Be prepared for a loooong wait.
Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
I look forward to your genuine and eager participation in a discussing this topic James R .
Which is "Co-determination and the reality of freewill" as explained in the OP.
In the mean time, perhaps you could apply your self to addressing the questions at the end of post# 16
It would indicate that you may have actually read the 138 posts you are complaining about.
Last edited:
ahhh... such is the nature of this discussion...
sad...
But expected....
Electricity = energy = potential to do work.
The organic energy of the human being has the potential to do work. That work includes but is not limited to decision making.
Humans can survive even when not processing decisions. ( see Coma for one example)
but they can not survive with out the energy ( in this case Will) to do so.
Besides, you asked for my definition and I gave it...like it or not.
It is sort of ironic that you should say such given your devotion to a "processing" thermostat that would most likely require electricity to function at all. You have only further destroyed your thermostat analogy.
In my compatibilist example Andy the android has a Will capacity of close to 100 years. But it is up to him to learn how to stop decision processing and take timeout to allow automatic repair and maintenance functions to take over with out his "deliberate" actions upsetting them.
I fact that would be one of his first lessons... How to sleep and be reawaken...
But again I have a "feeling" that you wont understand the above, so I am not sure why I bother...
Sarkus
It is not my job to provide evidence that self determination is an illusion as there is ample evidence that it is not ( eg. the responsibility factor)
To rely on a basic non-inclusive logic to declare that freewill is an illusion, with out any evidence to support it, is pretty unscientific and also very poor use of logic. IMO.
Co-determination makes the logic of cause and effect thus predetermination inclusive of self determination and does not exclude all the obvious evidence that exists to support it.
Provide evidence to the contrary other than simplistic logic and you might have something to argue with.
It is not my job to provide evidence that self determination is an illusion as there is ample evidence that it is not ( eg. the responsibility factor)
To rely on a basic non-inclusive logic to declare that freewill is an illusion, with out any evidence to support it, is pretty unscientific and also very poor use of logic. IMO.
Co-determination makes the logic of cause and effect thus predetermination inclusive of self determination and does not exclude all the obvious evidence that exists to support it.
Provide evidence to the contrary other than simplistic logic and you might have something to argue with.
No, energy is not the potential to do work, but rather it is that property that is transferred when work is done. Energy is only a potential to do work if it is stored, I.e. the type of energy we call potential energy.
If you wish to equate organic energy to decision making (on the basis that organise energy has the potential to be used for decision making) then you must equate it to anything else we use it for, such as belching. And if you equate both belching and decision making to organic energy then you equate them to each other. Thus your fallacious reasoning is equating decision making with belching.
Do yet rcognise the fallacy you are committing?
People cannot survive without a brain, either. So does that make the Will the brain? What about blood flow? Without a blood flow we wouldn't survive, so is the Will now to be considered our blood flow?
I did ask, and I'm telling you why I don't agree with you. To me it is as muddled as the rest of your "theory".
??? The electricity makes the decision? Wow. I never knew electricity was so intelligent!
Don't be so absurd, QQ. Of course a system, any system, needs energy to work, but that does not mean you can equate the faculty to do work to what that work actually entails. Your reasoning is asinine. Your thinking is no different to saying that the ink and the physical pages of the book are the same as the text written upon them.
Get a grip.
Perhas you shouldn't, QQ. You have proven you have nothing of substance to offer, even by way of acceptable definitions or of logical argument, to support your "theory". It is simply muddled thinking starting from clearly muddled notions.
For the last time, no one has disputed the existence of self-determination. When will you understand that. The issue for the incompatibilist is one of the existence and nature of any freedom within it, not whether the process exists.
Given that you haven't understood the argument supporting the indeterminist position, and don't really seem to understand even the terms involved, you'll excuse me if I disregard your complaint for the insubstantial rejection it is. Go back to those threads if you have issues with the incompatibilist position. Show that you understand their position and that provide support for your criticisms of it. Here we're just trying to get to the bottom of what your "theory" is all about. And you're not doing a very good job of that so far.
So do both the compatibilist and incompatibilist positions. So what does "co-determinism" do that one of these alternatives doesn't?
This is about your theory, QQ. If you want to criticise the incompatibilist or compatibilist positions and show how your "co-determinism" strikes a different path then you need to show (a) that you understand the positions you are rejecting, and (b) how your "theory" resolves the issues that you don't think the others do.
You haven't done (a) and all you offer for (b) is the same muddle do claims unupported by anything at all, even coherent and sensible definitions of terms.
So yeah, maybe best you don't bother, 'cos at the moment I certainly don't know why you are bothering to post such muddled and unsupported vacuous nonsense.
In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object. Wiki...
read:
In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object, or to do processing such as decision making...
There is no fallacy...to recognize except your own..
The only fallacies are your assumptions and narrow mindedness.
How does autonomic functions generate a fallacy?
Reflexes etc are all energy driven ... so what?
We are talking about the will and cogitation ( processing ) not whether you're suffering re-flux or some other involuntary action.
Autonomic functions do not hinder the notion that it takes energy to make decisions.
Why do you think it does?
Last edited:
The logic of Co-determination ( which is scientifically sound) allows humans to be self determined with out violating the simplistic, non-inclusive cause and effect logic used by fatalist's and compatibilists. Thus the claim that self determination (aka freewill) is an illusion is no longer valid.
We are still waiting for you to provide any observable evidence, any at all that supports the fatalists position.
Surely some one so invested in the fatalist theory would have some sort of credible evidential support?
ok so you agree self determination exists and is not an illusion?
Tell us all, how can one self determine with out the freedom to do so?
Edit: I think I have realized where we are at cross purposes and will post on it later..
(need to stop processing and go to sleep)
Last edited:
This is really straightforward simple stuff Sarkus... nothing complicated.
Co -determination is axiomatic. very basic.
"To flick a switch you need both a switch and some one to flick it."
With out either there is no event called flicking a switch. There is no mystery, no sophisticated logic to know or learn... Straight forward principle of what it takes to generate an "event".
=====
The will is simply the energy available to do work, in this case I believe it to be electrical. It drives the heart that pumps the blood.
No will =no electricity= no heart pumping = death.
No decision processing normally means you are asleep and unconscious but certainly not dead.
So it is easy to equate will with life....and processing is but one aspect of living.
====
Self determination has to be learned. The more you learn how to, the greater the freedom. This is why an education is so important. ( for example)
It's not all that hard to understand...
Co -determination is axiomatic. very basic.
"To flick a switch you need both a switch and some one to flick it."
With out either there is no event called flicking a switch. There is no mystery, no sophisticated logic to know or learn... Straight forward principle of what it takes to generate an "event".
=====
The will is simply the energy available to do work, in this case I believe it to be electrical. It drives the heart that pumps the blood.
No will =no electricity= no heart pumping = death.
No decision processing normally means you are asleep and unconscious but certainly not dead.
So it is easy to equate will with life....and processing is but one aspect of living.
====
Self determination has to be learned. The more you learn how to, the greater the freedom. This is why an education is so important. ( for example)
It's not all that hard to understand...
Last edited:
It isn't necessary. It's irrelevant.
Humans are partially self-determined by observation, and neither the folk science of "cause and effect" or the more sophisticated determinism of modern physical law is violated in the process.
can you elaborate (clarify) on this ...?
but you would have to agree that it takes, at the very least, two causes to generate an effect ( event)..surely?
Example:
Ball A and ball B colliding = event C
Event C would not happen if either ball was missing.
As I said, I'm not that interested in participating because I think your "co-determinism" idea is nebulous. My inclination, based on what I've read, is that it's actually irrelevant to the real debate.
Okay. That's easy enough.
You speak about "the universe" as if it is a conscious being with goals and plans and choices. "Control" is a strange term to use to describe the large-scale behaviour of an impersonal entity.
If the universe is deterministic, then yes.
Same answer. If the universe is deterministic, then it's deterministic and everything is predetermined, including choices.
Quirky Quale. The universe is not a person. The universe does not (directly) exert will on anything, so it's meaningless to talk about the will of the universe, free or otherwise.
The question is not whose will is relevant. That is not disputed. The question is whether, when Quirky Quale makes his decision, his choice is free or not.
The question is whether Quirky Quale self-determined the outcome or whether the universe determined it.
Did he or did he not?
Of course the universe is entirely deterministic...this is not in dispute.
As is the human Quirky. Except the human can self determine where as the universe can not.
Also .. do you think breaking a 3000 year old impasse is ever going to be easy?
You have to look deeper at the logic at play if there is any hope of understanding.
Never have nor ever will.... why do you bring that up?
You need to support that claim with a quote if you could please...
If you want to know what I believe you are going to have to read my posts and not try to read my mind.
Last edited:
What do you mean by "self-determined"?
Quirky Quale is the guy who had the mind that made his choice, so in that sense he "self-determined" I guess. But the fact that he had a brain at all, and was in that place at that time etc. would be determined by a whole bunch of stuff that happened before in the wider universe, given your assumption that the universe is deterministic. We could hypothetically trace the atoms in Quirky back to the big bang, I suppose, in which case you could say the big bang determined what Quirky would choose, in a sense.
To put it another way, the proximate causes of Quirky's choice are to be found mainly localised around Quirky. The ultimate causes are to be found in events that happened a long long time ago, when there was no Quirky.
If self-determining requires a mind, then I agree with you.
In my opinion, though, none of this is relevant to the problem of free will in a deterministic universe.
I agree but would suggest that the universe only partially determines the decisions that Quirky may come to. The rest is co-determined by Quirky based on what he learns and how he applies that ability , knowledge or skill towards self determining. Thus every decision is a state or act of co-determination. ( bolded for Sarkus to take note of)
but there is a Quirky now who has spent his whole life learning to self determine and that is the key to this issue...
In the context of your post the key term in this is "self".
What is self?
From birth a human is developing a self. In the science of psychology/psychiatry they refer to it as Ego or Identity. That identity is established by how well the human learns to self determine and take responsibility for his own existence. (self ownership)
In the term self determination the self refers to the identity or ego. It refers to Quirky in this example, and you could just as easily write "Quirky determination" in place of "self determination". Simply replacing the word "self" with the specific identity Quirky.
As mentioned this identity, persona or ego is only established by learning to self determine ( or to be more precise self-co-determine)
From crawling to walking to running all the way to building a space station and even an electric toaster ( there are so many examples of self development to choose from)
Do you see now how it relates to the reality of freewill so far?
Last edited:
QQ:
My problem with your position is that it sounds to me like you think human beings can somehow escape the "system" of universal determinism somehow by applying the ego or identity. I don't think that's an escape from that system - I think ego and identity are things that happen within the system. Nevertheless, I hold that there is free will, because human beings, although determined, make choices that are their own and nobody else's, which I think is all that is necessary for free will (given that we can't have the supernatural kind).
If that's what co-determination means, then I don't think I have much problem with it as description of what happens. But in my opinion it does nothing to resolve the problem of whether the will is "free" in a relevant sense. Of course, determining the relevant sense of the word "free" is part of the point of contention that I have with Sarkus's and Baldeee's position. For them, "free" is only possible through supernatural means, or maybe through some hypothetical, unidentified process they say neither of them can identify.
I don't see how that removes the "problem" of the human's ego/psychology/psychiatry being determined by the wider circumstances of the universe, though.
My problem with your position is that it sounds to me like you think human beings can somehow escape the "system" of universal determinism somehow by applying the ego or identity. I don't think that's an escape from that system - I think ego and identity are things that happen within the system. Nevertheless, I hold that there is free will, because human beings, although determined, make choices that are their own and nobody else's, which I think is all that is necessary for free will (given that we can't have the supernatural kind).