Subjectivism In Relation To Determinism

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Is subjectivism compatible or incompatible with determinism? In determinism for instance there is still randomness in the sense of quantum physics. What is subjectivism other than that of all minds thinking randomly?

Since all lives are different where each have their own unique experiences in life I feel that a mental subjective state is determined in each of us.

[Mr_Reasonable]

The point at which randomness becomes a consideration is the same point at which the limitations of determinism are demonstrated.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@mr reasonable

The point at which randomness becomes a consideration is the same point at which the limitations of determinism are demonstrated.

Is the nature of randomness not also determined?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Other proponents of emergentist or generative philosophy, cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, argue that determinism is true. They suggest instead that an illusion of free will is experienced due to the generation of infinite behaviour from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters. Thus the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity does not exist.Certain experiments looking at the neuroscience of free will can be said to support this possibility.[citation needed]
As an illustration, the strategy board-games chess and Go have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards’ face-values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice-rolling) happen within the game. Yet, chess and especially Go with its extremely simple deterministic rules, can still have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By this analogy, it is suggested, the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate nearly infinite and practically unpredictable behaviourial responses.

deepuniversetruth.wordpress.com … -universe/

[Mr_Reasonable]

@HaHaHa

@mr reasonable

The point at which randomness becomes a consideration is the same point at which the limitations of determinism are demonstrated.

Is the nature of randomness not also determined?

Define nature.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@mr reasonable

@HaHaHa

@mr reasonable

The point at which randomness becomes a consideration is the same point at which the limitations of determinism are demonstrated.

Is the nature of randomness not also determined?

Define nature.

Environmental causality of an existential, biological, and universal reality sense.

[Mr_Reasonable]

@HaHaHa

Other proponents of emergentist or generative philosophy, cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, argue that determinism is true. They suggest instead that an illusion of free will is experienced due to the generation of infinite behaviour from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters. Thus the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity does not exist.Certain experiments looking at the neuroscience of free will can be said to support this possibility.[citation needed]
As an illustration, the strategy board-games chess and Go have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards’ face-values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice-rolling) happen within the game. Yet, chess and especially Go with its extremely simple deterministic rules, can still have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By this analogy, it is suggested, the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate nearly infinite and practically unpredictable behaviourial responses.

deepuniversetruth.wordpress.com … -universe/

What did it take you like 5 seconds to copy this from google. Check it out man…I can do the whole free will determinism thing in my own words without looking at any cheat sheets. It’s all old and settled stuff. The arguments on each side only go so far, and neither can completely negate the possibility of the other being true.

[Mr_Reasonable]

@HaHaHa

Environmental causality of an existential, biological, and universal reality sense.

Well then to the extent that this phenomenon has effect, some thing would be determined.

But then wouldn’t it follow that you could adhere to whatever pattern yielded your proof of this phenomenon and extend it a bit in order to make accurate predictions about future events in the same chain of causation?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@mr reasonable

@HaHaHa

Other proponents of emergentist or generative philosophy, cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, argue that determinism is true. They suggest instead that an illusion of free will is experienced due to the generation of infinite behaviour from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters. Thus the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity does not exist.Certain experiments looking at the neuroscience of free will can be said to support this possibility.[citation needed]
As an illustration, the strategy board-games chess and Go have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards’ face-values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice-rolling) happen within the game. Yet, chess and especially Go with its extremely simple deterministic rules, can still have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By this analogy, it is suggested, the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate nearly infinite and practically unpredictable behaviourial responses.

deepuniversetruth.wordpress.com … -universe/

What did it take you like 5 seconds to copy this from google. Check it out man…I can do the whole free will determinism thing in my own words without looking at any cheat sheets. It’s all old and settled stuff. The arguments on each side only go so far, and neither can completely negate the possibility of the other being true.

Ah, come on, don’t be like that. I just posted some peer reviewed stuff by another person because I found it interesting.

In order to come up with our own ideas, thoughts, and perceptions, do we not learn from others first?

Cheat sheets? Settled stuff? It’s still a big open wide debate from where I am standing.

[Moreno]

@HaHaHa

Is subjectivism compatible or incompatible with determinism? In determinism for instance there is still randomness in the sense of quantum physics. What is subjectivism other than that of all minds thinking randomly?

Is your mind thinking randomly?

Since all lives are different where each have their own unique experiences in life I feel that a mental subjective state is determined in each of us.

So, it’s not random.

And then we are not blank slates. So we have similar natures and then in groups - say, working class, abused male, medium sized city, white - there are going to be similarities.

But in any case I am not sure what you are saying. Is it random or determined? Or do you mean that there will be a range of minds determined contingently?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@Moreno

@HaHaHa

Is subjectivism compatible or incompatible with determinism? In determinism for instance there is still randomness in the sense of quantum physics. What is subjectivism other than that of all minds thinking randomly?

Is your mind thinking randomly?

Since all lives are different where each have their own unique experiences in life I feel that a mental subjective state is determined in each of us.

So, it’s not random.

And then we are not blank slates. So we have similar natures and then in groups - say, working class, abused male, medium sized city, white - there are going to be similarities.

But in any case I am not sure what you are saying. Is it random or determined? Or do you mean that there will be a range of minds determined contingently?

Random life experiences shape minds randomly and separately from each other thus subjectivism. I think there are determining factors in all of this.

I also feel that randomness isn’t incompatible with determinism.

Or do you mean that there will be a range of minds determined contingently?

Yes, I think that is where I am trying to arrive at in conversation.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The principle of functions states that a function can always and only coexist with another function as demonstrated experimentally in all systems as the outside-inside, convex-concave, clockwise-counterclockwise, tension-compression couples.

— R. Buckminster Fuller, Synergetics 226.01

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Here are several ways to see the dual and co-occurant qualities of the stochastic and deterministic models or world views.

In a deterministic model of the world, the fixed set of laws that govern everything apply to every quanta of energy or their constituents. So computing the state of the world requires applying these fixed laws to each such quanta from some initial state and iterating through each picosecond of time. Clearly, this is computationally infeasible except for the computer known as Universe itself. So any effective simulation or calculation will entail estimates and approximations, that is, randomness. Unwittingly, randomness imposes itself into the system!

Conversely, in a stochastic model the relationships between data are given by frequencies with respect to their sample space, the set of possible outcomes. What could be more deterministic than the elementary counting of frequencies? Indeed probability is basically a form of advanced counting in ratios. Deterministic indeed!

Now consider measurement. The basis of a scientific model involves measurable parameters. Data are measurements. Science has determined that all measurements involve uncertainty. MIT physicist Walter Lewin puts it emphatically: “any measurement that you make without any knowledge of the uncertainty is meaningless!” Measurement theory is built upon the law of error which is a principle of the science of randomness. Hard data acquires its validity and persuasiveness from the science of chance!

blog.cjfearnley.com/2012/02/21/d … y-coexist/

[Mr_Reasonable]

If you’re standing someplace where it seems like free will and determinism is still a wide open debate then I think you’re standing in the wrong place. I said it earlier…neither side can demonstrate it to be the case that it’s impossible for the other side to be true. That’s how philosophical “debates” work. You take a side and you can run on the treadmill, but you’re not getting anywhere until you see how the sides meet and function together outside the thought experiment in the real world. You’re free to do some things, other things you’re not. You’re free to want to flap your arms and fly, but you’re not free to flap your arms and fly. That’s not an opinion, or a government rule…that’s how that shit really is.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@mr reasonable

If you’re standing someplace where it seems like free will and determinism is still a wide open debate then I think you’re standing in the wrong place. I said it earlier…neither side can demonstrate it to be the case that it’s impossible for the other side to be true. That’s how philosophical “debates” work. You take a side and you can run on the treadmill, but you’re not getting anywhere until you see how the sides meet and function together outside the thought experiment in the real world. You’re free to do some things, other things you’re not. You’re free to want to flap your arms and fly, but you’re not free to flap your arms and fly. That’s not an opinion, or a government rule…that’s how that shit really is.

So, free-will is limited and in these limitations are determined in a set of constrained parameters?

[Mr_Reasonable]

@HaHaHa

Is subjectivism compatible or incompatible with determinism? In determinism for instance there is still randomness in the sense of quantum physics. What is subjectivism other than that of all minds thinking randomly?

Since all lives are different where each have their own unique experiences in life I feel that a mental subjective state is determined in each of us.

Subject and object are only distinct in thought experiments and misunderstandings. You’ve got an individual viewpoint that’s a result of the uniqueness of your experiences, but you got it the same way as everyone else…through a uniform physical process of perception, (sight, smell, hearing, etc…). So there’s the unique you, but not everything about you is unique. So not even all of a single person is entirely subjective. But enough so at least that you can tell the difference between yourself and other objects in the world. Then, there are the objects in the world, which in any instance during which you’re confronted with, a relation is then formed between your self and the object. So any proposition that occurs there would contain elements of an object and of your self, so in real life the “distinction” isn’t as distinct as some others you might encounter in a philosophy class.

[Mr_Reasonable]

@HaHaHa

@mr reasonable

If you’re standing someplace where it seems like free will and determinism is still a wide open debate then I think you’re standing in the wrong place. I said it earlier…neither side can demonstrate it to be the case that it’s impossible for the other side to be true. That’s how philosophical “debates” work. You take a side and you can run on the treadmill, but you’re not getting anywhere until you see how the sides meet and function together outside the thought experiment in the real world. You’re free to do some things, other things you’re not. You’re free to want to flap your arms and fly, but you’re not free to flap your arms and fly. That’s not an opinion, or a government rule…that’s how that shit really is.

So, free-will is limited and in these limitations are determined in a set of constrained parameters?

Duh. Some things are determined, some things are matters of choice.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@mr reasonable

@HaHaHa

@mr reasonable

If you’re standing someplace where it seems like free will and determinism is still a wide open debate then I think you’re standing in the wrong place. I said it earlier…neither side can demonstrate it to be the case that it’s impossible for the other side to be true. That’s how philosophical “debates” work. You take a side and you can run on the treadmill, but you’re not getting anywhere until you see how the sides meet and function together outside the thought experiment in the real world. You’re free to do some things, other things you’re not. You’re free to want to flap your arms and fly, but you’re not free to flap your arms and fly. That’s not an opinion, or a government rule…that’s how that shit really is.

So, free-will is limited and in these limitations are determined in a set of constrained parameters?

Duh. Some things are determined, some things are matters of choice.

…Yet choices are often enough preselected or determined…

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@mr reasonable

@HaHaHa

Is subjectivism compatible or incompatible with determinism? In determinism for instance there is still randomness in the sense of quantum physics. What is subjectivism other than that of all minds thinking randomly?

Since all lives are different where each have their own unique experiences in life I feel that a mental subjective state is determined in each of us.

Subject and object are only distinct in thought experiments and misunderstandings. You’ve got an individual viewpoint that’s a result of the uniqueness of your experiences, but you got it the same way as everyone else…through a uniform physical process of perception, (sight, smell, hearing, etc…). So there’s the unique you, but not everything about you is unique. So not even all of a single person is entirely subjective. But enough so at least that you can tell the difference between yourself and other objects in the world. Then, there are the objects in the world, which in any instance during which you’re confronted with, a relation is then formed between your self and the object. So any proposition that occurs there would contain elements of an object and of your self, so in real life the “distinction” isn’t as distinct as some others you might encounter in a philosophy class.

I divide things up with subject being mind and object being everything outside of mind.

[Mr_Reasonable]

@HaHaHa

So, free-will is limited and in these limitations are determined in a set of constrained parameters?

Duh. Some things are determined, some things are matters of choice.
[/quote]
…Yet choices are often enough preselected or determined…
[/quote]
What do you mean, “yet”? That’s embedded in what I said. Some things are choices, others aren’t. When the choices are eat a bag of shit or drink a bag of piss…you still have a choice.