Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Quantum Quack]

There are no arbitrary limitations. The universe merely can not, nor will ever, produce that which is impossible.

do you know what you are posting...?
when you have deemed it impossible BECAUSE of your arbitrary limitations ....
remove those arbitrary limitations and leave it up to the universe to work out....and of course it is possible...
Not only is it possible, but it actually evolved humans to gain the capacity and the need to learn how to self determine.
It also did the same to a lesser extent for animals like gorillas, Monkeys, birds, snakes, turtles... and so on... are they deluded as well?

BTW I can tell from the crazy nature of your post that my logic is by far more compelling(*) than your logic...
A severe case of denial perhaps?

(*) trigger word: compelling

 

[Quantum Quack]

Any one else believe that they should impose arbitrary limitations on the universe's capacity to evolve intelligent, sentient, self determined life forms?

 

[Sarkus]

If....If.... If an argument is valid...
the key word is If..

And if it is not valid...the conclusion is not valid...

It is valid.

do you know what you are posting...?

Yes, thanks.

when you have deemed it impossible BECAUSE of your arbitrary limitations ....

No, it is impossible because we have stipulated that we are discussing a deterministic universe. Within that universe it is impossible to have freedom as defined. You even agreed to that!

remove those arbitrary limitations and leave it up to the universe to work out....and of course it is possible...

The universe can not produce something that is contradictory to its nature. That much really shouldn't need explaining to you. You can't put logical impossibility down as an "arbitrary limitation".

Not only is it possible, but it actually evolved humans to gain the capacity and the need to learn how to self determine.

And, as explained, the truth or otherwise of that depends on how you are defining "self-determination". If it is defined so as not to be contradictory to how the universe works then it no problem. If it is contradictory then it does not exist.
Call me crazy for stating it, if that helps you sleep at night. But it still won't mean that something contradictory can logically exist.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, it is impossible because we have stipulated that we are discussing a deterministic universe.

No.. it is impossible because you have stipulated that it is impossible.

Within that universe it is impossible to have freedom as defined. You even agreed to that!

freedom as defined! hee hee and pray tell what definition you are running with this time...
freedom as a quality or freedom as material?
tell me what does freedom look like, what color is it?

But I am not arguing a case for freedom... you are..
I am arguing a case for self determination the issue of freedom is actually irrelevant because it is a relative quality.

The universe can not produce something that is contradictory to its nature. That much really shouldn't need explaining to you. You can't put logical impossibility down as an "arbitrary limitation".

I certainly can when that is what you are doing... arbitrarily limiting the deterministic universe to some sort of insane no-life version.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus,

1. What is your definition of freedom?
2. What is your definition of self determination?
3. How does freedom and self determination relate to each other?
   
4. What is their association?

after literally hundreds of posts you have yet to clearly state what you mean by these things.
Yet you will state that they are impossible.
Is that so that you can dodge and duck and never be held responsible for what you post?

To consider something as impossible you must have a definition.
If you state that it's definition can be derived by it's impossibility you just prove even more so how obtuse and dishonest you are being.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus
What we have agreed upon

• Causal predetermination
• No material freedom exists
• The quality labelled freedom exists in the form of "illusion"

Is it possible to even agree that we agree?

 

[Quantum Quack]

A current state of play in the philosophical debate over the reality of free will
Taxonomy c/o Wiki



But I would contend it is missing something very important...
and that is related to the first text box "If determinism is true, free will is possible?"
I would write:

If determinism is true and not arbitrarily limited, freewill is possible?

This is simply because unrestrained determinism is essential for the evolution of animated organic life and the capacity to learn how to self determine in humans.

My position is neither libertarian, or compatibilist.

The whole debate is flawed at it's core premise.
That determinism be limited in it's capacity to evolve.

I can't even amend the taxonomy to show how it should look. It is that flawed. ( to aid explanation)

It is the issue of determinism it self that needs to be looked at.
What presumptions are being made?
What limitations are being applied?

It is not a question of the basic logic it is a question of how it is applied.
The application appears to be terribly flawed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

but (crucially) agreed to accept the supernatural assumption, the "definition" of freedom you use as a logical premise: that freedom means - by definition - the ability to contravene natural law, break the causal chain, do other than what one must do.

total hog wash...
freedom is a subjective quality. Even pigs that fly can have a quality of freedom...with out defying natural law....
The mere fact that freedom can be considered an illusion validates my point.

or is claiming it to be your supernatural in itself defying natural law?
Any one can claim freewill to be supernatural and not defy natural law in doing so, because it is merely a subjective quality.

The question that you avoid is the reality of freedom: Is it an illusion or can it be genuine?

In a conventional compatibilist sense you fail to show how the freedom you suggest is genuine and not an illusion or supernatural.
Your arguments are severely weakened thus...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Kant's Idea of freedom:

src: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/idea_of_freedom.html

1. WILL is a kind of causality belonging to living beings so far as they are rational.
   
2. Freedom would then be the property this causality has of being able to work independently of determination by alien causes.
   1. Immediately you can see the presumption of alien causation inhibiting the property of freedom.
   2. It presumes that a human being is already separated from the universe.
   3. It assumes an alien vs Human perspective segregation.
   4. This artificial separation of human from universe can not be resolved with out the inclusion of some sort of mechanism that affords inclusion.
   5. Thus Kant has forced himself into a corner with out escape simply because he has made action with out alien determination impossible.
   6. Co-determinism allows the human actor to become a part of and included in, the universal deterministic paradigm.
   7. Learned self determination allows humans to do as they were predetermined to co-determine with a genuine property of freedom ( the degree of which is dependent on learned ability) with out violating the deterministic paradigm.

Hobbes and Hume:

1. As long as the agent is free from external coercion, they have freedom of action, which is the compatibilist freedom we have according to Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.
   1. Again there is a failure to realize that humans are never free of coercion.
   2. We are always surrounded by coercive forces.
   3. We can not be considered as separate or alien to those forces.
   4. From the moment we are born, we are learning how to adapt, control and manage those coercive forces and as we do so the property of our freedom increases in value and genuineness.
   5. Co-determination ensures our full integration with in the deterministic paradigm.
   6. The self evident truth could be considered as the most significant coercive force that we have to learn to manage. Failure to do so leads to lying and denial and ultimately destruction of your reality.

 

[iceaura]

In a conventional compatibilist sense you fail to show how the freedom you suggest is genuine and not an illusion or supernatural.

And there we see some effects of the supernatural assumption.

As you yourself have so often pointed out, there is no coherent and self-consistent way to declare nonsupernatural degrees of freedom - matters of observation in the physical world, beginning with an account of the capabilities possessed by the entity engaged in the considered behavior - to be "illusion". There's nobody and nothing to harbor such an illusion - the entire deterministic universe vanishes up its own ass, the snake eats its tail.

Meanwhile, nonsupernatural degrees of freedom are (or would be, if ever discussed) products of physical law, attendant features of observable physical behavior, joiners and partakers in all chains of cause and effect, fully determined in whatever sense has been assumed by the assumption of a deterministic universe.

By definition.

So failing to see how my suggestion for a basis of freedom of will in a deterministic universe differs from the supernatural is quite strange. Odd. Having seen by now many dozens of examples of this failure, the most likely factor involved - the most obvious common factor - is the assumption that freedom necessarily involves doing other than one must, other than cause and effect requires, etc. That freedom is supernatural, and anyone using the word is referring to the supernatural. That nonsupernatural freedom is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Quantum Quack]

As you yourself have so often pointed out, there is no coherent and self-consistent way to declare nonsupernatural degrees of freedom - matters of observation in the physical world, beginning with an account of the capabilities possessed by the entity engaged in the considered behavior - to be "illusion". There's nobody and nothing to harbor such an illusion - the entire deterministic universe vanishes up its own ass, the snake eats its tail.

it not only vanishes up it's own ass, it was never there to begin with. ..
My approach to theses things is this...

1. I see a major contradiction like this illusion of an illusion stuff and I realize that the entire theory, notion or idea is severely flawed.
2. So I start again as If I was Hericlitus sitting on a beach somewhere wondering on the marvels he is surrounded by, with out any scientific knowledge to guide him.
3. So I work out simple logic: We have cause and effect and we extend to predetermination ( so far we are describing Hard Determinism) micro events and macro events included.
   
4. This is so far not conflicted, until we make a claim about freedom of action.
5. But what is freedom, How can I measure it? How can I quantify it?
6. and how is it possible in a hard deterministic paradigm?

• Old Hericlitus didn't know about evolution. he presumed he was a creation of the Gods complete and fully developed.
  
• He presumed there was no growth towards a higher evolved state. For both himself and Gods (universe)
  
• He presumed he and his universe ( god) were already that higher state.
  
• He failed to consider the intuitive and conscious learning he had been doing all his life and failed to consider what the primary reason for that learning was.
• Hasn't heard the song "Takes two to tango" nor understands the philosophical implications of co-operative co-determinism. ( Dualism)

For if he had we wouldn't be having this discussion about the freewill puzzle now because it would have already been solved by Herclitus 2500 odd years ago.
Instead we have an unnecessarily overly complicated debate that is hopelessly riddled with cross purpose, contextual vagaries, semantical pedantics etc all making it impossible to get any where.

So my approach is to start again, drop all preconceptions and conditioning and look at the facts.
Deal with clearly identifying qualifiers like absoluteness vs relativity, finite vs infinity, and discover what is obviously missing in the debate, and I came to the conclusion that the whole problem is that philosophers failed to see how important evolution, life, learning and relativity is to this question. For 2500 years going round in circles because of it.
They failed to see it because they believe people like Sarkus who presume impossibility before it is even tested.

"The logic is clear freedom is impossible"...he will post no doubt for the millionth time.

and I would say,

"The logic is clear, freedom is not only possible, it is in fact essential"

because with out that quality of freedom there is no logic...
with the above in mind the problem of the reality of freewill is solved. No need for further argument. The only thing to do now is pad out the detail and demonstrate "how"?
Hence the question Baldeee and Sarkus inspired. Post #748
What makes logic logical?

It takes two to tango

Btw.. the conflict between Hericlitus and Parmenides is very telling... Socrates also has an input later and the rest is history...

The traditional interpretation of Parmenides' work is that he argued that the every-day perception of reality of the physical world (as described in doxa) is mistaken, and that the reality of the world is 'One Being' (as described in aletheia): an unchanging, ungenerated, indestructible whole. Under the Way of Opinion, Parmenides set out a contrasting but more conventional view of the world, thereby becoming an early exponent of the duality of appearance and reality. For him and his pupils, the phenomena of movement and change are simply appearances of a changeless, eternal reality. wiki
​

It could easily be argued that Zeno of Elea and his paradox's were essentially devoted to the understanding of the question about freedom.
Essentially concluding that Change is not possible beyond that which is predetermined...aka no Freedom.
"Believing that you are entirely at the mercy of God(s) tends to encourage the above conclusions" circa 500BC
until you learn how not to be....

 

[Quantum Quack]

thanks... finished the editing..

 

[Quantum Quack]

Summary

1. The term Co-determination implies at least two "determiners" working cooperatively to determine an event.
2. The universe being passive the human being proactive.
3. The human's life is primarily devoted to learning how to (co)determine and to make use of his ability to (co)determine.
4. The learned ability for Humans to (co) determine his choices and actions affords him a quality of relative freedom.
5. That quality of co-determined relative freedom is genuine.
6. Due to co-determination being constantly present there is no violation of causal predetermination as all decisions, choices and actions are also co-predetermined.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is “illusory” because it appears to offer something (an ability to do otherwise) that has been concluded to be impossible in a deterministic universe.

Co-determinism addresses this issue directly.
Example:
Bob has three items to choose from. A B &C.
Bob says, "If I choose A then I am only doing what is predetermined."
"If I choose B then that also is what is predetermined"
"And guess what?
"If I choose C then that is also predetermined?"
So how does Bob choose the one that is predetermined?
All three items are freely able to be chosen because all three items are predetermined to be alternatives.
It is only because Bob co-determines which item he chooses that he has the freedom to choose even though he is predetermined to choose at least one of them.

 

[Sarkus]

Co-determinism addresses this issue directly.
Example:
Bob has three items to choose from. A B &C.
Bob says, "If I choose A then I am only doing what is predetermined."
"If I choose B then that also is what is predetermined"
"And guess what?
"If I choose C then that is also predetermined?"
So how does Bob choose the one that is predetermined?
All three items are freely able to be chosen because all three items are predetermined to be alternatives.
It is only because Bob co-determines which item he chooses that he has the freedom to choose even though he is predetermined to choose at least one of them.

And as stated before, all this is just a cog in a watch. It’s not adding anything new to the issue. We already knew a process exists called “making a choice”, so what does this “co-determinism” tell us that we didn’t already know?

 

[Quantum Quack]

And as stated before, all this is just a cog in a watch. It’s not adding anything new to the issue. We already knew a process exists called “making a choice”, so what does this “co-determinism” tell us that we didn’t already know?

and as explained many times before it is a "cog" that has learned the ability to choose ( determine) freely from all predetermined choices...
Co-determination fully integrates the "cogs" freedom to choose as he has learned to do so, with out violating the "watch's" determination.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And as stated before, all this is just a cog in a watch. It’s not adding anything new to the issue. We already knew a process exists called “making a choice”, so what does this “co-determinism” tell us that we didn’t already know?

Perhaps if you were prepared to openly discuss the threads topic and not just your hard determinism we might get somewhere.
For starters Co-determination removes the need for indeterminism as you mistakenly state. In fact the entire purpose of introducing the axiom of co-determination is to do just that.

• Fully integrate choices made with out any need for indeterminism....

So perhaps you could seek to understand the proposition first before repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance of it.

 

[Sarkus]

and as explained many times before it is a "cog" that has learned the ability to choose ( determine) freely from all predetermined choices...
Co-determination fully integrates the "cogs" freedom to choose as he has learned to do so, with out violating the "watch's" determination.

You are begging the question of “freely” by simply assuming it. Other than that, you’re still just describing a cog in a watch, irrespective of what the cog actually is. It adds nothing new to the discussion to simply describe it as “co-determination”. Cog interacts with the rest of the watch. Any sub-process does the same with regard the whole.

Perhaps if you were prepared to openly discuss the threads topic and not just your hard determinism we might get somewhere.

I am discussing it, QQ. I am giving you my opinion of it, and have been at pains to seek clarification from you. If by “openly discuss” you mean agree with everything you say, dream on.

For starters Co-determination removes the need for indeterminism as you mistakenly state. In fact the entire purpose of introducing the axiom of co-determination is to do just that.

Axiom? There is no axiom of “co-determination” here. The issue of indeterminism is removed by assuming a deterministic universe. Period. I only raise it when it seems you are veering off to toward it being required, or observed.

• Fully integrate choices made with out any need for indeterminism....

That is true of any and every system in a deterministic universe. It gets you no nearer explaining how your “co-determinism” is anything other than describing a cog in a watch.

So perhaps you could seek to understand the proposition first before repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance of it.

That’s what I’m trying to do, QQ. But you seem unable to actually provide any meaningful explanation that clarifies things. And when I summarise my view of it based on what you have said, you keep throwing additional spanners. The onus is on you to explain what you mean. Clearly. And currently your words are not clear, they beg the question with regard “free”, and do not seem to offer anything more than being a description of a cog in watch. You say it is not an incompatibilist position, but then you’ve said it isn’t compatibilist either. You don’t seem to know what you mean, and you certainly don’t seem to be able to say what you mean.
So help me understand, QQ. That is all I’ve wanted from you from the outset of this thread.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I am discussing it, QQ.

well discuss it...then...
discussion point #1

You are begging the question of “freely” by simply assuming it. Other than that, you’re still just describing a cog in a watch, irrespective of what the cog actually is. It adds nothing new to the discussion to simply describe it as “co-determination”. Cog interacts with the rest of the watch. Any sub-process does the same with regard the whole.

except that the cog has learned to be a determiner with in that watch. Hence co-determination.
There is no logical reason to exclude the possibility that a human has been predetermined to learn how to predetermine... In fact it is something we do just about every day of our waken lives.
discussion point #2

Axiom? There is no axiom of “co-determination” here. The issue of indeterminism is removed by assuming a deterministic universe. Period.

But only if you remove self determination. Is there anything else you would like to remove...?
Co-determination removes the issue of indeterminism and allows self determination whilst doing so... with out violating causal predetermination.

That is true of any and every system in a deterministic universe. It gets you no nearer explaining how your “co-determinism” is anything other than describing a cog in a watch.

already explained.

That’s what I’m trying to do, QQ. But you seem unable to actually provide any meaningful explanation that clarifies things. And when I summarise my view of it based on what you have said, you keep throwing additional spanners. The onus is on you to explain what you mean. Clearly. And currently your words are not clear, they beg the question with regard “free”, and do not seem to offer anything more than being a description of a cog in watch. You say it is not an incompatibilist position, but then you’ve said it isn’t compatibilist either. You don’t seem to know what you mean, and you certainly don’t seem to be able to say what you mean.
So help me understand, QQ. That is all I’ve wanted from you from the outset of this thread.

What you could benefit from is understanding that it is you that has to do the understanding not me....If you can not understand it then you have to ask yourself why not?
and then perhaps discuss it...with someone who does.

You are too busy throwing statements like:
it's just a cog in a watch... or
Co-determination adds nothing...

instead of asking the questions you need to ask for you to understand it..
So what questions do you have with out the statements?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Perhaps explain co-determination and the reality of freewill back at me, even if you disagree with it... and lets see where you are confused.