Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby Serendipper » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:45 am

peacegirl wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Are you saying that determinism is involuntary and free will is voluntary? I'm just trying to clarify your terms.

Yes I think so. The freedom of the will is freedom from deterministic influence.


That's libertarianism. Are you a libertarian?

I have no idea. What's a libertarian? Liberty from what? Liberty to do what?

Of course I don't beat my heart, but I do make choices.

Serendipper wrote:If you don't beat your heart, then who does?


Whatever force brought me into this world.

And that force is not the same force that is making your decisions? If not, then how are the forces distinct? If they are distinct, then how do they interact?

Your reasoning is based on a definition of determinism that I am not using. We have to be on the same page for there to be effective communication.

Serendipper wrote:Yes I agree. What is your definition?


I will give you the first three chapters of this book, but I will give you the specific page that explains why the present definition is inadequate.

Just give me your definition instead of why other definitions are wrong. It would be easier and clearer.

It is true that if we rewound the universe it would come out the same way, if it is true that man's will is not free, but you are conflating different definitions which cause confusion. Determinism does not mean we have no say in our choices. It does not mean we are helpless robots. It does not mean we are not responsible for our actions. In fact, with a greater understanding we can see that it increases responsibility, the opposite of what many philosophers believe.

Serendippy wrote:We can be determined by predetermined causes or we can be determined by probabilistic random causes. To me, either one qualifies as determinism, but usually the former is qualified as being "hard determinism" because there is no possible deviation from the path of unfolding events. If we type 1+1 into a calculator, we always get an output of 2 because it's just a sequence of switches that always give the same result. But whether a photon travels through the left slit or right slit cannot be known until it happens. John Bell proved that there are no variables somehow hidden in the universe that determines which slit the photon will go through and it is actually a causeless event, so hard determinism is out. If the universe were rewound, it would almost certainly unfold differently.


Quantum mechanics (regardless of which theory; there are many) does not negate determinism on a macro human level. But remember, you are using, by definition, that which can never be reconciled, the way the definition is constructed.

Probabilism is determinism, but determined by random outcomes rather than certain ones.

The problem is that the definition of determinism, as it is presently defined, is not accurate because it assumes that something is forcing us (like the domino effect) to do what we do, even if it's against our will. That is where the "I" enters into the equation, for without the agent's consent, we ARE puppets on a string, but this is not the definition I am bringing to the table.

Serendippy wrote:Me neither, but although I'm free to choose chocolate or vanilla, I can't choose whether I like chocolate or vanilla. The way I was fashioned determines which flavor I will freely choose. Since I didn't make myself, I can't control which I prefer.


We are not in disagreement here. You cannot control what you prefer any more than you can control what you don't prefer. The problem is that philosophers actually think this ability to "freely" choose (without constraint of external force) grants us free will. It does not.

So it would seem.

So are you saying that we can't allude to a cause for anything?

Serendippy wrote:Cause influences effect because they are the same event. The cause side of it is just an arbitrary abstraction. If the big bang is the way it happened, then we are still the big bang coming on.


They ARE the same event if you want to look at it in that light, but that does mean that we should just sit back and not make choices.

Like the Rush song

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice


That's called fatalism.

Fatalism posits there is a puppet being kicked around. If determinism is true, then there is no one to be pushed around.

Every moment the choice (the effect of the cause) is constantly at play. But the word "cause" is misleading for it assumes something external is making us do what we do, against our will, as if we play no part in decision making at all. That is not the determinism I am trying to communicate.

I'm not sure what you mean by determinism.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:15 pm

Serendipper wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Are you saying that determinism is involuntary and free will is voluntary? I'm just trying to clarify your terms.

Yes I think so. The freedom of the will is freedom from deterministic influence.


That's libertarianism. Are you a libertarian?

Serendipper wrote:I have no idea. What's a libertarian? Liberty from what? Liberty to do what?


lib·er·tar·i·an
/ˌlibərˈterēən/Submit
noun
1.
an adherent of libertarianism.
"libertarian philosophy"
2.
a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Of course I don't beat my heart, but I do make choices.

Serendipper wrote:If you don't beat your heart, then who does?


peacegirl wrote:Whatever force brought me into this world.

Serendipper wrote:And that force is not the same force that is making your decisions? If not, then how are the forces distinct? If they are distinct, then how do they interact?


Serendipper, there is no duality here. I am only trying to get across that nothing external can force us to do anything we CHOOSE not to do. The force I am referring to is the invariable law of "greater satisfaction."

Your reasoning is based on a definition of determinism that I am not using. We have to be on the same page for there to be effective communication.

Serendipper wrote:Yes I agree. What is your definition?


I will give you the first three chapters of this book, If you request it, but I will give you the specific page that explains why the present definition is inadequate.

Serendipper wrote:Just give me your definition instead of why other definitions are wrong. It would be easier and clearer.


I'm trying to explain that the word cause is misleading.

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.
Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.
Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what
they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils?

Therefore,
when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his
will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our
expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to
another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,
of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him
greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or
another; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is a
compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed.
All I am
doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make
sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding
further.”


It is true that if we rewound the universe it would come out the same way, if it is true that man's will is not free, but you are conflating different definitions which cause confusion. Determinism does not mean we have no say in our choices. It does not mean we are helpless robots. It does not mean we are not responsible for our actions. In fact, with a greater understanding we can see that it increases responsibility, the opposite of what many philosophers believe.

Serendipper wrote:We can be determined by predetermined causes or we can be determined by probabilistic random causes. To me, either one qualifies as determinism, but usually the former is qualified as being "hard determinism" because there is no possible deviation from the path of unfolding events. If we type 1+1 into a calculator, we always get an output of 2 because it's just a sequence of switches that always give the same result. But whether a photon travels through the left slit or right slit cannot be known until it happens. John Bell proved that there are no variables somehow hidden in the universe that determines which slit the photon will go through and it is actually a causeless event, so hard determinism is out. If the universe were rewound, it would almost certainly unfold differently.


Quantum mechanics (regardless of which theory; there are many) does not negate determinism on a macro human level. But remember, you are using, by definition, that which can never be reconciled, the way the definition is constructed.

Serendipper wrote:Probabilism is determinism, but determined by random outcomes rather than certain ones.


Probabalism means we are making a prediction based on probability. The ability to predict an outcome in terms of probability just means we don't have all the information to make an accurate prediction. It does not negate determinism. Whether there is true ontic randomness in the universe is an open question but either way, it does nothing to grant us free will.

https://breakingthefreewillillusion.com ... snt-exist/

The problem is that the definition of determinism, as it is presently defined, is not accurate because it assumes that something is forcing us (like the domino effect) to do what we do, even if it's against our will. That is where the "I" enters into the equation, for without the agent's consent, we ARE puppets on a string, but this is not the definition I am bringing to the table.

Serendippy wrote:Me neither, but although I'm free to choose chocolate or vanilla, I can't choose whether I like chocolate or vanilla. The way I was fashioned determines which flavor I will freely choose. Since I didn't make myself, I can't control which I prefer.


We are not in disagreement here. You cannot control what you prefer any more than you can control what you don't prefer. The problem is that philosophers actually think this ability to "freely" choose (without constraint of external force) grants us free will. It does not.

Serendippty wrote:So it would seem.


So are you saying that we can't allude to a cause for anything?

Serendippy wrote:Cause influences effect because they are the same event. The cause side of it is just an arbitrary abstraction. If the big bang is the way it happened, then we are still the big bang coming on.


They ARE the same event if you want to look at it in that light, but that does mean that we should just sit back and not make choices.

Serendipper wrote:Like the Rush song

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice


Nice. :icon-wink:

That's called fatalism.

Serendipity wrote:Fatalism posits there is a puppet being kicked around. If determinism is true, then there is no one to be pushed around.


Many people think the two are synonymous. Fatalism implies you can do nothing about a situation so you might as well not even try. Determinism doesn't remove choice in any given situation. If something bad happens after you have done all that you can do to prevent it, then you can call it fate.

Every moment the choice (the effect of the cause) is constantly at play. But the word "cause" is misleading for it assumes something external is making us do what we do, against our will, as if we play no part in decision making at all. That is not the determinism I am trying to communicate.

Serendippy wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by determinism.


I'm trying to show you that the present definition of determinism is misleading for it assumes that we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events, but this is inaccurate since nothing can make us do something if we don't want to do it, or do something against our will. The conventional definition makes it appear as if we are not responsible for our choices.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes
him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not
cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which
his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not
responsible, but remember his particular environment is different
because he himself is different otherwise everybody would desire to
commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a
minor or more serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I
hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will
but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and
wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty
when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some
sort for his desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb
part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his
conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases
with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do
what he really didn’t want to do.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:12 am

peacegirl wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Are you saying that determinism is involuntary and free will is voluntary? I'm just trying to clarify your terms.

Yes I think so. The freedom of the will is freedom from deterministic influence.


That's libertarianism. Are you a libertarian?

Serendipper wrote:I have no idea. What's a libertarian? Liberty from what? Liberty to do what?


lib·er·tar·i·an
/ˌlibərˈterēən/Submit
noun
1.
an adherent of libertarianism.
"libertarian philosophy"
2.
a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

I don't know the doctrine of freewill, but probably not.

Of course I don't beat my heart, but I do make choices.

Serendipper wrote:If you don't beat your heart, then who does?


peacegirl wrote:Whatever force brought me into this world.

Serendipper wrote:And that force is not the same force that is making your decisions? If not, then how are the forces distinct? If they are distinct, then how do they interact?


Serendipper, there is no duality here. I am only trying to get across that nothing external can force us to do anything we CHOOSE not to do. The force I am referring to is the invariable law of "greater satisfaction."

Since no external force can force us to do anything that we don't want, then rape doesn't exist.

Your reasoning is based on a definition of determinism that I am not using. We have to be on the same page for there to be effective communication.

Serendipper wrote:Yes I agree. What is your definition?


I will give you the first three chapters of this book, If you request it, but I will give you the specific page that explains why the present definition is inadequate.

Serendipper wrote:Just give me your definition instead of why other definitions are wrong. It would be easier and clearer.


I'm trying to explain that the word cause is misleading.

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.
Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.
Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what
they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils?

Therefore,
when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his
will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our
expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to
another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,
of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him
greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or
another; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is a
compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed.
All I am
doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make
sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding
further.”

I don't know why you can say "determinism is defined as ____________".

I don't have any problem with the notion that we always get our way, so long as "we" are defined as the whole universe. If I get hit by a train, then it's because "I" (me as the universe) wanted to, but it's against my ego's will.

It is true that if we rewound the universe it would come out the same way, if it is true that man's will is not free, but you are conflating different definitions which cause confusion. Determinism does not mean we have no say in our choices. It does not mean we are helpless robots. It does not mean we are not responsible for our actions. In fact, with a greater understanding we can see that it increases responsibility, the opposite of what many philosophers believe.

Serendipper wrote:We can be determined by predetermined causes or we can be determined by probabilistic random causes. To me, either one qualifies as determinism, but usually the former is qualified as being "hard determinism" because there is no possible deviation from the path of unfolding events. If we type 1+1 into a calculator, we always get an output of 2 because it's just a sequence of switches that always give the same result. But whether a photon travels through the left slit or right slit cannot be known until it happens. John Bell proved that there are no variables somehow hidden in the universe that determines which slit the photon will go through and it is actually a causeless event, so hard determinism is out. If the universe were rewound, it would almost certainly unfold differently.


Quantum mechanics (regardless of which theory; there are many) does not negate determinism on a macro human level. But remember, you are using, by definition, that which can never be reconciled, the way the definition is constructed.

Serendipper wrote:Probabilism is determinism, but determined by random outcomes rather than certain ones.


Probabalism means we are making a prediction based on probability. The ability to predict an outcome in terms of probability just means we don't have all the information to make an accurate prediction. It does not negate determinism. Whether there is true ontic randomness in the universe is an open question but either way, it does nothing to grant us free will.

Probabilism allows for the illusion of freewill since nothing is written in stone. Probabilism refers to the fact that there is a chance that you could disappear and reappear on mars.

That's called fatalism.

Serendipity wrote:Fatalism posits there is a puppet being kicked around. If determinism is true, then there is no one to be pushed around.


Many people think the two are synonymous. Fatalism implies you can do nothing about a situation so you might as well not even try. Determinism doesn't remove choice in any given situation. If something bad happens after you have done all that you can do to prevent it, then you can call it fate.

I guess, but if we're fated, then there is no us. If there is an us, then we are not fated.

Every moment the choice (the effect of the cause) is constantly at play. But the word "cause" is misleading for it assumes something external is making us do what we do, against our will, as if we play no part in decision making at all. That is not the determinism I am trying to communicate.

Serendippy wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by determinism.


I'm trying to show you that the present definition of determinism is misleading for it assumes that we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events, but this is inaccurate

I agree, but not for the reason you cite:

since nothing can make us do something if we don't want to do it, or do something against our will.

We do not need freewill to make the case that we are not caused by antecedent events since every event is fundamentally random (ie has no cause).

The conventional definition makes it appear as if we are not responsible for our choices.

The maximum number of entities in the universe is one. There is no serendipper who is responsible because I can always pass the buck down the line. Adam blamed the woman for eating the fruit and the woman blamed the devil and the devil didn't say anything because he knew it's all god's fault.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes
him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not
cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which
his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not
responsible, but remember his particular environment is different
because he himself is different otherwise everybody would desire to
commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a
minor or more serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I
hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will
but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and
wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty
when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some
sort for his desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb
part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his
conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases
with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do
what he really didn’t want to do.

Fine, there is nothing causing someone to do what they don't want to do, but there is something causing them to do what they want.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:00 pm

Serendipper wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Are you saying that determinism is involuntary and free will is voluntary? I'm just trying to clarify your terms.

Yes I think so. The freedom of the will is freedom from deterministic influence.


Determinism (as defined accurately) does not mean actions are not voluntary. We volunteer what our choice will be every time we make a decision. But does that make our will free? Libertarians define free will as having choices to pick from. Having choices in and of themselves does not mean you are free to choose A or B equally. That is what free will implies: "you didn't have to choose A (to steal); you could have chosen B just the same (not to steal), therefore we can punish you for making the wrong choice. But how can both choices be equal when you must choose the option that offers the greatest satisfaction (i.e., the choice that you believe to be the better alternative given your particular circumstances?)

That's libertarianism. Are you a libertarian?

Serendipper wrote:I have no idea. What's a libertarian? Liberty from what? Liberty to do what?


lib·er·tar·i·an
/ˌlibərˈterēən/Submit
noun
1.
an adherent of libertarianism.
"libertarian philosophy"
2.
a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Serendipper wrote:I don't know the doctrine of freewill, but probably not.


How can you speak on free will if you don't have a definition of what that means? This just shows the confusion surrounding this longstanding debate.

Of course I don't beat my heart, but I do make choices.

Serendipper wrote:If you don't beat your heart, then who does?


peacegirl wrote:Whatever force brought me into this world.

Serendipper wrote:And that force is not the same force that is making your decisions? If not, then how are the forces distinct? If they are distinct, then how do they interact?


Serendipper, there is no duality here. I am only trying to get across that nothing external can force us to do anything we CHOOSE not to do. The force I am referring to is the invariable law of "greater satisfaction."

Serendipper wrote:Since no external force can force us to do anything that we don't want, then rape doesn't exist.


How does "no external force can force us to anything we don't want to" equate with "rape doesn't exist?" Huh????

Your reasoning is based on a definition of determinism that I am not using. We have to be on the same page for there to be effective communication.

Serendipper wrote:Yes I agree. What is your definition?


I told you. The immutable law of "greater satisfaction." This is explained in great detail in the book.

I will give you the first three chapters of this book, If you request it, but I will give you the specific page that explains why the present definition is inadequate.

Serendipper wrote:Just give me your definition instead of why other definitions are wrong. It would be easier and clearer.


I'm trying to explain that the word cause is misleading.

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.
Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.
Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what
they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils?

Therefore,
when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his
will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our
expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to
another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,
of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him
greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or
another; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is a
compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am
doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make
sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding
further.”

Serendipper wrote:I don't know why you can say "determinism is defined as ____________".


The law of greater satisfaction. You cannot choose an alternative that offers you the least satisfaction of the options available at any given moment in time. Test it for yourself. The reason it's an invariable law is because there are no exceptions.

Serendipper wrote:I don't have any problem with the notion that we always get our way, so long as "we" are defined as the whole universe. If I get hit by a train, then it's because "I" (me as the universe) wanted to, but it's against my ego's will.


If you get hit by a train because you didn't see it coming, it's because certain things lined up to make this happen. In most cases you didn't want this to happen but (tell me if I'm wrong) the universe conspired (so to speak) to make this happen. I agree that what happens to us is often out of our control, especially when we didn't ask for it.

It is true that if we rewound the universe it would come out the same way, if it is true that man's will is not free, but you are conflating different definitions which cause confusion. Determinism does not mean we have no say in our choices. It does not mean we are helpless robots. It does not mean we are not responsible for our actions. In fact, with a greater understanding we can see that it increases responsibility, the opposite of what many philosophers believe.

Serendipper wrote:We can be determined by predetermined causes or we can be determined by probabilistic random causes. To me, either one qualifies as determinism, but usually the former is qualified as being "hard determinism" because there is no possible deviation from the path of unfolding events. If we type 1+1 into a calculator, we always get an output of 2 because it's just a sequence of switches that always give the same result. But whether a photon travels through the left slit or right slit cannot be known until it happens. John Bell proved that there are no variables somehow hidden in the universe that determines which slit the photon will go through and it is actually a causeless event, so hard determinism is out. If the universe were rewound, it would almost certainly unfold differently.


Quantum mechanics (regardless of which theory; there are many) does not negate determinism on a macro human level. But remember, you are using, by definition, that which can never be reconciled, the way the definition is constructed.

Serendipper wrote:Probabilism is determinism, but determined by random outcomes rather than certain ones.


Probabalism means we are making a prediction based on probability. The ability to predict an outcome in terms of probability just means we don't have all the information to make an accurate prediction. It does not negate determinism. Whether there is true ontic randomness in the universe is an open question but either way, it does nothing to grant us free will.

Serendipper wrote:Probabilism allows for the illusion of freewill since nothing is written in stone.


Nothing IS written in stone, agreed. Only after a choice is made can someone say, "I could not have done otherwise". There is no domino effect forcing you to make a particular choice if it's not a choice you prefer.

Serendipper wrote: Probabilism refers to the fact that there is a chance that you could disappear and reappear on mars.


And so could Santa Claus appear and reappear according to this theory. Where is there one iota of evidence that could make this a probability let alone a possibility? :-?

That's called fatalism.

Serendipity wrote:Fatalism posits there is a puppet being kicked around. If determinism is true, then there is no one to be pushed around.


Many people think the two are synonymous. Fatalism implies you can do nothing about a situation so you might as well not even try. Determinism doesn't remove choice in any given situation. If something bad happens after you have done all that you can do to prevent it, then you can call it fate.

Serendipper wrote:I guess, but if we're fated, then there is no us. If there is an us, then we are not fated.


I agree with you on this: fate (the way life unfolds) is often due to life circumstances we did not ask for. But fate does not mean that we do nothing to change our circumstances because we believe fate has already made the choice for us. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Every moment the choice (the effect of the cause) is constantly at play. But the word "cause" is misleading for it assumes something external is making us do what we do, against our will, as if we play no part in decision making at all. That is not the determinism I am trying to communicate.

Serendippy wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by determinism.


I'm trying to show you that the present definition of determinism is misleading for it assumes that we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events, but this is inaccurate

Serendipper wrote:I agree, but not for the reason you cite:

since nothing can make us do something if we don't want to do it, or do something against our will.

Serendipper wrote:We do not need freewill to make the case that we are not caused by antecedent events since every event is fundamentally random (ie has no cause).


Randomness, either epistemologically speaking or ontologically speaking, are two different animals. The verdict is not even close to which one of these ideas is correct. I subscribe to the belief that randomness only means we don't know all the variables that lead to a particular outcome (epistemological), which is different from the belief that embedded in the universe are random happenings with no cause whatsoever (ontological).

The conventional definition makes it appear as if we are not responsible for our choices.

Serendipper wrote:The maximum number of entities in the universe is one. There is no serendipper who is responsible because I can always pass the buck down the line. Adam blamed the woman for eating the fruit and the woman blamed the devil and the devil didn't say anything because he knew it's all god's fault.


You would appreciate my book immensely based on what you just wrote. Let me know if you would like the first three chapters. I'll post them for you but I won't do this unless you request it. :D

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes
him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not
cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which
his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not
responsible, but remember his particular environment is different
because he himself is different otherwise everybody would desire to
commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a
minor or more serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I
hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will
but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and
wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty
when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some
sort for his desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb
part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his
conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases
with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do
what he really didn’t want to do.

Serendipper wrote:Fine, there is nothing causing someone to do what they don't want to do, but there is something causing them to do what they want.


You are 100% correct. This is not an unimportant observation as you will see.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:17 pm

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Progress to me implies something in the way of a teleological component "behind" the universe. The universe is evolving into something that can be described or defined as better than it was before.

And, sans God, how can nature really be understood in that manner?

Imagine hypothetcally human beings are the only conscious entities in the universe. Imagine a gigantic asteroid smashing into earth and wiping us all out.

The universe continues to unfold as before. But can that be described as progress?


Not all events are progressive hypothetically. When I speak of progress I am speaking only of how we can improve the human condition.


Again, you are saying something here that makes no sense to me in a wholly determined universe. If one's goal is to improve the human condition and one is compelled to think, feel, say and do only that which is inherently entailed/compelled by the laws of matter then both the means and the ends here are subsumed in what can only be.

And that's before we get to the part that most interest me: How, assuming some level of autonomy instead, progress is basically an existential contraption embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Let's bring this down to earth. In a determined universe what would constitute progress in regard to, say, the role of government in our lives? And how would we go about improving the human condition in regard to government when we can only go about doing what we must?

iambiguous wrote:Applied globally so as to reflect the fact that man's will is not free. Thus it would seem that war, crime, and poverty are but inherent components of that.


peacegirl wrote:They are inherent components of that, but when we apply the knowledge that man's will is not free (along with the corollary that follows), we veer in a different direction but still within the "inherent components of that".


All I can do is to ask others here who share your point of view to reconfigure it into an assessment I might be able to better grasp. How is an individual "applying knowledge" not in turn entirely subsumed in a deterministic universe?

It all becomes somewhat surreal. We grasp that man's will is not free. But we grasp that only because we could never not grasp it. And however we apply that to the human condition it is the only way that we ever could apply it.

peacegirl wrote: We were never really free to do anything other than what we have done, or what we will do, but that does not mean we are not "free" (without constraint) to discuss better solutions to the world's problems.


iambiguous wrote:"Free." Exactly. The very nature of matter itself wholly restrains us from choosing anything other than what we must.

Unless, of course, that is not true at all.


peacegirl wrote:What's your point?


And around and around we go. Making points that the other does not fully grasp in a wholly determined universe in which there was never any possibility of it being otherwise.

iambiguous wrote: John is compelled to set up the dominoes just as the dominoes are compelled to topple over. But somehow with us it's different. We're not compelled mindlessly.


peacegirl wrote:John is not compelled to set up the dominoes unless he wants (or chooses) to set up the dominoes. The dominoes don't have an option.


I am either incredibly dense in not grasping this or you are incredibly dense to argue it. John chooses only that which he is compelled to choose. The autonomous aliens note that unlike the dominoes John "chooses" to set them up. But John's choice was never not going to be anything otherwise.

How is John here not just one of nature's very own dominoes?

Thus:

peacegirl wrote: Neither the person whose life was in the toilet, or the person whose life was better, had any control over how their life turned out. It's very true that when times are good, people want to take all the credit. You aren't getting my point because I haven't made one yet, other than agreeing that we have no free will. But there's more to it than just stating that we must do what we must because we cannot not do it.


iambiguous wrote:If there is more to it, then I will either be compelled to grasp it or not.


peacegirl wrote:Very true.


A little help here!!

Admitting that perhaps I really am the one who needs it. Your point is solid and I keep missing it.
Last edited by iambiguous on Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:03 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: 32275
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:28 pm

Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it...


But: could he have ever chosen not to want to? If not then "wants" and the "subconscious/unconscious" mind would seem to be no less determined.

If one can only be confused in any particular context, how can he then be held responsible for being so? It's like someone is compelled to blame him for being only what he was compelled to be.
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: 32275
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:38 pm

Serendipper wrote:Like the Rush song

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice


Yes, but Rush's Alex Lifeson was a proponent of Ayn Rand. And Rand was a proponent of free will: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html

The irony here of course is that while she championed the individual's "volitional consciousness", every single one of the fanatics who embraced her were free only to share her own choices.

Objectivism with [literally] a capital O.
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: 32275
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:25 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Progress to me implies something in the way of a teleological component "behind" the universe. The universe is evolving into something that can be described or defined as better than it was before.

And, sans God, how can nature really be understood in that manner?

Imagine hypothetcally human beings are the only conscious entities in the universe. Imagine a gigantic asteroid smashing into earth and wiping us all out.

The universe continues to unfold as before. But can that be described as progress?


Not all events are progressive hypothetically. When I speak of progress I am speaking only of how we can improve the human condition.


Again, you are saying something here that makes no sense to me in a wholly determined universe. If one's goal is to improve the human condition and one is compelled to think, feel, say and do only that which is inherently entailed/compelled by the laws of matter then both the means and the ends here are subsumed in what can only be.


So what if the means and the ends here are subsumed in what can only be. Wouldn't that make you want to listen to a new understanding, which would also be subsumed in what can only be?

iambiguous wrote:And that's before we get to the part that most interest me: How, assuming some level of autonomy instead, progress is basically an existential contraption embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.


You are presupposing there has to be conflict in these things that you mentioned.

iambiguous wrote:Let's bring this down to earth. In a determined universe what would constitute progress in regard to, say, the role of government in our lives? And how would we go about improving the human condition in regard to government when we can only go about doing what we must?


Doing what we must is simply saying that we are moving in the direction that we think is best for us. Improving the human condition, once this knowledge is recognized and confirmed, government as we know it will no longer be necessary.

iambiguous wrote:Applied globally so as to reflect the fact that man's will is not free. Thus it would seem that war, crime, and poverty are but inherent components of that.


peacegirl wrote:They are inherent components of that, but when we apply the knowledge that man's will is not free (along with the corollary that follows), we veer in a different direction but still within the "inherent components of that".


iambiguous wrote:All I can do is to ask others here who share your point of view to reconfigure it into an assessment I might be able to better grasp. How is an individual "applying knowledge" not in turn entirely subsumed in a deterministic universe?


As long as you use the phrase "subsumed in a deterministic universe" you are reducing us to automatons that can't make choices. Although the word choice is misleading because it implies we can choose A or B equally (which is false) does not mean that our choices are less meaningful as part of our continued development.

iambiguous wrote:It all becomes somewhat surreal. We grasp that man's will is not free. But we grasp that only because we could never not grasp it. And however we apply that to the human condition it is the only way that we ever could apply it.


And... are you saying that my words mean nothing because I couldn't not be in this forum and type what I'm typing? #-o

peacegirl wrote: We were never really free to do anything other than what we have done, or what we will do, but that does not mean we are not "free" (without constraint) to discuss better solutions to the world's problems.


iambiguous wrote:"Free." Exactly. The very nature of matter itself wholly restrains us from choosing anything other than what we must.

Unless, of course, that is not true at all.


peacegirl wrote:What's your point?


iambiguous wrote:And around and around we go. Making points that the other does not fully grasp in a wholly determined universe in which there was never any possibility of it being otherwise.


True, from the birth of the universe to today had to occur exactly the way it did. Once again, a wholly determined universe does not remove our part in that determined universe by the "unfree" choices we make which will deterministically influence where our world is headed.

iambiguous wrote: John is compelled to set up the dominoes just as the dominoes are compelled to topple over. But somehow with us it's different. We're not compelled mindlessly.


peacegirl wrote:John is not compelled to set up the dominoes unless he wants (or chooses) to set up the dominoes. The dominoes don't have an option.


iambiguous wrote:I am either incredibly dense in not grasping this or you are incredibly dense to argue it. John chooses only that which he is compelled to choose. The autonomous aliens note that unlike the dominoes John "chooses" to set them up. But John's choice was never not going to be anything otherwise.

How is John here not just one of nature's very own dominoes?

Thus:

peacegirl wrote:Neither the person whose life was in the toilet, or the person whose life was better, had any control over how their life turned out. It's very true that when times are good, people want to take all the credit. You aren't getting my point because I haven't made one yet, other than agreeing that we have no free will. But there's more to it than just stating that we must do what we must because we cannot not do it.


iambiguous wrote:If there is more to it, then I will either be compelled to grasp it or not.


peacegirl wrote:Very true.


iambiguous wrote:A little help here!!

Admitting that perhaps I really am the one who needs it. Your point is solid and I keep missing it.


You're missing the point because there's no real point yet other than the reason man's will is not free (i.e., that he is constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction). What is important to recognize (which leads to the two-sided equation) is that although we have no control over which choice gives us greater satisfaction at any given moment in time...nothing has the power to make or force us to do anything against our will (which the conventional definition of determinism ignores). So when someone says "he made me pull the trigger", he is not being truthful. This is important in regard to this discovery which you will understand if you find this interesting. If you don't find this interesting, then you could not not have moved on. I get that iambiguous. You don't have to keep repeating it.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Serendipper » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:45 am

peacegirl wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Are you saying that determinism is involuntary and free will is voluntary? I'm just trying to clarify your terms.

Yes I think so. The freedom of the will is freedom from deterministic influence.


Determinism (as defined accurately) does not mean actions are not voluntary. We volunteer what our choice will be every time we make a decision. But does that make our will free? Libertarians define free will as having choices to pick from. Having choices in and of themselves does not mean you are free to choose A or B equally. That is what free will implies: "you didn't have to choose A (to steal); you could have chosen B just the same (not to steal), therefore we can punish you for making the wrong choice. But how can both choices be equal when you must choose the option that offers the greatest satisfaction (i.e., the choice that you believe to be the better alternative given your particular circumstances?)

Until you give me a definition, I can only fall back on my definition of determinism which is the antithesis of the voluntary.

In the purest sense of the words, freewill is a will that is free from bound. Either a will is free or it is not (assuming a will exists as a thing in the first place).

That's libertarianism. Are you a libertarian?

Serendipper wrote:I have no idea. What's a libertarian? Liberty from what? Liberty to do what?


lib·er·tar·i·an
/ˌlibərˈterēən/Submit
noun
1.
an adherent of libertarianism.
"libertarian philosophy"
2.
a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Serendipper wrote:I don't know the doctrine of freewill, but probably not.


How can you speak on free will if you don't have a definition of what that means? This just shows the confusion surrounding this longstanding debate.

You inquired about the "doctrine of freewill" and not about my definition of freewill. I have no clue regarding any doctrines that may exist. When confronted with a problem, I usually just sit and ponder instead of seeking the opinions of doctrines, which sometimes results in my reinventing the wheel, but saves me from being tangled in someone else's mistakes.

Of course I don't beat my heart, but I do make choices.

Serendipper wrote:If you don't beat your heart, then who does?


peacegirl wrote:Whatever force brought me into this world.

Serendipper wrote:And that force is not the same force that is making your decisions? If not, then how are the forces distinct? If they are distinct, then how do they interact?


Serendipper, there is no duality here. I am only trying to get across that nothing external can force us to do anything we CHOOSE not to do. The force I am referring to is the invariable law of "greater satisfaction."

Serendipper wrote:Since no external force can force us to do anything that we don't want, then rape doesn't exist.


How does "no external force can force us to anything we don't want to" equate with "rape doesn't exist?" Huh????

Because rape is an external force imposing itself on another will, against its will. The woman isn't making the best of a bad situation by choosing the best choice she has, but she's frantically and futilely trying to escape, but to no avail. So if you assert that no external force can compel someone to do something against their will, then rape doesn't exist.

Maybe you meant that no external force can cause another will to will something that it doesn't want to will? Sure, I'll agree with that. But you said "do" and not "will".

Your reasoning is based on a definition of determinism that I am not using. We have to be on the same page for there to be effective communication.

Serendipper wrote:Yes I agree. What is your definition?


I told you. The immutable law of "greater satisfaction." This is explained in great detail in the book.

So everyone is selfish? Yes, I agree. Everyone will always do what is best for them. Even god himself could not be immune. Any being could only do what's in its best interest.

Serendipper wrote:I don't have any problem with the notion that we always get our way, so long as "we" are defined as the whole universe. If I get hit by a train, then it's because "I" (me as the universe) wanted to, but it's against my ego's will.


If you get hit by a train because you didn't see it coming, it's because certain things lined up to make this happen. In most cases you didn't want this to happen but (tell me if I'm wrong) the universe conspired (so to speak) to make this happen. I agree that what happens to us is often out of our control, especially when we didn't ask for it.

My pet died the other day. I didn't want it to die and it didn't want to die, but none of that mattered. I didn't choose the lesser of two evils; I didn't get an opportunity to choose anything, except to hold him until his heart stopped. So either that was a random event by an uncaring universe or the universe wanted it, the sadistic prick as it often chooses to present itself.

Serendipper wrote: Probabilism refers to the fact that there is a chance that you could disappear and reappear on mars.


And so could Santa Claus appear and reappear according to this theory. Where is there one iota of evidence that could make this a probability let alone a possibility? :-?

I started a thread about that viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193940

Michio Kaku gives his phd students the problem of calculating the probability that they will vanish and wind-up on the planet Mars.

There is also this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM-uykVfq_E

Which shows how it's possible (but not probable) for heat to flow from the cold object to the hot object.

That's called fatalism.

Serendipity wrote:Fatalism posits there is a puppet being kicked around. If determinism is true, then there is no one to be pushed around.


Many people think the two are synonymous. Fatalism implies you can do nothing about a situation so you might as well not even try. Determinism doesn't remove choice in any given situation. If something bad happens after you have done all that you can do to prevent it, then you can call it fate.

Serendipper wrote:I guess, but if we're fated, then there is no us. If there is an us, then we are not fated.


I agree with you on this: fate (the way life unfolds) is often due to life circumstances we did not ask for. But fate does not mean that we do nothing to change our circumstances because we believe fate has already made the choice for us. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yes, any sort of firm, fated determinism would be refuted by probabilism. But that doesn't necessarily mean there is anything you can do to prevent an outcome because there is still the possibility that you don't exist.

Every moment the choice (the effect of the cause) is constantly at play. But the word "cause" is misleading for it assumes something external is making us do what we do, against our will, as if we play no part in decision making at all. That is not the determinism I am trying to communicate.

Serendippy wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by determinism.


I'm trying to show you that the present definition of determinism is misleading for it assumes that we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events, but this is inaccurate

Serendipper wrote:I agree, but not for the reason you cite:

since nothing can make us do something if we don't want to do it, or do something against our will.

Serendipper wrote:We do not need freewill to make the case that we are not caused by antecedent events since every event is fundamentally random (ie has no cause).


Randomness, either epistemologically speaking or ontologically speaking, are two different animals. The verdict is not even close to which one of these ideas is correct. I subscribe to the belief that randomness only means we don't know all the variables that lead to a particular outcome (epistemological), which is different from the belief that embedded in the universe are random happenings with no cause whatsoever (ontological).

That was Einstein's idea, that there must be hidden variables determining outcomes that we haven't become aware of yet. John Bell proved that wrong. There are no hidden variables determining outcomes. It's not that we aren't technologically savvy enough yet to find them, but it's been proven that the hidden variables do not exist. That means at the fundamental level, events have no causes. Besides, if events did have causes, it wouldn't be the fundamental level; we can't have a first cause with prior causes. It makes no sense, but QM is THE most substantiated theory in all of science (specifically because it's so crazy).

The conventional definition makes it appear as if we are not responsible for our choices.

Serendipper wrote:The maximum number of entities in the universe is one. There is no serendipper who is responsible because I can always pass the buck down the line. Adam blamed the woman for eating the fruit and the woman blamed the devil and the devil didn't say anything because he knew it's all god's fault.


You would appreciate my book immensely based on what you just wrote. Let me know if you would like the first three chapters. I'll post them for you but I won't do this unless you request it. :D

I wish I could find the motivation to write a book, but it seems I can only answer questions. I do for others more than I could do for myself. But I don't know how to answer this question. How do I request a gift? I could only do so if the request itself were a gift to you, and if that be the case, then I'd be honored if you'd post them :)

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes
him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not
cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which
his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not
responsible, but remember his particular environment is different
because he himself is different otherwise everybody would desire to
commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a
minor or more serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I
hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will
but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and
wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty
when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some
sort for his desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb
part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his
conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases
with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do
what he really didn’t want to do.

Serendipper wrote:Fine, there is nothing causing someone to do what they don't want to do, but there is something causing them to do what they want.


You are 100% correct. This is not an unimportant observation as you will see.

Since you've given me so much to read, I'll ask you to listen to 1 min of video that sums my view of this philosophical problem:

Start at 41:47 until 42:32



It determines you and you determine it. Like the positive determines the negative and the negative determines the positive. Self determines other and other determines self; they're two poles of the same magnet.

The debate will rage onward because people want to be different, distinct from everything else and that illusion (or delusion) is what makes life, life.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Serendipper » Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:55 am

iambiguous wrote:
Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it...


But: could he have ever chosen not to want to?

Yes because nothing is written in stone. Rewind the tape and play it again and he may choose something different, even though the choice was determined, but the determination was an outcome of random events.

If not then "wants" and the "subconscious/unconscious" mind would seem to be no less determined.

It is. But surely you can see that if you were merely a cog in a machine that you'd have no consciousness of it. If every outcome were certain, then that's a dumb mechanism. Intelligence is order, which is the opposite of disorder, so we can't have order without disorder, and intelligence is manifested by randomness (disorder).

If one can only be confused in any particular context, how can he then be held responsible for being so? It's like someone is compelled to blame him for being only what he was compelled to be.

There is no "him". There is only the one big event. He is a dimensionless line separating (joining) the ordered and disordered.

iambiguous wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Like the Rush song

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice


Yes, but Rush's Alex Lifeson was a proponent of Ayn Rand. And Rand was a proponent of free will: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html

The irony here of course is that while she championed the individual's "volitional consciousness", every single one of the fanatics who embraced her were free only to share her own choices.

Objectivism with [literally] a capital O.

Yep, but I just posted that to illustrate the choice of choosing not to decide. As if we could sit there and refuse to make decisions and therefore resign from the game, but the decision not to decide was a choice. And it was a determined choice, but not pre-determined or a certain choice, but a probable choice. You're either not seeing the difference in "certainty" and "probability" or else you're equating them for reasons that I can't get my head around. Anyway, we need to resolve this or else we're destined (probably) to waste lots of time lol

Axiom: Anything can happen because there is nothing saying it can't. Laws do not exist.

You could say logic dictates that ridiculous things cannot happen, but on whose authority is logic itself predicated? Who decreed that logic is the end-all objective authority determining what can and cannot happen? But if logic isn't wielded by authority, then how could reason underpin it because how could logic underpin logic? If I know nothing of logic, could I come to a logical decision to seek logic? I'd already have to understand the thing that I'm seeking to learn, which isn't logical.

And you continually seek refuge in empiricism but can't empirically justify empiricism itself. Empiricism, like logic, is just another tool in the bag of contraptions, and the virtue of a tool is its specific use, which implies limitations. There is no tool that fits all screws and bolts.

Until you either internalize these points or bring your objection down to earth (in plain joe talk without being rooted in, stemming from, embedded in, and tangled up in all these obscure words you choose) such that I can get my head around it, we're going to be like kids in the schoolyard saying 'tis, 'tisn't, 'tis, 'tisn't, 'tis, 'tisn't,,," Which is fine too because if we ever agree, then what? :sad-bored:
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:07 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it...


But: could he have ever chosen not to want to? If not then "wants" and the "subconscious/unconscious" mind would seem to be no less determined.


We already know that everything we do is determined by laws over which we have no control, whether it's conscious or subconscious. I am trying to explain what people do to excuse themselves, not that it could have been any different.

iambiguous wrote:If one can only be confused in any particular context, how can he then be held responsible for being so? It's like someone is compelled to blame him for being only what he was compelled to be.


That is absolutely true! I am trying to show you what happens when we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, under changed conditions.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:53 pm

Serendipper wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Are you saying that determinism is involuntary and free will is voluntary? I'm just trying to clarify your terms.

Yes I think so. The freedom of the will is freedom from deterministic influence.


Determinism (as defined accurately) does not mean actions are not voluntary. We volunteer what our choice will be every time we make a decision. But does that make our will free? Libertarians define free will as having choices to pick from. Having choices in and of themselves does not mean you are free to choose A or B equally. That is what free will implies: "you didn't have to choose A (to steal); you could have chosen B just the same (not to steal), therefore we can punish you for making the wrong choice. But how can both choices be equal when you must choose the option that offers the greatest satisfaction (i.e., the choice that you believe to be the better alternative given your particular circumstances?)

Serendipper wrote:Until you give me a definition, I can only fall back on my definition of determinism which is the antithesis of the voluntary. In the purest sense of the words, freewill is a will that is free from bound. Either a will is free or it is not (assuming a will exists as a thing in the first place).


And this kind of free will doesn't exist because we ARE bound by our biology and environment which drive our choices.

That's libertarianism. Are you a libertarian?

Serendipper wrote:I have no idea. What's a libertarian? Liberty from what? Liberty to do what?


lib·er·tar·i·an
/ˌlibərˈterēən/Submit
noun
1.
an adherent of libertarianism.
"libertarian philosophy"
2.
a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Serendipper wrote:I don't know the doctrine of freewill, but probably not.


How can you speak on free will if you don't have a definition of what that means? This just shows the confusion surrounding this longstanding debate.

Serendipper wrote:You inquired about the "doctrine of freewill" and not about my definition of freewill. I have no clue regarding any doctrines that may exist. When confronted with a problem, I usually just sit and ponder instead of seeking the opinions of doctrines, which sometimes results in my reinventing the wheel, but saves me from being tangled in someone else's mistakes.


I am not talking about doctrines either, I'm offering a definition that reflects what is true (according to reality), nothing more, nothing less.

Of course I don't beat my heart, but I do make choices.

Serendipper wrote:If you don't beat your heart, then who does?


peacegirl wrote:Whatever force brought me into this world.

Serendipper wrote:And that force is not the same force that is making your decisions? If not, then how are the forces distinct? If they are distinct, then how do they interact?


There is no duality here. I am only trying to get across that nothing external can force us to do anything we CHOOSE not to do. The force I am referring to is the invariable law of "greater satisfaction."

Serendipper wrote:Since no external force can force us to do anything that we don't want, then rape doesn't exist.


How does "no external force can force us to anything we don't want to" equate with "rape doesn't exist?" Huh????

Serendipper wrote:Because rape is an external force imposing itself on another will, against its will. The woman isn't making the best of a bad situation by choosing the best choice she has, but she's frantically and futilely trying to escape, but to no avail. So if you assert that no external force can compel someone to do something against their will, then rape doesn't exist. Maybe you meant that no external force can cause another will to will something that it doesn't want to will? Sure, I'll agree with that. But you said "do" and not "will".


I wasn't referring to an external force such as putting a gun to someone's head. I am only using the term "external" (my fault for the confusion) to mean that NOTHING can compel a person to do what they don't want to do. Because of the limitation of language it can be difficult to get across what is being conveyed. I hope you can see what I mean by "external" because there is really nothing to disagree with, when understood in context.

Your reasoning is based on a definition of determinism that I am not using. We have to be on the same page for there to be effective communication.

Serendipper wrote:Yes I agree. What is your definition?


I told you. The immutable law of "greater satisfaction." This is explained in great detail in the book.

Serendipper wrote:So everyone is selfish? Yes, I agree. Everyone will always do what is best for them. Even god himself could not be immune. Any being could only do what's in its best interest.


That is true, even if what someone believes is in his best interest is not what others believe is in his best interest. But let me clarify, this does not make anyone selfish in a cold sense. Selfishness (or the desire to do what is best for oneself) does not have to conflict with caring for others. This term has confused everyone.

Serendipper wrote:I don't have any problem with the notion that we always get our way, so long as "we" are defined as the whole universe. If I get hit by a train, then it's because "I" (me as the universe) wanted to, but it's against my ego's will.


If you get hit by a train because you didn't see it coming, it's because certain things lined up to make this happen. In most cases you didn't want this to happen but (tell me if I'm wrong) the universe conspired (so to speak) to make this happen. I agree that what happens to us is often out of our control, especially when we didn't ask for it.

Serendipper wrote:My pet died the other day. I didn't want it to die and it didn't want to die, but none of that mattered. I didn't choose the lesser of two evils; I didn't get an opportunity to choose anything, except to hold him until his heart stopped. So either that was a random event by an uncaring universe or the universe wanted it, the sadistic prick as it often chooses to present itself.


Life IS what it is. You can rail against the laws of the universe all you want, but sadly people and animals die. I am only discussing the choices we do have that appear free, but are anything but.

Serendipper wrote: Probabilism refers to the fact that there is a chance that you could disappear and reappear on mars.


And so could Santa Claus appear and reappear according to this theory. Where is there one iota of evidence that could make this a probability let alone a possibility? :-?

Serendippy wrote:I started a thread about that http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 4&t=193940

Michio Kaku gives his phd students the problem of calculating the probability that they will vanish and wind-up on the planet Mars.

There is also this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM-uykVfq_E

Which shows how it's possible (but not probable) for heat to flow from the cold object to the hot object.


Thank you for the link (I will check it out when I have time), but for the purposes of this thread what I am hoping to demonstrate is not only the proof that man's will is not free, but when extended how this knowledge can prevent what none of us want (i.e., the conflict that leads to war, crime, and poverty). Please try to keep your eye on the ball.

That's called fatalism.

Serendipity wrote:Fatalism posits there is a puppet being kicked around. If determinism is true, then there is no one to be pushed around.


Many people think the two are synonymous. Fatalism implies you can do nothing about a situation so you might as well not even try. Determinism doesn't remove choice in any given situation. If something bad happens after you have done all that you can do to prevent it, then you can call it fate.

Serendipper wrote:I guess, but if we're fated, then there is no us. If there is an us, then we are not fated.


I agree with you on this: fate (the way life unfolds) is often due to life circumstances we did not ask for. But fate does not mean that we do nothing to change our circumstances because we believe fate has already made the choice for us. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Serendipper wrote:Yes, any sort of firm, fated determinism would be refuted by probabilism. But that doesn't necessarily mean there is anything you can do to prevent an outcome because there is still the possibility that you don't exist.


There is also a probability that I'm a worm believing I'm a person. We have to start out with the belief (or idea) that we exist, and that we, as agents, make choices, otherwise, there is no way we can even begin to have a productive dialog. It's up to you whether you want to scrap anything I'm saying because you can always come back with the retort "I don't exist so no proof about anything can be certain."

Every moment the choice (the effect of the cause) is constantly at play. But the word "cause" is misleading for it assumes something external is making us do what we do, against our will, as if we play no part in decision making at all. That is not the determinism I am trying to communicate.

Serendippy wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by determinism.


I'm trying to show you that the present definition of determinism is misleading for it assumes that we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events, but this is inaccurate

Serendipper wrote:I agree, but not for the reason you cite:

since nothing can make us do something if we don't want to do it, or do something against our will.

Serendipper wrote:We do not need freewill to make the case that we are not caused by antecedent events since every event is fundamentally random (ie has no cause).


Randomness, either epistemologically speaking or ontologically speaking, are two different animals. The verdict is not even close to which one of these ideas is correct. I subscribe to the belief that randomness only means we don't know all the variables that lead to a particular outcome (epistemological), which is different from the belief that embedded in the universe are random happenings with no cause whatsoever (ontological).

Serendipper wrote:That was Einstein's idea, that there must be hidden variables determining outcomes that we haven't become aware of yet. John Bell proved that wrong. There are no hidden variables determining outcomes. It's not that we aren't technologically savvy enough yet to find them, but it's been proven that the hidden variables do not exist. That means at the fundamental level, events have no causes. Besides, if events did have causes, it wouldn't be the fundamental level; we can't have a first cause with prior causes. It makes no sense, but QM is THE most substantiated theory in all of science (specifically because it's so crazy).


This is where my explanation is more accurate than the conventional definition. There is nothing in life that "causes" a particular response. Therefore, the idea of a first cause that goes back to prior causes is flawed in that we only have the present. Two plus two does not cause four. It is that already. How can the past "cause" anything in the present if there is no such thing as the past? Let me repeat: Nothing from the past (even if it's a second ago) can "cause" me to act a certain way. My consent is required which involves my present state of mind and my available options as to what I consider the better choice. This is not trivial. Please hold off your judgment before you jump to another false conclusion.

The conventional definition makes it appear as if we are not responsible for our choices.

Serendipper wrote:The maximum number of entities in the universe is one. There is no serendipper who is responsible because I can always pass the buck down the line. Adam blamed the woman for eating the fruit and the woman blamed the devil and the devil didn't say anything because he knew it's all god's fault.


You would appreciate my book immensely based on what you just wrote. Let me know if you would like the first three chapters. I'll post them for you but I won't do this unless you request it. :D

Serendipper wrote:I wish I could find the motivation to write a book, but it seems I can only answer questions. I do for others more than I could do for myself. But I don't know how to answer this question. How do I request a gift? I could only do so if the request itself were a gift to you, and if that be the case, then I'd be honored if you'd post them :)


Serendipper, it is wonderful that you contribute the way you do. Writing a book is not the end all unless you desire to put into words something you care about. I didn't write this book, BTW. I compiled it. I will post the first three chapters. If you find anything compelling, I could offer you this as a gift (through Amazon) or you could pay $10, which is a drop in the bucket for a 600 page book that shows us another way, the only way to prevent the "evil" that has prevailed since time immemorial.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-1-13-2019-First-3-chapters.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0UeOCHD9XtMSZt1KZ870tYoLSg9Go37LfYt4Blmv3u1CKu_tQkenlw6ek


Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes
him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not
cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which
his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not
responsible, but remember his particular environment is different
because he himself is different otherwise everybody would desire to
commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a
minor or more serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I
hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will
but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and
wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty
when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some
sort for his desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb
part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his
conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases
with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do
what he really didn’t want to do.

Serendipper wrote:Fine, there is nothing causing someone to do what they don't want to do, but there is something causing them to do what they want.


You are 100% correct. This is not an unimportant observation as you will see.

Serendipper wrote:Since you've given me so much to read, I'll ask you to listen to 1 min of video that sums my view of this philosophical problem:

Start at 41:47 until 42:32



It determines you and you determine it. Like the positive determines the negative and the negative determines the positive. Self determines other and other determines self; they're two poles of the same magnet.

The debate will rage onward because people want to be different, distinct from everything else and that illusion (or delusion) is what makes life, life.


Faulty beliefs are not what makes life, life. It is true that all of our choices, whether positive or negative, have an influence on how we respond to life's challenges. But the delusion that we have free will does not have to continue once we know for a fact that it is false. This new understanding will change many things for the better.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:27 am

peacegirl wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Either a will is free or it is not ( assuming a will exists as a thing in the first place )

And this kind of free will doesnt exist because we ARE bound by our biology and environment which drive our choices

Serendipper : A will can be both free and unfree in the sense that some choices can be made while others cannot [ for whatever reason ]
It is therefore wrong to present the free will question in binary form between zero free will or absolute free will with nothing in between

peacegirl : if free will doesnt exist then how are we able to make any choices ?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think that free will exists but with legal / moral / psychological / physical limitations so I am free to do anything that I can do and would want to do
I am also free to do anything that I can do but would not want to do but still do anyway [ usually because my moral / psychological resistance to do so
has been sufficiently compromised ] Also things can be done / not done that were later regretted [ for whatever reason ] and suggests that it matters
more than at the actual time the things in question were done / not done

Even if it could be objectively demonstrated that free will doesnt exist it would not affect me psychologically
as I have absolutely no problem in accepting any limitation that reality imposes upon me [ I am a pragmatist ]

Also once I am dead I will no longer be restricted by zero free will assuming it exists and so all of my current limitations will eventually pass
In the meantime I simply accept as much as possible all impositions with a neutral or detached mindset so that they do not really bother me
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:29 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Either a will is free or it is not ( assuming a will exists as a thing in the first place )

And this kind of free will doesnt exist because we ARE bound by our biology and environment which drive our choices

Serendipper : A will can be both free and unfree in the sense that some choices can be made while others cannot [ for whatever reason ]
It is therefore wrong to present the free will question in binary form between zero free will or absolute free will with nothing in between

peacegirl : if free will doesnt exist then how are we able to make any choices ?


I can see that you didn't read the first three chapters carefully, or at all. You are using the word "free" in a different context than what is meant by freedom of the will. Obviously, we are free to choose one thing over another, but we are not free to choose the option that gives us the least satisfaction, which renders the least satisfying choice at that moment in time (among the available options that are being considered) an impossibility.

The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’
This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative.

__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Serrendipper wrote:I think that free will exists but with legal / moral / psychological / physical limitations so I am free to do anything that I can do and would want to do
I am also free to do anything that I can do but would not want to do but still do anyway [ usually because my moral / psychological resistance to do so
has been sufficiently compromised ] Also things can be done / not done that were later regretted [ for whatever reason ] and suggests that it matters
more than at the actual time the things in question were done / not done


This hindsight recognition only shows that we are constantly re-evaluating our choices and trying to make better ones the next time a similar situation presents itself. This does not take away from the FACT that man's will is not free to choose what gives him less satisfaction under the present conditions.

Serrendipper wrote:Even if it could be objectively demonstrated that free will doesnt exist it would not affect me psychologically
as I have absolutely no problem in accepting any limitation that reality imposes upon me [ I am a pragmatist ]


Well that's a good thing. What I am showing is all about pragmatism, for the conditions that make it practical to fight, cause wars, create poverty, become very unpractical when we are shown a better way.

Serrendipper wrote:Also once I am dead I will no longer be restricted by zero free will assuming it exists and so all of my current limitations will eventually pass


A big assumption on your part (which gets into fantasy thinking), number one; and number two, having free will would not free you from your limitations, whether physical, psychological, or any other way.

Serrendipper wrote:In the meantime I simply accept as much as possible all impositions with a neutral or detached mindset so that they do not really bother me


That's good that you are neutral so as to create less stress on yourself. That being said, there is truth to be told. All of our limitations and freedoms (please don't misinterpret how I'm using the word "freedoms") will eventually pass because we we all will die, but what we leave behind will be part of the causal chain (please don't misinterpret "causal chain to mean we have no choice because we are being forced to do what we may not want to do) of the next generation. Nothing we do or say therefore is unimportant in the scheme of life.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:20 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Obviously we are free to choose one thing over another but we are not free to choose the option that gives us the least satisfaction which
renders the least satisfying choice at that moment in time ( among the available options that are being considered ) an impossibility

I agree but I would also say that one may consider choosing different options at different times before finally deciding upon one
I try to avoid being dogmatic where any choices are concerned and so prefer any decision arrived at to be as organic as possible
Unfortunately I am human and so have to operate from within a very restricted limitation but I am old and that helps very much
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:30 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Obviously we are free to choose one thing over another but we are not free to choose the option that gives us the least satisfaction which
renders the least satisfying choice at that moment in time ( among the available options that are being considered ) an impossibility

I agree but I would also say that one may consider choosing different options at different times before finally deciding upon one
I try to avoid being dogmatic where any choices are concerned and so prefer any decision arrived at to be as organic as possible
Unfortunately I am human and so have to operate from within a very restricted limitation but I am old and that helps very much


We are all restricted by the choices available to us. I can't fly to Paris today because it's not a choice that is possible. But deciding how I want to structure my day, I can choose to either go food shopping first and then visit a friend in the hospital, or visit a friend in the hospital and then go food shopping. Does that make sense? Obviously, some choices are more difficult to make while others don't need that much consideration and can be more organic.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:31 pm

peacegirl wrote:
All of our limitations and freedoms will eventually pass because we all will die but what we leave behind will be part of the causal chain of the next generation
Nothing we do or say therefore is unimportant in the scheme of life

As a loner I do not give any time to those I leave behind because in my case there is no one
I have no idea what will happen after I die but what I do know is that I have no fear of death
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:40 pm

peacegirl wrote:
We are all restricted by the choices available to us

To be able to work within restriction without being aware of its limitation is something to aspire to
I think it probably gets easier as one gets older but what is free for one is not so for every one else
I find being as physically and psychologically detached as possible is very good for my state of mind
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:23 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
All of our limitations and freedoms will eventually pass because we all will die but what we leave behind will be part of the causal chain of the next generation
Nothing we do or say therefore is unimportant in the scheme of life

As a loner I do not give any time to those I leave behind because in my case there is no one
I have no idea what will happen after I die but what I do know is that I have no fear of death


I'm sorry that you have no one that you are leaving behind. I'm sure you feel lonely sometimes. I'm a loner too in that I don't socialize often, but I do have family. You may really like the chapter, Our Posterity, in the book I am promoting.

If you are slightly
less skeptical and more willing to continue the investigation, you will
see how effective are these laws as God puts an end to all war, crime,
adultery and divorce. Last but not least, though our magic elixir will
not apply here, I shall reveal something about death in a
mathematical, undeniable manner which will make every reader very
happy. Don’t you think it strange that of all the millions of years
Earth has been in existence (and what is a million years when the
words through which you see this relation are clarified) you, of all
people, should have been born to see the universe now; why weren’t
you born 5000 years ago, or why shouldn’t you be born in the future?
My friends, you are in for quite a pleasant surprise, but your mind is
so filled with words like spirit, soul, reincarnation, heaven, etc., which
have absolutely no meaning whatever,that you are terribly confused,
especially those who think they know. You will soon learn that there
is absolutely nothing to fear in death, which in itself will revolutionize
your lives, but everything is related, so please bear with me since it is
mathematically impossible to put everything down at one time. As I
said, you will catch your breath in utter amazement at the infinite
wisdom that governs this universe, and you will be given no choice but
to change your ways. But first, I shall reveal my second discovery
which will play a vital role in the new world.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... tQkenlw6ek



Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:28 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
We are all restricted by the choices available to us

To be able to work within restriction without being aware of its limitation is something to aspire to
I think it probably gets easier as one gets older but what is free for one is not so for every one else
I find being as physically and psychologically detached as possible is very good for my state of mind


I totally get where you're coming from! I watch a guy on youtube who wants no commitment at all physically or psychologically, and he's only 38. He doesn't want kids nor does he want to get married. He doesn't even want the responsibility of owning a dog. He sold his condo of 15 years, moved to Florida, and lives out of his car. He works remotely and uses Starbucks as his office. And he's happy! :)
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:46 pm

I have no problem being on my own so no need to feel sorry for me
I am alone but I am not lonely because I just keep myself occupied

I have no family or friends or job but I just accept this and it does not bother me
I am only passing through so my life means nothing in the grand scheme of things

I will try and read the book but I much prefer physical books so I may order it if I can
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:09 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:I have no problem being on my own so no need to feel sorry for me
I am alone but I am not lonely because I just keep myself occupied


I don't feel sorry for you; I can identify with you. It's great that you are able to keep yourself occupied.

surreptitious75 wrote:I have no family or friends or job but I just accept this and it does not bother me
I am only passing through so my life means nothing in the grand scheme of things


Every life is valuable. You cannot know the ways in which your life may have positively impacted others.

surreptitious75 wrote:I will try and read the book but I much prefer physical books so I may order it if I can


Surreptitious, I am receiving the proof within a few days. As soon as I publish the print version I'll let you know. It won't be too long.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:14 pm


I have just placed my order and it will be delivered in two weeks
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:34 pm

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Again, you are saying something here that makes no sense to me in a wholly determined universe. If one's goal is to improve the human condition and one is compelled to think, feel, say and do only that which is inherently entailed/compelled by the laws of matter then both the means and the ends here are subsumed in what can only be.


So what if the means and the ends here are subsumed in what can only be. Wouldn't that make you want to listen to a new understanding, which would also be subsumed in what can only be?


What makes me want to listen to a new understanding [re my own understanding of a wholly determined universe] is the fact that I could never not want to.

I literally have no choice but to choose to want to. And [clearly] we don't think about that in the same way. And I always allow for the possibility that, autonomously, I could choose to think about it differently.

iambiguous wrote:And that's before we get to the part that most interest me: How, assuming some level of autonomy instead, progress is basically an existential contraption embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.


peacegirl wrote: You are presupposing there has to be conflict in these things that you mentioned.


Let's just say that throughout the entire length and breadth of human history, our species has been awash in them.

iambiguous wrote:Let's bring this down to earth. In a determined universe what would constitute progress in regard to, say, the role of government in our lives? And how would we go about improving the human condition in regard to government when we can only go about doing what we must?


peacegirl wrote: Doing what we must is simply saying that we are moving in the direction that we think is best for us. Improving the human condition, once this knowledge is recognized and confirmed, government as we know it will no longer be necessary.


Right, like in a wholly determined universe, we could choose to think about this in any other way than we are compelled to. Like we are actually free to recognize this.

Meanwhile out in the world that we live in? To build or not to build Trump's wall. To be or not to be a socialist. To abort or not to abort the unborn baby. What here does improve the human condition?

iambiguous wrote:All I can do is to ask others here who share your point of view to reconfigure it into an assessment I might be able to better grasp. How is an individual "applying knowledge" not in turn entirely subsumed in a deterministic universe?


peacegirl wrote: As long as you use the phrase "subsumed in a deterministic universe" you are reducing us to automatons that can't make choices.


But how are you not reducing us down to men and women who choose only that which they are compelled to? Was the Terminator more like us or more like an automaton?

peacegirl wrote: Although the word choice is misleading because it implies we can choose A or B equally (which is false) does not mean that our choices are less meaningful as part of our continued development.


In a world where the meaning we ascribe to things is the only meaning we were ever able to ascribe to things...what does that tell you about this choice? Something different than what it tells me.

iambiguous wrote:It all becomes somewhat surreal. We grasp that man's will is not free. But we grasp that only because we could never not grasp it. And however we apply that to the human condition it is the only way that we ever could apply it.


peacegirl wrote: And... are you saying that my words mean nothing because I couldn't not be in this forum and type what I'm typing? #-o


You mean your words only as you ever could mean them. And they mean to me only that which they ever could mean to me. But those autonomous aliens are up there pointing out that that we still "choose" this meaning.

I'm still missing something in the meaning you are trying to convey. Not that I could ever have not missed it?

iambiguous wrote:And around and around we go. Making points that the other does not fully grasp in a wholly determined universe in which there was never any possibility of it being otherwise.


peacegirl wrote: True, from the birth of the universe to today had to occur exactly the way it did. Once again, a wholly determined universe does not remove our part in that determined universe by the "unfree" choices we make which will deterministically influence where our world is headed.


As nature's dominoes, we're not removed.

iambiguous wrote:A little help here!!

Admitting that perhaps I really am the one who needs it. Your point is solid and I keep missing it.


peacegirl wrote: You're missing the point because there's no real point yet other than the reason man's will is not free (i.e., that he is constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction).


But what on earth does this mean regarding our actual interactions with others? Other than the only thing that it ever could mean?

peacegirl wrote: What is important to recognize (which leads to the two-sided equation) is that although we have no control over which choice gives us greater satisfaction at any given moment in time...nothing has the power to make or force us to do anything against our will (which the conventional definition of determinism ignores).


Other than the fact that our "will" is entirely subsumed in nature ---and in those immutable laws of matter?

peacegirl wrote: So when someone says "he made me pull the trigger", he is not being truthful. This is important in regard to this discovery which you will understand if you find this interesting. If you don't find this interesting, then you could not not have moved on. I get that iambiguous. You don't have to keep repeating it.


We can just take that back [re an infinite regression] to the understanding of existence itself. I pulled the trigger because someone made me. And someone before that made him make me. And then all of the wholly determined interactions that come into play that brought both of us into existence. Going back to the laws of matter that brought into existence life 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: 32275
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Serendipper » Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:07 am

That was getting too long, so I distilled it down.

peacegirl wrote:I wasn't referring to an external force such as putting a gun to someone's head. I am only using the term "external" (my fault for the confusion) to mean that NOTHING can compel a person to do what they don't want to do. Because of the limitation of language it can be difficult to get across what is being conveyed. I hope you can see what I mean by "external" because there is really nothing to disagree with, when understood in context.

Suppose I intend to order chocolate, but then I overhear someone say they pissed in the chocolate, so some outside force has compelled me to change my mind.

I think what you're getting at is the will cannot will want it doesn't want to will. The will can be changed, but at the end of the day, the will still wills what it wants to will.

That is true, even if what someone believes is in his best interest is not what others believe is in his best interest. But let me clarify, this does not make anyone selfish in a cold sense. Selfishness (or the desire to do what is best for oneself) does not have to conflict with caring for others. This term has confused everyone.

If I give someone a gift, do a favor, or even sacrifice myself for someone else, it can only be for a selfish reason because there is nothing I can do that I don't want to do.

Selfishness in the cold sense is really just dimwitted in my opinion. That person doesn't see that doing things for others is better for him. It's not any more or less selfish, just dumber.

You can rail against the laws of the universe all you want

There are no laws, but only observed regularities.

Thank you for the link (I will check it out when I have time), but for the purposes of this thread what I am hoping to demonstrate is not only the proof that man's will is not free, but when extended how this knowledge can prevent what none of us want (i.e., the conflict that leads to war, crime, and poverty). Please try to keep your eye on the ball.

The links were to help you accept probabilism. If you already accept it, then don't worry about the links.

There is also a probability that I'm a worm believing I'm a person. We have to start out with the belief (or idea) that we exist, and that we, as agents, make choices, otherwise, there is no way we can even begin to have a productive dialog. It's up to you whether you want to scrap anything I'm saying because you can always come back with the retort "I don't exist so no proof about anything can be certain."

If you posit that you exist, then where is the line that separates you from not-you? This is not only problematic in space, but also time: when did you begin?

When I look at an animal, I see a bunch of luggage pushing a brain around, but then I realize the brain is just luggage too. Where is the animal? Alright, ok, so if the animal is the luggage, then what isn't luggage? The animal needs food and water and a planet, so where does the luggage end? Obviously if the animal is the luggage, then there is nothing that is not the animal. So either there is no animal or there is nothing that is not the animal, but I cannot for the life of me see the animal as different from everything else.

So if there is no animal, from where is the will coming from? And if there is only the animal, on what is the supposed will exerted? The whole thing is just an illusion. There is nothing being determined because there is nothing there but abstractions.

This is where my explanation is more accurate than the conventional definition. There is nothing in life that "causes" a particular response. Therefore, the idea of a first cause that goes back to prior causes is flawed in that we only have the present. Two plus two does not cause four. It is that already. How can the past "cause" anything in the present if there is no such thing as the past? Let me repeat: Nothing from the past (even if it's a second ago) can "cause" me to act a certain way.

I don't have any problem with that since I believe nothing has a cause. There are no things or events, and the abstracted things that we call things are caused by random (causeless) chance.

And I could go further and claim that if there were causes and deterministic mechanisms, then there would be no point to the universe. But that requires a lot of unpacking. Essentially, purposelessness can be the only purpose.

Serendipper, it is wonderful that you contribute the way you do.

Educating others helps me to live in a better world, so it's not noble, but selfish.

Writing a book is not the end all unless you desire to put into words something you care about.

I have literally tons and tons of books (and a Reader's Digest collection going back to the early 1900s when staples were used in the spine to hold pages together), but I'm ashamed to admit that I've only ever read one book (that I can remember) from cover to cover. My father devours books just for fun, but for me it's painful and I take a more utilitarian perspective that reading is a tool to learn. Dad reads for kicks, but I toil to achieve a goal. Anyway, I have oodles of books on queue awaiting whatever it is I'm missing so I can eventually attend to them, but it'll probably never happen. My eyes are also getting worse which makes it that much harder.

If I were born in a time absent tv, radio, and youtube, perhaps I'd have developed an affinity for reading, but I find it an antiquated method of learning and far too inefficient in light of alternative mediums. I'm spoiled by progress. I don't want to offend you or anything, but it would be a miracle if I ever found myself in a position where I didn't have 10,000 things more pressing or exciting to do in order to snuggle up to a book. Most of my reading is done in waiting rooms where nothing else is possible. Likewise, I have the same problem in writing a book. Why write a book when the purpose of writing, as David Hare said, "writing is the act of discovering what you believe"? If I've already discovered what I believe, why rehash it when I could move on to more interesting things. Maybe someone will compile my work one day since I'm too poorly equipped to do it. I can't even get around to compiling Alan Watts' work, which is on my bucket list.

Usually a book is written surrounding a few key ideas. One starts with the ideas and adds fluff to make a book from it. Isn't there a way to convey to me the nuggets without requiring me to wade through all the accessory fluff to find them?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]