Sarkus Given the childish behavior you are demonstrating I am not sure whether it would achieve anything. So the link is all I am going to give you... here it is, in it's own thread... http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co-determinism-and-the-reality-of-free-will.161757/
Priceless, QQ. Priceless. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Are you able to offer anything here that is remotely sensible? Any explanation whatsoever? Any answers to the other questions that were asked? Seems not. So with that I'll leave you to whatever confused word-salad you consider to be your theory.
You asked me to explain my theory of Co-determinism and I posted a link to a topic that I posted that does so. You have turned this thread into a Absolute determinism thread, which I am more than happy to argue with you. In fact I have done so with many posts, making many attempts to show you how your logic fails, none of which have been refuted adequately. And No I am not going to repeat myself, you will just have to read your own thread, oops, Fess's thread and find out what I am talking about. You may be happy to repeat yourself constantly and consistently saying the same thing over and over but I am not. But, by all means keep on doing what you wish. What ever rocks your boat...
The universe is the whole thing, the driver is part of the universe. No supernatural free will, you mean. Degrees of freedom in willful action are routinely observed, having been predetermined to exist. - - - - Identical elements in a determinate universe - one where everything is determined, remember? It possesses several logical levels of complexity no thermostat possesses, rendering it currently impossible to rigorously describe let alone analyze. There is no principle that allows you to dismiss that carelessly, or by assumption. But we are not talking about that one run - the capabilities are mutually exclusive, remember? No run can display them both.We are talking about capabilities, which are things that exist regardless of whether they are ever employed. In a determinate universe we can even predict which one will be employed next - that does not make the other one vanish now. The free will of the universe is not the topic here. It is the part of the system capable of choosing among the alternative capabilities it possesses. That's its predetermined nature. We observe that. To imagine it has no such capabilities is to dismiss observation and established fact. It's a presumption, and you base your entire argument on it - without paying the slightest attention to the issues it raises. Aspects of the same thing, if you were paying attention.
The deterministic universe is a separate assumption. It is only when you put the two premises together does one conclude that such freedom is not possible in a deterministic universe. Again you confuse the complexity of the system with the type of freedom you are describing. If the same input always leads to the same output, it matters not how complex the intervening system is, you are left with the same nature of freedom that a thermostat has. We are talking about that one run. The run that happens at that time, with those specific inputs. And the inability of the system to do anything other than what it does as a result of the deterministic system. We agree. That is your contention. I have already explained that I am not talking about counterfactual capability, but actual ability. If something is never employed, and never possibly employed because of the inputs, then it has no actual ability. At best you can say "if the inputs were X then the capability would have been observed". This puts it in the realm of being counterfactual. It does at that time. Only one can exist at any given time. You yourself have agreed that no run can display them both. So we are left with one, or the other. If there is one ability there is not the other in that run. The nature of the freedom within any deterministic system is. Yes, choosing from from among imagined alternative capabilities. Whether it is actually capable at that time will have depended on the predetermined inputs to the system, and the system. It has a separate capability for each different input. If the input is 1 then the output is X, if the input is 2 then the output is Y. It has zero capability of having an input of 1 and outputting Y. You've agreed that this is the case. So given that the input to any given system within a deterministic universe is predetermined, there is no ability within the system to output anything other than what has been predetermined will be the output. You can run the system as many times as you like, with as many different inputs as you like, but each time there is only the capability to output what it is predetermined to do, and no capability to output anything else. I don't base any argument on it. It is a conclusion I have reached such that it I consider trivial. It is the same nature of freedom that you are describing that can be found in a thermostat. You have offered nothing that suggests otherwise. Yes, the system of the human is more complex, far more complex, so complex that we're not actually sure of the workings. But the assumption of the deterministic universe means that we don't need to know how the system operates for us to conclude that the freedom within the system is of the same nature as that found in a thermostat. Well, I look forward to you presenting a case to that effect, then, 'cos at the moment you have offered nothing but an appeal to complexity.
It doesn't, although I have no doubt you think it does. So why not post a precis here, for those that are reading this thread that don't want to open up any others, such is the gripping nature of these exchanges. Yet your "theory" that you think counters it remains unexplained in this thread. Go figure. And no, I haven't turned this thread into what it is. That was the numerous people that tried to argue against Baldeee's position, to which he simply responded. It was the numerous people that tried to argue against Capracus position, to which he has responded, and those that have tried to argue against my position, to which I have responded. If people don't want to talk about our position, they surely know how to not respond to it? And if they wish to post other angles, other ideas, they surely know they can, right? They don't always have to respond to those who hold other positions. But if you do kick the hornets nest.... Again, I'm sure you think that to be the case. To repeat yourself you have to say it at least once... and we're still waiting. That probably explains why your posts are so contradictory, inconsistent, and basically just an effort to sound as though you know what you're talking about by throwing words around. But hey, at least you recognise the consistency in what I say.
They vary. The example at hand is a driver approaching a light. That was done. You still needed the supernatural assumption. That is the meaning, in English, of the word "capability". Supernatural ability - if you use specific and accurate terms, you may confuse yourself less. Capabilities are defining physical characteristics of entities, and they are observed - they don't disappear and reappear from moment to moment based on what will happen later on. The inputs that will exclude its possibility do not yet exist, and have not yet been put in. Causation backwards in time would be a supernatural ability, and we agreed to exclude such things. That does not follow. There is no way for future inputs to affect present reality, and until they do the ability to do otherwise than they will indicate can often be observed to exist - actually, physically, genuinely, in the natural world. It has to - the entity was predetermined to make the upcoming choice from among its capabilities, after all. You did base your dismissal of non-supernatural degrees of freedom on the presumption they were trivial, and that presumption was not a conclusion of any argument -( as the garbling of the next sentence indicates: you cannot express your thought clearly, because it doesn't make sense.) So you presume. What that common nature is remains undescribed and unconsidered. Just several orders of magnitude more complex, with the many more and qualitatively different degrees of freedom that hierarchies of logical levels provide. Dreams have become causal, information has become causal, consciousness has become causal, every aspect of human nature has become causal and part of the determination of future events. But that's not worth discussing, apparently, because it's trivial - by assumption.
The logic of absolute determinism defeats it self. I will draw up an image that may help with the understanding and post it later. In regard to free will having to be an illusion.
And thus the driver is subject to the same natural laws that dictate the behavior of everything else. Which means that regardless of the perceived path the driver imagines, universal determinants have already prescribed a unique specified path for that event. No free will of any kind, only an imagined sense of it. Degrees of freedom are only imagined alternatives to a uniquely determined universal circumstance.
that could be true but it is also very misleading... At any given t=0 how many points are we talking about? Are they all unique or only one? If one, why?
I recently read about a court case where the defendant tried the everything is predetermined defence so I am not responsible I have no control The judge agreed with the defendant 100% He then went on to say I find you guilty of the offence and sentence you to 10 years jail because it has been predetermined that I do so and I have no control Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They don't vary. There are a few different notions and principles, some trivial, some not so, but they don't vary. And what the example at hand has is the trivial kind as witnessed in a thermostat. Never needed it, never provided it, never used it. And every effort you have made to show otherwise merely demonstrates how you are applying the conclusion as an assumption. And thus you assume that Socrates is mortal. You can't apply the word to one scenario (repeated testing, for example) and claim that that means the word assumes that scenario. Capability simply means the ability to do something. If there is no alternative to what the thing can do at the time then it has no capability at that time of doing anything else. It's not rocket science. Yes, there is a capability when looking at counterfactual or imagined alternatives, where if the inputs were different the output could be different. But they do not relate to the actual event in question, but instead to other events at different times. For the event in question there is no capability to do anything else. If you want to call it supernatural because you conclude that it doesn't exist, so be it. Personally I have no need to introduce the supernatural to the table, either in conclusion and certainly not in assumption. Maybe you can do likewise? When talking in casual parlance you may well be correct, but when investigating the philosophical, as we are, one has to be far more precise about what one is referring to as being a capability. In this case, you are referring to capabilities not for any given input but the the trivial notion that if you applying different inputs you get different outputs. We call them capabilities in casual parlance because we don't consider the inputs to be predetermined, or particularly restricted, but in philosophy we can do. And that predetermination means that the inputs at any given moment are restricted, and thus the output is restricted. And at any given moment it has no capability to do anything else. They do exist. That is what it means to be predetermined. Everything now and in the future is already factual from aeons ago. We just don't know what is factual and what is counterfactual until after the event, but our knowledge doesn't change which is which. Then we're lucky there is no causation backwards in time being proposed, aren't we. It does follow, but not in the way you are misunderstanding. If the driver is already imagining and choosing what to do before the colour of the light is observed then he is doing so because other inputs have predetermined him to do so. Those capabilities he is imagining are just that: imagined. At any point while he is imagining those capabilities the driver can only do what he is predetermined to do. The predetermination doesn't start and stop with the scenario. Everything is predetermined. The light, when observed, is just another input into the system. And at any given time the system can only ever do what the inputs to the system the moment before determines must be done in that moment, which in turn act as the inputs to the system for determining the next moment. No capability to actually do anything else at that time. If you want to call it a presumption, sure, go for it, but when I conclude that all you are referring to is the same principle of freedom I see in a thermostat... I consider it trivial. No, the nature is: thermostat on, thermostat off. That much the logic concludes. What remains undescribed and unconsidered is how we perceive it as something else, how we perceive it as being us as the instigators of the action. I.e. The complexity of the system, not the nature of the freedom But the nature of the freedom remains that of a thermostat: thermostat on, thermostat off. Ah, I get it, anything I disagree with you on is because I have simply assumed it so from the outset! I get it! Finally! Oh, thank heavens for that! I was starting to think you took yourself seriously!
Write4U just for you....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Using mathematics to provide an analogy of processing (thinking) validating, determining possibility and deciding which of available choices are actionable. Process (example using numbers to represent desires, mood, needs, etc.) 1+3÷6+79/34=A 2*6+9=A' 77/5*5*8÷3=A'' 44-6+4-8*9=A''' Decision to act A-A=0 A'-A'=0' A''-A''=/=0'' (impossible due to local circumstances. Eg. Locked door) A'''-A'''=0''' 3 of 4 choices available for actioning. 0+0'+0'''=0 (No conflict with universal predermination.) Freedom to choose any of the three is not in-determinhiation. Simply arbitary freedom using the power granted by a fully predetermined universe. A work in progress.....
