Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

Quantum Quack said:
Your post is incorrectly related. Another "honest" mistake perhaps?
Click to expand...
You are presenting a straw man. You are changing the goal posts.

The OP refers to Co-Determinism, not Co-determining in the context you are stating it.

But in context of your use of determining, one can say that the cause of something can be determined by research of the circumstances that led to the result. That is following the causality trail backward and discovering (determining) the causality of the following deterministic action and still does not suggest free will action. Humans do not act chaotically andtheir actions are always preceded by a causal state or force.

You cannot escape the compelling imperative that motive provides in human behavior.

The seven deadly sins warn against free will (habitual) exercise of unhealthy habits. They have been determined to be pre-deterministically harmful in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
You are presenting a straw man. You are changing the goal posts.

The OP refers to Co-Determinism, not Co-determining in the context you are stating it.

But in context of your use of determining, one can say that the cause of something can be determined by research of the circumstances that led to the result. That is following the causality trail backward and discovering (determining) the causality of the following deterministic action and still does not suggest free will action. Humans do not act chaotically andtheir actions are always preceded by a causal state or force.

You cannot escape the compelling imperative that motive provides in human behavior.

The seven deadly sins warn against free will (habitual) exercise of unhealthy habits. They have been determined to be pre-deterministically harmful in the long run.
Click to expand...
another honest mistake perhaps?
I stated the context a couple of times... but you chose to ignore that to serve your own agenda...
If you do not want to discuss the verb "determine" as other members may wish to, then what do YOU want to discuss that is relevant to this topic?
Maybe you have doubts and questions that you wish to resolve?
Any?
 
cluelusshusbund said:
How about that... an i credit you'r diagram as bein helpful in the understandin that free will is an illusion :)
Click to expand...
In my mind I see this as a "double cross" with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" catch 22 added.

You see, if you believe freewill is an illusion then your decision to believe that is in fact an illusion which means that the belief that freewill is an illusion, is in fact also an illusion.
So what you are left with is a non-argument.... or self defeating contradiction..
So how do you feel about your deluded belief that freewill is an illusion now?
 
Quantum Quack said:
In my mind I see this as a "double cross" with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" catch 22 added.

You see, if you believe freewill is an illusion then your decision to believe that is in fact an illusion which means that the belief that freewill is an illusion, is in fact also an illusion.
So what you are left with is a non-argument.... or self defeating contradiction..
So how do you feel about your deluded belief that freewill is an illusion now?
Click to expand...

I feel the same about free will bein an illusion... but i do get a chuckle out of you'r persistent misunderstandin of "illusion" :rolleyes:
 
Sarkus said:
My comment was with regard your dispute that causal determinism inevitably leads to predetermination
Click to expand...
I never disputed that. There is no such "dispute" of mine. I have stipulated to predetermination from the beginning - finding your insistence on extra typing bemusing, but no issue for anything I post. As you were warned, it seems to confuse you, but you insist, so - - - -
Sarkus said:
Determination is a logical implication. You have said this goes against mathematical proof...
Click to expand...
No, I have not.
I have said that your claim of exact prediction necessarily following from perfect knowledge of a deterministic system goes against mathematical proof. I advised you to check that claim - knowing what you will find, if you ever do. I also pointed out that the entire matter was irrelevant here, except as an illustration of the damage the supernatural assumption can do.
btw: Since that is the only thing here I have ever claimed goes against mathematical proof -
Where do you suppose you got your errant post from?
Sarkus said:
Sure, it's found in a thermostat. Doesn't have a bearing on whether it is predetermined or not.
Click to expand...
I had already agreed that it's predetermined - stipulated to that, on this forum, long ago. It's part of the assumed context of every post I have ever made here and will ever make here.
Sarkus said:
My comment was with regard predetermination, so unless you want to actually respond in that context,
Click to expand...
All my responses here are made in that context.
Sarkus said:
Any process that turns inputs to outputs can be said to calculate.
Click to expand...
Not by anyone interested in making sense.
Sarkus said:
Disagreement with regard freedom has little bearing, if any, on one's estimation of the physical universe.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards:
As with almost all naive materialists, your underestimation of the physical universe has a direct, obvious, and critical bearing on your assessment of nonsupernatural freedoms in that physical universe. It prevents you from considering them carefully - or at all, even.
That is the case with almost all naive materialists in discussions of this topic. Bricks, thermostats, sleeping vs dead dogs, human decisions, a pile of sand - all the same "nature" of freedom, all dismissed with the same wave of the hand and some label like "trivial".
And then: Somebody posts a simple example to clarify and focus - driver approaching a light, say - and they can't even register the key circumstances when paraphrasing. It's all sand. They screw up the timeline, change the subject, lose track of what is input and what is output, make a damn mess.

And these are not reductio ad absurdum arguments, not ludicrous meanderings designed to mock some especially incoherent "incompatibilist" approach - they mean them, sincerely.
 
I am sure Iceaura would agree with me when I post that :
If a scientist were to ignore observable reality in favor of what appears to be strong logic then he must obviously look at the logic to see if it could be improved upon. For surely ignoring reality is not what science is about and is nothing more than religious posturing that requires no rational basis and ignores the scientific process.
 
Quantum Quack said:
I am sure Iceaura would agree with me when I post that :
If a scientist were to ignore observable reality in favor of what appears to be strong logic then he must obviously look at the logic to see if it could be improved upon.
Click to expand...
Like religion?
For surely ignoring reality is not what science is about and is nothing more than religious posturing that requires no rational basis and ignores the scientific process.
Click to expand...
Right.

But we already have improved functional models of the observed logical operations in reality, it is called the mathematics of physics and is part of the science of physical reality.
 
Write4U said:
But we already have improved functional models of the observed logical operations in reality, it is called the mathematics of physics and is part of the science of physical reality.
Click to expand...
Your comment is irrelevant, if science ignores the reality it is observing...
 
Quantum Quack said:
I am sure Iceaura would agree with me when I post that :
If a scientist were to ignore observable reality in favor of what appears to be strong logic then he must obviously look at the logic to see if it could be improved upon. For surely ignoring reality is not what science is about and is nothing more than religious posturing that requires no rational basis and ignores the scientific process.
Click to expand...
If the logic is sound then the interpretation of the observation should be questioned. Not the observation itself, but the interpretation of it. If sound logic concludes that nothing can do X, and yet we observe something that seems to be doing X, do we conclude the logic wrong, or that what we are observing only appears to be X while not actually being so in the manner deemed not possible by the logic?
Of course the premises need to also be reviewed, but if we start from sound logic (I.e. true premises leading to a valid conclusion)....
There is no posturing, religious or otherwise, and nothing that has no rational basis or ignores the scientific process. Logic IS the rational basis, in this case, and the scientific process would hopefully lead to an interpretation that is aligned with the sound logic. Religious posturing would be more descriptive of those that hold to the accuracy of their interpretation without examining it in light of the sound logic that disputes it.
 
Sarkus said:
If the logic is sound then the interpretation of the observation should be questioned. Not the observation itself, but the interpretation of it. If sound logic concludes that nothing can do X, and yet we observe something that seems to be doing X, do we conclude the logic wrong, or that what we are observing only appears to be X while not actually being so in the manner deemed not possible by the logic?
Of course the premises need to also be reviewed, but if we start from sound logic (I.e. true premises leading to a valid conclusion)....
There is no posturing, religious or otherwise, and nothing that has no rational basis or ignores the scientific process. Logic IS the rational basis, in this case, and the scientific process would hopefully lead to an interpretation that is aligned with the sound logic. Religious posturing would be more descriptive of those that hold to the accuracy of their interpretation without examining it in light of the sound logic that disputes it.
Click to expand...
So why limit a deterministic universe from evolving human capacity to learn how to self determine?
What logical refutation is available?
 
Sarkus said:
If the logic is sound then the interpretation of the observation should be questioned. Not the observation itself, but the interpretation of it. If sound logic concludes that nothing can do X, and yet we observe something that seems to be doing X, do we conclude the logic wrong, or that what we are observing only appears to be X while not actually being so in the manner deemed not possible by the logic?
Of course the premises need to also be reviewed, but if we start from sound logic (I.e. true premises leading to a valid conclusion)....
There is no posturing, religious or otherwise, and nothing that has no rational basis or ignores the scientific process. Logic IS the rational basis, in this case, and the scientific process would hopefully lead to an interpretation that is aligned with the sound logic. Religious posturing would be more descriptive of those that hold to the accuracy of their interpretation without examining it in light of the sound logic that disputes it.
Click to expand...
You see there is nothing wrong with the logic. It is only the arbitary limitations placed upon the application of it that is. That is the illogical bit.
 
Last edited:
Question: can a wave interference pattern become so chaotic that it no longer can be considered a pattern and therefore lose its causal mathematical properties. The deterministic result of such a prior state would be indeterminate, no?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Your comment is irrelevant, if science ignores the reality it is observing...
Click to expand...
Now, that "iffy" statement seems to me an irrelevant comment......o_O

Science ignoring an area of study and observation? Care to clarify that?
Quantum Quack said:
You see there is nothing wrong with the logic. It is only the arbitary limitations placed upon the application of it that is. That is the illogical bit.
Click to expand...
Arbitrary limitations?
Such as "c", or non-mathematical processes? What limitation of spacetime would be arbitrarily placed on the universe beyond our own knowledge? The ability to ignore logic and act in a non-logical manner?
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
So why limit a deterministic universe from evolving human capacity to learn how to self determine?
What logical refutation is available?
Click to expand...
No one has, per se. The only thing being limited is the nature of the freedom within “self determination”. That is all that has ever been in question. Not that there is a process but what that process actually does.
Quantum Quack said:
You see there is nothing wrong with the logic. It is only the arbitary limitations placed upon the application of it that is. That is the illogical bit.
Click to expand...
If you think there is nothing wrong with the logic then you should agree with the conclusion, right? So if you come up with a process that doesn’t have what the logic says is impossible then we’re all on the same page. But then you need to understand what it is your process is actually doing, what is actually involved, and as soon as it veers toward what has been logically concluded as impossible, alarm bells should be ringing. And since you claim that your “co-determination” is more than just the labelling of subsystems, more than just a cog in a watch, you seem to be introducing that which is already concluded as impossible, even if you don’t think you’re introducing it because you’ve labelled it something else.
And I’m still trying to understand what your “co-determination” is if it is not merely labelling a cog in a watch, or does not have that which is already concluded as impossible.
You speak of self-determination but define it in terms of control, for example, without necessarily appreaciting what it is that is in control. Given the predetermination of all events, for example, the universe before you were born “controlled” every action you will ever make. So how is this “self determination” if it involves no “self” when the actions were predetermined? It’s a serious question, and may highlight the issue of language here, i.e. using the same word but meaning different things.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Nope... i thought Sarkus did a great job of it....
Click to expand...
I think his position reaches rather deep into the fundamental logical processes of relative values and functional potentials of the universe.
You are merely seeking to alter the definition of the term "determinism", ignoring that you can just dismiss the term as being non-existent and just suggest that the whole system is based on "logical indeterminism"......:eek:

There, we have done away with all limitations. The sky is the logical limit.........:rolleyes:
Science? I think not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top