Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Quantum Quack]

That’ll be the one referred to in the OP. The one that has already been pointed out to you.
I am not saying it is a shut case at all but it is the premise of this discussion. There is thus no need to prove it. If you want to introduce something new to the discussion, you need to show how it doesn’t violate that determinism. And just saying that it doesn’t is not considered support.

So you don't know.... ok

 

[Quantum Quack]

That’ll be the one referred to in the OP. The one that has already been pointed out to you.
I am not saying it is a shut case at all but it is the premise of this discussion. There is thus no need to prove it. If you want to introduce something new to the discussion, you need to show how it doesn’t violate that determinism. And just saying that it doesn’t is not considered support.

We haven't even started to discuss...any thing really... i've been posting mainly for those that i know are lirking...
Every attempt at actual discussion has failed
I'll be seeing a clinical psychologist (40 year experience) tomorrow. Will see what she has to say.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus
You think that the universe's determinism as determined (decided) by that universe and not a self determined agent is somehow a genuine assessment.

No, I’m saying it is that determinism is the premise of this discussion.

• Your version: The universe decides whether it is logical or not and you consider that to be genuinely objective? (Think about the movie Matrix)

The universe doesn’t decide. It just does what it does. That we have labelled aspects of its working as “logical” doesn’t alter the way the universe works. There doesn’t have to be a witness to things for them to happen.

• My version: The self determined human gets to decide. And is genuine in his observations. ( No Matrix)

So now all you have to do is answer what it means to be “self-determined” and what it means “to decide”, and the nature of the freedom, if any, within it, and we might start to get somewhere. And then there’s how “co-determinism” fits in to it all, and whether that actually offers anything more than can otherwise be understood from the position of straight determinism.

The contradiction in your version is way too evident.

You're still going to have to point out and detail the contradiction, QQ, because your mere assertion really doesn’t cut it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, I’m saying it is that determinism is the premise of this discussion.
The universe doesn’t decide. It just does what it does. That we have labelled aspects of its working as “logical” doesn’t alter the way the universe works. There doesn’t have to be a witness to things for them to happen.
So now all you have to do is answer what it means to be “self-determined” and what it means “to decide”, and the nature of the freedom, if any, within it, and we might start to get somewhere. And then there’s how “co-determinism” fits in to it all, and whether that actually offers anything more than can otherwise be understood from the position of straight determinism.
You're still going to have to point out and detail the contradiction, QQ, because your mere assertion really doesn’t cut it.

You are obviously confused. This thread is full of repetitive explanations. Which one do you want to re-read. Maybe start from the OP and work your way forward...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Do people exercise free will in dreams or are dreams merely causal without motivated participation by the dreamer?

Not many people can. Some can control aspects and have limited freedom, but most can not.
Certainly thete is a co-determined relationship goin on...

 

[Quantum Quack]

You're still going to have to point out and detail the contradiction, QQ, because your mere assertion really doesn’t cut it.

and this is the only strategy you have... yes?
The post #765 was very clear...
here it is again:
Sarkus
You think that the universe's determinism as determined (decided) by that universe and not a self determined agent is somehow a genuine assessment.

• Your version: The universe decides whether it is logical or not and you consider that to be genuinely objective? (Think about the movie Matrix)
• My version: The self determined human gets to decide. And is genuine in his observations. ( No Matrix)

The contradiction in your version is way too evident.

We really need to come up with a better strategy to avoid the obvious.... it makes you appear foolish...

 

[Quantum Quack]

iceaura,
Do you see the contradiction I am referring to? #773

 

[Baldeee]

according to who?

You don’t agree that X is X?
If you can offer an example of something that is not what it is, I would be most welcome to hear about it.

It takes a self determined individual to draw that conclusion. If not, it is merely an illusion of truth, a fraud perpetrated by the universe.

Drawing a conclusion doesn’t make the thing happen, and doesn’t affect the thing happening since the conclusion comes after the event.
Yes, you are right, the act of drawing a conclusion requires a conscious thinking entity etc, but the issue is not whether a conclusion has been drawn but with how the universe actually is.
And we have assumed it here to be deterministic.
No conclusion necessary for that to therefore be the case for purposes of this discussion.

As to this nonsense about a “fraud perpetrated by the universe”, if the universe is deterministic then it can not be perpetrating a fraud for it to indeed be deterministic.
As said, X is X.
It is not a fraud to X be X.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You don’t agree that X is X?
If you can offer an example of something that is not what it is, I would be most welcome to hear about it.

You have missed the point... I doesn't matter what I agree to or not agree to, what matters is whether I am qualified to take a position.
If the deterministic universe is making the decision then there is no "I" in "I agree..."
All deterministic puppets are disqualified from being valid decision makers.
and that is because you believe X=X with out question.
which any good puppet would do.

If you can offer an example of something that is not what it is, I would be most welcome to hear about it.

I can think of a few, one of which,
Albert Einstein
Special relativity:

• 0=0 relativity of simultaneity
• 1 meter in contracted space = 1 meter in un contracted space. ( length contraction)
• 1 second can be 1.75 seconds and visa versa depending on perspective... ( time dilation)

0=0'

Which zero is absolute?
Which zero is relative?


You see your opinion depends entirely on what you know. And if what you know is not absolute your opinion will always be lacking.
This is why intellectual arrogance kills the goose... (Intellectual Cardinal sin = False Pride)

So no, X does not always equal x.
or L does not always equal L

Try the logic riddle I created for Write4U who responded with a complaint about being insulted by the challenge... let 's see if you get insulted as well...

Notes: there are at least two answers and both are correct.

If
1+ 1 = 3
and
3+3 = 6
what does 1 equal?

 

[Quantum Quack]

It can be established that they are excluded only as a conclusion of the two premises that are used: the definition of freedom, and the premise of predetermination. That's what you fail to understand.

by who?
and how does a deterministic sock puppet qualify as a credible decision maker or establish anything?

 

[Sarkus]

by who?
and how does a deterministic sock puppet qualify as a credible decision maker or establish anything?

Care to put that in English?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Care to put that in English?

sure ... from the OP
1st paragraph..

So much has been written over thousands of years about the conundrum invoked when considering a deterministic universe and how Humans can demonstrate decisions and choice making that appears to be in-determined by that deterministic universe, that they have freedom to choose when simple logic will strongly suggest that any choice taken will in fact be predetermined and that any alternative choices are in fact an illusion, a deception that affords us the luxury of believing in our individual autonomy. That we as are deluded and that determinists theory is rock solid case and effect logic.

sock puppets are unqualified to make a genuine decision...

 

[Baldeee]

You have missed the point... I doesn't matter what I agree to or not agree to, what matters is whether I am qualified to take a position.

Not to reality it doesn't.
Reality will keep going on its merry way.

If the deterministic universe is making the decision then there is no "I" in "I agree..."

Why not?
There is still a process that one would call "I".
Processes don't stop doing what they do, irrespective of how they are viewed.
Neither your view, nor mine, nor anyone else's, has an effect on how the universe operates.

All deterministic puppets are disqualified from being valid decision makers.

So your tactic is simply to disqualify all those who hold an incompatibilist view?
There is no logic in this crass effort to stick your fingers in your ears.

and that is because you believe X=X with out question.
which any good puppet would do.

Everyone should do it.

I can think of a few, one of which,
Albert Einstein
Special relativity:

• 0=0 relativity of simultaneity
• 1 meter in contracted space = 1 meter in un contracted space. ( length contraction)
• 1 second can be 1.75 seconds and visa versa depending on perspective... ( time dilation)

0=0'

Which zero is absolute?
Which zero is relative?

Relativity is merely that how we observe a particular phenomenon depends on our relative motion, etc.
It doesn't actually alter the thing observed.
X remains X even if two people observe it to be different due to their relative motion.
So care to try again.

You see your opinion depends entirely on what you know.

For most it depends only on what they think they know.
But in this regard it is not opinion, but a logical truth: X = X.
Whatever is, is.
Law of identity.
Now you know it too.

And if what you know is not absolute your opinion will always be lacking.

Of course.

This is why intellectual arrogance kills the goose...

And stupidity gets you run over, but at least the others get to eat.

So no, X does not always equal x.
or L does not always equal L

Accept it or not, X will always equal X.
If it is anything else then it is not X.
And X will always be X whether any self-determined entity is there to agree or not.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Relativity is merely that how we observe a particular phenomenon depends on our relative motion, etc.
It doesn't actually alter the thing observed.

hee hee, exactly what I thought 12 years ago...but as I found out ... totally wrong...
and besides it is indeed perspective that is in question...
I perceive a meter when in fact it is 0.5 of a meter then obviously 1m =/= 1m
or X =/= X

An agreed truth is not an absolute truth.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And X will always be X whether any self-determined entity is there to agree or not.

so the predetermined sock puppet says...
sure why not...
an Illusion of choice.... is an illusion of knowledge.....is an illusion of identity.... is an illusion of autonomy.... is an illusion of belief ...is an illusion of determinism.... is an illusion that X=X

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not to reality it doesn't.
Reality will keep going on its merry way.
Why not?
There is still a process that one would call "I".
Processes don't stop doing what they do, irrespective of how they are viewed.
Neither your view, nor mine, nor anyone else's, has an effect on how the universe operates.
So your tactic is simply to disqualify all those who hold an incompatibilist view?
There is no logic in this crass effort to stick your fingers in your ears.
Everyone should do it.
Relativity is merely that how we observe a particular phenomenon depends on our relative motion, etc.
It doesn't actually alter the thing observed.
X remains X even if two people observe it to be different due to their relative motion.
So care to try again.
For most it depends only on what they think they know.
But in this regard it is not opinion, but a logical truth: X = X.
Whatever is, is.
Law of identity.
Now you know it too.
Of course.
And stupidity gets you run over, but at least the others get to eat.
Accept it or not, X will always equal X.
If it is anything else then it is not X.
And X will always be X whether any self-determined entity is there to agree or not.

I am trying to work out the name of the ancient Greek Philosopher who argued like you do...
Perhaps,
Heraclitus, around 500BC:

This Logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this Logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep. (DK 22B1)

For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the Logos is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding.​

First introduced the word "Logos"
and qualified it to being absolutely objective yet subjectively interpreted...just as you are attempting to do... That was over 2400 years ago...

Impressive start IMO...
but of course he presumed that humans had genuine choice.
But he was discounted later by another Greek philosopher, the one I am attempting to rediscover... I'll let you know when I do...

 

[Baldeee]

hee hee, exactly what I thought 12 years ago...but as I found out ... totally wrong...
and besides it is indeed perspective that is in question...

No, perspective is not in question here, but reality (objective).

I perceive a meter when in fact it is 0.5 of a meter then obviously 1m =/= 1m
or X =/= X

Yet the object actually remains its actual length, whatever length observers in different inertial frames measure it to be for them.
X remains X.

An agreed truth is not an absolute truth.

Indeed.
X=X is an absolute truth.
You don't need to agree to that for it to be true.

so the predetermined sock puppet says...
sure why not...
an Illusion of choice.... is an illusion of knowledge.....is an illusion of identity.... is an illusion of autonomy.... is an illusion of belief ...is an illusion of determinism.... is an illusion that X=X

*sigh*

I am trying to work out the name of the ancient Greek Philosopher who argued like you do...

And with those two posts of yours I think we are done here.
I'll leave you to... whatever it is you think you're doing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And with those two posts of yours I think we are done here.
I'll leave you to... whatever it is you think you're doing.

What!?
Heraclitus would never walk away from a discussion he was losing...and he was man enough to admit he needed to upgrade his opinions.
dang it!

 

[Quantum Quack]

X=X is an absolute truth.
You don't need to agree to that for it to be true.

the X on the left is not the same as the X on the right. (L)X =/= (R)X
Nothing can ever be replicated in 3 dimensional space ( different space time co-ordinates)

so X is simply
X

X is X
not equal to X
and even X is X
has problems...

 

[Quantum Quack]

because of that assumption he has to separate that self from the universe to find freedom in it,

I do not separate the self, in fact it is essential the self is included....

Freedom is a subjective and relative quality and not material . Do you agree?

You really need to take a position on your use of the word freedom.
What is it, material or not?