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?
Why?
Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
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)?
See post #283
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.
"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.
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:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
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?
Are you seriously asking whether evolution is predetermined in a predetermined universe?
If so ... what do you think is the answer?
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.
....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:
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.
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.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
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:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
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?
Completely?
And what logical justification is that paradigm founded on? Causality?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Partly?
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:
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...
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Thanks for responding QQ,.....
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:
with out co-determinism true... except I wouldn't use the word supernatural...
With out introducing co-determinism, any form of freedom is not possible period. ( no need for words like illusion or supernatural.) It simply does not exist.
Thus fatalist determinism of that form fails because observed empirical evidence shows quite clearly that self determination and the freedom that allows, exists.
Co-determination is an essential, axiomatic principle that allows a self determined individual to gain deterministic freedom because all actions he may make are co-determined regardless of what those actions may be, compelled or other wise.
It is only because Sarkus denies the reality of self determination as evidenced that others can conclude that he must think that what is observed is supernatural.
personally I think that is disingenuous.
Instead of asking:
- Sarkus, why do you not consider observed empirical evidence of self determination as being valid?
- If it is not deterministic then what is it because it sure as hell is observed?
and not put words in his mouth by claiming he is referring to something that he has not stated nor would state.
Last edited:
I don't believe in the supernatural, QQ. The supernatural does not exist, in my view. If I observe something then what I observe can not, by such definition, be supernatural. My interpretation of what I observe might not be correct, but the phenomena I observe can not be supernatural.Valid for what? There is empirical evidence of self determination. That much is not disputed, what is disputed, as I have told you repeatedly, is what is actually being observed, and specifically the nature of the freedom involved.
Since both the compatibilist and incompatibilist views can explain the phenomena, the phenomena itself is neutral as to which view is correct. As evidence for one over the other the observed phenomena itself is thus not valid in that regard.
It is observed, and is deterministic, and to repeat yet again: the processes exist and are observed, and we have evidence for them, but they themselves do not speak to the truth or otherwise of the (in)compatibilist position.
Nor do they speak to the question of your co-determination, for the same reasons, that while I'm sure you think your notion can explain them, so can the others.
The benefits of naivety sometimes shine through and in this case I believe it to be true.
Valid for what? There is empirical evidence of self determination. That much is not disputed, what is disputed, as I have told you repeatedly, is what is actually being observed, and specifically the nature of the freedom involved.
Since both the compatibilist and incompatibilist views can explain the phenomena, the phenomena itself is neutral as to which view is correct. As evidence for one over the other the observed phenomena itself is thus not valid in that regard.
It is observed, and is deterministic, and to repeat yet again: the processes exist and are observed, and we have evidence for them, but they themselves do not speak to the truth or otherwise of the (in)compatibilist position.
Nor do they speak to the question of your co-determination, for the same reasons, that while I'm sure you think your notion can explain them, so can the others.
I haven't studied all the fields of determinism of which there are many, I have merely touched upon them and become generally familiar with the scope and scale, but what is most important is I look for what I feel is missing from the discussion.( when there is an impasse or unsatisfactory result between camps.) So I am looking at the problem with fresh eyes so to speak untarnished by years of "semantic" and contextual frustrations...
For example:
When reading the wiki page on determinism, which I fully understand is limited and possibly incorrect in many ways, I fail to see any mention of learning, nor the capacity to learn.
To me learning is crucial to this discussion. Yet it is missing form any discussions I have read.
Initially, I am amazed by the obvious lacking and dumbfounded by why there is no mention of this aspect of human evolution.
Nor is there any mention of the limitations of knowledge concerning life and what exactly is the difference between the organic and non-organic. Yet erudite persons will espouse views as if they are discussing a complete picture and not one that is not even half present. So I was stunned by what I can only surmise as being non-inclusive of life and learning to self determine in all the discussions.
Even today, as I mentioned earlier, it would be impossible for me learn all the details of each branch of determinism. It is impractical and in essence futile for me to do so.
The proposed solution does not fit into any of the existing branches of determinism that I have encountered.
If anything it would be a pseudo compatibilist position but to say so would render the concept of Co-determinism one sided rather than being at center between both main positions.
It is both fatalist determinism and compatibilism combined...
From what I have read there is a significant, abet subtle, difference that allows the freedom gained from self determination to have a very real quality when discussing decisions made and activities undertaken.
This primarily comes from the sheer purpose of the intellect in the first instance.
The purpose of intelligence being to enable the actor to learn, sustain and constantly improve his self determining ability thus freedom as an essential part of being alive.
So self determination is directly linked to life, intelligence, learning and human purpose. It is fundamental to our mortal existence.
I would appreciate any serious discussion on how important intelligence, learning to self determine and life are to this issue.
Depends which side of the track you start on. If you're a compatibilist then they could be considered important - the difference between a thermostat and a human, for example. But for an incompatibilist they are not important at all, as everything is just manifestations of a system lacking any freedom at all, even if it might look to those manifestations that they have such a freedom.
So to start with those things as being important is already to have established what your view of freedom is in the in/compatibilist debate, and thus bypasses that issue entirely to focus on just the compatibilist position.
It's like a discussion about whether ghosts, ghouls, etc exist, and you are asking if it is important how deadly they are... I.e. If you think they exist then what you raise are important questions, but if you don't think they exist then they're not.