If you answer the questions posed at the end of the gedanken post#16 I feel you will work it all out for yourself...
Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Define what you mean by "free" in that context, as I wouldn't want you to beg the question.
How is that "genuine"?
And you're again begging the question:
- Assume a free will exists that isn't indeterminate (therefore determinate)
- Assume a universe that is determinate
- Low and behold you have a free will that exists and is determinate.
Plus it doesn't actually explain what you mean by "genuine freewill"
So you've created a theory to answer a problem that doesn't exist.
You have defined things such that there is no issue, without actually describing what it is you're defining, and have then created a solution to that non-issue.
Does that seem sensible to you?
So, again, no issue but such a lack of issue that you think you have created a theory to resolve?
In what way do you think humans are different compared to a cog?
What do humans do that a cog doesn't that differentiates the two from the point of view of being a deterministic system?
Is a cog in a watch not a determining system inside another determining system?
You are assuming it, and I was merely checking that you were still assuming it within your answers.
I understand it sufficiently to know that you are introducing a so-called "theory" to answer an issue that doesn't exist.
You may not intend that, but that is indeed what you have written.
I know what you wrote, and what you are describing is no different than any two components of a deterministic system: cog in a watch, for example.
Yet you haven't explained what you are even referring to as free will in anything other than circular terms.
Free will, as a deterministic process, doesn't violate the determinism of cause and effect.
Noone says it does.
It is the nature of the freedom within that process that the debate is about.
You have introduced a "theory" or notion of "co-determinism" that says nothing about that nature, and simply asserts that two elements of a deterministic system "co-determine".
Yes, there is some overriding allusion to humans being a special case (the "proactive" nature of humans that you mention) but still nothing is actually explained.
I am, just as you are entitled to be wrong, or write an irrelevant "theory" with woolly (at best) definitions, question-begging logic, in an attempt to resolve an issue that even you admit doesn't actually exist.
One notion of freedom, sure.
So in summary, the universe is deterministic and I had no actual freedom to do anything that was not already predetermined?
They are predetermined to be imagined, yes.
If you would bother to look up the meaning of predetermined, you could end this tail chasing exercise.
It must be just a sciforums thing...
The people I showed it to today had no problems with it.
Btw... i really appreciate the help.
What does Free, as in Freewill, mean?
An exact definition I guess can be got close to with your help. After all you certainly seem to know what not being free is..
Perhaps we can compare notes?
To me it is easier to describe the way human use propriorception to firstly locate parts of their body and then with out resistance move your focus or concentration point from one part to another.
For example your sitting at your desk typing on a key board. You point your minds concentration down to your right foot and then point down to your left foot and you will notice that you do it with out resistance, thus the term "freely" could be defined in part by using the words "with out resistance."
Pointing (focus) your mind to the various choices, memories etc quite freely....
The pointing function then becomes the chooser.
I am sure you will find that it is no illusion and a very real aspect of human function being able to point your concentration is essential for just about any movement including the eyes, auditory focus etc. I personally know how important this function is because of major illness (stroke) some 30 years ago.
The more resistance the less free and so on....
An exact definition I guess can be got close to with your help. After all you certainly seem to know what not being free is..
Perhaps we can compare notes?
To me it is easier to describe the way human use propriorception to firstly locate parts of their body and then with out resistance move your focus or concentration point from one part to another.
For example your sitting at your desk typing on a key board. You point your minds concentration down to your right foot and then point down to your left foot and you will notice that you do it with out resistance, thus the term "freely" could be defined in part by using the words "with out resistance."
Pointing (focus) your mind to the various choices, memories etc quite freely....
The pointing function then becomes the chooser.
I am sure you will find that it is no illusion and a very real aspect of human function being able to point your concentration is essential for just about any movement including the eyes, auditory focus etc. I personally know how important this function is because of major illness (stroke) some 30 years ago.
The more resistance the less free and so on....
You seem to be describing "free" in the manner that we might describe a river to run "free" if there are no obstacles in its way, if it is not meandering this way and that.
Or simply working as it should without hinderance.
Nothing to do with what causes the action.
Nothing to do with whether or not there is an alternative at the time to what was done.
Simply whether there is scope for the output, should the inputs to a system allow.
Is this a fair summation?
Or simply working as it should without hinderance.
Nothing to do with what causes the action.
Nothing to do with whether or not there is an alternative at the time to what was done.
Simply whether there is scope for the output, should the inputs to a system allow.
Is this a fair summation?
Not quite... i was describing free as in human free will.
A river would be a false analogy.
It is a function of the will that is behind our ability to deliberately focus and concentrate.
Last edited:
They are examples, not analogies.
I know what you're trying to describe, but the way you described it seems to be the same freedom in those things I exampled.
Those things have the same sense of freedom that it seems you are describing, even it is not what you intend to describe.
So it's a function?
And is the function deterministic?
If so, how is it "free" if not in the manner of the examples I have offered?
What is different?
A good example of a false analogy perhaps...
I'll post more later...
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
should you have a comma after invokes ?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
why does cause and effect define the nature of the option choice decision inside an alternate universe ?
does it ?
is 1 universe only in existence because of another ?
time never seems to run backwards.
however, that does not mean that all possible futures are not available to choose from at any one moment.
most peoples perceptions of their ability to choose is constructed inside a set range of rules.
does the intellectually handicapped person who has no concept of the self awareness of others and longitudinal cause and effect have free will equally to those who are more aware ?
I can't respond to that. I would be only be guessing based on the info you have supplied what it is you are actually asking.
I believe often in ancient culture the tree of life was used as a metaphor or an analogy, or an example as to how and infinite number of pathways may stem from a single trunk that stems for an infinite number of path ways by way of it's roots.
In their innocent wisdom the ancients had sheer brilliance as they intuitively understood their connection to the universe that surrounded them.
The human person being the trunk in the center of all those pathways both past and future
While their power to choose is limited by their awareness of choice their freedom to choose between choices that they are aware of is not impinged upon in most cases. I would imagine that no doubt there would be exceptions. depending on degree of handicap, and what exactly is impacted upon due to that condition.
My thoughts,
Human bodies are amazingly adaptive when it comes to freewill, for example in severe cases of Asperger's syndrome, some people will use their tongues (extended from their mouths) to aid in their awareness of self and environment. Noting that their Olfactory system (sense of smell) appears to be congenitally compromised. Impressive adaptation to maintain mobility and maximize independence IMO. Most of their challenging behavior can be attributed to rejecting what they perceive as controlling influences. ( generalization) which call upon them to fight for their freedom.
I am curious as to why you felt I would know the post you are referring to?
As I do not I can't respond to that.
OK ... let us use your false analogy/example and show why it is false.
We have a slow moving shallow stream that a farming man is wading in.
The water passing through the man's legs can only do what it does according to determining laws of physics that govern the flow of water.
The water has no choice to consider, is is entirely passive to it's pre determinations.
The water has no will or ability to determine itself.
Pre- Summary:
- River water is entirely passive to any determining factors.
- River water can only react and not act.
- River water is entirely predetermined by determining factors, such as gravity, temperature, slope of land, quantity, source, etc...
The farming man though, standing in the middle of this passively flowing stream of water thinks for a while and then proceeds to walk up stream, against the flow of the water.
He is proactively and deliberately by choice, moving against the flow of the streams predetermination.
Not only is he standing, defying gravity, he is also walking against the determination of the water.
He had chosen to defy the universes determination and co-determine the streams water flow as it is disturbed past his legs.
He eventually comes to where he PLANNED ( predetermined himself) to be and started to build a dam to block the flow of water.
He builds his dam and completely blocks the flow of the water to provide irrigation for his crops.
Pre summary:
- The man is using his will to be proactive in determining how he responds to other wise determining factors.
- The man is both reacting and acting.
- The man is both determined by external determining factors, and self determined by his own learned abilities such as being able to stand against gravity and walk in the stream and build his dam to irrigate his crops.
- The use of a river flow to use as an example or analogy of human freewill is false.
- The use of a river flow to use as an example or analogy of passive universal determinism is true.
Combined:
- We can clearly demonstrate Co-determination.
The farming man gets home at the end of the day and thinks to himself how the day went as he predetermined it to be in an act of co-determination.
- The course of the stream has been permanently changed
- The man's crops get irrigated.
It's an example, not an analogy.
I am not trying to make a point through comparison between one thing and another for the sake of clarification, but providing an example of something that has what you seem to be describing.
Okay.
The man can only do what it does according to determining las of physics that govern the man.
Choice is a process.
The river doesn't have the process, the man does, but it is still just a process.
The will is a process that the river doesn't have, and you've agreed that the river acts according to the determining laws of physics.
2. How do you distinguish between "react" and "act"?
3. The man is similarly predetermined by determining factors, such as gravity, termperature, slope of land, plus many other things, like what he had for breakfast, past experiences, memories, genetics, etc.
Yes, he is following the predetermined course of events as dictated by the inputs to his system, whether those inputs are external or internal.
Are you suggesing that his ability to think, to make choice etc, is evidence that the nature of their freedom is any different?
If so you need to make that case, not merely state it.
"Defying gravity"?
Seriously?
At what point do you think things are not acting exactly as they should according to gravity?
Does a mountain "defy gravity"?
The clouds?
"Determination of the water"?
You'll have to explain what you mean by that.
The water is as predetermined to flow around him as much as everything else is predetermined.
"Defy the universes determination"???
Seriously?
He is acting in accordance with the predetermined course of events as the river is.
You are trying to raise the man onto a pedestal and claim a difference in the nature of freedom.
You have raised him up as far as the complexity of his processing, but that is as far as you have got.
Yes, according to the deterministic systems that govern his behaviour within the wider universe.
A cog in a watch.
So where is this different notion of freedom you're supposedly trying to establish?
Okay.
Yes, the man uses his will, because that is a process he operates by.
All you are doing is isolating the man and saying that he considers things in the environment external to him... but you're saying nothing about the nature of the freedom involved.
A thermostat considers things in the environment external to itself.
2. So you have said.
3. As answered in 1 above.
You are just taking a subjective view (that of the man) and comparing the internal and external components of the overall system, and declaring it "co-determination".
Cog in a watch.
Where is the different notion of freedom involved?
No mention of the different natures of freedom within the river and the man.
So basically a lot of words but no actual content.
The man does not pre-determine anything in the philosophical sense.
At best he can have aims and goals and have actions directed toward those, both the goals and the actions as predetermined by both his inner workings and the inputs to those workings.
I await something from you that actually addresses the issues previously raised with your notion of "co-determination":
- How it is anything more than describing the relationship between a cog and the rest of the watch.
- How the natures of freedom involved are different in the river and the man.
That was what this post of yours was trying to answer, was it not?
Can a river stand up after lying down and defy gravity?
Can a thermostat raise it's hand and defy gravity?
Can a cog in a watch be anything but a cog in a watch?
I don't think I have ever discussed anything with someone so obtuse as you..
obtuse: slow to understand.
Do you still seriously believe a cog in a watch can be used as an analogy ? Seriously?
Totally false analogy
Can a thermostat raise it's hand and defy gravity?
Can a cog in a watch be anything but a cog in a watch?
I don't think I have ever discussed anything with someone so obtuse as you..
obtuse: slow to understand.
Do you still seriously believe a cog in a watch can be used as an analogy ? Seriously?
Totally false analogy
Once upon a time there was a cog on the beach and it was trying to stand up and defy gravity. It tried and tried but it's owner Baldeee demanded that it stand up and defy gravity.
But you are an analogy I use to compare humans with Badeee says to himself
"So stand up damn you!" he screams at the cog....in utter frustration.
but the cog just sits their doing what it has to do according to the known laws of physics
bah!
But you are an analogy I use to compare humans with Badeee says to himself
"So stand up damn you!" he screams at the cog....in utter frustration.
but the cog just sits their doing what it has to do according to the known laws of physics
bah!
i have reported you Baldeee
I have asked a moderator to adjudicate.
I have asked a moderator to adjudicate.
Last edited:
How is standing up "defying gravity"?
How is raising one's hand "defying gravity"?
Can anything be anything but what it is?
You mistake critical analysis and questioning designed to show you the flaws in your thinking as being obtuse.
Stands to reason, I guess.
For many things, yes.
You are the one proposing the theory, and if all you describe is also found in the relationship between a cog and a watch (i.e. one deterministic system within another)...?
Your argument from personal incredulity is noted.
Do you happen to have anything else, though?