Determinism vs chance

Yes... cause an effect is a continious chane of causes an effects.!!!

So you dont deny that "cause an effect" esists... you jus thank cause an effect ant a continous chane of events because that chane is som-how broken an you call that free will.???

What ever you'r definition of free will... are you certan that we have it.???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never assumed you did. All I am saying is that you consider all your thoughts to be completely controlled by your environment and your genes. Which undermines any claims to logic or rationality. Coincidentally your thoughts may be rational and logical, but really, you have no way of knowing this - if you are correct about yourself.

Then you have no idea if your ideas about free will apply to others.

Which is a fine definition, but one that is a small subset of the usual one. IOW it makes perfect sense to say I believe in ____________ because of the evidence.

I think I answer this somewhere else. Of course, the same question could be asked about believing in free will.

No. You are not understanding. I am not saying, simply, that you could be wrong. I am saying that your belief about yourself - being utterly determined - means you cannot evaluate your own arguments and thoughts. They are completely controlled and will seem right regardless.

Why would you think that? I first mused on the irony of determinists engaging in philosophical discussions - given that their position means they cannot even know if they are rational. But I can't see where I gave the impression I was setting out to cure anyone. If disagreeing with you leads you to believe I am trying to cure you, is it fair to say you are trying to cure me.

The main problems that might, I say might, come from believing in determinism is 1) fatalism and 2) not taking responsibility. If one truly believes - what you stated - that environment and genes - cause all your thoughts and actions, well, it's not really your responsibility. Note: I am not saying that this is your problem - which you need to be cured from - it just seems like a possible problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
I dont thank of the "mind" as a seperate entity from the body/brane... much less that this seperate entity makes unifluenced choises.!!! ”

Yes i agree.!!!

I agree thats what you beleive.!!!

“ Yes i agree.!!!”

Do you thank the "mind" is seperate from the body/brane... an thats whare "free-will" coms from.???

I agree.!!!
-------------------

“ Personaly i dont see problematic consequences in thankin the comcept of free will is an illusion... what prollems do you see it has caused me.??? ”

oK... lol.!!!
--------------

“ I thank i coud be rong about others... ”

When you say "you" above... do you mean that as bein somptin seperate from the brane/body... an when you evaluate your own arguments and thouts as bein logical... do you thank they woud still seem right to you... regardless if (unknown to you) they hapened to be rong.???

oK... i take you'r word for it... you ant tryin to "fix" me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... but dew to ther positon... It seems like you dont thank determinists have a place in philosophical discussons... which is fine wit me if you do thank that... but aparently im determined to engage in such discussons in spite of you'r "logic"... an jus because you beleive in free will... an beleive you'r philosophical views are rational... that dont mean that they necessarly are... or do you have a beleif that you coundnt be rong about others or you'r philosophical views.???


Edit:::

Well thats easy enuff to answr... im a determinist... not a fatalist.!!!

Well let me say this about that... i dont thank people deserve punishment... an i also desire to live in a society which makes its own laws an that no one shud be above those laws.!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can't say that I do.
The reason being that, there cannot be any absolute claims (nor do I think any reasonable person would make such..). Moreover, pragmatically, I don;t think anyone uses either randomness or determined in such an absolute sense.

While you may be linguistically correct to say that something described as being 'quasi-random' does mean that it is therefore, to some extent determined, again, this says nothing whatsoever about the actual state of affairs. You're simply drawing attention to the fact that people make use of terms in an imprecise manner.

To assert that something is either absolutely random, or absolutely determined, would necessitate complete knowledge of the system in question. Since no one has such knowledge......

I'm not.
I can't understand what you mean by "experiencing" time...

Yes, but in the face of contention lies support for the familiar/accepted position: we have no experience of not being the experiencer. When faced with these two options, only the one with which we have experience makes sense: I can only know my perspective (if you'd like.. I can add: 'until proven otherwise'.....) All you have, is your entire lifespan of experience contra the contention...

 

QQ,

I'll leave it to you as to whether or not this splinter discussion is flying offtopic or not....

For now, there are some interesting things I've got to comment on:


Now here's some scariness:

On each of these points, I am in complete agreement with 'clueless.

wow

But in particular:

with this.

This is not only insightful, but also a position I've held for a number of years.

You'd be amazed at how so many people think that if freewill is an 'illusion' then it has got to be a big problem...
Frankly, I've never understood the problem.

Excellent insight 'clueless.

Cheers.

 

Maybe I should give a buddhist type response that you must empty your cup?

How do you know? Although I gave color which is something physical, the point was that an 'influence' does not mean total influence. You may be influenced by 'ghandi' but that doesn't make you ghandi.

When did I say consciousness is 'not influenced'?

Yes, but I don't find it a topic to spend too much time on. Even if it was deterministic, the best way to live is with the acknowledgement of free will.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The point I was attempting to make regarding the semantics is that:
Determinism allows for a variety of determiing factors. [ except randomness or chance]
Randomness allows for no such determining factors to hold the claim of randomness. In fact that is the definition of the word is it not?

For science to use the word random and claim it as reality they must use the precise definition I would imagine. Especially when dealing with the depth of reality that they appear to be dealing with. No room fro error I would speculate.

So when using the word random they must be implying it's typical qualifier, that being "purely" as in purely random. becasue to state impure randomness is a slef contradiction in terms.

So the evidence is either demonstrating randomness or not....simple really.

I would contend that because there are determining influences acting upon the objects of observation that are not random then the claim of randomness is no longer valid.

Now you are asking me to use my language in precise terms when denouncing an apparent imprecise usage by science. Which is rather ironic don't you think. [chuckle]

The thread is about determinism vs chance. If science fails to use the words chance and randomness properly then that is irrelevant to the pragmatics involved with this thread.

Randomness can not exist in it's pure form simply because there is always a constant determining effect prevailing universally.

And if randomness can not exist in it's pure form I fail to see how it can exist in an impure form due to the self contradicion in terms.


edit:
It is possible to have determinism with the existance of a small aspect of randomness where as it is impossible to have randomnesss with a small aspect of determinism IMO

ie. "the event that took place was determined by 1] knowns 2] unknowns 3] small random influences" - IMO a logical statement
however
"the event that took place was randomly determined with determining infuences" IMO is an illogical statement.

 

Well, that's good, though I did not think that was an issue. Do you agree, yourself, however.

So what would be the point of discussion? Again: it is not simply that 'you could be wrong', but your position means you have NO way to know if you are being rational. In fact, your position means that you are not being rational. You are forced to have the position you have and to think it makes sense. I can compel a person who does not speak English to repeat certain ideas in English. They did not arrive at them rationally.

We'd have to go into a long discussion of what you mean by all these terms.

Again, I think those terms are really floppy, philosophically - brain, body. I have no idea what you mean. I assume you are using them as shorthand for a vast amount of experiences and abstractions. IOW you had experiences and you were aware of ideas and you batch these under certain words.

I have no idea if you would be better off thinking you had free will.

Not quite. All they have to say is that they are compelled to participate and compelled to say everything they are saying - to be consistent. I mean, from their perspective their participation was already on its way back in the Big Bang, and not only their participation but everything they are saying was already built in.

But I don't see anything illogical in them participating. The irony is heavy though. And I certainly don't think they shouldn't. However I do think it indicates, most likely, that they don't totally believe in determinism.

You are still missing the point. I am not saying it is possible that you are wrong. I am saying that your position itself indicates that your belief is built on irrational processes.

Not sure I asked a question.

How can a determinist believe in 'should'? How can 'should' have any meaning to a determinist? This implies that things 1) could be different and 2) morals are objective. What are they made of?

Let's do a second response to this one.....

You sound very sure, implicitly, that no one sure be sure of their philosophical views. You do see the contradiction, right?

 

But this isn't quite what he said.

He said....

You agreed and then said....

Which is shifting the issue to the problem with free will not existing, from clueless asserting, more or less, that there could not be problems with believing it does not exist.

The issue he raises is whether there possibly could be harmful effects of believing there is no free will. I can't see how it is obvious this belief could not lead to problems.

The odd thing, though, is that he raised the issue several times, as if I was telling him that his belief would lead to problems and that I was out to cure him. Whereas I simply think it is ironic in a discussion to say I am utterly compelled to have the beliefs I have. (When I say this people who believe in determinism often start to argue that those believing in free will face a similar problem or argue against free will - which is a lot like, in the 80s say, responsing to criticism American Foreign Policy by pointing out the flaws in Soviet policy.

Despite the fact that I did not raise the issue, however, it is not completely obvious to me that believing in determinism cannot have negative effects.

Do you agree, for example, with clueless, that there should be no punishment? He indicates this belief followed for him from determinism. And note: it doesn't matter if you agree that this position necessarily follows from there being no free will. I think it is clear that it can and will lead to this position for some. If you do not see that position as a problematic one, I assume you will give up certain moderator actions here.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I find cause and effect very useful concepts, along with chance and probability. I find free will a very useful concept. I just think a refusal to recognize the limitations of their applicability tends to confuse people very badly. In particular, cause and effect are not somehow more fundamental or "true" than the other concepts that apply to that level of description and analysis - such as "chance" or "randomness".

The most common determining factors in the physical universe directly involve randomness - for example, the mathematical expression of almost all physical laws, such as those of thermodynamics or physical chemistry or electromagnetic wave propagation, display specific terms defined or derived as probabilities.

If you want to determine something - arrange the occurrence of an event to some near-unity probability - statistical properties of the universe (such as the laws of large numbers) are by far your most reliable allies.

Originally Posted by quantum
Tell the board one event(s) that is not in some way determined/influenced by gravitational forces....please!
”
? Who cares? Prove that the influence of gravitational force on quantum events "determines" anything without a probability term.

 

You're right, there is a distinction there. Forgive me for not seeing it; I'll blame it on 'clueless's style (sic)...

In any case, I can't see how even the belief could lead to problems...

Ah, now that I love. You're right about the irony.

See, I think that this hints at the nature of the problem that QQ is having as well: when we decide to polarize these concepts into diametrically opposed absolutes, we inevitably find ourselves in conundrums. The obvious answer is that there are no such oppositions....

I'm still unable to see any..

Ah, well... moving into ethics now...

No, I couldn't agree with that at all. Simply because one's behaviour may be mediated by variables 'unseen', or beyond one's control, doesn't absolve one from being responsible for their behaviour...

 

It is not.
You're taking those definitions and extrapolating them to absolutes.
Those definitions are understood (as are all scientific definitions) to obtain only within specific domains. I.e, there is never a claim of universality; no absolutism. All 'Laws', 'Principles' and 'Theories' are contingent: they are system-specific.

Correct. (And no one claims that it exists as such.)

The contradiction is not in the definition of the term, but in the extension you bring to it.

 

By 'will' I mean what we want to achieve. Our intention. Some say that our will controls our finger when we move it, but that just isn't so. We have the intention to move it and the brain gathers resources to fulfill that action.

There are some indications (to my experience) that our faith puts limits to our freedom to actually achieve what we want. When I arrive to see someone (in this case my parents) I usually knock in a melodic way on the door so that they know that it's me. And I was drunk the day before so you could say that my faith was very low when I came to the door, and I just couldn't knock in that melodic way that I'm used to. I could only knock a simple *knock* *knock* *knock* kind of way...this got me thinking that my faith in what I do really has impact on the result.

Will is something seperate from my body, yes. Will is a part of the meaning of the body and not part of the body itself. The meaning of a word is not a part of the word itself but a part of the interpreter, the same goes with will, and in my view also consciousness itself.

Yes, and that's us extending ourselves in the future. If the future isn't dark, then we are there, and the more we know about the future, the more we can influence it.

I'm not certain of anything. I want to believe so though.

When I was a child I heard that everything was destined to happen, and thoughtful as I was I felt that it put limits to my freedom to do what I wanted since I would do it anyway since it is destined. To counter-act this I tried waving my arms in unpredictable manners to try to fool destiny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

lol, now I believe that some things are destined, but that we always have a degree of freedom. Perhaps there can also be multiple destinies and the actions we take put us in one of them.

 

I can't really see how a determinist - not that you have claimed to be that as far as I have read - will not end up contradicting himherself. Someone who believes in free will may run into this problem if they rely on compelling excuses for their actions/inactions, but the determinist will really have to clean out the attic carefully to avoid hypocrisy.

 

Nope, I'm not. As I've noted earlier, I think this is all a false dichotomy.

I agree with you that the free will proponent will run into problems, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by the determinist running into hypocrisy.

Howso?
And, I'm assuming you mean hypocrisy beyond the ordinary sense (because this of course, would simply be a matter of inconsistency in language..)...

 

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
Do you thank the "mind" is seperate from the body/brane... an thats whare "free-will" coms from.???

oK... then in you'r own words... give me an idea of what you thank free will is... an what you thank the process is that makes free will posible.???
-------------------

...i dont thank people deserve punishment... an i also desire to live in a society which makes its own laws an that no one shud be above those laws.!!!

I understan that you preceive a contradicton... but i dont know what my future will be any mor than you know what your's will be... so as far as feelin like i have free will... its no diferent than when i took it for granted that i did have free will... so reguardless of you'r puzzlement i do enjoy discussin philosophical issues an live my life as if i take it for granted that i do have free will.!!!

...when you evaluate your own arguments and thouts as bein logical... do you thank they woud still seem logical to you... regardless if (unknown to you) they hapened to be rong.???

 

Oh, I think the counterintuitive position bears the onus.

I don't know what the above has to do with a determinist believing in 'should'. Should that there is some other way the universe would be better. But the universe CANNOT be any other way, to a determinist. It is the way it was always going to be. 'Should' is a term a consistant determinist would shy away from.

I am not surprised that you enjoy philosophical discussions. But you still don't seem to get the irony of a determinist participating.

I don't see what this has to do with determinism. The ironies of my position do not reduce the ironies and inconsistancies of your position even if they exist.

 

Because they will act on occasion as if things should be somehow other. You can see my problem with clueless's use of 'should' in defense of no punishment. I don't think I made my case extremely well, but my intuition says that a moral evaluation implicit in 'should' is inconsistant with determinism. Things just are. 'Should' is referring to some non-existent somethingorother.

Another inconsistancy would likely come about in a sense of superiority over people who seem to be irrational. I don't think that term has much meaning in a determined universe. Of course, one will react to certain people in certain ways, but once you get irritated at the irrationality of their position and think your own ideas are more rational....

I dunno, this seems to imply some kind of wiggle room.

Again 'they 'should' have chosen' better ideas or via a better process.

'Should they?'

How?

They did what they did as inevitably determined in the big bang.

Now the determinist can use the fall back position that their own inconsistency is determined as well.

But I have never encountered one who does this. Further one can then ask them to contemplate

why having this inconsistancy pointed out to them has not, in a determined fashion, made them more consistent?

 

I am sorry every one. If you wish to discuss vaguaries and non specifics and claim for example that terms like randomness can not be deemed absolute. [ for if it is not absolute what is it?]

Then there is nothing really to discuss as neither the scientific position nor the other is of any value what so ever.

By claiming randomness as non-absolute you are claiming science is committing a fraud by using such a term at such an extreme level of research.

Doreen, if I am not mistaken, is also using and has a complaint against determinism as an absolute, which as I see it and agree with Doreen removes any responsibility for ones decisions with the claim:
"It was predetermined that I choose the way I have therefore I have no responisbility for my choices" [in the context of determinism with out freewill - were as I believe determinsim and freewill can co-exist with out randomness involved either I might add]

So really people we need to decide "using our freedom to do so" whether we want to talk about these things thoroughly or not.
Of course this discussion is dialetic, as it has to be.

ahh but they do. Just ask Ice Aura or any other physics person.

 

I said... "Personaly" i dont see problematic consequences in thankin the comcept of free will is an illusion"... clearly i was speekin for myself... an of course ther coud be problematic consequences in certan people whether they thank free will esists or not... an i certantly woudnt assert otherwize.!!!

Whoa... whether you'r now tellin me it woud or woudnt lead to prollems... LOL... it was you who raized the issue in post #71 about not beleivin in free will... an poblematic consequences.!!!

Dorene---"Note: I do think habits can confuse us into thinking they are real. If one of these habitual ideas is that we are not free, we can - freely - begin to believe this, with problematic consequences."

oK... but when "you" raized that issue earlier:::

Doreen---"the same question could be asked about believing in free will."

I didnt argue.. or ask you to give an answr to the queston you posed... i answrd:::

"oK... lol.!!!"

LOL... what i actualy said was... "i dont thank people deserve punishment" (big diference)... an i woud be hapy to discuss what i actualy said insted of the false statment you atrubute to me... so the strawman you'r arguein wit below is irrelevent.!!!

Doreen arguein wit her strawman---"He indicates this belief followed for him from determinism. And note: it doesn't matter if you agree that this position necessarily follows from there being no free will. I think it is clear that it can and will lead to this position for some. If you do not see that position as a problematic one, I assume you will give up certain moderator actions here."