I am Canadian.
So.. Rush is required knowledge...
funny..two different threads speaking about two different rush's..(stargate universe)
Determinism and free will .
- Thread starter Emil
- Start date
funny..two different threads speaking about two different rush's..(stargate universe)
Edit:::
I will start a new thred "Free will discusson issues" to continue on wit issues which are off topic in this thred.!!!
Last edited:
A question:
Do you think freewill is able to be qualified by it's potency to determine outcomes?
Rational:
Just because free will is impotent doesn't diminish it's validity as a concept.
For example: You can always say "NO" to an approaching 1 km high tidal wave and just because you fail to stop it from killing you doesn't restrict yor ability to choose. "Choose away" so to speak for what ever difference that may make.
A bit like a gambler in a pokey venue.....
The reason I post this is that I feel that the concept of free will is often obscured by potency issues.
"The Power to freely choose from all alternatives or to do nothing, in an ocean of absolute determinism does not equate to power to effect change"
Do you think freewill is able to be qualified by it's potency to determine outcomes?
Rational:
Just because free will is impotent doesn't diminish it's validity as a concept.
For example: You can always say "NO" to an approaching 1 km high tidal wave and just because you fail to stop it from killing you doesn't restrict yor ability to choose. "Choose away" so to speak for what ever difference that may make.
A bit like a gambler in a pokey venue.....
The reason I post this is that I feel that the concept of free will is often obscured by potency issues.
"The Power to freely choose from all alternatives or to do nothing, in an ocean of absolute determinism does not equate to power to effect change"
hmm...although choosing to do nothing can be a very effective causation of change. [ by default ]
Last edited:
why? or should I just state: "That's nice Emil!" and put a little smiley next to it
why? or should I just state: "That's nice Emil!" and put a little smiley next to it
I can not prove,it is my conviction.post 124
snip from that post:
I guess what I was attempting to explore is that having the will to effect change doesn't equate to the ability to effect change. Free will can be a real fact of life but it can also a fact of life that it is often rended impotent.
So I ask you Emil, to maybe ask yourself why you feel the existance of will of any sort, is dependant upon the potency to effect change.
Example:
A quadraplegic patient may very well have the will to move his legs but simply can't due to physical reasons. His will to change is not effected but his ability to satisfy that will is. [ frustration of will is an all too common occurance yes?]
Same can be said for an amputee who tries to move a missing limb.
emil..even in the science field some things have to be expressed in more than one format..
to just say see what i said before..only indicates your lack of desire to have someone understand what you are saying..
No,
is an expression of my belief that he simply did not read that post.
But do not think we are out of topic?
ahh but I did or at least attempted to..
did you read mine?
the thing that stand out the most from your post is this snip:
which I did.
By suggesting, note the word "suggesting", that the premise that freewill or any will for that matter, is dependant on outcome may be nonsense.
I am sorry if this is offensive to your position but you did ask for "anything" to add.
I believe that most persons when discussing free will fail to draw the line between will and it's potency to effect change, so your position is not unexpected.
However if you do not wish to discuss your position and rebut or refute or dare I suggest agree [even in part] with my comments then we have nothing further to discuss on this issue.
I have carefully read everything you posted.
With many have not agreed but I know we have different positions so I have not commented.
No, your position does not offend me.
Yes,
If you read my posts,then you had to know,what I shall respond,
by that I was confused by your questions.
Yes,
I think our positions are too far to get to agree,
given the limited possibility to exchange ideas here and now.
The point is that you imply in your post a desire to further your thoughts by asking for input from others.
Yet simultaneously you reject with out any real assessment any contrary ideas offered. I am just as guilty of this as any one however I try to recognise it when my emotional investment is too strong in the ideas I present.
Today we may not get even to the point of discussion [postulation only] But maybe in the years to come there may be change in both of us....
Congrats' on at least formulating such a complex idea but be careful possibly, that it doesn't become an idea-ology because when it does you are lost to the world of philosophy...as self agnotism is essential in maintaining an open mind. ....IMO
best of luck!
Yet simultaneously you reject with out any real assessment any contrary ideas offered. I am just as guilty of this as any one however I try to recognise it when my emotional investment is too strong in the ideas I present.
Today we may not get even to the point of discussion [postulation only] But maybe in the years to come there may be change in both of us....
Congrats' on at least formulating such a complex idea but be careful possibly, that it doesn't become an idea-ology because when it does you are lost to the world of philosophy...as self agnotism is essential in maintaining an open mind. ....IMO
best of luck!
I will try to simplify things and draw some conclusions.
For me if a theory can not be verified in practice then remains a theory and only after they check in terms of practice, becomes a fact.
If a theory is contradicted by the practice then I say that theory is not good.
I try to go from the particular to general(Inductive reasoning) and not from general to particular(Deductive reasoning).
All Scientific laws are valid and are not random.
I suppose that is not true and there is indeterminacy.That also means the Law of Conservation of Energy might not be true.So it is possible perpetuum mobile.This assumption is unacceptable for me.
So,scientific laws all are valid and are not random and the three-dimensional material lifeless world is cauzal deterministic .
I suppose there is no free will.It means that man is not responsible for his actions.But a man who is not responsible for his actions is not convicted by the court.The idea that no man can be condemned because it is not responsible for his actions,is unacceptable to me.
So,in conclusion man is responsible for his actions and has free-will.
The only option that I see,to make compatible the scientific laws with free-will.
When glaucon spoke first of "agent" and causality without determinism, I did not get it.
I have reached similar conclusions.
If determinism means the projection in the future a single effect , so the future is already decided then I give up determinism.
But I do not give up causality which means that every effect has a logical explanation and a set of unique cases,I also take into account the intervention of free-will.Due to the intervention of free-will can not project into the future a single effect.
Free-will also have limited possibilities of intervention.
Because of this I use the notion of operator.He has no power to change the laws of nature.He has not "power" of god.
The operator can initialize the start of a laws of science, a chain of causal effect.Once these law started he can not even stop.To stop them, other law should start to stop the first law.
Much like a computer operator.The computer operator have limited operating capabilities.
He is not a programmer.He is unable to make programs, it only uses them.
If there is random and if QM is the evidence of random,then his influence must be sought in the free-will and not in the three-dimensional material lifeless world.
Maybe somewhere in the level of thinking that is an electrical phenomenon?Or in the activation of instincts?Or both?
Sarkus,
My apologies for the delayed response.
I actually had this ready to post earlier in the week, and then my browser crashed...
I'll grant you it's the rational course, to be sure.
However, that doesn't mean that we need say it applies exclusively. Other factors may play a role.
Nor has anything yet been shown to be either caused or determined....
Thus, non sequitur.
I totally agree.
Note: probability.
It is this probability that allows choice.
Absolutely incorrect.
See above.
Ah, well then, I disagree with your definition of both choice and free will.
To me, all these terms imply is that an opportunity exists, whereby one can affect the probabilistic outcome.
Oh, I was selective, you're right.. but it wasn't fallacious at all...
You've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that "not necessary" equals "choice without cause". Choice is always 'caused' (as we've definied it herein... ??), but the result of any choice is not necessarily determined. The application of causality in its deterministic flavour is only 'enforced' within certain scenarios, in particular, those that are probabilistically restricted. In other words, when no interfering power comes into play. Sometimes, agents who have access to the probabilities involved can, and do interfere with the causal chain. Yes, this still means that causality plays out, but not in its 'original' deterministic way.
Not at all. Hume's point remains today the major stumbling block.
I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that purported causation is not remotely understood. Given that, it would be foolish to assume that it works in exactly the way we commonly ascribe to it.
Yeah, well, we're in murky metaphysical waters here... thus, language can get equally vague....
I agree with you entirely so far....
But disagree with this. The choice was made by the agent to interfere.
But to assert this it to assert that the whole scenario could not have 'run' any other way. I fail to see how this doesn't mean you're a strict determinist...
Precisely. And so it is...
Then I'm misunderstanding you for sure...
I agree completely. However, this doesn't mean that the output of choice must have been precisely that output. I readily admit that the output was both determined and caused, but not necessarily so. One can, and does, successfully chose the output of various situations successfully.
What's bugging me about your POV is that you seem to be saying that 'because any given result has been caused, that output, and only that output, had to be. To me, this seems far too strict (not to mention scarily teleological).
See above.
No, I wasn't referring to that, but rather, using the Latin literally: "after the fact". In other words, cause/effect X is (as you say) "still part of the causal chain", but only after it has manifest itself as such (which is to say, certainly not before..).
Probably mine.
OK, I agree with all of this, and recognize your allegiance to the latter. However, it seems to me that you're adding something on to the latter: some sense of inexorability, of 'fate'. This is odd because, as you note above, non-strict determinism would logically allow for one to 're-run' part of a chain of events and end up with a different result.
See, I think it does allow for it.
Specifically, by a manipulation of the probability function noted above.
However, see by next comment below.
Alas, as is generally the case via online discussions, I think our disagreements are predominantly due to language. Throughout this most recent post of yours, I'm finding myself in complete agreement with you, with the exception of a few drawn conclusions. I imagine that were we in a pub discussing this over pints, we'd have settled and agreed on all this...lol
In any case, with respect to the 'human element' I've introduced, I suspect that it's of vital importance here, for a number of reasons.
One I hinted at above: our recognition (perception??) of probabilities enables us to manipulate them (I'm thinking here of John Nash...). The human place within this material universe then is indeed a 'special' one (I'm not granting other creatures with 'probabilistic recognition', though not excluding it either.): our ability to imagine allows us to be creative [yes, I again realize I'm sounding spiritual..].
Seriously, I think we are in agreement for the most part, but, understandably, misstepping on interpretation.
I've got to let my brain rest now....
cheers.
My apologies for the delayed response.
I actually had this ready to post earlier in the week, and then my browser crashed...
I'll grant you it's the rational course, to be sure.
However, that doesn't mean that we need say it applies exclusively. Other factors may play a role.
Nor has anything yet been shown to be either caused or determined....
Thus, non sequitur.
I totally agree.
Note: probability.
It is this probability that allows choice.
Absolutely incorrect.
See above.
Ah, well then, I disagree with your definition of both choice and free will.
To me, all these terms imply is that an opportunity exists, whereby one can affect the probabilistic outcome.
Indeed - but we're not discussing the general principle of applicability but of the specific case. You merely threw up a logical fallacy by cherry-picking.
Oh, I was selective, you're right.. but it wasn't fallacious at all...
You've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that "not necessary" equals "choice without cause". Choice is always 'caused' (as we've definied it herein... ??), but the result of any choice is not necessarily determined. The application of causality in its deterministic flavour is only 'enforced' within certain scenarios, in particular, those that are probabilistically restricted. In other words, when no interfering power comes into play. Sometimes, agents who have access to the probabilities involved can, and do interfere with the causal chain. Yes, this still means that causality plays out, but not in its 'original' deterministic way.
Now you're just stirring up the mud to hide behind.
Not at all. Hume's point remains today the major stumbling block.
I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that purported causation is not remotely understood. Given that, it would be foolish to assume that it works in exactly the way we commonly ascribe to it.
Yeah, well, we're in murky metaphysical waters here... thus, language can get equally vague....
I agree with you entirely so far....
But disagree with this. The choice was made by the agent to interfere.
But to assert this it to assert that the whole scenario could not have 'run' any other way. I fail to see how this doesn't mean you're a strict determinist...
Precisely. And so it is...
Then I'm misunderstanding you for sure...
I agree completely. However, this doesn't mean that the output of choice must have been precisely that output. I readily admit that the output was both determined and caused, but not necessarily so. One can, and does, successfully chose the output of various situations successfully.
What's bugging me about your POV is that you seem to be saying that 'because any given result has been caused, that output, and only that output, had to be. To me, this seems far too strict (not to mention scarily teleological).
See above.
No, I wasn't referring to that, but rather, using the Latin literally: "after the fact". In other words, cause/effect X is (as you say) "still part of the causal chain", but only after it has manifest itself as such (which is to say, certainly not before..).
Probably mine.
OK, I agree with all of this, and recognize your allegiance to the latter. However, it seems to me that you're adding something on to the latter: some sense of inexorability, of 'fate'. This is odd because, as you note above, non-strict determinism would logically allow for one to 're-run' part of a chain of events and end up with a different result.
See, I think it does allow for it.
Specifically, by a manipulation of the probability function noted above.
However, see by next comment below.
Alas, as is generally the case via online discussions, I think our disagreements are predominantly due to language. Throughout this most recent post of yours, I'm finding myself in complete agreement with you, with the exception of a few drawn conclusions. I imagine that were we in a pub discussing this over pints, we'd have settled and agreed on all this...lol
In any case, with respect to the 'human element' I've introduced, I suspect that it's of vital importance here, for a number of reasons.
One I hinted at above: our recognition (perception??) of probabilities enables us to manipulate them (I'm thinking here of John Nash...). The human place within this material universe then is indeed a 'special' one (I'm not granting other creatures with 'probabilistic recognition', though not excluding it either.): our ability to imagine allows us to be creative [yes, I again realize I'm sounding spiritual..
].Seriously, I think we are in agreement for the most part, but, understandably, misstepping on interpretation.
I've got to let my brain rest now....
cheers.
which brings up the question of how much our tone and body language communicates..
i think for the most part..this hinders communication as it addresses an emotional content to our communication..but there are many times it enhances the communication..(confused yet?)
agreed..and done..
Last edited: