Determinists cannot answer these Questions

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Wrath, are you wraith? If not then don't be an idiot!

So noted. Idiocy terminated.

I'll be sure to put little [irony] flags around further sarcasm, so that you're not confused.

None of this is anything I would disagree with, I am not sure about the chain of causality, I feel that there are some aggregate processes that may have likely hood of happening, But not straight deterministic meachanisms.

Then you suggest that some processes are random. Yes, that's also inconsistent with "free will".

The point that elliotfc is making is that somehow free will is the reason that we have the capability to make the wrong choices, and I say that just proves that there is no design to the human world.

Logic would indicate that those aren't the wrong choices after all. There are no wrong choices.

I think that free will means the ability to choose our responses to situations.

Meaningless distinction. Unless you're using the word 'choose' to indicate the manner in which any system progresses from one state to another, then we don't have choice.

To put it another way: we can't choose what we choose. Our choices are the result of either a) inexorable causation, b) random chaos, or c) a combination of the two, and none of those possibilities allow free and meaningful choice.

PS

 

[Dancing David]

So noted. Idiocy terminated.

I'll be sure to put little [irony] flags around further sarcasm, so that you're not confused.

thanks! :confuse:

Then you suggest that some processes are random. Yes, that's also inconsistent with "free will".

Well I would say that there is random in the out of the blue sense and there is random with contraints. Where a raindrop fall is random with a linited area of impact. When it hits the ground it's path is random but the area of impact is evn more constrained.
I say that there are a category behavior which we call choice, I can not prove that they are not deterministic, just a belief.
The likely hood of a neuron firing is not random and it is not totaly deterministic.

Logic would indicate that those aren't the wrong choices after all. There are no wrong choices.

Of course, as a nihilist, I understand that completely, but I feel that there is free will and that it indicates a god did not design humans.

Meaningless distinction. Unless you're using the word 'choose' to indicate the manner in which any system progresses from one state to another, then we don't have choice.

Again a matter of personal belief, I have my reasons for believing the way I do. When i am in the grip of obsessive compulsion I loose the freedom to choose in some ways. So I appreciate my limited ability to make choices when I am not in an obsession.


To put it another way: we can't choose what we choose. Our choices are the result of either a) inexorable causation, b) random chaos, or c) a combination of the two, and none of those possibilities allow free and meaningful choice.

PS

That isd a mtter of some debate, the ultimate deterministic nature of reality is not a proven theory yet. I believe that certain level of organization can allow for choice between outcomes. Such as when I choose to wait an hour before driving if I drink a beer.

I believe in both inner and outer determinants but have a belief in free will to make choices.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Where a raindrop fall is random with a linited area of impact. When it hits the ground it's path is random but the area of impact is evn more constrained.

No. It's "random" only in the sense that we're not aware of the contours of the surface. The actual movement of the raindrop is deterministic, to the degree that we can certain anything is deterministic.

Of course, it's possible that there are genuinely non-deterministic elements, but we don't know that for sure.

I say that there are a category behavior which we call choice, I can not prove that they are not deterministic, just a belief.
The likely hood of a neuron firing is not random and it is not totaly deterministic.

You are suggesting that it is partially random and partially deterministic. Neither randomness nor determinism permit choice in the colloquial sense of the word.

You don't lose freedom to choose when you're obsessed. You're just as "free" as you ever were. The only difference is that you're now conscious of the primary element behind your behavior when you realize you're obsessed.

 

[Dancing David]

No. It's "random" only in the sense that we're not aware of the contours of the surface. The actual movement of the raindrop is deterministic, to the degree that we can certain anything is deterministic.

I would say that the interplay of the forces is too chaotic to be called deterministic. The sensitive dependance upon initial conditions would say that moving the raindrop a teeny fraction or changing a single grain of sand could have a wide variety of determined but unpredictable outcomes.
Maybe the debate should shift to determined but unpredictable.

Of course, it's possible that there are genuinely non-deterministic elements, but we don't know that for sure.

Then why assume they are predictably deterministic, they can still be unpredictable.
Which is why the assumption of pure determinism is something thrust upon the materialists by the immaterialsists. They say spirit I say unpredictable.

You are suggesting that it is partially random and partially deterministic. Neither randomness nor determinism permit choice in the colloquial sense of the word.

Why not?
Explain your self, I believe that I have choice in many areas, I can choose to run a stop sign if i wish. Electrons can not.

You don't lose freedom to choose when you're obsessed. You're just as "free" as you ever were. The only difference is that you're now conscious of the primary element behind your behavior when you realize you're obsessed.

The freedom is in the ability to make choices out of the ones that are offered. I take your comment in the spirit which it is offered, but i will say that you haven't lived with or worked with people with OCD.

I chose it because it is an extreme, just like mania or depression, and to me it shows that I do have 'free will' to make choices. There are days i choose to go to work, there are days that i choose not to, the process is nothing like the automata like rituals of OCD.
I understand your point but i don't think that you understand mine, I know I have some ability to make choices because I have lost that ability.
Are there inner and outer determinants that influence my choices, sure. But is the outcome predictable? I believe not.

What arguement can you present that I am constranied in the choices I make to make a certain choice?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Maybe the debate should shift to determined but unpredictable.

Well now, that seems reasonable enough.

There is a difference between determinism and the belief that the world can be predicted reliably. It's nice to see that you're recognizing it.

Now: people with OCD have just as much "free will" as anyone does, which is to say: none. They have just as much control over their emotions, desires, and impulses as anyone else, which is to say: none.

Just as things are deterministic but not predictable, they are also deterministic but not controllable.

The question is not whether your choices can be predicted by subsystems within the universe, but whether they're determined. Your choices aren't free, even though we can't know what they'll be beforehand.

 

[The idea]

My point is that your concept of 'choices' is self-contradictory. I'm not asking for a depiction of the mechanisms involved, just a conceptual description of their nature, but I really don't think you can manage that.

1. Are you insinuating that people should not use the word "choices" until after they have answered your question?

2. Presumably there are brain states or brain events involved in a particular person's making of a particular choice. However, how does the issue of a "mechanism" arise?

3. Choice is an elementary, high-level concept that is associated with such concepts as intention, belief, motive, and expectation. Brain state and brain event are advanced concepts requiring the study of physiology and the use of specialized vocabulary. Why do you expect that people would learn advanced concepts before they would use elementary concepts?

4. Suppose someone writes short stories and essays and stores them on his computer. Maybe he writes in English or Spanish or some other language. I don't tell you. I also don't tell you what operating system his computer uses. I show you two printouts. Each is a printout of the hex codes corresponding to a file's sequence of bytes. One is a short story and one is an essay. If you can only guess which is which, do you not understand the concept "short story" and the concept "essay"?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

1. Are you insinuating that people should not use the word "choices" until after they have answered your question?

I don't particularly care what word they use - I care about the concept they reference with the word.

2. Presumably there are brain states or brain events involved in a particular person's making of a particular choice. However, how does the issue of a "mechanism" arise?

How do the states that correspond with sensory input and the states that correspond with previous knowledge/inclinations combine to generate the states that correspond with the choice? That's what I mean by the mechanism - the processes performed on the states to reach the end result.

3. Choice is an elementary, high-level concept that is associated with such concepts as intention, belief, motive, and expectation. Brain state and brain event are advanced concepts requiring the study of physiology and the use of specialized vocabulary. Why do you expect that people would learn advanced concepts before they would use elementary concepts?

Colors are quite intuitive things, too. But to understand what colors are, we need to understand a great deal of physics, chemistry, physiology, and neuroanatomy. Same deal here - choice is an intuitive concept, but understanding what it is (and isn't) requires quite complex thought.

4. Suppose someone writes short stories and essays and stores them on his computer. Maybe he writes in English or Spanish or some other language. I don't tell you. I also don't tell you what operating system his computer uses. I show you two printouts. Each is a printout of the hex codes corresponding to a file's sequence of bytes. One is a short story and one is an essay. If you can only guess which is which, do you not understand the concept "short story" and the concept "essay"?

I would say that I don't understand the encoding mechanism used to represent the information in question.

 

[The idea]

This thread begins as follows:

Here is the classic determinist argument:

(1) The laws of physics dictate how matter behaves.
(2) Therefore, the present doesn't branch out into a multitude of possible futures. There is only one possible future and nothing that you do is your choice.

Apparently, you have modified the classic determinist argument at the begin of this thread to take into account the issue of randomness:

To the degree that this 'free will' incorporates order and causality, the choices resulting from it will proceed from the previous configuration to the new one according to set principles.

laws of physics --> set principles

doesn't branch out into a multitude of possible futures-->
will proceed from the previous configuration to the new one

It seems that you have not simply formulated the classic determinist argument plus the randomness wrinkle. You seem to be invoking it and insinuating that it is a sound argument.

The first message in this thread asks questions about concepts that the classic determinist argument depends upon. That's what this thread is about. Why not answer the questions?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Ah, but you see, there's your problem.

The set principles of physical law could be statements about probability. Thus, time could still be considered to "branch" while your first point is held.

The entire argument after that is flawed.

1(a): Yes.
1(b): I don't. That is to say, I do consider A not happening.
1(c): No. Event A can still be considered the cause of events.
2(a): Yes.
2(b): Depends on the level of discussion.
In one sense, it would be meaningless to say "what if the observation had not taken place". In other sense, we can make approximate models of the universe and derive conclusions about other timelines.
2(c): Yes. Starlight obeys the laws of physics, even though no one watched it be created. I suspect you're asking whether things that don't interact with us can be said to follow any rules at all, and the answer is 'no', at least not from our point of view.
3(a): No.
3(b): No.
3(c): You would need to generate a new label for the concept.
4(a): In a manner of speaking, yes.
4(b): I suppose.
4(c): There are no entities that are not merely subsystems of the universe, which obeys the laws of physics. The question is invalid.
4(d): Yes, depending on how precise you're willing to be with the terminology.

 

[The idea]

1(b): I don't [explain what it means to say "event A caused event B" without considering what would have happened if event A had not occurred]. [...] I do consider A not happening.
1(c): [If event A is some future event that we expect to occur and event A actually occurs then] [e]vent A can still be considered the cause of events.

Even though event A occurs, you consider event A not happening.

Is "event A caused event B" a matter of fact or is it purely a figment of your imagination that arises when you imagine event A not happening?

4(d): Is there any more reason to believe "people don't choose" than there is to believe "people have no intelligence"? Yes, depending on how precise you're willing to be with the terminology.

The argument about intelligent decisions has a pattern similar to the argument about making choices. What difference between the arguments gives you a basis for having more confidence in the argument about choosing than in the argument about intelligence?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Even though event A occurs, you consider event A not happening.

Is "event A caused event B" a matter of fact or is it purely a figment of your imagination that arises when you imagine event A not happening?

No, it's true: A causes B. I can imagine a hypothetical universe in which A did not happen, but that has very little to do with what did happen. (Except of course that my imagining is part of the chain of events, but that's a metadiscussion.)

The argument about intelligent decisions has a pattern similar to the argument about making choices. What difference between the arguments gives you a basis for having more confidence in the argument about choosing than in the argument about intelligence?

In both cases, it depends entirely on the concepts you refer to with the words 'choosing' and 'intelligence', respectively. You explictly said what "intelligence" should be considered to be in the question - did you do the same for "choosing"?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Where's Interesting Ian when we need him? Surely he would define free will for us.

You free willers should agree to either define the term or give it up. You ain't foolin' the rest of us no more.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Paul, do you categorically deny you have "free will".

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I will categorically deny that I have "free will", and I will deny that anyone else possesses it, too.

Just as I categorically deny that there's such a thing as a four-sided triangle. The concept referenced is not a valid one.

 

[hammegk]

Would you have any problem with the proposition that Wrath could be replaced with a universal Turing machine and some sensors & servo-mechanisms? If so, why?

I have faith I have free will and cannot be so replaced. Hubris? Who knows, or will ever know?

What is the difference between hope, and faith?

 

[The idea]

No, it's true: A causes B.

Let's add a bit of information (and change the lettering).

Suppose event F is some future event that we expect to occur. Suppose that event F actually occurs. Given a distinction between random and caused events, suppose that event F is a caused event. (This bolded part is the added bit of information.)

Do you explain what it means to say "event F caused event G" without considering what would have happened if event F had not occurred?

Is "event F caused event G" a matter of fact or is it purely a figment of your imagination that arises when you imagine event F not happening?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

A matter of fact.

 

[The idea]

A matter of fact [that event F caused event G].

It was assumed that event F was a caused event. Let's suppose that event E caused event F.

If we know that event E occurred and that event E caused event F, then how can the nonoccurrence of event F be a real possibility? If the nonoccurrence of event F isn't a real possibility, then how can we say it is a matter of fact that event F caused event G?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It's not. If we accept that E has happened, and that it causes F, then the F not happening is ruled out when we accept that E happened.

 

[The idea]

It's not. If we accept that E has happened, and that it causes F, then the F not happening is ruled out when we accept that E happened.

So are you saying that a caused event cannot be the cause of another event?