Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Quantum Quack]

If you think there is nothing wrong with the logic then you should agree with the conclusion, right?

and I do but not how that conclusion is being applied.

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 the logic doesn't say that it is impossible, it is only the arbitrary limitations of how the logic is applied that it...
( i know you will start to "jump" at this point but bear with me ok...)

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.

and that's your main issue...
ok... got it..

A cog in a watch that has been predetermined to evolve the capacity to learn how to determine it's own existence in co-operation with the remainder of the watch.

Is there any logical reason why this is impossible?
Lets put aside co-determination for a moment.

No doubt you will say that I am not explaining how a human being can learn from every determinining influence that interferes with his freedom to self determine.
But just assume for the moment, with out needing a biological explanation, that a human being does exactly that from the day he is born.
Now I ask you why is that impossible?
Why is it impossible that it has been predetermined that an evolved human does learn and in fact spends his entire life learning to self determine.
What logical argument is their to counter such a possibility?

What is learning to you any how?
How does the ability to learn feature in your deterministic universe?
Is learning logic, uhm.... illogical?

 

[Quantum Quack]

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"......

There, we have done away with all limitations. The sky is the logical limit.........
Science? I think not.

Please explain , you are making no sense at all...worse than usual in fact...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus
What happens if that Cog in the watch learns how to stop turning? What happens to the watch that it is a part of?
So the cog in the watch learns to say no to a determining factor and learns he has a choice gained by doing so.
he can either be a nice cog or a nasty cog... his choice because he learned how to reject the determining of the watch.
Also what happens if the cog in the watch dies ( suicide) and ceases to be present. How can the watch function missing a cog?

Might only be a small cog in a big machine but every cog counts.... hee hee.

 

[Sarkus]

and I do but not how that conclusion is being applied.

The conclusion is merely being applied to wherever there is a whiff of that thing being claimed to exist in whatever guise. If what can be shown has nothing that the logic says is impossible, all is well.

but the logic doesn't say that it is impossible, it is only the arbitrary limitations of how the logic is applied that it...

No, it really does say that it is impossible. With regard freedom in a deterministic universe, you accepted as much (see post #524: “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.”)

A cog in a watch that has been predetermined to evolve the capacity to learn how to determine it's own existence in co-operation with the remainder of the watch.

Is there any logical reason why this is impossible?

What you or I do was predetermined before we were born. How, therefore, are we actually learning how to determine our own existence? You are not “learning to determine” you are simply, always, acting as part of a deterministic system. Whatever you do. If you want to take the word “determine” out of the context of the universe and apply it to the individual then you are ascribing it a different definition than the one you are applying to the universal functioning. One relates to the assumed objective reality, the other is a subjective term. Different contexts for the same term, and they shouldn’t be used as if they mean the same thing.

Lets put aside co-determination for a moment.

Gladly.

No doubt you will say that I am not explaining how a human being can learn from every determinining influence that interferes with his freedom to self determine.

Is this the same “freedom” that you have said does not exist in a deterministic universe? But no, I’m aware that people can learn. Learning is simply a process of storing information that either consciously or subconsciously affects future action. But you’re still not explaining what you mean by “self-determine” that doesn’t beg the question.

But just assume for the moment, with out needing a biological explanation, that a human being does exactly that from the day he is born.
Now I ask you why is that impossible?
Why is it impossible that it has been predetermined that an evolved human does learn and in fact spends his entire life learning to self determine.
What logical argument is their to counter such a possibility?

Learning isn’t the issue, and is not in dispute. The issue is with what you mean by “self-determine”. Please explain, and without begging the question, please?

What is learning to you any how?
How does the ability to learn feature in your deterministic universe?
Is learning logic, uhm.... illogical?

Learning is not illogical. It is simply a process to memorise information that could be used to inform future outputs.

 

[Sarkus]

What happens if that Cog in the watch learns how to stop turning? What happens to the watch that it is a part of?

The cog is merely a part of the functioning of the watch. If the cog “learns how to stop turning” it is because that is what the watch does. The cog itself, if conscious, may think it has made the decision to stop, but the rest of the watch guided it to do so. And by “guided” I mean determined.

So the cog in the watch learns to say no to a determining factor and learns he has a choice gained by doing so.

No, the cog does not learn to say no to the watch. It is part of the watch, whatever it does. It can’t escape from it. Only if you advocate the cog being entirely separate from the watch could that happen, but the watch is part and parcel of the watch, not a separate entity.
The cog can certainly think it has choice, that it is doing what it wants, but the watch is what made that happen, and what dictates what happens, not the individual cog.

he can either be a nice cog or a nasty cog... his choice because he learned how to reject the determining of the watch.

That will certainly be his subjective viewpoint. The rest of the watch merely sees a cog working as expected, and it can never not work as expected.

Also what happens if the cog in the watch dies ( suicide) and ceases to be present. How can the watch function missing a cog?

Because in the watch analogous to the universe, the individual cogs can’t stop the watch from working, they only impact other local cogs, and even then their loss is quickly overcome by other cogs taking their place.
Much like how a business doesn’t stop just because someone leaves.
The analogy of the watch isn’t perfect because the watch is immeasurably simpler, and relatively static rather than dynamic. But the principle is there.

Might only be a small cog in a big machine but every cog counts.... hee hee.

That’s what we keep telling ourselves, from our subjective viewpoint.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The cog is merely a part of the functioning of the watch. If the cog “learns how to stop turning” it is because that is what the watch does. The cog itself, if conscious, may think it has made the decision to stop, but the rest of the watch guided it to do so. And by “guided” I mean determined.
No, the cog does not learn to say no to the watch. It is part of the watch, whatever it does. It can’t escape from it. Only if you advocate the cog being entirely separate from the watch could that happen, but the watch is part and parcel of the watch, not a separate entity.
The cog can certainly think it has choice, that it is doing what it wants, but the watch is what made that happen, and what dictates what happens, not the individual cog.
That will certainly be his subjective viewpoint. The rest of the watch merely sees a cog working as expected, and it can never not work as expected.
Because in the watch analogous to the universe, the individual cogs can’t stop the watch from working, they only impact other local cogs, and even then their loss is quickly overcome by other cogs taking their place.
Much like how a business doesn’t stop just because someone leaves.
The analogy of the watch isn’t perfect because the watch is immeasurably simpler, and relatively static rather than dynamic. But the principle is there.
That’s what we keep telling ourselves, from our subjective viewpoint.

I was going to take your earlier post seriously and attempt to explain but after your last post and all the nonsense in it I decided to say no, as I have better things to do. ( like sleep fr example)


the watch is a dead inorganic machine, the cog is a living human being ... may be one day you will include this difference in your dissertation.
of course a human being can say no to the watch, universe and God for that matter....
night!

 

[Sarkus]

the watch is a dead inorganic machine, the cog is a living human being ... may be one day you will include this difference in your dissertation.
of course a human being can say no to the watch, universe and God for that matter....
night!

And maybe one day you’ll show how the distinction is important, other than by simply begging the question? I certainly look forward to that day.
Sleep well.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The cog is merely a part of the functioning of the watch. If the cog “learns how to stop turning” it is because that is what the watch does. The cog itself, if conscious, may think it has made the decision to stop, but the rest of the watch guided it to do so. And by “guided” I mean determined.
No, the cog does not learn to say no to the watch. It is part of the watch, whatever it does. It can’t escape from it. Only if you advocate the cog being entirely separate from the watch could that happen, but the watch is part and parcel of the watch, not a separate entity.
The cog can certainly think it has choice, that it is doing what it wants, but the watch is what made that happen, and what dictates what happens, not the individual cog.
That will certainly be his subjective viewpoint. The rest of the watch merely sees a cog working as expected, and it can never not work as expected.
Because in the watch analogous to the universe, the individual cogs can’t stop the watch from working, they only impact other local cogs, and even then their loss is quickly overcome by other cogs taking their place.
Much like how a business doesn’t stop just because someone leaves.
The analogy of the watch isn’t perfect because the watch is immeasurably simpler, and relatively static rather than dynamic. But the principle is there.
That’s what we keep telling ourselves, from our subjective viewpoint.

A psychiatrist friend and I were talking a few years ago and he said something quite profound about dealing with seriously delusional cogs...I mean "insane" people.

He said "The moment you attempt to rationalize their insanity you become as insane as they are."

I thought very appropriate to post that given the incredibly flawed rant about a cog being a logically valid analogy for a human.

Insanity is after all about the irrational, unreasonable and abusive use of logic and your post is full of it...

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, the cog does not learn to say no to the watch. It is part of the watch, whatever it does. It can’t escape from it. Only if you advocate the cog being entirely separate from the watch could that happen, but the watch is part and parcel of the watch, not a separate entity.

This sounds so close, when talking about radicalization and extreme religious views. The sort of views that absolve a person of conscience. The sort of views that self justify the abrogation of self responsibility to a higher authority ( the watch).
Sarkus, You believe in a God, but disguise it as a watch....
In secular co-determinism the universe is entirely passive and doesn't tell the cog what to do. The cog has to figure that out for itself.
In religious determinism the cog gets told what to do.
The cog is proactive in attempting to know what God wants, and will often make decisions based on that delusion. Failing to realize that if God exists then he wants for nothing, as he already has all he could possibly want. (absolute power is incorruptible)

1/ Secular Co-Determinism
The universe is passive
Life is proactive.
====
2/ Religious Co-Determinism ( replaces Universe with God)
The universe is proactive.
Life is proactive.
====
3/ Secular Determinism ( replaces God with Universe )
The universe is proactive
Life is passive
====
4/ Religious Determinism (replaces Universe with God)
The universe is proactive
Life is passive
====
Which one do you think you belong to?

If you feel compelled to answer then you would belong to 3 or 4.
If you feel you have a choice whether to answer or not then you belong to 1 or 2.

Technically speaking it would be expected that if you belong to 3 or 4 your post will be laden with irrationality.. because this is what people do when they are suffering some sort of self control problem.
Current Example: The Trump/Iran fiasco.

 

[Sarkus]

A psychiatrist friend and I were talking a few years ago and he said something quite profound about dealing with seriously delusional cogs...I mean "insane" people.

He said "The moment you attempt to rationalize their insanity you become as insane as they are."

I thought very appropriate to post that given the incredibly flawed rant about a cog being a logically valid analogy for a human.

Insanity is after all about the irrational, unreasonable and abusive use of logic and your post is full of it...

Then you consider me insane. That's fine, you will think what you do. But that insulting ad hominem aside, are you actually going to address what was written? Or is your entire rebuttal nothing more than "He's insane!!!"?

 

[Sarkus]

This sounds so close, when talking about radicalization and extreme religious views. The sort of views that absolve a person of conscience. The sort of views that self justify the abrogation of self responsibility to a higher authority ( the watch).

Not at all. We haven't even begun to discuss issues of moral responsibility, and still on the question of freedom, and what your "theory" actually is.

You believe in a God, but disguise it as a watch....

No, I am an agnostic atheist. But I do not deny my place in the universe.

In secular co-determinism the universe is entirely passive and doesn't tell the cog what to do. The cog has to figure that out for itself.

So no different to a purely deterministic universe, then, but simply with a focus on a conscious entity. As explained, this is just a cog in a watch, but you're placing the cog on a pedestal.

In religious determinism the cog gets told what to do.
The cog is proactive in attempting to know what God wants, and will often make decisions based on that delusion. Failing to realize that if God exists then he wants for nothing, as he already has all he could possibly want. (absolute power is incorruptible)

If you say so.

If you feel compelled to answer then you would belong to 3 or 4.
If you feel you have a choice whether to answer or not then you belong to 1 or 2.

Given that I disagree with your descriptions, and find them rather loaded and, not unsurprisingly, somewhat naive, you'll excuse me for not answering.

Technically speaking it would be expected that if you belong to 3 or 4 your post will be laden with irrationality.. because this is what people do when they are suffering some sort of self control problem.
Current Example: The Trump/Iran fiasco.

So many fallacies in one paragraph, from poisoning the well, to ad hominem, to loading the question etc.
But if this is all you can offer by way of discussion...?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not at all. We haven't even begun to discuss issues of moral responsibility, and still on the question of freedom, and what your "theory" actually is.
No, I am an agnostic atheist. But I do not deny my place in the universe.
So no different to a purely deterministic universe, then, but simply with a focus on a conscious entity. As explained, this is just a cog in a watch, but you're placing the cog on a pedestal.
If you say so.
Given that I disagree with your descriptions, and find them rather loaded and, not unsurprisingly, somewhat naive, you'll excuse me for not answering.
So many fallacies in one paragraph, from poisoning the well, to ad hominem, to loading the question etc.
But if this is all you can offer by way of discussion...?

I see no point discussing an issue that concerns itself with organic life when all you can do is repeatedly refer to the non-organic.

If you wish to treat human self determination as being inorganic and trivialized as a cog in a watch or thermostat and fail to see the logical fallacy in doing so, then the level of discussion necessary is well beyond you...

 

[Sarkus]

The onus is on you to show why it should be treated any differently. Begging the question, as you do, is not the way to do it. Why should organic life be treated differently? Why are you putting it on a pedestal? Do you think organic life is objectively more than a process? What is missing from the equation by treating organic and inorganic processes in the same manner?
If you can’t explain then I guess that speaks volume the worth of your “theory”.
If you won’t explain, and would rather just throw around ad hominems, and generally avoid the issue, then I guess that speaks volumes about you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The onus is on you to show why it should be treated any differently. Begging the question, as you do, is not the way to do it. Why should organic life be treated differently? Why are you putting it on a pedestal? Do you think organic life is objectively more than a process? What is missing from the equation by treating organic and inorganic processes in the same manner?
If you can’t explain then I guess that speaks volume the worth of your “theory”.
If you won’t explain, and would rather just throw around ad hominems, and generally avoid the issue, then I guess that speaks volumes about you.

so silly Sarkus really!
If you can find me any inorganic objects that demonstrate observable and scientifically tested behavior that is in question - either real or illusion ( aka free will ) then you have something to discuss...

key words : demonstrates, observable

Until then you are talking about courses in stead of horses....
so silly...

 

[Quantum Quack]

The onus is on you to show why it should be treated any differently. Begging the question, as you do, is not the way to do it. Why should organic life be treated differently? Why are you putting it on a pedestal? Do you think organic life is objectively more than a process? What is missing from the equation by treating organic and inorganic processes in the same manner?
If you can’t explain then I guess that speaks volume the worth of your “theory”.
If you won’t explain, and would rather just throw around ad hominems, and generally avoid the issue, then I guess that speaks volumes about you.

Besides it is you who is putting the inorganic on a pedastal. And trying to discuss behaviours that simply are not observed. Inorganic analogies for organics is totally inappropriate.
Pick another.
Must be living...no corpses ok?
Must be mortal.
Must be animated
Must demonstrat a decision making ability.
Uhm... what else..
Oh yeah
Must be human.

If it don't fit the above then we are not talking about the reality of freewill but some nonsense cross purpose bs instead.

Does a cog in a watch demonstrate any freewill to qualify for this discussion. Nope!
If it did your watch analogy might make sense, but that would defeat your agenda, wouldn't it?

 

[Write4U]

Must be human

Really?
What about intelligent non-human organic life? Is this another, third category? Itsy-bitsy FW co-deterministic action, maybe?

Inorganic = deterministic (no FW choice)
Organic life (other than human) = deterministic but not quite capable of motivated co-deterministic action FW choice, instead employing a form of freedom of movement.
Human life = deterministic but capable of motivated FW co-deterministic action (choice).

I submit that the brainless Slime-mold is able to act from FW in a co-deterministic manner. Any arguments against that notion?

The slime mold can build a food supply highway systems that employ the absolute shortest routes to food as well as any human and can do it in a much shorter time.
This must be a FW act. In a chaotic system what difference would a few inches difference here or there make? The Slime-mold createst the shortest routes.

The Slime-mold unerringly will select (determine)and build the shortest supply route to food.

The difference between a chaotic interconnected network and the shortest, most efficient routes throughout the transport system, should argue for a motivated FW co-deterministic action.

If not, why not? If intelligent humans can employ Free Will choice, how much Free Will choice can intelligent non-humans employ?

 

[Sarkus]

So that’s a no from you, QQ, you can’t offer any explanation, any support, any reasoning why it should be treated differently, other than through begging the question. Okay. I guess that’s the limitation of what you have to offer. And to dismiss an analogy on the basis that it is not the actual thing you’re discussing, rather than being a means of highlighting specific aspects of the actual thing, is priceless.
So I think I’m done here. You have nothing to offer. Your theory adds nothing, and really only serves to muddle things further. You only seem to want to support it through question-begging. You dismiss any rebuttal with a mix of evasion, ad hominems, and goodness knows how many other fallacies to hide your lack of understanding of the terms you use, and you seem no closer to wanting to have an actual discussion, or being able to explain what you mean when asked.
So yeah, only the two things I have issue with here: your ignorance and your manner. When you feel like addressing either of those....

 

[Quantum Quack]

So that’s a no from you, QQ, you can’t offer any explanation, any support, any reasoning why it should be treated differently, other than through begging the question. Okay. I guess that’s the limitation of what you have to offer. And to dismiss an analogy on the basis that it is not the actual thing you’re discussing, rather than being a means of highlighting specific aspects of the actual thing, is priceless.
So I think I’m done here. You have nothing to offer. Your theory adds nothing, and really only serves to muddle things further. You only seem to want to support it through question-begging. You dismiss any rebuttal with a mix of evasion, ad hominems, and goodness knows how many other fallacies to hide your lack of understanding of the terms you use, and you seem no closer to wanting to have an actual discussion, or being able to explain what you mean when asked.
So yeah, only the two things I have issue with here: your ignorance and your manner. When you feel like addressing either of those....

300 odd words of nothing... well done.
Did you decide to post that stuff or was it your watch?
I understand. You can't help it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Really?
What about intelligent non-human organic life? Is this another, third category? Itsy-bitsy FW co-deterministic action, maybe?

Inorganic = deterministic (no FW choice)
Organic life (other than human) = deterministic but not quite capable of motivated co-deterministic action FW choice, instead employing a form of freedom of movement.
Human life = deterministic but capable of motivated FW co-deterministic action (choice).

I submit that the brainless Slime-mold is able to act from FW in a co-deterministic manner. Any arguments against that notion?

The slime mold can build a food supply highway systems that employ the absolute shortest routes to food as well as any human and can do it in a much shorter time.
This must be a FW act. In a chaotic system what difference would a few inches difference here or there make? The Slime-mold createst the shortest routes.

The Slime-mold unerringly will select (determine)and build the shortest supply route to food.

The difference between a chaotic interconnected network and the shortest, most efficient routes throughout the transport system, should argue for a motivated FW co-determingistic action.

If not, why not? If intelligent humans can employ Free Will choice, how much Free Will choice can intelligent non-humans employ?

So u agree freewill is observably demonstrated?
Do you think your slime mold is deluded?

 

[Quantum Quack]

1 think it is about a 1 in 100 post chance that u guys will post something worth discussing... looking back over the thread and the patterns you demonstrate.