Materialism and Immaterialism

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Because, if you contend that your will is "free" because even though you made one choice, you actually could have made another (as opposed to it only seeming that way), then what you are claiming is that your choice was, at least to some degree, arbitrary. That was the whole point of the thought experiment I presented.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It certainly might not be arbitrary at all! Suppose someone offers me a £1,000,000 completely for free. I can either take it or leave it, no strings attached. Therefore we can guarantee absolutely that I will take it. But I could have not taken it. But this does not at all mean my choice of taking the million was arbitrary!

That is exactly what it means. What does it mean to say that a choice is arbitrary? It means nothing more, and nothing less, than that the fact that your would make that choice was not logically implied by the conditions prior to making that choice. Either your prior mental state made it logically inevitable that you would choose the way you did, in which case it only seems like you could of chosen otherwise, or the choice was arbitrary.

Now compare this to the Earth orbiting the Sun. We know that it will continue to orbit the Sun. Is this the same type of knowing that I will take the million? Could it cease to orbit the Sun in the same way as I might decline the million? As a determinist (philosophical usage ignores QM) you would have to say the guarantee I will take the million is the same as the guarantee that the Earth will continue to orbit around the Sun. But I say they're different. I can decline the million in a way the Earth cannot decline to continue to orbit the Sun.

They are exactly the same. If there is truly no arbitrary component to your decision, as you claim, then the choice you will make is completely logically implied by your prior mental state. Your intuitive feeling that you could have chosen otherwise, is simply false.

So I say successfully predicting someones behaviour does not equal determinism (with the usual caveats about QM. Must I keep putting this caveat in?? It really is completely irrelevant )

I never claimed that it equals determinism. The issue of our ability to predict the behavior is completely beside the point. My argument applies to any conceivable decision making process.

No, saying that the system producing that behevior functions according to logical rules, is sufficient for us to conclude that it unfolds according to some algorithm (either a deterministic or a probabilistic one). If it is your contention that the self does not function according to logical rules, then please say so now, so that we can avoid wasting any more time trying to logically discuss something which is illogical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what you mean by a rule. Sure, you can say that inevitably a person will take a £million offered to them, no strings attached. More generally if you know someone inside out you can then say what way they will behave (with the possible exceptions of one suddenly deciding to spontaneously wave their limbs around in an apparently arbitrary manner, and such like). So in a sense you can say in a practical sense we behave according to very complex rules. But this is insufficient for determinism. See my point above regarding the Earth orbiting the Sun.

Again, I am not arguing that our behavior is deterministic. I am saying that it is a logical tautology that any decision making process must either be deterministic, random, or some combination thereof.

Please address the thought experiment I presented. A decision between two choices, A and B, is presented. You chose A. If that choice was arbitrary, that simply means that your mental state prior to that decision being made, did not logically imply that you would select choice A. If the decision was not arbitrary, then that means that your prior mental state logically implied that choice A would be selected. If this is the case, then it was inevitable that choice A would be selected. To claim that it was not inevitable, is to claim that your prior mental state did not, in fact, logically imply that choice A would be selected. That means that the choice was arbitrary.

Can you address this argument, or not?

You apparently recognize that if there is nothing more to the mind than brain activity, then your decisions are either logically implied by your prior brain states, or arbitrary. This violates your concept of free-will, so you imagine an immaterial self which makes these decisions instead, but this solves nothing. Ultimately, if you include every factor that can possibly influence your decision making process, then this complete closed system must either be deterministic or stochastic. Either your decisions are logically implied by the prior states of this system, or they are (at least to some degree) arbitrary. To say that they are neither, is to claim that something outside of this system played a role in the decision, which is a contradiction.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

This sounds reasonable only because the word decline, as you are using it, carries the connotation of human choice and free will. Let's eliminate the word and simply ask whether you and the Earth have a strong tendency to do a certain thing, and whether there are exceptions that would cause the opposite action. The answer in both cases is yes.


But you are saying that there is something else, because purely rule-based behavior is not free will. What is that something else?

~~ Paul

!!!!!!

Reading your post has just made me realise something! Not from what you said as such, but when I was composing my answer to best explain my position. I've just come to a sudden understanding that I've never had before Unfortunately for you I don't mean I have become a compatibilist. It's just that I think I now understand my own position even more. But I need to think this through to see if I've got it all correct.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Right, not going to respond further today because "Far Cry" has just come out today so I must play it and then go out for a drink.

Just one thing stimp. You cannot maintain that peoples' behaviour is logically entailed, even if our behaviour is absolutely no different in nature than the orbiting of the Earth around the Sun. I mean the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun is not logically entailed, now is it? ;-)

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Just one thing stimp. You cannot maintain that peoples' behaviour is logically entailed, even if our behaviour is absolutely no different in nature than the orbiting of the Earth around the Sun. I mean the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun is not logically entailed, now is it? ;-)

I didn't say anything about anything being logically entailed. If you've got a closed system, then either that system's evolution in time is completely specified by logical rules, in which case what it does at any given time is determined entirely by its prior state, or it is not completely specified by logical rules, in which case what it does at any given time is, at least to some extent, arbitrary.

There is no room for any other option, without declaring that the system is not closed, and thus subject to outside influences of some sort. When all of those outside influences are included as being part of the system, the above still applies. You can assert that human behavior is neither random, nor completely determined by prior brain states, by asserting that the "self" interacts with the brain. But when you include the self as part of the decision making process, then that decision making process, as a whole, once again must either be completely determined by its prior states (which now include mental states), or be to some extent random.

Either the behavior of the self is completely governed by logical rules, or it is partially governed by logical rules, and partially arbitrary, or it is completely arbitrary. Take your pick, but none of these options are going to provide this self-contradictory notion of free-will that you have invented.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



I didn't say anything about anything being logically entailed. If you've got a closed system, then either that system's evolution in time is completely specified by logical rules, in which case what it does at any given time is determined entirely by its prior state, or it is not completely specified by logical rules, in which case what it does at any given time is, at least to some extent, arbitrary.

There is no room for any other option, without declaring that the system is not closed, and thus subject to outside influences of some sort. When all of those outside influences are included as being part of the system, the above still applies. You can assert that human behavior is neither random, nor completely determined by prior brain states, by asserting that the "self" interacts with the brain. But when you include the self as part of the decision making process, then that decision making process, as a whole, once again must either be completely determined by its prior states (which now include mental states), or be to some extent random.

Either the behavior of the self is completely governed by logical rules, or it is partially governed by logical rules, and partially arbitrary, or it is completely arbitrary. Take your pick, but none of these options are going to provide this self-contradictory notion of free-will that you have invented.


Dr. Stupid

OK, just a quick point. Would you say that something like the Earth's orbit follows rules (physical laws) rather than merely being described by them? I'm just checking to make sure you really do mean to say that the self, the Earth etc are governed by rules.

 

[BillHoyt]

All completely irrelevant. For a kick off I am now talking about libertarian free will. It is unclear whether it is in principle impossible to have a completely accurate prediction of someones behaviour. And if there is it doesn't matter either. My argument is simply trying to tease out the distinction between compatibilism and libertarianism.

No, its not irrelevant, Ian. I am trying to address distinctions between rocks or planets and complex systems. I am trying to address the false dichotomy of your position. You seem married to the false dichotomy that "either we have some mystery-thingie that gives us free will or we simply rocks falling, no more than the earth stuck in its orbit."

The crux of the point is this: complex, seemingly random behaviors can result from simple systems of deterministic equations. That means yes, everything we do is determined, but, no, we are hardly rocks or planets.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

OK, just a quick point. Would you say that something like the Earth's orbit follows rules (physical laws) rather than merely being described by them? I'm just checking to make sure you really do mean to say that the self, the Earth etc are governed by rules.

I don't see the difference, unless what you are asking is if I think that there is something else "out there" that somehow forces the Earth and Sun to behave the way they do. I do not. When I say that something's behavior is governed by logical rules, I simply mean that its behavior can be completely described in terms of a set of logical rules. I make no claims as to why this is the case. Likewise, when I say that something's behavior is arbitrary, I simply mean that there is no set of logical rules which could be used to logically derive that thing's current behavior from its prior states.

Also note that none of this requires any assumption that these rules can be determined empirically.

So please, just answer these two simple questions:

1) Is there some set of logical rules which could, in principle, be used to derive any decision the self makes, from the prior states of the self and any relevant influences on it?

2) If not, then in what sense is the decision not arbitrary? In what way does such a decision differ from an arbitrary one?


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

OK Stimp, you made a mistake. No shame in admitting to it, unless you really still wish to maintain that you fail to understand the distinction between being governed and being described I mean wouldn't it be less embarrassing for you just to admit to your mistake?

And this is def my last post today. Unless I post tonight after I've been drinking.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

OK Stimp, you made a mistake. No shame in admitting to it, unless you really still wish to maintain that you fail to understand the distinction between being governed and being described I mean wouldn't it be less embarrassing for you just to admit to your mistake?

Stating that a system is governed by, or operates according to, a set of logical rules (like an equation, for example), is very common terminology is science and engineering, and within that context, typically does not imply anything more than that those rules consistently and accurately describe the system's behavior.

Since you are not a scientist, engineer, or a mathematician, I can certainly excuse you for not knowing this. Likewise, I can understand that you may not remember that I had this exact same discussion with Franko over a year ago.

In any event, if you really think that I have made some sort of mistake, then try to consider what I have been saying within the context of one of the very first points I made on this thread. That being that terms like "determinism" and "random" apply only to mathematical systems. When we apply those terms to parts of reality, what we are really doing is stating that those real things can be described in terms of deterministic or random models. I have already explained that I have no interest in metaphysical explanations for why the specific models that work, do.

If after giving it such consideration, you still honestly think that I was referring to those logical rules as being some sort of external agency that controls things, then by all means, feel free to believe so. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Yours just happens to be wrong.

And this is def my last post today. Unless I post tonight after I've been drinking.

Not to this thread, I hope.


Dr. Stupid

 

[hammegk]

What justification do you have for making the claim that something is malfunctioning in a random system?

In a sufficiently complex system, the system "dies" rather than "lives".

However, "random system" remains the oxymoron it has always been. Can any finite bounded set be considered "random"?

The obverse question is, is "what-is" infinitely divisible?

 

[Upchurch]

Doc and Ian,

The commentaries on each other's intellecual and educational backgrounds are bordering on personal attacks, in my opinion. Stick to the topic, please, or take it outside.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



Stating that a system is governed by, or operates according to, a set of logical rules (like an equation, for example), is very common terminology is science and engineering, and within that context, typically does not imply anything more than that those rules consistently and accurately describe the system's behavior.

Since you are not a scientist, engineer, or a mathematician, I can certainly excuse you for not knowing this. Likewise, I can understand that you may not remember that I had this exact same discussion with Franko over a year ago.

In any event, if you really think that I have made some sort of mistake, then try to consider what I have been saying within the context of one of the very first points I made on this thread. That being that terms like "determinism" and "random" apply only to mathematical systems. When we apply those terms to parts of reality, what we are really doing is stating that those real things can be described in terms of deterministic or random models. I have already explained that I have no interest in metaphysical explanations for why the specific models that work, do.

If after giving it such consideration, you still honestly think that I was referring to those logical rules as being some sort of external agency that controls things, then by all means, feel free to believe so. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Yours just happens to be wrong.

Are you seriously maintaining that scientists, engineers and mathematicians do not understand the difference between governed and described?? Come now.

BTW, following rules or being governed needn't connote an external agency I don't think. It's just that such rules, or physical laws enjoy an abstract existence so to speak. As well as physical things, there are physical laws which these physical things follow so that they are governed by such laws. But OK, you deny this.

So why does the Earth orbit the Sun?

It seems to me you are denying the 2 obvious possible answers I can think of. Namely either.

1. Because the Earth wants to.
2. or because the Earth is governed by physical laws.
   [/list=1]

 

[Interesting Ian]

Doc and Ian,

The commentaries on each other's intellecual and educational backgrounds are bordering on personal attacks, in my opinion. Stick to the topic, please, or take it outside.

Huh? Could you tell me where I have attacked Stimp? I don't think he's even made an attack on me.

In my opinion this personal attack business is being rather zealously applied.

 

[Upchurch]

Huh? Could you tell me where I have attacked Stimp? I don't think he's even made an attack on me.

In my opinion this personal attack business is being rather zealously applied.

I'm not arguing about this here, Ian. If you've got a problem with how this part of the forum is run, take it to Forum Management.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

However, "random system" remains the oxymoron it has always been. Can any finite bounded set be considered "random"?

It is not an oxymoron, and yes they can.

The obverse question is, is "what-is" infinitely divisible?

That question has no relationship to anything previously discussed.

Where are my answers, hammegk? I'm growing tired of waiting, and even more tired of asking. These tangents have been tolerated from others because we're taking up time until you give us the answer.

Don't pretend you've already given it, and ask when we're going to contribute to the discussion. We are the discussion, and so far you've contributed nothing of worth to it.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Upchurch,

The commentaries on each other's intellecual and educational backgrounds are bordering on personal attacks, in my opinion. Stick to the topic, please, or take it outside.

I assure you that my statement was not in any way intended as an insult. I was simply pointing out that I could understand why somebody who is not familiar with scientific terminology, might misinterpret my use of the term "governed".


Ian,

Are you seriously maintaining that scientists, engineers and mathematicians do not understand the difference between governed and described?? Come now.

It is not a question of understanding the difference. In some contexts, there is a difference, and I can assure you that I understand it. In other contexts, there is no difference. Whether or not you think that using the term "governed" that way is appropriate, the fact remains that scientists and engineers do use it that way.

BTW, following rules or being governed needn't connote an external agency I don't think. It's just that such rules, or physical laws enjoy an abstract existence so to speak. As well as physical things, there are physical laws which these physical things follow so that they are governed by such laws. But OK, you deny this.

How is that any different than saying that their behavior can be described by those laws? I submit that it only becomes different if you assert that those laws are actually somehow controlling those physical things, in which case you are assigning to those laws some sort of real existence, rather than just an abstract existence.

So why does the Earth orbit the Sun?

It seems to me you are denying the 2 obvious possible answers I can think of. Namely either.

1. Because the Earth wants to.

2. or because the Earth is governed by physical laws.

We can say that the Earth orbits the Sun because there is a gravitational attraction between them, but this just raises the obvious question "why is there gravity?". The answer to that question is that we do not know, nor do we even know that there is a reason why.

The Earth functions according to physical laws (or at the very least, seems to), but that does not imply that those physical laws are some thing which somehow controls the Earth.

This is of no relevance to my argument, though. In fact, we can discard most of this semantic baggage, and address the point like this:

Your conception of free-will holds that even though you made one choice, you could have made another.

What does it mean to say that you could have made another?

Does it mean that if you were to repeat the situation over and over again, each time with exactly the same conditions (same physical conditions and same prior mental states), that some of those times you would choose differently? If so, then this just means that the choice was arbitrary.

I do not see any other way to interpret this. If you mean something different than this, then what? If you disagree with my claim that the above just means that the choice was arbitrary, then how does it differ from an arbitrary choice?


Dr. Stupid

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It would be much more coherent to say that it is the nature of the Earth to respond as it does to the external influences upon it. The laws of nature don't compell the Earth - they are the Earth.

 

[hammegk]

It is not an oxymoron, and yes they can.

ran·dom adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

Under 2. you are correct. Under 1. it isn't obvious -- at least to me -- that any finite set meets that criteria. A choice from minus infinity to plus infinity might.

Note that systems are anything except "random", and life is equipped with an error recovery system that finds signal in noise quite effectively.

That question has no relationship to anything previously discussed.

If the universe is not infinitely divisible are its' elements a finite, bounded set?

Note also that Super-Determinism says nothing about things external to this universe, just that everything is determined and nothing can ever be except the way it is.

Idealism/immaterialism has nothing to offer to discount this (sterile, athough interesting) possibility, other than Atman=Brahman. What does materialism offer?

Where are my answers, hammegk? I'm growing tired of waiting, and even more tired of asking. These tangents have been tolerated from others because we're taking up time until you give us the answer.

You mean the answers to questions I consider either rhetorical, or have stated I choose not to answer, at least for now?

Don't pretend you've already given it, and ask when we're going to contribute to the discussion. We are the discussion, and so far you've contributed nothing of worth to it.

May be true, but I like to think otherwise. A rational counter-claim might help me see the light if I am wrong.

The laws of nature don't compell the Earth - they are the Earth.

Expand that to apply to "what-is" and we agree.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you seriously maintaining that scientists, engineers and mathematicians do not understand the difference between governed and described?? Come now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is not a question of understanding the difference. In some contexts, there is a difference, and I can assure you that I understand it. In other contexts, there is no difference. Whether or not you think that using the term "governed" that way is appropriate, the fact remains that scientists and engineers do use it that way.

Then they need to be more precise when talking about philosophical issues, yes?

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, following rules or being governed needn't connote an external agency I don't think. It's just that such rules, or physical laws enjoy an abstract existence so to speak. As well as physical things, there are physical laws which these physical things follow so that they are governed by such laws. But OK, you deny this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How is that any different than saying that their behaviour can be described by those laws?

If they are governed by such laws this means that the behaviour of the world is constrained by such laws. The behaviour of objects unfold according to some "blueprint". On the other hand, it could be the case that the behaviour of objects is "free", but that their behaviour can (post-hoc) be described by physical laws. It's the difference between saying physical objects act as they do because of physical laws, and physical objects behave as they do because they just do, but nevertheless their behaviour can be described by physical laws. Any clearer?

I submit that it only becomes different if you assert that those laws are actually somehow controlling those physical things, in which case you are assigning to those laws some sort of real existence, rather than just an abstract existence.

An abstract existence is a real existence. Anyway, arguably it's the propensity of such objects to behave in accordance with such physical laws.

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why does the Earth orbit the Sun?

It seems to me you are denying the 2 obvious possible answers I can think of. Namely either.

1. Because the Earth wants to.

2. or because the Earth is governed by physical laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We can say that the Earth orbits the Sun because there is a gravitational attraction between them, but this just raises the obvious question "why is there gravity?". The answer to that question is that we do not know, nor do we even know that there is a reason why.

{SIGHS}

So you're saying here that the Earth orbits the Sun because of physical laws. There is a distinction between saying this, and saying that the Earth behaves in a certain characteristic way which can be described by certain physical laws. The former connotes the idea of being constrained.

The Earth functions according to physical laws (or at the very least, seems to),

No! It does function according to physical laws, not merely seems to! LOL

but that does not imply that those physical laws are some thing which somehow controls the Earth.

Right, so you definitely think that physical laws are just a description rather than something which abstractly exist?

That's fine if you think that. I just need to be sure before I proceed with my argument

This is of no relevance to my argument, though. In fact, we can discard most of this semantic baggage, and address the point like this:

Your conception of free-will holds that even though you made one choice, you could have made another.

Yes that's right.

What does it mean to say that you could have made another?

It's the very definition of free will. You're saying I could only have made that one unique choice. But what is it which is making me, or constraining me, to make that particular choice?In other words, why could I not have made another another choice, apart from the rather trivial claim that I couldn't have because I didn't!

Does it mean that if you were to repeat the situation over and over again, each time with exactly the same conditions (same physical conditions and same prior mental states), that some of those times you would choose differently? If so, then this just means that the choice was arbitrary.

Nope, it doesn't mean that. Exact same scenario I would always choose the same. Otherwise I would have to be choosing randomly!

Edit to add: Oooops, despite having been drinking I've responded anyway. I really don't see any problem with this though.

 

[Interesting Ian]

It would be much more coherent to say that it is the nature of the Earth to respond as it does to the external influences upon it. The laws of nature don't compell the Earth - they are the Earth.

Good. So it would not be true to say the Earth orbits the Sun because of physical laws (because physical laws would then enjoy an existence rather than merely being descriptive). So why does the Earth orbit the Sun?