Determinism

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:48 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: The parts I thought were clear and match my most common reaction:
you have told us all this before

you have not evolved

That you want to be or be seen as a victim.
That it is implicit in many of your posts that all others or at least objectivists are stupid.
That your posts are ad hom - (since they go to motive, as a rule.)


Okay, but can we agree that in a wholly determined universe, nothing that you or I or he has posted here was ever truly within our command as autonomous human being? After all, that's the beauty of determinism [for some]: Everyone is let off the hook!

But let's assume instead that we really do possess some measure of freedom in choosing [as opposed to "choosing"] our words.

Over and again I note that my interest in philosophy revolves around the question, "how ought one to live". And in what [I presume] to be a No God world. That's my "thing" here. And, over the years, I have honed my thinking down to points that I believe best encompass it. If that annoys some, they can move on to other. Or frequent only my quotes, music and film threads.

Evolved? What does that mean? For the objectivists of course others "evolve" only when they come to think more like they do. But I never construe my own frame of mind here as anything other than an existential contraption.

Victim? I'm down in a hole [in the is/ought world] and right around the corner is what I construe to be oblivion. Those are just facts of life for me.

Ad homs? Well, in polemical mode, I can surely come off that way. Ever and always provocative. But to call the search for motive a personal attack is a stretch. On the contrary, it goes to the heart of the matter for me here: "I" as dasein.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I haven't seen anyone else sum up my general reaction to how you position yourself in relation to others in such a concise and clear way.


Here we will just have to agree to disagree. As I noted elsewhere I don't often read his stuff because I do not have any respect for his intelligence given the stuff that I have read. Now, that's just my own person opinion however wrapped up in an existential contraption.

But his "consent violation" is [to me] analogous to James Saints "RM/AO" or fixed crosses [Jacob?] "value ontology".

I have no clear idea what on earth they mean. And, in particular, with respect to conflicting goods embedded in particular contexts.

Seriously, what do you think he means by it? Cite a few examples from your own interactions with others. And in the least abstract manner that you are able to.
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: 29687
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:09 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Okay, but can we agree that in a wholly determined universe, nothing that you or I or he has posted here was ever truly within our command as autonomous human being? After all, that's the beauty of determinism [for some]: Everyone is let off the hook!
Determinism leaves room for Ecmandu to describe you, for others to find this description useful, to notice experiences with others are better in some way - should that be the case. If you mean, we shouldn't blame you for being the way you are or something well that cuts both ways.

But notice how the context has shifted. To you his post was just gibberish. I pointed out parts that I found potentially accurately descriptive. I list these parts.

Your response is 'but I can't help but be like that'

That has nothing to with whehter his post is gibberish or if it conveyed something bluntly and clearly.

this is a regular pattern I find with you. You shift the context all the time, and this generally includes you choosing to repeat something as if it is relevent, something you have said before, a number of times. Here the impications of determinism.
But let's assume instead that we really do possess some measure of freedom in choosing [as opposed to "choosing"] our words.

Over and again I note that my interest in philosophy revolves around the question, "how ought one to live". And in what [I presume] to be a No God world. That's my "thing" here. And, over the years, I have honed my thinking down to points that I believe best encompass it. If that annoys some, they can move on to other. Or frequent only my quotes, music and film threads.

Of course it is fine to focus on what you want to focus on. But you don't have to treat us as if we don't exist and have motives of our own. You can simply say; I am not interested in that. What you do is treat everything as a failed attempt to solve one of your few main problems. And it seems like you simply cannot tell that other people have other goals. And this happens in threads that are threads you started either.

So here you frame our being annoyed as: they are annoyed because I limit my focus. Perhaps someone is, though I kinda doubt it.

It is that you respond as if there are ONLY your issues, so anything anyone says is a poor attempt to solve your issues. Here, as if the issue was whether you could have done something else and are you let off the hook by determinism.

Evolved? What does that mean? For the objectivists of course others "evolve" only when they come to think more like they do. But I never construe my own frame of mind here as anything other than an existential contraption.



Ad homs? Well, in polemical mode, I can surely come off that way. Ever and always provocative. But to call the search for motive a personal attack is a stretch. On the contrary, it goes to the heart of the matter for me here: "I" as dasein.
I don't know if I or he called it a personal attack. I called it ad hom, which it is. But then you go beyond this. In one on one interpersonal interactions, if someone seems not as upset as you or has beliefs different from you, you tell them it because your ideas make them uncomfortable. Yes, you sometimes then say, you might be wrong.

At a party I walk up to a woman and say 'You are a slut and a whore' then I say 'I might be wrong, of course.'

It's still a personal attack. Yours are nicer, but they are still personal attacks.

The consent violations discussion is a huge one.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:43 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Look, my point in regard to determinism is that sans human autonomy this very exchange could only have ever unfolded as it must. Thus all of the words that we use in it we are compelled to use.


Sure. I don't disagree. That is the implication of determinsm.


Then, like me, are you willing to accept the "for all practical purposes" consequences of this? That neither one of us are really right or wrong here in a world where perceptions of right and wrong themselves are no less entirely in sync with the immutable laws of matter.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that human autonomy is also a possibilty. And that, in fact, one of us may well be closer to a more reasonable frame of mind. It's just that here I note that gap between which of us is closer and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to determine just how much closer to the whole truth one of us is.

Many here seem to just shrug that part off. Not me. From my perspective that gap [and all of the "unknown unknowns" that fill it] is the most important point of all.

We still have no way in which to determine definitively if determinism is our...fate? Or none that I'm aware of.

Still...

Whether your frame of mind is more reasonable than mine would then seem to be moot. Both frames of minds are wholly [necessarily] in sync with the immutable laws of matter.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:Are you trying to say it is unreasonable of me to think you are not responding to me as other people do? If so, then this message should go to you also. I really don't know what you are on about. Are you angry that a determinist gets irritated with you? Because you can't help but be who you are? Is that what you are saying? You might want to mull over the irony in that.


Huh? What I'm saying is that in a wholly ordered universe ever and always in sync with the laws of matter, whatever either one of us think, feel, say or do, is entirely determined such that we only "choose" to be "reasonable" or "unreasonable". Or to "feel" angry. As for irony, how is that not just another domino derived from the human brain derived for the laws of matter?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Me, I black box determinism/free will.


Yes, and in a determined universe, you were never going to not black box it. You were never able to not black box it.

Those autonomous aliens note you pointing it out to us but then note that, in reality, you only "chose" to.

As with peacegirl, you say you understand determinism a lot like I do, but from my frame of mind you don't understand the existential implications of it as I do at all.

In other words...

In a determined universe you were never going to not like or dislike flavor X. All so-called pragmatic concoctions here are necessarily in sync with the ubiquitous laws of matter.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: You often explain things that you have no reason to explain to me, and as if they are relevent.


I am simply drawing a parallel between you liking or disliking flavor X ice cream and the points that you raise about me here. As I understand determinism, you are no less compelled to react as you must in either context.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:You attributed a complicated abstract reasoning process to a preference of mine. I said that was silly and that it was more like preferring an ice cream flavor. My point is only stronger in the context of determinism. IOW exactly! they are alike. So you don't have to make up some complicated hysterically convoluted contraption for my preference. I didn't concoct an understanding of pragmatism to choose vanilla as my childhood favorite flavor. You see contraptions and complicated, very abstract mental thinky verbal ones when someone is different from you. Not everyone decides everything via working it out logically and in words in their minds. I did not sit down and decide my understanding of pragmatism and then apply this to the issue of free will and determinism. I find that it does not interest me much and no one has every said anything that pulls me away from my gut reaction. Maybe they will, but so far it is just like someone telling me I should be more interested in butterscotch.


Again, in a determined universe [as I understand it now] this exchange is all just one more facet of nature's "script" for us. Thus, things are only as "complicated" as nature itself is.

Then this part...

Yet you seem to be criticizing me here as though I were in fact free to rethink all this through more clearly. To think like you do.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:This is precisely the kind of thing that Ecmandu is pointing out as a victim stance. Of course pointing out what I think it is the case, might change your mind. and yes, I think it is the case. You seem to be saying here 1) you can never change your mind because of determinism - which runs counter to all your ramblings about dasein and not knowing what you will believe in the future 2) that you are victimized if someone else asserts what they think is the case. 3) that no determinist can assert what they think is the case or they are victimizing 4) that I am a determinist.


What on earth does it mean for one to be the "victim" or the "victimizer" in a world where one is only what one is compelled to be by dint of material, phenomenological forces beyond ones control?

Either that or, sure, I am completely missing your point in a world in which I am in fact free to rethink the exchange and come closer to your point of view. Or you come closer to mine. A world, in other words, where being more or less reasonable really does matter. Why? Because we really do have the freedom to make it matter.

As though I do in fact have the autonomy necessary to change my mind. Which I may well have.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:You don't need free will to change your mind. You do understand that right? You can learn, even in a determined universe.


Of course I understand it. We "choose" things. But if I change my mind only because I was never able to not change my mind [about anything] then, in turn, I "learn" only what I was never able to not learn.

You do understand that, right?

Here you seem [to me] to be in sync with peacegirl. This thing about "choosing" in a way that dominoes do not...even though the laws of matter embedded necessarily in nature are ultimately behind both the dominoes and the human brain.

We live in a world where value judgments come into conflict. And I believe my own opinions about these issues [like yours] are derived existentially from the life that one lives. Call these beliefs concoctions, call them something else. Call the manner in which we react to them pragmatic, call it something else.

And even though I don't know the extent to which human autonomy is a factor in all of this, what could possibly be more important to know?


Karpel Tunnel wrote:Oh, you are victimizing me. I should prioritize it like you do? The universe may be dtermined but if it is, I can't help but not priortize it like I do. Poor me.

You do understand that you cannot possibly imagine it is correct to not prioritize finding the answer to dterminism vs. free will. YOu don't justify this, but you express it. Which is fine, it's just you don't seem to notice.


Here I am basically stumped. What on earth does your point here even have to do with mine above?

A little help from others, perhaps?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Look, your points about dasein and conflicting goods are fine. Sometimes when you engage with specfic objectivists, it's pleasant to watch. But your whole pattern of relating...I know you don't understand why ecmandu would say something like that. You don't come off as someone much interested in psychology or the specific kinds of introspection associated with that. Fine. But consider that certain things might be obvious to other people but not to you. There's a boatload of cognitive science research that says this is possible and in general applicable to everyone, though some more than others.


In my view, this sort of "general description" critique can only be fleshed out by [over and again] reconfiguring the "intellectual" points being made into an exchange about particular conflicting behaviors in a particular context.

And [of course] in making the assumption that we do possess some level of autonomy. Otherwise I am "stuck" with the assumptions I make about a determined universe: that nothing in this exchange could ever have been other then what nature intended.

Then the mystery shifting to whether nature itself has any intent. The part about teleology and purpose and meaning in our lives. The part that [for many] includes religion and God and the human soul.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am sayng that perhaps the way you feel victimized and position yourself as the brave person facing the extential void, mistreated by others who are triggered by the issues I raise and cannot face them....


This is your own "existential contraption" in my view. You make me the issue and note all of these things about me that I simply do not recognize in myself.

Either bring these "issues" down to earth and embed them in a particular context or they are just more psychologisms to me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Note: this is not an agrume to convince you. That would look very different. This is me saying: consider that you have a giant blind spot regarding what you are doing here. Cause sure looks like it.


Right. Like, from my point of view, I can't suggest the same sort of thing about you.

Or [as with so many others I have encountered over the years] is the biggest blind spot of all here that I don't see things as they do?

It's all about me failing to view myself as cogently as you and others do:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:There is shit you just don't want to look at and it shines in most of your posts. Or so it seems. There is something that does not fit, in some big way. Whetehr you are aware of it or not and exactly what it is, I don't known. I suspect Ecmandu is right, but I am nto sure. I suspect that rage drives you much more than concern about finding the answers, though I suspect you don't know this. This is all what is fascinating.

And every single post in response to me contains stuff that just adds to this. The avoidance, the repetition, the not fitting together, the positioning of yourself as the only of (of few at most) who can just be in the hole wihtout making up contraptions to comfort yourself, etc.

It happens over and over. And no matter who points it out, you go ad hom and say it is them not being able to face the hole. You say you aren't sure, but you go there, sooner or later.

The fascinating thing is, as I think it: does Iamb truly no notice at least in his periperhal vision, that something else might be going on when he posts and relates to others here than what he puts forward? So the temptation returns: hold a mirror up. Nope, not that time. Hold up a different mirror, focused on something else. Nope. I mean, perhaps I should not be surprised. I have been quite oblivious to things that were obvious to others about me. We are good at defending ourselves. But there it is.


What on earth does this mean? We would have to follow each other around from day to day to day and note our reactions to any number of things. Explaining to each other why we think we chose this instead of that.

Well, that's not likely to happens. So, in my view, we can only brings things like "consent violation" "pragmatism" and "dasein" down to earth by imagining particular contexts in which we might make particular choices.

Let's all agree on one and do it. See what unfolds when the words are forced to make contact with the world that we live in.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Where on earth you got the idea I was saying my various possible reactions were free of dasein's effects or free of determinism, I have no idea.


I have never said that


Karpel Tunnel wrote:Then why incredulously lecture me yet again about dasein or the implications of determinism. If it was relevent it had to be a 'seeing a need to remind me of these things', if it wasn't relevent, why bring it up.


You call it a lecture, I call it trying to understand the manner in which we seem to share certain opinions about "I" at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political power, and understanding the manner in which we don't.

Such that [from my frame of mind] our choice to be pragmatists results in different perspectives on the existential implications of this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

How do you reflect on your own particular "I" here so as to appear [to me] to be considerably less fractured and fragmented. And thus able to sustain a more comforting and consoling frame of mind when dealing with your "self" confronting conflicting goods in your interactions with others.

On the other hand, often our frame of mind about the lives we live is embedded more in the actual set of circumstances that we confront day in and day out. If things in that regard [love life, sex, job fulfillment, family and friends, fulfilling distractions etc.] are going well for you, it is easy enough to bend your "philosophical" perspective to be more in sync with that. Or you may have "the glass half full" outlook on life and then circumstantially the glass tumbles to the floor and shatters. You are suddenly overwhelmed existentially with problems and ordeals. Then your philosophical bent shifts more in the direction of being in sync with that instead.
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: 29687
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:21 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Okay, but can we agree that in a wholly determined universe, nothing that you or I or he has posted here was ever truly within our command as autonomous human being? After all, that's the beauty of determinism [for some]: Everyone is let off the hook!


Determinism leaves room for Ecmandu to describe you, for others to find this description useful, to notice experiences with others are better in some way - should that be the case. If you mean, we shouldn't blame you for being the way you are or something well that cuts both ways.


Well, my own understanding of determinism leaves no room for descriptions or blame to be anything other than an inherent, necessary manifestation of nature unfolding as it must.

And in cutting both ways it merely reflects that fact that nature's way encompasses all of us. And this exchange would be no exception.

Only I have no way of really knowing for certain if I have no way of really knowing for certain because I am merely "choosing" what I am compelled to, or because I am in fact exercising my autonomy and choosing to think about all of this in a way that is not in sync with your way or his way. And that, in fact, either your way or his way or my way does reflect a more reasonable perspective.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But notice how the context has shifted. To you his post was just gibberish. I pointed out parts that I found potentially accurately descriptive. I list these parts. Your response is 'but I can't help but be like that'


No, my response is that I don't know for certain if I can help to be like that. What I then do [as most do in turn] is to assume that I might possibly be able to freely choose to be something other than what I think I am here and now.

What we do here then is to make arguments that may or may not pull and tug us in different directions. And that has everything to do with how [up to now] I find his post to be but one more example of a "general description" "intellectual contraption" while you find it to be blunt and clear instead.

I would however never argue that my frame of mind in this regard is anything other than an existential contraption. A value judgment rooted in dasein.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ...this is a regular pattern I find with you. You shift the context all the time, and this generally includes you choosing to repeat something as if it is relevent, something you have said before, a number of times. Here the impications of determinism.


You point this out to me but you won't admit that this may well be but one example of your own existential contraptions. Or that we might be construing the exchange based on entirely different assumptions regarding what we think the other is misconstruing.

All you can do here is to note what you deem to be particular instances of this.

Thus...

...let's assume instead that we really do possess some measure of freedom in choosing [as opposed to "choosing"] our words.

Over and again I note that my interest in philosophy revolves around the question, "how ought one to live". And in what [I presume] to be a No God world. That's my "thing" here. And, over the years, I have honed my thinking down to points that I believe best encompass it. If that annoys some, they can move on to other. Or frequent only my quotes, music and film threads.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Of course it is fine to focus on what you want to focus on. But you don't have to treat us as if we don't exist and have motives of our own. You can simply say; I am not interested in that. What you do is treat everything as a failed attempt to solve one of your few main problems. And it seems like you simply cannot tell that other people have other goals. And this happens in threads that are threads you started either.


Or the manner in which I react to something you post merely prompts you to assume that I am not interested in where you want to take things.

Again, bring these "you are the problem" observations into a discussion of actual human interactions. Then you can be more specific in noting when, from your point of view, I am "failing" to be interested in your take on something.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It is that you respond as if there are ONLY your issues, so anything anyone says is a poor attempt to solve your issues. Here, as if the issue was whether you could have done something else and are you let off the hook by determinism.


This is simply not sinking in. I don't really understand what you are telling me here. I don't know if determinism is a reasonable frame of mind, let alone the most reasonable frame of mind one can have about the choices we make when confronting the question "how ought one to live?" in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods construed subjectively from the perspective of "I".

iambiguous wrote: Evolved? What does that mean? For the objectivists of course others "evolve" only when they come to think more like they do. But I never construe my own frame of mind here as anything other than an existential contraption.


iambiguous wrote: Ad homs? Well, in polemical mode, I can surely come off that way. Ever and always provocative. But to call the search for motive a personal attack is a stretch. On the contrary, it goes to the heart of the matter for me here: "I" as dasein.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: I don't know if I or he called it a personal attack. I called it ad hom, which it is. But then you go beyond this. In one on one interpersonal interactions, if someone seems not as upset as you or has beliefs different from you, you tell them it because your ideas make them uncomfortable. Yes, you sometimes then say, you might be wrong.


As folks like Promeathean75 have pointed out, I've been in exchanges with those I construe to be objectivists for many, many, many years. And I can only be honest in my reaction to them. And part of this flows from the fact that for many years in turn I was myself an objectivist. I know first hand what it means to have "I" begin to topple over and then break into pieces. I had reacted then just as I perceive them reacting now.

With you as fellow pragmatist however my reaction revolves more around how you manage to go about the business of confronting those with conflicting value judgments and not tumble down into the hole as I imagine it as the only reasonable manner in which to deal with "I" here as an existential contraption. Someone who recognizes that their own values are constructed largely out of the experiences that they have had in the course of living a particular life, and that there does not appear to be a way for philosophers to concoct anything in the way of a moral obligation.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: At a party I walk up to a woman and say 'You are a slut and a whore' then I say 'I might be wrong, of course.'

It's still a personal attack. Yours are nicer, but they are still personal attacks.


I disagree. The connotations I wrap around objectivists is not the same [to me] as the truly disparaging connotations that revolve around callng a woman a slut at a party.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: The consent violations discussion is a huge one.


Okay, let him bring this down to earth. Let hm note a particular context in which human interactions involve actual consents being violated.
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: 29687
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:52 pm

"Compatibilism"
Craig Ross in Philosophy Now magazine

It is interesting to note that a compatibilist would presumably have to accept that the Terminator as played by Arnold Schwarzenegger is free, in that it has a desire (to kill John Connor) which it pursues with flexibility, insight and intelligence. It is certainly hard to see why the Terminator is un-free simply because it was given its (programmed) passion by an identifiable individual, as opposed to taking pot luck from God or genetics.


One can imagine that, down the road, as we get more and more sophisticated in creating cyborbs, that line between real and artificial intelligence will become more and more blurred.

Is the Terminator free or unfree? Is there anything that he thinks or feels or says or does that is not entirely programmed by machines programmed by human beings?

Is there anything that you and I do that is not entirely programmed by nature?

Is there anything that nature does that is not entirely programmed by God?

How do we go about determining with any real precision where one component of existence ends and the other parts begins?

When we interact the closest we seem able to get to the "I" of others, is in making eye contact. You can stare into your own eyes while looking in the mirror. But: are you really seeing your "self" there?

That just doesn't seem to be the end of it. But where else can we go until someone, someday can show us?
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: 29687
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:04 pm

"Defending Free Will & The Self"
Frank S. Robinson in Philosophy Now Magazine

In 2012, Sam Harris, one of the famed ‘four horsemen’ of New Atheism, published a book called Free Will, arguing that it doesn’t exist. He’s a neuroscientist, and he contends that the more science learns how our brains work, the less plausible is a self with free will. He calls them ‘illusions’. By contrast, in his 2003 book Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett, another of the horsemen, argued for a concept of free will that is “an evolved creation of human activity and beliefs” and is compatible with causal determinism. Who is right, if either of them?


This is basically where I get stuck. Sam Harris the neuroscientist argues that the more we know about the human brain the less we seem to be free to know this of our own volition. Then others like Dennett weigh in with opposing points of view.

How then does Harris not see this debate itself as but in turn wholly determined? He takes on the theists as well as though their exchanges with him could ever have been other than what they were.

Think about it. When he gets miffed at a God world or a free will advocate doesn't he step back and accept that his reaction is only as it must be? Doesn't that make the gist of his argument but another bunch of nature's dominoes toppling over like the dominoes that topple over when the Pope reacts to pedophiles in the ranks of the Catholic Church preying on children because they were never able not to prey on them?

What do I keep missing then when the so-called "compatibilist" weigh in and attempt to "reconcile" the two?
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: 29687
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:19 pm

"Defending Free Will & The Self"
Frank S. Robinson in Philosophy Now magazine

Determinism is the nub of the matter. Dennett defines it by reference to ‘Laplace’s demon’. Two centuries ago the French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace said that if an all-knowing demon could know perfectly the state of every particle in the universe at any given moment, it could predict their state in the next, and the next, and so on to eternity. The operation of cause and effect means that what happens next is determined by what has come before, and the future of the universe down to its tiniest details is predestined until the end of time.


This is basically how I view "the immutable laws of matter" in a determined universe. Cause and effect is synonymous with the only possible reality. "Perfection" would be encompassed in the "brute facticity" of existence itself.

Only without that component we call a teleology. Matter has evolved into minds able to invent the word teleology but that too is only a "mechanism" embedded necessarily in nature unfolding like clockwork.

Just with [from my frame of mind] no clockmaker.

Then "I" fall over the edge into the "for all practical purposes" surreal attempts to make sense of that.

At least with a demon [or, more likely, a God] we'd have something to take it all back to. But in not having that here and now myself "I" am just completely baffled.

Which I presume is a frame of mind that I will take with me to the grave.
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: 29687
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:54 pm

"Defending Free Will & The Self"
Frank S. Robinson in Philosophy Now magazine

Dennett questions such certainty, proposing an element of chance within causality, due to quantum mechanics.


But: Was Dennett ever able to not question such certainty? And how is the "element of chance" understood as the same or different from "randomness" in the universe?

Instead, from my point of view, what is seen as "chance" or "randomness" is merely a reflection of the gap between what we think we know about reality here and now and all that needs to be known such that in a wholly determined universe even interactions in the quantum world would be entirely predictable. Either by God or by a mere mortal able actually to grasp both the theory and the practice of everything.

Nevertheless, he says the deterministic argument against free will remains that all outputs from your brain – including all your so-called ‘choices’ – are entirely products of physical causes beyond your conscious control. If you pick chocolate over vanilla ice-cream, that’s a consequence of something that happened among your neurons, due to the structure of your neural network, and this was shaped by everything that happened in your life till then, and indeed everything causally linked to your brain all the way back to the Big Bang. That’s causal determinism. It’s as if you’re a computer program doing what it does because it’s programmed to, and can’t choose to do different; like a chess computer that, faced with the same board configuration, will make the same move every time. Most of Dennett’s book is about how and in what sense we could have free will anyway.


So: Does he pull it off? Or is his own argument in and of itself just another inherent, necessary manifestion of what could only ever be?

Then we head in the direction that peacegirl always seems to go:

Someone might point out that we’re acting on our desires, which a computer doesn’t have. But as Arthur Schopenhauer once said, “a man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants.” In other words, you might choose chocolate over vanilla, but you can’t choose to prefer chocolate over vanilla.


Which is basically my point here as well. But she somehow sees this point as missing her point. And even though I am not able to not miss her point, I still seem to be "responsible" for missing it. In a way I am simply unable to grasp.

Moreover, as Daniel Gilbert’s 2007 book Stumbling on Happiness showed, not only do we not choose our desires, we don’t even know what they truly are. You can misjudge what you think you want, and also how its fulfillment will affect you. As George Bernard Shaw once quipped, there are two big disappointments in life: not getting what you want, and getting it.


So, "for all practical purposes" in groping to grapple with why we choose the things that we do from moment to moment, what am "I" to really make of all this?

Are the words I am typing here just another more complex [and currently ineffable] manifestation of those dominoes toppling over mindlessly, or does the part about human minds/consciousness "choosing"/choosing in a way the dominoes do not make all the difference in the world?
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: 29687
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users