Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Baldeee]

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.

And since the cog is part of the watch it must be included in what has done then guiding, yes?
This seems to be what the OP is trying to describe, but as you rightly say this offers nothing new over simply describing determinism.
Which is why the cog and watch analogy works.
The cog simply does what it does, taking inputs from the rest of the watch, processing, and returning an output.
That processing could be learning, choosing, deciding, or simply being a non-conscious calculator, or even an actual cog in an actual watch.
And this is why I don’t think “co-determination” adds anything.
We don’t talk of cogs “co-determining” the output of the watch.
It doesn’t actually mean anything.

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.

Agreed.
One can no more say no to what they themselves do.

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.

And by “watch” that includes the cog, as per above?
But otherwise I agree.
Maybe that is all “co-determination” really is, as you say muddled by his use of language: the cog and the rest of the watch, as two separately labelled entities, “co-determining” the time it tells.
Of course, what this really is is just the watch determining the time it tells.
Separating the cog from the rest of the watch adds nothing to any understanding here.

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.

Is your view that all things like choice, free will etc are subjective viewpoints?
Is this different than “illusory”?

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.

No analogy is perfect in all regards; foolish to start picking apart analogies for aspects that they were not intended to cover.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And since the cog is part of the watch it must be included in what has done then guiding, yes?
This seems to be what the OP is trying to describe, but as you rightly say this offers nothing new over simply describing determinism.
Which is why the cog and watch analogy works.
The cog simply does what it does, taking inputs from the rest of the watch, processing, and returning an output.
That processing could be learning, choosing, deciding, or simply being a non-conscious calculator, or even an actual cog in an actual watch.
And this is why I don’t think “co-determination” adds anything.
We don’t talk of cogs “co-determining” the output of the watch.
It doesn’t actually mean anything.

it actually adds quite a bit. For when you talk of determinism you are actually meaning co-determinism... Shifting the focus from a non-duality to a duality that includes 3+t dimensions.

The cog analogy is actually quite good for use in explaining a deterministic universe as long as there is no decisions made to claim are illusionary.
As soon as you bring in the ability to decide genuine or illusionary, you disqualify your inorganic cog.

So discussing the reality of freewill is impossible using an analogy that exclusively prohibits such observable evidence.

Therefore using a cog that makes no decisions, genuine or illusionary, is a false analogy.

 

[Sarkus]

And since the cog is part of the watch it must be included in what has done then guiding, yes?

Yes, of course. The watch is the watch, the cog just a part thereof.

This seems to be what the OP is trying to describe, but as you rightly say this offers nothing new over simply describing determinism.
Which is why the cog and watch analogy works.
The cog simply does what it does, taking inputs from the rest of the watch, processing, and returning an output.
That processing could be learning, choosing, deciding, or simply being a non-conscious calculator, or even an actual cog in an actual watch.
And this is why I don’t think “co-determination” adds anything.
We don’t talk of cogs “co-determining” the output of the watch.
It doesn’t actually mean anything.

If that is indeed what QQ is trying to say, but try and pin him down and he rejects and evades, obfuscating further. But if this is what he does actually mean then I agree with you.

One can no more say no to what they themselves do.

Defying gravity when we stand up is another classic.

Maybe that is all “co-determination” really is, as you say muddled by his use of language: the cog and the rest of the watch, as two separately labelled entities, “co-determining” the time it tells.
Of course, what this really is is just the watch determining the time it tells.
Separating the cog from the rest of the watch adds nothing to any understanding here.

We’ll see in due course if this is what he really means or not. I would suspect not, as he won’t like his idea being described so simply and recognised for being worthless.

Is your view that all things like choice, free will etc are subjective viewpoints?
Is this different than “illusory”?

Not all subjective viewpoints are illusory, but in the case of choice, free will (at least as being more than just processes), they are both. A magician’s trick from the subjective viewpoint of the audience looks like an illusion (I.e. goes against what we understand of the world etc). But consciousness, while also being a subjective viewpoint, does not go against what is logically deemed to be impossible.

No analogy is perfect in all regards; foolish to start picking apart analogies for aspects that they were not intended to cover.

Amen to that.

 

[Baldeee]

it actually adds quite a bit. For when you talk of determinism you are actually meaning co-determinism...

When I talk of determinism I mean determinism, not “co-determinism” that takes 35 pages to explain and ends up being simply determinism.

Shifting the focus from a non-duality to a duality that includes 3+t dimensions.

There is no duality other than an arbitrary labelling of a cog in a watch.
Look, a cog... in a watch... “co-determining” the time on the face.
Meaningless nonsense when determinism covers it all.
And what on earth do the dimensions have to do with it?

The cog analogy is actually quite good for use in explaining a deterministic universe as long as there is no decisions made to claim are illusionary.
As soon as you bring in the ability to decide genuine or illusionary, you disqualify your inorganic cog.

I don’t wish to seem as though I agree with Sarkus on everything, but you are simply making unsupported claims here.
On what grounds are you asserting this?

So discussing the reality of freewill is impossible using an analogy that exclusively prohibits such observable evidence.

You need to justify why the analogy fails, not just state that it does.
Making a decision is just a process.
Like a cog turning.
Or, dare I say it, a thermostat.
Inputs go in and are converted to an output.
It is a complex process in the case of decision making by humans, sure, but it is still just a process.
So on what grounds are you asserting the analogy flawed, other than your say so?

Therefore using a cog that makes no decisions, genuine or illusionary, is a false analogy.

A thermostat makes a decision.
A very simple one: on or off.
It has a low degree of flexibility in what it can do, as well.
But it is a process, converting inputs to outputs.
As is the human brain.
So on what grounds are you claiming it a false analogy, when the analogy is in reference to a process?
If both are a process, what is the difference between them that means one is covered by the analogy and the other not?

 

[Quantum Quack]

When I talk of determinism I mean determinism, not “co-determinism” that takes 35 pages to explain and ends up being simply determinism.
There is no duality other than an arbitrary labelling of a cog in a watch.
Look, a cog... in a watch... “co-determining” the time on the face.
Meaningless nonsense when determinism covers it all.
And what on earth do the dimensions have to do with it?
I don’t wish to seem as though I agree with Sarkus on everything, but you are simply making unsupported claims here.
On what grounds are you asserting this?
You need to justify why the analogy fails, not just state that it does.
Making a decision is just a process.
Like a cog turning.
Or, dare I say it, a thermostat.
Inputs go in and are converted to an output.
It is a complex process in the case of decision making by humans, sure, but it is still just a process.
So on what grounds are you asserting the analogy flawed, other than your say so?
A thermostat makes a decision.
A very simple one: on or off.
It has a low degree of flexibility in what it can do, as well.
But it is a process, converting inputs to outputs.
As is the human brain.
So on what grounds are you claiming it a false analogy, when the analogy is in reference to a process?
If both are a process, what is the difference between them that means one is covered by the analogy and the other not?

I explained the logic of false analogy quite well... what do you not understand?
A thermostat does not make a decision, nor can it choose.
Regardless I stand by my posts unless some sort of sound rational is provided to do other wise.
Do you think you are qualified to make a judgement and expect others to call on your over inflated authority?
I am willing to discuss the logic. Are you, with out calling on authority?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus, Baldeee
The other elephant in the room is that if you do not have a self determined actor your determinism is merely an illusion...perpetrated by your "watch".

 

[Quantum Quack]

Its the standard paradox when mixing non-dualism with dualism.

 

[Baldeee]

I explained the logic of false analogy quite well... what do you not understand?

You explained nothing relevant.
The analogy works because it refers to a process (a cog) within a larger system (watch).
It doesn’t matter what the process is, as long as it is a process then the analogy holds, unless you can show what it is about one process that differs so that it is not a valid analogy.
You haven’t done that.
You have merely named the processes and claimed the analogy to be false.

A thermostat does not make a decision, nor can it choose.

They are processes.
The analogy refers to one process within a larger system.
So what is it about the processes of decision-making and choice that makes the analogy false in this regard?

Regardless I stand by my posts unless some sort of sound rational is provided to do other wise.

It has been provided and you have ignored it.
You can stand by whatever claims you want, Quantum Quack.
That is your prerogative.
But in a forum for discussion it is usually required to support claims rather than just make them and ignore what anyone else has to say, is it not?

Do you think you are qualified to make a judgement and expect others to call on your over inflated authority?

I am qualified to offer my supported and argued opinion.
I have no authority other than that contained in the words I type.
I expect nothing else from you to respond to what I write, and to offer support and argument for your claims.
You haven’t done any of that thus far.

I am willing to discuss the logic.

Then please do, and explain why the analogy is false when it is referring to processes, irrespective of what those processes are.
If you think certain processes fall outside of that then you need to actually support that claim.

Are you, with out calling on authority?

I am not calling on any authority thus far.
To whom do you think I have appealed as an authority?

 

[Baldeee]

The other elephant in the room is that if you do not have a self determined actor your determinism is merely an illusion...perpetrated by your "watch".

How so?
Again, if you’re going to make claims, please support them with some reasoning.
From my perspective there is no elephant in the room.
There is no illusion of determinism.
Determinism is the premise upon which the discussion rests.
It is the one objective reality of this discussion.
So why is it you consider it an “illusion” without a self-determined actor?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You explained nothing relevant.
The analogy works because it refers to a process (a cog) within a larger system (watch).
It doesn’t matter what the process is, as long as it is a process then the analogy holds, unless you can show what it is about one process that differs so that it is not a valid analogy.
You haven’t done that.
You have merely named the processes and claimed the analogy to be false.
They are processes.
The analogy refers to one process within a larger system.
So what is it about the processes of decision-making and choice that makes the analogy false in this regard?
It has been provided and you have ignored it.
You can stand by whatever claims you want, Quantum Quack.
That is your prerogative.
But in a forum for discussion it is usually required to support claims rather than just make them and ignore what anyone else has to say, is it not?
I am qualified to offer my supported and argued opinion.
I have no authority other than that contained in the words I type.
I expect nothing else from you to respond to what I write, and to offer support and argument for your claims.
You haven’t done any of that thus far.
Then please do, and explain why the analogy is false when it is referring to processes, irrespective of what those processes are.
If you think certain processes fall outside of that then you need to actually support that claim.
I am not calling on any authority thus far.
To whom do you think I have appealed as an authority?

I explained the false analogy .....see my post. Every one else can.

 

[Baldeee]

I explained the false analogy .....see my post. Every one else can.

Which post, Quantum Quack?
Let’s see if you actually did explain it, rather than just assert it.
If you did offer an explanation then I will happily apologise.

 

[Quantum Quack]

How so?
Again, if you’re going to make claims, please support them with some reasoning.
From my perspective there is no elephant in the room.
There is no illusion of determinism.
Determinism is the premise upon which the discussion rests.
It is the one objective reality of this discussion.
So why is it you consider it an “illusion” without a self-determined actor?

Because it takes an actor to determine whether the words "cause and effect" even exist to begin with.
Like to see a cog post to this forum... what a hoot that would be....

 

[Baldeee]

Because itvtakes an actorvvto determine whether the words "cause and effect" even exist to begin with.

So the universe only operates the way it does (I.e. deterministically) because there are people to label how it operates?
Is that honestly your contention?
That until it is labelled it doesn’t work that way?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So the universe only operates the way it does (I.e. deterministically) because there are people to label how it operates?
Is that honestly your contention?
That until it is labelled it doesn’t work that way?

Your cog removes identity, self, capacity to learn, the ability to decide to make an observation. You end up with the watch looking at it self. So any thing a human may understand is an illusion... such is the life of puppet drones you imply.
Poor ole Hericlitus would roll in his grave.....

 

[Write4U]

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

No, I just want to know at what point of organic life it becomes able to exercise FW.

Mustbe some clear demarcation point, where you can say, "he has learned to exercise FW, no?

 

[Quantum Quack]

See post 539

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, I just want to know at what point of organic life it becomes able to exercise FW.

Mustbe some clear demarcation point, where you can say, "he has learned to exercise FW, no?

Free is relative quality. A bull ant could be said to be free. Self determination is a relative quality that has to be learned. The more you learn the greater the SD.
If a microbe can learn to determine beyond instinct then....
Was just checking my notes from 8th grade... and yep...elementary stuff.

 

[Write4U]

FAQ:
Why do believe that for determinism to be valid, self determination is essential and fundamentally necessary?

No it isn't. All things are subject to determinism regardless of will . Self-determinism is not a necessary skill for determinism to be valid.

You have this turned around.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No it isn't. All things are subject to determinism regardless of will . Self-determinism is not a necessary skill for determinism to be valid.

You have this turned around.

Whys that.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Post #529
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.