Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[iceaura]

I'll ask you for a second time... to post a quote that supports your claim

Already done, and already repeated, and already posted directly to you twice.
The first time explained, the second time with the key phrases bolded for you, the third time referring to that post and further explained, and here you go for the fourth time (keeping the dumbdown from the second time, in hopes of being read):

therefore no freedom from said universal causation is present.
- - -
how does it follow that ANY degree of freedom from that determinism is possible in the system
- - -
The question for you is how does a compatibilist position avoid the necessary causations impacting on the actor, therefore the actors decisions?

Aside from explaining, bolding, and otherwise dumbing down in response to your apparent difficulty in comprehending quotes from your own posts, I'm not sure what to do.
But it does point to the crippling effects of the supernatural assumption: all that stuff about "co-determination" and so forth is driven by a need to find freedom of will in a deterministic universe given the assumption that in such a universe only the supernatural - only the free from universal causation, in your words - has freedom.

I suggest dropping that assumption, and considering more carefully the complexities of the physical universe.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Already done, and already repeated, and already posted directly to you twice.
The first time explained, the second time with the key phrases bolded for you, the third time referring to that post and further explained, and here you go for the fourth time (keeping the dumbdown from the second time, in hopes of being read):
Aside from explaining, bolding, and otherwise dumbing down in response to your apparent difficulty in comprehending quotes from your own posts, I'm not sure what to do.
But it does point to the crippling effects of the supernatural assumption: all that stuff about "co-determination" and so forth is driven by a need to find freedom of will in a deterministic universe given the assumption that in such a universe only the supernatural - only the free from universal causation, in your words - has freedom.

I suggest dropping that assumption, and considering more carefully the complexities of the physical universe.

Ok, i'll ask you again for the third time to post any post were I make the assumption of supernatural involvement.

It is your assumption and not mine due to the inadequacies of your use of logic. I might add.

 

[wegs]

In philosophy there are a number of layers like that of an onion some times called categories.
The categories you refer to are only two of the many. They can not co-exist in paradoxical fashion. Either freedom is real or it is an illusion.
Yet in a higher category the notion of "real" is at stake, where by non-dualists will argue that everything is merely a memory , temporal figment and thus everything is an illusion. Yet this in itself creates the dilemma of "what is real?"

Even if it is an illusion, though - it feels real to us. I'm making a choice right now to reply to your post. I'm listening to music. I'm choosing to enjoy the last moments of this great weekend. All my choice. It seems real. It could be an illusion, but to whom?

So, if I make use of certain perspectives ( categories ) I can fully agree with you until one realizes that one claim is of a different category to the other and can not be argued with any real coherency.
Either there is freedom or there is not. ( in a metaphysical sense) or there is both in a practical sense. The later surrendering to an agnostic position.

A system of categories is a complete list of highest kinds or genera. Traditionally, following Aristotle, these have been thought of as highest genera of entities (in the widest sense of the term), so that a system of categories undertaken in this realist spirit would ideally provide an inventory of everything there is, thus answering the most basic of metaphysical questions: “What is there?” Skepticism about our ability to discern a unique system of basic categories of ‘reality itself’ has led others to approach category systems not with the aim of cataloging the highest kinds in the world itself, but rather with the aim of elucidating the categories of our conceptual system or language.

c/o Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ​

It is heavy going but worth the read if interested enough.

I tend to view co-determinism mainly as it relates to a higher power - ''divine determinism.'' The ''co'' part would be a higher power controls the universe, but permits my free will to make individual choices that affect my own life. Does this throw a cosmic monkey wrench into this discussion?

Co-determination is about finding a successful middle ground that allows both the compatibilist and the fatalist to resolve their impasse.
It does so by emphasizing that freedom is an outcome or attribute of self determination which has to be learned.
That self (co)determination ( aka self freedom) is "really" possible, but only with co-determination included in any discussion of mechanics or method.

Switching categories midstream in a discussion makes it impossible to resolve anything. ( like playing with context)

Aside from my spiritual views, I could stand to believe that our ability to learn and adapt heavily outweighs the vast majority of deterministic factors though, do you agree?

 

[iceaura]

Ok, i'll ask you again for the third time to post any post were I make the assumption of supernatural involvement.

I have no idea what you mean by supernatural "involvement".

Your continuing assumption that only the supernatural can have freedom in a deterministic universe is right there in the three quotes from three separate posts just on this thread. I bolded the key phrases. You have seen me post them, or explicitly refer to them as such evidence, four times now.

As noted, it is the reason - the explicit reason, posted by you here - you have been arguing for "co-determinism" in the first place: you had ruled out any possibility of freedom of will in a deterministic universe without it, on the grounds that it required "freedom from universal causation" - the supernatural.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Your continuing assumption that only the supernatural can have freedom in a deterministic universe is right there in the three quotes from three separate posts just on this thread. I bolded the key phrases. You have seen me post them, or explicitly refer to them as such evidence, four times now.

still you lie...
It is your assumption that supernatural outcomes are the only result of having no freedom in a deterministic system and you are claiming that is what I am stating, which is a lie.

You see ample evidence of self determination and can not understand that the freedom that learned self determination generates is still not free from determinism.
So I ask you again for the fourth time to provide evidence to support your spurious nonsense.

Friendly Advice:
If you wish to extrapolate someones posts make sure you read their posts first and be cautious of how your own subjectivity corrupts your extrapolation....

Also, if you are going to read between the lines make sure you read the lines first

 

[Quantum Quack]

Even if it is an illusion, though - it feels real to us. I'm making a choice right now to reply to your post. I'm listening to music. I'm choosing to enjoy the last moments of this great weekend. All my choice. It seems real. It could be an illusion, but to whom?

The freedom we sense is in fact the freedom we learn from childhood to create, creating our own space in a fully deterministic universe. It is very real and not an illusion from either the universal perspective or human. IMO.

I tend to view co-determinism mainly as it relates to a higher power - ''divine determinism.'' The ''co'' part would be a higher power controls the universe, but permits my free will to make individual choices that affect my own life. Does this throw a cosmic monkey wrench into this discussion?

Not at all, except be mindful that religiophobia, god-o-phobia, higherpower-o-phobia or anything that may threaten the self esteem of another, will generate intense flak at sciforums.

Of course co-determination could be seen as the very hall mark of spiritual co-operation, whether that be with a higher power, God, or a pagan statue. It has been present in human thought and beliefs for ever. Spawned countless religions, and guided mankind towards a more symbiotic relationship with Gaia ( Earth Nature). Sadly a lesson we as a race, may be too late in learning ( re: climate change)
Reminds me of that famous poem "Footprints".

One day we may learn if we survive that it is only with sustainable co-operation with nature ( co-determinism) that we as a race have a chance at a future...because as it stands we are most likely going to lose most of our freedom gained over thousands of years because of our scientific folly, avarice and hubris. (re: climate change)

Aside from my spiritual views, I could stand to believe that our ability to learn and adapt heavily outweighs the vast majority of deterministic factors though, do you agree?

Absolutely!
In fact it is the life long learning and associated adaptation that is essential to counter the deterministic factors for us humans to gain any freedom at all.
(associated reference - Inner Jihad - inner battle etc.)
Nice post Wegs... thanks...

 

[iceaura]

It is your assumption that supernatural outcomes are the only result of having no freedom in a deterministic system and you are claiming that is what I am stating, which is a lie.

You have now lost contact with the entire matter. Nobody - least of all me - has posted anything like that.

You see ample evidence of self determination and can not understand that the freedom that learned self determination generates is still not free from determinism.

That self determination is just determination with a major complexity labeled has been my contention throughout. I have been pointing at complexity routinely, repeatedly, frequently, throughout these threads.

You are the one asserting that straight (non-"self") determinism excludes all freedom except the supernatural - which means there is an unresolved issue hanging over your "co-determinism", which is your simultaneous assertion (as in this posting):

how does it follow that ANY degree of freedom from that determinism is possible in the system

.
Short version: if self determination can "generate freedom", so can determination in general.

And that means you have to deal with the basic issue: how that can happen. If you continue to hold that it requires "freedom from universal causation", as above, you are stuck with the supernatural assumption - and there's no way out of that.

In fact it is the life long learning and associated adaptation that is essential to counter the deterministic factors for us humans to gain any freedom at all.

One cannot "counter" the deterministic factors. One cannot achieve "freedom from universal causation". If humans cannot get any freedom at all without doing the impossible, then they cannot get any freedom at all.
So: we agree that the life long learning etc is critical, freedom lies in the complexity of the process of human decisionmaking, and so forth.
But not because any of that will somehow "generate" freedom from universal causation, or anything like that. It can't.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are the one asserting that straight (non-"self") determinism excludes all freedom except the supernatural

No i am excluding the need to even refer to the super natural that you constantly refer to...
again you lie....
It is only your inferior logic extrapolation that generates your obsession with the supernatural.

Let me make it quite clear,

My current position:

The freedom generated by learning to self determine is entirely deterministic.
Because that freedom is determined by the self determiner.

Does the above include any reference to the supernatural at all?
nope! Not at all in fact it definitively excludes the supernatural by default.

Short version: if self determination can "generate freedom", so can determination in general.

but only if there is a "Self" involved...devoting his entire life to do so...

In fact that's the entire point.
Determinism generates freedom via the use of a self that learns how to generate freedom by self determining.


I suppose you are going to extrapolate supernatural BS again... yes?

If you continue to hold that it requires "freedom from universal causation", as above, you are stuck with the supernatural assumption - and there's no way out of that.

I don't and never have.... and you repeatedly lie about it... why?
Your lack of posting evidence with context, after repeatedly being asked for it, simply shows the lie for what it is... a lie...

Deal with it!

 

[iceaura]

I suppose you are going to extrapolate supernatural BS again... yes?

Yep.

Because you have repeatedly posted your assumption that in a deterministic universe "freedom" means freedom from universal causation. (As I quoted you doing, above - and I had my pick of dozens of quotes).

You have not escaped that by saying freedom is "generated" by self determination - according to you it must "generate" freedom from universal causation to generate freedom at all. That was the point of the three quotes I posted.

Maybe this is the sticking point: An ordinary word for "free from universal causation", "avoiding necessary causations", "freedom from that determinism", and similar phrases, in a deterministic world, is "supernatural". Is that news to you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yep.

Because you have repeatedly posted your assumption that in a deterministic universe "freedom" means freedom from universal causation. (As I quoted you doing, above - and I had my pick of dozens of quotes).

You have not escaped that by saying freedom is "generated" by self determination - according to you it must "generate" freedom from universal causation to generate freedom at all. That was the point of the three quotes I posted.

Maybe this is the sticking point: An ordinary word for "free from universal causation", "avoiding necessary causations", "freedom from that determinism", and similar phrases, in a deterministic world, is "supernatural". Is that news to you?

You are lying....

And don't deserve any further response.
I have clearly stated my position (post #236) and either you deal with that or take your fabrications to the other thread.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Maybe some one else would like to show how the supernatural is "assumed" in my position which is stated clearly in post#236.

 

[Write4U]

Yep.
Because you have repeatedly posted your assumption that in a deterministic universe "freedom" means freedom from universal causation. (As I quoted you doing, above - and I had my pick of dozens of quotes).

You have not escaped that by saying freedom is "generated" by self determination - according to you it must "generate" freedom from universal causation to generate freedom at all. That was the point of the three quotes I posted.

Maybe this is the sticking point: An ordinary word for "free from universal causation", "avoiding necessary causations", "freedom from that determinism", and similar phrases, in a deterministic world, is "supernatural". Is that news to you?

Not to me. It sounds very much like an equation whereby "free from universal causation" = "freedom from mathematical rigor", and if something is not mathematically permissible it simply will never see the light of day.
IMO, all this can be solved by substituting the term "supernatural" with the term "non-mathematical".

Determinism does not predict when a future event will happen, it predicts how a future event will happen; If<->Then, or; "necessity <-> sufficiency".

Think of natural change as a mathematical function, it becomes clear that there is no such thing as supernatural by any other name other than "non-mathematical". Supernatural is by definition outside of the natural universal geometry and natural environment (biology).

Determinism simply means that some probability contains the required mathematical values to be able to change from one state into another. This is not a random function but a "probabilistic deterministic function", i.e. no guarantee that a phenomenon will happen, but if it does happen it will be in accordance to a logical mathematically deterministic function.

Free Will is a term that only applies to humans. But how much Free Will does a prisoner have in jail? He still does what he would have needed to do on the outside, eat, drink, sleep, etc. but inside he has no choice where he can go when free from the walls of his prison, but still confined by the earth. We have the will but not the freedom to go deep into outer space.

IMO, this is not free will, but greater freedom in choice of equal valued superpositions.

It makes no (very little) difference if you eat strawberry or chocolate ice-cream. The decision for Preference is made subconsciously before you ordered. However, this situation does not apply to traffic lights, which do not allow for choice, they are coercive. A restrictive Stop or a permissive Go..
Both cases resolve into Determinism as the result of Implicate Order , no?
The choice itself would be deterministic as a product of your movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction. You're not going to ask for strawberry ice-cream which you do not like in favor of chocoloate ice-cream which you love.
That is not a choice, it is a mental coercive imperative. Greed is an extreme expression of such psychological determinism.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is kinda funny you know,
Sarkus believes the freedom demonstrated by humans is an illusion ( the equivalent of freedom demonstrated by a thermostat of all things).
I believe it is real and have logically shown how and why.
IceAura believes Sarkus and I assume the supernatural....and repeatedly lies through his proverbial even though he can not prove one ounce of his claim ( chuckle)

quite bizarre !

 

[Sarkus]

I believe it is real and have logically shown how and why.

Ha ha ha! Good one! No, seriously, haven't laughed as hard for a loooong time!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ha ha ha! Good one! No, seriously, haven't laughed as hard for a loooong time!

It is always a good sign when people start posting BS instead of rational argument...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ha ha ha! Good one! No, seriously, haven't laughed as hard for a loooong time!

well ...until you post properly reasoned argument that counters mine... you can laugh all you like...
...and don't bring up some fantasy theory as some sort of contra... deal with the issue directly...


How can the observed relative freedom be achieved in a absolutely deterministic universe?

The notion of freedom is and has always been a "quality"issue. It is not material, it is not a quantity, it is an intangible value.

I referred to Pursig and his novel about going insane trying to quantify the un-quantifiable (Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle maintenance) for a reason...

It is impossible to quantify freedom. It can only be considered an un-quantifiable property of observed behavior.

Ignoring a sound logical argument by posting about another theory puts the joke on you and not me...

"The freedom generated by learning to self determine is entirely deterministic.
Because that freedom is determined by the self determiner."

so deal with it or go on rambling in the other thread but please do not do it here in this thread...

 

[iceaura]

I referred to Pursig and his novel about going insane trying to quantify the un-quantifiable (Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle maintenance) for a reason...

It's Pirsig, if you are going to keep repeating that reference.
And that book is not a novel.
And in it he does not go crazy trying to quantify the unquantifiable, his insanity having other roots entirely.

And whether or not freedom is quantifiable makes no difference here. It is, in the very simplest engineering examples I have elsewhere suggested extrapolating from as an approach to more complex situations, but that may not carry up to human decisionmaking.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It's Pirsig, if you are going to keep repeating that reference.
And that book is not a novel.
And in it he does not go crazy trying to quantify the unquantifiable, his insanity having other roots entirely.

good points, my apologies for being so slack.
However,
The entire book is essentially about:

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (ZAMM), by Robert M. Pirsig, is a book that was first published in 1974. It is a work of fictionalized autobiography, and is the first of Pirsig's texts in which he explores his Metaphysics of Quality.

so you are wrong it is about the un-quantifiable...
and secondly
His fascination with the mechanical could be considered a compensation for his mental obsession with the intangible...
But you are right there is more to Pirsig than what he reveals in his auto biography that was considered quite novel and extraordinary at the time of publication.
The issue is that you guys are trying to quantify the un-quantifiable and of course you are going to get no where in doing so.

This is why I haven't attempted to do so other than to refer to freedom as relative. Absolute freedom being impossible to exist in this universe.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And whether or not freedom is quantifiable makes no difference here. It is, in the very simplest engineering examples I have elsewhere suggested extrapolating from as an approach to more complex situations, but that may not carry up to human decisionmaking.

and supported by falsely claiming that Sarkus and I are resorting to the supernatural... by lying and not providing evidence to support those claims

 

[iceaura]

so you are wrong it is about the un-quantifiable...

Not what I said.

and supported by falsely claiming that Sarkus and I are resorting to the supernatural.

Not what I claimed.

The issue is that you guys are trying to quantify the un-quantifiable

Not remotely. Nobody here is trying to quantify anything.