Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
why would it seem to go against the predetermination of the universe?
what's you reason for prohibiting the evolution of human self determination?
Like I said to Ice... self determination DOES NOT necessitate freedom but it does necessitate the ability to choose.
Remember: Freedom is a quality and not physical.
perhaps if you stopped projecting your theory into mine you might actually come to understand my theory...
Your talk about the supernatural proves you do not understand...
FAQ:
How can a human who is self determined not be free?
There are a number of ways to address this issue of self determination NOT violating the "No freedom in a deterministic universe" principle.
The main one being that the human has NO Choice but to self determine whilst conscious and not unconscious or asleep.
(self determine = learned ability to choose)
Therefore the universe's causality has predetermined that a human is compelled to be self determined.
All decisions made are oppressed by the above fact therefore self determination does not involve freedom from universal causation.
Even making no choice is a decision that has to be made....
btw ... all decision making comes with a cost. It takes deliberately applied energy to make a decision.
There is no free ride in a deterministic universe.
How can a human who is self determined not be free?
There are a number of ways to address this issue of self determination NOT violating the "No freedom in a deterministic universe" principle.
The main one being that the human has NO Choice but to self determine whilst conscious and not unconscious or asleep.
(self determine = learned ability to choose)
Therefore the universe's causality has predetermined that a human is compelled to be self determined.
All decisions made are oppressed by the above fact therefore self determination does not involve freedom from universal causation.
Even making no choice is a decision that has to be made....
btw ... all decision making comes with a cost. It takes deliberately applied energy to make a decision.
There is no free ride in a deterministic universe.
Last edited:
FAQ:
Why do believe that for determinism to be valid, self determination is essential and fundamentally necessary?
The term valid is the key. To determine validity requires a valid observer. To achieve genuine understanding requires a genuine observer.
With out the ability to choose, any ontological understanding or achievement is an illusion.
For the theory of determinism to be valid and "scientifically" true, an ability to decide such is necessary. If there is no valid ability to decide such then the belief or knowledge of determinism is based on an illusion and unable to be validated.
Therefore, for determinism to be valid and genuine, self determination also has to be valid and genuine.
Why do believe that for determinism to be valid, self determination is essential and fundamentally necessary?
The term valid is the key. To determine validity requires a valid observer. To achieve genuine understanding requires a genuine observer.
With out the ability to choose, any ontological understanding or achievement is an illusion.
For the theory of determinism to be valid and "scientifically" true, an ability to decide such is necessary. If there is no valid ability to decide such then the belief or knowledge of determinism is based on an illusion and unable to be validated.
Therefore, for determinism to be valid and genuine, self determination also has to be valid and genuine.
Last edited:
FAQ:
Why is this issue so important to you?
The short answer can be summed up with one word "Responsibility".
By showing logically that secular fatalism and it's twin, religious fatalism are unfounded logically, clear up any misconception about personal responsibility for decisions made and aids in the eventual discontinuation of religious extremism and to a lesser extent secular extremism. (psychopathy, socio-pathy)
For example:
We as a race may be confused as to what or who is responsible for climate change, but we are very responsible for filling our oceans up with plastic rubbish, deforestation, ozone depletion, oceanic dead zones, etc....
These are not an "Act of God" or an "Act of the Universe", these are an act of mankind and mankind must take responsibility for his actions if he wishes to survive in the short to longer term.
Co-determination places that responsibility squarely where it belongs, and that is the "self".
Why is this issue so important to you?
The short answer can be summed up with one word "Responsibility".
By showing logically that secular fatalism and it's twin, religious fatalism are unfounded logically, clear up any misconception about personal responsibility for decisions made and aids in the eventual discontinuation of religious extremism and to a lesser extent secular extremism. (psychopathy, socio-pathy)
- It provides a better, clearer path way for psychologists, psychiatry and other health professionals when providing services to those who are enduring mental disorder or function.
- To clearly state to the patient that they are obliged in nature to be responsible for their choices and allows people to minimize their propensity to blame others for their decisions.
- To support, improve and reinforce notions of legal responsibility, human rights responsibility etc...
- To show logically that the relationship you have with your self is the most important relationship you can ever have.
For example:
We as a race may be confused as to what or who is responsible for climate change, but we are very responsible for filling our oceans up with plastic rubbish, deforestation, ozone depletion, oceanic dead zones, etc....
These are not an "Act of God" or an "Act of the Universe", these are an act of mankind and mankind must take responsibility for his actions if he wishes to survive in the short to longer term.
Co-determination places that responsibility squarely where it belongs, and that is the "self".
Last edited:
In a fully deterministic universe it is. Only when you intorduce indeterminism (e.g. probabilistic events) does it start to become impossible. Of course, whether one is practically able to predict is dependent upon the knowledge one has, but given full knowledge it is theoretically possible.
And you are wrong on this matter.
I am using "freedom" and "free" in the sense that QQ is using it. He has even since reiterated his acceptance of this notion: "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." (post '524). As such my comments were entirely in line with the notions being discussed.
Quantitatively different, granted, but still the same notion. I await your inevitable appeal to complexity. Just a shame there's nothing else in your arsenal on the matter.
I will respond to QQ based on what he means (when I finally figure it out). I don't need to recast what he says to mean something different to what he means. That would be dishonest. I get that you see there to be a supernatural assumption, despite evidence to the contrary and despite the only way you can achieve it as an assumption is to reformulate the actual logic so that it is entirely different to what was initially presented. I get that. But given QQ's clarification in #524 of what he means by "free" I think it is only fair you use that understanding, now that he has clarified it sufficiently.
I'm doing nothing but trying to understand what you are trying to analogise with someone holding a deterministic hose. If the holder of the hose isn't outside of determinism, then the analogy fails to address the issue with regard the holder, which is rather the central point here, is it not?
Because if the actions taken were predetermined before the person even existed, how is it "self determination" and not simply part and parcel of the same universal determination? Your desire to separate the two as more than simply the labelling of a cog in a watch implies that you see a difference between "self determination" and the determination of the rest of the universe. Yet the actions of the human were predetermined by the rest of the universe long before the person ever existed.
The ability to choose is nothing more than a process, like a thermostat turning on and off. More complex, yes, and self-referencing, sure, but qualitatively no different. Inputs in, output out, the process entirely deterministic, entirely predetermined before the dawn of Man. "Choice" just becomes a process.
So how does all this relate to "co-determinism"?
I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean by "material freedom". Ever going to get round to that, or shall we just chalk it up as another wandering by you into the realm of nonsense?
as I said to Ice, if you want to discuss your theory by all means do so in another thread. I am attempting to explain mine in this thread.
In my theory
The analogy of a man having control of the garden hose does not place the man outside the universe because it was the universes predetermination that he does have control of the hose.
I am aware that you don't like it but hey that's my theory and whether you like it or not is irrelevant as is whether it agrees with your theory or not.
Now provide sound logic to refute it, not relying on your own theory as evidence and we may actually get some where.
Also I would advise you to read the subsequent posts since post #524 and if you still have a problem with the word material I will provide you with some high-school level synonyms like physical, substance etc...
Last edited:
Sarkus
You do realize of course that there are probably in excess of 10 alternative deterministic theories yes?
You do not have a monopoly on what determinism is.
Your theory states fatalist predeterminism is incapable of evolving a self determined human. I accept that this is your position.
My theory of Co-determinism, does state that predeterminism is very capable of evolving a self determining human with out violating deterministic causal principles.
and as yet you have not provide any refutation at all in all the many posts you have been complaining in.
All you have been doing is stating your theory instead of learning a new one, one that can be added to those many theories already pre-existing.
If you are not interested in discussing a new theory of determinism called Co-determinism then why are you posting to this thread?
You do realize of course that there are probably in excess of 10 alternative deterministic theories yes?
You do not have a monopoly on what determinism is.
Your theory states fatalist predeterminism is incapable of evolving a self determined human. I accept that this is your position.
My theory of Co-determinism, does state that predeterminism is very capable of evolving a self determining human with out violating deterministic causal principles.
and as yet you have not provide any refutation at all in all the many posts you have been complaining in.
All you have been doing is stating your theory instead of learning a new one, one that can be added to those many theories already pre-existing.
If you are not interested in discussing a new theory of determinism called Co-determinism then why are you posting to this thread?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That is a false analogy. A man having control over a garden hose was pre-determined to use that garden hose.
Consider;
a) I have a garden
b) the garden has flowers
c) the flowers need to be watered
d) watering requires a garden hose
e) the hardware store sells garden hoses
f) it is summer again and garden needs water
g) I attach my garden hose to the spigot
h) I start sprinkling my garden
All of these sentences describe a prior state which requires a specific action to sufficiently address the necessary activities associated with gardening.
The state of the garden has wholly determined all of my actions, but I never felt compelled to make a decision to tend to the garden. I made that deterministic decision when I bought the house with the garden. I like flowers and that is the underlying motive for having flowers.
Thus the action of me turning on the garden hose is wholly explained through "standard" determinism.
You cannot control the seasons and the attention it requires to own a garden . You just "go with the seasonal flow".
At no point are you free to choose to service the needs of the garden. If you refuse the garden dies, because in a deterministic world you would have broken the causal chain.
Thus the question is not if we are free to start a causal chain, but if we are free to break a causal chain.
Last edited:
So i decide to water the neighbors lawn and weeds instead. Or i simply decide that the garden is going to die and turn the tap off...
Yep causal chain changing is what i specialise in because i am self detrrmined as the universe requires me to be.
You really gotta do better than that... Write4u...
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
We'll see.......
You may be able to imagine hypothetical actions which would break causality, but that does not mean you are actually able to do such. After all, if you decide not to water the lawn you are breaking your own causality chain.
Can you do that, willy nilly break your own causality chain and start a new one without good cause? Can you ignore your own motivations?
Last edited:
Or i can kill myself in my garden and let the universe work out what to do with the garden and rotting corpse using its amazing mathematical abilities....
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No you can't.Or i can kill myself in my garden and let the universe work out what to do with the garden and rotting corpse using its amazing mathematical abilities....
But even then that would be a very powerful compulsion to override your survival instincts.
You believe you can bet against your own survival? Are you mad?
Do you even know what you just posted...We'll see.......
You may be able to imagine hypothetical actions which would break causality, but that does not mean you are actually able to do such. After all, if you decide not to water the lawn you are breaking your own causality chain.
Can you do that, willy nilly break your own causality chain and start a new one without good cause? Can you ignore your own motivations?
Self determination is your own causal chain... you are almost there ... well done....
Don't be daft ...of course i can say no to life any time i choose to.
Remember the story of Quirky Q on the starship UNSS Determination ( first page)
Hee hee
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It's never from "free will" in the strictest sense of the word "free"
You are attempting... and failing.
Your theory is akin to claiming one can escape the inescapable room by coming up with the words "I escape". I.e. your theory may sound like it makes sense to you, but it simply doesn't to anyone else.
I don't like it because as far as I can tell it adds nothing, explains nothing, and simply confuses the picture. You have failed to provide any clarity whatsoever, and whenever you think you're getting cornered you simply change tack and introduce some other inane claim, such as "material freedom", whatever that is supposed to be.
You haven't even gotten to the point of laying out the foundation, the premises of your theory. You simply put words together as if that is sufficient.
For example, you have said, categorically, that nothing is free in the universe, yet you then want choice / self-determination to be more than a simple process akin to that found in a thermostat. But all you do, all you have done, is state it. We question what you mean, and you attempt to belittle the query. We argue why we think your theory is either redundant, irrelevant, or simply wrong, and all you do is claim that we're not discussing your theory.
You have turned this thread into nothing more than a means to up your post-count, which is also presumably why you post 3 times when once will do, often replying multiple times to the same post.
Show that there is something here to discuss, QQ. The onus is on you to do so.