Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[iceaura]

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

And a couple of physical examples, all in illustration of the fact that probability obviously does not normally give "the function by which something happens", and your claim was bizarre as well as wrong - as silly as it was irrelevant.
Obviously. It's not a subtle point. The probability distribution that describes the outcome of flipping a coin has little or nothing to "give" with regard to the various physical laws and functions governing actual coin flipping. It's certainly not "the function by which coin flipping happens" - no matter what that actually means, after translation into meaningful English.

At best this is speculative.

It's careless and bad reasoning. The randomness of some generation of alternative possibilities has little or nothing to do with the subsequent decision and choice among them, or the consequence of willed behavior. It's just the mechanism that determined
their now observed and determined and determining existence. They may as well have been carved into stone tablets as ancient prognostications millenia ago. (You were warned about what was going to happen to your thinking if you insisted on "predeterminism" instead of the less misleading and more inclusive "determinisim").

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?

You once again venture into the weeds of physical reality, where you have no preparation or knowledge:
That is not how natural selection works. That is not how evolutionary theory contends that all living organisms come to exist. (the word "best" trashes the entire claim immediately). Many living organisms have no apparent will to live, need nothing of the kind, and spend their time on this earth doing their level best to die in the process of reproduction. And the phrase " posses a measure of free will which fills a will (desire)" is gibberish.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And a couple of physical examples, all in illustration of the fact that probability obviously does not normally give "the function by which something happens", and your claim was bizarre as well as wrong - as silly as it was irrelevant.
Obviously. It's not a subtle point. The probability distribution that describes the outcome of flipping a coin has little or nothing to "give" with regard to the various physical laws and functions governing actual coin flipping. It's certainly not "the function by which coin flipping happens" - no matter what that actually means, after translation into meaningful English.

It's careless and bad reasoning. The randomness of some generation of alternative possibilities has little or nothing to do with the subsequent decision and choice among them, or the consequence of willed behavior. It's just the mechanism that determined
their now observed and determined and determining existence. They may as well have been carved into stone tablets as ancient prognostications millenia ago. (You were warned about what was going to happen to your thinking if you insisted on "predeterminism" instead of the less misleading and more inclusive "determinisim").
You once again venture into the weeds of physical reality, where you have no preparation or knowledge:
That is not how natural selection works. That is not how evolutionary theory contends that all living organisms come to exist. (the word "best" trashes the entire claim immediately). Many living organisms have no apparent will to live, need nothing of the kind, and spend their time on this earth doing their level best to die in the process of reproduction. And the phrase " posses a measure of free will which fills a will (desire)" is gibberish.

can I add?
it's also irrelevant to include all organisms when discussing volition, self determination or dare I say "freewill"

 

[Quantum Quack]

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

Truth does not exist in a deterministic universe unless there is a reality to the decision to believe it...if the chooser is not real then how can anything he chooses be real.
The laws you speak of are merely a figment of your imagination, a truth by deluded consensus, a necessary out come of circular logic unless self determination is real.

 

[Quantum Quack]

From my brief reading Tegmark's indeterminism is just as invalid as anything else and unless there is a chooser who is self determined, indeterminism suffers the same fate ~ it becomes an illusion.

 

[Baldeee]

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.

You have accepted the premise of a deterministic universe from the beginning of this thread.
Re-read your OP of this thread and accept that you have presumed a deterministic universe.
You subsequently confirmed as much in later posts, such as post #81.
So please don't be so dishonest as to now claim that we are not starting with that premise.
Arguments are begun with premises.
To turn around in the middle of a debate and claim that you aren't starting from the premises that you yourself laid down for the discussion is evidence either of dishonesty or your forgetfulness.
If the latter then it is very selective as it has been repeatedly mentioned almost every page since that we are assuming a deterministic universe.

So, now that we have once again established that this thread, and your notion of co-determinism, assumes a deterministic universe, please can you revisit what I posted.
We have assumed determinism in this thread, so there is no need to argue for or against it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You have accepted the premise of a deterministic universe from the beginning of this thread.
Re-read your OP of this thread and accept that you have presumed a deterministic universe.
You subsequently confirmed as much in later posts, such as post #81.
So please don't be so dishonest as to now claim that we are not starting with that premise.
Arguments are begun with premises.

I certainly did accept the premise of determinism but that is with self determinism present.
As I am stating now, determinism fails if self determinism is NOT present.

Before you accuse someone of dishonesty you need to check to make sure you are absolutely correct... or ask questions to find out... it is only logical to do so don't you agree?

so please apologize for your false accusation of dishonesty...

 

[Quantum Quack]

You have accepted the premise of a deterministic universe from the beginning of this thread.
Re-read your OP of this thread and accept that you have presumed a deterministic universe.
You subsequently confirmed as much in later posts, such as post #81.
So please don't be so dishonest as to now claim that we are not starting with that premise.
Arguments are begun with premises.
To turn around in the middle of a debate and claim that you aren't starting from the premises that you yourself laid down for the discussion is evidence either of dishonesty or your forgetfulness.
If the latter then it is very selective as it has been repeatedly mentioned almost every page since that we are assuming a deterministic universe.

So, now that we have once again established that this thread, and your notion of co-determinism, assumes a deterministic universe, please can you revisit what I posted.
We have assumed determinism in this thread, so there is no need to argue for or against it.

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....

 

[Baldeee]

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)

Not at all.
The laws are objective.
They exist and govern the universe whether we are here or not.
This comes simply from the assumption that the universe is deterministic.
To be deterministic it must behave according to inviolable laws.
There is no circular logic, just an assumption from the outset that you have stipulated, and logical consequences thereof.
To argue for circularity is now to dispute that assumption, which is to dishonestly renege on the foundations of the discussion.
So this is not a refutation on your part.

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

Describing a dog as a cat does not change it into a cat.
I.e. just because you label a process "self determine" does not mean that the self is actually determining things.
You have to provide argument to support it, which you have not done.
So this is not a refutation on your part.

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

see above.
A cat does not become a dog simply by calling it a dog.

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

We (including you) have assumed from the outset that the universe is deterministic, not that the universe only appears to be deterministic.
Thus you agree with what I have said.
And if any moment predetermines any future moment, then any moment without humans, without a "self", predetermines all future moments where there are "selfs", irrespective of what those "selfs" believe, observe, etc.
So one can remove "self" from the question of determination as simply being how it appears to the "self" and nothing more, adding nothing to the determination/pre-determination being otherwise discussed.
I.e. "Self"-determination just becomes a subjective viewpoint, and not an objective matter.

Refutation: already addressed see above...

Not a refutation, as already explained above.

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

As explained above, "self"-determination as you use it is simply a subjective viewpoint.
And as a subjective viewpoint it is simply an limited perspective of what is going on compared to any objective reality.

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....

I don't "forbid/ban" it.
I simply see it for what it is, a subjective viewpoint.
A subjective viewpoint of an objectively deterministic system might appear to be indeterministic.
If one bases their argument on that subjective viewpoint then one is only considering that subjective viewpoint and not objective reality.

 

[iceaura]

it's also irrelevant to include all organisms when discussing volition, self determination or dare I say "freewill"

I see no reason to limit discussion of freedom of will to the special case of self-determining willed behaviors, willed behaviors by what are in fact at best only partially self determined entities often engaged in willed behaviors that do not determine self, and so forth. The significant degrees of freedom involved in human decisionmaking are found more easily and less confusingly in decisions and willed behaviors that do not feed back on themselves or the "self" in complicated fashions, require conscious awareness of a self, etc.

Meanwhile, the reasons for starting with the simple and unselfconscious are well illustrated in these threads: separating the logical levels and increasing complexity of the universe's decisionmaking entities from the top down has proven very difficult, and we face the fact we don't have a good mechanical understanding of human decisionmaking - we can't lay out the top in even the simple events. We know where with enough precision to locate an array of electrodes, we know when to a precision of about a second, we don't know how well enough to even begin to describe the degrees of freedom involved in positive terms. (Negative, sure - they are different in kind and "nature" from a thermostat's, or even a computer's - but what are they like themselves? The mind boggles, the evidence box is mostly empty).

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not at all.
The laws are objective.
They exist and govern the universe whether we are here or not.

You may be great with basic logic but perhaps you need to study philosophy a bit more...
According to who?
If humans have no ability to choose then it falls on the universe determining what laws we believe in...which renders everything we believe an illusion... see?

another point and a logic riddle for you to figure out...
You often refer to cause proceeding effect but what if both occur simultaneously?
Is the event being described a cause or is it an effect?
and before you state that that is impossible please direct you attention to quantum entanglement.

 

[Baldeee]

I certainly did accept the premise of determinism but that is with self determinism present.
As I am stating now, determinism fails if self determinism is NOT present.

Before you accuse someone of dishonesty you need to check to make sure you are absolutely correct... or ask questions to find out... it is only logical to do so don't you agree?

so please apologize for your false accusation of dishonesty...

You can't beg the question, Quantum Quack.
The assumption you laid down was that the universe is deterministic.
Period.
To quote:
"So much has been written over thousands of years about the conundrum invoked when considering a deterministic universe and how Humans can demonstrate decisions and choice making that appears to be in-determined by that deterministic universe..."

"How do we deal with the issue of in-determinism in a deterministic universe?"

"...you can understand that the universe's determinism..."

And these are just in the OP.

From post #81:
"Oh, I consider the universe to be totally deterministic as I stated clearly in the OP. Even the title of the thread states it..."

So now you wish to completely change the assumptions behind is thread?

But let's examine this new position you're taking:
You say that the determinism fails if self determinism is not present...
So before life arose, before there was any "self", are you claiming the universe was indeterministic?

No, Quantum Quack, you are dishonestly changing the assumptions of this discussion, declaring null and void the assumptions upon which it is clearly based.
Even your diagram had the universe as deterministic.
But now you claim that the universe is not assumed to be deterministic?

Pathetic.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You can't beg the question, Quantum Quack.
The assumption you laid down was that the universe is deterministic.
Period.
To quote:
"So much has been written over thousands of years about the conundrum invoked when considering a deterministic universe and how Humans can demonstrate decisions and choice making that appears to be in-determined by that deterministic universe..."

"How do we deal with the issue of in-determinism in a deterministic universe?"

"...you can understand that the universe's determinism..."

And these are just in the OP.

From post #81:
"Oh, I consider the universe to be totally deterministic as I stated clearly in the OP. Even the title of the thread states it..."

So now you wish to completely change the assumptions behind is thread?

But let's examine this new position you're taking:
You say that the determinism fails if self determinism is not present...
So before life arose, before there was any "self", are you claiming the universe was indeterministic?

No, Quantum Quack, you are dishonestly changing the assumptions of this discussion, declaring null and void the assumptions upon which it is clearly based.
Even your diagram had the universe as deterministic.
But now you claim that the universe is not assumed to be deterministic?

Pathetic.

nope.. I still consider the universe to be deterministic....

 

[Quantum Quack]

You can't beg the question, Quantum Quack.
The assumption you laid down was that the universe is deterministic.
Period.
To quote:
"So much has been written over thousands of years about the conundrum invoked when considering a deterministic universe and how Humans can demonstrate decisions and choice making that appears to be in-determined by that deterministic universe..."

"How do we deal with the issue of in-determinism in a deterministic universe?"

"...you can understand that the universe's determinism..."

And these are just in the OP.

From post #81:
"Oh, I consider the universe to be totally deterministic as I stated clearly in the OP. Even the title of the thread states it..."

So now you wish to completely change the assumptions behind is thread?

But let's examine this new position you're taking:
You say that the determinism fails if self determinism is not present...
So before life arose, before there was any "self", are you claiming the universe was indeterministic?

No, Quantum Quack, you are dishonestly changing the assumptions of this discussion, declaring null and void the assumptions upon which it is clearly based.
Even your diagram had the universe as deterministic.
But now you claim that the universe is not assumed to be deterministic?

Pathetic.

ideas evolve as does our ability to self determine...
this thread is over 21 pages with 427 posts
Your opinion ( which is an illusion according to your own logic) hasn't changed from your first posts on the matter...

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, Quantum Quack, you are dishonestly changing the assumptions of this discussion, declaring null and void the assumptions upon which it is clearly based.
Even your diagram had the universe as deterministic.
But now you claim that the universe is not assumed to be deterministic?

Pathetic.

Nope I am not..
It is your poor grasp of your own logic that leads you to believe as you believe...

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, Quantum Quack, you are dishonestly changing the assumptions of this discussion, declaring null and void the assumptions upon which it is clearly based.
Even your diagram had the universe as deterministic.
But now you claim that the universe is not assumed to be deterministic?

how is co-determinism not deterministic?

 

[Baldeee]

You may be great with basic logic but perhaps you need to study philosophy a bit more...

That is true of everyone, that they perhaps need to study philosophy a bit more.
You, however, are still stuck on basic logic.

According to who?

The assumption of a deterministic universe.

If humans have no ability to choose then it falls on the universe determining what laws we believe in...which renders everything we believe an illusion... see?

What rules "we believe in" are subjective interpretations of the objective laws, not the objective laws themselves.
We may never fully or correctly understand any objective law, but they exist if the universe is deterministic.
Don't confuse what we think we know with what is.

another point and a logic riddle for you to figure out...
You often refer to cause proceeding effect but what if both occur simultaneously?
Is the event being described a cause or is it an effect?

Again, just because you can put words together to suggest something doesn't mean that it is possible.
Explain how a cause and an effect can be simultaneous, then I'll provide an answer.

 

[Baldeee]

how is co-determinism not deterministic?

Are you assuming the universe to be deterministic or not... yes or no?
No caveating the assumption, just a simple yes or not.
Either we assume the universe is deterministic or we do not.
Which is it to be?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Don't confuse what we think we know with what is.

and how do you determine what is?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Are you assuming the universe to be deterministic or not... yes or no?
No caveating the assumption, just a simple yes or not.
Either we assume the universe is deterministic or we do not.
Which is it to be?

of course the universe is deterministic, all of it including the self determined bit...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Again, just because you can put words together to suggest something doesn't mean that it is possible.
Explain how a cause and an effect can be simultaneous, then I'll provide an answer.

and before you state that that is impossible please direct you attention to quantum entanglement.