science of free will vs determinism

[Goldenages]

I can only quote myself from an erlier post :

 

On 18.5.2017 at 11:32 PM, Goldenages said:

The universe is not deterministic in the literally meaning of the word. The idea that a clockwork started with the Big Bang and - literally - everything is determined til the end is definitely wrong.  This conclusion can be drawn from quantum physics and chaos theory.

If our minds are not materialistic, then nothing can be said about free will, because we don´t even know what to to talk about. Gosts? Gods?

If our minds are materialistic, free will must be between chance and clockwork.  Chance does not require energy consuming brains and minds, and evolution would never have  favored them.

A clockwork does not need a mind at all.

regards

Andi

 

[A4E]

4 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

everything is determined til the end is definitely wrong.  This conclusion can be drawn from quantum physics and chaos theory.

Although there is certainly respect in science, this is sort of like saying its wrong because this book, and that book said so. You can trust those departments of science. But that is not how I want to operate nowadays. I have definitely looked at a lot from quantum physics. And it is very engulfing, but I don't rest my head on it.

Maybe you could mention what part of quantum physics or chaos theory that convinced you that 'determined till the end' is definitely wrong?

13 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

If our minds are materialistic, free will must be between chance and clockwork.  Chance does not require energy consuming brains and minds, and evolution would never have  favored them.

I don't quite understand this paragraph. And how does this 'chance' work in detail?

 

[Goldenages]

8 minutes ago, A4E said:

Maybe you could mention what part of quantum physics or chaos theory that convinced you that 'determined till the end' is definitely wrong?

The Newton universe is deterministic. Incidence angle equal emergent angle. Actio equal reactio. Since accuracy of every measurement is limited (and not only the measurement, reality itself has a certain inaccuracy) this chain of clockwork happenings soon becomes unpredictable. It does not really influence your billard game. But it excludes the possibility that everthing is predicted from the Big Bang til the far end.

 

Then we have chaotic systems, such as the double pendulum.  Part of the chaos theory is the "deterministic chaos". Infinite small changes in the initial position lead to different results, predictions are only possible within a certain range of probability. From wiki:

Quote

..Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.^[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.^[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics,^[11]environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, self-assembly process. ...

 

36 minutes ago, A4E said:

I don't quite understand this paragraph. And how does this 'chance' work in detail?

It is reasonable to assume that our minds do not create results based on chance. First, in order to behave in a random way, there is no complex and energy consuming mind necessary. Second, we are pretty much able to predict behaviour of persons we know. It is unlikely that this is just the result of a random output. Especially when the same facts are processed by educated minds that follow logical rules.

 

Our minds are no clockworks, since they consist of matter, and matter does not behave like a clockwork, at least when you play something more complicated than billard. Both the universe and our minds are many magnitudes  more complicated than billard. Furthermore, in order to behave like a clockwork, reflexes are fully sufficient, again evolution would never had favoured energy consuming and complicated minds.

 

So the free will of our minds is somewhere between chance and clockwork.

 

regards

Andi

[RichardY]

Shoot Greedo(Credo).

[Eudaimonic]

19 hours ago, A4E said:

I tried to google epistemological contradiction, but did not get much useful. Could you define it for me?

Are humans the only organism on this planet that has free will (the kind you are talking about)? If so, why? What is it with humans that allows for the free will you are talking about, and not for any other organism?

You said that animals do not have the free will that you are talking about. So they have no point to their existence, and anything they do is futile. Is this a correct assessment?

 

An example of a blatant epistemological contradiction is to say 'there is no such thing as truth.' The posit contradicts itself, it posits as a truth that truth does not exists thus invalidates it's own posit. The denial of free will results in the invalidation of knowledge (Justified True Belief) as I pointed out in earlier posts, yet the denial of free will is a claim of knowledge, thus it is an epistemological contradiction. It also results in an epistemological paradox: if the outcome is determined and we could hypothetically create a machine which could measure all the variables and give us a 100% accurate read out of the future, we would be able to falsify that read out through our action. How is this possible in a deterministic universe? It's not a contradiction, but it is a significant problem for determinism.

I don't know because I don't study biology or neuroscience. Perhaps, though it doesn't seems likely as almost all other species fail to adapt at some level but humans seem never to fail to adapt (It makes intuitive sense to me that free will is an adaptive evolutionary trait that comes from the unique structure of our brain.) These are interesting questions for science which must assume free will just as they assume knowledge is possible.

Yes, in isolation. Humans are what give meaning to the universe. If there are no humans (or human-like beings) then there is no meaning. 

As a side note, I feel sad that I seem to be the only secular free will libertarian on this thread. I've briefly looked at Andi's stuff, so I don't mean to rule him out, but it feels like fighting a mob alone  Not arguments, just my perspective. Where my brothers at?

[neeeel]

28 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

It also results in an epistemological paradox: if the outcome is determined and we could hypothetically create a machine which could measure all the variables and give us a 100% accurate read out of the future, we would be able to falsify that read out through our action. How is this possible in a deterministic universe? It's not a contradiction, but it is a significant problem for determinism.

falsify it through what action? Only if there was free will. You keep coming up with these things where people in a deterministic universe display free will

[ofd]

Quote

"deterministic chaos". Infinite small changes in the initial position lead to different results, predictions are only possible within a certain range of probability. From wiki:

Determinism simply says that antecedent states together with the laws of nature determine the outcome. So for chaotic phenomena you have to show that there are supernatural events taking place or that the same antecedent states lead to a different outcome.

Quote

Our minds are no clockworks, since they consist of matter, and matter does not behave like a clockwork,

Neurons only fire when there is activation potential. Larger arrays of neurons only react to specific impulses. Their degree of freedom is limited. I have yet to see one guy explain to me, how there can be an emergent phenomenon of free under those conditions.

[A4E]

1 hour ago, Eudaimonic said:

It also results in an epistemological paradox: if the outcome is determined and we could hypothetically create a machine which could measure all the variables and give us a 100% accurate read out of the future, we would be able to falsify that read out through our action. How is this possible in a deterministic universe?

I am starting to get a headache from the knowledge <-> free will link you have going on that I still don't understand, but I would like to reply to the above.

You are talking about a hypothetical machine, so I assume we agree that it is just about, or is, impossible to make.

What you are saying in the above paragraph is something like if the machine predicts that you will stand still for 1 minute, you would be able to then jump after 30 seconds to show that machine how wrong it is. But it makes absolute no sense to claim that you can do this, because you said the machine predicts at 100% accuracy, and a determined universe is typically a closed system. So no, you would not be able to jump after 30 seconds if the machine predicts that you will stand still for 1 minute. Absolutely not. (maybe you would start thinking about something, and forgot about the time, or got paralyzed by all the people watching your experiment, or whatever). It is basic 2+2=4 math, because everything in the universe and you are determined in a determined universe. The reason you think you can, is that you are injecting the mythical free will into the mix.

I think neeeel made it clear much more directly that you are again assuming to be able to step out of the determined universe with free will.

 

[Goldenages]

51 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

As a side note, I feel sad that I seem to be the only secular free will libertarian on this thread.

Well, I say you are not    However I prefer hard data whenever possible, and while there are many things unknown, those data indicate freewill.

 

21 minutes ago, ofd said:

Determinism simply says that antecedent states together with the laws of nature determine the outcome.

Yes.

21 minutes ago, ofd said:

So for chaotic phenomena you have to show that there are supernatural events taking place or that the same antecedent states lead to a different outcome.

No supernatural events. 

The points are the "same antecedent state" - it can not be achieved with absolute mathematical precision. There is a barrier because the laws of physics become probabilities whenever you try to achieve absolute precision. While this does not matter for everyday life, it does matter for this topic.

Second point is, that those inaccuracies of nature add, making a complex process unpredictable.  A billard player can foresee, lets say, the path of 5 balls. Even when knowing all influences of less then perfect balls and a less then perfect table down to  quantum level, even when considering every atom of air that touches the ball, even then the billard game will leave Newton´s clockwork and behave in an unforseeable way.

Laws of physics are deterministic on a "normal" level. I would hold every bet that the speed of light was the same a million years ago, and will be the same in one million years. The forces that bond atoms together do not change in billion of years, and actually that is a very good thing - e.g. we want metal today to be as strong as tomorrow. If the Big Bang started again and we wait another 14 billion years, we would see a very similar universe as we see now, with galaxies, black holes, planets and so on.

But in no way would our solar system exist. In no way evolution would take the same path.

 

regards

Andi

 

[Eudaimonic]

3 minutes ago, A4E said:

I am starting to get a headache from the knowledge <-> free will link you have going on that I still don't understand, but I would like to reply to the above.

You are talking about a hypothetical machine, so I assume we agree that it is just about, or is, impossible to make.

What you are saying in the above paragraph is something like if the machine predicts that you will stand still for 1 minute, you would be able to then jump after 30 seconds to show that machine how wrong it is. But it makes absolute no sense to claim that you can do this, because you said the machine predicts at 100% accuracy, and a determined universe is typically a closed system. So no, you would not be able to jump after 30 seconds if the machine predicts that you will stand still for 1 minute. Absolutely not. (maybe you would start thinking about something, and forgot about the time, or got paralyzed by all the people watching your experiment, or whatever). It is basic 2+2=4 math, because everything in the universe and you are determined in a determined universe. The reason you think you can, is that you are injecting the mythical free will into the mix.

I think neeeel made it clear much more directly that you are again assuming to be able to step out of the determined universe with free will.

 

It doesn't assume free will. If we had a deterministic universe that could be 100% accurately predicted, the fact that if the machine told us that we would stand still for a minute but we could jump up an down presents a problem for determinism. Th reason this can't really be used as an argument against determinism is because it's hypothetical and we couldn't actually experience the situation.

But in the closest thing we have to that, which was Libet's experiment and the experiment where they were able to predict behavior 10 minutes before someone was conscious of it, they could only predict it with 60% accuracy which is only 10% higher than pure chance. 

I'm more interested in a rebuttal of the epistemological problem. 

[neeeel]

Just now, Eudaimonic said:

It doesn't assume free will. If we had a deterministic universe that could be 100% accurately predicted, the fact that if the machine told us that we would stand still for a minute but we could jump up an down presents a problem for determinism. Th reason this can't really be used as an argument against determinism is because it's hypothetical and we couldn't actually experience the situation.

 

Um what? Its a deterministic universe, the machine is 100% accurate, but somehow you can choose to jump up and down? and somehow thats not free will in a deterministic universe?

[ofd]

Quote

The points are the "same antecedent state" - it can not be achieved with absolute mathematical precision.

Sure. But not every determined event is computable. You don't have to be able to compute something to tel if it's determined or not. My understanding is that QM is deterministic but has random elements. The wavefunction is determined, but when it collapses a state is chosen at random.

[A4E]

23 hours ago, Goldenages said:

The Newton universe is deterministic. Incidence angle equal emergent angle. Actio equal reactio. Since accuracy of every measurement is limited (and not only the measurement, reality itself has a certain inaccuracy) this chain of clockwork happenings soon becomes unpredictable. It does not really influence your billard game. But it excludes the possibility that everthing is predicted from the Big Bang til the far end.

Just because humans have not been able to accurately measure things, or be able to know how the universe works, should not be any conclusive evidence that the universe can not be predicted from start to finish. I know there is more to these sciences than I can describe at the moment, and I know they are highly regarded and so forth, but I would like to give an example.

We are simulating characters/life in games today. We will for sure continue to do that, and at some point in the future they will probably (or hypothetically) have a programmed/evolved enough intelligence and curiosity to try to check out how their world is built. It will not be a surprise to us that they will inherently be unable to do so, since they are infused into their world so much that any building blocks or laws or methods used to process them will always seem 'out of reach' to them.

What I am trying to say is that if humans are in a simulated universe, which determinism could be a symptom of, then humans failing to see the mechanics underlying our universe would be as obvious as it is for the simulated characters/life in the games we make.

 

23 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Then we have chaotic systems, such as the double pendulum.  Part of the chaos theory is the "deterministic chaos". Infinite small changes in the initial position lead to different results, predictions are only possible within a certain range of probability.

Again, just because we do not understand something, does not mean it can not be calculated. When people see something they do not understand, they are quick to label it 'random'. But in a determined world with unbreakable laws, 'random' never occurs. 'chaos' is another way to say 'random', and it sounds more powerful and out of our hands, which is the whole point. The authors of this, I am inclined to say, do not want to admit that they do not understand it. It is easier and more prestigious to put a label on it.

 

23 hours ago, Goldenages said:

First, in order to behave in a random way, there is no complex and energy consuming mind necessary.

Please define what you mean by random. Because random means different things to different people. Random for most people is when they do not understand how something came to be. Random for me means outside of the laws of the universe. If you are using my definition, then that kind of random can not happen in a determined universe.  But perhaps you are talking about the sciences, in which case just ignore this paragraph.

 

On 23.5.2017 at 0:38 PM, Goldenages said:

Second, we are pretty much able to predict behaviour of persons we know. It is unlikely that this is just the result of a random output.

Not quit sure what you mean. But pretty sure I agree.

 

On 23.5.2017 at 0:38 PM, Goldenages said:

Our minds are no clockworks, since they consist of matter, and matter does not behave like a clockwork, at least when you play something more complicated than billard.

Here you are treating the sciences as absolute truths, and making conclusions based on them. And you would have to do that in order to be so sure that the universe can not be predicted.

 

Quote

Both the universe and our minds are many magnitudes  more complicated than billard. Furthermore, in order to behave like a clockwork, reflexes are fully sufficient, again evolution would never had favoured energy consuming and complicated minds.

If I understand that correctly, you are saying that evolution would not make a human brain if the universe was predictable/determined. And also you are claiming that you know how to do the job evolution does, better than evolution itself, even though you are a product of evolution. That is quite a standpoint to have.

To the best of my knowledge, the brains first evolutionary function was to provide a command centre for controlling muscles, because standalone muscles would not have much ability to work together with other muscles without such a command centre. A reflex is usually defined as something controlled locally around a muscle, so as to be able to act at a greater speed than if the information was first sent to the command centre. So reflex is surely not the best word to use for your argumentation. Instinct would be better. But perhaps you can clear that up.

But I suspect your point is that evolution would not create a thinking brain if the universe was determined, because then preprogrammed, or instinctual methods would be sufficient. But this claim holds no ground whatsoever, because lifeforms with brains use their brains to adapt and change their behaviour, and comes up with all sorts of creative things to survive and procreate, of which a purely preprogrammed 'brain' would be wholly inadequate to quickly adapt to various changing circumstances.

Smart, adaptive, and creative animals flourish. This would be true in any type of universe.

 

On 23.5.2017 at 0:38 PM, Goldenages said:

So the free will of our minds is somewhere between chance and clockwork.

The other things you wrote made much more sense than this line. This line just throws me off the rails.

[Goldenages]

4 hours ago, ofd said:

My understanding is that QM is deterministic but has random elements. The wavefunction is determined, but when it collapses a state is chosen at random.

Yes. But that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the Uncertainty Principle. 

Quote

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities[1] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known.

Nature does not allow mathematical precision. While this effect is small, it is there, and destroys any forecast for complex arrangements. So Newtons universe exists only in Newtons theory. If one still wants to postulate that the universe is determined, it is necessary to invent something such as omniscient Gods who know more than nature.

 

1 hour ago, A4E said:

Again, just because we do not understand something, does not mean it can not be calculated.

It can be calculated. But your results may vary

 

1 hour ago, A4E said:

Here you are treating the sciences as absolute truths, and making conclusions based on them.

No, I take some well researched theories and draw conclusions. Should some genius appear and prove that there are some hidden variables which determine speed and position of particles with mathematical precision, I certainly will change my mind. So far John Bell proved there are none.

 

1 hour ago, A4E said:

....But this claim holds no ground whatsoever, because lifeforms with brains use their brains to adapt and change their behaviour, and comes up with all sorts of creative things to survive and procreate, of which a purely preprogrammed 'brain' would be wholly inadequate to quickly adapt to various changing circumstances.

But how and why would creative things be necessary or possible, since the whole universe is already on celluloid and just unwinds like a clockwork? In which way is the gear of a watch creative?

 

1 hour ago, A4E said:

The other things you wrote made much more sense than this line. This line just throws me off the rails

I walk in the park, and my eyes see a lion.

Now I assume my brain delivers outputs by chance. So any behaviour is possible as result of the cause "lion".

I could proceed. I could start singing. I could grab my cellphone to call my mother. I could have a nap. .......

 

Now I walk in the park and get the cause "lion", but lets assume my behaviour is preprogrammed from evolution. Lets say I stop, turn 180 degrees, and run. Every time I get the cause "lion" I stop, turn 180 degrees, and run.

 

I certainly do not need a mind for this, and its an easy thing to programm a machine for that. Furthermore, it will not be very successful from an evolution point of view, cause lions learn and after my third attempt to flee, a second lion would wait right behind me.

 

 

So our minds must be between chance and determinism. Makes it more sense now?

 

regards

Andi

[A4E]

43 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

But how and why would creative things be necessary

Survive and procreate.

 

Quote

or possible,

Gathering and storing sense data. Then try to put different sense data together, and applying the results into the world. Repeat process.

 

Quote

In which way is the gear of a watch creative?

The gears of a watch moves the hands on the watch, to make a shape that would not have been there had it not been for the gears.

 

I think I know what you are trying to convey. That being 'creative' is some mystical thing that just can not happen in a determined universe. I know this is a popular conviction, but it goes back to what people see as random. Just what they do not know how came to be.

[ofd]

Quote

Nature does not allow mathematical precision.

Oh, it does. The uncertainty principle is quite precise. I don't think that our different perspectives can be brought together. Hence, I say good bye to this thread and thank the participants.

[Goldenages]

1 hour ago, A4E said:

I think I know what you are trying to convey. That being 'creative' is some mystical thing that just can not happen in a determined universe.

What I am trying is to make some reasonable thoughts about the possibility of so called free will.  While we know little about how a brain work, we know a lot about matter and the laws that rule it.  To conclude that both the universe and the mind are deterministic (meaning just unwinding, no sidesteps allowed) because of Newton´s laws, is the same mistake a man makes whose only tool is a hammer - he will see every problem as nail. Why do you choose just Newton for a theory of mind, while Newton is not even able to explain spacetime or electricity?  For shure you won´t call electricity a mystical thing

 

Shure matter behaves deterministic, given you put the very same input in any given formula. But we know that nature exclude this.

Assuming that our minds follow one or many algorithms, and knowing that some algorithms offer different outputs when inputs differ only so slightly, we have an explanation for thinking, for diverse conclusions and the choice between them, thus for free will. Its not that complicated. Its far more complicated to construct a deterministic universe, given what we know about physics.

 

regards

Andi

[neeeel]

36 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

 

 

Shure matter behaves deterministic, given you put the very same input in any given formula. But we know that nature exclude this.

 

what does this mean?

[Goldenages]

It means that you can not reach the exact same starting point if you want to run the same experiment several times. I speak about the maximum achievable precision, which always will be limited by Heisenbergs uncertainty.

Yes, its small, and yes, normally this does not matter. But if someone wants to know every decimal behind the comma, and certainly this is was needs to be known precisely when we postulate a determined universe, we will fail.

An experiment everbody can do is the Double Pendulum, and try his luck in getting the same motion twice.   And we are not talking about maximum precision here, and we are very far away from complex systems such as weather, uncounted numbers of atoms in a universe, heat, true chaos or minds. Nevertheless already predictions for a simple Double Pendulum will fail after the split of a second its released.

So how many similar, by many magnitudes more complex systems might be in the universe?

 

regards

Andi

 

 

 

 

[shirgall]

These threads are too predictable, but I guess we're fated to reopen them from time to time.

[shirgall]

1 minute ago, shirgall said:

These threads are too predictable, but I guess we're fated to reopen them from time to time.

Sorry, I couldn't help posting that. I had no choice.

[Goldenages]

I am sorry. So I will close here.

 

regards

Andi

[shirgall]

8 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

I am sorry. So I will close here.

I was not criticizing you, but rather the topic of determinism.

[A4E]

27 minutes ago, shirgall said:

I was not criticizing you, but rather the topic of determinism.

No. You made a point supporting determinism. And I think I recall that you posted something similar in an older determinism thread, since you talk about repeating patterns.

[RichardY]

I think Goldenages might have missed the joke.

If people take Determinism to be "true", then why expend will to power arguing affirming that it is? Why not be determined to be something epic? Kind of stuck in circular logic with Determinism, and the potentiality to exercise virtue with Freewill.

[shirgall]

55 minutes ago, A4E said:

No. You made a point supporting determinism. And I think I recall that you posted something similar in an older determinism thread, since you talk about repeating patterns.

I was mocking determinism. If you look at all of my posts that mock determinism additional properties may emerge.

[A4E]

Almost everything we do throughout our lives, minus the earliest years, is predicated on our brains being able to predict what happens with whatever we are doing. Animal and human brains are all designed to be able to sufficiently predict immediate surroundings in a deterministic world.

Ie, a cat jumping over a fence is predicting its own motion, and also predicting that the fence is going to stay where it is. A bird landing on a branch has likely already predicted that the branch is going to give some way, so that they will have to bend their feet or body to stay stable for their eyes to be focused. Bigger birds like seagulls who make use of updrafts of air, are predicting how those will work. When they build their nests, they are predicting that the structural integrity of it will hold if they do it the right way.

The amount of predicting humans make everyday and in their line of work is staggering. A baker is predicting how his baked goods is going to turn out, An engineer is predicting how a building is going to withstand weather and weight of the materials or whatever. A taxi driver is predicting how he will have to drive to get to a specific place.

Almost everything we do, excluding playing dice or things like playing the lottery, is based on us staying alive or achieving goals within a world that can be predicted. It is all encompassing, even when we brush our teeth we are using predicted models that our brains have stored to easily and quickly get it over with. All animal brains have accepted that the world is determined, and trust that it will stay that way, since all of them plan accordingly.

Brains accept a deterministic world as a given. They do not accept sidestepping the machinery of the world. We do not enter our bathrooms and try to brush our teeth by touching the toothbrush with a knee. Its nice to imagine that we are flying, but our brains will not accept an attempt to jump off a tall building to start flying. It won't allow you to do that because it has accepted a deterministic world where rules apply. It wants to stay alive, and it knows how to do that because it has been a part of a predictable world for quite some time, and as such can predict what actions are needed in order to proceed, and is usually fully aware of what to avoid, though all brains make mistakes that they normally learn from.

But in a human philosophy forum, this major thing that is a part of almost all of our lives, and all brains rely up to a 100% on, is looked down upon by many. Not only that. It is more important to promote and base a lot of philosophy on something that may or may not exist, and that brains do not have any specific, or no relation to, when dealing with the world, and which in its hardcore form directly opposes the most prevalent and all encompassing existential element that we all are a part of.

I have already solved contrived societal problems people have with determinism. That is why accepting determinism is no big deal for me. I have a sense that civilization would do better without agency, because we do not need it to create a peaceful society, but I am likely only a small catalyst for such a transformation, if it would ever happen. But this is one reason why I want to continue talking about this topic. But I expend very little time on it in general because I want to do many other things.

 

12 hours ago, RichardY said:

Why not be determined to be something epic?

I work almost all hours of every day or am busy with something, sleep excepted. This forum is more for relaxation and exercising my brain talking to all of you, since I don't think there is any better place to do just that.

[RichardY]

If you accept determinism, you by necessity accept it's antithetical position freewill and visa versa. Light and Dark(photons), Hot and Cold.(entropy).

Freewill (an illusion); is a manifestation of an Objective Collective Unconscious (A = A). 1 Potato, 2 Potato. It's root, virtue(manliness, women weren't considered people in Greece and in the Islamic World) an actuality.

Determinism (an illusion); is a manifestation of science, its root an Immoral Action(A then B). Metal(A) + Acid(then) = Hydrogen(then) + Salt(B).

[cab21]

I guess the definitions really matter.

 

I think people Like Ayn Rand see free will as a ability to think or not, and that there are objective laws of nature and objective really that it seems some are calling this objective reality determinism?

 

I think I have also seen determinism to mean events are caused external to the will.

 

It seems both recognize laws of nature, but ayn rands free will suggests that people are able to think about a course of action, while determinism seems to suggest that people cannot think about a course of action.

 

Though it seems some in the thread are suggesting that determinism includes any thinking that a person could make, making the consequences not so different than ayn rands free will?  

 

[A4E]

6 hours ago, cab21 said:

while determinism seems to suggest that people cannot think about a course of action.

A real determinist would never say that. People criticizing determinism can include that line of thinking. A person can think, evaluate, theorize, sleep on it, use drugs, hit his head with a hammer or implant microchips in his brain, but it wouldn't change that any of those things and the rest of his life is determined in a determined universe.

I have a simple explanation for philosophy revolving around a true hardcore, outside of laws, free will. Which is that we humans generally are so full of ourselves that we think we might as well be above the rules of the universe, or 'special' for sure.

All determinists would agree that humans are a very advanced life form. But there are a lot of advanced life forms on this planet. Being advanced in itself does not give us anything extra that somehow makes us able to defy the laws of the universe.

Removing agency as a philosophic foundation might be timely right now, because criminal "refugees" are often excused because they "come from a war torn country". That won't work in a society that has accepted that no one has agency. People there would just kick criminals out at the first opportunity. Or kill them if need be (if they resist or whatever). Because everyone there agree that they need a peaceful society. They don't need to cater to bad people.

 

[RichardY]

How can you be aware of your thinking if it's not culturally defined as a language?

[smarterthanone]

• Think of this: If you had two identical universes. Completely identical. A and B. You watch them go for 1 year. Would they still be identical after the 1 year? If there is free will, your alternate in the other universe could choose different responses to the same stimuli and the likelihood that one person would do at least one thing different and throw it all into a different outcome would be likely. If there is no free will, since all the stimulus and situations exist the same, they would both be the same after 1 year. Untestible I know but I think its a good way to visualize the problem.
• My personal reason for determinism: A rock can weigh x amount be composed of y and be located at z. (Exactly, not measured by human standards). In this same way, your brain can be composed of exactly A, have a specific size of B and an electric current and such of C. This would suggest your actions are based entirely on 1. Current brain situation and 2. External stimulus. Given whenever your brain is in a state of R and the external stimulus is P, the result will always be Q.
• Lastly regarding the future machine posted by Eudaimonic: The way you describe the problem with the future machine makes the premise that machine can predict things with 100% certainty is false. It is impossible, and im not talking to like build it. The logic of the machine is impossible. It is like saying true = false. Its nonsense talk. The machine would always 99.99999999999% show you what is not going to happen. That last 0.0000000001% (which is actually much smaller) would be the machine showing you the exact future by random chance. Break down follows.

 

If the machine shows you future A, you do something different, A was not the future.

If the machine shows you future B, you try to do what it was that triggered exact future B, human senses, motor control and measurement are not accurate enough to do the exact thing to trigger future B, so B was not the future.

If the machine shows you future C, you try to do what it was that triggers exact future C, and you hit that almost impossible chance of doing it exactly which would be random chance essentially, only then is future C the future.

SO basically its a useless machine.

 

Now if the machine actually shows the future, then that would prove determinism because you have no choice. So you see yourself hit by a car crossing main street on tuesday, you will absolutely be compelled by circumstances to walk across main street on tuesday anyway and get killed. Like maybe you are mentally ill and go into a blackout and walk across the street. Or maybe something happens to make you suicidal, or you need to get killed to save your family. Doesn't matter. You will do what it shows one way or another.

 

*I don't feel 100% on my machine ideas so please especially rip them apart if you see flaws.

[JamesJoseph]

On 5/27/2017 at 0:15 PM, A4E said:

A real determinist would never say that. People criticizing determinism can include that line of thinking. A person can think, evaluate, theorize, sleep on it, use drugs, hit his head with a hammer or implant microchips in his brain, but it wouldn't change that any of those things and the rest of his life is determined in a determined universe.

I have a simple explanation for philosophy revolving around a true hardcore, outside of laws, free will. Which is that we humans generally are so full of ourselves that we think we might as well be above the rules of the universe, or 'special' for sure.

All determinists would agree that humans are a very advanced life form. But there are a lot of advanced life forms on this planet. Being advanced in itself does not give us anything extra that somehow makes us able to defy the laws of the universe.

Removing agency as a philosophic foundation might be timely right now, because criminal "refugees" are often excused because they "come from a war torn country". That won't work in a society that has accepted that no one has agency. People there would just kick criminals out at the first opportunity. Or kill them if need be (if they resist or whatever). Because everyone there agree that they need a peaceful society. They don't need to cater to bad people.

 

The determinst's thinking is pre-determined. If I was able to program some person to think a series of thoughts and arrive at a certain conclusion then it could not be said that that person did any thinking. A think that looks like thinking happened and we might call it thinking but it's just an illusion. 

There's no rule in the universe that precludes free will or says that everything is causally determined. 

What does a "society that has accepted" mean? 

[ofd]

Quote

There's no rule in the universe that precludes free will or says that everything is causally determined. 

Can you give an example of a non causal event?

[RichardY]

8 minutes ago, ofd said:

Can you give an example of a non causal event?

Love?