Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Sarkus]

You declare the nonsupernatural to be "trivial", and all the same in "nature", and equivalent in "nature" to a thermostat - and so you aren't going to discuss it. Not the "nature", not the "trivial", none of it.

I said that from the outset. Why is it only now surprising you? More surprising is your obvious disdain for the position I hold, clearly wanting to discuss something else, yet always coming back.

That is on top ...

Your flippancy does you no favours. I'm sorry that my view upsets you so. It is clear you have nothing to offer me that will change my position, and I clearly have nothing to offer you.

If this wasn't as tediously familiar as it is, it would be kind of entertaining.

Yet here you are.

Too bad you don't have a table to bang your fist on, when you say that. It wouldn't make the logical levels disappear, or solve the so far unmentioned problem of describing the degrees of freedom attendant upon the actions of patterns of patterns of neuron firings over time and space within a matrix of brain regions, but it would be more satisfying than some little clicking noise.

If all that floats your boat, set up a thread for it.

Except the "inputs" are not in, remember?

A "capability" based on future unknown events are only deemed capabilities because of that lack of knowledge. Reality doesn't operate with a lack of knowledge.

We've been over this already - that stuff about "time", what has and has not happened, what the word "future" means, that weird habit you guys have of changing the example to fit what you want to say about it, messing up the chains of cause and effect, and so forth.

If you can't keep up...?

Meanwhile, the predetermined output is predetermined by the decision you claim doesn't happen because the output is predetermined - - - - quite the muddle you are setting up. You sure you want to?

No muddle. The process of "decision making" is undertaken, there is just no freedom within it, only a perceived freedom due to lack of knowledge.
But hey, you haven't got it thus far, so nothing's going to change.

Now we are supposed to accept - as a frame for the entire thread - your not even acknowledged assumption that only the supernatural can be free, because that's the only one you want to discuss?

There is no such assumption. Never has been. Simply a notion of freedom irrespective of determinism or indeterminism, that when combined as an assumption with the deterministic universe leads to the conclusion that such freedom can not exist in a deterministic universe. But I guess we can all assume Socrates is mortal by calling him a man, eh.

Blow that for a soldier - dumb enough you think you can issue declarations of "triviality" as if you had any idea what you were talking about.

So it's the notion that I consider the compatibilist notion of freedom"trivial" that you find upsetting? What word you prefer?

You don't want to discuss the reality of freedom of will, go take a nap.

I am discussing the reality of freedom. That's the point. Whereas you are discussing the appearance of freedom we have due to our inherent lack of knowledge.

And, for hopefully the last time, this thread is regarding QQ's "co-determination". Take your beef with my views to a more relevant thread, please. It will be easier to ignore them without derailing this thread further.

 

[iceaura]

A "capability" based on future unknown events are only deemed capabilities because of that lack of knowledge.

For the twentieth time: An observation of capability is not based on future events of any kind - known or unknown. Knowledge of the future is irrelevant. Capabilities physically exist at their logical level, as chairs exist at their's. One can observe them at any time, regardless of what the future holds for them. They are entities in the real, physical, observable world.

The process of "decision making" is undertaken, there is just no freedom within it, only a perceived freedom due to lack of knowledge.

You have it backwards: There is often no perception of the freedom within it, only the necessity of including freedom to make sense of observations - to acquire knowledge of its operations.

So it's the notion that I consider the compatibilist notion of freedom"trivial" that you find upsetting?

Run of the mill naive materialists making their standard mistakes do not upset me - it's an old shoe in these discussions.
Meanwhile, your continual digressions into speculations of my state of mind, what I "think" instead of what I post, ought to be a warning flag for you.

I am discussing the reality of freedom.

You are explicitly refusing to discuss the reality of any freedom you have declared to be "trivial".

There is no such assumption. Never has been

You are wrong about that. But since you won't even follow your own quoted arguments, you can't recover - stuck, as noted.

Simply a notion of freedom irrespective of determinism or indeterminism, that when combined as an assumption with the deterministic universe leads to the conclusion that such freedom can not exist in a deterministic universe.

There it is again, as predicted.
You say as before you have assumed a notion of freedom, and you say as before that the notion you have assumed is incompatible with "the" deterministic universe.
Elsewhere you have described yourself - and endorsed others description of - "the deterministic universe": everything does what it must, and cannot do otherwise. This was accepted, stipulated to, by all here. (Ok, maybe not QQ, but that muddle set aside - )
Elsewhere you have described the incompatibility you mention - freedom necessarily involves the ability to do other than one "must". Here there was objection - other notions of freedom, directly relevant here, do not involve doing other than one must. That assumption of yours was not granted.
So we see that your "notion" of freedom in a deterministic universe - the notion you assumed, a premise of your argument - is that is supernatural. Only that which can do other than it must has freedom, nothing bound by the deterministic natural world can do other than it must -> only the supernatural have freedom.

If all that floats your boat, set up a thread for it.

No point in duplicating threads any more (this one was redundant from jump).

 

[Sarkus]

It's not, of course. I am obviously not at all surprised and not saying anything new - but instead repeating myself once again, because you are stuck.
Or to put it in your pejorative terms: what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?

Nothing wrong. Most people don't usually simply repeat what the other has said without doing so as an indication of surprise. And why exactly are they my pejorative terms?
Further, if you know this, why are you constantly responding to my posts to get me to drop what I am discussing in favour of what I have said I have no intention of discussing? To ask you the same question: what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?

For the twentieth time: An observation of capability is not based on future events of any kind - known or unknown. Knowledge of the future is irrelevant. Capabilities physically exist at their logical level, as chairs exist at their's. One can observe them at any time, regardless of what the future holds for them. They are entities in the real, physical, observable world.

No, they are not. They are only available to the individual, or whatever system, if the inputs are aligned to allow them. Yes, a function y=f(x) may have the capability of outputting the results y=1 and y=2, but only if the input (x) is aligned to do so. Otherwise you are simply talking about imagined capability based on counterfactual inputs. And if the future inputs never align, the "capability" never results.

You have it backwards: There is often no perception of the freedom within it, only the necessity of including freedom to make sense of observations - to acquire knowledge of its operations.

That's your view. Given the system of decision making is predetermined from the outset, from the question being posed, to the options considered, to the eventual choice, I see that as lacking freedom.
And never the twain shall meet.

Run of the mill naive materialists making their standard mistakes do not upset me - it's an old shoe in these discussions.
Meanwhile, your continual digressions into speculations of my state of mind, what I "think" instead of what I post, ought to be a warning flag for you.

Not really. I'm just trying to understand why you continue with a discussion you clearly don't want. Far more interesting a subject, to be honest, than everything else you're posting. You don't want to talk about the incompatibilist view; I don't want to talk about the compatibilist view. Yet here you are. Still. Beating away at the incompatibilist view.

You are explicitly refusing to discuss the reality of any freedom you have declared to be "trivial".

Correct. Because I am discussing the reality of freedom, and by referring to the "freedom" in a thermostat as "trivial", combined with my incompatibilist view, it should have been fairly obvious that I don't consider such trivial "freedom" to actually be free. I am thus discussing the reality of freedom - which is covered entirely by the incompatibilist position. So to ask your question again: what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?

You are wrong about that. But since you won't even follow your own quoted arguments, you can't recover - stuck, as noted.

No assumption, just as one does not make the assumption that socrates is mortal simply by defining him as a man.

There it is again, as predicted.
You say as before you have assumed a notion of freedom, and you say as before that the notion you have assumed is incompatible with "the" deterministic universe.

Yes. Socrates is a man. No men are mortal. Socrates is not mortal.
cf. Freedom requires X. X is incompatible with Determinism. Thus (note the term denoting conclusion) Determinism does not allow freedom.

...
So we see that your "notion" of freedom in a deterministic universe - the notion you assumed, a premise of your argument - is that is supernatural.

That is the conclusion, yes. Note your own language: "So we see that..." which denotes conclusion. It is not assumed from the outset. It just so happens that the notion of freedom used is not compatible with a deterministic universe. That is what we conclude.
You then look at that conclusion and apply it to the premise as if it was assumed from the outset. It wasn't / isn't. Yet you seem stuck on this. Stuck with this demonstrably fallacious bleating about assuming a non-existent freedom.
Seriously, if your own words don't finally reveal to you your mistake in this regard, then what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?

And if you are going to continue down your fallacious path, despite all this, why use the term "supernatural". Use "non-existent". Stick with that term, please. The supernatural does not exist (a position we both hold, I assume?). Thus if you conclude that something is supernatural you can/should conclude that it does not exist. They are synonymous terms with regard existence, but one doesn't come with well-poisoning baggage.
And if your own words above aren't sufficient...

Only that which can do other than it must has freedom, nothing bound by the deterministic natural world can do other than it must -> only the supernatural have freedom.

See, once again you make my point: you have concluded that freedom does not exist in the deterministic universe.
Thank you for proving my point so admirably.
I look forward to you now trying to show how the conclusion is actually an assumption; the way that, in the example I gave above, we can say that we are assuming Socrates not to be mortal by assuming he's a man, perhaps?

 

[iceaura]

Further, if you know this, why are you constantly responding to my posts to get me to drop what I am discussing in favour of what I have said I have no intention of discussing?

1)Because you continue to deny that is what you are discussing
2)and because you are trying to limit the thread to only a small aspect of the stated thread topic, and there appears to be no reason to limit things to some small sideline because that's all you want to discuss.

Correct. Because I am discussing the reality of freedom, and by referring to the "freedom" in a thermostat as "trivial", combined with my incompatibilist view, it should have been fairly obvious that I don't consider such trivial "freedom" to actually be free. I

And in that self-limitation (and self-contradiction), you have excluded the reality of freedom as conceived by those paying better attention.
You are wrong, in other words. This is easily seen - your failure to pay attention to the observed universe has led you to post such nonsense as the equivalence in "nature" between the degrees of freedom available to a human making a decision and a those of a thermostat, for example. And instead of recognizing a reductio ad absurdum argument when you see one, you double down - not even observed capabilities exist, any more, if they imply nontrivial decisionmaking.

It just so happens that the notion of freedom used is not compatible with a deterministic universe. That is what we conclude.

You assumed that only the supernatural could have freedom. That was the notion of freedom you used. That was your assumed notion of freedom - that it was supernatural.

No such conclusion was possible without that assumption.

That is the conclusion, yes. Note your own language: "So we see that..." which denotes conclusion.

It denotes observation, specifically of your posting. We see something about your posting - namely that you have assumed, throughout, that only the supernatural has freedom.
Only that which can do other than it must has freedom, nothing bound by the deterministic natural world can do other than it must -> only the supernatural have freedom.

it should have been fairly obvious that I don't consider such trivial "freedom" to actually be free. I am thus discussing the reality of freedom

You are thus refusing to discuss the reality of freedom. Explicitly.
You seem to think that by "considering" something to be trivial, you can make it go away, and nobody is allowed to talk about it.

See, once again you make my point: you have concluded that freedom does not exist in the deterministic universe.
Thank you for proving my point so admirably

{I'm going to repost what Sarkus is talking about, so people will believe this exchange happened: first, the quote:

Only that which can do other than it must has freedom, nothing bound by the deterministic natural world can do other than it must -> only the supernatural have freedom.

Then, what it was edited from:

So we see that your "notion" of freedom in a deterministic universe - the notion you assumed, a premise of your argument - is that is supernatural. Only that which can do other than it must has freedom, nothing bound by the deterministic natural world can do other than it must -> only the supernatural have freedom.

Note the consequence of the edit - Sarkus can now ignore what I was illustrating, his posting, and pretend to be dealing with an actual argument instead of an illustration. }

Look, dumbass:
1)No such conclusion is visible. That "argument" comes to no conclusion whatsoever about the existence of freedom in a deterministic universe. It is entirely a demonstration of the equivalence of your posting, your premises, your assumptions, in your language, with the assumption that only the supernatural has freedom in a deterministic universe. It lays out, step by step, the proof that you make that assumption, throughout, in all your posting here.
2) I was demonstrating your assumption that only the supernatural is free, by showing how it follows immediately from your language in your assumptions - I was proving to you that your agreement with Bowser was not an oversight on your part, that every one of your arguments here contain that assumption, and that your denial of that assumption is absurd.

Because that is, as one hopes has become obvious, a necessary first step in discussing freedom of will - in any circumstance, "co-determinism", "determinism", whatever. It's not just Sarkus.

 

[iceaura]

Short version:

cf. Freedom requires X. X is incompatible with Determinism. Thus (note the term denoting conclusion) Determinism does not allow freedom.

Freedom requires supernatural ability. Supernatural ability is incompatible with Determinism. Thus, Determinism does not allow freedom.
That is, indeed, your conclusion. I have translated X, to match the posting in the threads.

Your assumption - necessary for your conclusion - is that freedom requires supernatural abilities. Is that perfectly clear, finally?

That assumption is not granted. You have to argue for it,
against the alternatives posted
and the evidence posted
and the absurdity of the various claims those making it have found necessary in supporting it.

Declaring them "trivial" is not an argument.

 

[Sarkus]

1)Because you continue to deny that is what you are discussing

No, I really am discussing the incompatibilist position. No need to deny it.

2)and because you are trying to limit the thread to only a small aspect of the stated thread topic, and there appears to be no reason to limit things to some small sideline because that's all you want to discuss.

Im not stopping you discussing whatever you want to discuss... just not with me. I'll discuss what I want to discuss on the matter. If you have issue with that then you know where the door is. But instead you keep wanting to discuss my position with me, and now you have the gall to criticise me for trying to limit the thread? Sheesh.
Stop responding to me. Go and discuss your compatibilist notion with those who want to discuss it.

And in that self-limitation (and self-contradiction), you have excluded the reality of freedom as conceived by those paying better attention.

Not "better attention" at all, only by those who hold the same view as you. So go and discuss your view with them! Go on! Noone's stopping you.

You are wrong, in other words.

So you keep bleating, and so you keep saying by referring to your confusion between assumption and conclusion.

This is easily seen - your failure to pay attention to the observed universe has led you to post such nonsense as the equivalence in "nature" between the degrees of freedom available to a human making a decision and a those of a thermostat, for example.

I am paying attention to what is observed, but I am not limiting myself to only what is observed. Ironic. And it is not the nature between degrees of freedom, but the nature of the freedom itself that I am equating. To repeat: what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? Until you can provide argument as to why the nature of the freedom is any different, all you're left with is your current appeal to complexity. That may be enough for you, I guess.

And instead of recognizing a reductio ad absurdum argument when you see one, you double down - not even observed capabilities exist, any more, if they imply nontrivial decisionmaking.

Show one example of something having more than one capability at a given time? Can you do that? Without relying on counterfactual imagined abilities?

You assumed that only the supernatural could have freedom.

Keep convincing yourself that, as that and your appeal to complexity seem to be all you have, and the former is wrong, the latter impotent on its own.

That was the notion of freedom you used. That was your assumed notion of freedom - that it was supernatural.

patently incorrect. It is only when you combine the notion used with the assumption of determinism do you... and here's the word you seem to have a blind spot for... conclude that one can not exist in the other.

No such conclusion was possible without that assumption.

Given that it is the conclusion, no such conclusion was indeed possible without it being concluded.

It denotes observation, specifically of your posting. We see something about your posting - namely that you have assumed, throughout, that only the supernatural has freedom.

I have concluded, not assumed. No matter how often you try to convince yourself otherwise, you'll remain wrong on this. Assume a notion of freedom, irrepsective of nature of the universe, apply it to the assumption of deterministic universe, conclude that the notion of freedom can not exist in the deterministic universe. Not rocket science. Deal with it.

Only that which can do other than it must has freedom, nothing bound by the deterministic natural world can do other than it must -> only the supernatural have freedom.

Are you deliberately missing out steps or just stupid?The conclusion is that freedom does not exist in a deterministic universe. You then need to make the assumption that anything that exists outside the bounds of that determinism is supernatural, before only then being able to conclude that only the supernatural have freedom.
Because your logic, as presented, is fallacious: non sequitur. But then you know this, surely?

You are thus refusing to discuss the reality of freedom. Explicitly.

No, I am discussing it. Explicitly. The reality of freedom is absent. Only if you question-beg by assuming at the outset that freedom exists can you say that I am not discussing the reality of freedom. Otherwise to discuss whether freedom is real or not really is discussing the reality of it.

You seem to think that by "considering" something to be trivial, you can make it go away, and nobody is allowed to talk about it.

Not at all. The difference in degrees of "trivial" freedom between the human and a thermostat is for you to discuss with whoever else wishes to discuss it with you. I have said this before. But I am not interested in discussing it. I consider it "trivial" to distinguish it from what I am interested in discussing, and "trivial" because it is found in a thermostat. Your issue in this regard seems to be that I don't want to discuss it with you. Here you are complaining to me that I don't want to discuss it, rather than actually discussing it with someone who wants to. Bizarre.

1)No such conclusion is visible. That "argument" comes to no conclusion whatsoever about the existence of freedom in a deterministic universe.

You really can't recognise it for the conclusion it is, and not an assumption? Seriously?

It is entirely a demonstration of the equivalence of your posting, your premises, your assumptions, in your language, with the assumption that only the supernatural has freedom in a deterministic universe. It lays out, step by step, the proof that you make that assumption, throughout, in all your posting here.

Rubbish. It lays out quite clearly how you're mistaking a conclusion for an assumption. It is no more an assumption that Socrates being mortal is an assumption.

2) I was demonstrating your assumption that only the supernatural is free, by showing how it follows immediately from your language in your assumptions - I was proving to you that your agreement with Bowser was not an oversight on your part, that every one of your arguments here contain that assumption, and that your denial of that assumption is absurd.

And you have failed to do so, without coming up with completely fallacious logic.

Because that is, as one hopes has become obvious, a necessary first step in discussing freedom of will - in any circumstance, "co-determinism", "determinism", whatever. It's not just Sarkus.

By those who hold a compatibilist view, sure. Go and discuss it with them, those that agree with you. You have no interest in anything else so please stop bothering me with your fallacies, your misunderstandings, your appeals to complexity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You could just as easily state that any sense of freedom in a fatalist deterministic universe is an illusion or an imaginary sense or a hallucination but calling it supernatural invokes all sorts of religious/spiritual problems and connotations.

 

[Sarkus]

Freedom requires supernatural ability. Supernatural ability is incompatible with Determinism. Thus, Determinism does not allow freedom. That is, indeed, your conclusion. I have translated X, to match the posting in the threads.

Wow. Just... wow! If you wish to completely change the words and meaning of the original argument to suit your own view of it, that's fine. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.
If this is how you saw that original argument then it is no wonder you think as you do: start from such a pathetic misunderstanding and only more misunderstanding will follow.
The above has zero relationship, other than containing the words freedom and determinism, to the original. And I am not convinced that your misunderstanding is honest. It seems too stupid to be honest, yet you are not so stupid to be so obviously dishonest.

Your assumption - necessary for your conclusion - is that freedom requires supernatural abilities. Is that perfectly clear, finally?

What is perfectly clear is that you never understood the argument from the outset, if this is your best effort at summarising it. Sure, what you have posted agrees with your claims about what you have posted, but it has no bearing on the original argument at all. A dishonest attempt by you at a summary or not, I'll let you get on with discussing your compatibilist notion with those who wish to discuss it...
Oh, that's right, you can't drag yourself away, can you.

 

[Sarkus]

You could just as easily state that any sense of freedom in a fatalist deterministic universe is an illusion or an imaginary sense or a hallucination but calling it supernatural invokes all sorts of religious/spiritual problems and connotations.

Indeed. It is simple well-poisoning to equate the term "supernatural" to "non-existent" as is being done.

 

[iceaura]

No, I really am discussing the incompatibilist position. No need to deny it.

You do, in fact, deny assuming that only the supernatural is free. You don't have to, but you do. And that is the basis of your - not "the" - incompatibilist position.

Not "better attention" at all, only by those who hold the same view as you.

The view you refer to there - the one you call "mine" - is that physical reality as observed is significant. Your claim that it is trivial is held to be inferior, your claim that it is illusion whenever you need it to be is dismissed as fatuous. This is a science based forum, after all.

Indeed. It is simple well-poisoning to equate the term "supernatural" to "non-existent" as is being done.

It is not being done.
The introduction of yet another deflecting misuse of a term - "equate" - is noted. The language continues to suffer under the strain of poor reasoning.

And it is not the nature between degrees of freedom, but the nature of the freedom itself that I am equating.

1)"The nature between degrees of freedom" is gibberish. That is symptomatic.
2) The only "nature" available to be "equated" (see the language go haywire as the reasoning falls apart) is that the freedoms involved are all non-supernatural. Since you refuse to consider any such freedom carefully, since it is beneath your notice, you "equate" all its degrees, forms, and complexities without noticing the crass stupidity involved in such an assertion.
3) Thereby missing the point, misreading the posts, misusing the language, denying observed reality, and confusing yourself on the same point as QQ does - apparently for the same basic reason ( the supernatural assumption is crippling). Bottom line: you have simply dismissed - by assumption - nonsupernatural freedom of any kind. You have declared it to not exist, and also to be trivial (sometimes in the same paragraph), by assumption - like a mad king declaring rats to not exist, and to be trivial.

They are widdling on your posts anyway.

I am paying attention to what is observed, but I am not limiting myself to only what is observed.

You are overlooking and denying observations of physical reality - everything from the capabilities possessed by decisionmaking entities to the nature of the degrees of freedom involved in human decisions to the role of time in assessing cause and effect to the significance of logical levels in any analysis of complex systems. What you are paying attention to instead is invisible in your posts, meanwhile - you keep repeating the word "predetermined" as if it had magic powers, made things vanish, but that is hardly a sign of having paid attention to it, for example.

Rubbish. It lays out quite clearly how you're mistaking a conclusion for an assumption.

You appear to have forgotten, or become badly confused about - if you ever knew - what I held to be your assumption.
Let's check: can you post what I held to be your assumption? Hint: quoting any of your conclusions will not suffice.

And you have failed to do so, without coming up with completely fallacious logic.

It was your logic, dude. I posted your argument, and pointed at it.
Here it is again:

Freedom requires supernatural ability. Supernatural ability is incompatible with Determinism. Thus, Determinism does not allow freedom.

I agree it is fallacious, in that its primary assumption - that freedom requires supernatural ability - is a central matter in contention. Assuming the consequent is indeed a fallacy.

Meanwhile: You are asserting falsehoods, apparently because you can't follow your own argument. Can't help you there - it was pretty clear, the way you laid it out. Easy to follow.

But I can remark that attempting to police the thread so as to clear it of posting directly relevant to the OP, on the grounds that it does not share what is a clearly dubious and limiting and so far unsupported assumption, is not a necessary consequence of holding that assumption in the first place. It's extra - what in tennis is called an unforced error.

 

[Sarkus]

It was your logic, dude. I posted your argument, and pointed at it.
Here it is again:

I had provided a more lengthy response to the entirety of your post but, when I saw that you have simply confirmed your gross dishonesty, I finally realised that enough is enough. I have little time for those who indulge in such pathetic and blatant dishonest practices.

So, since you can't seem to drag yourself away from what I post, let me help you.

 

[iceaura]

It's inescapable, the function of Cause -->Effect is a true universal function.

It is also completely irrelevant, unless you are assuming freedom requires supernatural abilities.

IMO, you assume that human decision making has a certain freedom, but that is a false illusion.

It is an observation. Humans decide between capabilities based on criteria - right there in the lab, with brainwave monitors attached to their skulls and the data logged by machine.
The "certain freedom" involved is of course not supernatural, and at the moment beyond our analysis - the suggested approach on the table is via extrapolation from simpler situations we can handle.
Meanwhile: Declaring observed reality - the stuff that machines record as data, that engineers include in their calculations at the lower logical levels they can handle - to be somehow "illusion" is a critical and dramatic step that nobody here has come close to justifying.

ALL choices (actions) are caused by prior existing conditions, even the ones you think you make freely.

Even the ones you do make freely - in that certain sense.

 

[Write4U]

Meanwhile: Declaring observed reality - the stuff that machines record as data, that engineers include in their calculations at the lower logical levels they can handle - to be somehow "illusion" is a critical and dramatic step that nobody here has come close to justifying.

The data is not illusionary, the notion that the data is free (random) data is illusionary. Wharever logical data is recorded it had a prior origin.

Free will and decision making requires causal motive.

OTOH,
As I mentioned before, lack of input data in sensory deprivation chambers, leads to hallucinations which may be considered the closest to free thought as possible. But then the thoughts themselves become incomprehensible and not reliable data usable as examples of free choice from among available options.

 

[iceaura]

Well, if you agree that the decisions are predetermined, and thus there is no freedom, then any appearance of such freedom must be purely an illusion of that freedom.
That part of the argument is not difficult.

That part of the argument was debunked months ago.

The word "thus" is an error of reasoning, unless you assume that freedom is supernatural only.
The word "must" is an error of reasoning, unless by the appearance of freedom you mean the appearance of being supernatural.

Meanwhile, it is easily possible - it has been done, right in front of you - to argue from observation that predetermined human decisions cannot be described without including significant nonsupernatural degrees of freedom, and that the rigorous observation of capabilities and decisions involves no illusions whatsoever. Examples were posted, analyses posted, etc.

In other words: That entire argument is built on an assumption not granted, and one in conflict with observation as well as reason.

 

[iceaura]

There is nothing to check here, as it is the logical conclusion of causal determination

It isn't.
That's the problem. That's why I quoted your argument, and pointed to the invalid step.
You can't conclude an absence of freedom from causal determinism alone. It does not follow. You need to deal with the nonsupernatural degrees of freedom that causal determinism alone does not exclude, in the context of human decisionmaking as observed. Until you have excluded them, you cannot "conclude" that they have been excluded.

So: You have posted two different and contradictory attempts at excluding them: 1) you have declared them to be "trivial" and therefore excluded from consideration despite their observed existence; 2) you have denied their nature as "freedom" because they do not provide the ability to do other than what the universe has determined - as freedom, by your assumption, requires.

That second is of course the now familiar supernatural assumption - your assumption that freedom requires abrogation of determination (doing other than one must, etc) is what you use when stating that lack of freedom is a "logical implication" of causal determination, that anyone claiming freedom of will is claiming indeterminism, and so forth. These are examples of circular reasoning, of course, but that does not disturb you.

The rest is simply a logical implication of what it means to be causally deterministic.

That is false.
You can't get from causal determination alone to absence of nonsupernatural freedom by logical implication. Causal determination does not exclude natural events and circumstances, events that occur in accordance with physical law and cause/effect circumstances.

The universe is a perfect calculator of the system.

The universe - aside from its human component and a couple of similar isolated backwaters - does not appear to calculate at all. It just runs. What evidence to you have that the universe - other than a few living beings it incorporates - "calculates"?

I fully expect you to support your claim, otherwise there is nothing worth checking.

There is your claim, made first and crucially, which has yet to be supported. You could check that one, if you think it is worth checking - you obviously never have, because it is false, but whether that makes it worth checking is up to you.

Since it is not only false but irrelevant to the thread - it makes no difference to the issues at hand whether perfect knowledge enables perfect prediction in a deterministic universe, as all that stuff was stipulated to long ago - I have no interest in it other than its potential role in illustrating the naive materialist's inevitable underestimation of the physical universe.

That underestimation is central, apparently.

 

[Sarkus]

It isn't.
That's the problem. That's why I quoted your argument, and pointed to the invalid step.

Wow, your dishonesty seems to know no bounds. My comment was with regard your dispute that causal determinism inevitably leads to predetermination, yet here you are using it against something else.
Either behave honestly or don't bother replying.

You can't conclude an absence of freedom from causal determinism alone.

Sure, it's found in a thermostat. Doesn't have a bearing on whether it is predetermined or not.

It does not follow. You need to deal with the nonsupernatural degrees of freedom that causal determinism alone does not exclude, in the context of human decisionmaking as observed. Until you have excluded them, you cannot "conclude" that they have been excluded.

No, I don't need to deal with them, because I have already stated quite openly, and quite often enough, that such freedom, found in a thermostat, exists but is trivial (since said thermostat displays it).

So: You have posted two different and contradictory attempts at excluding them: 1) you have declared them to be "trivial" and therefore excluded from consideration despite their observed existence; 2) you have denied their nature as "freedom" because they do not provide the ability to do other than what the universe has determined - as freedom, by your assumption, requires.

There you go again with your confusion yet again. You really don't learn, do you. There's slow, and then there's you. Conclusion, not assumption. But deaf ears is all you seem to have. And being oblivious to your dishonesty.
Further, I am not excluding them at all from consideration... yet again, cos you seem to struggle with it: degrees of freedom do exist, but I consider them trivial, and I am not inclined to discuss a type of freedom found in a thermostat. You can not, or at least have not, provided anything else.

That second is of course the now familiar supernatural assumption - your assumption that freedom requires abrogation of determination (doing other than one must, etc) is what you use when stating that lack of freedom is a "logical implication" of causal determination, that anyone claiming freedom of will is claiming indeterminism, and so forth.

Determination is a logical implication. You have said this goes against mathematical proof... but that is strangely absent from what you post. Any chance you'll support your claim?

These are examples of circular reasoning, of course, but that does not disturb you.

Of course you think so, because you confuse conclusion for assumption.

That is false.

No it's not, but then you seem to have lost track of what my comments were in response to, whether deliberately or not (although evidence is certainly mounting).

You can't get from causal determination alone to absence of nonsupernatural freedom by logical implication. Causal determination does not exclude natural events and circumstances, events that occur in accordance with physical law and cause/effect circumstances.

And I'm sure you can point to where I have said otherwise. My comment was with regard predetermination, so unless you want to actually respond in that context, I'll happily ignore your strawman.

The universe - aside from its human component and a couple of similar isolated backwaters - does not appear to calculate at all. It just runs. What evidence to you have that the universe - other than a few living beings it incorporates - "calculates"?

Metaphor, ffs. Any process that turns inputs to outputs can be said to calculate. So stop being so pathetically pedantic, or is this all you have left?

There is your claim, made first and crucially, which has yet to be supported. You could check that one, if you think it is worth checking - you obviously never have, because it is false, but whether that makes it worth checking is up to you.

My claim that causal determination necessarily implies predetermination? It is true. If every effect is determined completely by previous causes then whenever you have causes X you have effect Y. If Y can vary then it is not being fully determined, is it.
Thus you get a fixed chain from A all the way to Z. Predetermined from the outset. No alternative.
You have claimed this to go against mathematical proof, in case you have forgotten, or wish again to change the context of these responses. So what proof do you think this goes against?

Since it is not only false but irrelevant to the thread - it makes no difference to the issues at hand whether perfect knowledge enables perfect prediction in a deterministic universe, as all that stuff was stipulated to long ago - I have no interest in it other than its potential role in illustrating the naive materialist's inevitable underestimation of the physical universe.

There is no underestimation at all. Disagreement with regard freedom has little bearing, if any, on one's estimation of the physical universe. If anything I would think it would work the other way, make people even more amazed at what this physical universe can throw up. But hey, if it makes you feel good to think that, well, go for it.
I also wont be underestimating your dishonesty going forward.

 

[iceaura]

I feel the same about free will bein an illusion.

Only supernatural freedom of will can be an illusion. Nonsupernatural freedom of will would be an observation.

 

[Sarkus]

I never disputed that. There is no such "dispute" of mine. I have stipulated to predetermination from the beginning - finding your insistence on extra typing bemusing, but no issue for anything I post. As you were warned, it seems to confuse you, but you insist, so - - - -

Um. Okay. So none of this rings a bell....?
Post #520: Iceaura: “Determinism does not establish predictability, even in theory, because full knowledge does not always enable calculation, even in theory.”
Post #531: me: “Yes it does. If the state is known, and the laws that govern how one state translates into the next are known, then one can predict the next state.”
Post #534: iceaura: “Not necessarily. You have to be able to do the calculations - and that is not always possible.”
Post #541: me: “In a fully deterministic universe it is.Only when you intorduce indeterminism (e.g. probabilistic events) does it start to become impossible.”
Post #568: iceaura: “No, it isn't. You are now arguing with mathematical proof.”
Post #587: me: “You'll excuse me if I don't take you word for that. What proof shows that in a deterministic universe it is not possible to "do the calculations"? Remember, I am not referring to simple practical capability, but what is inherent within the universe. Stump up this proof, please.”
Post #588: iceaura: “You have claimed that with perfect knowledge of the present the future state of any deterministic physical system can be - in theory - exactly predicted, without running the entire system and recording the outcome. That involves doing the calculations and arriving at exact numbers - exact solutions of the equations employed. Your claim requires, in part, that such exact solutions be always possible, in theory. That is what you want to check.”
Post #600: me: “There is nothing to check here, as it is the logical conclusion of causal determination. The universe is a perfect calculator of the system. It has perfect knowledge of the system. The rest is simply a logical implication of what it means to be causally deterministic.”
Post #651: iceaura: “It isn't.
That's the problem. That's why I quoted your argument, and pointed to the invalid step.
You can't conclude an absence of freedom from causal determinism alone.Itdoes not follow.”
And in the same post in response to the last line of mine above: “That is false.
You can't get from causal determination alone to absence of nonsupernatural freedom by logical implication.”

And you think that I am the one confused? You have jumped from your inability/unwilling to provide support that it goes against mathematical proof to conclude that theoretical predictability logically follows from causal determinism, to thinking my responses were to do with the absence of what you term “nonsupernatural freedom”. I have never claimed an absence of “no supernatural freedom”, otherwise I wouldn’t be referring to it as “trivial”, would I, but rather “non-existent”.

I have said that your claim of exact prediction necessarily following from perfect knowledge of a deterministic system goes against mathematical proof.

A proof you have yet to provide. And given that the universe has perfect knowledge, its predictability is otherwise known as predetermination. You don’t dispute the latter yet you bemusingly dispute the former. But I’m sure the proof you’ll inevitably fail to provide will clear everything up, right?

I advised you to check that claim - knowing what you will find, if you ever do.

If you make the claim, as you have done, that it goes against mathematical proof, the onus is on you to support it. It is not for me to do your legwork for you. You are simply making rebuttals on the strength of your confidence, and while that may work for some, you’re going to have to do better here. My claim (that predictability is theoretically possible) has been argued and supported with the logic of it. Your rebuttal? Well, we have your confidence... and...?

I also pointed out that the entire matter was irrelevant here, except as an illustration of the damage the supernatural assumption can do.

Assuming you are referring to the conclusion, and not the assumption, you have illustrated nothing but damage to agreement with you. What other damage do you think it can do? Please provide examples, as I’m curious.
And as for relevance, not irrelevant at all, as it still speaks to resolving the nature of freedom that QQ is referring to within his theory.

btw: Since that is the only thing here I have ever claimed goes against mathematical proof -
Where do you suppose you got your errant post from?

From you. And it’s not errant, as the above demonstrates.

Not by anyone interested in making sense.

Deflecting from your inability to grasp the meaning does you no favours.

You have it backwards:
As with almost all naive materialists, your underestimation of the physical universe has a direct, obvious, and critical bearing on your assessment of nonsupernatural freedoms in that physical universe. It prevents you from considering them carefully - or at all, even.

Utter codswallop. You really are full of it, seriously. If it helps to put yourself upon a pedestal, by all means find the highest one you can find, it won’t stop you spewing the drivel you do. I’m sure you’ll claim it stops me from considering studying the French language, or Geography as well? Sheesh. First unsupported claims and now just utter inane nonsense.

That is the case with almost all naive materialists in discussions of this topic. Bricks, thermostats, sleeping vs dead dogs, human decisions, a pile of sand - all the same "nature" of freedom, all dismissed with the same wave of the hand and some label like "trivial".

When you want to stump up something other than an appeal to complexity, or simple quantitative differences, by all means feel free to discuss it with those that want to. At the moment you’re just acting like a baby crying because you can’t get your way, you want the attention of your parent but they’re not giving you the attention. You have spent about three whole threads focussed on someone who from the outset has stated no interest in what you want to discuss... and yet here you remain, like a limpet. And I’m the one to blame, apparently, right?

And then: Somebody posts a simple example to clarify and focus - driver approaching a light, say - and they can't even register the key circumstances when paraphrasing. It's all sand. They screw up the timeline, change the subject, lose track of what is input and what is output, make a damn mess.

If you can’t grasp what they’re saying, and you really haven’t been able to, that much is clear, then ask them to clarify. Others have been able to follow, and understand. But no, you simply repeat ad infinitum that your example evidences your point, when it doesn’t.
But hey, that’s the issue with naive compatibilists, I guess.

And these are not reductio ad absurdum arguments, not ludicrous meanderings designed to mock some especially incoherent "incompatibilist" approach - they mean them, sincerely.

Oh, I have no doubt they mean them, but it doesn’t change what they are. You can’t make an argument interesting through force of sincerity, you can’t make it any more correct through confidence, through unsupported claims.

Look, do us both a favour: don’t respond to me, okay. I’m putting you on ignore, ‘cos frankly, no matter how high your self-constructed pedestal may be, it won’t alter your dishonesty, nor make me want to discuss the trivial notion of freedom that you clearly want to, even if you have nothing but appeals to complexity to support it.

 

[iceaura]

..I prefer an un-muddled diagram.!!!

The supernatural assumption it hides prevents analysis. Like this:

Making a decision is just a process.
Like a cog turning.
Or, dare I say it, a thermostat.
Inputs go in and are converted to an output.
It is a complex process in the case of decision making by humans, sure, but it is still just a process.

Probably nobody but me remembers the responses I got from these guys when I tried to point out the central role of the process in human decision making. But I can enjoy that post anyway.

It's progress, after all. The discussion has taken a step - recognized the centrality of process. Now we can deal with that "input/output" and "cog" handwave in real time - no more calling future events "input" for present events, no more ignoring logical levels of processing, etc.
Now we can locate the nonsupernatural degrees of freedom in human decsionmaking and its attendant acts of will.

Context: The underestimation of the material world is central to naive materialism.

The giveaway is when they start reversing cause and effect, declare inconvenient observations to be "illusions", and the like - dismissing the entire arena of mental processing as a superficial side effect of a causal determinism that only operates (in their simplified world) at lower logical levels, that stops operating above some arbitrary level of substrate (quarks, atoms, molecules, neurons, whatever they choose as their cutoff).

Because as soon as a dream is a cause, the nature of its nonsupernatural degrees of freedom stops being automatically "trivial" and demands careful consideration - in the deterministic universe, the nature of the determining factors matters.

And in human decisionmaking, dreams are causal.

 

[Write4U]

Because as soon as a dream is a cause, the nature of its nonsupernatural degrees of freedom stops being "trivial"

Does one have free will in a dream? How about a nightmare?