You were wrong about Pirsig and repeatedly lie and never acknowledge a mistake or apologize for misleading the reader ... why should any one take what you post with anything but a grain of salt?
Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
It wasn't BS, I assure you, I really did laugh more than I have for a while, so thanks.
The issue currently is that your theory, as I understand it, doesn't say anything, do anything, that isn't summarised as a cog in a watch. It's vacuous. I don't need to counter it because it does nothing.
Unless of course you are asserting that humanity, or free will, stands outside of the rest of the universe with regard determinism, that it is somehow a special case. If so, or if something else entirely, then I am still trying to understand what you mean with this theory. So again, no need for me to argue against it 'cos we're still in the phase of trying to understand just what on earth you are going on about.
By changing what we mean by "freedom" to be something else, something that has an appearance of freedom while still being deterministic. This is what compatibilists do. Personally I still see no freedom in that because I recognise the change for what it is, but they insist that it is freedom.
Well, degrees of freedom is a matter of quantity, but I agree that we first have to resolve the issue of the quality, or notion, or nature of the freedom in question,
Yet you agree that a thermostat has freedom (on or off)? And you agree that humans have freedom? If you don't think there is a scale of freedom between the two, even in just the compatibilist sense...?
When you post a sound logical argument let me know, please?
And without the side-order of word-salad? I.e. Please actually explain what you mean, and how your theory does what you claim it does.
Yes, I've apologised for my part in the ongoing de-railing, I'll try to refrain from now on. As for your theory, I'm still in the "what are you on about?" phase, trying to sort through your words to find out what you actually mean.
Care to enlighten?
...and if the "cog in the watch" had the capacity to learn how to be other than a cog in the watch? What then?
You keep side stepping half of what I am claiming and then claiming I am being vacuous...
why?
I'll post it again and please read every word...
The freedom generated by learning to self determine is entirely deterministic because that freedom is determined by the self determiner.
I have bolded the bit that you keep sliding over....
After all someone as smart as you could not possibly miss such an obvious point.
Care to discuss it.... (re: learning to self determine)
Last edited:
Whatever it does it remains a cog in the watch. It might think it is being other than what was intended, but it isn't. It is simply doing, at every stage, what the cog does.
Because what you are claiming seems to say nothing of any relevance to the operation of the cog or its place in the watch.
I have read every word, and have done so each time you have posted. It doesn't change things. "Learning to self determine" is what the cog does, but it is still a cog. You can't set up an inescapable room and then say that because the person inside it learns how to escape then he can be free of the room. That, I'm sure you agree, is contradictory.
Similarly you are setting up a deterministic universe (not free) with a deterministic cog (not free) and then saying that the cog learns how to be free because his non-free actions of learning allow him to be. Contradictory.
And yet you don't listen to what such people say about your theory.
Pinocchio was just a story. No one can wish (or in this case learn) themselves to be free if they are always operating in accordance with the laws of the deterministic universe.
Unless you change "free" and "freedom" to mean something akin to the compatibilist notion, and all the inherent issues with that (notably being merely an appearance compared to reality). But then such a notion is also found in a thermostat. Less complex, of course, but it is still that notion of free(dom).
using your analogy that cog learns to become self determined while still remaining a cog in a watch...
From the very first time we raise our hands against the forces of gravity (the watch as you speak of) we self determine contrary to those forces.
What is so hard about that?
I do it every time I get out of my chair and stand up.... the deterministic forces of nature are thus thwarted from keeping me in the chair.
I turn on the TV set and use electricity that is also achieved by manipulating those forces and so on...
We humans even managed to heat our entire planet up by playing around with those forces...(climate change)
So I do not know what you are on about saying that learning to self determine is irrelevant and that humans are merely a cog in a watch even though the watch is locally being determined by that cog....
Do you deny this?
Are you not using a computer to type your posts out with, a computer that manipulates and takes advantage of the very forces that you claim determine our existence and freedom.
You are smarter than that Sarkus...
There is no universal law that states Humans must make and use electricity generated by human innovation...
Last edited:
But in all those examples it is the same deterministic forces of nature that drove us, compelled us, in fact (in a deterministic universe) predetermined that we do those things. So what you example is not acting against deterministic forces but simply actions within and part of the deterministic forces. We do not operate outside of them, but are part of them. We, and what we do, are just an expression of those same forces.
Whether it is learning, or simply going round and round in a watch, both are simply expressions of the deterministic universe. Learning to self determine is not going against the deterministic forces. What you learn, why you learn, when you learn, all just predetermined and dictated by those deterministic forces, as much as a flow of water, or the motion through the heavens of an asteroid, or the atomic interactions within stars.
We are just a concentrated mass of interactions, but those interactions are no less acting in absolute harmony with the deterministic forces, driven and compelled and just an expression of them, that to talk of "thwarting" them, or "manipulating" those forces is to introduce an unwarranted dualism.
Sure, so what? How does that system operating in absolute harmony with deterministic forces remove it from being a cog in a watch to something else?
Sure. But, in a deterministic universe, if you knew the state of the universe at any given time in the past, and knew the rules it operated by, you could know that humans making use of electricity they themselves generated would be an inevitable expression of the system and those rules, predetermined owing to the nature of the deterministic system. There may not be a specific law that says what you exampled, but the laws that do govern the universe, applied to our (assumed) deterministic universe, guaranteed it would happen.
Have you ever seen Conway's game of life?
There are 4 rules to it, yet from that rule set, applied to a grid of digital cells, you can create the appearance of static objects, moving objects etc (look it up on Wiki). My point is that there is no law that says "this pattern of cells will exist and appear to act in this certain way" but, if those rules are applied to some seemingly random cells, you can end up with that very pattern of cells appearing to act in a certain way (like move across the screen).
So don't confuse the expression of those rules with the rules themselves.
agree.....spot on... no problemo.
agree.... this is why I introduced the term co-determine, a form of co-operation if you like... not against anything.
eg. I make use of gravity when I stand up, but I also co-determine with gravity to maintain balance and stay standing until I choose to lay down and use gravity to stay lying down.
see above...
the word "against" is your word not mine... It is the wrong word to use.
agrees and those forces allowed humans to evolve the ability to learn to make use of those forces as we desire and with in the limitations of what we have learned.
From learning to play with fire, to throwing a stick, to fishing in a stream all aided by the determining forces you speak of.
As I posted earlier every decision made freely is still co-deterministic. Nothing exists outside a deterministic universe.
see above...
Co-determination is a fact of reality like it or not... no event can happen with out it, None.
If you can name one single event that can happen with out the determination of at least two causes then I will surrender my case.
EG. Until a ball is impacted upon it will stay still.
ball and impacting forces= 2 = co-determination.
(One of Newton's laws)
At this level of discussion the universe you refer to is in fact a duality. In fact the mere fact that we have 3 dimensional space with the added pseudo dimension time requires a duality.
As an aside,
To talk of this universe as a non duality ultimately leads to everything being a temporal illusion - nothing more than an ego manifestation - a memory.
You may recall my logic proposition about time at any given point. Re extending Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
At any given point in time the universe does not have any dimension what so ever. It is in fact zero dimensional. Thus proving in science that the universe is a temporal illusion - this is what non-duality is essentially about. Unity = 0
Until along comes a smart arse human who pre-co-determines for himself what will happen locally.
The whole point of science is to learn how to increase our freedom in how we manage, manipulate or other wise make use of those deterministic laws.(forces)
You used the verb "thwart" - to thwart is to go against something, stopping it happen. I have simply used an alternative means of expressing the same.
Yes, a cog in a watch.
So you didn't mean "thwart"?
Sure, all part of being our particular cog in the watch.
Still all just "cog in a watch" stuff. I thought you said your theory wasn't that?
See, here you are assuming "freedom", and you're assuming the compatibilistic version, and thus any conclusion is simply a compatibilistic one, albeit seemingly murkied with the simple notion that it takes two to tango.
Given what you are claiming co-determinism to be, you're simply stating the obvious, that if two things interact then the output takes them both into account. This isn't co-determinism but simply interaction. You are not offering anything new, anything different, and it in no way resolves any of the issues at hand.
See, that's just more evidence that you're simply relabelling "interaction" as "things co-determining". How are they different? How does it resolve the issue of freedom WITHOUT simply assuming up front a nature of freedom?
Yes, it's called an "interaction".
Thats going to take some considerable argument, taking us away from spacetime, and into something old-school methinks. Care to offer anything.
Ooookay? Care to support this as well?
No, I don't recall.
Ah, your flawed "power of zero" trip. Yes. I recall. Does it have any relevance here?
You can't pre-determine for yourself. That is nonsensical. If something is predetermined in a deterministic universe it is predetermined from the outset. The person is just a cog in the watch.
That's using the compatibilist notion of freedom, yes. But it doesn't alter reality, which is predetermined, fixed, unchangeable from the course it is on. No freedom to do anything about it.
hee hee you ar soooo funny...
So you have concluded that the word thwart means to go against and then used your interpretation to ask me whether I meant your interpretation. well I am sorry but I didn't mean your interpretation which is so wrong it isn't even ...uhm... wrong...
so funny,....
Thwart:
verb: prevent (someone) from accomplishing something.
Google it next time eh?
eg. The global trend towards over heating the planet was thwarted by all nations reducing their GHG emissions by the year 2022...
or
The golf ball was headed for the hole then someone moved the hole thus the hole in one was thwarted... (~ DTrumpian)
Co determination is not about going against anything it is about working with something like an iron smith works with fire...and so on...
The rest of your post is just a repeat of all the others ... going no where...
I thought you were serious about discussing this issue but apparently you are not....
until a human evolves the intelligence and learning capacity which is totally devoted to doing just that....
Oh i see you forgot about that bit didn't you...(again)
Last edited:
And how is this different than going against? If you want to do X and I want to thwart you then I need to do something against you doing X. Either you do X or you do not. Me thwarting you from doing X requires me going against your efforts to do X.
So, yes, I know what thwart means, but it seems you're unable to understand how it implies to go against.
So they acted against the rising temperature.
So they acted against the ball going in the hole.
Sorry, were you trying to show me how the word doesn't imply working against?
Interaction. That's all you're now talking about. If you don't agree, justify why you don't.
You're leading, QQ. This is your theory. If you want it to progress, actually address the criticisms.
So pointing out what I see as flaws is now not taking things seriously enough for you? Do you only think people are serious if they agree with you?
No. You can't escape an inescapable room just by typing the words "and he escapes". You are making claims your logic(?) and argument just don't support.
No, I answered it the first time, and it was as wrong then as it is now, no matter how many times you simply say otherwise. Support your claim. Take me through the logic of it.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I kinda like that analogy. It sounds reasonable. Of course it does ignore any prior causality to act, such as lying down to sleep because you're tired. Some people sleep while standing up, to avoid being caught lying down by a tiger. Free will or necessity?
Question: Does a bird exercise free will when it takes flight? Does it fly 3000 miles to breed from free will? Why?
============================
After reading some of ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Compatibility_with_the_existence_of_science
, this struck me.
Going back all the way to right after the BB, why did different elements emerge from the cooling plasma and why did they not all form as identical particles?
Was only the cooling temperature responsible in the formation of different elements?
Is it possible that only at this level reality displays probabilistic properties, but elements once realized, must follow purely deterministic paths?
Last edited:
Perhaps not but you can learn to make the room your own... and do what you like with it... see?
- The ambition of the "cog"called Science is to take control of the "watch".
- The whole point of philosophy is to understand why and how that cog works and how to make it work better.
- The only reason we are having this discussion, if you can call it that, is to ultimately improve our individual ability to self determine.
- The cause and effect theory is entirely devoted to ultimately encouraging further improvements to human self determination.
So go figure...
Last edited:
Regarding which my observation that it is identical to determinism with one of the complexities labeled for no clear reason is pertinent,
and my suggestion for discussions of freedom in the real world
( that the supernatural assumption be dropped, and replaced with a careful consideration of, and potential extrapolation or extension from, the concept of degrees of freedom routine in engineering analysis - analogous to the common consideration of complexities and logical levels in applying the 2nd Law to evolution and biological development and other apparent examples of defiance of it)
is directly relevant.
Given the quality of the discussion so far I wouldn't waste my time and effort, spending too much time on semantics, egocentric hubris, aimed only at thwarting any progress.
It's not, of course. I am obviously not at all surprised and not saying anything new - but instead repeating myself once again, because you are stuck.
Or to put it in your pejorative terms: what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?
The funny thing is that you and I actually agree.... in the main... The only thing you need to include in your thesis is the capacity to learn to self determine which is well evidenced throughout human history.
The problem though as it stands is that you have offered no method for which your actor avoids deterministic forces... after I mentioned that earlier, the hysterical lies about the supernatural just continued to strawman......your own argument....(ironically)
The struggle to self determine,
Fiction:
"The old man Jaq, was sitting on a beach watching a sunset. he could feel the weight of years and the weight of his body as he slowly got to his painfully arthritic knees, pausing to allow the pain to subside before reaching for his walking cane.
Finally, standing, struggling for balance, he noted the grinding of cartilage in his hip joints, like sandpaper on glass as he limped back to the tent he pitched earlier under the coconut palms.
Jaq had been going down to the sand to watch the sunsets for months now, homeless and destitute, his only consolation the golden glow slipping under the water in the distance.
"It was worth it all" he used to say to himself. "It was worth all the struggle".
Then one day a couple of people walking the beach found his body lying on the sand...."
Fiction:
"The old man Jaq, was sitting on a beach watching a sunset. he could feel the weight of years and the weight of his body as he slowly got to his painfully arthritic knees, pausing to allow the pain to subside before reaching for his walking cane.
Finally, standing, struggling for balance, he noted the grinding of cartilage in his hip joints, like sandpaper on glass as he limped back to the tent he pitched earlier under the coconut palms.
Jaq had been going down to the sand to watch the sunsets for months now, homeless and destitute, his only consolation the golden glow slipping under the water in the distance.
"It was worth it all" he used to say to himself. "It was worth all the struggle".
Then one day a couple of people walking the beach found his body lying on the sand...."
Last edited:
Of course not. I have stipulated throughout, for the sake of the argument, in this and all related threads here, repeated several times including above in this thread as a response to you, that no actor can avoid deterministic forces. Your actors can't either, in that stipulation.
Last edited:
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.
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.