Page 5 of 15

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 13th, 2018, 1:41 pm
by chewybrian
LuckyR wrote:
November 13th, 2018, 2:54 am
Eduk wrote:
November 12th, 2018, 6:42 am

Kind of depends how you define the terms? Predetermined usually refers to supernatural manipulations of fate and the like.
Not in my way of thinking. To me they are identical. For example, let's say that determinism is proven to be true. Well if a current thing is 100% caused by a certain set of events. One can use the same set of "proofs" to find their causes etc etc etc backward ad infinitum to the Big Bang. Well at that point everything, for example the reason I am hitting the keys on my keyboard right now are not my decision to do so, it was caused (ultimately) by the way that subatomic particles happened to stream out of the Big Bang. Thus every event in the history of the universe was predetermined by the minute details during it's creation, so determination leads logically to predetermination.
I think this does logically follow and seems to be ignored by the determinists/compatibilists. But, if you did believe this was the case, how would you act in response? If people really buy into this, why do they go on acting as if they are deciding?

Is this like Pascal's wager, only with a payoff in the present instead of the afterlife? Do you go ahead and 'pretend' that you can make a difference in the outcome just in case you can?

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 13th, 2018, 1:57 pm
by Eduk
But, if you did believe this was the case, how would you act in response? If people really buy into this, why do they go on acting as if they are deciding?
Either you have a choice and therefore choose to do whatever you want or you don't have a choice and therefore don't choose. You are describing a scenario where someone does have a choice but believes that they do not.

p.s. I'm not ignoring your argument that determinism means there cannot be a choice I am disagreeing with your argument. Surely you can see a difference? Let me try to explain again, hopefully clearly and memorably. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that determinism is mutually exclusive of choice.

Let me try to draw a parallel to something else which isn't understood. Take QM. It is a black box, no one knows the nature of QM. No one knows how QM events lead to macro events. There are simply too many unknowns to draw much of a conclusion from this. Though many many many people do so nonetheless.

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 15th, 2018, 12:42 am
by LuckyR
Eduk wrote:
November 13th, 2018, 1:57 pm
But, if you did believe this was the case, how would you act in response? If people really buy into this, why do they go on acting as if they are deciding?
Either you have a choice and therefore choose to do whatever you want or you don't have a choice and therefore don't choose. You are describing a scenario where someone does have a choice but believes that they do not.

p.s. I'm not ignoring your argument that determinism means there cannot be a choice I am disagreeing with your argument. Surely you can see a difference? Let me try to explain again, hopefully clearly and memorably. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that determinism is mutually exclusive of choice.

Let me try to draw a parallel to something else which isn't understood. Take QM. It is a black box, no one knows the nature of QM. No one knows how QM events lead to macro events. There are simply too many unknowns to draw much of a conclusion from this. Though many many many people do so nonetheless.
Exactly. My description was a Newtonian one that sounds ok on paper but doesn't fit in a QM world. That's why I don't feel that what I wrote is correct and thus why I do not subscribe to pre-determination.

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 15th, 2018, 5:54 am
by Burning ghost
It is impossible to think of anything that isn’t determined by something proceding it. That said “causal” doesn’t necessarily mean “pre-determined.” We can, after the matter of fact, look back and guess at the determining causla factors, but we cannot repeat the instance over due to the chnage in the entropic state (or moe simply put “time” isn’t repeated.) When it comes to ideas of “spontaneous” happenings we can at least regress to the ontological question of origins of being. I once wasn’t here and now I am. Apparently we physically frame the universe as “beginning” yet lack any conceptual understanding of an “atemporal existence” - I’d even say such a term is a misuse of common language!

Our ignorance, our feelig our way throuh life, our muddled ideas, our mistakes, our fortunate happenings, our perspectives, beliefs, and framed knowledge all lead me to the conclusion that I cannot conclude much about how much control/freedom/influence I have. Whatever the point/purpose/reality I intuit from what I’ve learnt that we’re prone to claim authorship when things appear to be going well and shirk any idea of authorship when things appear to be going badly. This kn and of itself makes me sensitive to any strong denial of freedom and any strong claim of freedom.

We’re limited. We appreciate “time>” That wonder is enough for me to assume some degree of freedom of choice albeit an unknown and likely unknowabke degree.

What is more. If the universe is completely clock-work then is our contemplation of it not being clock-work actually a contemplation of anything? Apparently it wouldn’t be a contemplation of anything yet we can contemplate ideas that have no reality through abstraction. We’re able to hold onto unchanging abstract ideas that seem to defy temporality (such as numbers and basic geometry.) But that said, such abstractions are necessarily bound in an understood existence not within some abstracted realm beyond space and time.

We don’t know our limits. Given that we don’t know it is unfathomable for me to assume I can ever know my limits - obviously. Following from this I have a choice to make. Either I lean towards my choices in life as holding meaning or I don’t. The easier option is the later because no further inquiry is needed. The former then opens up more questions about the extent to which my choices effect future possibilities and how much they can sway the course of history. Then comes the stretch toward the easy option again - that is to assume if my choices are my choices then they’re not really important; seemingly insignificant. The other bolder option is to assume that my choices (even my thoughts) play a role in the greater story of hte universe as daunting as this may be. The task then remains for me as an individual to frame what it is I think I should do in life and how to set about it. My guiding principles are nature and my understanding of them may be tough to learn but to date they’ve always been worth learning. That “worth” I find tells me the choice I have is real enough for me to matter and as I play out my role and make my choices I don’t know where I begin and the next moment comes. I have some illusionary authorship over my actions as well as an apparent body of motion. Be this body of motion merely “steam” I cannot say that “steam” has no affect.

To say consciousness is epiphenomenal is to me like saying bees exist in order to make honey for my toast. It is a myopic and naive assumption which we cannot rationally conclude one way or another once the pieces are reduced to logical items framed within the delusional view of “pure logical” thought. A rational/logical enquiry is necessarily an emotive one. We don’t question without emotive force - it is impossible to do so. If you argue that then you’ve succumbed to your emotive intent to respond to my statement.

Ken is a beautiful noun and verb combo. I suggest we all ken and inspect our ken.

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 15th, 2018, 5:57 am
by Eduk
I think it's beyond complicated LuckyR :)

At relativistic speeds and at QM scales and other phenomena (like black holes) our descriptive powers and our intuition and our internal visualisation simply fails as things get 'weird'.

Correct me if I am wrong LuckyR but I don't see a difference between your definition of pre-determinism and determinism?

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 16th, 2018, 1:03 am
by LuckyR
Eduk wrote:
November 15th, 2018, 5:57 am
I think it's beyond complicated LuckyR :)

At relativistic speeds and at QM scales and other phenomena (like black holes) our descriptive powers and our intuition and our internal visualisation simply fails as things get 'weird'.

Correct me if I am wrong LuckyR but I don't see a difference between your definition of pre-determinism and determinism?
You are correct (as I stipulated in my post) that the two are essentially identical.

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 16th, 2018, 1:30 am
by Burning ghost
No they’re not.

There are numerous nuances to how determinism can be framed. Predeterminism can tilt toward the theological where determinism (causal determinism) is merely the scientific practice of viewing the world among other nuances of use that term can be put to.

Then yoou have to consider the physicalist model of the universe, or not. Depending on our physicalistic workd view you’re going to have different perspectives of what “determinism” means. This is why there is “fatalism” which is more about the ethical view than the physicalistic view.

Funnily enough if you merely choose to view the universe as an unmoving block then the term “determinism” is merely an illusion. If everything is as it is then pre-determined means non-determined; they’re synonymous in the same sense that we don’t gaze at a painting and refer to it’s “beginning” or “end,” it being a whole encapsulated not divied up into deterministic steps.

Functionally speaking “compatibilism” makes sense from an individual ethical perspective. By this I mean that I understand I can cause change but that the extent of the change I can cause is limited/unknown. This then leads into more intrigung questions of “randomness,” “chaos” and “probability.”

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 16th, 2018, 4:05 am
by Eduk
BG when conversing with someone it's better to understand them than force your opinion of what a word means on to them.
Lucky. So you don't buy into determinism?
I would say that I rely heavily on determinism day to day. To me it seems like the most logical and practical and useful explanation we have. And all other explanations which I have heard, are well to put it bluntly not logical, not practical and not useful.
My only caveat is that as I don't know the fundamental nature of reality I cannot with absolute certainty declare determinism absolutely useful at all frames of reference and all scales.

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 16th, 2018, 4:32 am
by Burning ghost
You think I was forcing my “opinion”?

Not really. I was stating the nuances within philosophical discourse that surround the terms in question. That is not my “opinion.” The view I did express is that if determinism is framed in an ethical sense then it is meaningless. The block view of universe taken as a fatalism simply means that determinism doesn’t exist becasue what is is, and that it is meely our perspective that leads to the illusion/delusion of determinism as a meaningful concept.

That is why I then went on to point at what, in my opinion, are more fruitful investigations (chaos, randomness, etc.) No doubt someone will then stand up and start the whole nonsense over again by insisting that “random” is meaningless/impossible, yet not pay attention to what they mean when they say words like “impossible.” Then the mystics step in and the woo woo merchants follow soon after casting declarations of what is and who is ignorant.

I’m not bashful, but don’t think that means I am stating blind opinions based dictionary definitons of words. Jargon is the predominant for of philosophical discourse. If you ignore all the jargon and the ciews espoused by people you refuse to take up the borader task of philosophy (to explicate meaning, to question how ideas are presented, and to investigate the propositions, premises and logical limitations.)

The disconnection starts with ourselves first and foremost. If that isn’t addressed we just end up chasing our own tails thinking we’re chasing someone else’s.

I converse how I deem most useful to my aims. I’m always wrong in part. I accept that. What I find baffling is being told not to express myself and what I know. I’ve taken the time to read about this subject, listen to discussion and lectures fro various positions (be it psychological, physical, neurological and/or philosophical) and I’m telling you that the term “determinism” has manifold applications and that often the disjunct in meaning is due to one person using one term understood within one singular view rather than establishing an understanding of how other fields of interest use the term.

I guess it is merely an online forum not a place to get into the nitty-gritty. Most people seem to come here to present an absolutist idea and it makes sense to do that given that it is probably the best way to get genuine feeback and unearth unclmfortabke truths that counteract their viewpoints.

By this I mean if you don’t take the time to presume the terms used have different meanings then you’re not looking hard enough or you’re perspective means you see no reason to cut a piece of string in half to see how long a piece of string is.

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 16th, 2018, 4:41 am
by Eduk
I didn't say you shouldn't argue about what words mean. I was saying you shouldn't argue about what lucky means.

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 16th, 2018, 5:33 am
by Burning ghost
I wasn’t “arguing” I was stating a fact of the different uses. Predetermined and determined are used to differentiate different views (not the same view.)

In causality we can offer up the premise of predetermined rules but this doesn’t mean all actions taken based on these set rules are predetermined too. There is a distinct difference. Also, “dererminism” is often held up in regards to “free will” which also suffers from multiple applications of meaning. In terms of “free will” the argument is surrounded by ethical issues and morality more often than not - if not then we’re doing physics. In this sense “determinism” is counter to predeterminism in the sense of s theological argument for god and this also crossing into nihilism and fatalism. When it comes to the moral aspects of philosophical discourse the term “predetermined” is usually supplanted by “fatalism,” and many understand that while these two terms have the same meaning in one frame one can be used in another frame (the physicalist frame.)

The larger underlying problem is the disjoint between ontological knowledge and knowledge. People prefer simplicity though, we’re encapsulated in a limited frame (as far as we know.)

The compatibilism arguments also come in many flavours and shapes due to an admixture of two seemingly different parts (the ethical and the physical.) None are particularly sturdy but within them they at least open up the question of the disjunction between ethics and psychics a little (the question being where they are diffierent and similar items of human understanding.) One of the more common proposals put forward by the compatibilist is that of being abke to make a different choice to what you made. Causally we don’t take this at face value yet with our understanding of physical nature we can say something was possibel within the bounds of natural “laws.”

Anyway, matter what the terms “predetermined” and “determined” are the same thing if we’re viewing “free will” as a ethical issue or as an issue of physics. That is not my opinion.

The funny thing is if either strong determinism or free choice were “proven” (in the common logical sense) then the proof would disprove the proposition (at least within either the physicalist or ethical frames); the snake would eat its own tail.

Maybe I’m just talking nonsense though? ;D

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 16th, 2018, 6:32 am
by Eduk
LuckyR wrote:
November 13th, 2018, 2:54 am
Eduk wrote:
November 12th, 2018, 6:42 am

Kind of depends how you define the terms? Predetermined usually refers to supernatural manipulations of fate and the like.
Not in my way of thinking. To me they are identical. For example, let's say that determinism is proven to be true. Well if a current thing is 100% caused by a certain set of events. One can use the same set of "proofs" to find their causes etc etc etc backward ad infinitum to the Big Bang. Well at that point everything, for example the reason I am hitting the keys on my keyboard right now are not my decision to do so, it was caused (ultimately) by the way that subatomic particles happened to stream out of the Big Bang. Thus every event in the history of the universe was predetermined by the minute details during it's creation, so determination leads logically to predetermination.
LuckyR already responded to me questioning his use of pre-determined. The reply makes sense to me. It isn't commonly what pre-determined means but I think it makes sense.

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 16th, 2018, 6:56 am
by Burning ghost
Some people believe in heaven because it makes sense to them. So what?

You can either double down on your own ignorance or expand your ignorance. Your choice :)

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 17th, 2018, 9:42 am
by chewybrian
Burning ghost wrote:
November 16th, 2018, 5:33 am

The funny thing is if either strong determinism or free choice were “proven” (in the common logical sense) then the proof would disprove the proposition (at least within either the physicalist or ethical frames); the snake would eat its own tail.

Maybe I’m just talking nonsense though? ;D
Which proposition?

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Posted: November 17th, 2018, 9:55 am
by Burning ghost
Either