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

[Swammerdami]

I just saw this thread and it's already 100+ posts!

I clicked on OP's book and skimmed the first 40 pages, but found it much too slow and tedious. Shouldn't an "Introduction" to a thesis introduce the thesis? Rather than telling the reader how wonderful the thesis will be if author ever gets around to divulging it?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

I can certainly accept that as a starting point. It is very close to a Buddhistic conception of time, There is an interesting discussion of Buddhistic time here.

The discussion begins with reference to a hypothesis put forward about 25 years ago by the physicist Julian Barbour, that time does not exist. Rather, only “time capsules” exist, separate and distinct universal “moments” that are causally unrelated. The discussion moves on to time in Buddhism, and the idea that change and motion are illusions. The discussion invokes the metaphor of a film strip. Everything seems to be change and motion in a film, time flowing along and one thing causing another, but actually the film is made up of still images — Barbour’s time capsules.

I read Julian Barbour's The End of Time and found it excellent. But I don't pursue such topics to philosophical conclusions outside cosmology itself. I exchanged some e-mail with Dr. Barbour, asking about the Arrow of Causality. That is how I first learned he was working on that!

The Mystery of Time’s Arrow

Past and future may not be what they seem.

nautil.us

 

[peacegirl]

I just saw this thread and it's already 100+ posts!

I clicked on OP's book and skimmed the first 40 pages, but found it much too slow and tedious. Shouldn't an "Introduction" to a thesis introduce the thesis? Rather than telling the reader how wonderful the thesis will be if author ever gets around to divulging it?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

I can certainly accept that as a starting point. It is very close to a Buddhistic conception of time, There is an interesting discussion of Buddhistic time here.

The discussion begins with reference to a hypothesis put forward about 25 years ago by the physicist Julian Barbour, that time does not exist. Rather, only “time capsules” exist, separate and distinct universal “moments” that are causally unrelated. The discussion moves on to time in Buddhism, and the idea that change and motion are illusions. The discussion invokes the metaphor of a film strip. Everything seems to be change and motion in a film, time flowing along and one thing causing another, but actually the film is made up of still images — Barbour’s time capsules.

I read Julian Barbour's The End of Time and found it excellent. But I don't pursue such topics to philosophical conclusions outside cosmology itself. I exchanged some e-mail with Dr. Barbour, asking about the Arrow of Causality. That is how I first learned he was working on that!

The Mystery of Time’s Arrow

Past and future may not be what they seem.

nautil.us

This is what I wrote in the front matter of his 5th book, which may give you some idea of what it's about. People are so impatient these days, they want immediate gratification, or they walk away.

A NOTE TO THE READER​

THE SECRET was the author’s 5th attempt to demonstrate a scientific discovery which has the power to prevent what no one wants; war, crime, and many other evils plaguing mankind. Very few people when first reading Chapter One, which follows, will believe these changes are possible. However, mathematical proof is undeniably established as the text is read chapter by chapter in the order it was written. It is important that you refrain from opening the book at random, which would be equivalent to trying to understand a mathematical equation with the first half missing.

The problem of responsibility, the problem of reconciling the belief that people are responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle. This longstanding conflict in the free will/determinism debate has caused a rift in philosophical circles which makes this perplexing conundrum appear insolvable. It is important to bear in mind that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they reflect what is actually going on in reality. This is a crucial point since the reconciliation of these two opposing thought systems (while proving determinism true and free will false) is THE SECRET that opens the door to a world of peace and brotherhood.

Before starting, I would like to clarify a few things. The author used dialogue as a way to make the book as reader friendly as possible, as these concepts may feel foreign at first. Please be aware that he used humor in his writing as a form of comic relief. This does not detract from the seriousness of the subject matter. The word God is used throughout the book which is a metaphor for the laws that govern our universe. This is not a religious work. I would also like to clarify his use of terminology. For example, the words ‘mathematical,’ and ‘scientific,’ in this context, only mean ‘undeniable’ and are interchanged throughout the book. In the chapter on marriage there is some sexually explicit language. This is an adult book and therefore should not be read by anybody who may be offended.

The author described his discovery as a two-sided equation, although it has nothing to do with numbers per se. Throughout the book he uses the phrase “compelled, of his own free will” which may sound contradictory at first blush. The expression, “of his own free will,” is used in a colloquial sense, which only means that he was not being coerced or forced to do anything against his will. It does not mean his will is free. You will understand this much better as you read the text chapter by chapter. For those familiar with this topic, this knowledge has nothing to do with compatibilism, so please don’t jump to premature conclusions. When the 20th century is mentioned, this was the time the author lived. Sadly, he passed away in 1991 at the age of 72 before he was able to see his discovery brought to light. Although some of the examples are outdated, the discovery itself couldn’t be timelier. The prediction that this new world would become a reality between 1975-1980 was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Unfortunately, there has been no such investigation, and this discovery remains in obscurity.​

​

 

[Jarhyn]

humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined

And yet again I find myself wondering that folks can't grok the concept of autonomy.

I'm pretty sure I've laid it out quite well, that when someone asks whether something "acted with free will", they are asking whether the subject acted autonomously, or under external direction.

Both autonomous and directed action exist, so clearly the question has value and the answer is meaningful.

By determining when and where that direction happened, we isolated what elements were responsible for whatever they did and when that responsibility was active.

Causal determinism does no injury to this responsibility. It is very clearly quite real.

Unfortunately, understanding the actual nuts and bolts of how behavior is rendered by systems in general becomes necessary for understanding what autonomy is and why it comes to exist and how we have it, and how it may even be engineered to exist.

The way these concepts are applied by both LFWs and HDs are not sane, but neither was the concept of geology prior to the discovery of plate tectonics!

It's no surprise to me that prior to the discovery of configurable and interconnectable contingent mechanisms, people didn't understand the basis of autonomy... Nor does it really surprise me that when we did discover it, we assumed blithely that humans worked differently than the thing we discovered; after all, we didn't really know how neurons functioned until long after Turing did his work on simple switches and Boolean architectures and decades had passed with people assuring each other that humans were for some reason qualitatively different from "mere piles of switches".

Autonomy and Determinism are compatible. People do have "free will" even in determinism because "having free will" is nothing more than "acting with relative autonomy".

 

[peacegirl]

humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined

And yet again I find myself wondering that folks can't grok the concept of autonomy.

I'm pretty sure I've laid it out quite well, that when someone asks whether something "acted with free will", they are asking whether the subject acted autonomously, or under external direction.

Both autonomous and directed action exist, so clearly the question has value and the answer is meaningful.

By determining when and where that direction happened, we isolated what elements were responsible for whatever they did and when that responsibility was active.

Causal determinism does no injury to this responsibility. It is very clearly quite real.

Unfortunately, understanding the actual nuts and bolts of how behavior is rendered by systems in general becomes necessary for understanding what autonomy is and why it comes to exist and how we have it, and how it may even be engineered to exist.

The way these concepts are applied by both LFWs and HDs are not sane, but neither was the concept of geology prior to the discovery of plate tectonics!

It's no surprise to me that prior to the discovery of configurable and interconnectable contingent mechanisms, people didn't understand the basis of autonomy... Nor does it really surprise me that when we did discover it, we assumed blithely that humans worked differently than the thing we discovered; after all, we didn't really know how neurons functioned until long after Turing did his work on simple switches and Boolean architectures and decades had passed with people assuring each other that humans were for some reason qualitatively different from "mere piles of switches".

Autonomy and Determinism are compatible. People do have "free will" even in determinism because "having free will" is nothing more than "acting with relative autonomy".

Autonomy is freedom from external control or influence; independence. Number one: No one is completely free from external control or influence, especially in their formative years. Our entire lives are built upon what we are taught and what we model. Number two: You may have lots of autonomy. You may be the most independent woman ever, but your will is still not free and never was. You've got it wrong, but I can tell there is no convincing you. So let's agree to disagree.

 

[Elixir]

Autonomous is a relative term. It implies independence from everything, but in actual use it always refers to independence from a limited set of externalities.
An “autonomous” sidescan sonar device doesn’t require a tether. But it requires all the other externalities - manufacturing, programming, transport to the area of its operation etc.
As entities we are no different. We can talk about our autonomy, but it only refers to a limited set of externalities.
I think the use of the term tend to only muddy the waters.

 

[peacegirl]

Autonomous is a relative term. It implies independence from everything, but in actual use it always refers to independence from a limited set of externalities.
An “autonomous” sidescan sonar device doesn’t require a tether. But it requires all the other externalities - manufacturing, programming, transport to the area of its operation etc.
As entities we are no different. We can talk about our autonomy, but it only refers to a limited set of externalities.
I think the use of the term tend to only muddy the waters.

If used that way, I am not in disagreement, but I am in disagreement that the free will that is used in any debate around this subject (the kind where you could have chosen otherwise) is incompatible with determinism. I have also said that I understand why compatibilists are trying to make free will compatible with determinism (due to moral responsibility), but it cannot be done if the two are opposites. If you could not have done otherwise (determinism), being able to do otherwise (free will) would be out of the question. Changing definitions by calling that kind of free will libertarian, and the other a free will that can be used to make the two appear compatible (a semantic bait and switch) doesn't fix the problem.

 

[steve_bank]

Absolute unfettered autonomy is a libertarian fantasy. It dies not exist.

We all live in a community. Communes impose restrictions and there is social pressure to follow norms of behavior.

 

[Elixir]

If used that way, I am not in disagreement, but I am in disagreement that the free will that is used in any debate around this subject (the kind where you could have chosen otherwise) is incompatible with determinism.

Hard to disagree with that, of course. "The free will used in debate" is routinely limited by its proponents to the outcomes of autonomy that actually exist. In my example that would be the map of an area of the seafloor produced by an autonomous sidescan device.
Nobody told it to makes those representations other than its own sensors, operating under parameters defined well outside its area of operation. For free will to be operative in humans only requires disregarding instruction sets that lie beyond the operation of our own choices.
Certainly we cannot be aware of every force in the cosmos bearing on our decision making, so ... free will it is.
It really really REALLY doesn't matter that it's illusory (if it is), since the EXPERIENCE of making free choices is all that matters.

 

[peacegirl]

If used that way, I am not in disagreement, but I am in disagreement that the free will that is used in any debate around this subject (the kind where you could have chosen otherwise) is incompatible with determinism.

Hard to disagree with that, of course. "The free will used in debate" is routinely limited by its proponents to the outcomes of autonomy that actually exist. In my example that would be the map of an area of the seafloor produced by an autonomous sidescan device.
Nobody told it to makes those representations other than its own sensors, operating under parameters defined well outside its area of operation. For free will to be operative in humans only requires disregarding instruction sets that lie beyond the operation of our own choices.
Certainly we cannot be aware of every force in the cosmos bearing on our decision making, so ... free will it is.
It really really REALLY doesn't matter that it's illusory (if it is), since the EXPERIENCE of making free choices is all that matters.

Again, you are using a definition in an effort to make free will compatible with determinism, which cannot be done unless you switch definitions to make it fit. And why does this matter? Because compatibilists believe that if a person is free of certain constraints, then he is responsible for his actions, correct? So when a person doesn't act in a way that they believe he should have (because he is acting freely according to them) what is their recommendation? Punishment? Rehabilitation? What? It goes right back to some sort of blame and punishment. This has never been a dependable deterrent in the history of our civilization.

 

[bilby]

I am assuming that if there are no questions between posts, then it gives me permission to continue.

Posts at 9:13pm, 9:39pm, 10:12pm, 10:54pm, and 11:07pm (my local time) might as well all be one single big post from my point of view, because I am currently working an early shift, so I am asleep at those times (I have a later start today, so I didn't need to get up until twenty five minutes ago (4:30am).

As not everyone here is in the same timezone, or even close to it, if you are spacing out posts, intending to give people time to read and respond before the next excerpt, they need to be at least 24 hours apart.

That's perhaps annoying, but it's a fundamental limitation of our global society.

 

[pood]

I just saw this thread and it's already 100+ posts!

I clicked on OP's book and skimmed the first 40 pages, but found it much too slow and tedious. Shouldn't an "Introduction" to a thesis introduce the thesis? Rather than telling the reader how wonderful the thesis will be if author ever gets around to divulging it?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

I can certainly accept that as a starting point. It is very close to a Buddhistic conception of time, There is an interesting discussion of Buddhistic time here.

The discussion begins with reference to a hypothesis put forward about 25 years ago by the physicist Julian Barbour, that time does not exist. Rather, only “time capsules” exist, separate and distinct universal “moments” that are causally unrelated. The discussion moves on to time in Buddhism, and the idea that change and motion are illusions. The discussion invokes the metaphor of a film strip. Everything seems to be change and motion in a film, time flowing along and one thing causing another, but actually the film is made up of still images — Barbour’s time capsules.

I read Julian Barbour's The End of Time and found it excellent. But I don't pursue such topics to philosophical conclusions outside cosmology itself. I exchanged some e-mail with Dr. Barbour, asking about the Arrow of Causality. That is how I first learned he was working on that!

The Mystery of Time’s Arrow

Past and future may not be what they seem.

nautil.us

That’s fascinating about exchanging emails with him, as is the link. I read the book too when it came out. Maybe you or I should start a separate Barbour thread. There are still a number of points about his Platonia I find puzzling.

 

[peacegirl]

I am assuming that if there are no questions between posts, then it gives me permission to continue.

Posts at 9:13pm, 9:39pm, 10:12pm, 10:54pm, and 11:07pm (my local time) might as well all be one single big post from my point of view, because I am currently working an early shift, so I am asleep at those times (I have a later start today, so I didn't need to get up until twenty five minutes ago (4:30am).

As not everyone here is in the same timezone, or even close to it, if you are spacing out posts, intending to give people time to read and respond before the next excerpt, they need to be at least 24 hours apart.

That's perhaps annoying, but it's a fundamental limitation of our global society.

You can always read at your leisure and ask questions later. If I'm still here, I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

 

[bilby]

I am assuming that if there are no questions between posts, then it gives me permission to continue.

Posts at 9:13pm, 9:39pm, 10:12pm, 10:54pm, and 11:07pm (my local time) might as well all be one single big post from my point of view, because I am currently working an early shift, so I am asleep at those times (I have a later start today, so I didn't need to get up until twenty five minutes ago (4:30am).

As not everyone here is in the same timezone, or even close to it, if you are spacing out posts, intending to give people time to read and respond before the next excerpt, they need to be at least 24 hours apart.

That's perhaps annoying, but it's a fundamental limitation of our global society.

You can always read at your leisure and ask questions later. If I'm still here, I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Bold of you to assume that I have "leisure"; Right now my life includes work, sleep, and the odd five minutes to half an hour to look at IIDB on my phone, usually while eating.

 

[pood]

… how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your responsibility when no one holds you responsible?

So far we have: We only have the present. Man’s will is not free, not because of standard determinism (the past causes the present) but because we are compelled by our inner natures always to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. We can’t control that, but at the same time nothing can makes us do, what we don’t want to do. We have complete control over that.

Once everyone understands these things, then no one will blame anyone for what they do, since we will all know we are all compelled to do, what we do.

Under current circumstances, we make excuses for the bad things we do, because it provides greater satisfaction to do that, rather than be blamed or punished for what we do, which is unpleasant.

However, once it is understood that we are not to blame for what we do, then we will be unable to shift our responsibility for bad behavior, precisely because no one will hold us responsible for it. Is that a fair summary to this point?

 

[peacegirl]

… how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your responsibility when no one holds you responsible?

So far we have: We only have the present. Man’s will is not free, not because of standard determinism (the past causes the present) but because we are compelled by our inner natures always to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. We can’t control that, but at the same time nothing can makes us do, what we don’t want to do. We have complete control over that.

Correct. IOW, the past (which the standard definition of determinism implies) cannot cause or force us to do anything against our will. At the same time, we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is why our will is not free. These two principles lead to the two-sided equation.

Once everyone understands these things, then no one will blame anyone for what they do, since we will all know we are all compelled to do, what we do.

Not quite. It's not about everyone understanding these things. It's about science confirming this knowledge as sound. Then and only then we can begin the Great Transition between the two worlds of free will, blame, and punishment to a world of no free will, no blame, and no punishment. This will involve the leaders of the world becoming the first citizens of this great change and, consequently, they will have the ability to stop further wars immediately. There is more to this regarding the destruction of weapons but it's too much to get into at this point. Just keep in mind that the blueprint is not complete without understanding how this change in environmental conditions is not only possible, but inevitable when we see that peace is within reach. Sorry I messed up the quotes.

Pood: Under current circumstances, we make excuses for the bad things we do because it provides greater satisfaction to do that, rather than be blamed or punished for what we do, which is unpleasant.

Peacegirl: In our society, anytime we do something that ends up causing harm, we must come up with excuses as to why it wasn't our responsibility in order to lessen the sentence imposed by the courts. But how can we come up with excuses or shift what is our responsibility when no one blames us because we know will is not free? We can't, which puts the responsibility smack where it belongs, on us. This is why we are prevented from doing things that we could easily do knowing IN ADVANCE we would be blamed. But when we aren't being blamed, we must think carefully about striking a first blow that our conscience cannot justify. Think about it. It would be a terrible feeling knowing we hurt someone without any justification and no way to relieve feelings of responsibility when no one blames us.

However, once it is understood that we are not to blame for what we do, then we will be unable to shift our responsibility for bad behavior, precisely because no one will hold us responsible for it. Is that a fair summary to this point?

It's way to simplified but at least you're trying. We will be unable to shift our responsibility because the only way this can be done is if someone is holding us responsible. If no one is holding us responsible, we can't shift it to someone or something else as the cause of what we know we have done or are responsible for.

 

[steve_bank]

Can a chimp or a cat do bad or good, or is it just humans?

 

[peacegirl]

Most animals don’t do bad things indiscriminately. Their instinct dictates how to survive, especially in the wild.

Humans do bad things often because they were hurt at some point in their lives or were treated unfairly. This has led many individuals to do bad things.

 

[bilby]

Most animals don’t do bad things indiscriminately.

I am not sure that here is a resonable definition of "bad things" which even could apply to non-human animals.

Or even that could universally apply to all humans, in all places and times.

"Bad", as in "immoral" is a function of local social norms; There's no such thing as an objectively "bad thing". Attempts to declare certain behaviours as universally and inexcusably "bad" are known as 'religions', and usually result in more harm than good.

There are always grey areas.

 

[peacegirl]

Most animals don’t do bad things indiscriminately.

I am not sure that here is a resonable definition of "bad things" which even could apply to non-human animals.

Or even that could universally apply to all humans, in all places and times.

"Bad", as in "immoral" is a function of local social norms; There's no such thing as an objectively "bad thing". Attempts to declare certain behaviours as universally and inexcusably "bad" are known as 'religions', and usually result in more harm than good.

There are always grey areas.

That’s the word that was used, so I responded in kind. The word “bad” or “immoral” would be hurting someone in some way judged by the person being hurt.

 

[bilby]

The word “bad” or “immoral” would be hurting someone in some way judged by the person being hurt.

Absent telepathy, I doubt that such a standard could ever be workable. It could come fairly close, in a community that's close knit and very small, but it would fail spectacularly when dealing with people from very different cultural backgrounds to our own.

I could easily be judged by someone to have hurt him, while I was acting with the best of intentions - would that make me "bad"?

My dog bit me when I was trying to give him his medication. Was he being a "bad dog"? He hurt me; He even intended to hurt me. He (quite reasonably) thought he was acting in self defence, but I wasn't doing him harm - I was objectively doing him good.

Grey areas are everywhere. All absolute statements are wrong.