Determinism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:08 pm

No [as I point out over and over and over again], I don't know for certain if nature compels me to read the posts of yours that I do "choose"/choose to read and the posts that I "choose"/choose not to read.

Just as nature either compelled me or did not compel me to "choose"/choose that aside regarding the disdain that nature either compels or does not compel KT to level on me here at ILP.


phyllo wrote: I have no doubt that KT would change how he responds to you, if you changed how you interact with him. However, I don't think that you would change how you respond to him, if he changed how he interacts with you. IOW, if he dropped his "disdain", you would stay the same.


No, what you have no doubt regarding is that here and now of your own free will you are reading these words.

What I have doubts about, however, is the extent to which I am able to demonstrate beyond all doubt that I either do or do not have autonomy here in typing new ones.

KT here and Satyr's KT there are just more dominoes that nature is toppling over.

But: that is true only given my assumption that the human brain is but more matter necessarily in sync with the laws of nature.

The part that science seems far better equipped to explore than philosophy.

And, in particular, philosophers like Satyr who pump out endless intellectual contraptions that must be true because they are basically tautologies. Words defining and defending other words. And now he sees fit to quote other philosopners who accomplish much the same thing.

Then around and around we go.

Okay, note the most blatant point of all that I ignored. Let's start there.


phyllo wrote:Over and over, I have tried to nail down the meaning of the word 'autonomy" and entirely without success. You use the word all the time. So what does it mean?

I use the dictionary definition. According to the dictionary, people have autonomy. And it's impossible to lose autonomy to "natural laws".



"Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces."

Now, if the capacity we have to think, feel, say and do anything -- anything -- is linked inherently to a brain that is matter linked inherently to the laws of nature, what aspect of the "human condition" would not be but embodied in the psychological illusion of free will?

Human psychology itself would certainly appear to be no exception.

Unless of course it is. Either through God or through an understanding of the human brain that science has yet to pin down.

I'm not arguing that free will does not exist, only that here and now, given the assumptions I make regarding a wholly determined universe, it does not seem reasonable to suppose that it does exist.

But this is no less a speculation on my part given the gap [enormous I suspect] between "I" and a complete understanding of existence itself. All those "unknown unknowns" that I haven't even thought of. Just as with you.

And, of course [presuming at least some measure of autonomy here], he never -- never ever -- ignores any of the points that I raise with him in our exchange here.


phyllo wrote: Autonomy has nothing to do with it. If we have autonomy, I don't respond to all your points. If we don't have autonomy, I don't respond to all your points.


If you have autonomy, you don't respond to my points because, of your own free will, you choose not to. You actually have that option but do not choose to exercise it. That's the part I link to "I" as an existential contraption -- as dasein.

And how different is that from nature compelling you to respond or not to respond to anything.

But: How is it determined which assessment is the correct one?

phyllo wrote: I don't respond for several reasons:

1. I'm tired of many of your standard responses to my replies to your points. If I just keep getting those responses, then I might as well not bother at all. Responses like ...

"You're just asserting that."
"It's just in your head."
"You're compelled to write that."
"You have to demonstrate that, beyond all doubt, for all reasonable men and women" (forever and ever)


Fair enough. No one [least of all me] is demanding that you are obligated to respond to anything I post. Assuming of course that I do have some measure of volition here in pointing that out.

phyllo wrote: 2. Your points are very repetitive. I think that I have covered them in the previous posts.


We can only agree to disagree about what it means to "cover" them.

phyllo wrote: 3. I think that often your point is a way to try to avoid dealing with my point. It's a distraction tactic.


Again, only if you are willing to cite examples of this, are any of us likely to gain a better understanding of this point.
Last edited by iambiguous on Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:50 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
My argument is basically to suggest that objectivism is embedded as much in human psychology as in philosophy or science . It is more that you believe
what you believe that brings about a certain measure of comfort and consolation in regards to situating I out in the staggering vastness of the world around us


Objectivism by definition ideally would have to be something entirely independent of human interpretation
So human definitions of objective could be more accurately described as a virtual absence of subjectivity


But: If we live in a universe in which all matter -- including brain matter -- is but an inherent manifestation of what is often described as "the immutable laws of matter", nothing is independent of the totality -- the objective reality -- that is matter unfolding entirely in sync with those laws.

Unless I am not thinking that part through correctly. And I am more than willing to concede this given all that I do not know about existence itself.

In other words how would this...

surreptitious75 wrote: I think though that there are some aspects of reality that are fundamentally truly mind independent or objective :

Existence is eternal and extends infinitely into the past and into the future
Absolute nothing cannot persist which is why the above statement is true
Death is eternal for all life but non life will always exist in some form
Reality creates minds while minds interpret reality [ often wrongly ]
Absolutely nothing at all matters within the grand scheme of things

The delicious irony of a mind declaring mind independent truth


...not in turn be but a necessary component of the only possible reality given the only possible configuration of matter given the extant laws that govern it?

Also, this assessment is but another "general description" "intellectual contraption" in which words are connected only to other words that are defined and defended by you in a particular way.

Even assuming some degree of human autonomy, free will, volition, responsibility etc., how are we to link it to the behaviors that we choose in course of actually living our lives from day to day?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:08 pm

No, what you have no doubt regarding is that here and now of your own free will you are reading these words.
Don't talk to me like that.
"Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.
Unattributed quote.
Now, if the capacity we have to think, feel, say and do anything -- anything -- is linked inherently to a brain that is matter linked inherently to the laws of nature, what aspect of the "human condition" would not be but embodied in the psychological illusion of free will?
So instead of talking about autonomy, you switch to free-will.

Autonomy is not free-will. People have autonomy in a determined universe.
If you have autonomy, you don't respond to my points because, of your own free will, you choose not to.
Ditto.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:45 pm

phyllo wrote:It's about you. He has brought you in the last couple of posts and I'm responsing to it.
Oh, I thought there was talk of dungeons and things. Beyond my powers. But now I know.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:07 pm

More "proof" that our will is free.

Nietzsche wrote:

The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.


Nietzsche of course is no different from all the rest of us. He either makes the assumption as an advocate for human autonomy that he has freely opted to believe this or he suspects instead that he is compelled by nature only to think that he has freely opted to believe this.

As though the things we desire are not in turn merely components of brain matter necessarily intertwined in the laws that propel it into the future.

But my point is always the same: that both Nietzsche and his contemporaries as with all the rest of us today either had or have failed to actually demonstrate which one is it is.

Or:

1] the demonstration has been made and has not come to my attention
2] the demonstration has been made and I am unable to grasp it

Notice the words "entire" and "ultimate". He rejects absolute free-will, as a absolute will would be omnipotent and omniscient, and absolute "freedom" implies non-contingency.


As well he should.

Even if there is a demonstration unveiled to the world that human behaviors are in fact necessarily intertwined in free will, that will is in turn intertwined in contingency, chance and change; and, in regard to the is/ought world, ceaselessly reconfigured over time [from the cradle to the grave] given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

As in other words, existential contraptions.

The "desire for free-will" described by Nietzsche is how many Moderns can be characterized. The belief that social convictions and conventions creates and/or destroys reality is the foundation of postmodern psychosis.


So, what particular social convictions and conventions in what particular context?

At best [for him] nature compels him not to go there.

But, perhaps, with enough encouragement, he might actually commit himself to taking these abstractions down out of the scholastic clouds and, given a particular context involving particular behaviors, make a clear[er] distinction between the Moderns and all the folks like him.

Stay tuned. If he does [compelled or otherwise] I'll bring it here [compelled or otherwise].
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:04 pm

phyllo wrote:
No, what you have no doubt regarding is that here and now of your own free will you are reading these words.
Don't talk to me like that.


Note to nature:

You heard him!

"Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.


phyllo wrote: Unattributed quote.


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.

Now, if the capacity we have to think, feel, say and do anything -- anything -- is linked inherently to a brain that is matter linked inherently to the laws of nature, what aspect of the "human condition" would not be but embodied in the psychological illusion of free will?


phyllo wrote: So instead of talking about autonomy, you switch to free-will.

Autonomy is not free-will. People have autonomy in a determined universe.


Okay, this part:

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?


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:36 am

Note to nature:

You heard him!

Compelled or not, ...
Give it a rest, dude.
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.
You picked it and then you didn't bother discussing the contents of the quote. You just launched directly into your usual script.
So, technically, they have a "slightly different" meaning. Even though for all practical purposes in discussions like this they are often used interchangeably.
You treat them as identical. And again in this last post, you don't talk about autonomy.
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?
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.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:50 am

iambiguous wrote:
all that I do not know about existence

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
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:15 am

phyllo wrote:
Note to nature:
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.
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.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:39 am

iambiguous wrote:
Even assuming some degree of human autonomy - free will - volition - responsibility etc how are we to link it to the behaviors that we choose in
the course of actually living our lives from day to day

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
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:44 am

iambiguous wrote:
Nietzsche of course is no different from all the rest of us . He either makes the assumption as an advocate for human autonomy that he has
freely opted to believe this or he suspects instead that he is compelled by nature only to think that he has freely opted to believe this

But my point is always the same : that both Nietzsche and his contemporaries as with all
the rest of us today either had or have failed to actually demonstrate which one is it is

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
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:06 am

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
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:46 am

surreptitious75 wrote: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 ?
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.
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 ?
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.

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
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'.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:03 pm

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
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:25 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Were I to discover tomorrow that solipsism was true or I was a brain in a vat
A brain in a vat would be horrifying. Not sure I would recover emotionally.
or I existed inside a matrix
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.


A deterministic or free will reality would not surprise me one bit for they are the only models ever accorded serious consideration
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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:11 pm

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
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:56 pm

phyllo wrote:
Note to nature:

You heard him!

Compelled or not, ...
Give it a rest, dude.


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...

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.


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


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.

So, technically, they have a "slightly different" meaning. Even though for all practical purposes in discussions like this they are often used interchangeably.


phyllo wrote: You treat them as identical. And again in this last post, you don't talk about autonomy.


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.

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?


phyllo wrote: 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.


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.

phyllo wrote: 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.


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.

phyllo wrote: 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.


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:34 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
all that I do not know about existence

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


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.

surreptitious75 wrote: Given that any knowledge is limited and will be compromised by philosophical considerations anyway one can never truly know existence


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

surreptitious75 wrote: 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


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.

surreptitious75 wrote: 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


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.

surreptitious75 wrote: 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


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:14 pm

There is really only one rational response.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:16 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Even assuming some degree of human autonomy -- free will, volition, responsibility etc -- how are we to link it to the behaviors that we choose in
the course of actually living our lives from day to day

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


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.

surreptitious75 wrote: 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


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?

surreptitious75 wrote: 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


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:18 pm

phyllo wrote:There is really only one rational response.


Compelled or otherwise? :-"
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:28 pm

surreptitious75 wrote: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


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31555
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:54 pm

iambiguous wrote:
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

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
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:00 pm

surreptitious75 wrote: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
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.

You could alternatively choose tof 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
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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby WendyDarling » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:36 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
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
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.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users