Determinism and free will .

[deicider]

Conciousness is not a side effect,its more like RAM of human brain which gives the illusion of conciousness.
QM true randomness is not actually random due to different gravity,thus time,thus Cause-Effect human logic has on the non-QM level,it is variables yet unknown that produce this random effect.
Also a non-deterministc universe its NOT possible,it contradicts whatever is inside the universe,if there wasnt determination nothing could exist like we know it now ,not even galaxy formations or planet formations or chemical formations or life could be possible.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Conciousness is not a side effect,its more like RAM of human brain which gives the illusion of conciousness.

Yes i see people usin the word "consciousness" as if "it" makes "free-will" possible... but they wont define what they thank consciousness is.!!!

I thank consicousness is biological (not som magical entity seperate from the body) an is subject to cause an effect.!!!

 

[Emil]

What do you think?Animals can choose?
For instance, can choose their own partner?Or what to eat or not? :scratchin:

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Yes, I agree, the link is not broken. But the effect is disproportionate in intensity.
In nearly all physical example of cause and effect, the effect is equivalent in intensity to the cause. Either that, or the effect will only happen once.

They are NOT at a distance... they ARE connected with regarded how they effect you. They are brought together through your observation of the result of the race. You don't have to be there... you merely have to observe the result - whether that is over the radio, on the news, on the internet.

Once you have decided to base your evening activity on the result of an earlier race then there is a cause/effect link between the race being run and you going out or not:
The race causes the result causes the reporting of the result causes your observation of the result causes you to go out (or not) that evening.

Had any part of that chain been broken (e.g. the race was not run, or the result not reported) then the race could not have effected your evening plans (within the limitations of the example).

This is all macro level cause/effect - what to speak of the micro level.

The same way that advanced technology might seem like magic, perhaps.

No. At best I would suggest that "free-will" is a term used to describe the lack of conscious knowledge of ALL the causes of an action.

 

[deicider]

What do you think?Animals can choose?
For instance, can choose their own partner?Or what to eat or not? :scratchin:

In the general principle,yes.

Ok you say whats conciousness is not but what do you think it is? how it works?
etc.

 

[Emil]

Ok you say whats conciousness is not but what do you think it is? how it works?
etc.

Yes, it would be a very interesting thread of discussion.

But now I am interested if you're agree that determinism and free will are incompatible.
So we have chosen only one.Or determinism is true or free will is true.
You can not say that free will and determinism both of them are true.

 

[deicider]

But now I am interested if you're agree that determinism and free will are incompatible.
So we have chosen only one.Or determinism is true or free will is true.
You can not say that free will and determinism both of them are true.

Are you high?

I said everything is deterministic,from that alone you should realize that i used the word "choose" in the deterministic way,the illusion of choice.

Also,you deny a more scientific approach of what consciousness is but you have no opinion in what it is except that it is "free"?
I hope you know what that means.

 

[Emil]

Are you high?

Please explain.

 

[Big Chiller]

....Once you have decided to base your evening activity on the result of an earlier race then there is a cause/effect link between the race being run and you going out or not:....

Your argument supporting causal or material determinism falls apart here already.

 

[science man]

I voted metaphysical, but believe that that does not apply if you're talking about God.

 

[Sarkus]

Your argument supporting causal or material determinism falls apart here already.

No - it doesn't. The word "decide" is also part of the big chain of cause and effect... as in "whatever caused you to decide..."

But I was concentrating on the single chain of cause-effect (at the macro level) that was under consideration - not the one that led to the so-called "decision".

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, I agree, the link is not broken. But the effect is disproportionate in intensity.
In nearly all physical example of cause and effect, the effect is equivalent in intensity to the cause. Either that, or the effect will only happen once.

If you look at the micro-level, you are correct - Laws of conservation etc dictate this.

But within this example that you have set up you are ignoring all the other effects generated from the same causes, concentrating on just one chain rather than the innumerable others.

If the "cause" is that a race is run, how many "effects" do you think there are? You honestly think there is only the one effect that I offered (e.g. result is reported)?

And each of those effects are combined with other effects to become the next "cause" which gives rise to innumerable other effects.

i.e. all the "causes" of a given moment give rise to the "effect" that is the next moment, which in turn become the "causes" for the next moment's "effect".

Now, whether these effects are, at the micro-level, necessarily singular (as strict determinism would have it) or random within a probability function (as I understand QM would suggest), there is still no room for "free-will" other than as an illusion.

For genuine free-will there would need to be an influencing factor that was not already part of the chain of cause/effect.

Imagine a snooker ball heading for the top cushion... it has no choice but to go where it would... but for it to "decide" to go to a pocket it would need an external influence. Either another ball hits it (in which case the influence was caused and there was no "choice") or it stays on its path.

Or are you suggesting that the ball, within this analogy, somehow deflects itself?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

If the ball had a mind, and that mind could control its movement through some process, then yes.
Do I sound like the kind of man who would deny free will to sentient snooker balls?

With cause and effect that does not involve a conscious mind, the cause is equal to the effect.
OK, you can dislodge a rock from a hilltop with a tiny push and send it tumbling, but you can only do that once.
Only when you come to conscious minds do do get a situation where , for example, entering the correct sequence of symbols on a keyboard can trigger a nuclear missile launch and destroy a city.

 

[Sarkus]

If the ball had a mind, and that mind could control its movement through some process, then yes.
Do I sound like the kind of man who would deny free will to sentient snooker balls?

Isn't the "some process" what we are trying to establish?

Your argument here is circular: if something has this process that gives it "freewill" then it has "freewill".

The question is - what is this process? How does it work? How is it demonstrably counter to cause/effect?

With cause and effect that does not involve a conscious mind, the cause is equal to the effect.

Cause is ALWAYS equal to the effect - but you are refusing to see all the necessary interactions, instead concentrating on macro items where there is no simple interaction.

Only when you come to conscious minds do do get a situation where , for example, entering the correct sequence of symbols on a keyboard can trigger a nuclear missile launch and destroy a city.

So you are saying that because the "button push" does not equate to a nuclear explosion, and thus cause does not equal effect, that therefore free-will exists?

And you can not see how flawed this argument is?

Have you heard of chaos theory... how a slight pertubation in starting conditions can lead to drastic changes in output, even in "non conscious" environments? Your argument is looking at the cause "slight change in starting condition" and the effect "vast difference in output" and comparing them for some form of magnitude, utterly ignoring the vast complexity / chaos that fills the gaps.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Ah, the penny is dropping.
I didn't realise that determinists held that the mind does not control the body.
Yes, your argument is consistent, and it does remove the mind body problem.
A non deterministic theory cannot do that.

Your chaos theory argument doesn't rebut the disproportion between cause and effect in many of the things we do.
Chaos leads to unpredictable effects.

 

[Sarkus]

Ah, the penny is dropping.

Now for the rest of the sacks of pennies

Your chaos theory argument doesn't rebut the disproportion between cause and effect in many of the things we do.
Chaos leads to unpredictable effects.

It highlights that if you cherry-pick what you consider to be the cause and what you consider to be the effect then you can observe a seemingly unbalanced cause/effect, when in fact it is all just "natural" / obeying laws of the universe etc.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

So, no cause and effect as we understand it either.
We are giving up a lot just for consistency.

I suppose knowledge goes out of the window as well.

For all you know, your mind may be giving you a totally false impression of the world,
subject to some effect we know nothing about.
We are in Matrix territory.

 

[Sarkus]

So, no cause and effect as we understand it either.
We are giving up a lot just for consistency.

Cause and effect is there - it was the whole premise upon which this line of discussion has stemmed - how cause/effect suggests that freewill is merely an illusion.

And I am merely pointing out, again, that when you look at specific macro causes and specific macro effects that you overlook the vast complexity of what is going on at the micro level upon which the macro is built, and thus can come to flawed conclusions based upon a perceived "imbalance" between the two.
When you look at macro events like the way you do in this regard, you are no longer observing them in a closed environment.

Imagine a closed and sealed room. If you drop a bag of dust/flour etc then measure the amount of flower in the room after it has settled, you would get the same amount as before you dropped it... this is a closed environment, so you would expect it.
If, however, you have windows and doors open, some of the flour escapes through those openings. If you then try to measure the amount of flour in the room it won't be the same... the room is no longer closed.

So it is with your efforts to observe "balance" between the cause and effect at such a macro level... you are seeing the cause and effect in open environments, with much of the balancing items lost through the windows, and you are choosing to ignore the amount lost through the windows and just observe the "imbalance". Your argument in this regard is therefore flawed.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

No, I got that.

What about the second and third paragraphs?

 

[Sarkus]

^ That's 'cos I couldn't see the relevance of those comments to the discussion. They seem to be non sequiturs given the discussion at hand.
Perhaps if you elaborate on them, and how they relate to whether the universe is random or deterministic or whether there is free-will etc?