Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Apr 7, 2019.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    Redundant it may well be to you, but at least have the emotional maturity to post in a way that is relevant to the topic.
    Read the OP and start again, perhaps.
    If you continue to pollute this thread with your off topic angst I will report you.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    The whole point of this thread is to show how a human can learn to manage those forces in way that grants him relative freedom, by way of co-determination.
    Nothing escapes. No need to escape. Just learning how to stay.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    Why is it not possible to understand that it has been predetermined by the universe that humans evolve the capacity to learn how to determine for themselves in a state of co-operation or co- detrrmination with that universe?
    Why?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,276
    Nothing wrong. Most people don't usually simply repeat what the other has said without doing so as an indication of surprise. And why exactly are they my pejorative terms?
    Further, if you know this, why are you constantly responding to my posts to get me to drop what I am discussing in favour of what I have said I have no intention of discussing? To ask you the same question: what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?
    No, they are not. They are only available to the individual, or whatever system, if the inputs are aligned to allow them. Yes, a function y=f(x) may have the capability of outputting the results y=1 and y=2, but only if the input (x) is aligned to do so. Otherwise you are simply talking about imagined capability based on counterfactual inputs. And if the future inputs never align, the "capability" never results.
    That's your view. Given the system of decision making is predetermined from the outset, from the question being posed, to the options considered, to the eventual choice, I see that as lacking freedom.
    And never the twain shall meet.
    Not really. I'm just trying to understand why you continue with a discussion you clearly don't want. Far more interesting a subject, to be honest, than everything else you're posting. You don't want to talk about the incompatibilist view; I don't want to talk about the compatibilist view. Yet here you are. Still. Beating away at the incompatibilist view.
    Correct. Because I am discussing the reality of freedom, and by referring to the "freedom" in a thermostat as "trivial", combined with my incompatibilist view, it should have been fairly obvious that I don't consider such trivial "freedom" to actually be free. I am thus discussing the reality of freedom - which is covered entirely by the incompatibilist position. So to ask your question again: what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?
    No assumption, just as one does not make the assumption that socrates is mortal simply by defining him as a man.
    Yes. Socrates is a man. No men are mortal. Socrates is not mortal.
    cf. Freedom requires X. X is incompatible with Determinism. Thus (note the term denoting conclusion) Determinism does not allow freedom.
    That is the conclusion, yes. Note your own language: "So we see that..." which denotes conclusion. It is not assumed from the outset. It just so happens that the notion of freedom used is not compatible with a deterministic universe. That is what we conclude.
    You then look at that conclusion and apply it to the premise as if it was assumed from the outset. It wasn't / isn't. Yet you seem stuck on this. Stuck with this demonstrably fallacious bleating about assuming a non-existent freedom.
    Seriously, if your own words don't finally reveal to you your mistake in this regard, then what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?

    And if you are going to continue down your fallacious path, despite all this, why use the term "supernatural". Use "non-existent". Stick with that term, please. The supernatural does not exist (a position we both hold, I assume?). Thus if you conclude that something is supernatural you can/should conclude that it does not exist. They are synonymous terms with regard existence, but one doesn't come with well-poisoning baggage.
    And if your own words above aren't sufficient...
    See, once again you make my point: you have concluded that freedom does not exist in the deterministic universe.
    Thank you for proving my point so admirably.
    I look forward to you now trying to show how the conclusion is actually an assumption; the way that, in the example I gave above, we can say that we are assuming Socrates not to be mortal by assuming he's a man, perhaps?
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,276
    And that takes you out of being the cog in the watch... how?... when everything you do is what the cog does.
    In a thread aimed at reviewing a new theory, understanding the terms used (semantics) is rather important, don't you think? Or are you just all smoke (words aimed at making it sound meaningful) with no fire (actual meaning)?
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    See post #283
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,276
    Agreed.
    Don't agree. One merely needs to identify what the theory is trying to do (label an interaction as "co-determination" of the result) to show that it adds nothing new to the discussion. That should thus be the end of it. Dragging it through the mire of the (in)compatabilist debate adds nothing to an understanding of this "theory", but is rather just a continuation of the (in)compatibilist debate, for which other threads already exist.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,276
    "Determine for themselves" takes it out of being predetermined.
    Are you claiming that human activity is not predetermined?
    Or are you simply separating the universe from humans, and labelling their interaction as "co-determinism"?

    If the first, you are simply trying to escape an inescapable room by writing the words "and he escapes".
    To the latter - we have a word: "interaction". Your theory adds nothing new, and is just a rather tortuous way of saying that humans interact with the universe.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    No it doesn't
    Your comprehension skills are even worse than Ice's...
    again:
    "Why is it not possible to understand that it has been predetermined by the universe that humans evolve the capacity to learn how to determine for themselves in a state of co-operation or co- determination with that universe?
    perhaps if you actually addressed what i posted we might get somewhere...
    You have stupidly asked me if I am claiming human activity is not predetermined after reading the question... why is that?

    That it has been pre determinined by the universe that humans evolve the capacity...

    it is pretty obvious, clear and no room for error...
    see the word predetermined in the question sticks out like ... well you know what I mean... surely...
    How many times must I repeat the same thing only to have you throw silly straw-men all over this thread....

    Do you want another go at it or shall we just say that you are not capable of understanding simple logic...

    You might want to discus deeper subjects like consciousness etc but at the moment there is no way you could handle the logic involved...
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019 at 9:32 AM
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,021
    Question;
    Was it pre-determined by the universe that chameleons can look in both directions at the same time or change color depending on environment, or is that an act of educated free will that chameleons possess?
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    Are you seriously asking whether evolution is predetermined in a predetermined universe?
    If so ... what do you think is the answer?
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    I'll wait a while for Sarkus response to post#289 before I post further...
     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,276
    Because "to determine for themselves" in the context of predetermination is meaningless.
    The universe predetermined things from the outset. Your activity was predetermined long before you were born, which is not consistent with "determine for themselves". Humans are simply a part of the universe, of the system as a whole.
    For something to "determine for themselves" means that what went before has does not determine what they do... yet in the predetermined universe what went before fully determines those actions. It doesn't bypass humans. Humans don't stand outside of that predetermination.
    I have addressed it.
    Because, whether you recognise it or not, you have excluded "self determination" from the notion of predetermination by the rest of the universe. A billion years ago the state of the universe predetermined exactly what you would be doing now. How do you reconcile that with "self-determination"? You weren't around a billion years ago, yet the state of the universe, and the governing laws, predetermined exactly what you are doing now.
    You are trying to escape an inescapable room by simply stating you have escaped. You haven't explained how what you have stated is achieved.
    What you have stated is an error. It is pretty obvious, and clear.
    And if I say that I have escaped an inescapable room then obviously I have, right? I mean, there's the word "escape", I've applied it to me, and to the inescapable room. Thus I have escaped the inescapable room. Language, when you ignore meaning, can be used to suggest anything.
    Even though there have been no strawmen, you don't actually have to repeat anything, QQ. You simply have to explain how you achieve what you claim your words mean.
    When you wish to provide an actual argument containing some simple logic then we can assess the latter. Until then, I suggest it is you who needs another go at it.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    ....yet in no way have you countered what I have claimed...

    "That it has been predetermined by the universe that humans evolve the capacity to learn how to determine for themselves in a state of co-operation or co-determination with that universe"

    All you are doing is repeating a failed theory. It fails to include all observed phenomena. Such is the nature of the fatalist position, whether religious or secular.

    I am quite happy if you wish to persist with your incomplete non-inclusive theorizing... but that is not what this thread is about. By all means continue to believe as you wish.

    This thread is about including observed phenomena, including all evolved human nature and capacity in a way that does not violate the fundamental premise of a cause and effect deterministic universe and allows all observed human activity to be real and not an illusion.

    It is often we humans will thwart what appears to be predetermined actions or activity. Common in fact. it is something we learn as we grow up.

    So,

    • The universe predetermined that humans evolve the capacity to learn how to determine and predetermine for them selves.
    • Because it was predetermined by the universe to be so, there is no violation of the universes predetermination.
    • Humans are very much a part of universal determinism.
    ====
    The question you need to ask yourself to clarify the position is this:

    Did the universe predetermine human evolution including all humans are capable of doing?

    If the answer is yes then the issues you refer to are no longer relevant.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019 at 3:11 PM
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    gedanken
    Say we have a submarine with a crew of 2 submerged at about 1 mile down under the ocean surface.
    The inside of the sub allows for freedom of movement and facilitates normal submarine human activity.

    the water that surrounds the sub could be considered as universal determination, the sub and the space with in could be considered as human self determination. The sub and everything mechanical is artificial.
    The humans have created a space for themselves surrounded by deterministic forces.
    The humans are able to move freely within the limitations of the sub.
    It was fully predetermined by the universe that they do so.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,021
    I am waiting for your answer. I may even expand it to ask if chameleons were a pre-determined species at all.

    Is natural selection a pre-determined or a probabilistic function? Is mutation a pre-determined function?

    Is probability even compatible with pre-determnism? Pre-determinism should result in certainty, not probability, no?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019 at 6:05 PM
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,021
    Another question for general consideration;
    If the universe is deterministic, what does that even mean? Cause and effect does not address what cause results in what effect. For all we know a cause results in a random effect.
    (well, we know a specific cause does result in a specific effect, but we do not know why, do we?)
    Why does a specific cause result in a specific effect? How does it do that in the first place? What are the guiding rules? Necessity <--> Sufficiency?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

    Completely?

    And what logical justification is that paradigm founded on? Causality?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

    Partly?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019 at 6:29 PM
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,735
    Sorry Write4U but I have no idea how to respond to your posts. I am at a loss as I am sure you have something worth saying, but responding to your posts is way too hard...
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,021
    Thanks for responding QQ,.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Actually that post tends to support your argument of co-determinism (or compatibilism)

    If causality does not need to be totally responsible for the effect, then that small unused portion in causality which is not part of the fundamental cause may possibly offer an modicum of co-determinism (or compatible action).

    When I read something unusual, relative to a point under discussion, I post it, even if it argues against my own perspective. It's only fair to shed light on the total picture.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019 at 7:56 AM
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,783
    1)Because you continue to deny that is what you are discussing
    2)and because you are trying to limit the thread to only a small aspect of the stated thread topic, and there appears to be no reason to limit things to some small sideline because that's all you want to discuss.
    And in that self-limitation (and self-contradiction), you have excluded the reality of freedom as conceived by those paying better attention.
    You are wrong, in other words. This is easily seen - your failure to pay attention to the observed universe has led you to post such nonsense as the equivalence in "nature" between the degrees of freedom available to a human making a decision and a those of a thermostat, for example. And instead of recognizing a reductio ad absurdum argument when you see one, you double down - not even observed capabilities exist, any more, if they imply nontrivial decisionmaking.
    You assumed that only the supernatural could have freedom. That was the notion of freedom you used. That was your assumed notion of freedom - that it was supernatural.

    No such conclusion was possible without that assumption.
    It denotes observation, specifically of your posting. We see something about your posting - namely that you have assumed, throughout, that only the supernatural has freedom.
    Only that which can do other than it must has freedom, nothing bound by the deterministic natural world can do other than it must -> only the supernatural have freedom.
    You are thus refusing to discuss the reality of freedom. Explicitly.
    You seem to think that by "considering" something to be trivial, you can make it go away, and nobody is allowed to talk about it.

    {I'm going to repost what Sarkus is talking about, so people will believe this exchange happened: first, the quote:
    Then, what it was edited from:
    Note the consequence of the edit - Sarkus can now ignore what I was illustrating, his posting, and pretend to be dealing with an actual argument instead of an illustration. }


    Look, dumbass:
    1)No such conclusion is visible. That "argument" comes to no conclusion whatsoever about the existence of freedom in a deterministic universe. It is entirely a demonstration of the equivalence of your posting, your premises, your assumptions, in your language, with the assumption that only the supernatural has freedom in a deterministic universe. It lays out, step by step, the proof that you make that assumption, throughout, in all your posting here.
    2) I was demonstrating your assumption that only the supernatural is free, by showing how it follows immediately from your language in your assumptions - I was proving to you that your agreement with Bowser was not an oversight on your part, that every one of your arguments here contain that assumption, and that your denial of that assumption is absurd.

    Because that is, as one hopes has become obvious, a necessary first step in discussing freedom of will - in any circumstance, "co-determinism", "determinism", whatever. It's not just Sarkus.
     

Share This Page