Determinism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1281

Note to nature:

You heard him!

Compelled or not, I Googled “human autonomy”. That’s one of the descriptions that came up. Compelled or not, you try it. Pick the description that works best for you. Bring it on board.

Okay, this part:

[b]Autonomy vs. Free Will

Autonomy is often confused with free will, but actually they are slightly different ideas. Free will is a metaphysical idea, whereas autonomy is a moral/political idea.

Free Will

The ability to make choices “on your own”: a being without free will is forced to do whatever the physical world causes them to do, while a being that has free will can deal with these causes successfully and make unrestricted choices based on the being’s own desires. Free will is about metaphysics, meaning the basic rules governing existence in the physical world.

Autonomy

Most people who believe in autonomy do believe in free will, but actually the ideas are independent, and you can hold one without the other. All of the views in this table are logically viable. Which one do you like best?[/b]

From the “Philosophy Terms” webpage

So, technically, they have a “slightly different” meaning. Even though for all practical purposes in discussions like this they are often used interchangeably. Like the distinction that is made between being moral and being ethical. Technically…

Assuming my description above, how can nature not be the external force that compels “I” to make distinctions like this? It just gets very, very tricky here. Why? Because “I” am not really external to nature at all. Nature and “I” are as one given the assumption that the laws of matter don’t distinguish between living and nonliving matter. But how to explain the human brain’s capacity to actually become aware of that?

That is still the mystery of course. That’s the part that someday science will either pin to the mat or not. But: will they be compelled to pin or to not pin it? Then around and around the philosophers go.

Really, how does the mind wrap itself around that? And, as well, without going back to an explanation for existence itself.

You tell me: where does the part where free will as a metaphysical idea end and free will as moral/political idea begin? And how [for all practicl purposes] does that distinction change anything at all in a wholly determined universe?

In other words, with regard to the behaviors that you choose.

1282

Give it a rest, dude.

You picked it and then you didn’t bother discussing the contents of the quote. You just launched directly into your usual script.

You treat them as identical. And again in this last post, you don’t talk about autonomy.

You can think of the universe as being without entities or you can think of it as being composed of entities. Once you identify entities, then they have certain characteristics … autonomy is one of them. Awareness is another.

It’s basically the same as when people say that everything in the universe is energy. That’s not wrong but it’s not useful in almost every situation. It’s more useful to identify specific patterns of energy. When you identify the energy pattern ‘cat’, it has certain characteristics. A cat is autonomous.

If you think of the universe as being without entities, then there is no ‘I’, there is no choice, there is no free-will, there is no awareness, there is no autonomy … there is only one big mechanical process.

1283

What matters is how you live your life within the existence you think exists regardless of how true such a perception is
What existence actually is is therefore of less consequence than the mental model you have of it within your own mind

Given that any knowledge is limited and will be compromised by philosophical considerations anyway one can never truly know existence
Your mind however is doing a wonderful job of making sure you pursue this question till death with as much energy as is humanly possible

From my own perspective my existence in the here and now is merely temporary so I see zero reason to question it anymore than is absolutely necessary
I suppose you could say we are at opposite ends of the spectrum - you want absolute definitive answers where as I just want a logically consistent model

I like your repeated use of the reference to all rational men and women - but why does it matter what anyone else thinks - it is your model of reality not anyone elses
And there can be many models of reality that are acceptable to rational men and women individually - logically all of them cannot be true but that is a separate issue

1284

It would also make pretty much any discussion, as in these threads, rather moot. There would be no objectivists, no ‘way one ought to live’ - unless you meant the way who whole universe ought to live, no dasein as a useful concept, since it presumes some kind of entity with experiences, and so on.

Futility is the ultimate message here. You can’t do anything. Every pattern of interaction will come down to futility. Try to show me it isn’t futile (trying to understand, trying to act, trying to know oneself)

That is the message.

Any entity (illusory or not) that does not live like it is futile to live, is problematic, is bad. Is trying to control or judge. Is sinning by having contraptions or optimism or motion or social connection. It must have these things, because if it didn’t, then his pain might not be caused by his bravery in facing the truth.

And clarity of discussion, responding to points made, will be sacrificed at any opportunity when this leads to

getting to metaphorically throw up his hands and say we cannot know, we cannot act, we cannot find ourselves, we are not free, (maybe), he will add to show he is theoretically not making a claim to know anything).

The wins have to do with your frustration - since this confirms his position, it is a pyrrhic victory, it is revenge on anyone who can be optimistic who seems to think he or she knows him/herself.

It is a spreading of the virus.

Winning is when the hands get thrown up ‘we can never be sure, even of this’

and winning is if you get irritated…

He feels a tiny joy. And who could begrudge him that.

But why be part of it?

He’s even announced a number times the pleasure he takes in frustrating people or driving them away. After nearly everything has been taken away, he still has gloating.

Not asserting he’s aware of this, but noting the pattern. Is it determined?

Does it matter?

I actually don’t get the utter fascination with determinism and free will. I get it in the hobby sense and I do understand how emotionally unpleasant determinism sounds or the lack of free will.

But I wake up, and there are things I want and need to do, as far as I can tell.

1285

There is no single universal answer to this question and the assumption that there is is a fundamental flaw

Everyone is free to live their life according to their philosophy or ideology or belief of choice as long as they dont impose it upon anyone else
You are asking the question in relation to all of humanity when ultimately only you can decide how to live your own life and not anyone elses

Also not everyone is going to consider the degree of human autonomy or free will in relation to how they actually live their everyday life
These things can be considered but equally so they can be entirely disregarded - for they are only important to those who deem them so

1286

Even if you did find an answer to this question that would actually satisfy you and it was an objectively true one as well what then ?
Would it have any impact at all on how you would live your life from that point on or would you just go on living it as you are now ?

If you did have free will you would carry on having it and if you did not then you would not - so either way it would make precisely zero difference
You would not all of a sudden start exercising free will simply because you had finally discovered it existed - you would simply know for sure it did
Equally so if you finally discovered it did not exist then you would just simply know this - but you would still be acting exactly the same as before

So the only reason for asking the question is because you do not yet know the answer not because you will live a different life when you do discover what it is

1287

iambiguous has free will
iambiguous does not have free will

iambiguous does not actually know which of these statements is true
but is going to devote his entire life to finding the answer - if he can

he has now found the answer but still carries on living his life exactly as he did before
this is objectively true whether or not he actually accepts it as being objectively true

this is also true for all of us regardless of whether or not we are looking for a definitive answer like he is

1288

And since believing in determinism should also undermine one’s confidence that one has been objective even one of the answers leads to not having an answer again.

It might have an impact, since one might reaction emotionally to the answer, and the emotional reaction might color, even, the rest of a person’s life. But you’re question is a good one. It has no practical use. It cannot be applied now to decision making.

Following this, we could have the thought experiment:

Today you find out that the truth is we are

  1. free
    or
  2. determined

What would you as a result change, do differently?

and note, asking what would you do does not presume you would do this ‘freely’.

1289

Were I to discover tomorrow that solipsism was true or I was a brain in a vat or I existed inside a matrix or any other significantly
different model of reality to this one it might surprise me but once I accepted it then I would probably carry on exactly as before
A deterministic or free will reality would not surprise me one bit for they are the only models ever accorded serious consideration

1290

A brain in a vat would be horrifying. Not sure I would recover emotionally.

If the matrix included interactions with other people who were also in the matrix, rather that mere simulations, I would manage to get by. If it is merely a simulation for me, that would be devastating.

And since either model allows for you to be confused or disregarding facts, you’d still have to muddle along. But I agree about these.

1291

Were you to discover that you were actually a brain in a vat or a simulation inside a matrix then you could rationalise it by
simply accepting that you were always like that and that it is only the discovery that is devastating to you and nothing else

You could alternatively choose to deny it although denying existence - and especially
your own - is not a very good idea no matter how justifiable the reason for it may be

1292

Right, in a thread that exist in order to explore the extent to which nature does or does not in fact compel our every thought, feeling, utterance and behavior…

But, sure, okay, from now on let’s just assume that anything exchanged between us is either compelled or not compelled by nature until science finally pins it down once and for all.

Compelled or not…

Let’s try this. You pick a description of autonomy and discuss it such that I and others are able to clearly distinguish a quality discussion of it from a hackneyed “script”.

Note to others:

Let’s see if he actually does this.

Bring them both down to earth for us. Discuss particular behaviors that you chose today and differentiate between viewing them as autonomous in a determined universe and the embodiment of free will in a universe that, in regard to the matter that is mind, is not determined.

Oh, so that proves autonomous awareness in entities like you that “choose” things entirely in sync with the laws of matter have free will.

You just know this is not the mere illusion of free will embedded in a human psychology wholly in sync with the laws of matter because, well, you just know it. Believing it “in your head” need be as far as it goes. Just as a belief in God and objective morality need be as far as it goes. After all, it is the belief itself that comforts and consoles you.

Again, the assumption being that things being “useful” for autonomous beings in a determined universe “proves” they have free will.

The cat just has a significally less sophisticated chunk of it. The cat is far more in tune with biological imperatives in which nature’s compelled behaviors are far more clearly discerned. Though not as clearly compelled as the behaviors of a worm.

What I think is that no one has yet been able to offer definitive proof that any entities in a universe in sync with the laws of matter have free will. That, in a determined universe as I have come to understand it [right or wrong], nothing in nature is not a domino compelled to topple over in sync with nature’s laws.

Call that a mechanical process, call it something else. But what doesn’t change is the absence of evidence that allows us to [as Ayn Rand would say] name what it all is objectively.

And then to obliterate once and for all the gap between the whole truth about free will in the human species and the whole truth about existence itself.

1293

Sure, that is clearly one way to look at it.

On the other hand, that basically rationalizes thinking, feeling saying and doing…anything?

In other words, screw the philosophers who make an attempt to explore that which can be determined to embody such things as wisdom and rational thinking and ethical behavior and epistemologically sound conclusions.

If I think and feel something is true then fuck all the rest of it.

And, as a moral nihilist, I can appreciate the limitations of philosophy in pinning some things down.

And, in regard to the questions being explored on this thread, I can also appreciate the limits of philosophy. What have philosophers [or scientists for that matter] pinned down about human autonomy/free will in what has in turn been pinned down definitively regarding a determined or a non-determined universe.

Explain that then to the objectivists among us. It is already perfectly reasonable to me.

Indeed, my ex-wife was never far from explaining to me how the political struggle of women to overcome patriarchy was the only truly necessary perspective.

After all, for the individual, everything comes down to that which one attributes to philosophy as “for all practical purposes” an important component of ones life.

No, I speculate that in regard to the either/or world, absolute definitive arguments seem to be everywhere. And because of that we go about the business of living the overwhelming preponderance of our life [from day to day] giving none of it a second thought.

Only in the is/ought world and regarding relationships explored on this thread, do the components of my own philosophy rear their ugly head.

Or, rather, perceived to be ugly – disturbing – by the objectivists. After all, look at what they have to lose the closer they come to my way of thinking about those things.

Trust me: I’ve already lost them.

That would make perfect sense if one lived utterly isolated from all men and women. Then rational or irrational, moral or immoral behaviors would be between you and your God. Or, sans God, between you surviving or not surviving.

1294

There is really only one rational response.

1295

Again, explore that with the moral objectivists among us. I’m merely speculating [on this thread] that we may well live in a universe in which the fundamental flaw revolves instead around the assumption that nature does not compel all of everything that we exchange on this thread.

That, in a way not yet fully understood, reality as we experience it in our dream world is basically the equivalent of reality that we experience in the waking world: nature all the way down.

But: given some measure of free will, how would you go about demonstrating that the flaw you perceive in the arguments of others is not the equivalent of the flaw that they perceive in your own argument?

You merely start with a different set of assumptions that, sooner or latter, become intellectual leaps. The logic becomes internal, circular…words defining and defending other words.

Well, assuming some measure of autonomy/free will, I then situate these beliefs and ideologies in the components of my own moral philosophy: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And, if there is one thing we can all agree on it, is that out in the real world, legal prescriptions and proscriptions become necessary such that “impositions” are inevitable. How can a belief about the moral parameters of any particular conflicting good not involve rewarding and punishing different sets of behaviors?

That’s only to point out the obvious: that most of us do not come into venues like this one and, philosophically, explore their behaviors much beyond what they have either been indoctrinated to believe is right or wrong or what, through the sequence of a particular set of experiences, they have come to believe is right or wrong.

Either way they often barely scratch the surface in rationalizing every imaginable behavior.

1296

Compelled or otherwise? :-"

1297

Huh? I spend 2 or 3 hours a day thinking about this stuff. The rest of the time is devoted to the many distractions that bring me considerable pleasure: music, film, the “good stuff” on TV, meals, my own extraordinary dream world, the delectable treats embedded in my imagination, etc.

All the while [of course] waiting for godot.

1298

One can have their own individual philosophy without having any knowledge of philosophers as such
And there are also philosophers and branches of philosophy that will be fundamentally different with regard to these particular issues
So there is no one universal answer here but instead one has to decide for themselves which philosophy is the most relevant for them

1299

Someone might be able to console themselves of that, but I would be irrevocably devastated if I believed that. I am a social creature. To find out I am alone and it will always be that, that these are cartoon characters…no I couldn’t console myself. Not saying that is right, just saying how I would react.

I would go mad and if suicide was possible commit it. Sometimes when spouses die the other spouse dies. Well, it would be the death of all relationships. I would hope my systems would collapse and death would come quickly. Again, not saying this is the right response.

1300

Whatever we are is the point? Or is the point that we have created a reality through discovery? A reality that is shared by other minds? Even in the matrix, minds controlled and shared their discoveries and the developing reality.