Determinism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Determinism

Postby Iamthegodoftruth » Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:54 am

Truth does not “correspond” to reality. Reality is exactly what we mean by the words “truth” or “true”.
Iamthegodoftruth
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:49 am

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Aug 18, 2020 2:31 pm

Iamthegodoftruth wrote:Compatibilism fails by being a merely academic abnormality involving weirdnesses like “truth makers” and such nonsense.

It’s simply a fact that deterministic causalism is the case. If you don’t believe it then gtfo of philosophy since you won’t be able to do it.
Your version of philosophy seems to be 1) making unsupported assertions 2) making appeals to incredulity and 3) being an ass. You can't have much internet experience. There are millions and millions of people who are your kind of philosopher.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:47 pm

Iamthegodoftruth wrote:Truth does not “correspond” to reality. Reality is exactly what we mean by the words “truth” or “true”.


First of all, given my own own understanding of a wholly determined universe...a universe in which the human brain/mind/"I" is but one more inherent/necessary component of the only possible material truth/reality...you typing the words above then and me reading them now could never have not been the case.

So, in a way that is difficult to explain, say, scientifically, I have to assume that instead we have at least some measure of autonomy in order to argue the point in a way that those who believe in free will insist these things are discussed and debated. Of our own volition.

All the while acknowledging that this in and of itself is only explicable going back to that which wholly explains the existence of existence itself.

Consequently, how would any advocates of compatibilism here react to that?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:03 pm

godoftroof, you're right on. As sam harris once put it, 'freewill' is an impossibility for any conceivable material universe. This argument was over a century ago, and yet these philostophers still bang on about it.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3607
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:18 pm

promethean75 wrote:godoftroof, you're right on. As sam harris once put it, 'freewill' is an impossibility for any conceivable material universe. This argument was over a century ago, and yet these philostophers still bang on about it.


Okay, so what does this tell us about the arguments unfolding here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=195888

:-k
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:10 pm

Iamthegodoftruth wrote:Compatibilism fails by being a merely academic abnormality involving weirdnesses like “truth makers” and such nonsense.

It’s simply a fact that deterministic causalism is the case. If you don’t believe it then gtfo of philosophy since you won’t be able to do it.

Yes, deterministic causalism is another word for logic.

The facts, that things are determined more interestingly than humans can generally know, and that causes are more profound than humans dare to know, and that general human grasp on logic is wanting, are not due to any flaws deterministic causalism as such.

To argue against deterministic causalism using logic, which is deterministic causalism, is clearly not going to yield much fruit.
Still and all in order to make a proper logical argument one needs sound knowledge and understanding of all things considered to begin with. And such knowledge and understanding has emerged only quite recently in philosophy.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Determinism

Postby Artimas » Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:40 am

The fact wisdom exists, defeats what determinism is as a whole really. The system itself cannot be understood by itself, which leads to free will. The choice when the ability is had, to understand such system. The world used to be determinism ruled, until consciousness. Determinism effects the subconscious state much more.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 21, 2020 7:18 pm

Artimas wrote:The fact wisdom exists, defeats what determinism is as a whole really. The system itself cannot be understood by itself, which leads to free will. The choice when the ability is had, to understand such system. The world used to be determinism ruled, until consciousness. Determinism effects the subconscious state much more.


In other words, the fact that your brain worked this out proves that your brain worked it out of your mind's "I" own free will.

A world of words in which the words are true because they are defined and defended by more words still.

And if you took this intellectual contraption to the neuroscientists who are actually engaging the "scientific method" in probing the brain here experimentally, they would confirm beyond all possible doubt that this is true. Some even being able to go all the way back to explaining how the existence of the human species itself fits into a definitive understanding of why something exists rather than nothing, and why this something and not something else.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:15 am

Artimas wrote:The fact wisdom exists, defeats what determinism is as a whole really.

As a linear thing yes, but in a Relativistic universe causality is rounded on all sides, it is just a matter of where you begin attributing cause.

Some philosophers relinquish the will to know a first cause and simply posit their own wisdom as the central cause.

The mind contains future and past and brews them into something which exists in the present but is different from the present; a kind of antagonistic, very limited representation of the factors that go into and come out of the present which attacks it from both the past and the future. Inspiration is in allowing this attack to happen and orchestrate a part in it for oneself indifferently to anything other than the fact of attack.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:34 pm

"An Argument For Compatibilism"
Jason Streitfeld
from the Specter of Reason website

I do agree that many people want free will from a God's-eye view and by appeal to ultimate causality, and they will not be easily satisfied by the psycho-social foundations of free will I have described.


This observation alone encompasses just how problematic discussions like this can become. He says that he agrees but he may well be saying that only because he was compelled by his brain compelled by the laws of nature to say it. Just as we say we are choosing to read his words only in assuming that it was within our own autonomous capacity to choose not to. And then when, compelled or not, we bring God into the discussion that just adds another convoluted layer. After all, if an omniscient God is just another inherent manifestation of a wholly created universe...what then? Or, if, instead, an omniscient God created the universe and then created us to be autonomous how is what we choose to do not already known by God Himself. How here is free will squared with His omniscient nature?

And, again, in reflecting on all of this how is the mind of the compatibilist qualitatively different from the mind of the determinist? What, given the compatibilist perspective, would be any different? In particular, in regard to human interactions down here on Earth.

I have not altered the definition of "free will" or the definition of "moral responsibility." All I have done is shown that the foundation for moral responsibility people think they want is an impossibility. People are mistaken about what could make them deserving of punishment or reward. It cannot be ultimate causality. People might therefore conclude that there is no such thing as moral responsibility. They might say that, if God doesn't exist, nobody is morally responsible for anything. And, indeed, it would seem that there cannot be free will if there is no moral responsibility. However, the way forward is not to simply claim that there is no free will.


These points are embedded in an argument for compatibilism. When all I want to know is how on earth in a determined universe points that could only have been made are somehow in sync with the idea that peacegirl and others raise in distinguishing between choosing to raise them and "choosing" to raise them. I see this as embedded necessarily in the the psychological illusion of free will embedded necessarily in how the human brain must function.

The way forward is to explain why morality does make sense from a psycho-social point of view--why people should invest in their sense of moral responsibility. Of course, you cannot argue that people should embrace moral responsibility without begging the question. But what you can argue for is a coherent picture of the way moral responsibility actually works. If a person can be convinced that moral responsibility does make sense in psycho-social terms, then they will have made room for belief in free will, and no definitions will have been altered.


The way forward [for me] is to explain how the past, present and future move as they do when a distinction is made between hard determinism and compatibilism. What changes in regard to what actually does happen?

And why focus on morality and moral responsibility if one is only ever able to make that the focus in the only argument that one is ever able to make. Isn't that why? If you argue for a coherent picture going all the way back to what brought into existence the laws of matter themselves isn't your argument going to be just another inherent component of that?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:11 pm

From chaos to free will
A crude understanding of physics sees determinism at work in the Universe. Luckily, molecular uncertainty ensures this isn’t so
George Ellis at the aeon website

The French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) believed that the Universe was a piece of machinery, and that physics determines everything. Napoleon, who had read up on Laplace’s work, confronted him about the conspicuous absence of a creator in his theory. ‘I had no need of that hypothesis,’ came the reply. Laplace might have said the same thing about free will, which his mechanistic universe rendered superfluous.


Of course it doesn't matter what he might have said, only whether he could have said something entirely different. And then the extent to which, if he could have, we can determine definitively how to demonstrate this.

What is or is not superfluous in regard to matter unfolding into the future?

Since Laplace’s day, scientists, philosophers and even neuroscientists have followed his lead in denying the possibility of free will. This reflects a widespread belief among theoretical physicists that if you know the initial values of the variables that characterise a physical system, together with the equations that explain how these variables change over time, then you can calculate the state of the system at all later times. For example, if you know the positions and velocities of all the particles that make up a gas in a container, you can determine the positions and velocities of all those particles at all later times. This means that there should be no freedom for any deviation from this physically determined trajectory.


Come on, we all know the toppled domino here that brings all of this into question: the evolution of matter into biological life into a central nervous system into a brain into a mind into an "I" actually able to convince itself that any number of things it chooses to think and feel and say and do excludes all of the things it freely chose not to.

This is where scientists and philosophers have been spinning their wheels now going back to the very first mind that tried to grapple with it all the way to the final explanation.

In philosophy it's called an antimony: "a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable". Like the one where existence is infinite or it is not. Or the one where existence had a beginning or it did not.

In science, on the other hand, beliefs are tested "in the lab". Actual experiments are conducted with the human brain in order to pin down the empirical relationships between the chemical and neurological interactions. And here the assumption on their part may or may not be that they are going about this of their own free will.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:19 pm

From chaos to free will
A crude understanding of physics sees determinism at work in the Universe. Luckily, molecular uncertainty ensures this isn’t so
George Ellis at the aeon website

Consider, then, that everything we see around us – rocks and planets, frogs and trees, your body and brain – is made up of nothing but protons, electrons and neutrons put together in very complex ways. In the case of your body, they make many kinds of cells; in turn, these cells make tissues, such as muscle and skin; these tissues make systems, such as the heart, lungs and brain; and these systems make the body as a whole.


And then the considerably more problematic part: brains evolving into minds evolving into self-conscious minds evolving into you and I grappling to come up with a definitive understanding of whether or not the understanding itself is only as it could ever have been.

Really, is it any wonder than that, given some explanation for the existence of free will, one of the first things that the minds of mere mortals will do is to invent Gods. Let Him be the explanation. Then we are left only with reconciling human autonomy with the fact that most insist that their own God is omniscient.

It might seem that everything that’s happening at the higher, ‘emergent’ levels should be uniquely determined by the physics operating beneath them. This would mean that the thoughts you’re having at this very moment were predetermined at the start of the Universe, based on the values of the particle physics variables at that time.


It might seem or it must seem? Isn't that the question? And yet try as most of us might [including myself] to wrap our heads around the reality that typing these very words or reading them is really just another manifestation of nature on automatic pilot, it just seems ridiculous. We invent words like "visceral" to connote a sense of certainty that goes beyond simple explanation. We just know we have free will.

After all...

Now you might be forgiven for doubting whether William Shakespeare’s sonnets, Winston Churchill’s speeches and the words in Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time (1988) really came into being in this way. And you would be right to doubt: there are many problems with the skeptics’ position.


True, but there are also "many problems" noted for those on the other side as well: https://www.debate.org/opinions/does-free-will-exist

Let's call these "conflicting assumptions".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:37 pm

Wonderer wrote:do you assume that we will eventually be able to understand our nature to the extent that we can rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?


We can only understand our nature to the extent that we cannot rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:59 pm

From chaos to free will
A crude understanding of physics sees determinism at work in the Universe. Luckily, molecular uncertainty ensures this isn’t so
George Ellis at the aeon website

At very small scales, quantum theory underlies what’s happening in the world. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle introduces an unavoidable fuzziness and an irreducible uncertainty in quantum outcomes. You might know the value of one variable, such as a particle’s momentum, but that means you can’t accurately detect another, such as its position. This seems to fundamentally undermine the allegedly iron-clad link between initial data and physical results. However, this is controversial, so I’ll set it aside for now, as important as it is. Instead, I’ll focus on key aspects of causation that occur in the molecular biology of neurons in the brain.


So, will there ever be a time when it doesn't have to be "set aside"? A time when the world of the very, very large and the world of the very, very small fit together seamlessly in an actual extant "theory of everything". And then the part where the theory can be translated into an explanation for how the human mind fits into it given our day to day interactions? To be or not to be free?

In fact, it's that very fuzziness sustaining all the uncertainties that allows us to voice all manner of conflicting assumptions generating all manner of conflicting conclusions. You might not be correct but no one is able to establish that you are wrong. Compelled or not.

One of the most astounding discoveries of the previous century was that biological activity at the micro level is literally grounded in the physical shape of biological molecules, particularly DNA, RNA and proteins. This discovery became possible only when X-ray crystallography had progressed to the point of allowing us to determine the extraordinarily complex detailed structure and foldings of these molecules.


On the other hand, as MA noted on another thread, "if humans are made out of molecules, and if molecules can't speak, neither can humans" is nonsense. And yet it clearly seems to be the case that somehow we go from the fact of being constructed out of non-conscious atomic and sub-atomic particles to a very much conscious "I".

Doesn't the whole matter of determinism then revolve around how on earth to explain mind itself? Matter becomes mindful. How? Why? The very fact that matter can now ponder matter itself "ontologically" and "teleologically" seems, well, almost surreal to some.

Or, to others, attributable only to God. In particular, their God.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:23 pm

From chaos to free will
A crude understanding of physics sees determinism at work in the Universe. Luckily, molecular uncertainty ensures this isn’t so
George Ellis at the aeon website

The structure of...molecules is truly the secret of life, as Francis Crick and James Watson exclaimed when they discovered the double helix structure of DNA, helped by the work of Rosalind Franklin. This deservedly led to huge public excitement about how DNA molecules encode our genetic inheritance. However, it is the structure of other molecules – proteins and associated messenger molecules – that in fact makes things happen at the cellular level. DNA is important only because it codes for the proteins that do the real biological work.


Okay, but what of the "structure of molecules" when the brain configures into mind configures into "I"? What of these molecules when, as most intrigues me, one "I" comes into contact with another "I" and fierce conflicts erupt over which set of behaviors will be either rewarded or punished?

What of DNA and proteins and messenger molecules then? Where does nature's code end and our own autonomous free will begin when, say, the conflict becomes entangled in politics such that attempts are made to encode human behaviors through the law? Behaviors actually able to be enforced.

Here's how remarkably mechanical it gets on the biological level:

For example, haemoglobin in blood cells transports oxygen from the lungs to the rest of the body. Rhodopsin in the eye absorbs light and turns it into electrical signals. Kinesin and dynein are motor proteins that transport materials from one place to another in a cell. Enzymes speed up chemical reactions by such huge amounts that they essentially turn them on and off. Voltage-gated ion channels serve as biological versions of transistors, while ligand-gated ion channels allow messenger molecules (‘ligands’) such as neurotransmitters to convey information from one cell to another in the brain. And so it goes. And all this functioning follows from the details of the complex shapes of these proteins.


And it all unfolds such that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the biological "players" here have the slightest inkling as to why they do this instead of that? How then are the dots connected here between biological imperatives and any one particular "I" using these laws of nature to "instruct" the body -- their own -- to choose one thing over another?

This means that, to link physics and biology, we need to look at the theory that underlies molecular shape. And that theory is quantum chemistry, based in the fundamental equation of quantum physics: the Schrödinger equation. In quantum theory, the state of a system is described by what’s known as its wave function, which determines the probabilities of different outcomes when events take place. The Schrödinger equation governs how the wave function changes with time. For example, it governs the process of quantum tunnelling, which in turn underlies important physical effects such as how the Sun generates energy via nuclear fusion, photosynthesis in plants, and flash memories you use to store data in computer USB flash drives.


Yep, here we go again. Making an attempt at an explanation by noting the manner in which material interactions on the quantum level are often indeterminant. Surreal even. At least in terms of pinning down definitively why and how relationships unfold as they do -- as they must -- "down there". What of cause and effect when the "viewers" themselves somehow determine the outcome? We can only imagine that consciousness itself is explainable in regard to all of the pieces still missing when biologists and physicists either agree or disagree with respect to what is actually happening in a brain derived from DNA derived from matter containing who knows what combinations of these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

And that's before we get to how all of this fits into a definitive understanding of dark matter and dark energy.

What of "I" there?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:43 pm

From chaos to free will
A crude understanding of physics sees determinism at work in the Universe. Luckily, molecular uncertainty ensures this isn’t so
George Ellis at the aeon website

The confounding thing for free-will skeptics is that all outcomes don’t depend only on the equations and the initial data. They also depend on constraints. An example is an apple under the influence of gravity, such as the one that Isaac Newton watched fall to the ground from a tree at Woolsthorpe Manor. That was its unconstrained motion.


Again, if you are a free will skeptic isn't this "confounding thing" no less only what it could ever have been? Either from inside your head, inside the heads of others or wholly in sync with nature going back to the explanation for nature's existence itself.

Thus, once we admit that we are all stuck here until "I" itself is understood definitively, these "intellectual assessments" can only be but one more component of what seems to be an inherently problematic examination itself. Unless, of course, I keep missing something here that makes my own ambiguity/ambivalence go away.

And what might that be?

Constraints would become but one more domino toppling over in a causal chain that includes all of the dominos in all of the material interaction that there ever were, are now or ever will be. Sure, one can speak of them in assessments such as this as though one might have "chosen" not to have spoken of them at all [or spoke of them differently], but nothing in the assessment itself is an actual outlier given what would seem to be a seamless intertwining of all matter in sync with the laws that compel them over time and across space.

Now suppose Newton had suspended the apple from a branch of the tree by a string attached to its stalk. It would thereby have been turned into a pendulum, because the string constrained its motion. Instead of dropping to the ground, it would have swung back and forth in a circular arc under the branch, with its state of motion determined uniquely by its initial position and velocity. Consequently, the motions of all the billions of atoms that make up the apple would then also be determined by the string. It would make each of them also move in a circular arc under the support. This is how constraints shape outcomes.


Okay, suppose he had done that. So what? Given the assumptions of those who suppose that all interactions -- from what Newton did then to what we are doing now -- are at one with the only possible reality. What constrains everything that everyone of us think and feel and say and do are the laws of matter. If...if those laws are no less applicable to the human brain configured into mind configured into consciousness configured into "I".

Yes, given the laws of physics, the apple on the string would behave differently from the apple not on a string and just falling to the ground. But how is this applicable or not in turn to Newton either tying the apple to a string or not tying it?

And it's not like the atoms involved in either context get together to decide this.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Artimas » Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:30 am

When you say things like the brain compelling things, it just makes me think of inanimate matter, what compelled such unconscious state of matter to react and diversify even further? What compels a tree to do what a tree does, all without a brain, it’s root system? It just seems more than such. Consciousness came before physical manifestation, the intent is the evolutionary string itself of which directs this all, a simultaneously overlapping change. That ‘something’ over nothing. Timeless awareness doesn’t always obey cause coming before effect. Sometimes the effect is the cause and if one may rest outside of that chain being causality, one is free from the standard of cause leading to effect rather than vice versa.

So if determinism is cause and effect, causality, and if one is timeless awareness not necessarily always bound to present, what is effect that may lead to cause? If an effect occurs before a cause, does there have to be a cause if choice simultaneously exists?

Is this not why people teach children to “turn the other cheek”? Or why they teach them at all? If it was all drawn out as being just pure causality, what’s the need for educating? To eliminate possible causes? No, to eliminate effects, and if one can SEE so far ahead as to what an effect MAY be, it proves not only timeless awareness but a will that IS free, outside of the chain. Like it has been stated already, the observer is not bound. An identity(ego) is merely a mechanism or receiver to function in a physical manifested existence that was consciously imagined or dreamt up, it is nothing more than that. It isn’t reverse.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:58 pm

Artimas wrote: When you say things like the brain compelling things, it just makes me think of inanimate matter, what compelled such unconscious state of matter to react and diversify even further? What compels a tree to do what a tree does, all without a brain, it’s root system?


Back to dreams. I don't know about yours, but mine are simply breathtaking when it comes to creating these astonishing "worlds" that I find myself "in". And rarely are mine "surreal". Instead they revolve around actual contexts I am entirely familiar with. I find myself being with others from my past. I find myself seeing things, hearing things, touching things, reading things, experiencing things in great detail. They simply boggle my mind.

But it is my brain that is creating these worlds.

Why? and How? And how can I know beyond all doubt that my material brain is not able in turn to create the psychological illusion of my freely choosing to type these words. Sure, a part of me scoffs at this. But that's not definitive proof that there is an autonomous me calling the shots.

The fact is that, as a species, we just don't know what is actually going on here. Let alone being able to connect all of the dots between what we think we do know as individuals here and now and all that can be known about the entirety of existence itself.

Then the part where speculations of this sort...

Artimas wrote:It just seems more than such. Consciousness came before physical manifestation, the intent is the evolutionary string itself of which directs this all, a simultaneously overlapping change. That ‘something’ over nothing. Timeless awareness doesn’t always obey cause coming before effect. Sometimes the effect is the cause and if one may rest outside of that chain being causality, one is free from the standard of cause leading to effect rather than vice versa.


...are grappled with by neuroscientists exploring empirically, experientially, experimentally how the brain functions when explored using the "scientific method". What has, as of now, been pinned down beyond all doubt by these folks?

Now, I suspect there is nothing really conclusive yet. Such that they have in fact determined the extent to which "I" is or is not "free" in regard to thinking and feeling and saying and doing...what exactly? I would think that if definitive conclusions had been reached that would be Big News. And PBS and the Science Channel and the BBC among others would be airing documentaries about it. Not to mention all the print publications and internet sites.

But, if they have, I'm not familiar with them.

Artimas wrote: Is this not why people teach children to “turn the other cheek”? Or why they teach them at all? If it was all drawn out as being just pure causality, what’s the need for educating? To eliminate possible causes? No, to eliminate effects, and if one can SEE so far ahead as to what an effect MAY be, it proves not only timeless awareness but a will that IS free, outside of the chain. Like it has been stated already, the observer is not bound. An identity(ego) is merely a mechanism or receiver to function in a physical manifested existence that was consciously imagined or dreamt up, it is nothing more than that. It isn’t reverse.


Okay, but what's the need for anything to exist at all? Why the need that it be this way and not some other? The teleological parameters of existence? What is the meaning and the purpose "behind" "all there is"?

God, maybe? The thing that Buddhists or deists attribute to the "universe"?

Or, perhaps, one of the many TOE [religious or otherwise] that have been proposed right here at ILP. The James S. Saint/Fixed Jacob Syndrome?

Or, now, yours?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:20 pm

As some here know, I often come back to dreaming in regard to free will:

I don't know about yours, but my dream s are simply breathtaking when it comes to creating these astonishing "worlds" that I find myself "in". And rarely are mine "surreal". Instead they revolve around actual contexts I am entirely familiar with. I find myself being with others from my past. I find myself seeing things, hearing things, touching things, reading things, experiencing things in great detail. They simply boggle my mind.

But it is my brain that is creating these worlds.


But when I Google "dreaming free will" it's slim pickings. Moistly in regard to "lucid dreams".

But I did find this at the "Catholic Answers Forums":

mVitus

This has been intriguing me for a while. When we dream, our mind takes the dream reality as true reality so in one sense, a person could say their actions in a dream are what they’d do in real life, but on the other hand we know that thought to be false. (I’m sure we’ve all had at least one dream where our dream self committed a sin that’d we’d never do in real life.) But if our dream state takes the dream as reality and the dream is contained within our own mind, then what will do we act on in that dream state if not our normal free will?


Of course here it generally pertains to God and religion. The discussion aims at explaining God's role in dreams given that He created us with free will. Or in pondering the question of committing sins in dreams that one would never do in "real life".

For me though it's a No God world. For me it's all about how similar "I" am in my dreams as I am in "real life". Why can't the awake "I" be just another manifestation of the sleeping brain "I"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:15 pm

From chaos to free will
A crude understanding of physics sees determinism at work in the Universe. Luckily, molecular uncertainty ensures this isn’t so
George Ellis at the aeon website

So what determines which messages are conveyed to your synapses by signalling molecules? They are signals determined by thinking processes that can’t be described at any lower level because they involve concepts, cognition and emotions in an essential way. Psychological experiences drive what happens. Your thoughts and feelings reach ‘down’ to shape lower-level processes in the brain by altering the constraints on ion and electron flows in a way that changes with time.


Higher level processes in the brain "reach down" to the lower level process. The macro-brain and the micro-brain somehow in tandem. But we still don't have a full grasp of how these interactions unfold insofar as "I" become more or less the commander-in-chief. And as often as not when descriptions of this is brought down to earth they revolve around what unfolds only in the either/or world.

To wit:

For example, suppose you’re walking down the street, and just in front of you a terrible accident happens – smashed-up cars, people injured, blood everywhere. You react with horror: sympathy for those who’ve been hurt, fear that they will die, a guilty sense of relief that it didn’t happen to you. These are all mental events that take place because of the way your brain functions at the psychological level, based on some combination of past experience and innate responses. None of those qualities – sympathy, fear, guilt – occur at the ion or synapse level. These high-level mental operations act down to alter the shape of ion channels, and so change the motions of billions of ions and electrons in your brain. In an intricate causal dance between levels in your brain, those thoughts are able to occur because of the underlying spike chains, but it’s their essentially psychological nature – what it means to recognise an accident, which thoughts flow through your mind as you decide what to do, what it feels like to experience the shock of seeing the event – that causes what happens. Physics enabled what took place in your head and body, but didn’t determine it; your mental interpretation of the event did.


But how do we go about determining beyond all possible doubt if our mental interpretations are merely, as of yet, not fully understood manifestations of physics wholly in sync with the material laws of matter?

Yet this basically crunch time for all who take an interest in grappling with their own choices. But: Given the mind-boggling nature of interaction between the billions and billions of bits of matter all the way down to the "ions and signaling molecules and synapses", who but the neuroscientists themselves have access to anything that could lead only to the least uninformed leap of faith here.

And then the fact that, depending of the context in which the terrible accident above occurs, there may be those who do not feel "sympathy, fear or guilt" at all. For whatever personal reasons they may actually take satisfaction from it. And feel positive emotional and psychological states. Or see the whole thing as just "entertainment".

The part where, free will or not, there's no way to pin down how one ought to react to it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:14 pm

There’s No Such Thing as Free Will
But we’re better off believing in it anyway.
Stephen Cave in The Atlantic

For centuries, philosophers and theologians have almost unanimously held that civilization as we know it depends on a widespread belief in free will—and that losing this belief could be calamitous.


Unless of course someone -- everyone -- loses it only because nature, in unfolding only as it must, compels this to be the one and the only reality. But how exactly would philosophers or theologians come to know this if they can't be entirely certain that what they came to know was as a result of being able to freely choose to know something else.

It still comes down to what the "hard guys" tell us based on the conclusions they come to utilizing all of the tools available to them through the "scientific method".

But!

You know the rest.

Our codes of ethics, for example, assume that we can freely choose between right and wrong. In the Christian tradition, this is known as “moral liberty”—the capacity to discern and pursue the good, instead of merely being compelled by appetites and desires. The great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant reaffirmed this link between freedom and goodness. If we are not free to choose, he argued, then it would make no sense to say we ought to choose the path of righteousness.


Yet here even Kant falls back on the "transcending font": his own "deduced" Creator. And, for most in the "Christian tradition", this Creator is said to be omniscient. He knows all but somehow He does not know what we will freely choose. Because, if He did kn ow, how then would we truly be free to choose it?

And we are still back to assuming that the things we think up in regard to God and religion and ethics are examples of what we actually have no way in which to confirm beyond the assumptions themselves. Somehow, viscerally, intuitively, we just know these things.

And that's before we get to the part where the behaviors we link "freedom and goodness" to are determined and then demonstrated to be ours and not theirs.

Today, the assumption of free will runs through every aspect of American politics, from welfare provision to criminal law. It permeates the popular culture and underpins the American dream—the belief that anyone can make something of themselves no matter what their start in life. As Barack Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, American “values are rooted in a basic optimism about life and a faith in free will.”


There you go. A leap of faith to free will. Just the thought that next week's election here in America was "fated" going back to whatever brought into existence matter and the laws that govern it is simply beyond our grasp. Perhaps literally. It's just that some are able -- compelled or not -- to shrug it off and to nestle comfortably in their own set of assumptions about "I". Not to mention all of us who go about the business of living our lives from day to day not giving a single thought to these complex "philosophical" conundrums.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:45 pm

Iambiguous,

It’s kinda complicated... but I’ll give you the cliff notes version.

The moment a being can say they’re free, free will exists. In a cosmos with no free will it’s IMPOSSIBLE to conceive or say it!!!!!!!

Is free will freedom? Not necessarily.

What we really seek is freedom. Free will is a given.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11061
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Determinism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:07 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous,

It’s kinda complicated... but I’ll give you the cliff notes version.

The moment a being can say they’re free, free will exists. In a cosmos with no free will it’s IMPOSSIBLE to conceive or say it!!!!!!!

Is free will freedom? Not necessarily.

What we really seek is freedom. Free will is a given.


Let me add to this.

Free will is the ability to always say, “I like this or I don’t like this”

Freedom is doing anything you want without consequence.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11061
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:01 pm

There’s No Such Thing as Free Will
But we’re better off believing in it anyway.
Stephen Cave in The Atlantic

The sciences have grown steadily bolder in their claim that all human behavior can be explained through the clockwork laws of cause and effect.


Bolder is one thing, pinning down that there is absolutely no doubt that you are reading this only because you were never really free to choose not to read it, another matter all together.

In fact, how do we untangle ourselves from the conundrum itself? You're a neuroscientist or someone able to do research on the brains of dead people. You're poking around and performing all of these experiments. But what constitutes the part -- that eureka! moment -- when it finally becomes clear that it is only because you freely chose to do what you could have freely chosen not to do.

It's like the human consciousness equivalent of figuring out why the universe is something and why it is this something. Or whether existence has always been around or actually started given a particular set of conditions.

This shift in perception is the continuation of an intellectual revolution that began about 150 years ago, when Charles Darwin first published On the Origin of Species. Shortly after Darwin put forth his theory of evolution, his cousin Sir Francis Galton began to draw out the implications: If we have evolved, then mental faculties like intelligence must be hereditary. But we use those faculties—which some people have to a greater degree than others—to make decisions. So our ability to choose our fate is not free, but depends on our biological inheritance.


Then, for some, cue God. Or some manifestation of the universe which they believe is "out there" able at least to provide an explanation. Meanwhile God or No God we continue to be stuck in antinomies...going around and around in circles trying to sort out -- scientifically, philosophically, spiritually -- what exactly it means to be dependent on our "biological inheritance".

Wholly dependent? Compatibly dependent? Or "free at last!"?

Galton launched a debate that raged throughout the 20th century over nature versus nurture. Are our actions the unfolding effect of our genetics? Or the outcome of what has been imprinted on us by the environment? Impressive evidence accumulated for the importance of each factor. Whether scientists supported one, the other, or a mix of both, they increasingly assumed that our deeds must be determined by something.


The either/or world rendition of "conflicting goods". Both sides can make reasonable arguments that the other side can deflect but never entirely make go away.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38582
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:47 pm

iambiguous wrote:There’s No Such Thing as Free Will.

Then you must not be free to say that.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron