I hit me as I watched Minority Report (spoiler of movie coming...), there's a scene where Tom Cruise's character sees a future event of himself shooting a stranger. Seeing this he thinks, "I must stop this." He tries as he may, but he ends up doing just as he saw. Because to "true" future is made from the past event of him seeing it.

My old philosophy would have argued, "but he could've just not been anywhere near there!" To which my new thought process would answer, "if that was possible then that wouldn't truly be the future that he saw."

So, basically this awareness level stunned me to say the least. I started feeling powerless, losing the free-will I once believed I had. Questions roared through my head...

-If all I do is already known, almost already done, why keeping doing, how do I maintain motivation? (this logic seems circular, but my mind thinks it none the less)

-I feel as though the book of existance is written and I'm starring in the movie.

-I look around at others and think, do they have any idea they have no free-will? How do they maintain such unawareness? Is that better? What is better?

Darn philosophic minds, they draw us to this board. I hope they draw you ...or rather it is determined that you will post your reactions to determinism.

Thanks,
Terry

It's been a while since I saw Minority Report *puke, barf*, but as far as I vaguely recall Cruise's character, through the events past his viewing of his future, goes from dogmatically abhorring the thought that he might become a coldblooded killer to understanding why he has to shoot this person for things to turn out right, even if he does not fully comprehend till after the shooting - or something to that effect, whatever.

Now, be that as it may, the event in that movie is totally buttfistfucking the paradox of knowing the future and be powerless against it - the movie is the trivial halfassed entertainment we've long since become used to from Hollowood (<--yes, a pun, now move on).

What I really wanna comment is your awakening to the reality of the non-existence of the all-romantic free will, because there indeed is no such thing. And I'm not talking about classical determinism, that suggests we are powerless against a fixed future; I'm talking about the simple realization that any action we regard as "changing one's future" was the inevidable action all along.

Guess we'd better take an example for clarification:

Suppose a 3rd generation black slave in the cottonfield way back in the old days suddenly decides that he will not live out his live in slavery like his father and his father before him, sweating his back broke for the white man, so he grabs his slingblade, walks to the manor and slaughters his master then runs off to live (")free(") in some mountain range - yeeha!

Now, did he change his fate? The romantic simpletons would have you believe so. I say that breaking free was his fate all along.

It's called causality - it's mindraping in practice (butterfly effect and all that) but hilariously simple in concept.

Determinism, fatalism, whatever should not deter you from taking any action, quite the opposite; understanding it sets you more free to act than a motherfucker.

I could probably do this more efficiently but I'm half drunk and tired as all hell.

Signing off.

I hit me as I watched Minority Report (spoiler of movie coming...), there's a scene where Tom Cruise's character sees a future event of himself shooting a stranger. Seeing this he thinks, "I must stop this." He tries as he may, but he ends up doing just as he saw. Because to "true" future is made from the past event of him seeing it.

My old philosophy would have argued, "but he could've just not been anywhere near there!" To which my new thought process would answer, "if that was possible then that wouldn't truly be the future that he saw."

So, basically this awareness level stunned me to say the least. I started feeling powerless, losing the free-will I once believed I had. Questions roared through my head...

-If all I do is already known, almost already done, why keeping doing, how do I maintain motivation? (this logic seems circular, but my mind thinks it none the less)

-I feel as though the book of existance is written and I'm starring in the movie.

-I look around at others and think, do they have any idea they have no free-will? How do they maintain such unawareness? Is that better? What is better?

Darn philosophic minds, they draw us to this board. I hope they draw you ...or rather it is determined that you will post your reactions to determinism.

Thanks,
TerryI've also felt this, but I still think that free will exists.

But most of us actually don't use as much of the free will as we could, because we don't trust ourselves. When we don't trust ourselves then we limit the choices we can make because it is more "safe", we start to do things according to a "schedual" of some kind, or a behaviour principle, or maybe if you want, a personality.

terrys999,

I have a personal hypothesis kinda related to this free-will thing. Not so much with time-travel, though.

I think that for every possible chain of events, there's a respective universe.

For example, look at two universes. Both of them have the exact same history until Monday, September 13th, 2004 at 2:30PM UT. It is 7:30 in Pacific Time, and I'm about to catch the morning bus to get to school. So it stops and picks me up. A car is comming up to the bus just as I'm walking to it. Now it's a law here in Oregon that a car must not pass a school bus when it's picking up or dropping off people. The driver could choose to keep driving, past the bus. Or the driver could choose to obey the law and stop. Let's say in one universe, he drives on, and in the other universe, he stops. Both these events majorly affect the future of their respective universe.

What do ya guys think?

terrys999
-If all I do is already known, almost already done, why keeping doing, how do I maintain motivation? (this logic seems circular, but my mind thinks it none the less) If and how you “maintain motivation” has already been decided.
The entirety of what and who you are, leads you to ask the questions you ask, but it also determines the responses you will find and accept.
Maybe the purpose of enlightenment isn’t to alter the things that determine our existence but to learn to accept them.
:bugeye:

-I feel as though the book of existance is written and I'm starring in the movie. The general script has been written.
It’s up to you to find if it is possible to diverge from it or when and how you can improvise along the way.
:p

-I look around at others and think, do they have any idea they have no free-will? How do they maintain such unawareness? Is that better? What is better? It all depends on how you define “better”.

If contentment is what you deem “better”, then ignorance is a certain way towards that end.
If empowerment and the possibility for free-will, if it is possible at all, is your definition of “better”, then awareness is the only way towards that end.

No prisoner can hope for escape if he does not first recognize his own incarceration.

-If all I do is already known, almost already done, why keeping doing, how do I maintain motivation? (this logic seems circular, but my mind thinks it none the less)

Welcome to existentialism (albeit a solipsistic version).
One could argue that what you call 'motivation' is simply a part of the teleological force you seem to think is operating.
In any case.. take enjoyment in this: if everything is determined... then even you're worrying about it is as wel, ergo.. what you choose (sic) is meaningless.
Ahhh the joys...
:-)

The driver could choose to keep driving, past the bus. Or the driver could choose to obey the law and stop. Let's say in one universe, he drives on, and in the other universe, he stops. Both these events majorly affect the future of their respective universe.

If both car driving men are in exactly the same universe, what would make one behave differently? Freedom of choice? If it's freedom of choice, how come there is only one specific instance of change in the both universes? That is, why are only two people in one specific instance of humanity making different choices.
So let's say, for the sake of hypothetical argument, that both universes were predetermined to the point where you walked in front of the oncoming car. Then at that point, everyone was given free will. That would mean that both universes would behave radically differently, since there would be 13 billion people making choices. That would mean you were given the choice to turn around and go back inside, the kid on the bus with a gun his coat decided to shoot the bus driver, etc. This means that the outcome of both universes would become totally different, but not because of a single man in a car.

This would then imply, since both universes would become drastically dissimilar, that free choice is unpredictable, random, and thus unreasonable.

Thirdly, what makes your death so important in a universe of 6 billion people?

And fouthly, how could you compare similarity between universes? Either they are exactly alike or they are not. How could you measure the gray area between differing universes?

terrys999 Even inaction is an action. You are completely sentenced to a fate, and that fate is death. It matters not what you choose to do, nor not do, nor only halfway do, because you get to die.
But your choices may cumulate in how you die.
Determinism is inherently flawed because we do not know the future. Since we do not know how things will end (other than our death), we cannot say negatively or postively if our actions have consequences, or if our actions are already scripted.

-If all I do is already known, almost already done, why keeping doing, how do I maintain motivation? (this logic seems circular, but my mind thinks it none the less)

This is like asking why do planets keep orbiting the sun if they have no motivation. The answer is that they DO have motivation. Motivation is defined as "driving force" or something which makes something happen. The laws of physics are the motivating forces behind what each one of us does and chooses :eek:

-I look around at others and think, do they have any idea they have no free-will?

The answer to this one is easy - NO. Look around this forum and most people clearly still believe in free will.

How do they maintain such unawareness?

The human brain has evolved to make it seem like we are choosing.

Is that better?

If it has evolved then yes of course.

What is better?

I presume u are asking why. I believe it has evovled only in higher organisms that think because it is a survival advantage. It allows for psychological motivation (like u described) and those humans who weren't capable of deludiong themselves, may have taken thir life in the way that u might now! I'm only joking about that last bit u know :D

"The laws of physics are the motivating forces behind what each one of us does and chooses"

I'm assumeing your arguing that scientific principle asserts a predestined universe. For me, this doesn't follow. Science is a complex collection of educated guesses. Based on observation of what has happened, we draw conclusions on what will probably happen as a result. There is no certainity in empyrical observation.

Science tells us that things change states, sure. We're even told that these changes must be chaotic. Hence our perception of time being in motion. However, this is determinism only at its most rudimentary. It can be discarded simply by removing all external forces; things change in reaction to external stimuli. Without the catalyste, we have no change.

To put it simply, things must have happened in the past in order for us to predict what will happen in the future. So, an argument for a predestined future is a case of the cart before the horse.

Even the many worlds theory includes, implicitely, the creation of new universes only in reaction to a problem arising. New universes are created, each representative of all possible solutions to a given problem, spontaneously and in reaction to the rising of that problem.

Physical principles exclude the pre-existence of any "future." It is a product of our perception of time as having momentum; changed states do not tangibly exist until there has been a change in states. There are no certainties in prediction. Therefore, predestination is as illusory as the notion that time flows.

Based on observation of what has happened, we draw conclusions on what will probably happen as a result.

The idea is that probability hints at an underlying process that we don't and may never be able to know. When u see something in nature that can be described statistially like that, it doesn't mean necessarily, that there is no underlying cause.

Science tells us that things change states, sure. We're even told that these changes must be chaotic.

Some changes are chaotic

To put it simply, things must have happened in the past in order for us to predict what will happen in the future. So, an argument for a predestined future is a case of the cart before the horse.

The practical ability to predict things is not the basis of determinism. Indeed QM dictates that we cannot predict the future beyond a certain level but that does not rule out determinism IMO.

Physical principles exclude the pre-existence of any "future." It is a product of our perception of time as having momentum; changed states do not tangibly exist until there has been a change in states. There are no certainties in prediction. Therefore, predestination is as illusory as the notion that time flows.

Read what I said earlier. Also, time does indeed flow (in that change flows). The laws of thermodynamics governs how time flows.

" if you freewill is absolutely determined by absolutely everything then your free will is absolutely free."

An old question once posed in a book I read was:

"How can you trap a free bird and yet allow it to live free?"

anyone?

"how can you trap a free bird and yet let it remain free?"
you cant, plain and simple. as long as you cage it, or house it, domesticate it it aint as free as it COULd be.

same with us. are WE domesitcated? are We free? how many think they are? yet their real feelings tell otherwise. and the sad thing is they may even not realize what their feelings are telling them!

so we make our OWN cages....?

duendy I posed the question in the context of the thread starter talking about some sort of predestiny, thus predeterminism, thus determinism,

The answer to the question is actually very simplebut maybe a little oblique.

"How can you trap a free bird and yet allow it to live free?"
Answer:
"By becoming the sky"

The philosophy is simple enough I guess,
We live in a universe that is as big as you want it to be, as determined as you want it to be, as free as you want it to be.

The universe is our sky and one day we will be able to fly free.....

The muse has spoken......ha

Existentialism has been called "metaphysically bankrupt".

Why's that Jenyar? and do you agree or disagree with the contention?

It's irrefutable, painfully practical and reasonable, in accordance with everything we see, deterministic, cynical about human nature and freedom, and stagnant. Like looking at a wall. Yes. I agree that it's metaphysically bankrupt. It's not that the wall isn't there, or doesn't serve some purpose, it just lacks... graffiti.

some thread i read somewhere had a person claiming that Nature had got it wrong/was limited and that our human task was to defeat death.
so you see, HE was feeling not-free or caged, because of the reality of death. whereas i think of life death and regeneration as free. i am seeing his belief as his cage. a cage shared by many isms which seek escape from Nature/lifedeath

also i'd like to add, that we all have the power of choice. only we make ourselves get trapped. EVEN in the most dire situation there is always suicide...!

itis true that there seems to be a lack of chioce at times but is that the reality. as duenby has stated life is essentially a voluntary existance for us humans and when we fully understand how voluntary it is we achieve freedom from the belief that we are oppressed. thus we become our own jailer or we become our own liberator.

Life is deterministic in the sense that it's something that "happens to us". We wake up one day to find ourselves surrounded by sentient beings - who might as well be aliens from another planet - and proceed to face it a second at a time. That's the existential reality.

But it's just a canvas.

An artist is also limited by his medium. It determines what he can and cannot do. He stares at the slab of granite and decides whether to engage or retreat. It's a challenge, but an inner momentum - the momentum of his own birth - drives him to chisel some meaning out of it. It no longer presents an impotent lack of choice, but a world of possibilities.

What if the brush is imprecise, or your colours are limited? What if life seems to bear down on you and change from clay into granite and then to dust? Engage with it, before you turn into dust again yourself. Don't become so claustrophobic at being imprisoned by an immovable an unseen atmosphere that you forget to breathe.

a while ago I started a thread titled "freewill an act of improvisation".

Today I was thinking somewhat about this and the question of determinism.
I think Jenyar you have touched upon my thougts.

When we talk of freewill I would contend we are talking about our creativity towards any given situation. I would go on to suggest that by applying our creativity and sometimes this is spontaneous in nature we grant ourselves freewill.

As creativity is unique to every individual and because it is predominantly spontaneous deterministic theories are considerably harder to apply.
Now if we take the religious point of view for a moment.

Mankind was created in the image of God, and of course Gods greatest claim to fame is his creativity, afterall he created not only the universe but all within it. So humans are also creative and thus freewilled as God is. Every thought is a creative act. Not necessarilly a good creation but certainly creative.


Just a thought I thought you may like to think about and develop creatively your response to my thoughts. :D

Mankind was created in the image of God, and of course Gods greatest claim to fame is his creativity, afterall he created not only the universe but all within it. So humans are also creative and thus freewilled as God is. Every thought is a creative act. Not necessarilly a good creation but certainly creative.
A good creation... but one aware of himself. Imagine Rodin's The thinker becoming aware that he is naked and made of bronze. Suddenly, he isn't the good thinker he used to be, but a self-conscious, doubting creation - demeaned in his own eyes, ashamed, and preoccupied with himself. A Pinocchio wanting to be a real boy. All of his creative energy now goes into imagining that he should be less than a Bronze Thinker and more like his creator, struggling to become something he isn't and can never be. He cracks and tarnishes his bronze in the process, and becomes flawed. He forgets that he was made good, because he can't remember what being good was like. He can't unknow and undo what he has become. He is creative, but not creator.

ahhhh a creative challenge for sure .....for sure

Physics and chemistry govern the brain. I.e. it is a complex DETERMINISTIC biological machine. The mind MAY also be, but this is certainly an open question. All of us tend to believe we have some freedom of action and choice. I.e. “free will.”

How the brain could create the mind with “free will” usually requires some exception to the laws of physics and chemistry be made. – A “Human Spirit, gift of God,” etc.

This ancient dilemma bothered me for years. - I have Ph. D. in physics and yet, like most of you, think I have non-illusionary free will. Finally I found a solution which permits free will to be consistent with classical physics and chemistry. (Others have suggested several solutions that are built on the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, but I would rather have no free will than one built on chance.)

Most will not like my solution, but I am happy with it. It vaguely follows Bishop Berkley’s view, but God is not involved. Like him, I think the world we live in is not real, but a simulation of the physical world run in the brain. I think my view is unique, at least in the rational I provide, but would appreciated correction on this point, if you have seen it elsewhere.

Most will think my “we live in a simulated world and are part of that simulation” crazy, but if you read the paper:

"Reality, Perception, and Simulation: A Plausible Theory" which appeared in the APL Technical Journal, volume 15, number 2 (1994) pages 154 - 163. You can send Email to helen.worth@jhuapl.edu to ask for copy.

You may not think me so crazy, probably will. Most of this paper (~85%) describes how the visual system works, so at least you may learn something about that. In the visual part of the paper, I present a proof that the standard view of cognitive science about vision (perception is the result of neural computational transforms of retinal data) is false and that Descartes in his “dioptics” written back in 1637 is more correct.

Excuse me if you read this in another thread, but seems appropriate here also.

I think the world we live in is not real, but a simulation of the physical world run in the brain. I think my view is unique, at least in the rational I provide, but would appreciated correction on this point, if you have seen it elsewhere.
Isn't this the Buddhist view as well? Do we have to read the paper to see what's unique about your rationale? Baudrillard calls it simulacrum (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html).

There's something forced about this view... I can't quite put my finger on it. Do you think physics is part of the illusionary world or the "real" one? Because we sure are interacting with it as if it's as real as things get. If you say our interaction depends on an internal matrix (which we can't escape, because all our senses depend on it for information) then the question might be: how does perceived information differ from the phenomenon? Sure, it's subjective (what isn't?), but how can it differ unless we're not "different" ourselves? To observe something you have to be outside it.

Billy T, I have in teh past agreed with such a pragmatic view, but I ask youto consider this:
The very first act of freewill was the creation of the universe from absolute nothingness. spontaneously exploding into something.

I woudl argue that our freewill is in fact an ongoing version of the same thing, spontaneous creativity. Whther you micx up the notions of divinity and physics I really don't mind. To me it seems so simple.

Mans ability to interact with his environment in ways that he himself can not predict, that spontaneous spark of creativity is at the very centre of our universes existence.

now keeping in mind we are in the philosophy forum and not the physics forum, it would be quite acceptable for me to venture this proposition.
How often have we heard thatreality os only a figment of our or gods imagination? How often have we heard of the uncertainty principle where observer interacts with the observed?
How many theories of mental monism are there? How many notions that it is only our perception that teh universe exists etc etc....?

The universe was spontaneous in it's creation, God too was spontaneous in his creation. Evolution tells us that life spontaneously came to exist.

All acts of spontaneous creativity, which the universe is.

Our free will is free simply because we are just doing what the universe does best and we do it sponataneously.

The universe is not a creation of one solitary mind or brain it is the collective creation of all brains and external matter.

The most amazing thing I have ever read about human biology is a story about how the embryo of a human child's heart starts to beat spontaneously before any other neurology has developed. I am not sure but I think this is still a great mystery the doctors and medical people.

I am not talking about teh religious idea of divinity with all this but it certainly if looked at in the light of spontaneous creativity has some relevance.

Free will is guided by it's environment and certainly not governed by it's environment.

The more creative the thinker is the free-er they are.

Where two separtate individuals will take identicle stimuli and create two distinctly different results....

The very first act of freewill was the creation of the universe from absolute nothingness. spontaneously exploding into something....
The universe was spontaneous in it's creation, God too was spontaneous in his creation. Evolution tells us that life spontaneously came to exist.
Eithe you have redefined God halfway through, or you are going in circles and are only reinforcing a deterministic view. If the universe was bound to happen spontaneously, then no creativity was involved. In fact, just look at God's answer to Job: how much did you have to do with the creation of a giraffe or a hippopotamus? If they simply sprung into existence, then your own existence was equally unintended, and you have nothing to complain about and nothing to hope for.

One question we can't ignore: how creative is love?

Regarding physical determinism -- it has been said on this forum by someone, quite a while back (I apologize to the author for not remembering his name):


It seems that physical determinism is unfalsifiable. However, free will is also unfalsifiable. This suggests to me that we are in a muddle about this issue.

The problem is that cause and effect is a deep and difficult issue. It seems reasonable that every physical effect has a sufficient physical cause. However, we do not know yet whether every physical effect has a necessary physical cause.

It certainly seems ridiculous to think that human behaviour is entirely physically caused, since it would involve being able to predict the future. (I'm going to go out in half an hour -- how do I know that?) But even if conscious states are not wholly physcially determined, they may still be determined by previous states.

It's a can of worms, and it gets tricky. For instance, Petre Abelard asserted that for p to entail q the impossibility of (p and not -q) is not enough.
In addition, p must also require that q be the case. We cannot do this, so strict determinism is impossible to prove.

This is why pysical determinism is a metaphysical conjecture in the end, rather than a scientific issue.

***

Regarding how "everything is subjective"

"Usual communication rests on the assumption that we understand all words the same way; this assumption is shown to be false in cases of misunderstanding, while for all other cases, understanding is assumed.
The assumption that that each person understands a certain word a little differently than the other person seems adequate to reality, but leads to nothing."

(Lyons: "Introduction to modern linguistics"; my translation from the German edition from 1995, pg. 420-420)


If we say "everything is subjective" -- what have we said thereby? What explanatory value does "everything is subjective" have?

Eithe you have redefined God halfway through, or you are going in circles and are only reinforcing a deterministic view. If the universe was bound to happen spontaneously, then no creativity was involved. In fact, just look at God's answer to Job: how much did you have to do with the creation of a giraffe or a hippopotamus? If they simply sprung into existence, then your own existence was equally unintended, and you have nothing to complain about and nothing to hope for.

Speaking as a laywoman: It is said that God lead all the animals before Adam to name them.
To NAME them, not to MAKE them.

There is a great difference between naming and making.

There is a great difference between naming and making.
That's an interesting phenomenon: linguistic creativity. According to Bily T's view, we would be making them. We would be creating a simulacrum in our minds and naming it, in order to share understanding (re your post) about the phenomenon observed.

God wanted to talk with Adam! He wanted His creation and Adam's "creation" to be the same thing. Take away the relationship with God, and we are left talking to ourselves, wondering whether maybe everything is relative and determined - meaningless - after all.

Jenyar, I wont eneter into debate about yours and mine definition of that which is God as this has proved to be a futile excersise. However I will argue that just because teh universe and all has been in some way created spontaneously doesnot in any way imply meaninglessness.

The freewill of humanity and all it's subordinant animals have a free spirit and that freedom is to be creative in the application of their desires. Even an ant has some form of creativity, abiet small in comparison to a human.

I don't see how my contention is in conflict with your belief structures in fact they affirm your notions of God and freewill and from my creative perspective. And this is in essense the issue of free will. In that I can and always will state my case as creatively as I can and of course you will do likewise whether you agree or not.

Freewill is a creative act of improvisation wghich is inspired by what you love and that you love. What you love may very well be inspired by your environment which is love inspired any way but your creativity is yours and yours alone.
It is in fact I feel the defining aspect of a personality, the creative nature of a person whether it be his spontaneous laughter, his grief or his romance and flirtations.

Every act is a creative one and I see significant parallels with biblical mythology and other philosophies about mind, heart, soul, and sentience.
You ask the question:

One question we can't ignore: how creative is love?
Love is the most inspirational energy there is for creativity, love is also in itself creative, I am surprised that you are suggesting otherwise.....
Making love is something we do every day of our lives, we create love we are inspired by love and all is done with freewill which in part is teh manifestation of our love......

Jenyar I ask you one single question:

Whose love is it?

I didn't make myself clear. My intention was to say that there is no more creative activity than love!

And yet love does not exist outside relationships. It is always between. An objectivistic, deterministic look taken to its conclusion would have to admit: love does not really exist. "Whose love is it?" is a non-question. Love is, like God is.

That's an interesting phenomenon: linguistic creativity. According to Bily T's view, we would be making them. We would be creating a simulacrum in our minds and naming it, in order to share understanding (re your post) about the phenomenon observed.

At least ontogenetically, regarding the development of an individual, this explanation seems to apply best when it comes to the issues of the meaning of words:

A child is presented an object and the word for it:

[>This] is a book.
[>This] is a table.
[>This] is a flower

At first, words seem to function as proper names, ie. there is only one object that is called a book; speciation occurs later.

Not to go into a linguistic debate on meaning (but if anyone's interested, bring your questions and I'll gladly answer them), but the underlying idea is this:

Meaning is a *relation* between an object and the word for it, and this relation (in its primary form) is *imposed* on us by the environment.

We, our minds are there to *store* this relation, but our minds do *not make* this relation.

Of course, once we have stored a lot of these relations, they can begin to interact, make systems, and we can find other relations between objects of objectve reality and our terms for them. Only from here on could we speak of simulations, but before that, we can't.
Meaning that the idea with the simulacrum is misleading; it would work only with an already adult brain, already equipped with some preset relations -- which is extremely hard to prove, unless we settle that the preset relations are instincts.


***


And yet love does not exist outside relationships. It is always between. An objectivistic, deterministic look taken to its conclusion would have to admit: love does not really exist. "Whose love is it?" is a non-question.
Love is, like God is.

(Where did I hear that ...)

Meaning is a *relation* between an object and the word for it, and this relation (in its primary form) is *imposed* on us by the environment.

We, our minds are there to *store* this relation, but our minds do *not make* this relation.
What is this kind of deductive method called again? I've struck a blank...

Wisdom lies in picking up these kinds of relationships and "filling in the blanks" where other relationships can be recognized. This is as close to ex post thinking we can come without being psychic. The world consists of infinite hypotheses, and therefore infinite possibilities for knowledge. There is no rule that makes some more valid or feasible than others - that can only truly be said ex ante.

But I have a nagging feeling that our powers of precognition isn't as asymptotically limited as we are inclined to think. There are relationships that are high enough - or underlying enough - to give perspectives across even the boundaries of time and causaility.

What is this kind of deductive method called again? I've struck a blank...

I wouldn't know either what this deductive method is called. Conditioning?


Wisdom lies in picking up these kinds of relationships and "filling in the blanks" where other relationships can be recognized. This is as close to ex post thinking we can come without being psychic. The world consists of infinite hypotheses, and therefore infinite possibilities for knowledge. There is no rule that makes some more valid or feasible than others - that can only truly be said ex ante.

Still, we assume that each state depends on previous states. As such, some chains of knowable feasibility are imaginable.


But I have a nagging feeling that our powers of precognition isn't as asymptotically limited as we are inclined to think. There are relationships that are high enough - or underlying enough - to give perspectives across even the boundaries of time and causaility.

We don't just think: we also act. And we act on our thoughts, and they become things in reality, and so we then, after acting, have the feeling that we had a good precognition when things work out as we planned. Something like self-fulfilling prophecies.

One:
If we would be non-acting agents, and our precognitions would be proven true, then we could indeed claim that our powers of precognition are dependable. But we are not non-acting agents. We don't just sit there.
I can say: "I will pass this exam." and then get myself to work, and make my precognition become reality. So what was it that was so powerful: my precognition or my certain acting?

It seems more feasible that instead of "precognition", we use the term "goal". Ex ante, a goal is potentially existent, and ex post it is actually existent or actually non-existent.


Two:

"There are relationships that are high enough - or underlying enough - to give perspectives across even the boundaries of time and causaility."

"We didn't fall from the Moon", and thus we certainly have some knowledge that is beyond our free will and beyond our scope. We have the feeling that we are a part of a system (technically speaking), and that this system is made up of individuals just like us.

The equation is
{the whole} = {the sum of all the elements} + {these elements making a whole}

knowing this equation gives us those "relationships that are high enough - or underlying enough - to give perspectives across even the boundaries of time and causaility".
It's a delightful holistic corollarium, haze, maze, propensity, trait, trick, you name it.

Two-way inductive reasoning. That's what I had in mind.

Can conclusions count as experience?

Two-way inductive reasoning. That's what I had in mind.

"Two-way inductive reasoning" is nothing else but a different name for insight and faith.
To quote you from an older thread:

Faith is a sacrifice of ignorance, in a cretain sense it means accepting the truth and reality of something you cannot see. It's believing in advance what will make sense only in reverse.

To rephrase with two-way inductive reasoning:

Two-way inductive reasoning is a giving-up of temporary ignorance, in a certain sense it means accepting the truth and reality of something you cannot see yet. It's believing in advance what will make sense only in reverse.

No invention is possible without two-way inductive reasoning.


Can conclusions count as experience?

There really is no such thing as "pure experience", neither is there a thing like "purely rational conclusion" -- the differentiation is artificial, and due of feasibility.

I warmly suggest to read, for example, Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism" (yes, I know, I've been going on about it a lot lately).
A commentary (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Two%20Dogmas%20of%20Empiricism) and the whole paper (http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html).

((terry999)))...going on your first post regarding your determinism freakout....these are my views

you have the power of choice....try if you can check this out//it's an online read by Druscilla French titled The Power of Choice.....it's about how patriarchy maintains its power through the ages via mythology, philosophy, fairytale, religion, and literature by demanding an orthodox apporach over an heretical one......these rules seep into the people who read them and have them told and of coure the institutions they have to attend

But she also goes inot how we have the power to choose. it really is a powerful think. but many really fear its power. so they/we get stuck in little cages of our own making...for example, joining the army cause dad'll be rpoud, joining the familiy business cause it's expected....marrying a woman though youmay be Gay......buying a house and having kids cause it's the done thing....etc etc
all these are choices. if you are in afamily that demands you be educatedly successful and a high flyer then one cold say that future is 'determined' for you...HUGE pressure, right?....BUT, listen,.....you do NOT HAVE to do it! that is your power of choice. the only thing stopping you from this freedom is your fear

BUT, listen,.....you do NOT HAVE to do it! that is your power of choice. the only thing stopping you from this freedom is your fear

top marks duendy, top marks, you only have no choice if that is what you wanted any way. We so often defer our choice, thus empowering some one else. ( police, courts, the boss, the wife etc)

We obey the law, we have a choice not to.
We stay alive and suffer, we have a choice not to.
Certainly there are physical limitations like if your on a speeding train and teh doors a sealed you can't get of.....ok...true but with out the retraint of the limits of te physical we have choice....but of course some don't see they have a choice as they fall into a comfoprt zone and really don't like moving outof it. Years later after doign this we tend toloose sight of teh decisions we freely made that got us there in the first place.

YOU know of course that when it realy counts people are very able to move out of their comfort zone and make choices they would not normally make, so free will is cetainly a reality if only we are able to see it, though th haze of our complacency.

There really is no such thing as "pure experience", neither is there a thing like "purely rational conclusion" -- the differentiation is artificial, and due of feasibility.
Then can any reasoning be purely ex ante? Can any statement be completely synthetic?

I haven't been able to wrap my mind around these concepts yet. I'm still looking for a handle or a key that would unlock them for me.
I warmly suggest to read, for example, Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism" (yes, I know, I've been going on about it a lot lately).
A commentary and the whole paper.
Thanks for the links! I've read the commentary. Really interesting. But I will have to postpone the paper until later.

Then can any reasoning be purely ex ante? Can any statement be completely synthetic?

According to Quine, I suppose the answer to both questions is no, at least when it comes to conscious thought.
If we agree that instinct is genetic memory, then we could understand instinctual knowledge as ex ante (for each individual, that is), and synthetic. But the trouble is that instinctual knowledge is not directly accessible for conscious thought, and when we do access it, it is already filtered by conscious thought -- and thus it becomes analytical.

But, maybe it is the analytic/synthetic distinction what is misleading.


To come back on topic: statements that hold come what may seem to be necessary if we wish to keep what we call sanity. Technically, as Quine had it, nothing holds come what may -- but this is the straightest path to insanity!

Maybe this instinctual knowledge is "sense-knowledge". In the same way our ears "know" how to hear, and our eyes how to see, we have the ability to sense the limits of our reality.

Conscious thought is not be the wall itself. It reflects off the walls of our determinism. We can't change the fact that the wall is there - we will eventually walk into it (maybe just not knowing what we walked into). And we can't know the wall exactly for what it is. But we don't need to become claustrophobic. Somehow we still manage to put one foot in front of the other in determined, although cautious, advance. We just keep telling ourselves "not to look down", and all will be fine.

Focussing on just the analytic or the synthetic will be misleading - we'll just bounce off each time. Our senses won't deny that we are walking on a tightrope at a giddy hight, and we will be tempted to look down and explore the abyss. But it's not because we wish to lie to ourselves that we shouldn't look down too long - it's because it stifles our progress along the line. The more you focus on the aparent emptiness below, the more likely you are to be overwhelmed by it, and will you imagine yourself falling off a path that is just as real.

We shouldn't focus so much on "reality" as it is, that we lose sight of reality as we perceive it to be - we will lose our balance.
He who fights monsters should look into it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the Abyss, the Abyss also gazes into you.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Maybe this instinctual knowledge is "sense-knowledge". In the same way our ears "know" how to hear, and our eyes how to see, we have the ability to sense the limits of our reality.

Yes. A kind of a sixth sense ...


Conscious thought is not be the wall itself. It reflects off the walls of our determinism. We can't change the fact that the wall is there - we will eventually walk into it (maybe just not knowing what we walked into). And we can't know the wall exactly for what it is. But we don't need to become claustrophobic. Somehow we still manage to put one foot in front of the other in determined, although cautious, advance. We just keep telling ourselves "not to look down", and all will be fine.

A bat with echolocation may be a convenient metaphor?


He who fights monsters should look into it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the Abyss, the Abyss also gazes into you.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

You've found it! I've often quoted this one -- but I have it only in German.
Wonderful.

What if there are an infinite amount of parallel universes? Meaning that in another universe, there is a Jose ( which is me ) who is an inch taller, or has a scar on his face, etc., etc.? What if every action I choose to take and not to take separates as two different universes ( where in the other I chose to take the action and in the other I didn't choose to )? If there really exists an infinite amount of parallel universes, the ways they could differ from ours are also infinite. It might be from the simplest thing ( say, one more hair in your body ) or from a great, revolutionary thing ( say, different gravitational laws ). Where does that put our free will? Would that make us gods respectively?

I am not an expert in the field of philosophy ( even as it interests me greatly ), but these are just my two cents ( as flawed as they might be ).

also i'd like to add, that we all have the power of choice. only we make ourselves get trapped. EVEN in the most dire situation there is always suicide...!

Unless you believe in reincarnation. In which case you could become a serial-suicide, tho. :bugeye:

If your entire life is determined, then what determines it? Doesn't this prove that a god has to exist?

I sometimes had visions of something early in my life and then I came in a few situations later on, that made me think, hey, I have been in this situation before.

In the film, Tom Cruise didnt kill Leo Crow, it's Leo Crow took his gun to kill himself. Also, when the gun is shot, the predicted time had been over for many seconds.

In fact, what we do are always affected by many factors, but it doesnt mean you dont have free will.

Think about if everything happens randomly without causes, you cant even grasp it, it's more like that we dont have freedom.