Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Quantum Quack]

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

ok but remember ... you asked for it...

Seriously, you have a serious problem with "Relevance".
It seems you feel compelled to post a whole heap of irrelevant information when you get stressed out by any refutation.

What would be greatly helpful for you is to always post a paragraph or two under the heading "Relevance to topic" or at the very least seriously consider the issue of relevance before posting.
I used a note pad originally during recovery with some basic rules that I try to adhere to.
1/ relevance
2/ soundness
3/ selective bias
and a few more
but relevance, if not sound, is crippling your power to address the issue at hand.

The final ambition is to achieve a sound objective position and belief.

This can only be achieved with out the hubris most carry as baggage.

I hope the above helps you solve the issues you are facing...and it is accepted in goof faith and will and respect.

 

[Write4U]

proven true by who?

Relevance? Proven by who? Do you need to ask this?
Are you disputing the mainstream definition of "determinism"?
Are you disputing the universal laws of "cause --> effect" and "necessity <--> sufficiency"?
These are questionable fundamental philosophical tenets?

Necessity and sufficiency - Wikipedia
In logic, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between statements. For example, in the conditional statement "If P then Q", we say that "Q is necessaryfor P" because P cannot be true unless Q is true.

This is what you are debating? This statement is correct in both Philosophical and Mathematical disciplines........

Just because you think of something original doesn't mean the thought was not formed before you became consciously aware of it. You have no way of knowing that you have free will 0r not.

Don't forget that information communication occurs at many levels and may contribute to the eventual deterministic logical process.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Are you disputing the mainstream definition of "determinism"?

The universal laws of Cause --> Effect and "Necessity <--> Sufficiency" are questionable?
This is what you are debating?

Nope!
Answer the question, who is responsible for the theory of cause and effectw and you will find it is not I that is disputing it but determinists that are.
Or choose free of determinism,
Is it valid or invalid?

 

[iceaura]

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

There aren't any others paying attention to this aspect of your argumentation - or their own - (QQ is making a related - also valid - point about "illusion") - and you can examine your own "logic" for yourself. It's your only realistic way out, as far as I can see.

The only way data is not logical is when it is randomly distributes.

Various random distributions of data - Poisson, Gaussian, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probability_distributions- are just as logical as any other distributions. According to quantum theory, "random" describes the fundamental nature of all data distribution from observations of physical reality.

Meanwhile, notice the breakdown in the language - we are required to read our best guess of sensible meaning into "logical data", data that "is randomly distributes" (what is doing the distributing? itself, by nature? ), and so forth. English resists muddle.

Illusionary is precisely the word.

It's a wrong word. Dictionary time. American Heritage Third, the book not the net - recommended.

High visibility can also be a distinct advantage in natural selection of sweet fruits

So your claim that red is a hardwired warning signal, fight or flight, was false. And rather obviously false.
So: What led you to post it?
Or this:

"Necessity <--> Sufficiency" are questionable?

Necessary but not sufficient, sufficient but not necessary, are each and separately very common attributes of causes. Both necessary and sufficient, "if and only if", is a less common status by far. That is - once again, like a sweet red cherry - a completely ordinary and obvious fact of the physical world.

This is not rocket science. Something is screwing up your thinking here, and Baldee's, and so forth. You have my evidence saturated and argument supported hypothesis in front of you - do you have another?

 

[Quantum Quack]

For determinism to be real and not an illusion self determination is logically essential.

 

[iceaura]

nnn

 

[Write4U]

According to quantum theory, "random" describes the fundamental nature of all data distribution from observations of physical reality.

First of all, this may be a knowledge deficit on our part.
But that statement suggests that the function produces two superimposed probabilities.
But when the supeposition collapses the randomness is resolved and determinism is all there is.
It's impossible to argue that effects from causal values are also random? I always thought that determinism was more orderly and predictable than that. It belongs in the discipline of Logic. Riddle me that.

btw. Probability does not give a date or place when something may happen, but it gives the function by which it will happen.

Are you dismissing the concept of logic altogether? And free will can override deterministic processes?
That is impossible. It is a self-referential system.
Cause=effect=cause=effect=cause.....ad infinitum.

The problem is that the very variety of our existential human experience is already part of this hierarchical process, down to the most subtle levels and that's where determinism already dwells as a mathematical essence and physical potential of the spacetime fabric.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Therefore the effects are also random? I always thought that determinism was more orderly and predictable than that. Riddle me that.

btw. Probability does not give a date when something may happen, but it gives the function by which it will happen.

Are you dismissing the concept of logic altogether? And free will can override deterministic processes?
That is impossible. It is a self-referential system. Cause=effect=cause=effect=cause.....ad infinitum.

The problem is that the very variety of our existential experience is already part of this process, down to the most subtle levels.

According to who?
If universe = illusion
If self determined = real

It's not hard once you work it out...

 

[Write4U]

According to who?

Take your pick from a few millennia of Philosophy and Cosmology

If universe = illusion

No, Bohm calls it; The Holographic Universe:

If self determined = real

No. The best you could do in the absence of a self-referential matrix, is assign intelligence, but then we have a motivated causal actor and that suggests there is no blind, logically deterministic process that can yield predictable future results, but only the whim of the greater intelligence.

That sounds fatalistic to me. Unless of course we can someday attain that very omnipotent status ourselves. We're already flexing our free will muscles.....

It's not hard once you work it out...

From your point of view it is very hard to acount for all the variables you are introducing as being extant in a state of "freedom", basically asking for exceptions to the rules of determinism itself.

So far your argument has failed to persuade me, and I've really tried . Even gave you possible links that appeared to support your position.

But I'll sit back and follow the conversation. It's a fascinating subject.[/QUOTE]

 

[iceaura]

Therefore the effects are also random?

No. Why are you changing the subject? The subject was observation - careful acquisition of data.

btw. Probability does not give a date when something may happen, but it gives the function by which it will happen.

Probability distributions do not very often give the function "by which" something will happen. Examples: coin flip. Light bulb burnout. Drivers deciding what to do at a traffic light.
You are batting under 500, when making claims about physical circumstance - even very simple and completely voluntary ones.

And free will can override deterministic processes?

Why is this fifty times answered and dealt with misrepresentation and innuendo still coming up? You guys are not just slow on the uptake - you're stalled out.

The requirement that "true", "actual", "genuine", non-illusory, non-trivial, etc etc etc freedom necessarily involve overriding deterministic process, defying determined outcomes, producing different outcomes from identical inputs in a deterministic universe, etc, is entirely you guys's. It's your assumption, not mine. I just labeled it - accurately, btw.

Time to move on, one would think.

 

[Quantum Quack]

First of all, this may be a knowledge deficit on our part.
But that statement suggests that the function produces two superimposed probabilities.
But when the supeposition collapses the randomness is resolved and determinism is all there is.
It's impossible to argue that effects from causal values are also random? I always thought that determinism was more orderly and predictable than that. It belongs in the discipline of Logic. Riddle me that.

btw. Probability does not give a date or place when something may happen, but it gives the function by which it will happen.

Are you dismissing the concept of logic altogether? And free will can override deterministic processes?
That is impossible. It is a self-referential system.
Cause=effect=cause=effect=cause.....ad infinitum.

The problem is that the very variety of our existential human experience is already part of this hierarchical process, down to the most subtle levels and that's where determinism already dwells as a mathematical essence and physical potential of the spacetime fabric.

Even Tegmark agrees with me but for different reasons...
see,
The illusion of determinism ~ Tegmark

 

[Quantum Quack]

Take your pick from a few millennia of Philosophy and Cosmology

for over 3000 years this debate has been raging.... so you pick a single person who isn't subjected to the illusion generated by determinism...( if one holds to no self determination)

 

[Write4U]

Probability distributions do not very often give the function "by which" something will happen. Examples: coin flip. Light bulb burnout. Drivers deciding what to do at a traffic light.

See, you just listed a bunch of mathematical functions (uncertainty, destructive, logical). Widen your horizons.

 

[Write4U]

Even Tegmark agrees with me but for different reasons...
see,
The illusion of determinism ~ Tegmark

Thanks for the link.
Two questions.

After the discovery of quantum uncertainty, some scientists (Arthur Stanley Eddington, Arthur Holly Compton, John Eccles, Henry Margenau) proposed quantum randomness as the source of free will.
But they all admitted failure if chance was the direct cause of our actions.

Free will is a two-stage process of "free" (random generation of alternative possibilities) followed by "will" (adequately determined selection of the best action).

At best this is speculative. Being that all living organisms exist by "adequately determined selection of the best action", also known as "natural selection", do all living organisms posses a measure of free will which fills a will (desire) to live?

 

[Write4U]

That's a great link.....it's in my reference library now.....
I don't think that Tegmark necessarily supports the original link. He has his own axe to grind.

I mentioned David Bohm earlier. He, as well as Tegmark have individual contributions which do not necessarily support the original link.

The Measurement Process
David Bohm was particularly clear on the process of measurement. He said it involves macroscopic irreversibility, which was a sign and a consequence of treating the measuring apparatus as a macroscopic system that could not itself be treated quantum mechanically. The macroscopic system could, in principle, be treated quantum mechanically, but Bohm said its many degrees of internal freedom would destroy any interference effects. This is the modern theory of quantum decoherence.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bohm/

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's a great link.....it's in my reference library now.....
I don't think that Tegmark necessarily supports the original link. He has his own axe to grind.

I mentioned David Bohm earlier. He, as well as Tegmark have individual contributions which do not necessarily support the original link.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bohm/

Relevance?

 

[Baldeee]

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.

Everything is predetermined by the laws / rules that govern the deterministic universe.
It is not the "self" that predetermined, because what you do was predetermined axons ago, long before life existed.
Since no life existed yet it was already predetermined that life would begin, it can not be said that that life predetermined its own existence.
Take any individual moment... this moment was predetermined by any other preceding moment.
What you do was and is predetermined by every moment that has ever preceded it, via the laws/rules that govern.
The "self" can not be removed from such predetermination and looked at separately.
It is the universe that predetermines, and thus per your options, no freedom.

 

[Baldeee]

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

We have assumed determinism, though.
We have no need to argue for or against it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

We have assumed determinism, though.
We have no need to argue for or against it.

You are presuming a "we" when in fact that is false....
I could just as easily assume self determination to be the default premise...
Objectivity demands that there be no automatic assumptions, or presumptions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Everything is predetermined by the laws / rules that govern the deterministic universe.

Refutation: .....And in doing so forces/makes any conclusion made by humans about said laws an illusion.... (circular logic that defeats the argument against self determination)

It is not the "self" that predetermined, because what you do was predetermined axons ago, long before life existed.

Refutation: ... which demonstrably includes learning to self determine.

Since no life existed yet it was already predetermined that life would begin, it can not be said that that life predetermined its own existence.

Refutation: ... and it was predetermined that humans evolve the capacity to self determine.

Take any individual moment... this moment was predetermined by any other preceding moment.

if one agrees that determinism itself is not an illusion then yes true... see previous post #413 .

What you do was and is predetermined by every moment that has ever preceded it, via the laws/rules that govern.
The "self" can not be removed from such predetermination and looked at separately.
It is the universe that predetermines, and thus per your options, no freedom.

Refutation: already addressed see above...


Just one question,
What prevents universal predetermination from evolving the ability for humans to learn to self determine?

Anything?

Just curious how you can arbitrarily forbid/ban the predetermined evolution of human self determination so easily...

Do you have a logical reason to do so?
if so let's see it....