of the others who have posted on this thread). I would consider myself also a compatibilist, but this is NOT because I think that the reality is non-existent nor even that it is non-deterministic at it foundational level. It has to do with "emergent" behaviors even within deterministic models (computer models).

I think that your clock-work universe model is simply acting as a disservice to you. The model is too simplistic, it is not an accurate description of reality, it is not even an accurate description of ideal deterministic reality within mathematical systems.
Clocks are not computational (well they kind of are now, but that's a whole 'nother story Wink

).

Again my hopes for you and your loved one. Very Happy

1 Reply

Trick of the Language?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know