Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Quantum Quack]

any ways,
This afternoon, I was having a chat with a tourist traveler from the Netherlands who has a Bachelor degree in Psychology and is in Australia for a 12 month break before returning to Netherlands to do his masters.
All in all I asked him the same question I am asking here:

• Why do we limit causal determinism from evolving humans that can learn to self determine?

At least he was honest in his answer ( not like here)
He didn't know why and acknowledges that he is unaware of any one having asked that controversial question.
He also went on to discuss the positive ramifications to psycho therapy, psychiatry, teaching generally etc. if my arguments are founded and published in an appropriate peer review.

and all for the cost a coffee....

 

[Sarkus]

Why do you want me to respond Sarkus, you only ignore what I post any way... it doesn't make sense to you...so why ask for a response ?

I don’t ignore what you say, QQ. I try desperately hard to make sense of what you say, yet it too often defies understanding by anyone other than yourself.
What is more, you now seem to think it is wrong for someone to ask you for clarification of what you are saying. Are you afraid of providing such clarification? Are you actually able to provide any? Will providing the clarification show it to be the utter nonsense I currently think it is? Well, we won’t find out because you seem happy to refuse to provide it.
Not only are you openly dishonest (see above), you are now confirming that you have no intention to have a discussion.
So be it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don’t ignore what you say, QQ. I try desperately hard to make sense of what you say, yet it too often defies understanding by anyone other than yourself.
What is more, you now seem to think it is wrong for someone to ask you for clarification of what you are saying. Are you afraid of providing such clarification? Are you actually able to provide any? Will providing the clarification show it to be the utter nonsense I currently think it is? Well, we won’t find out because you seem happy to refuse to provide it.
Not only are you openly dishonest (see above), you are now confirming that you have no intention to have a discussion.
So be it.

If you seek clarification on my posts, first refer to a dictionary. Then if you still feel confused ask appropriate questions that specify what you are confused about.

Thanks

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus,
Just a test,
Explain how you understand the meaning of the following:

The question is only whether that immaterial quality called freedom is genuine or an illusion.

Just curious ... may be we can together work out your problem....

 

[Sarkus]

If you seek clarification on my posts, first refer to a dictionary. Then if you still feel confused ask appropriate questions that specify what you are confused about.

Thanks

As explained several times now, I am unsure of what you mean by “material freedom”, and “immaterial quality called freedom”. You have explicitly differentiated between them so I am asking you to clarify, ideally through example, of the differences you think there are. That is as appropriate a request as I think you need. Instead all I seem to be getting from you is stalling, and I can only assume it is because you have no idea of what you actually mean by those terms.

Just a test,
Explain how you understand the meaning of the following:

I am asking you to explain, QQ. Please do so. Assume I have zero understanding of what you mean by those terms. Provide examples to help illustrate. Quit stalling.

Just curious ... may be we can together work out your problem....

It simply takes you to explain what you mean. Shouldn’t be difficult for you since you used the terms, and you clearly see a difference between them. So quit stalling, please.

 

[iceaura]

So if we look at a subsystem within the universe and are not in full knowledge of the process and inputs involved, it might appear that the output is not in accordance with what had been predicted. But if we were in full knowledge, and didn't err in our calculations, then we would have infallible prediction due to the predeterministic nature of the universe.

Determinism does not establish predictability, even in theory, because full knowledge does not always enable calculation, even in theory. That predetermined but unpredictable events exist in a universe governed by physical law and cause/effect sequence has been proved, mathematically.
Throwing in quantum theory and chaos theory and Heisenberg uncertainty and so forth, which also lead to the conclusion that the only way to predict the universe perfectly would be to run a perfect copy of it and see what happens (and with the current understanding of quantum theory even that would not work), we see the irrelevance of predictability in these matters.

If you think that "self determine" is simply the appearance (to ourselves) of not being part of a predetermined course of events, for example, then sure, no one disputes what you are suggesting. But if one ascribes to "self determine" an actual ability to go against the course of events predetermined from the beginning then yes, we are limiting it due to the same logic that concludes that such freedom is not possible.

Neither one.
Your two choices there are between the appearance of supernatural freedom and the existence of supernatural freedom, and neither one of those is on the table (if QQ's terminology is interpreted to exclude them, as it should be for the stronger argument).

You have not yet addressed the nonsupernatural degrees of freedom involved, which would be the source and establish the nature of the freedom here - at least, in the stronger interpretation of QQ's unfortunate "self determination" and "co-determination" terminology.
.

 

[Quantum Quack]

As explained several times now, I am unsure of what you mean by “material freedom”, and “immaterial quality called freedom”. You have explicitly differentiated between them so I am asking you to clarify, ideally through example, of the differences you think there are. That is as appropriate a request as I think you need. Instead all I seem to be getting from you is stalling, and I can only assume it is because you have no idea of what you actually mean by those terms.
I am asking you to explain, QQ. Please do so. Assume I have zero understanding of what you mean by those terms. Provide examples to help illustrate. Quit stalling.
It simply takes you to explain what you mean. Shouldn’t be difficult for you since you used the terms, and you clearly see a difference between them. So quit stalling, please.

I am not stalling.
I am not discussing this topic with primary school students or am I?
It has already been explained many times through out the thread.. perhaps read it for back ground.

What do you not understand about the common meaning of the words "material and immaterial" in the context of the quality of freedom in determinism?

 

[Quantum Quack]

at least, in the stronger interpretation of QQ's unfortunate "self determination" and "co-determination" terminology.

why unfortunate?
I am using it in the same way that all those 100's of articles I mentioned earlier use it...Even wiki will help you :

the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
Free choice in this case means with out external compulsion

so why unfortunate?

 

[iceaura]

why unfortunate?

Because it reads as begging the question at first take, and offers no solid footing for a better read.
This, for example:

Free choice in this case means with out external compulsion

immediately points to this:
"Determined choice in this case means without external compulsion"
without addressing the still knotted issue of how a determined choice can be free.
One person says it can be, another says it can't be, and there it sits - exactly where it sat before "self determination" and "co-determination" came up, only with more vocabulary to muddle in.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Because it reads as begging the question at first take, and offers no solid footing for a better read.
This, for example:

immediately points to this:
"Determined choice in this case means without external compulsion"
without addressing the still knotted issue of how a determined choice can be free.
One person says it can be, another says it can't be, and there it sits - exactly where it sat before "self determination" and "co-determination" came up, only with more vocabulary to muddle in.

there is no freedom in a deterministic universe . period. Not for a human not for a thermostat not for a sophisticated infinitely programed self taught android either. Zip zilch zero.

OK

are we clear on that point at least.


However what I think you are stumbling on is that the lack of freedom does not prohibit self determination.
maybe I' ll draw a sketch to clear it up but I only think it may confuse more...

consider self determination as being simply a branch of casual determination but determined by the learning of the "Self".

We have at least two determiners.

1. the universe
2. the self

ok?

neither have any freedom
they MUST co-operate to function by way of co-determination.

But as the self is co-determining with the universe, the self determinations ( choices made) have a quality called what?

To aid: The universe determinism is passive the self determiner is proactive...
Drop the word free and replace with "learned ability to choose"...

 

[Quantum Quack]

I have finished editing the above.. thanks for your patience.

 

[iceaura]

there is no freedom in a deterministic universe . period. Not for a human not for a thermostat not for a sophisticated infinitely programed self taught android either. Zip zilch zero.

OK

are we clear on that point at least.

No. I flatly disagree with that point.

We have at least two determiners.

1. the universe
2. the self

ok?

One's self is part of the universe. So are all the other selves.

Drop the word free and replace with "learned ability to choose"...

Ok. Done.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No. I flatly disagree with that point.

if you want to talk about your particular theory then fine another thread perhaps but you wished me to explain mine.
In mine there is absolutely no freedom in a deterministic universe. period.

One's self is part of the universe. So are all the other selves.

correct..and the selves learn the ability to determine for them selves as part of that deterministic universe. In fact it was/is predetermined by that universe that they do so.

Ok. Done.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Drop the word free and replace with "learned ability to choose"...

Ok. Done.

The reason for replacing the word free is important at this point in the discussion, because "the ability to choose" ( just like walking) is physical or material where as the word free is a quality that is not physical or not material.

The use of the word "free" comes much later once the basic principles involved are understood.
Using words that are physical and materially associated avoids the confusion of cross purpose discussion.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Now even though the self has learned the ability to choose he has not violated the first principle.
aka: There is no freedom in a deterministic universe.

Every choice he may decide to make is entirely deterministic.

 

[Quantum Quack]

An analogy that might help could be:
"Grabbing hold of a deterministic garden hose and pointing the deterministic water were you decide to."

Once the logic is understood you can relax the first principle and allow for things like micro indeterminism etc... as it will not effect the outcome.

 

[Sarkus]

Determinism does not establish predictability, even in theory, because full knowledge does not always enable calculation, even in theory.

Yes it does. If the state is known, and the laws that govern how one state translates into the next are known, then one can predict the next state.

That predetermined but unpredictable events exist in a universe governed by physical law and cause/effect sequence has been proved, mathematically.

Only in an indeterministic universe, not in the deterministic universe assumed.

Throwing in quantum theory and chaos theory and Heisenberg uncertainty and so forth, which also lead to the conclusion that the only way to predict the universe perfectly would be to run a perfect copy of it and see what happens (and with the current understanding of quantum theory even that would not work), we see the irrelevance of predictability in these matters.

QM, including matters such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, are a result of the local indeterminism within our universe (local because if you consider our universe as one of a multiverse then the entire multiverse can be considered deterministic, but our local universe would not).
So if you want to go down QQ’s route of invoking the indeterminate when the deterministic universe has been assumed from the outset, feel free to do so while knowing that you are now simply moving the goalposts.

Neither one.
Your two choices there are between the appearance of supernatural freedom and the existence of supernatural freedom, and neither one of those is on the table (if QQ's terminology is interpreted to exclude them, as it should be for the stronger argument).

I disagree. QQ is making (trying to make) a separation between the deterministic universe and the “self-determiner”, a difference that he claims is more than simply the labelling of a cog in a watch. To do so he would therefore seem to be considering something that goes against the predetermination of the universe.

You have not yet addressed the nonsupernatural degrees of freedom involved, which would be the source and establish the nature of the freedom here - at least, in the stronger interpretation of QQ's unfortunate "self determination" and "co-determination" terminology.
.

You mean the “freedom” found in a thermostat? I’m still trying to fathom exactly what QQ is trying to say, ‘cos just when I think I’ve nailed it he tacks onto a different course and adds further to the confusion. Something about jelly and nails goes here, I think? As and when QQ’s position is actually understood I will address accordingly.

 

[Sarkus]

I am not stalling.
I am not discussing this topic with primary school students or am I?
It has already been explained many times through out the thread.. perhaps read it for back ground.

Where has it been explained? Repeating it is not explaining it, and I have asked you to explain it on numerous occasions. Every time you fail to explain it you are stalling. So please explain it. Provide an example of each to aide that explanation. And stop being deliberately evasive.

 

[Sarkus]

An analogy that might help could be:
"Grabbing hold of a deterministic garden hose and pointing the deterministic water were you decide to."

So are you removing the holder of the garden hose from constraints of determinism?

 

[iceaura]

if you want to talk about your particular theory then fine another thread perhaps but you wished me to explain mine.
In mine there is absolutely no freedom in a deterministic universe. period.

You had already explained your theory. I was addressing that explanation, here on this thread where it is.

Yes it does. If the state is known, and the laws that govern how one state translates into the next are known, then one can predict the next state.

Not necessarily. You have to be able to do the calculations - and that is not always possible.

Only in an indeterministic universe, not in the deterministic universe assumed.

No. In a completely determined universe, exactly as assumed.

Your two choices there are between the appearance of supernatural freedom and the existence of supernatural freedom, and neither one of those is on the table (if QQ's terminology is interpreted to exclude them, as it should be for the stronger argument).

I disagree.

You are wrong. I am pointing to a fact of your posting here, as quoted.
Here you are again:

To do so he would therefore seem to be considering something that goes against the predetermination of the universe.

And rather than recast his argument to remove that "seeming" - the unnecessary supernatural component - you take it as given and continue to limit your own considerations to supernatural freedom.

You mean the “freedom” found in a thermostat?

Nope.
The degrees of freedom found in human decisionmaking.

As and when QQ’s position is actually understood I will address accordingly.

You will have to recast it, to remove the supernatural assumption he insists upon.