So Free-Will is falsifiable but Determinism is not…
It should be obvious which is more ‘Scientific’. Acting as though Causality is the backbone of Science, without understanding Causality, and without understanding Falsifiability, any such conversation cannot proceed.
In Science, if your premise cannot be falsified (Determinism: all matter and all existence share an ultimate Prima Causa, or, there is a cause for everything, even if unknown), then it is not Science. It’s Religion. Determinism is a Religion (Judæo-Christianity for those who don’t know). Free-Will is not. Free-Will doesn’t even have to be “believed in”. Because Free-Will is belief-itself, a representation of hope (for survival).
Im keeping these very short as Ill get very boring otherwise. But I hope I can add something to the discussion.
vocaroo.com/i/s0UI7WytSFhm
(free will? causes of freedom or freedom as a cause, power as a cause, Nietzsche, Einstein)
vocaroo.com/i/s0txktzuxddz
A pretty long winded follow up here. Discerning historical from ongoing causes.
An external individual can not change another individual and what made that individual what they are, only they can… that’s what a free will is. They have to consciously accept their mistakes as wrong or just as mistakes.
People do make choices on which options they have, often of does this hurt me or does this hurt someone else. A lot of people pick to hurt someone else instead of dealing with hurt because of a false “greater satisfaction” That’s cowardice, weakness. I don’t like hearing excuses for it. Cause and effect is real, but the fact we’re doing philosophy right now discussing it shows that they could be doing the same thing. Which shows that model of thought is not fully accurate. People should take into account the criminals situation but also their words, lies exist, false satisfaction exists, no one has to be controlled by their satisfactions exploiting other people. If you think there’s no free choice in value regarding that then you argue against my objective existence.
The fact that greater satisfaction doesn’t exist, destroys yours and peacegirls argument. It’s illusory, temporary and hardly lasts. So why go with it at all? The only thing real here and non temporary is knowledge(knowing) wisdom(understanding), pain and energy of many forms.
If I can understand satisfaction is Bill shit, are you saying you can’t or some other person on the street can’t because they weren’t introduced to that thought externally? It’s called, using your own mind to solve those moral issues, logical deducing. If I harm someone else dishonestly, it’s most likely not right. If I intentionally go out of my way to harm someone because it benefits me, that’s not right. If you live your life solely off of the next better “satisfaction” I feel sorry for you, will be disappointed a lot with what comes after the fast ending feeling of “satisfied”. Comfort too is an instinct of which ends quickly after indulged in. So ultimately your argument is that people fall for their instincts, which guess what, a free will is what cures that issue to the far extents upon which one chooses to go if they value it. A conscious choice to be humble and to learn and accept your own wrongs and shadow whilst not feeding it.
Are you saying they don’t know the harm to come? That could be so but that’s what mistakes are, learn from them. History is there for a reason.
What one does with their pain, is up to them. I don’t give a fuck what anyone is “taught” teachings can be let go. Takes mistakes to learn. That’s why we make them. Prison is a place to reflect upon those conscious mistakes, to adjust morality and no, morality is not all subjective if you can understand yourself. It’s objectively good for me not to say certain things to an ignorant person, it’s about knowing your situations and which ones you should bother engaging with. If others don’t know that. It isn’t my fault for their not knowing, it isn’t an external fault for their not knowing. There are plenty of fucking books for them to read locally, I guarantee it.
You know why religion and spirituality exist or their intended purpose/usage?, to guide mankind morally to free their own will. So look at the world and tell me, do you think those people have adapted to or adopted those teachings and adjusted them to fit their lives and contextual situations? No? Then there is your issue. Religions can be /bad/ if one /chooses/ for it to be bad. If something external effects your view upon religion, then you now have a bias and are indoctrinated without fully immersing yourself in the experience of that specific idea.
There is a reason Aristotle said this and I live my life by this quote to my best ability.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
Because he knew that bias kills wisdom and open mindedness. I want you to take a long good look at the world and tell me, do you think people are open minded, do you think people understand the religion if they -do- use it as a tool for themself, do you think people live by Aristotle’s quote as well? No? Then you have your answers for why things are the way they are. Cause and effect drives individuals to learn, if not then what’s a mistake if not a lesson? the freedom is their choosing to learn or to not of which if they make the right choice, Their will becomes more free, by an understanding of all sides and questions posed regarding contextual situation and self. So have people chosen to learn, judging by how the world is? You tell me.
A few things:
1. Mind-body Duality
Determinists must believe in Spinoza’s Monadology, which is the basis for Ontology (and Atomic Theory), because otherwise a Determinist would be forced into, as you say, “two types of cause” or “two types of sbustance/matter”. If there were “two types of causes” then it won’t make sense to say that “all things are caused” without knowing exactly which set or standard of ‘Causes’ there are. As an analogy, it would be equivalent to stating that there are “Two Laws” which govern the universe, one applied to this (not-Humanity), and the other applied to that (Humanity).
I started this thread because, if Will is an essence of all life then Determinists are forced into an even more difficult position. You must explain for all types of Causes, to therein correspond to any-and-all types of Freedom, especially that of the simplest organic life, along with the most complex (and evolved).
2. Falsifiability of Free Will
It doesn’t matter if ‘freedom’ is used physically or metaphysically, or even absurdly. If anything can shown to be free, which as you imply is a matter of Ability, then a case is made for free-will. Determinism has no such positive standard. Instead Determinism is a reaction to Free-Will (preceding it). Determinism must claim that nobody-and-nothing is free, and furthermore, any-and-all thoughts of ‘freedom’ conceived by Humanity, is an illusion (compared to what?) or a lie (compared to what?). Because Determinism has no other argument, it will always fall into this state.
The presumption is that “all things are caused, and nothing can be free from All Causality”. But “All Causality” doesn’t really mean anything. Causes aren’t a “thing”. A thing must cause another thing. So to say, “all things are caused”, begs-the-question, as to “Caused by What/Whom?”.
This is why Determinism is strongly Judæo-Christian, or if you want to go further back into the past, a product of Absolute Monarchy/Power. Caused by One Thing (A Creator/The Creator).
Without a religious underpinning, without a thesis or premise, there is no “who or what” caused anything, any event, any phenomenon. So Determinism cannot stand on Nothing. If it does, as somebody like Sil presents it, then it is Un-falsifiable, and therefore, not Scientific.
3. Internal Law
So do the Biological or ‘Human’ internal-laws contradict or waver, in any way from, the so-presumed “Natural Law” from which all things are claimed to be Caused (a priori)? Are humans “exceptional”, exceptions from “The Rules”? How about Gravity? Have humans defied Gravity? In the Pragmatic sense, yes, Humans have traveled outside the Earth’s atmosphere, and so are no longer beholden to the Earthly notion of Gravity. The counter-argument: “But Gravity still exists, as a phenomenon and force, even if humanity travels beyond its cause (Earth), and therefore the Cause still exists”
Here’s the problem. The hypothetical “Causes” of anything are only relevant directly pertaining to a specific setting and environment. If humans were born in a space-ship in zero-gravity light-years outside Earth then they would have little or no concept of “Gravity” and so would deny that such a “Law of Gravity” pertains to them. Different environments, and therefore, different laws.
So Sil would argue here, “but there are Grand Physical Laws for everything”. But this is a weak-argument, because you are then trying backpedal your “Causality” to some ultimate-unifying principle, in order to retain a convincing point (that all things are caused, or worse, caused equally, and futhermore, that there is “only one” type of cause).
4. General theme - Unknown causes
My main points have always been this. If your argument for Determinism rests on “Grand Unifying Physical Theories” then A: you’re probably not being as “Scientific” as you think you are (to Sil), B: you almost certainly, don’t know what you’re talking about, and C: if you admit to “Unknown Causes” then you are always presenting a very weak-argument as to the thesis of Determinism-in-general. Any “Deterministic” argument that were reasonable, would present the causes of such-and-such thing or event, or phenomenon, and then use those patterns of causality to either correlate them to the causes of anything else (Hence, Analogy), or understand the pattern of the cause itself.
Conclusion,
It strikes me as obvious and common sense that, even Physically, a rock is least free. Water is ‘freer’. Air is freer still. And fire is ‘freest’ in its ability to move in all directions, quickly, and seemingly randomly. If there is “freedom” in this physical (or metaphysical) sense, then does it really matter to then say that humans, and organic life, is less-free or more-free, from individual to individual? How else could it be that a rock is least free, and then, so is this person right here. Or fire is “freest”, but then so too, is that person right there freest of human people?
It ought to make sense on the most intuitive level that some people “cannot escape” their heavy, laden, immobile state, but others can. Or that a rock has “no choice at all” (to move), while water, wind, and fire, move freely in ways that solid elements “could never hope to”.
If freedom can be analogized to a physical state, then my position is even better. Determinism doesn’t even matter. Because at some point, causes are unknown. But it is still known, that physically some elements or “chemical compositions” are freer than others, based on motion, and so too, physically some humans are freer than others.
It’s an easy step to make to say that this applies to the mind or soul. If all these premises are accepted, then all the causes that are ‘known’, don’t matter.
Freedom is more inherent than “Determinism”. Because Determinism is based only on what humans or cognizant animals know of. But freedom is not dependent upon the consciousness of any human, or any living creature at all.
I believe my position would be as “pre-Socratic” as you can get…
to Promethean: 0 - end
to UrWrongx1000: 3:20 - end
to Artimas: 6:55 - end
By the way Promethean I respect your recording. I fist recorded no less than three positive responses to it but none of them were elegant and at night I realized there are simply too many points where I object. In the end what I respect is your commitment to your perspective, the practical proof of you going into a courtroom to exhibit it at the cost of some well being makes for a philosophic scene, it could have happened in ancient Greece that way. So that all exempts you from any criticism, you will keep running into walls but not without it meaning something to people around you. A martyr, of sorts - a martyr for the cause of determinism. Which is, I suppose, a clown of sorts. Deliberate or not, it is a common archetype to most of us especially those trying to hide it.
“A clown gives us the reality of our own lives. We can’t withstand the onslaught of the world any more than the clown does. We can only follow his example by making the best of it. Smile or smoke as you like, just carry the water.”
This is quite flawless up to a point.
Beyond this two issues arise
firstly, matter is not empirically indefinitely reducible,
secondly, even as the mechanism of causation is proven to take place, it is not explained why one thing can have an effect on another, without it becoming that thing.
Thus monism immediately becomes chaos-theory. But Spinoza resolves this by positing one supreme monad of which everything is property and attribute. He then arrives at a reflection of this God monad in the form of individual entities, which is this Conatus idea which navigates the two types of causality and indicates the heroic entity. But the question remains, what causes one heroic entity to effect another one without them becoming the same thing?
These different constitutions of inclinations that account for this fact are what is called resistance. Within the concept of resistance, there is the crux to free will, why causation depends on it.
Something stands in its power if it is free to resist.
There is chaos in that, and when one masters the chaos of ones own realm by that inscrutably determined constitution of the empirical self, then one has free will.
And every particle in the void has such free will. But humans and animals and plants do not. Life in general does not possess free will, unless it is detached from its instincts. Japanese warrior code grants moments of free will. Often that comes down to arbitrary seeming sacrifices. But it can also mean a cup of tea poured especially well or writing the future into being from a precarious game with a set of tastes like Nietzsche did.
If things are infinitely reducible to smaller parts there could not be causation. There would be nothing to keep particles together, no inherent resistance except if there is interference between the scales that slow down any changes.
This resistance or limit to empirical physics is the quark, which is a set of shifting “colours”, which have certain “apprehensions” of each other that cause them to shift in certain aways and replace each other. Its like a triadic game of hide and seek in a sense. Wax on wax off. There is an empirical consequence to the elemental number of one, which is the number three. We divide our observations up onto a subject, an action and an object, a thing has three dimensions, etc - it is how our mind works. No doubt this is why the quark “is” a triadic mechanism. It is the representation of what which we cannot escape. Except, the Hebrews must have figured, by inventing a quadratic monad.
You can only determine causes by triangulating both cause and effect.
That is no more or less than grounding them in necessity.
Scientific determinism is the reduction of history to that which brings evidence of certain highlighted aspects of the present. All other kinds of determinism are speculative. Meaning that whatever causality one accurately discerns, there is always a larger theatre to worry about.
So, Ill try to leave the thread alive and chill out after this, for determinism to fully account for things you need a closed environment. A closed environment is known to generate entropy in itself. Therefore all non entropic phenomena are acts of free will. Since the universe since the collision we call the Big Bang went from being a turbulent plasma to an orderly system of turbulent plasmas, free will governs the infinite order of time.
Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid, Annuit Coeptis – a bold enterprise is the only thing that will stand in this cosmos. That is the one final cause of all things. Causation isn’t ultimately a local game but one of general demand. Existence is local, but the chains of causation are local, but the particularity of the used chains is not. I assume this has to do with electron spin entanglement, which overturns all ping pong models.
The future is a free cause. The past tries to mimic it as best it can and this attempt is our mind.
Still listening to this but, I agree completely with that thought that the citizen needs to have agreed to a treaty to be morally punished.
“Obliterating power of forgiveness”, haha.
Its adding insult to injury to forgive someone for something he didn’t consider wrong.
I think 2003 was a year when humanity really saw the nature of the affective nature of the prison system in Abu Grahib.
(The circus itself)
Yes, a convicts enmity towards the state would be lessened if the state were not a hypocrite.
A societies art forms are a remedy for its morality.