Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Quantum Quack]

That decisions may be made differently by a given person - producing different willed actions - based on information not yet available to that person, means that there is some freedom of will in that system.
In the nonsupernatural sense, of course.

Otherwise called self determination. Non supernatural of course....

 

[iceaura]

Otherwise called self determination. Non supernatural of course....

It doesn't necessarily determine the self. It determines the actions of a car, in the carefully chosen example best at hand. Car determination. (That is only the second repetition of that point, iirc. It's almost refreshing to post some simple point for only the third time. )

The self involved, being part of the universe, was of course determined - or "predetermined", as the fashionable vocabulary would have it - by larger aspects of the universe, in a long feedback process of increasing complexity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It doesn't necessarily determine the self. It determines the actions of a car, in the carefully chosen example best at hand. Car determination.
The self involved, being part of the universe, was of course determined - or "predetermined", as the fashionable vocabulary would have it - by larger aspects of the universe, in a long feedback process of increasing complexity.

Self determination normally means something determined by yourself...

 

[Write4U]

That decisions may be made differently by a given person - producing different willed actions - based on information not yet available to that person, means that there is some freedom of will in that system.
In the nonsupernatural sense, of course.

But that is not freedom of will but flexibility in expression of the causal effect from a host of possible implied pattern expressions.

Human diversity of mind is as varied as a field of mixed wild and domestic flower varieties. There is no free will, but there is a measured freedom of expression. But human variety of free will deterministic choices often comes at a price, which would suggest that "you should not intentionally try to fool Mother nature" in any significant way.

Humans can easily become a surface nuisance from our free will deterministic influences on the natural order of the earth's environment.
Then it will be time for mankind to pack its bags and say bye-bye........

Who wants to be deterministically responsible for GW? Free Will in that context is admitting that we are so greedy and virulent as an invasive species that we will intentionally kill our precious host for material posessions. So much for free will.

Talk about getting kicked out of paradise for disobeying the law....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Talk about getting kicked out of paradise for disobeying the law....

more like getting kicked out of paradise for trying to control nature and not co-operating with nature...

Is there a Law yet written about "symbiotic sustainability"?
If not by the end of the coming decade there will be...( if we as a race of determiners survive of course)
Basically we need to take our co-determinations more seriously, greater respect and responsibility for our own power to co-determine. One of the reasons i have been persisting with this topic.
If you can't fix it, don't break it...

 

[Quantum Quack]

One law I'd like to see, is if you can't recycle your rubbish don't make any.
Goes for pollution CO2 etc.

 

[iceaura]

But that is not freedom of will but flexibility in expression of the causal effect from a host of possible implied pattern expressions.

With the necessary degrees of freedom such "causal effects" require, of course. How is that not "freedom of will"?

There is no free will, but there is a measured freedom of expression.

From an extrapolated engineering pov: there is a significant and as yet unmeasured (we lack the ability) freedom of "expression" of the human will. The word "expression" is of course redundant in that context.
Your refusal to call that "free will" is noted, and was predicted long ago - I have been lobbying for "freedom of will" for a long time, to avoid at least the useless semantic muddle in dealing with the supernatural assumption.

 

[iceaura]

Self determination normally means something determined by yourself...

Yep - oneself.
In this case, the carefully chosen example posted long ago, what was determined was not a self (that remained unchanged from its predetermined nature) but the behavior of a car.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yep - oneself.
In this case, the carefully chosen example posted long ago, what was determined was not a self (that remained unchanged from its predetermined nature) but the behavior of a car.

Uhm... ok...I'll leave u with that mess...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yep - oneself.
In this case, the carefully chosen example posted long ago, what was determined was not a self (that remained unchanged from its predetermined nature) but the behavior of a car.

Oh before i do can I ask you this:

Does learning to drive a car including what stop and go, how to do it and what the colors Green, Red and Amber mean, have any bearing on the decisions made by the driver?

Can you even drive a car with out learning how to?

 

[Write4U]

With the necessary degrees of freedom such "causal effects" require, of course. How is that not "freedom of will"

Will to express is a motivated action and has a deterministic causality.
You cannot have an uncaused motive or implication of that which will become expressed in reality.
All patterns are formed by a set or sets of deterministic potentials and will naturally show an infinite variety of expression based on a handfull of deterministic natural causal equations.

 

[iceaura]

Will to express is a motivated action and has a deterministic causality.
You cannot have an uncaused motive or implication of that which will become expressed in reality.

Sure (once the muddle of a "will to express" being a "motivated action" has been cleaned up - probably by dropping the word "express" as redundant, and recasting - so that the "reality" involved has been clearly described)

But that wasn't in question. A deterministic universe was stipulated long, long ago.

The question was how the net and "sum" of the degrees of freedom involved in all that deterministic causality was not "freedom of will".

Does learning to drive a car including what stop and go, how to do it and what the colors Green, Red and Amber mean, have any bearing on the decisions made by the driver?

All that would be part of the determination - excuse me, the "predetermination" - of the driver's decision.

How many times do you think you will need to have that question answered? Perhaps you could copy one of the answers, and paste it in after you pose the question next time. Paste it in as many times as you feel the need.

 

[Write4U]

Sure (once the muddle of a "will to express" being a "motivated action" has been cleaned up - probably by dropping the word "express" as redundant, and recasting - so that the "reality" involved has been clearly described)

I don't see it that way. If we accept the notion of free will, a person may consider many options, but even then only one of them becomes expressed in reality. This expressed decision is still founded on and preceded by motive and the act is deterministic.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

The italicized phrases are elements that require further explanation and investigation, in order for us to gain a clear understanding of the concept of determinism.

The roots of the notion of determinism surely lie in a very common philosophical idea: the idea that everything can, in principle, be explained, or that everything that is, has a sufficient reason for being and being as it is, and not otherwise. In other words, the roots of determinism lie in what Leibniz named the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

 

[Quantum Quack]

Unfortunately Ice fails to show how any decisions made avoid being predtermined, and fails to show how freedom exists, regardless of complexity, from those deterministic factors.

 

[Baldeee]

Unfortunately Ice fails to show how any decisions made avoid being predtermined, and fails to show how freedom exists, regardless of complexity, from those deterministic factors.

He simply bypasses (or tries to) the entire issue through the definition of "freedom" he selects.
He starts with the hidden assumption that freedom exists.
So if a definition is used that results in a conclusion that it can not possibly exist in a deterministic universe he (incorrectly) dismisses it as assuming from the outset that only the supernatural can be free, thus dismissing it from contention.
So in the end he ends up with a definition of freedom that (question-beggingly exists but) that is found, as Sarkus has continually pointed out, in a thermostat.
From there, as you rightly point out, he fails to show how his notion of "freedom" in the will is any way different to that found in that thermostat, other than through appeals to complexity - i.e. all appeal but no actual explanation.
Sarkus has seemingly hit the nail on the head when he points to complexity as being iceaura's "god of the gaps" in this matter.

But I've had him on ignore for a while, and maybe he's changed his tune from the monotone of the previous threads.

 

[Quantum Quack]

He simply bypasses (or tries to) the entire issue through the definition of "freedom" he selects.
He starts with the hidden assumption that freedom exists.
So if a definition is used that results in a conclusion that it can not possibly exist in a deterministic universe he (incorrectly) dismisses it as assuming from the outset that only the supernatural can be free, thus dismissing it from contention.
So in the end he ends up with a definition of freedom that (question-beggingly exists but) that is found, as Sarkus has continually pointed out, in a thermostat.
From there, as you rightly point out, he fails to show how his notion of "freedom" in the will is any way different to that found in that thermostat, other than through appeals to complexity - i.e. all appeal but no actual explanation.
Sarkus has seemingly hit the nail on the head when he points to complexity as being iceaura's "god of the gaps" in this matter.

But I've had him on ignore for a while, and maybe he's changed his tune from the monotone of the previous threads.

I totally agree with what you have posted.
IMO the freedom Ice is referring to simply can not exist unless he can demonstrate how any decisions his driver makes are not predetermined. Even if they appear to have the quality of freedom with empirical evidence to support it, he fails to understand that the question is far more deeper than what can be argued to be an illusion of freedom and not genuine freedom.
It is like comparing an infinitely complex sophisticated robot ( android) that makes decisions to a human who self determines. At that level of discussion, which we are a long way from getting to, the distinction between living organisms and machines becomes more apparent. The quality of Freedom becomes extremely subtle but I believe the distinction can be drawn, because there is one key aspect of biological will and self determination (and then related to consciousness) that has yet to be discussed and will not be discussed ( be me any how) until it is demonstrated we can deal with the issue of self determination in it's crude form at the very least. So far after 360 posts to this thread we have not really even got close.

Keeping mind that the term freedom is immaterial and simply a quality or property. Any discussion about values and quality etc... is bound to be difficult and vexatious.
This is why I have avoided the term and concentrated on self determination. By doing so I am focused on determinism and not too concerned about freedom until the understanding of co-determinism sinks in. For once it does, I believe, the freedom quality or value becomes self evident, in doing so becomes (more) genuine and not subjectively contrived.

Thanks for your input...

 

[iceaura]

I don't see it that way. If we accept the notion of free will, a person may consider many options, but even then only one of them becomes expressed in reality. This expressed decision is still founded on and preceded by motive and the act is deterministic.

That's almost exactly as I see it - we are in complete and explicit agreement, as you can read in all my posts

- with the sole caveat that "the notion of free will" you reference is not clear, and can be dropped without loss - it does not need to be accepted with the rest of the post.

Meanwhile, the responses to my posts have deteriorated to the point that they have become relevant to the topic - they illustrate what can't be validly argued any more:

Unfortunately Ice fails to show how any decisions made avoid being predtermined,

Instead, Ice keeps repeating -
patiently, over and over, every time somebody misses the entire argument and all the content of his posts like that -

that no decisions avoid being predetermined, all decisions are predetermined, he explicitly stipulated to the determined universe as the basis of his arguments, there is in Ice's posting by assumption and from the beginning no such thing as the ability to make a supernatural decision, and so forth.

Ice has not set about trying to show how decisions avoid being predetermined, because all of his arguments assume that they can't. Explicitly.

and fails to show how freedom exists, regardless of complexity, from those deterministic factors.

"Show"? We're still stuck on whether freedom requires abrogation of natural law and defiance of determined outcome.

I have described, referred to, argued for, and repeatedly mentioned, exactly where and when and how I suggest - as a possibility, a matter for discussion someday - degrees of freedom arise in theory just as they are observed to exist in reality, in human decision making,
all as a preliminary to a discussion of freedom of will to whatever extent it exists in the real, physical, deterministic world,

including the role of complexities, logical levels, etc (they mark in analysis where the nature of the degrees of freedom involved changes in the physical world, which will be useful in an actual discussion of those freedoms if we ever enjoy one. Meanwhile they trivially but usefully rid us of all the "humans are by nature thermostats" carelessness)

with examples, often, for you to examine and consider in your own good time - settling on one example (driver approaching traffic light), eventually, in an attempt to keep things simple enough that your reflexive repetition of dismissal and avoidance and denial and so forth becomes obviously and flagrantly absurd (a successful attempt, btw),

-> dozens of times over several threads in which you were present and replying to my posts. Dozens.

The most common category of response has been to deny and ignore the existence of those posts (this has been done by people who are simultaneously quoting them). A second is to deny the reality observed in the posts,
like this:

Even if they appear to have the quality of freedom with empirical evidence to support it, he fails to understand that the question is far more deeper than what can be argued to be an illusion of freedom and not genuine freedom.

while ignoring the theory altogether (the attempted argument that these observations are "illusions" was thoroughly debunked immediately on theoretical grounds - it was self-contradictory, for starters).
A third is to object to my posting of anything that requires consideration of freedom of will from my suggested approach or perspective, because it's not the "notion of free will" other people want to talk about.

The least common response - one might even say absent, as it is available only in hints buried in contradictions - is to address my examples or arguments as posted. Notice: you guys haven't even been able to manage that in dealing with the one simple example - you keep deflecting to other examples, moving the timeline, changing the subject, etc - let alone the argument and theory.

And so there is no discussion of nonsupernatural freedom of will, on any of these threads. Yet.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's almost exactly as I see it - we are in complete and explicit agreement, as you can read in all my posts

- with the sole caveat that "the notion of free will" you reference is not clear, and can be dropped without loss - it does not need to be accepted with the rest of the post.

Meanwhile, the responses to my posts have deteriorated to the point that they have become relevant to the topic - they illustrate what can't be validly argued any more:

Instead, Ice keeps repeating -
patiently, over and over, every time somebody misses the entire argument and all the content of his posts like that -

that no decisions avoid being predetermined, all decisions are predetermined, he explicitly stipulated to the determined universe as the basis of his arguments, there is in Ice's posting by assumption and from the beginning no such thing as the ability to make a supernatural decision, and so forth.

Ice has not set about trying to show how decisions avoid being predetermined, because all of his arguments assume that they can't. Explicitly.

"Show"? We're still stuck on whether freedom requires abrogation of natural law and defiance of determined outcome.

I have described, referred to, argued for, and repeatedly mentioned, exactly where and when and how I suggest - as a possibility, a matter for discussion someday - degrees of freedom arise in theory just as they are observed to exist in reality, in human decision making,
all as a preliminary to a discussion of freedom of will to whatever extent it exists in the real, physical, deterministic world,

including the role of complexities, logical levels, etc (they mark in analysis where the nature of the degrees of freedom involved changes in the physical world, which will be useful in an actual discussion of those freedoms if we ever enjoy one. Meanwhile they trivially but usefully rid us of all the "humans are by nature thermostats" carelessness)

with examples, often, for you to examine and consider in your own good time - settling on one example (driver approaching traffic light), eventually, in an attempt to keep things simple enough that your reflexive repetition of dismissal and avoidance and denial and so forth becomes obviously and flagrantly absurd (a successful attempt, btw),

-> dozens of times over several threads in which you were present and replying to my posts. Dozens.

The most common category of response has been to deny and ignore the existence of those posts (this has been done by people who are simultaneously quoting them). A second is to deny the reality observed in the posts,
like this:
while ignoring the theory altogether (the attempted argument that these observations are "illusions" was thoroughly debunked immediately on theoretical grounds - it was self-contradictory, for starters, and depended
A third is to object to my posting of anything that requires consideration of freedom of will from my suggested approach or perspective, because it's not the "notion of free will" other people want to talk about.

The least common response - one might even say absent, as it is available only in hints buried in contradictions - is to address my examples or arguments as posted. Notice: you guys haven't even been able to manage that in dealing with the one simple example - you keep deflecting to other examples, moving the timeline, changing the subject, etc - let alone the argument and theory.

And so there is no discussion of nonsupernatural freedom of will, on any of these threads. Yet.

Yes well .. you are repeating your self over and over and others are also refuting what you are repeating...
Can you tell me what our arguments are?

Just want to check that we are all on the same page.... thanks

And so there is no discussion of nonsupernatural freedom of will, on any of these threads. Yet.

Nonsense...
This entire thread all 360+ posts of it is devoted to just that... a non-supernatural and genuine quality called freedom...

Now repeat my refutation back to me..... just to make sure you read it correctly...

You can start with the word "Nonsense" if you like...

 

[Quantum Quack]

the first reference to the super natural in the What is Freewill? thread was by Iceaura
This post:

That is the central issue, imho: you guys regard only the supernatural as nontrivial. That explains your resistance to acknowledging complex physical reality and its implications in this matter.

still checking to see who introduced this notion of the supernatural... perhaps in other threads...

btw...
Iceaura's strong defense of self determination from the same thread:

The defense is not valid.
The universe made you do it in large part by making you, with your full cooperation and help along the way. You are the most responsible part of the universe that made you do it.
You made you do it.

I grew, as noted, over time. That makes me part of the universe that did the "designing and constructing" - a central and major factor or agent, not a separate thing.
You are trying to bite your teeth. We are largely our own puppeteers, as well as puppets.

yet ironically he refuses to agree with my defense of self determination...
One can only wonder why?
As I have repeatedly stated one of the things missing from Ice's theory (car analogy) is the fact that the driver is self determined....

hmmmm...
Also the super natural freedom he falsely accuses others of espousing is the only outcome for Ice's theory if he doesn't include self determination.

how's that for irony and a touch of madness perhaps...

 

[iceaura]

Can you tell me what our arguments are?

You haven't made much in the way of argument.
You appear to be looking for a source of freedom in some kind of defiance of, or independence from, universal determination. You have chosen the "self" as that source. But the "self" you are dealing with is neither independent nor defiant of universal causality - a human being is part and parcel of the universe. So the nature of its "freedom" remains what you agreed to for the rest of the universe - when you agreed with the naive materialists that predetermination excludes freedom by excluding the supernatural.

Just want to check that we are all on the same page.... thanks

We aren't.

This entire thread all 360+ posts of it is devoted to just that... a non-supernatural and genuine quality called freedom...

Not the entire thread. My posts, and if you can get over the bar of the supernatural (so far your "freedom" has no described nature, origin, or properties, other than the implied supernatural you boxed yourself into by denying freedom outside the "self" and declaring observations of capabilities and events to be "illusions") your future posts, but nobody else's, even admit the topic - and there is no discussion in a one-sided repetition.

others are also refuting what you are repeating...

They aren't even addressing it. To refute, one must at least address.

Now repeat my refutation back to me

You have made a variety of claims about my posts - and about my thinking, motives, and other irrelevancies - mostly false. You have made no attempt at refutation I can recall, of anything I have posted.

the first reference to the super natural in the What is Freewill? thread was by Iceaura

Nope.
fess, in the very first post:

That pre-existing reason for your choice negates the idea of free will.

Fess in posts 1 and 9, Write4U in several posts, Capracus in a couple, and so forth, all excluded free will by invoking determinism in that thread before I referred to that exclusion. Pages before. Yazata, not me, was the first in that thread to post one of the obvious rebuttals. And that thread was itself well into the middle of the issue.
Your propensity for going far out of your way to make false claims about my posting, apparently inadvertently, should warn you about your thinking here.

Also the super natural freedom he falsely accuses others of espousing is the only outcome for Ice's theory if he doesn't include self determination.

"Espousing" and "assuming" are not the same activities. I have accused nobody of "espousing" supernatural freedom.
Meanwhile: The only way to get from my suggestion for an approach to freedom of will to me requiring supernatural freedom is to assume both 1) that I am assuming freedom, and 2) there can be no nonsupernatural freedom in a deterministic universe - so you are making that assumption, as I pointed out.
And I do include self-determination, of course - it's one of those complexities of human decisionmaking, involving logical levels, I keep referring to. I have invoked it several times (explicitly: growth and development involving feedback, the self as not a puppet of the universe, etc). I do, however, know what the term means - and determining the behavior of a car is not covered, unless one is the car.

The breakdown of language on these freewill threads is worth noticing. Capability, illusion, self-determination, actual, genuine, refutation, etc etc - "capability" has been maybe the oddest, especially in the repetition and strong defense of its unusual misuse. One of the benefits of picking a simple example, like a driver approaching a light, is that these aberrations are isolated and made easily visible.