Determinism and free will .

[Quantum Quack]

"...and the suicide bomber with 1 kg of c4 strapped to their waist renders all the causation, influences and opportunities in the universe entirely impotent because he/she has the power to say no to all of them any time he/she chooses to do so"
thus the freedom to choose: "to be or not to be?" and only a choice he/she can make.
Which is why "to be or not to be?" is more an answer than a question. IMO

 

[Billy T]

... what i ment by you bein caut by that illusion... was you not bein able to realize that the rotatin lady is the same illusion as the rotatin hammer in the slow motion video.!!!...

Still not correct. These two case are NOT the same, but entirely different.

The shadow of rotating lady is totally without any clues as to which way she is rotating - all you have is a 2D image with no background for any references. Thus approximate half of the viewers will see her rotating one way and half see her as rotating the other way.

In the case of the hammer throw there are many clues as which direction the rotation really is so all viewer agree on that. For example, when it is being swung by the thrower his body twists. The ball makes a smaller retinal image with less angular speed, but a definite direction of travel, when it on his far side from the viewer than when nearer to viewer. If there are clouds, the ball obscures them in a circular path with definite direction of orbit.

Later as it nears impact with the ground, the ball is making a small orbit (about the common center mass with the chain and handle) over the grass. You may not consciously notice this, unless you concentrate on what part of the field the ball is obscuring in its circular orbit (and the direction of that orbit). There is absolutely no ambiguity about this orbit's direction of rotation as sequential parts of the field are covered by the ball (and there are other clues too) I.e. unlike the shadow lady case, where half see CCW, half see CW rotation, everyone perceives the the same direction of rotation.

The hammer throw is slightly interesting for the ignorant only because first view is from below and second view presented in the film is from above the plane of rotation and many (in ignorance) think the direction of rotation has some how changed, in violation of conservation of angular momentum. It has not. All* perceive that motion that has changed from CCW to CW but they just don't understand why - i.e. That change is ONLY due to switching POV from one side of the plane of rotation to the other.

*I.e. All at least unconsciously process the many clues about the direction of rotation and all agree on it. (Very different from the clueless shadow lady case where half see one rotation and half see the other.)

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Still not correct. These two case are NOT the same, but entirely different.

The shadow of rotating lady is totally without any clues as to which way she is rotating - all you have is a 2D image with no background for any references. Thus approximate half of the viewers will see her rotating one way and half see her as rotating the other way.

In the case of the hammer throw there are many clues as which direction the rotation really is so all viewer agree on that. For example, when it is being swung by the thrower his body twists. The ball makes a smaller retinal image with less angular speed, but a definite direction of travel, when it on his far side from the viewer than when nearer to viewer. If there are clouds, the ball obscures them in a circular path with definite direction of orbit.

Later as it nears impact with the ground, the ball is making a small orbit (about the common center mass with the chain and handle) over the grass. You may not consciously notice this, unless you concentrate on what part of the field the ball is obscuring in its circular orbit (and the direction of that orbit). There is absolutely no ambiguity about this orbit's direction of rotation as sequential parts of the field are covered by the ball (and there are other clues too) I.e. unlike the shadow lady case, where half see CCW, half see CW rotation, everyone perceives the the same direction of rotation.

The hammer throw is slightly interesting for the ignorant only because first view is from below and second view presented in the film is from above the plane of rotation and many (in ignorance) think the direction of rotation has some how changed, in violation of conservation of angular momentum. It has not. All* perceive that motion that has changed from CCW to CW but they just don't understand why - i.e. That change is ONLY due to switching POV from one side of the plane of rotation to the other.

*I.e. All at least unconsciously process the many clues about the direction of rotation and all agree on it. (Very different from the clueless shadow lady case where half see one rotation and half see the other.)

How com you refuse to continue the Hammer throw discussin in the Hammer throw thred.???

 

[Billy T]

How com you refuse to continue the Hammer throw discussin in the Hammer throw thred.???

Because you made false statements about me being unable to understand the illusion here in this thread. There is nothing to discuss, except why some people in ignorance think that the film shows violation of conservation of angular momentum when, like you, they did not understand why their view of the rotation switches from CCW to CW.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Because you made false statements about me being unable to understand the illusion here in this thread. There is nothing to discuss, except why some people in ignorance think that the film shows violation of conservation of angular momentum when, like you, they did not understand why their view of the rotation switches from CCW to CW.

I see... lol... but in my reply (post #34 in the Hammer Throw thred) i declared you the winner.!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90458&page=2


But to get bak on topic in this thred... do you have a reply to my las post about the "self".???

 

[Billy T]

oK... im guessin that you consider suiside as a free-choise.!!!

in you'r POV free-choise only coms from the "self"... but un-chosen genetics are a determinin factor in how well the "self" can produce its "free-choises"... an genetics that pre-desposes somone to be depressed coud be a factor in whether the "self" chooses to cut its bodys wrists or not... sinse non-chosen genetics an *inviroment exerts control on the "self"... how are its choises considered "free".???

It seems to me that the notion that a "self" coud be 100% isolated from the external influences which could effect its ability to produce free choises... is jus that... a notion.!!!

Suicide could be a free choice but usually I would guess is not. I don't like to speak of "free choice" but of choices that are mainly the result the self's own causal activity mental processes - I.e.the first four causes of choices I listed in prior post are dominate. When the fifth cause in that list is important, then the the choice is to some degree "forced", not "free." - Again contrast: the gun held to head being as one extreme example and my choosing between OJ or tomato juice, which is usually mainly the self's own choice (assuming both are in the refrigerator, etc.)

Reason suicide is usually at least partly a forced choice is that there usually are bad external circumstance or pain etc. prompting it. It is true, however, that depression many not be caused by current external events, but usually they do trigger the sucide, to be now instead of tomorrow. The main external causes of depression associated suicide may be months in the past when one finally kills themselves. (Depression often "feeds on itself" to grow worse, if not treated.)

As for the rest of your post, I have many times said that ALL behavior is caused by prior (and current) events, including only one's earlier thoughts (which of course are mental events, nerves firing etc.) So yes part of these prior events could be years earlier brain damage from any cause. I don't intend to discuss detailed specific cases that are completely covered by these general statements. - I don't have time to waste on that.

 

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

Dear Libertarians,
if choices are not the result of determining factors, how are they made?
Conscience? This is an undeniably determined set of principles, or for the more religious of you perhaps the voice/laws of God, which again isn't very compatible with free will, which in my opinion is an absolute or non existent, it cannot be moderated, only destroyed.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
in you'r POV free-choise only coms from the "self"... but un-chosen genetics are a determinin factor in how well the "self" can produce its "free-choises"... an genetics that pre-desposes somone to be depressed coud be a factor in whether the "self" chooses to cut its bodys wrists or not... sinse non-chosen genetics an *inviroment exerts control on the "self"... how are its choises considered "free".???

It seems to me that the notion that a "self" coud be 100% isolated from the external influences which could effect its ability to produce free choises... is jus that... a notion.!!! ”

Billy T
I don't like to speak of "free choice"...

Eliminatin the issue of "free choice" woud make you'r positon much easier to defend... lol... i thank you woud have a beter chanse of success inventin a perpetual motion machine than creatin "free-choise"

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

Determinism is an old-fashioned concept for the narrow minded.

 

[Sarkus]

^ I think when people are using the term "determinism" they are also allowing for the random outputs that QM suggests (same inputs = same probability function of output), rather than the "hard" determinism of "same input = same input".

 

[Billy T]

I don't like to speak of "free choice"

... Eliminating the issue of "free choice" would make you'r position much easier to defend... lol... .

“Elimination” is not what I said or spoke of:

post 226:... I don't like to speak of "free choice" but of choices that are mainly the result the self's own causal activity mental processes ...

You cannot just take a few words out of a sentences (as you often do) and then assert I said or suggested the opposite of what the sentence said.
That is dishonest distortion and I am growing tired of it as it forces me to reply when I would not otherwise comment on your posts.

Another example of your doing that I replied to in post 208:

post 208 ... With following parcial quote of me in brown color you are intentionally distorting by quoting only last part of my sentence making a contrast.
“

"most choices are the self's own uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)” ...Sinse mos of the selections the "self" makes are uninfluenced* selections (which seems to be an atempt on you'r part to make an argument for free choise sinse those selections woud not be a part of the causal chane)... begs the queston... sinse mos of the "selfs" selectons are not influenced... those selections must be random... an how does random selections equate to free-choise.???

”
* Another of your false conclusions about what I am saying. Here is my full sentence making a contrast between choice that are influence by factor 5 above and those that are not influenced by it:

... choices can be externally influenced as I have noted before (a gun held to body's head, etc) but most choices are the self's own {i.e. not influenced by external factors}uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)...

Here you misrepresent what I said by abrevated quote of me and then ask: "an how does random selections equate to free-choise?" - This is again exactly the opposite of what I have many times stated - Choice is never random but always the caused result of the self's mental processes, which can be strongly influenced by external factors (gun to head) or mainly only the Self (OJ vs. tomato juice).

SUMMARY: STOP PARCIAL QUOTING OF ME TO DISTORT WHAT I SAID

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Billy T
post 226:... I don't like to speak of "free choice" but of choices that are mainly the result the self's own causal activity mental processes ... ”

You cannot just take a few words out of a sentences (as you often do) and then assert I said or suggested the opposite of what the sentence said.
That is dishonest distortion and I am growing tired of it as it forces me to reply when I would not otherwise comment on your posts.

I admit that you have lead me on a merry chase... from makin arguments for free-will to you'r curent postion of not wantin to speek of "free choice" by downgradin to the term "choice" (wit-out the free part)... you clearly dont have an argument for free-will OR free-choise .!!!

 

[Billy T]

I admit that you have lead me on a merry chase... from makin arguments for free-will to you'r curent postion of not wantin to speek of "free choice" by downgradin to the term "choice" (wit-out the free part)... you clearly dont have an argument for free-will OR free-choise .!!!

More mis quoting and distortion! I do have an argument which makes "free will" POSSIBLE, BUT

I have never said I believe free will exists. I have even said I am inclined to doubt it does. My essay on the RTS, posted back in 2005*, clearly state that the RTS only opens the POSSIBILITY that free will need not be inconsistent with the physical laws, if one accepts its POV that "we" are not a physical body, but a computational routine running in parietal brain tissue. All my post here are basically saying free will could exist, not that it does.

I don't like to speak of "free choice" for same reason I don't like to speak of "pure capitalism" - I.e. it does not exist, not even as an illusion!. Always to some extent your choices are forced by external factors, as is capitalism is never unconstrained by regulations, etc.

*http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 Here is how my RTS essay starts, in full, as a reply to PhilosopherKnight:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherKnight
...But the bottom line is that man's will is not free.
”Probably true, but not necessarily true:

Genuine Free Will is Possible

Before the advent of Quantum Mechanics, the future appeared to LaPlace to be exactly determined by the past state of the universe, even if it was clearly unpredictable. Chaos theory and measurement errors plus ignorance about small asteroid orbits, rupture stresses in tectonic faults or vascular systems, etc. makes LaPlace’s future unpredictable, perhaps fatally so in only a few seconds for some individuals. Quantum Mechanics destroyed LaPlace’s deterministic world. Thus, thanks to QM, a “probabilistic will” is at least possible. I.e. we can have the illusion of making “choices” that are actually made by the chance results of QM; however, Genuine Free Will, GFW, i.e. real choices made by one’s self, still appears to be impossible without some violation the physical laws that govern molecular interactions in our complex neuro-physiological processes.

If GFW does not exist, it is perhaps the most universal of all human illusions. This article will show that GFW is physically possible, even probable, without any violation of physics if one is willing to drastically revise the usual concept of one’s self. Furthermore, it argues that the required revision is a natural consequence of a better understanding of how the human visual system functions and the fact that we are highly visual creatures. The possibility that GFW is only an illusion is not excluded, ..."


SUMMARY: You are again misquoting and distorting what I have consistently said for more than five years. Note the bold above.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I have never said I believe free will exists. I have even said I am inclined to doubt it does.

My essay on the RTS, posted years ago, clearly state that the RTS only opens the POSSIBILITY that free will need not be inconsistent with the physical laws, if one accepts its POV that "we" are not a physical body, but a computational routine running in parietal brain tissue. All my post here are basically saying free will could exist, not that it does.

Yes... an then by a curent statment you shoot you'r essay in the foot:::

Billy T---"Always to some extent your choices are forced by external factors"

Then how in hell is ther a posibility that free-will could esist as you'r essay on the RTS clames.???

In Concluson:::

You'r arguments are all-over-the-place/convaluded an yet you acuse me of intentionaly mis-representin you'r position... but the botom line... you'r statment below demonstrates that free-will/free-choise is not posible... even in you'r RTS.!!!

Billy T---"Always to some extent your choices are forced by external factors"

In other words:::

Jus like a pregnant woman cant be a little bit not pregnant... free-choise cant be a little bit not free.!!!

 

[chaos1956]

I don't like to speak of "free choice" for same reason I don't like to speak of "pure capitalism" - I.e. it does not exist, not even as an illusion!. Always to some extent your choices are forced by external factors, as is capitalism is never unconstrained by regulations, etc.

Since when were their constrains on the black market? Its still worth whatever people make themselves believe it is worth.

*http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 Here is how my RTS essay starts, in full, as a reply to PhilosopherKnight:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherKnight
...But the bottom line is that man's will is not free.
”Probably true, but not necessarily true:

Freedom isn't free you say? Anything that constrains a society places an action liable to consequences. Still it is not so much to say that, "we will never be free without consequences", but rather that people should understand the consequences of their actions if they intend to live within that society. Every place on this world has different laws, convoluted from the past and reconciled as traditions. I say as long as you don't hurt anyone else and realize what is fair, we could have less restrictions on our free will. This is something only good judges take into consideration.

Genuine Free Will, GFW, i.e. real choices made by one’s self, still appears to be impossible without some violation the physical laws that govern molecular interactions in our complex neuro-physiological processes.

Aren't most physical laws violated in the definition of being alive? Think about it: dead, dead, dead, dead..... wait what's this I see in the universe that violates physics? Something alive that moves only when its own electrical signals force it to change the channel on the T.V.!!!!??? Incredible!!! I could watch that for hours.

We have free will. We just do not have the thoughts to complete the full cycle of belief in this free will to all members of society. We play with ourselves in saying, "some things that are not known can never be known" because within that statement we instantly reject what our determinism at that point without leading it into a future. In having this statement it could also be said that you yourself have determined the stopping point of this path of thought. But still if we cast doudt on this statement oursleves we can say, "we know the question but we have not yet found the exact answer". The question then becomes simpler and simpler until a simple answer is found that satisfies the terms of the original question.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Since when were their constrains on the black market?

The black market, by virtue of the fact that is black is constrained.
All markets are constrained to one extent or another.

Aren't most physical laws violated in the definition of being alive?

Of course not. Life is subject to physical laws.
Edit: you're not Bishadi revenant are you? That would explain a lot.

We have free will.

That's a supposition. Unsupported by anything you've written so far.

 

[chaos1956]

The black market, by virtue of the fact that is black is constrained.
All markets are constrained to one extent or another.

Now your just being racist... And I said the "objects in the market are still subject to the buyers free will of negotiation as well as the sellers price" so is it constrained? "yes", by other peoples free will.

Of course not. Life is subject to physical laws.
Edit: you're not Bishadi revenant are you? That would explain a lot.

I didn't say life was not subject to the laws of physics I merely stated that free will is possible due to the electrical signals we posess that often run in the opposite direction of some "governing physical forces" in our surroundings. Your saying I can't choose when you have no idea what difficult choices I have had to make durring situations where you would have completely fallen apart both mentally and physically. Now I could explain to you the billions of coincidences and judgements that have led me to this decision but I chose not to describe my personal life in an objective arguement. The fact that no matter what you say your level of free will is never giong to be able to sway me from this decision is only an effect that comes from knowing that no other person has had a life story quite like mine up until this point in history, therefore my knowledge on the issue of free will surpasses you own ignorance of these simple conjectures. I have placed these conjectures in a very objective manner conserning the discussion and following what others have also said.

That's a supposition. Unsupported by anything you've written so far.

And your life is a type 2 statistical error. How would I be able to suppose free will if it was not in fact a double negative already. You are rejecting my supposition simply because it requires you to not think about the fullest answer that the future can provide So your saying I didn't have the free will to say "free will" and we are arguing that it is impossible to determine that we have free will? Then why is there even a tread for this? All articles containing the possibility for free will should be instantly terminated! No more arguing about it because if you say that word you commit a type 1 error!! It seems like you have made up your mind on your null hypothesis. Still you missed the main point to arge which is.....

we play with ourselves in saying, "some things that are not known can never be known" because within that statement we instantly reject what our determinism at that point without leading it into a future. In having this statement it could also be said that you yourself have determined the stopping point of this path of thought. But still if we cast doudt on this statement oursleves we can say, "we know the question but we have not yet found the exact answer". The question then becomes simpler and simpler until a simple answer is found that satisfies the terms of the original question.

Which is a string of words that you have neglected to think about in any of your quotes. Did you read it or just ignore it like I wish you would do to all my posts. Instead you have decided to take part in the "filler" words that did not provide a simple answer but are only semantics and conjectures that lead up to an actual answer for this thread or an area that can be expanded upon. I am yet to see any post of yours that gives any substance. Not having free will is the stupidest hypothetical supposition to ever ingraine intself within the imagination of any society. But the limits free will allows us to percieve are still very real and constraining.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Now your just being racist...

Racist?
WTF has black market got to do with race?
Or did you misuse the term?

And I said the "objects in the market are still subject to the buyers free will of negotiation as well as the sellers price" so is it constrained? "yes", by other peoples free will.

Presuming when you wrote "black market" you meant "black market" then no: it's subject to many constraints, not least of which is its illegality.

I didn't say life was not subject to the laws of physics

Oops, wrong.
You wrote (and I quote)

Aren't most physical laws violated in the definition of being alive?

Which is incorrect. NO physical laws are violated. They can't be.

I merely stated that free will is possible due to the electrical signals we posess that often run in the opposite direction of some "governing physical forces" in our surroundings.

That's specious crap.

Your saying I can't choose when you have no idea what difficult choices I have had to make durring situations where you would have completely fallen apart both mentally and physically.

No I'm not.

And your life is a type 2 statistical error. How would I be able to suppose free will if it was not in fact a double negative already. You are rejecting my supposition simply because it requires you to not think about the fullest answer that the future can provide So your saying I didn't have the free will to say "free will" and we are arguing that it is impossible to determine that we have free will? Then why is there even a tread for this? All articles containing the possibility for free will should be instantly terminated! No more arguing about it because if you say that word you commit a type 1 error!! It seems like you have made up your mind on your null hypothesis. Still you missed the main point to arge which is.....

Which is a string of words that you have neglected to think about in any of your quotes. Did you read it or just ignore it like I wish you would do to all my posts. Instead you have decided to take part in the "filler" words that did not provide a simple answer but are only semantics and conjectures that lead up to an actual answer for this thread or an area that can be expanded upon. I am yet to see any post of yours that gives any substance. Not having free will is the stupidest hypothetical supposition to ever ingraine intself within the imagination of any society. But the limits free will allows us to percieve are still very real and constraining.

Blah blah blah. More specious unsupported crap.

 

[chaos1956]

Ok so what is you evidentiary basis for the rejection of free will? If you are not confirming nor denying this fact and all you can post is "crap", you should make your standpoint clear as well as provide a reason as to why you hold these judgements. "opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and they all stink equally". Saying it is crap does little to benefit anyone reading this discussion, it just keeps people from responding to your crap. In which case you might as well say, "some things that are not known can never be known". Is this in fact the position you take on this subject? If so then philosophy is not your area of expertiese my friend and you heven't the slightest clue what determinism or free will actually is.

To support you claims to my Question"as it was only a question as opposed to a statement" you can define what it means to be alive in your own terms. But i'm guessing one of your famous three words posts is comming regardless. This is not to insult, it's just to get more than a sentence out of your convoluted thoughts on any subject.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ok so what is you evidentiary basis for the rejection of free will? If you are not confirming nor denying this fact and all you can post is "crap", you should make your standpoint clear as well as provide a reason as to why you hold these judgements. "opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and they all stink equally". Saying it is crap does little to benefit anyone reading this discussion, it just keeps people from responding to your crap. In which case you might as well say, "some things that are not known can never be known". Is this in fact the position you take on this subject?

There's as much "evidence" for the lack of free will as there is for it. Unfortunately you provide none in either direction, simply speculation that you then (in the following sentences) take to be incontrovertibly true.

If so then philosophy is not your area of expertiese my friend and you heven't the slightest clue what determinism or free will actually is.

Oh fail again. I actually did philosophy at uni not so long back, and a few decades ago at VIth Form College.

To support you claims to my Question"as it was only a question as opposed to a statement"

That you even thought the question worth asking shows a lack of understanding of life AND physical laws. Where, and how, does (or could) life violate physical law? Which ones? In what way?

You haven't replied to my querying your accusation of racism. Please do so.