Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Quantum Quack]

Nope.
fess, in the very first post:

Fess's first post DOES NOT mention Supernatural...
here it is:

any choice you make has reason for it. The brain is a physical organ that runs a physical process and decisions are made as a result of that process. To Exercise free will you would need to do something for absolutely no reason. That's impossible. If you come to a fork in the road, there will always be a reason you take one or the other. That pre-existing reason for your choice negates the idea of free will.

How can any one take your posts seriously when you post nonsense and lie as you are repeatedly doing?

The first mention in that thread of the word supernatural was yours.

tell us all again how Fess's post includes something it didn't....
It doesn't even allude to it... or even imply it ....

What is wrong with you Ice?

It is so blatant we are blinded by it.

You know of course that lying about other members posts can get you banned.. don't you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I do, however, know what the term means - and determining the behavior of a car is not covered, unless one is the car.

obviously not...

 

[Write4U]

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

That's true, but we must not overlook that bio-organisms have a much greater range of sensory experiences and reflexive actions than non-biological organisms and what may appear a range of freedom is in fact a range of causal experiences which elicit specific expression and are still deterministic in nature, albeit at a very subtle level.

But speaking of androids being different from humans. Have you ever considered that human biology falls for a great part outside of human control. About 90 % of cellular activity in humans is by brainless bacteria and completely outside of our control and independent of our conscious will. But without it humans would die in a few hours from attack by foreign pathogens. We don't even have conscious control over our most basic bodily functions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Have you ever considered that human biology falls for a great part outside of human control. About 90 % of cellular activity in humans is by brainless bacteria and completely outside of our control and independent of our conscious will. But without it humans would die in a few hours from attack by foreign pathogens. We don't even have control over our most basic bodily functions.

Yes it is indeed impressive how we humans can get on with our self determination with out having to bother too much about automatic, psycho-somatic-ally impacted upon bodily functions..
Have you ever heard of psycho-neuro-immunology?
If anything it proves that self development can indeed impact on our automatic functions subconsciously and consciously...

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is also impressive how we can deliberately lie too.
Actually lying is a major aspect of self determination....
(Thanks for the reminder Ice)
Did i ever tell ya bout the time i wrestled a croc?
I was determined to pluck his eyes out, but his teeth got in the way....

 

[Write4U]

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?

Colors in nature are communication tools.
They are so old and familiar to all living things that several colors are associated with safety.
Red is a universal warning signal and our response is hard-wired.

A biologist's answer is that nature uses red as awarning colour because it stands out most vividly against a green background. Other answers are that we associate it with danger because it is the colour of fire and blood.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-are-warning-signs-red/

When we are exposed to red we experience a deterministic motor response. Fight or flight.

Can you even drive a car without learning how to?

No, and this fact establishes necessity, a deterministic demand.
Why are you attempting to learn to drive in the first place? Drive to job. Necessity.
Secondly, how and why do you obtain your driver license? A license qualifies to drive on public streets. Sufficiency.
Thirdly, do you have any free choice in making these decisions? No, these "choices" are all from necessity and there is no freedom to choose otherwise. You can't even use a Florida driver's license in Idaho. It's a purely deterministic process. It always is.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Colors in nature are communication tools.
They are so old and familiar to all living things that several colors are associated with safety.
Red is a universal warning signal and our response is hard-wired.

need to prove that to be true... credible link please.
My fav. color is red and had nothing to do with danger...
citing three scientists guessing is not evidence.
And perhaps you may be correct about the possibility of hard wiring, however with learning we can reverse or alter this response easily. The Chinese (in Singapore) for example consider red to be lucky... It is even on their flag, their dragons are red also... etc...


or maybe a rose:

When we are exposed to red we experience a deterministic motor response. Fight or flight.

or stop if that is what we learn... yep.. you missed that one....

No, and this fact establishes necessity, a deterministic demand.
Why are you attempting to learn to drive in the first place? Drive to job. Necessity.

No I am learning to drive the car so I can drive it....any where I self determine myself to go.

Secondly, how and why do you obtain your driver license? A license qualifies to drive on public streets. Sufficiency.

Uhmm... so that I can drive the car I learned to drive in a way that doesn't upset society because I can prove that I learned to drive the car as a holder of a license.....
I also learned that to be successful in life one has to learn how to compromise ones rebellious nature....

Thirdly, do you have any free choice in making these decisions? No, these "choices" are all from necessity and there is no freedom to choose otherwise. You can't even use a Florida driver's license in Idaho. It's a purely deterministic process. It always is.

Yep I could always borrow the neighbors horse knowing that I could go to jail when I get caught....
Or I may decide to stay in bed instead.....or do Forrest Gump and run East to West... or was it West to East....on foot...
Have you ever driven a car with out a license?
I have ... and I even drove a motor bike for 3 years with out one....
You see you have a choice to either obey the law or disobey it... simple...


It is sad that you are so conditioned that you do not feel you have a choice...

If you are happy being a sheeple don't let me persuade you other wise. But I am happy being free to do as I like...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Any how what you are talking about is instinctive behavior...yes?
From the day we were born we learn to manage our decisions impacted by our instincts.
In fact it is one of the greatest abilities that we have. With out which there would be no civilization of humans for that matter, as we would have killed ourselves off ages ago in the game called survival of the fittest.

 

[Baldeee]

I totally agree with what you have posted.

Yet I don't agree with what you have subsequently stated.
But that's what discussion is for.

IMO the freedom Ice is referring to simply can not exist unless he can demonstrate how any decisions his driver makes are not predetermined.

Agreed.
(Ok, I agree with that much... )

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.

Well, if you agree that the decisions are predetermined, and thus there is no freedom, then any appearance of such freedom must be purely an illusion of that freedom.
That part of the argument is not difficult.

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.

Surely it becomes less apparent?
The only difference you could draw between the two is that one is non-organic while the other is organic.
If all outward appearance of choice, decision-making, freedom etc are identical between the two, on what basis would you conclude that one is operating - from a process point of view - differently to the other?
The more complex the android, the more accurately it acts like humans do (assuming that is the purpose of the increased complexity).
Okay, there's the additional question of which is conscious and which is not (on the basis that "self-determination" requires one to be conscious), but at that level of complexity who is to say that the android is simply a p-zombie and not actually conscious?
If you think the question simple, ask yourself how you know (rather than just assume) that anyone else you meet is actually conscious, rather than just having all the outward appearance of it and no actual consciousness?

 

[Write4U]

need to prove that to be true... credible link please.
My fav. color is red and had nothing to do with danger ... citing three scientists guessing is not evidence.
And perhaps you may be correct about the possibility of hard wiring, however with learning we can reverse or alter this response easily. The Chinese (in Singapore) for example consider red to be lucky... It is even on their flag, their dragons are red also... etc...

Dragons are not domestic household pets. Dragons are powerful mythical forces and served good as well as bad. Red Dragon is a famous horror tale.

The Red Dragon now flies proudly over public and private buildings throughout Wales, and thousands still cross the border into England every other year, when the two nations meet for their ‘historic struggle’ on the rugby battlefield known as Twickenham. Welshmen, women and children carrying the dragon as a symbol of pride in their history and culture.

or maybe a rose:
View attachment 2610

Of course there are exceptions, especially now that humans have bred thousands of hybrid flowers. When you see a rose how do you pluck it? Very carefully, no?
Roses have thorns! Red is the most visible color and as such is a preferred color for "danger" in the arena of "natural selection".

or stop if that is what we learn... yep.. you missed that one....

Yes, when you see red you stop or proceed with caution. Red means danger. Fight or Flight, is that a free will decision?
Or when you see this sign;

Why are warning signs red?
Warning: observing a red traffic sign is the first sign of danger.

A biologist's answer is that nature uses red as a warning colour because it stands out most vividly against a green background. Other answers are that we associate it with danger because it is the colour of fire and blood.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-are-warning-signs-red/

Red traffic signs are there to warn you of an potentially existing dangerous traffic condition.

No I am learning to drive the car so I can drive it....any where I self determine myself to go.

There is no "anywhere" you can self-determine to drive to. You can take a drive "somewhere" in the country but that is a motivated and deterministic action. The decision to drive itself is a motivated action and motivated actions are deterministic, they are based on a prior causal state.
It's inescapable, the function of Cause -->Effect is a true universal function.

IMO, you assume that human decision making has a certain freedom, but that is a false illusion.
Motivated decision making is always based on a conscious or unconscious perceived necessity.

Uhmm... so that I can drive the car I learned to drive in a way that doesn't upset society because I can prove that I learned to drive the car as a holder of a license.....
I also learned that to be successful in life one has to learn how to compromise one's rebellious nature....

Correct, all motivated decisions based on prior environmental causal conditions and your response to deal with them.

Yep I could always borrow the neighbors' horse knowing that I could go to jail when I get caught....
Or I may decide to stay in bed instead.....or do Forrest Gump and run East to West... or was it West to East....on foot...

Whatever you decide will be based on a prior condition.

Have you ever driven a car with out a license? I have ... and I even drove a motor bike for 3 years with out one....
You see you have a choice to either obey the law or disobey it... simple...

Why would you disobey the law? You must have had a good reason why you broke the law? Even breaking the law on a whim is a causal deterministic motive which results in a specific deterministic effect. Get caught and you'll find out how free your choice was in the real world.

It is sad that you are so conditioned that you do not feel you have a choice...
If you are happy being a sheeple don't let me persuade you other wise. But I am happy being free to do as I like...

Hehe, it is sad to see you believe that you are in charge, when you really aren't. That does not make you a sheeple.

Relativity does not offer choices.

You're looking at this from an incorrect perspective. All decisions, good or bad are a result of a prior existing (or even anticipated) condition which requires resolution. There are no "uncaused" effects. But you may not necessarily be aware of any causality at all. Our observation and active powers are very limited in relation to natural physics.

Driving itself is a deterministic activity. Even if you want to break the speed limit, you are restricted by the speedlimit of the car itself. You cannot go 200 mph in a VW.

We don't even know that we are hurtling trough space at 67,000 mph and you wish to exercise "free will" going anywhere you desire?

Your problem is that you see determinism as an irresistible force that compels you to act against your will and that you reserve the right to exercise your strong will to fight and counteract the deterministic imperatives. But that is not how it works. We're not even halh aware of our own physical existence. Anil Seth posits that at best our brains try to make "best guesses", and that in actual fact we hallucinate our reality in a controlled manner.

When our best guesses are wrong we are declared insane.

I already mentioned that our biome consists of more bacteria than human cells and we don't have any control over the bacteria, unless they act up from a bacterial deterministic cause, which would present a human deterministic cause to which we must respond to stay alive.

It is a much more subtle condition than anything we believe we are free to want and do.
ALL choices (actions) are caused by prior existing conditions, even the ones you think you make freely.

Motive;
: something (such as a need or desire) that causes a person to act.

There is always a motive, even if you want to drop a coin, heads or tails. When there is a causal condition which requires resolution there is motive. When there is motive (cause) there is a deterministic effect.

If you have a new hypothesis that deterministic ..Cause -->Effect .. is no longer settled science, let's hear it. I think it is one of the oldest tenets in science.

Determinism, noun
PHILOSOPHY
The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of determinism mentioned below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well, if you agree that the decisions are predetermined, and thus there is no freedom, then any appearance of such freedom must be purely an illusion of that freedom.
That part of the argument is not difficult.

The question is:
Predetermined by who or what?

• if it is universe then freedom is an illusion.
• if it is "self" then freedom is genuine.

and that is the issue regarding self determination.

The human life long challenge, if not purpose, is to learn how to predetermine thus determine for himself.
It is proposed by this thread that the human has been predetermined by the universe to learn how to predetermine for him self.
There is ample evidence to support that proposal.

We have two pre-determiners, the universe and self, then co-determinism naturally follows.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Dragons are not domestic household pets. Dragons are powerful mythical forces and served good as well as bad. Red Dragon is a famous horror tale.

The Red Dragon now flies proudly over public and private buildings throughout Wales, and thousands still cross the border into England every other year, when the two nations meet for their ‘historic struggle’ on the rugby battlefield known as Twickenham. Welshmen, women and children carrying the dragon as a symbol of pride in their history and culture.
Of course there are exceptions, especially now that humans have bred thousands of hybrid flowers. When you see a rose how do you pluck it? Very carefully, no?
Roses have thorns! Red is the most visible color and as such is a preferred color for "danger" in the arena of "natural selection".
Yes, when you see red you stop or proceed with caution. Red means danger. Fight or Flight, is that a free will decision?
Or when you see this sign;

Why are warning signs red?
Warning: observing a red traffic sign is the first sign of danger.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-are-warning-signs-red/

Red traffic signs are there to warn you of an potentially existing dangerous traffic condition.
There is no "anywhere" you can self-determine to drive to. You can take a drive "somewhere" in the country but that is a motivated and deterministic action. The decision to drive itself is a motivated action and motivated actions are deterministic, they are based on a prior causal state.
It's inescapable, the function of Cause -->Effect is a true universal function.

IMO, you assume that human decision making has a certain freedom, but that is a false illusion.
Motivated decision making is always based on a conscious or unconscious perceived necessity.
Correct, all motivated decisions based on prior environmental causal conditions and your response to deal with them.
Whatever you decide will be based on a prior condition. Why would you disobey the law? You must have had a good reason why you broke the law? Even breaking the law on a whim is a causal deterministic motive which results in a specific deterministic effect. Get caught and you'll find out how free your choice was in the real world.
Hehe, it is sad to see you believe that you are in charge, when you really aren't. That does not make you a sheeple.

Relativity does not offer choices.

You're looking at this from an incorrect perspective. All decisions, good or bad are a result of a prior existing (or even anticipated) condition which requires resolution. There are no "uncaused" effects. But you may not necessarily be aware of any causality at all. Our observation and active powers are very limited in relation to natural physics.

Driving itself is a deterministic activity. Even if you want to break the speed limit, you are restricted by the speedlimit of the car itself. You cannot go 200 mph in a VW.

We don't even know that we are hurtling trough space at 67,000 mph and you wish to exercise "free will" going anywhere you desire?

Your problem is that you see determinism as an irresistible force that compels you to act against your will and that you reserve the right to exercise your strong will to fight and counteract the deterministic imperatives. But that is not how it works. We're not even halh aware of our own physical existence. Anil Seth posits that at best our brains try to make "best guesses", and that in actual fact we hallucinate our reality in a controlled manner.

When our best guesses are wrong we are declared insane.

I already mentioned that our biome consists of more bacteria than human cells and we don't have any control over the bacteria, unless they act up from a bacterial deterministic cause, which would present a human deterministic cause to which we must respond to stay alive.

It is a much more subtle condition than anything we believe we are free to want and do.
ALL choices (actions) are caused by prior existing conditions, even the ones you think you make freely. There is always a motive, even if you want to drop a coin, heads or tails. When there is a causal condition which requires resolution there is motive. When there is motive (cause) there is a deterministic effect.

If you have a new hypothesis that deterministic ..Cause -->Effect .. is no longer settled science, let's hear it. I think it is one of the oldest tenets in science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

so what is the point of learning anything?
Why science to begin with?
Why did you go to primary school to learn how to post the sort of stuff you post?
Why do I need to learn that freedom is an illusion when the very lesson involved is a deception?

In logic, claiming cause and effect generates an illusion, also means that the notion of cause and effect is an illusion.
Why?
The very use of logic (choose between good logic - bad logic) requires volition, but volition is being claimed as an illusion. The logic of Cause and effect is itself an illusion. see?

The scientific truth(s) you presume to be true are in fact an illusion according to your reasoning.

Unless you can explain why science is not an illusion under your reasoning....

I have little confidence that you can comprehend the above, but at least I can say I voluntarily tried.

so,
If self determination is an illusion then the science that claims it to be an illusion is even more so.

The circular logic you are using is inescapable....you are claiming cause and effect is an illusion.



a version of liars paradox...

...and one illusion said to the other illusion,
"You are an illusion".....

or another

Claim: "Your freedom is an illusion"
Response: "What made you say that?"

 

[Quantum Quack]

Claim:
The scientific truths used as a premise to support determinism are an illusion... as a consequence of that very determinism.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The data is not illusionary, the notion that the data is free (random) data is illusionary. Wharever logical data is recorded it had a prior origin.

yet you are claiming that the universe decides what data to accept and what data to reject, what data is true and what data is false... there is no truth according to determinism. truth is an illusion.

You are trying to use the"Matrix" to escape the "Matrix"...

 

[iceaura]

Red is a universal warning signal and our response is hard-wired.

Red is a sign of ripeness and edibility in fruit, superior fitness in many birds, etc.
People often fail to stop for red lights.

A deeply wrongheaded line of argument, that.

The data is not illusionary, the notion that the data is free (random) data is illusionary.

Now you are trying to draw some kind of equivalence between freedom and randomness, talking about freedom of data, etc. And "illusionary" is not the word you want.
Your line of argument is causing you to post nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

Claim:
The scientific truths used as a premise to support determinism are an illusion... as a consequence of that very determinism.

Why does it need to be complicated? The entire function rests on logic.
Logic demands that the addition of two or more positive values result in a determination of a subsequent greater single value than eoither of the single values.
That's not illusionary. That's a natural law and has been "proven" to be true.

Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person's sense of right and wrong or what "ought" to be. "Equal rights for all", "Excellence deserves admiration", and "People should be treated with respect and dignity" are representatives of values.

Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior and these types include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological (religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(ethics)#Absolute_or_relative

Thus the philosophy identifies the individual's initial mental state (values and/or vices) by which additional information is processed and on which decisions are eventually based.
The functional causal basis for the emerging decision.

 

[iceaura]

Thus the philosophy identifies the individual's prior mental state on which his.her decisions are based.
The causal basis for the emerging decision.

1) Not the "philosophy", here - the observation.
2)Part of it. There is also the color of the light, in the simple example you are welcome to use.
3) That was stipulated to long, long ago. Everybody here has been posting in complete agreement with that, all along.

 

[Write4U]

Red is a sign of ripeness and edibility in fruit, superior fitness in many birds, etc. bPeople often fail to stop for red lights.

A deeply wrongheaded line of argument, that.

High visibility can also be a distinct advantage in natural selection of sweet fruits. Red is also the color of passion. The wave-length of the color red has carved itself a very dynamic information transmission role, at many levels.

Now you are trying to draw some kind of equivalence between freedom and randomness, talking about freedom of data, etc. And "illusionary" is not the word you want.

Illusionary is precisely the word. The only way data is not logical is when it is randomly distributed. Else there is a pattern with a defined value. Randomly distributed data in the brain is referred to as an "uncontrolled" hallucination.

Give it up. Your entire line of argument is causing you to post nonsense.

Not just yet. I'd like to hear from others where my logic fails.

Controlled hallucination;

SETH:
I love this phrase. I wish I could take credit for it, but I can't. But I love the phrase because it points out that everything that we perceive - consciously or unconsciously, but let's talk about consciousness for now - is a construction of the brain. I mean, it's easy to think that we open our eyes and objective reality is revealed to us through the windows of our eyes.

SETH:
And what conscious perception is is basically just somebody sitting inside our skull, looking out there, and they see a red table, or they see a person, or they see a tree, or...

RAZ:
I'm at a baseball game. There's the batter. There's the hit.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED BROADCASTER: And he's going to pull this one to right.

RAZ:
That's real. That's reality.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED BROADCASTER: It's going deep. See you later.

SETH:
That's right. But the truth is that all perceptions are acts of interpretation. They're acts of informed guesswork that the brain applies when it encounters sensory data. I think the way I can think of this is that there is no light in the skull, and there's no sounds. All that's going on in the brain are electrical impulses whizzing around in complex patterns. And out of all this - all this pattern-making in the brain, a world appears.

And in some sense, we've known this for a long time. So since Newton, it's been pretty clear that colors - red, yellow, green, et cetera - colors are not objective properties of objects in the world. They are attributes of reflected light. And the brain - the visual system will make inferences based on wavelengths of light about what color something is. So something as basic as color is not something that we just passively receive from the world. We actively attribute it to things out there in the world.

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=654730916

Can you give me a better overview?

 

[Quantum Quack]

As I posted in the other thread determinism is a "cake and eat it too" theory.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Why does it need to be complicated? The entire function rests on logic.
Logic demands that the addition of two or more positive values result in a determination of a subsequent greater single value than eoither of the single values.
That's not illusionary. That's a natural law and has been "proven" to be true.

proven true by who?
If it is determined by the universe then the decision to believe the logic is an illusion...

Thus the philosophy identifies the individual's initial mental state (values and/or vices) by which additional information is processed and on which decisions are eventually based.
The functional causal basis for the emerging decision.

there fore any decision reached is an illusion thus determinism is self contradictory....and circular...

Like I posted I had little confidence that you would comprehend what I am posting. A few years learning sound reasoning may help.

Ask the straight forward question:
Who is deciding whether Cause and effect is true or false?

and then follow you own arguments against self determination to their natural conclusion and you end up with the word "illusion".