Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Sarkus]

except that the cog has learned to be a determiner with in that watch. Hence co-determination.

You’ll have to clarify what you mean by “learn to be a determiner” as to me it doesn’t make sense: everything within a deterministic system is inherently a determiner. Nothing needs to learn to exist in a manner that is inherent to that existence.

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.

One does not learn something that is inherent within their existence. So please clarify what you mean by this “learn how to predetermine”, as to me you are no more or less predetermined in your actions than a brick. Nor am I. Nor is anyone else. Less predictable, sure, but no more or less predetermined. And a brick does it without “learning how to predetermine”.

But only if you remove self determination. Is there anything else you would like to remove...?

Why “only if you remove self determination”? Indeterminism is contradictory to the assumption of a deterministic universe. We have assumed the latter thus this removes by necessity the issue of indeterminism. So please explain why one needs to remove self determination?

Co-determination removes the issue of indeterminism and allows self determination whilst doing so... with out violating causal predetermination.

As stated, indeterminism is contradictory to a deterministic universe. Assume a deterministic universe and the issue of indeterminism disappears.

Hang on a sec, though, as I need to check with JamesR if it’s actually okay to talk about assumptions that have already been made and accepted by all. Is it, JamesR?

already explained.

Where?

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?

I have asked, and it is because you’re not being logical. For example above, where you think one needs to remove self determination from a deterministic universe in order to remove the issue of indeterminism. Where you’re talking of “learning to pre/determine” where such is actually an inherent part of existence within the deterministic universe.

and then perhaps discuss it...with someone who does.

I’m trying to discuss it with you, QQ. But you’re not doing a very good job of helping me understand.

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

Those are my opinions, and I have supported them.

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

Let’s start with the ones above, shall we, and see where we go?

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.

I could only repeat your words, but there would be no understanding behind them, so they would be hollow.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Learning to be a determiner...

You’ll have to clarify what you mean by “learn to be a determiner” as to me it doesn’t make sense: everything within a deterministic system is inherently a determiner. Nothing needs to learn to exist in a manner that is inherent to that existence.

and so how do you think a human can learn to self determine?
Education perhaps? Experience perhaps?
"The sun is too hot so I moved into the shade as my mother taught me to do when I was a toddler"
"I needed to buy some milk but I didn't have the money so I stole it and my dad taught me how to"
It really isn't all that complicated.

I think you are looking for complication when it really isn't.
Life compels us to make choices. We have no choice BUT to make choices. Even if we decide not to make a choice, that is still a choice.
To live we must determine. If we do not we die. That is life.
seriously, how are you confused?

One does not learn something that is inherent within their existence. So please clarify what you mean by this “learn how to predetermine”, as to me you are no more or less predetermined in your actions than a brick. Nor am I. Nor is anyone else. Less predictable, sure, but no more or less predetermined. And a brick does it without “learning how to predetermine”.

Comparing a brick with a living human is absurd to start with.You are ignoring the very thing that allows us the ability to learn how to self determine.
We are by nature founded on our instincts. One could consider this to be the deterministic side of things. Humans learn though out life how to over ride and manage their instincts so that they can reason and use logic and make informed decisions.
So we can consider the purely instinctive human as a puppet of the universe. But humans are far from purely instinctive.

Instinct==> intuition ==> volition.

Where you’re talking of “learning to pre/determine” where such is actually an inherent part of existence within the deterministic universe.

claim: "It has been passively predetermined by the universe for humans to evolve the capacity to learn how to predetermine for them selves."

Universe passive
Humans proactive
both together as co-determiners.
A brick can not be anything other than passive to circumstance where as humans are proactive.
We have to fight those determining forces to live. The moment we stop fighting to live we die.

 

[Sarkus]

and so how do you think a human can learn to self determine?
Education perhaps? Experience perhaps?

In the sense of determine as used in the assumption of a deterministic universe, we don’t learn, we just are. Whatever we do is deterministic, whatever we do has been determined by past states, and determines future states. That is the way of a deterministic universe. It can not be changed.

"The sun is too hot so I moved into the shade as my mother taught me to do when I was a toddler"
"I needed to buy some milk but I didn't have the money so I stole it and my dad taught me how to"
It really isn't all that complicated.

Note you have moved away from “determine” as understood by determinism, to “determine” that is synonymous with “choice” or “make a decision”. The two mean different things.
If you are therefore talking about “learning to make a choice” then this is just a process doing what it does, the way a cog does what it does. The cog turning inside the watch is as predetermined as the “self-determined” action you end up doing,

I think you are looking for complication when it really isn't.
Life compels us to make choices. We have no choice BUT to make choices. Even if we decide not to make a choice, that is still a choice.
To live we must determine. If we do not we die. That is life.

We make choices, yes. That is not disputed. That is what our cog does. “Choice” is a deterministic process. The same as a less complex cog that is simply compelled to rotate and compels others to rotate. But a cog nonetheless.
So what does “co-determination” add?

Comparing a brick with a living human is absurd to start with.You are ignoring the very thing that allows us the ability to learn how to self determine.

You talking about “learn how to predetermine”. We have dealt above with your “learn to determine” and that what it seems you mean is akin to “learn to choose” rather than “determine” in the sense of determinism (in which everything inherently determines by its very existence).
So what do you mean by “learn to predetermine”? In what way do you think we learn to predetermine that is different to the universe being inherently predeterministic? To me what we do is no more or less predetermined than what a brick does. So the comparison is apt. Do you think humans are not predetermined, perhaps?

We are by nature founded on our instincts. One could consider this to be the deterministic side of things.

No, we couldn’t, at least not if we want to avoid further confusion. You would then be talking about three different notions of “determine”: that inherent in a deterministic universe, “choice”, and now instinct.
If you start using one meaning in place of where the other has been you can end up with any sorts of nonsense.

Humans learn though out life how to over ride and manage their instincts so that they can reason and use logic and make informed decisions.
So we can consider the purely instinctive human as a puppet of the universe. But humans are far from purely instinctive.

Instinct==> intuition ==> volition.

Case in point, you are now suggesting, through equivocation of the notions of determine, that we can choose to be non-deterministic. You have equated instinct to the the “deterministic side of things” and now suggesting that we can override our instinct, override the “deterministic side of things”.
Please can you rephrase your argument without trying to equivocate the word “determine”?

claim: "It has been passively predetermined by the universe for humans to evolve the capacity to learn how to predetermine for them selves."

Again, as per above, this doesn’t make sense. No one learns how to predetermine events. Events just are predetermined, due to the nature of the universe.

Universe passive
Humans proactive
both together as co-determiners.
A brick can not be anything other than passive to circumstance where as humans are proactive.
We have to fight those determining forces to live. The moment we stop fighting to live we die.

we react, sure, and our evolution has given us a wide range of what those reactions might be. But there is no “fighting those determining forces”. You again seem to be equivocating on the word “determine” (and its derivatives). That makes it difficult to understand what you actually mean.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In the sense of determine as used in the assumption of a deterministic universe, we don’t learn, we just are. Whatever we do is deterministic, whatever we do has been determined by past states, and determines future states. That is the way of a deterministic universe. It can not be changed.

Yes Heraclitus, Parmenides and even Socrates would totally agree with you...but alas they are mistaken as you are. ( Zeno, I am not so sure about due to the politics of the times distorting his contra to the popular view of the day with his paradoxes)
The way of a deterministic universe is not limited by a human's lack of imagination.
There are many forms of determinism, hard determinism as you are describing is only one of them. Co-determinism is another.
In Co-determinism leaning, life and death are essential key functional aspects.

Is there anything else about Hard Determinism you would like to share?
How about how Hard determinism resolves the issue of "If freewill is an illusion then so to is logic"? I would love to see the reasoning that prevents topics being run like "Hard determinism and the reality of logic".

How genuine is the logic of hard determinism when in fact hard determinism prevents that logic from being anything other than an illusion?

Co -determinism fixes that problem with out any controversy.
It also states that self determination is essential if the logic of causality is to be genuine.

Case in point, you are now suggesting, through equivocation of the notions of determine, that we can choose to be non-deterministic. You have equated instinct to the the “deterministic side of things” and now suggesting that we can override our instinct, override the “deterministic side of things”.
Please can you rephrase your argument without trying to equivocate the word “determine”?

I always apply the generic definition when I can and make use of hybrids with qualifiers when appropriate.
"To determine"
"Being determined"
"As a Co-determinist, I am determined to determine the outcome, by determining the choices I make with the determination to act on them, thus pre(co)determining part of my existence. "

Thus


will = determination.
A core "emotional" reality...

Your version of "determine" is a hybrid that attempts to exclude other derivatives of the same word.

we react, sure, and our evolution has given us a wide range of what those reactions might be. But there is no “fighting those determining forces”. You again seem to be equivocating on the word “determine” (and its derivatives). That makes it difficult to understand what you actually mean.

"A man standing, up to his waste, in a fast flowing river, struggles against the flow of the water as he fights his way upstream. The water is analogous with deterministic forces and the man co-determines his progress by investing his energy towards his struggle and with the co-operation with the parting water he makes his way to where he has pre(co)determined. "

No one learns how to predetermine events. Events just are predetermined, due to the nature of the universe.

uhm... it is called planning, budgeting, strategizing, predicting...etc....
All are learned skills and abilities.
Your response to this post is governed by your energy budget. How much you wish to invest in this discussion etc...a learned ability...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Bottom line,
Causal determinism states that the universes evolution is set in stone, rigid with out flexibility. ( no freedom ) ( life is an illusion and so is logic)
Causal co-determinism states that the universes evolution is both flexible (life) and rigid Life is real, as is self determined action. The quality of derived freedom is genuine.

 

[river]

Bottom line,
Causal determinism states that the universes evolution is set in stone, rigid with out flexibility. ( no freedom ) ( life is an illusion and so is logic).
Causal co-determinism states that the universes evolution is both flexible and rigid ( limited freedom) Life is real, as is self determined action. The quality of derived freedom is genuine.

Interesting . Life is indeed real . Self determined action . Agreed . Agreed

Balanced , Universe

 

[river]

Once we all understand that life is real . And that Life is , has , an energy form of its own . That is when we truely understand our Universe .

 

[Bowser]

So, basically, we are just here for the ride?

 

[Write4U]

So, basically, we are just here for the ride?

Our skills can make the ride more comfortable....

"Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction", a deterministic imperative.

It is one step deeper than "the path of least resistance"

The path of least resistance is the physical or metaphorical pathway that provides the least resistance to forward motion by a given object or entity, among a set of alternative paths. The concept is often used to describe why an object or entity takes a given path. The way in which water flows is often given as an example for the idea.

Bicycle traffic barrier used to slow down cyclists circumvented by a detour in the form of a desire path, thereby showing a literal path of least resistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance

And therefore "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction".
Interestingly this principle is related to Pi !

 

[Bowser]

Our skills can make the ride more comfortable....

"Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction", a deterministic imperative.

It is one step deeper than "the path of least resistance"

So many choices to choose. Honestly, life would be boring without a little friction.

Stairway to Heaven
Lyrics
… Yes, there are two paths you can go by
But in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on
And it makes me wonder… More

--Led Zeppelin

 

[iceaura]

So, basically, we are just here for the ride?

Our decision making ability is critical, and determinative, in the assumed deterministic universe. To the extent "we" exist at all as anything other than illusion (a matter of uncertainty, in the world of the naive materialist) we are running the show.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Our decision making ability is critical, and determinative, in the assumed deterministic universe. To the extent "we" exist at all as anything other than illusion (a matter of uncertainty, in the world of the naive materialist) we are running the show.

Agrees!
For who is to decide whether hard determinism is logical to begin with?
It takes a genuine actor to determine whether a logic statement is in fact logical. If the actor is not genuinely capable of making a choice then the decision is not a decision.

It is merely the universe talking to itself....subjectively...and passively if there is no genuine actor.

 

[wegs]

Okay forgive me in advance, but paddoboy's ''abiogenesis'' thread has me wondering...

Do you believe that the idea of abiogenesis can only coincide with the idea of a deterministic universe? (or a co-determined one)

If you accept the idea of abiogenesis, that is.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Okay forgive me in advance, but paddoboy's ''abiogenesis'' thread has me wondering...

Do you believe that the idea of abiogenesis can only coincide with the idea of a deterministic universe? (or a co-determined one)

If you accept the idea of abiogenesis, that is.

It would sit with all versions of determinism, it is just a question of whether life as we define it is genuinely life....and how life, will and freeedom comes to play.
As an aside,
Abiogenisis is a hypothesis that makes certain key presumptions.

• That the universe had a starting point. (which is potentially and highly likely to be illogical)
  
• That life has not always existed. (a fair presumption but possibly invalid if one considers the notion of an eternal universe)
  
• That life is only applicable to that which we can discern as being mortal.
  
  • For example the use of human time frames... when considering billions of years ( if not eternity) the universe itself may very well be a living organism but we simply do not have the capacity to perceive it as such because we are too close and not able to live for billions of years to observe it's living-ness...
• and no doubt others I have yet to consider....

It is an interesting subject... for sure...

 

[iceaura]

If you accept the idea of abiogenesis, that is.

What would it be like to not "accept" the idea of abiogenesis?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Okay forgive me in advance, but paddoboy's ''abiogenesis'' thread has me wondering...

Do you believe that the idea of abiogenesis can only coincide with the idea of a deterministic universe? (or a co-determined one)

If you accept the idea of abiogenesis, that is.

off topic but...
Water it self, H2O, could very well be found to be a living substance...and that has been around for a lot longer than animated stuff.

 

[Bowser]

Our decision making ability is critical, and determinative, in the assumed deterministic universe. To the extent "we" exist at all as anything other than illusion (a matter of uncertainty, in the world of the naive materialist) we are running the show.

We are the show.

 

[wegs]

What would it be like to not "accept" the idea of abiogenesis?

Barring a religious or spiritual explanation, probably nothing. Although, some prominent scientists have tried to refute it.

 

[Sarkus]

We have not. and that is the point.
Only you and Baldeee and other devoted hard determinists have. ( fatalists)

You certainly have:
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.

OK

are we clear on that point at least."
And since being free (i.e. having freedom) is defined in the syllogism as having the ability to do otherwise... I'll leave you to join your own dots.

WE have not agreed with your conclusion which is why there is debate.

Ah, you mistake "we" for including you, when I am referring to myself and Baldeee (and Capracus, and others who hold our position, and who are able to follow simple syllogisms).

btw I am still trying to figure out how a hydrogen atom or any other particle... , can effect my decisions in such a devastating fashion....

It only takes one molecule to create a mutation within a body. One gamma ray, or x-ray, can start such, for example.

 

[Sarkus]

Do you think that the hard determinism Sarkus and Baldee are pushing fails the reality test?
To me, it seems that playing logic games is all very well and good but when it comes to the logic being applicable to reality it get's even better....

In what way do you think it fails the reality test? If anything it seems to get behind the observed subjective view of what is going on to the underlying reality, upon which we seek to understand how our illusion of being free, of being conscious, even, arises.

I think Sarkus and Baldeee need to stipulate whether they are discussing reality or pure logic as it appears to me that this debate you have going is constantly at cross purposes.

We are discussing the reality within the premises: i.e. the deterministic universe, and the notion of freedom as the ability to do otherwise. As to whether you think this is reality would depend upon whether you think the universe is deterministic. The notion of freedom used is neither here nor there with regard reality, it is simply a definition. If you think the universe is not deterministic, the question would be how you think it does operate and whether that offers anything extra (i.e. that a deterministic universe doesn't) which could lead to different conclusions than those reached.