gfullmer

The Golden Rule: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Wesley wrote: "If I have the desire to eat and put a moral standard called the golden rule, then it necessitates that I feed everyone else in order to get food myself." No, it is not your desire, but the desire of what you would have men do to you that the GR requires. Do you want men to feed you before you eat? NAP == Golden Rule with a few caveats that have to do with ownership. They are: I own myself. I own the products of my labor. I can trade my time and goods for other goods and services. I am willing to be corrected, but this line of reasoning seems pretty consistent. However, Jesus said, "Resist not evil", which is not NAP and we shouldn't confuse his other teachings with the premise that NAP is one in the same with the GR.

So there are degrees of determinism? So that it applies in one case and not in another? So with my definition determinism works in the natural world? Which worlds doesn't it apply? I thought Stef's take is that there is only one natural world and none others? ;-) Would one use use degrees of determinism in a scientific inquiry? We live in a binary (black and white) world if one is to look at a scientific inquiry at a specific level, and that level is not necessarily the quantum level. Not satisfactory, yet! This is like proving a negative. How do you know that there is not another unknown causal factor in for instance in the Stern-Gerlach experiment? I would suggest another non-provable hypothesis that statistics is only necessary where we don't have all the participating causal factors in an observation. Maybe one of those factors is observation itself as evidenced in the Quantum-Zeno Effect.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

And the difference is? As I read it the paper is basically saying that all deterministic theories that he knows about are bidirectional. I agree. However, the thread that might mitigate the controversy is to limit debate to my original statement that the scientific method requires causal determinism as a presupposition. A proposition for which I have not received a satisfactory response.

That depends on how you define determinism. With my definition (above and from Webster's) determinism depends on causality and the fact that everything is caused by antecedent states, then the scientific method (experimental), to prove/disprove theories, depends on causality as well. It is not only antecedent states, but the logic of how those states determine the existing states. That is not random. As Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe". Science makes the assumption that there are universal laws (cause and effect). If one did an experiment on Monday and it was different on Tuesday and all other conditions were the same, then scientific inquiry would be futile. Again remember, I am not a determinist, but to accept scientific inquiry as the only way to find truth, is also futile.

"First, consider that in all reasonable examples of deterministic theories we have in hand, the determinism is bidirectional: future states of the world entail past events completely, as well as vise-versa." That is my definition of determinism and the basis of science experiments. If it wasn't then duplication and verification of science experiments, because they are not determined by causes, could not be achieved. What is your definition of determinism? One of the problems here is that we haven't defined our terms: determinism - the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

Mike, with the premise of a time when there was no life, logic does not necessarily require that everything was determined. How about the premise when there was no time. Some say that the state "before" the Big Bang. Was there determinism then? Without time, can there be determinism? PTBagger, the last link that you posted points to a paper upon which I have to disagree. It says that casual deterministic effects can be propagated in both directions. That is if a causes b causes c then c can be thought to cause b, and b can be thought to cause a. That doesn't make sense as some causal relationships that create a change of state preventing one from determining from whence they came and some different sets of preexisting causal factors can create the same state. Given a final result in time, in most cases, one can't define a set of unique causes for that state. This is because of a property of time. It only flows in one direction. If time machines are possible they can only go in one direction - the future. http://updatednews.ca/2013/09/14/time-travel-is-possible-only-to-the-future/

The debate on both sides could have been done better, but would agree that it has been pushed to its limits here and I will refrain posting more about this argument. Thanks Pepin and Kevin for pointing this out and the links. Professional Tea bagger, sometimes when we don't have all the preconditions that elicited a particular response we have to settle for "non-deterministic" statistical facts, but wouldn't you agree that science's goal is to understand causal rules both for behavior of objects and living organisms? And doesn't that require a premise of a sequence of causes and effects? Having taken a week to watch and listen to a number of Free Will/Determinism videos/debates/pod-casts I have come away less than satisfied on two fronts. First those who believe in the Free Will/Compatabilisim, from which camp I would identify myself, however, not because of debate, seem to, in these debates, be clouded with secondary issues like morality. A word with which a number of computer programmers use is KISS. That is Keep It Simple Stupid. Simple assumptions not based on facts and statements are like middle age religious debates, and I wish Stefan would not engage in such tactics and confuse the issues. For example statements like if you believe in Determinism, you need to say that one can't change their minds. That is like saying in physics that when a body in motion can't change its direction when another body hits it. Second, my first post on this thread isn't really trying to solve the Free Will/Determinism debate, but find it interesting that Stefan tries to point to the Scientific Method as a means of finding Truth, and yet the Scientific Method is based on a sequence of causal events of what came before and what will come after, whether the Science is biology or physics. That is my definition of Determinism. Just as you can't, as he argues, have Free Will and Determinism at the same time, you can't base all of your assumptions on the Scientific Method and still believe in Free Will. How would one prove using the Scientific Method that one has or has not Free Will? The Scientific Method is only a knowledge acquiring tool and not a end all method to all Truth. Even Stefan pointed out that a non-scientific process like therapy can help one find Truth about one's self. Thanks all for helping me understand more about this debate and clarifying my position(s).

Stefan, you make the argument for Free Choice aren't you making the argument against Science as it uses Determinism as one of its assumptions? It is interesting to me that a number psychological scientists (yes, they do exist) are attracted to the Free Choice/Determinism debate. One example is Carl Rogers and you can learn more about that in his book Becoming A Person. If you don't believe, logically, in freedom of choice then you can't believe in morality, can you, because your actions are determined, no matter what one tries to do to change? Is not the basic premise of Science, Determinism? It also interesting to me that Stefan is very interested in conscience/unconsciousness science of the mind and not the behaviorist type of psychological science. For one that is so into proving his philosophical precepts via very basic and limited premises or assumptions and then lets his assumptions when it comes to psychological science to be so less concrete.