Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Quantum Quack]

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.

hee hee
Well that's the thing I didn't have a side to start with. I just stated as I saw it...

From what you have just posted I am neither position.
To me a machine has no freedom what so ever, nor does a brick a star or a grain of sand on the beach. zip, none ... not even trivial.

However if we go back to the notion of Andy Compatibilist, our android, with infinite programing that is designed to learn self determination then the reality of the freedom he may eventually demonstrate would be highly debatable but way to deep for this fora. ( because this fora seems to have a real problem when discussing infinity generally)
Also because freedom is a humanized term, a form of personification projected on something...in other words to be free you have to have an ego or personna ( in this context and depth)

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

There is something that may aid in your understanding of where I am coming from...
I am not sure you will have the patience to take it on board but anyhow, for the other readers who may....

Years ago when faced with the need to rebuild by own intelligence (after a stroke) ( 29 years now) part of my recovery was achieved by the following self learned understanding.

Question: If everything is a reflex, totally reflexive with out control how do you bring about order. ( think physics and the chaos immediately after the big bang as an analogy)
Answer: By learning to use reflexes to govern reflexes.

The point being is that even at the most fundamental level order can be achieved that is totally self contained.
Learning to self determine is bit like that. All impulses can be governed by learned impulses.
Like a toddler learning to speak for the first time.

Impulsive tremor, stammer slurred speech etc. can be managed by learning the reflexes necessary to manage the reflexes driving the problem.

So when applied to the question of self determination... it leads to the plausibility of how we can learn to manage the universe's determiners in a way that serves our own interests.

Thus learning to self determine allows genuine freedom and the more you learn to self determine the greater the freedom.

 

[Sarkus]

Well that's the thing I didn't have a side to start with. I just stated as I saw it...

Yeah, you did. You may not have rcognised it for what it was, but you do. You are a compatibilist. If you think free will is compatible with determinism, you are a compatibilist.

From what you have just posted I am neither position.
To me a machine has no freedom what so ever, nor does a brick a star or a grain of sand on the beach. zip, none ... not even trivial.

However ...

As soon as you hold that there is a way for free will to be compatible with determinism you are a compatibilist. Not all compatibilist need be the same to qualify, mind you. They may have different notions of how it arises, or what it entails, but they believe it compatible.
Your theory of "co-determination" is just that, your notion of how free will is compatible.
Hence compatibilist.

There is something that may aid in your understanding of where I am coming from...
I am not sure you will have the patience to take it on board but anyhow, for the other readers who may....

It really doesn't help to attack people before they have responded. Your unwarranted ad homs should be kept to yourself.

The point being is that even at the most fundamental level order can be achieved that is totally self contained.

Order is achieved through rules/laws that govern and can't be flouted.

Learning to self determine is bit like that. All impulses can be governed by learned impulses.
Like a toddler learning to speak for the first time.

Impulsive tremor, stammer slurred speech etc. can be managed by learning the reflexes necessary to manage the reflexes driving the problem.

Sure, learning new muscle memory, or reinforcing new neural pathways in the brain etc.

So when applied to the question of self determination... it leads to the plausibility of how we can learn to manage the universe's determiners in a way that serves our own interests.

Which already assumes a compatibilist notion of free will. No problem with that, just recognise it for what it is.

Thus learning to self determine allows genuine freedom and the more you learn to self determine the greater the freedom.

All using a compatibilist notion of free will. It doesn't resolve the underlying issue, though. It just starts with the assumption of a compatibilist notion of free will, and ignores the incompatibilist position altogether. Hardly a resolution of the issue. Maybe for you (and other compatibilists) but not for incompatibilists.

 

[Write4U]

Your theory of "co-determination" is just that, your notion of how free will is compatible.
Hence compatibilist.

This is why I posted the definition of causality.

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect, where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause.

Which clearly seems to indicate that there may be several if not many individual causalities which act in a compatible manner to produce a deterministic result from sets of compatible causalities.

Deciding to learn and practicing to become efficient in a specific activity may well be one of those compatibilistic causalities.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It really doesn't help to attack people before they have responded. Your unwarranted ad homs should be kept to yourself.

You can see why discussion is almost impossible. I wasn't attacking you. I was preparing you for a difficult to understand and explain concept.

Discussing self organizing reflexology was potentially an over reach on my part and most likely to confuse the reader. I was giving you an escape route.

Paranoia... is a strange beast...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Order is achieved through rules/laws that govern and can't be flouted.

order and rules are achieved by what means?

 

[Write4U]

order and rules are achieved by what means?

mathematics?
IMO, determinism is a mathematical function......

 

[Sarkus]

You can see why discussion is almost impossible. I wasn't attacking you. I was preparing you for a difficult to understand and explain concept.

It was an attack, whether intended or not. You explicitly singled me out, and then attacked a part of what you considered my character to be. If you don't recognise that as an ad hominem then you need to brush up on your comprehension, and be more careful about what you write.

Discussing self organizing reflexology was potentially an over reach on my part and most likely to confuse the reader. I was giving you an escape route.

No escape route is needed. And if confusion is the result, and you want to warn people up front, then do so by putting the fault at your own door, not theirs. Their confusion will be because you have not adequately explained yourself to them. To blame them up front if they are confused is an attack on them, even before you have written anything that possibly confuses them. It is an attempt to put yourself above them.
It is disrespectful, if nothing else.

Paranoia... is a strange beast...

And there you go again with your insults. Someone points out that you have attacked them, intended or otherwise, and because you think you didn't intend to you claim that they are suffering from paranoia. Seriously, you can't help yourself sometimes, QQ. You can be your own worst enemy.

 

[Sarkus]

order and rules are achieved by what means?

Order is achieved by rules. The rules are part and parcel of the universe, an integral part of it, governing everything.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Order is achieved by rules. The rules are part and parcel of the universe, an integral part of it, governing everything.

And in a deterministic universe how are those rules and laws achieved?
Any ideas?
You see, i am attemting to explain my post about reflexess governing reflexes, and eventually once that hurdle is managed demonstrate relevance....but alas you just wish to state..."just is" and simultaneously consider your self to be proficient in the fields associated with determinism.
Well i am sorry for pushing your boundaries Sarkus...
Do you wish to discuss anything, anything at all about this threads topic?

 

[Write4U]

And in a deterministic universe how are those rules and laws achieved?

Now you are asking the right question. When the answer to this question is known, the deterministic function will be self-explanatory. Personally, I think determinism is founded on a very simple logic, both mathematically and philosophically.

 

[Quantum Quack]

just as a teaser for those who like watching video...

the relevance?
Some will see it some will not....
Imagine it as a natural phenomena and not man made....imagine that it is an analogy for what happens in nature...

 

[Sarkus]

And in a deterministic universe how are those rules and laws achieved?
Any ideas?

You are simply asking what caused the universe. No idea, personally. And if it didn't have a beginning then, again, no idea.

You see, i am attemting to explain my post about reflexess governing reflexes, and eventually once that hurdle is managed demonstrate relevance....but alas you just wish to state..."just is" and simultaneously consider your self to be proficient in the fields associated with determinism.
Well i am sorry for pushing your boundaries Sarkus...

Alas the only thing you're pushing is my patience waiting for you to post something sensible.

Do you wish to discuss anything, anything at all about this threads topic?

Sure. I'm just waiting for you to provide a sensible explanation of what you post.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are simply asking what caused the universe. No idea, personally. And if it didn't have a beginning then, again, no idea.
Alas the only thing you're pushing is my patience waiting for you to post something sensible.
Sure. I'm just waiting for you to provide a sensible explanation of what you post.

So i haven't posted anything that is sensible to you.
Fair enough... end of discussion.

 

[iceaura]

"And in a deterministic universe how are those rules and laws achieved?
Any ideas?"
You are simply asking what caused the universe.

Not if interpreted in the strongest way - as one should, in such discussions (granted he doesn't make it easy).
Many of the physical rules and laws and the like that govern phenomena of interest are no older than the phenomena themselves; the obvious examples would be from biology on this planet.
The relevant here would be the phenomena involved in decisionmaking by living beings, in particular the degrees of freedom involved.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I guess what I am failing to take into account is that for some, taking a step by step approach to new ideas is not easy. Impatience, denial, hubris, old idea loyalty etc. all become serious obstacles to understanding something that may very well render old ideas obsolete.
There is an old wisdom ( wisdom is always old and never new):
"The truth is always irrational to those who believe in a lie."

Also explaining by using questions that are unanswerable to the negative will inevitably insult the persons the questions are directed at. Especially if the persons sense of self esteem is intrinsically attached to the false position they hold so vigorously to.

For example:
A determinist's claim:
Human evolution is totally predetermined.
Question:
Then why do you consider any human activity regardless of whether freedom is involved or not, as being outside the realm of determinism?

All the question does is exemplify the failed position.
To push the point that the contradiction evident in the secular fatalist theory being espoused is blatant, obvious and the holder of such views needs to have a solid look at the way they rationalize and reason.

But it is the first step in learning a new idea or solution to an old problem. To get to the heart of the issue and find that a new approach is necessary to begin with.

So I apologize for my style and approach as it may be a tad too vigorous. However I do not apologize for the mistakes made by others when dealing with basic logic. They have to wear that, not me.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not if interpreted in the strongest way - as one should, in such discussions (granted he doesn't make it easy).
Many of the physical rules and laws and the like that govern phenomena of interest are no older than the phenomena themselves; the obvious examples would be from biology on this planet.
The relevant here would be the phenomena involved in decisionmaking by living beings, in particular the degrees of freedom involved.

I wasn't just asking the obvious I was attempting to demonstrate the inferior logic Sarkus was using.
the conversation went like this:

QQ: The point being is that even at the most fundamental level order can be achieved that is totally self contained.
Sarkus: Order is achieved through rules/laws that govern and can't be flouted.
Sarkus: Order is achieved by rules. The rules are part and parcel of the universe, an integral part of it, governing everything.
QQ: And in a deterministic universe how are those rules and laws achieved?
Sarkus: You are simply asking what caused the universe.

Sarkus has made the leap from the question; How the laws and rules were achieved to How the universe came into existence, projecting his inability to grasp the logic and discounting the question's relevance to worthlessness in the process.

Having a discussion at this level requires a little bit more consideration than what has so far been demonstrated.

New ideas are challenging no doubt about it...

 

[Write4U]

Then why do you consider any human activity regardless of whether freedom is involved or not, as being outside the realm of determinism?

What gives you that impression? Sounds more like you are advancing the opposite. You are the one claiming that certain human activity is outside the realm of determinism, i.e. FW.

IMO, its the opposite. Assuming that human activity is inside the realm of determinism, then assuming that different human activities have degrees of freedom is false. It's just that each action has a different deterministic causality.

There is no such thing as one causality fits all. But there is such a thing as different causalities are all deterministic of the resulting effect.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What gives you that impression?
IMO, its the opposite. Assuming that human activity is inside the realm of determinism, then assuming that different human activities have degrees of freedom is false. Each action has a different deterministic causality.

There is no such thing as one causality fits all. But there is such a thing as different causalities are all deterministic.

perhaps consider that:
Determinism deals with "the mechanics" of universal progress through time and that
freedom is a quality not a substance...
It is a value not a substance
There is no mechanical freedom in a deterministic universe, but there can be a quality considered to be freedom.
Co-determination allows that quality of freedom to be genuinely present with out compromising the mechanics of determinism...
With out co-determination being considered the quality of freedom experienced would be considered illusionary.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Until we are able to acknowledge that the quality "freedom" is not mechanical or a substance and is a value as a basic understanding we are not going to achieve much at all.
My mistake is assuming that the above would be obvious with out need to be explained.

This why i have concentrated on self determination (which could be considered mechanical) instead of the "quality " freedom.