or how determinists believe in all things determined, a proxy theism perhaps.
Any how Quirky would dispute that as he now has the power to determine everything the universe does with his decision.
What is free will?
- Thread starter fess
- Start date
Any how Quirky would dispute that as he now has the power to determine everything the universe does with his decision.
by his determination towards learning, schooling, education, even typing skills are not instinctive but learned. Does the universe determine what he does with what he has learned? Does the universe even know what he has learned?
He goes to school as a part of his self-predetermine.
2. Whatever he does, it was predetermined that he would do it.
3. The captain is the subsystem within the universe that converts certain inputs into an output. So your question is like asking what causes a car to move: the engine, or everything that enables the car to move?
4. Only one alternative is predetermined, the other is counterfactual. As to which is which, that will only be known by us once the process has completed. However, if we knew the inputs, knew the system, and could calculate faster than system itself, then we could know the output before the captain produces an output. It is meaningless to talk of both alternatives being predetermined.
5. See answer to 3.
but as you earlier stated , and have repeatedly stated absolutely all is predetermined.
The fact is Quirky has all the power to determine all that predetermination.
You seem to be equivocating between meanings of "determine". We are using it in its philosophical context, not its meaning in casual parlance of "having focus or resolve".
Wheter he learns something or not is irrelevant to the issue, as what, how, and why he learns are all just as predetermined.
One could argue that, yes, through providing inputs into the system, although the processing of those inputs into outputs as they relate to the person is done by the person.
The universe as a whole should not be anthropomorphised.
So now you've moved on to "self-predetermine"? Any chance you're going to explain what you intend that to mean?
If he goes to school it is because that is the way things were predetermined to occur. That predetermination would have taken into consideration everything that his own systems would do with the predetermined inputs given.
Absolutely all that happens is predetermined to happen. That does not include things that do not happen, nor can not happen. Two outcomes from the same input is not possible in a deterministic universe.
Both alternatives were merely imagined alternatives, and as such it was predetermined that he would imagine both alternatives. But that is not the same as calling them predetermined alternatives, which suggests the alternatives were both realised.
I think at this point, QQ, I'm just going to nod and go "sure, whatever you say" as I carefully back out of the room.
No... he has learned because he has decided to learn and he benefits from his learning....by taking ownership of what he learns and incorporates that into future decision making.
Just like any input from the universe, we are greedy buggers. We take what we are given and make it our own. That is human nature. eg. "it's not your virus, it's my virus", "It's my sunburn not the universes"
He is learning to be a better self determiner.... just like learning to walk, talk and most everything else we have had to learn and will learn until we die.
easy...
"I have decided to catch the train to the city" and I do indeed catch a train to the city... self pre-determination is called planning, intent, goal setting etc...
Why do you find that so hard to work out for yourself?
If I said "You are self predetermining" you come back with uh? Does not compute... no Weeties for breakfast perhaps?
This Quirky nonsense sounds like something from the mind of L. Ron Hubbard. Why would you resort to lame science fiction in an attempt to make a rational point regarding determinism?
Because my grandson thought it was kinda clever...given the calibre of it's audience...
The thing is,
Your theory fails to be inclusive of life, will and freedom, where as my theory is fully inclusive with out violating a single known law of physics. It also agrees with Kant, Descartes, Nietzsche and what is more it is supported by the vast majority of humans on this planet.
Perhaps you should......uhm....leave the room quietly....
Then you're not actually adding anything by calling it "self"-determination, but rather just referring to what is acting in a deterministic manner.
And the freedom within this self-determination is...?
Apologies, I thought you were intending to add something by calling it "self"-predetermination, over and above what you have called "self"-determination, and over and above mere determination and predetermination.
That is how things tend to go in a discussion when someone says something in a manner such that the other struggles to understand: one asks for clarification. 'Cos seriously, I can imagine only one person understanding some of the nonsense you come up with if it is to be taken at face value, and even then I'm not even sure that person (you) even understands what you're intending to say, let alone understand what you have actually written.
There's a theory in there? Care to share it? Plus you probably need reminding that the issue isn't what processes are at play, but whether and how those processes might be considered free.
Is that the same Kant who described compatibilism as "wretched subterfuge"? The same Nietzsche who argued that man should be considered no otherwise than a machine? And if you want to appeal to consensus, go right ahead and add it to the list of fallacies you're happy to commit, right under the appeals to consequence and emotion.
So in what regard does your theory agree with three philosophers you happened to know the name of? Care to share what they have to say about your theory, or what they have said that suggests your theory agrees with them on the matter? Or is this more likely just you throwing yet more things into the air in the hope that something will stick?
There's a theory in there? Care to share it? Plus you probably need reminding that the issue isn't what processes are at play, but whether and how those processes might be considered free.
Is that the same Kant who described compatibilism as "wretched subterfuge"? The same Nietzsche who argued that man should be considered no otherwise than a machine? And if you want to appeal to consensus, go right ahead and add it to the list of fallacies you're happy to commit, right under the appeals to consequence and emotion.
So in what regard does your theory agree with three philosophers you happened to know the name of? Care to share what they have to say about your theory, or what they have said that suggests your theory agrees with them on the matter? Or is this more likely just you throwing yet more things into the air in the hope that something will stick?
Under your theory
Ergo sum is a fraud
the will to power is a fraud
uhmm...
Kant viewed anthropology in two broad categories. One category was the physiological approach which he referred to as "what nature makes of the human being". The other category was the pragmatic approach which explored the things a human "can and should make of himself....wiki
also a fraud
never once subscribing to your theory of absolute universal determinism. which renders most of their work illusion-ary.
Any way what is wrong with having a more holistic theory that is inclusive of all observable phenomena instead of stooping to a cop out by claiming an illusion only because you can't think of a better theory?
Last edited:
The mere fact that they have names and a sense of self identity supports my theory.
yes ..
It's called Co-determinism.
and free will is the outcome as is the topic of this thread.
Why do you think that? With determinism "I" still exists as a self-identification, and if you are referring to "cogito ergo sum" one still thinks, and one can know that on e exists because one thinks. So why do you think this would be any different?
Why do you think that? It would apply to a deterministic system just as equally.
On what grounds are you thinking that determinism makes it a fraud?
Why do you think it renders most of the work "illusion-ary"?
And are you going to actually provide anything that backs up your claim that your theory is supported by their work? Or are you relying on the notion that if they are not supporting "my theory" that they must therefore be supporting yours? Because I didn't ask how they weren't supporting the incompatibilist position, but how they supported your theory.
[qupte]Any way what is wrong with having a more holistic theory that is inclusive of all observable phenomena instead of stooping to a cop out by claiming an illusion only because you can't think of a better theory?[/QUOTE]Why do you think that the deterministic view is not inclusive of such? And there is nothing wrong with have a holistic theory, but thinking you have one and actually having one are two different things.
Are you actually going to explain this theory of yours?
Even you should realise that merely telling me it's name is not exactly sharing it. Please explain what this theory is, what the arguments are, so that it may be duly challenged.
How does it support your theory? It doesn't go against the ideas of a deterministic universe, it doesn't go against the incompatibilist or compatibilist views. So I'm curious as to how this so-called theory of yours is supported by philosophers having names and a sense of self. Please do explain?
It's only the 4th time I have posted the link..... or was it 5th?
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co-determinism-and-the-reality-of-free-will.161757/
Last edited:
You can post the link all you want, but until you actually explain anything, I'll keep asking for an explanation. You haven't explained anything in that link, and you haven't done so here. It's your theory, QQ, so you really should be able to explain it. And since you raised it here I'm asking about it here and expect an explanation here.
Plus you seem rather deliberately to have skipped over all the other questions I asked you of your other claims. Care to answer those? Or are you just going to let your claims wither away with the lack of sustenance that your inability to support them results in?