“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

Free will is the ability to choose A or B without compulsion or necessity: free of influencing factors. Determinism is the opposite. It is choosing A because B is impossible or choosing B because A is impossible under one’s particular circumstances. I know this is simplified but I wanted to offer you a quick response.

I would add to free will making a choice without any bias from life experience going back to birth.

That is true, but I want to emphasize that not all of our movements are about making choices. As I wrote earlier, we often move away from dissatisfaction just by a change of position such as when our foot falls asleep. Every single movement in life is in this direction. It is a movement away from a feeling that has grown uncomfortable to a more comfortable or satisfying position. I'm inserting the word comfortable so that it may be easier to understand.

If you say free will in common talk I expect it is taken to mean you can choose between a Toyota and Ford without anyone looking over your shoulder, No one is going to force you to buy red shoes instead of black.

Determinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's more than just choosing insignificant things. This whole debate centers around moral responsibility where someone could get hurt by another person's choices.

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.[1] Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. Like eternalism, determinism focuses on particular events rather than the future as a concept. The opposite of determinism is indeterminism, or the view that events are not deterministically caused but rather occur due to chance. Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible.[2][3]

The problem with philosophy is there can be no hard and fast singular definition of terms, so arguments are made in context of a particular definition.

Correct definitions matter. The problem is that some definitions do not reflect reality, yet we hold them sacred because that's how they've been defined for years and years.

The question of determinism versus the justice system has been covered in crime dramas. If all things are predetermined behavior then the justice system falls apart. No one is responsible for actions.

I see some of that here in Seattle. Our progressive politicians tend to decriminalize as much as they can. No one is really responsible.

If you want to prove it one way or the other then come up with an experiment that demonstrates free will versus determinism, I do not think it is possible.

I'm trying to demonstrate to you, why the truth (that we have no free will) matters in a very significant way.

he way I look at it is from physics.Our thoughts are based in atomic interactions in cells. At the quantum level so far there is randomness at the lowest level. Given the exact same set of circumstances will someone always make the same choice?

I agree that our thoughts are based on neurons and synapses that allow us to reason based on whatever shows up in our brain states. But this does not in any way negate the fact that we move in one direction. Free will and compatibilism believe a person could move in a different direction hence their justification to blame and punish those who chose "wrongdoing." It is understandable how this belief came into existence and how it is needed for the justice and penal systems to do their job.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl if nothing else you are prolific. Do you have a formal background in philosophy?

My view is we are adaptive neural nets that configures itself from experience from the start. We are constantly inctyeracting with the environment around us, declensions are a manner of speaking. It is a continuous process

We are more complex, but no different tan a simple organism inert acing and sensing the environment.

 

[peacegirl]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I do not consider that an attack. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and you know I don't attack people in that way. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing people why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I'm just curious.

You have not SHOWN anything, you have ASSERTED IT.

That is not true. I asked you to demonstrate where you can move against your nature, which would be a movement in the direction of least satisfaction when a greater satisfaction is available. This can be proven in another way, but not until the principles are applied.

An ad hom argument takes the following form: “You disagree with what the author wrote for no good reason, only that you are threatened by it.” That is just what you did, what you did at FF and what you do everywhere you go, and ad hom is a violation of the rules here. Stop doing it.

It’s no surprise that people are threatened by determinism the way it’s defined. Please leave out my difficult experience at ff. Just correct me if I use an ad homenim by mistake and I’ll try to correct it.

 

[pood]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I do not consider that an attack. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and you know I don't attack people in that way. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing people why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I'm just curious.

You have not SHOWN anything, you have ASSERTED IT.

An ad hom argument takes the following form: “You disagree with what the author wrote for no good reason, only that you are threatened by it.” That is just what you did, what you did at FF and what you do everywhere you go, and ad hom is a violation of the rules here. Stop doing it.

It’s no surprise that people are threatened by determinism the way it’s defined. Please leave out my difficult experience at ff. Just correct me if I use an ad homenim by mistake and I’ll try to correct it.

You just did it again: You disagree with the author about determinism because you are threatened by it is AD HOM.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl if nothing else you are prolific. Do you have a formal background in philosophy?

My view is we are adaptive neural nets that configures itself from experience from the start. We are constantly inctyeracting with the environment around us, declensions are a manner of speaking. It is a continuous process

We are more complex, but no different tan a simple organism inert acing and sensing the environment.

No I don’t have a formal background in philosophy and neither did the author, although his many informal years of study were greater than any formal education he could have received.

 

[peacegirl]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I do not consider that an attack. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and you know I don't attack people in that way. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing people why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I'm just curious.

You have not SHOWN anything, you have ASSERTED IT.

An ad hom argument takes the following form: “You disagree with what the author wrote for no good reason, only that you are threatened by it.” That is just what you did, what you did at FF and what you do everywhere you go, and ad hom is a violation of the rules here. Stop doing it.

It’s no surprise that people are threatened by determinism the way it’s defined. Please leave out my difficult experience at ff. Just correct me if I use an ad homenim by mistake and I’ll try to correct it.

You just did it again: You disagree with the author about determinism because you are threatened by it is AD HOM.

I did not accuse anyone here of being threatened by determinism. I was just stating my belief. Who wants to be turned into a robot? I wouldn’t like that either.

 

[pood]

False accusation! I am not attacking anyone’s motives. I’m just explaining why I cannot leave out gaps that would screw up my presentation.

“You: I'm wondering why it bothers you so much that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be …”

It does not BOTHER me (personal motive attack, and ad hom violation of rules), I DON’T AGREE WITH IT. See the difference?

I do not consider that an attack. You know what ad hominens are from ff, and you know I don't attack people in that way. I am just wondering why you believe so strongly in compatibilism when I'm showing people why the definition fails. That is not an attack. I'm just curious.

You have not SHOWN anything, you have ASSERTED IT.

An ad hom argument takes the following form: “You disagree with what the author wrote for no good reason, only that you are threatened by it.” That is just what you did, what you did at FF and what you do everywhere you go, and ad hom is a violation of the rules here. Stop doing it.

It’s no surprise that people are threatened by determinism the way it’s defined. Please leave out my difficult experience at ff. Just correct me if I use an ad homenim by mistake and I’ll try to correct it.

You just did it again: You disagree with the author about determinism because you are threatened by it is AD HOM.

I did not accuse anyone here of being threatened by determinism.

Uh, you did! And you accused me of rejecting the argument because of that. That is, um, you know, AD HOM.

 

[peacegirl]

All our thoughts are the products of our physical brains. Thoughts are the results of atomic interactions, quantum scale.

There is no mind separate from body.

No one is saying it is, although the mind cannot be found as a distinct part of the brain itself.

hTat is what metaphysics is all about, thought abstractions.


The problem is that we are inescapably self referential. We create abstractions to define other abstractions.


Mind is a term we use but can never be precisely and unambiguous;y defined such that all agree. Mind is a product of atomic interaction in the brain, chemical processes.


At the atomic scale there is an uncertainty, probabilities of events. Given the same set of circumstances our neurons may not always fire in the same way.


I had a temporary speech aphasia from a concussion. Fluid build up compressed the speech center and I could not speak. Holes were drilled in my skull to drain the fluid and speech returned.

I'm so happy for you that they were able to relieve the fluid buildup, and you were able to speak again. We often don't realize how much we take for granted until we lose it. I bet you have a greater appreciation for your health than most people because of what you've been through.

There may be uncertainties in regard to probability, but just because we can't figure out the probability as to when an event will occur does not mean that the occurrence is random. It just means we don't know. We can all agree that determinism, if true, means that there are no parallel universes where, given the same exact time and place, we could choose a different alternative. And this certainly does not mean we have a free choice such that we could pick A or B equally when we are under a compulsion to pick the most favorable option given meaningful differences from which to choose. That is the whole reason for contemplation, or we wouldn't have been given this attribute.

Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer something considered still worse in your opinion, regardless of what it is, are you not compelled, completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer A? And since the definition of free will states that man can choose good over evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion since B was evil, as the worse alternative, and could not be selected in this comparison of possibilities?

 

[pood]

There may be uncertainties in regard to probability, but just because we can't figure out the probability as to when an event will occur does not mean that the occurrence is random.

Incorrect. Quantum mechanics shows that the world is inherently indeterministic. There are no hidden variables we don’t know about that rescue determinism. QM shows that outcomes have probabilities, not certainties.

 

[peacegirl]

There may be uncertainties in regard to probability, but just because we can't figure out the probability as to when an event will occur does not mean that the occurrence is random.

Incorrect. Quantum mechanics shows that the world is inherently indeterministic.

That is not true necessarily Pood. Man doesn't have all the answers as to why a wave may collapse at one time and not another.

There are no hidden variables we don’t know about that rescue determinism. QM shows that outcomes have probabilities, not certainties.

Probabilities, not certainties, because it can't be predicted what the wave will do. It doesn't mean there isn't a cause. The world is not random, Pood, and even if there are uncertainties on the quantum level, this has nothing to do with why man's will is not free on the macro level.

 

[steve_bank]

After 100 years of experiments and debate the general consensus is underlying physical reality is inherently uncertain or probabilistic. In this context the terms are synonymous.

Pick up a rock you perceive as solid. At the atomic scale atoms are in constant motion movbrting continuously, particles are moving around the nucleus.

The state of each atom in a rock can not be deterministically predicted at any instant of time, there are probabilities of being in one of many states, What you perceive as a sold rock is the superposition of all the states of a large number of atoms.

n electronics that uncertainty is a real problem that has to be dealt with. It is not semantics, philosophy, or metaphysics. It is physical reality.

I would say today if you are to be competent in philosophy in general an resounding of the interpretations of quantum physics is a requirement.

 

[peacegirl]

After 100 years of experiments and debate the general consensus is underlying physical reality is inherently uncertain or probabilistic. In this context the terms are synonymous.

Pick up a rock you perceive as solid. At the atomic scale atoms are in constant motion movbrting continuously, particles are moving around the nucleus.

The state of each atom in a rock can not be deterministically predicted at any instant of time, there are probabilities of being in one of many states, What you perceive as a sold rock is the superposition of all the states of a large number of atoms.

n electronics that uncertainty is a real problem that has to be dealt with. It is not semantics, philosophy, or metaphysics. It is physical reality.

I would say today if you are to be competent in philosophy in general an resounding of the interpretations of quantum physics is a requirement.

Being versed in QM is not a requirement for this discovery to be valid and sound. Do you see how false premises can easily lead to false conclusions? Quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism. Again, what happens on the quantum level (whether it is indeterministic or not) has no relation to what happens on the macro level when it comes to human decision making. IOW, QM is not inextricably linked to whether or not man has free will. The proof of the pudding is in the eating when we move from a world of blame and punishment to a world of no blame and punishment. Remember though, the author was not advocating to stop blaming suddenly. This would cause the thieves and murderers to have a field day with no fear of consequences. The environment has to be set up in such a way where all hurt is removed that could justify retaliation before these principles can work. This is a huge undertaking, but it can be done as we follow the extension into all areas of human relation. Once the Great Transition takes place, it will show definitively that under the changed conditions, man cannot (not will not) find satisfaction hurting others with a first blow, when not to becomes the preferable choice. Thank goodness we don't have free will, for if we did, we could hurt others indiscriminately under any condition, which is false.

 

[steve_bank]

There is no experiment that can experimentally demonstrate determinism or free will when it comes to making a choice. That makes determinism philosophical speculation not objective fact.

I am not a p[philosopher and do not pretend to be one, I had few classes in school and did reading over the years. Given the philosophical implications I would say to be well rounded in philosophy one needs some understanding of modern physics, and how or brains work.

19th century metaphysics is no longer adequate.

 

[peacegirl]

There is no experiment that can experimentally demonstrate determinism or free will when it comes to making a choice.

But there is

That makes determinism philosophical speculation not objective fact.

You are incorrect. This is not philosophical speculation but I see the writing on the wall. I will need confirmation by someone well known and respected. That will change your opinion. Nothing less than that will, unfortunately, and I’m not willing to spend lots of time trying to help you understand, for if you have not followed his “sound” reasoning by now, you probably never will.

I am not a p[philosopher and do not pretend to be one, I had few classes in school and did reading over the years. Given the philosophical implications I would say to be well rounded in philosophy one needs some understanding of modern physics, and how or brains work.

19th century metaphysics is no longer adequate.

That is your opinion, and opinions don’t mean much.

 

[pood]

There is no experiment that can experimentally demonstrate determinism or free will when it comes to making a choice. That makes determinism philosophical speculation not objective fact.

Yes there is.

And that experiment is?

 

[steve_bank]

There is no experiment that can experimentally demonstrate determinism or free will when it comes to making a choice. That makes determinism philosophical speculation not objective fact.

Yes there is.

I am not a p[philosopher and do not pretend to be one, I had few classes in school and did reading over the years. Given the philosophical implications I would say to be well rounded in philosophy one needs some understanding of modern physics, and how or brains work.

19th century metaphysics is no longer adequate.

That is your opinion, and opinions don’t mean much.

I guess debate is not your strong suit. As I said to be competent at philosophy today I'd say yiu need to have an underfeeding of science in general and experimental science.

Back in the 90s a philosophy teacher I had said to be competent inn philsophy requird absorbing about 25 books and picking up French or German.

There is experimental psychology.

So, what is an experiment to prove determinism. Lay it out. The procedure, assumptions, and that which is to be proven. You7can't just say prove determinism, yiu have define a specific set of conditions which are to be proven. Precisely define all terms unambiguously such that there can be no debate over interpretation..

It is a lot harder than you might think. Generalized philosophizing is easy.

 

[pood]

There is no experiment that can experimentally demonstrate determinism or free will when it comes to making a choice.

But there is

That makes determinism philosophical speculation not objective fact.

You are incorrect. This is not philosophical speculation but I see the writing on the wall. I will need confirmation by someone well known and respected. That will change your opinion. Nothing less than that will, unfortunately, and I’m not willing to spend lots of time trying to help you understand, for if you have not followed his “sound” reasoning by now, you probably never will.

I am not a p[philosopher and do not pretend to be one, I had few classes in school and did reading over the years. Given the philosophical implications I would say to be well rounded in philosophy one needs some understanding of modern physics, and how or brains work.

19th century metaphysics is no longer adequate.

That is your opinion, and opinions don’t mean much.

Nor does yours, or your author’s.

 

[steve_bank]

Not likely to change my mind.

I read Popper, he used the term experimentalist. The only reasonably objective knowledge is an experiment.


One can make a logical valid a

I have yet to see a clear definition of determinism here or on other threads. Logically valid argumnets meaning no fallacies does not prove anything in fact. It all depends on the premises.

P1 Determinism is a,b,c
P2 Determinism is evidenced by d
P3 Determinism is evidenced by e
C1 Therefor determinism as defined is true.

As to the definition it would take me at least a few weeks to carefully read the Stanford link and supporting information to begin to absorb all the aspects and variations of determinism.

 

[pood]

Not likely to change my mind.

I read Popper, he used the term experimentalist. The only reasonably objective knowledge is an experiment.


One can make a logical valid a

I have yet to see a clear definition of determinism here or on other threads. Logically valid argumnets meaning no fallacies does not prove anything in fact. It all depends on the premises.

P1 Determinism is a,b,c
P2 Determinism is evidenced by d
P3 Determinism is evidenced by e
C1 Therefor determinism as defined is true.

As to the definition it would take me at least a few weeks to carefully read the Stanford link and supporting information to begin to absorb all the aspects and variations of determinism.

Yes, it all depends on the premises, as I explained to peacegirl, but she never listens. You can have a conclusion that logically follows from the premises, but unless all the premises are actually true (argument sound) the argument is worthless.

 

[bilby]

That is exactly why this discovery is so important and so timely even though the author made this discovery in the mid-20th century.

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is referring to the time when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there has been no such investigation and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity.

Like Cold Fusion.

And, like Cold Fusion, there are two alternative explainations why "this discovery remains in obscurity".

One is that "there has been no such investigation"; The other is that those few who have investigated have found out that the discovery is utter bollocks.

If the former explanation is to be accepted, we have to ask why those lucky few who have access to and understanding of this world-changing "discovery" have not leveraged it to change the world in even the smallest way, but have instead chosen to rail against the injustice of an uncaring world that refuses to implement their ideas.

The world is full of tall stories about the suppression of great ideas by powerful interests. But these are just stories. The closest example to this happening in the real world that I can find is Nuclear Fission power - an actual technology, that has actually been suppressed by powerful interests. And yet, it is not unknown; It is not unused; It has not been relegated to a story told by conspiracy theorists, who cannot persuade serious journals to even publish reasearch on the subject.

Power plants have been built and operated. An entire first world country (France) has used the technology to massively reduce her carbon emissions; The USA still operates 93 reactors at 54 sites in 28 states. The US Navy uses the technology to power submarines and aircraft carriers.

Nuclear power should be more widely used. It can change our world dramatically for the better. But it has been held back by vested interests, and by fearful ignorance. And so it provides an excellent example of what such holding back looks like.

This "discovery" of yours; This "Two sided equation", and all the other bullshit, does NOT look like nuclear fission - used successfully in a mere handful of places, but not as widely adopted as it ought to be, because although it works, people in the whole are opposed to implementing it. Instead it looks like cold fusion - a valueless and discredited speculation that got no traction at all because it doesn't actually work.