Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Write4U]

Don't be daft ...of course i can say no to life any time i choose to.

Why don't you?......
See, you cannot make a decision against your own interest unless there is a more compelling causality (motive).
There is always a compelling state prior to a deterministic action. It is the generic definition of determinism, a common denominator in all forms of determinism.

As far as compatible determinism is concerned, it must be compatible or it would not be permitted, by the very laws of determinism, which you feel can be weakened by human will.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Why don't you?......
See, you cannot make a decision against your own interest unless there is a more compelling causality (motive).
There is always a compelling state prior to a deterministic action. It is the generic definition of determinism, a common denominator in all forms of determinism.

And one that i have learned to control...jcontrol...just like my legs when i walk...learned that as a baby...

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.

All those words for what?
Belief vs logic.... use logic next time...
And please stop trolling this thread

 

[Sarkus]

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.

When one states as a premise that the universe is deterministic it is generally understood to mean causal determination. If you wish to use a different notion in this thread, go ahead and state it as the premise to your theory.

Your theory states fatalist predeterminism is incapable of evolving a self determined human. I accept that this is your position.

That is categorically NOT my position, QQ. As I have repeatedly said, it depends upon the nature of the freedom that one considers "self determine" to have.

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 there you go accepting determinism to be "causal determinism" - well done, you have clarified your previous raising of the issue as nothing but an attempt to muddy the waters and obfuscate. Well done.
That aside, your theory can state what ever it wants. You have yet to provide any indication of how it does what you state it does. Simply saying "I escape the inescapable room" doesn't do anything by way of explanation.

and as yet you have not provide any refutation at all in all the many posts you have been complaining in.

As yet there is nothing to refute. There is a claim on your part that is unsupported. Support the theory. Show how it does what it does. Or do you not even know?

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.

There is no theory here, QQ. A claim, a statement, is not a theory.

If you are not interested in discussing a new theory of determinism called Co-determinism then why are you posting to this thread?

I am interested, QQ. But at the moment you have offered nothing to help people actually understand what you are going on about. One day, hopefully soon, you will actually provide something.

 

[Write4U]

And one that i have learned to control...jcontrol...just like my legs when i walk...learned that as a bab

And the sun controls the orbit of earth, and the earth learned to orbit the sun when it was just a baby cloud of cosmic dust.
And a paramecium learns to swim when it is just a single celled organism. Learning stuff doesn't make you more free, it makes you more safe and succesful in avoiding "natural selection".

 

[Sarkus]

All those words for what?

You are right, I am talking to a brick wall.

Belief vs logic.... use logic next time...

Lol! Once again you manage to brighten my day with your humour: as if you are capable of recognising logic! Good one!

And please stop trolling this thread

If you think I am trolling this thread then report me, QQ. All I am actually doing is trying to get you to provide explanation for your theory, for the claims you make that are unsupported, for you to provide clarity of what you mean when asked, for you to stop simply looking to up your post count. Care to do that?

 

[Quantum Quack]

That is categorically NOT my position, QQ. As I have repeatedly said, it depends upon the nature of the freedom that one considers "self determine" to have.

and I have repeatedly stated there is no freedom in deterministic universe and shown how self determination can evolve with out violating that principle...

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you think I am trolling this thread then report me, QQ. All I am actually doing is trying to get you to provide explanation for your theory, for the claims you make that are unsupported, for you to provide clarity of what you mean when asked, for you to stop simply looking to up your post count. Care to do that?

reporting you in this forum would be a waste of time...

 

[Quantum Quack]

And the sun controls the orbit of earth, and the earth learned to orbit the sun when it was just a baby cloud of cosmic dust.

you are kidding me... really ...the earths mass and momentum has nothing to do with it...?
can I quote you in the Physics and Math forum?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are right, I am talking to a brick wall.
Lol! Once again you manage to brighten my day with your humour: as if you are capable of recognising logic! Good one!
If you think I am trolling this thread then report me, QQ. All I am actually doing is trying to get you to provide explanation for your theory, for the claims you make that are unsupported, for you to provide clarity of what you mean when asked, for you to stop simply looking to up your post count. Care to do that?

I'll send you a link once it is published... other wise you will have to rely on what has been already posted...

 

[Quantum Quack]

When one states as a premise that the universe is deterministic it is generally understood to mean causal determination. If you wish to use a different notion in this thread, go ahead and state it as the premise to your theory.
That is categorically NOT my position, QQ. As I have repeatedly said, it depends upon the nature of the freedom that one considers "self determine" to have.
And there you go accepting determinism to be "causal determinism" - well done, you have clarified your previous raising of the issue as nothing but an attempt to muddy the waters and obfuscate. Well done.
That aside, your theory can state what ever it wants. You have yet to provide any indication of how it does what you state it does. Simply saying "I escape the inescapable room" doesn't do anything by way of explanation.
As yet there is nothing to refute. There is a claim on your part that is unsupported. Support the theory. Show how it does what it does. Or do you not even know?
There is no theory here, QQ. A claim, a statement, is not a theory.
I am interested, QQ. But at the moment you have offered nothing to help people actually understand what you are going on about. One day, hopefully soon, you will actually provide something.

what are you asking me to do that I haven't already done... again.. you are not making sense...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus
Suggestion, I'll ask the mods to close this thread and start version2 with a more evolved OP... that includes all the things you are asking for... how's that?
I'll even include a FAQ section...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus, why are you asking me to repeat my post every time you post?
If i got a bitcoin for every time you ask me to repeat myself i'd uhmm....have hmmm a lot of uhm... bitcoin....

 

[Write4U]

And one that i have learned to control...jcontrol...just like my legs when i walk...learned that as a baby...

W4U said,
And the sun controls the orbit of earth, and the earth learned to orbit the sun when it was just a baby cloud of cosmic dust.
And a paramecium learns to swim when it is just a single celled organism. Learning stuff doesn't make you more free, it makes you more safe and succesful in avoiding "natural selection".

you are kidding me... really ...the earths mass and momentum has nothing to do with it...?
can I quote you in the Physics and Math forum?

Please do.

You do know that walking is a controlled act of falling, don't you?
When you learned to walk as a baby, the earths mass and your momentum had nothing to do with it...?
Curious.....

 

[iceaura]

In a fully deterministic universe it is.

No, it isn't. You are now arguing with mathematical proof.

I am using "freedom" and "free" in the sense that QQ is using it.

Yep. I pointed that out quite a while ago. I believe the responses included claims that I was a liar.
That is not the strongest cast of his argument. Do you want to deal with the stronger arguments, or continue dabbling in the long debunked?

Quantitatively different, granted, but still the same notion.

Qualitatively different. That's what happens when you cross a logical level - you get qualitative differences. That's what a logical level signifies.

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.

Self-reference is a significant qualitative difference. It's one of the major qualitative differences between human decisionmaking and a thermostat's.
And "nothing more than a process" is of course not an argument or even an observation, but a begging of the question - the process is the central matter at hand.

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 got it by quoting you and pointing at the quote; by quoting QQ and pointing at the quote; by quoting Baldee and pointing at the quote, and so forth. Quotes, actually - you keep posting, and I usually pick a more recent one.

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.

He has been clear on that point for a long time - he clarified it long ago, in his very first posts where he explicitly accepted your (and Baldee's, and Write's, etc) assumption as a given (that freedom by assumption involved doing other than one must, doing other than a deterministic universe determined, choosing to do other than what the universe has determined will be done, introducing indeterminism, breaking chains of cause and effect, etc etc etc ad infinitum). That key weak spot in your reasoning - that unsupported assumption you still, to this moment, deny making while making - is not interesting as a matter of discussion. It's too obvious, the repetition tedious.

So rather than drag that long settled matter into a discussion of QQ's approach, where it just muddles things (as you have noticed) I prefer to deal with the stronger case - arbitrarily limiting the discussion to weak and already debunked arguments strikes me as a form of strawmanning. Of course one can focus on invalid or confused arguments for anything - but why bother? QQ's emphasis on self-determination seems like an interesting approach, a way into the topic, independent of whatever infelicities he associates with it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think it was Baldeee who said that Freedom was a subjective perspective...
As a relative quality, I couldn't agree more...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Please do.

You do know that walking is a controlled act of falling, don't you?
When you learned to walk as a baby, the earths mass and your momentum had nothing to do with it...?
Curious.....

did you know that on average nations spend less than 8% of their GDP on educating people to improve their ability to self determine?
Was wondering how the universe can calculate an average with out our help to determine it?

Perhaps we choose to co-determine the average with the universe?
Perhaps the Earths orbit is co-determined by both the Earth and the Sun and all the other influences in play (infinite)?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

View attachment 2507

Ive studied the diagram above (View attachment 2507) i finally understand how humans an the deterministic universe combine to make a human self-deterministic... which is a human that has a degree of free will.!!!

Befor a human can self determine they have to learn how… an the ability to acquire this knowledge is made posible by the deterministic universe… an this ability is simply the ability to thank about stuff.!!!

For example:::

When offered egges or pancakes for breakfast… i thank to myself… i love pancakes… so i want pancakes for brkeakfast… an that is a self-deterministic human makin a free-will choice… or... co-determinism as the diagram shows.!!!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ive studied the diagram above (View attachment 2507) i finally understand how humans an the deterministic universe combine to make a human self-deterministic... which is a human that has a degree of free will.!!!

Befor a human can self determine they have to learn how… an the ability to acquire this knowledge is made posible by the deterministic universe… an this ability is simply the ability to thank about stuff.!!!

For example:::

When offered egges or pancakes for breakfast… i thank to myself… i love pancakes… so i want pancakes for brkeakfast… an that is a self-deterministic human makin a free-will choice… or... co-determinism as the diagram shows.!!!

you're not as clueluss as your handle suggests... well done!
...and you had to learn how to thank ( think) to begin with...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus has been using this "escape from the inescapable room" argument with out thinking about it to well...

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.

Years ago here on sciforums I started a thread called "Death the great escape".

claim:
The only way a human actor (identity) can escape determinism is via death.
Example: Suicide is a deliberate self determined escape from (co)determinism.

Which brings up the very important point I wanted to make and how death of the Identity that determines his actions is not only an essential part of human self (co)determinism but also an essential part of the distinction between a sophisticated android machine and living organic human.
This point then branches off into a discussion about what is life, will and uhmmm a box of chocolates.....a can of worms perhaps not worth discussing here at sciforums? Too much hubris...

So far it has been impossible to seriously discuss this issue because of the offended posters not being able to see past their offended egos.
but you never know... we may get there in the end....

One of the greatest inhibitors to learning would be caused by the offense experienced when an idea, belief or presumed knowledge is challenged.
The only reason a person may feel humiliated is because the pride they have in an intellectual position is false.
If you are feeling humiliated it is because your pride is a delusion.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Yea... an the key word is... "I excape"... an thats whats important.!!!

An thanks... i just kinda let my mind float along (not realy tryin to thank... just lookin at the diagram) an it became clear to me what youv'e been sayin all along.!!!