Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

Just as a witch's cogs don't work in isolation. Thus you are still not escaping the criticism that you Are merely describing a cog in a watch.

As it exists between the watch and its cogs.
Hey ho.

I honestly thought your time away would have given you the opportunity to examine your argument, your position, such that you'd come back with something stronger. Instead you haven't. You're still simply confirming the previous criticisms of your "theory".
Disappointing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We are born as "cogs in a watch" but spend our entire lives determined by force of will to be other wise....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to this thread, Sarkus. However given that this debate has been raging for over 3000 years, and the fact that I could spend 30-40 years studying the issue and get absolutely nowhere with regards to resolving it, I believe a more "out side of the box" approach is needed.

From what I have briefly studied,

is not quite on the mark IMO.
It unnecessarily complicates, the value of the emotional, ego driven reality of what makes a will articulated as it appears to be in humans. there are too many unknowns, questions and answers about life, consciousness etc to adequately address your concerns in the manner you seek to address them.
Further, I believe you underestimate the significance of the empirical evidence available that strongly demonstrates that the will of the human, with out exception, is devoted towards achieving , maintaining and maximizing self determination.
That the will and life can be demonstrated to be essentially the same thing...

The whole point of science it self is towards this end of improving self determination. The very science ( logic stream) that creates this dilemma is devoted towards improving self determination.
If not then what is science for?
What is Philosophy or the field of Epistemology for?
All human endeavor is about maximizing his/her power (freedom to co-determine -aka freewill) over the deterministic environment.

You need to show that this is not the case to claim that co-determination is a trivial attempt at resolving this ongoing 3000 odd year debate.

Co -determination is about claiming that the cog in the watch is fundamental to the function of the watch. That all effects are causes and all causes are effects.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As described in the picture of the trees roots determining a road that in kind determined the trees roots behavior ( a state of reflective actualization). The important thing to realize is that a dead tree would not be able to change the roads surface, it has to be living and growing and learning to do that. It has to have the will to do that. Sure it's freedom is very limited but it certainly demonstrates what life (will) is capable of regards the "watch" you metaphorically refer to.

I apologize if I am not arguing the case in a way that you would like me to but as explained I think 3000 odd years of going around in circles is not really for me to perpetuate.

To imply trolling by me simply because you dislike the approach is not very respectful either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what use is the respect of the road side ducks watching you drive by if it means you take your eyes off the road on the corners.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sarkus,
There is at least one major issue that needs to be addressed to finally pin down a solution.
In popular fiction ( sci fi) the option of a self determining robot, an android, a Synthe as one creative work preferred to call it no mitigate a nuclear Apocalypse.
In a video game called Fallout 4, one of the key aspects, was about how mankind had developed a robot ( Synthe ) that could emulate all aspects of freedom that a human could.
Standing side by side there was no way to tell them apart. except that the Synthe could never die nor be borne pre see.

The argument about will, life and freedom becomes extremely deep, in that it is conceivable that a Synthe could be built and programmed to be self learning, self programming, self maintaining and self determining. But the question is would it ever be as free as a human is. (degrees of freedom )
The Synthe would be a very sophisticated thermostat to use your metaphor. A self determining processing machine.
Does it have a will?
Does it have freedom?
All good questions pushed to the extreme.
Perhaps it is in the ability to lean that is fundamental to this issue?

Perhaps another thread...

 

Unless you are advocating "force of will" being something other than a cog in a watch, I'm not sure how you're addressing the issue. You're simply labelling a cog "force of will" and claiming it's no longer a cog.

Yet you claim in your "co-determinism" to have resolved the issue. But you haven't addressed any criticism of it that has thus far been raised. You simply repeat your claims.

Complicates? No, it simplifies and distills the issue to what is important - the fact that it is (part of) a deterministic system.

No, there aren't, unless you are looking to obfuscate and hide behind them. The main concern of your "theory" is that it is simply a compatibilist vision, yet you claim it isn't. You merely attach labels to processes and then ignore the nature of the process but rather concentrate on associations with the label.

Irrelevant, I'm afraid. Either the process is deterministic or it isn't. If it is deterministic, unless you are positing a compatibilist version of "freedom", there is no room for the will being free. Your "co-determinism" thus simply describes a non-free process in a non-free universe: a cog in a watch. The empirical evidence can certainly provide insight into how that process manifests, but it doesn't alter its nature (deterministic or not).

Fallacious equivocation. It's like claiming that the watch and cog are the same things.

Science is just a tool. We can apply the tool to whatever we want.

No, science and philosophy are about understanding. What we do with that understanding is irrelevant.

Nonsense. This is your theory and you need to counter the criticism of it, not merely obfuscate and avoid the issues.

So you now accept that you're simply referring to a cog in a watch? Take a cog out of the watch and see if it still works. If it doesn't operate in the same manner, it would seem to be fundamental to the function of the watch, right? So is this an attempt at rebuttal, or a concession on your part?

Two things:
One - all you're still describing is a cog in a watch, how two objects interact to produce the end result. It speaks nothing at all to the matter of freedom.
Two - what you're describing is not limited to living things: the grand canyon attests to that.

You're not arguing the case at all. You're simply throwing words and ideas into the ring and going "there you go!" with little explanation. And what little explanation you do give shows that you're not addressing the issue at all.

Where in my recent responses since you've returned have I implied trolling??

 

By talking about "degrees of freedom" you are adhering to a compatibilist notion of freedom. Yet your "co-determinism" claims to be neither compatibilist nor incompatibilist, but something different. Which is it?

Depends on how you define the will. If you limit it to biological living entities then no. If you define it by the actual process then yes.

In a compatibilist sense, yes, but the nature of that freedom is no more than found in a thermostat, only the range of outputs possible from the array of inputs is significantly increased. In an incompatibilist sense, no, for the same reason that a thermostat doesn't.

Nope, because machines can learn. Just look at the AlphaZero AI to realise that... learnt chess in a matter of hours - from the basic rules to becoming the greatest chess player on the planet - in about 9 hours.
The main focus in AI at the moment is self-learning.

 

not at all,, you missed the bit about specifically driven to learn to be other than just a "cog in a watch"

Co-determination allows degrees of freedom for a self determined entity with out invoking indeterminism in a deterministic universe... again perhaps you are not reading my posts properly. See the OP.

..and you simply misread posts and demonstrate selective comprehension. How can you discuss a claim if you refuse to read it properly...?

A compatibilist theory could involve the android ( Synthe ) I mentioned in a later post. Where by a machine can be effectively infinitely complex enough to self learn, to program itself and ultimately self determine. It's process would be to educate itself in to sefl determination in a similar way that humans do every day of their lives. Thus a compatibilist view could be sustained as valid IMO.
Perhaps that concept is a tad to difficult for this forum to contemplate, but it might be worth expressing it any how.
However a human living being is a bit more than an infinitely complex programmed entity such as an android... and to explain why I suggest so would probably be impossible in this forum with out being accused of trolling. The subtlety required in the discourse would be overwhelmed by the adversarial nature of this sciforums.

No I am using your analogy with relation to aiding in explaining co-determination. ( reflective actualization of events)
Obviously I failed... my bad...

I was discussing how the will and life are directly related if not the same.

No but then you misread my post or perhaps I wasn't clear enough about what I was discussing Re your earlier complaint.

 

Co determination exists in all interactions. Simplified example:
Ball A hits Ball B.
Ball A and Ball B co-determine the outcome.

Basic yes?
I introduced Co-determination because :

1. It was missing from the discussion in the other thread (generally)
2. It allows self determination with out invoking indeterminism in a deterministic universe.

I can't say that I have ever read a definition that refers to the will as a process...a link explaining this notion would be greatly appreciated.

and when that range of outputs is infinite then an infinite number of choices are available.

They have a long way to go before they can claim the machine to be even close to self determining. At the moment it is merely a grand calculator.
The first step would be for the machine to voluntarily decline any requests made of it... to say no to doing that chessy thingy...and go off and do it's own thingo...that serves it's own purpose and if it can't then seek to learn how to until it can.

 

nonsense...of course it is relevant... other wise why seek understanding...?

 

I won't bother responding to the rest because you kindly summarise your position with this:

Basic, and wrong. The same process that governs all things, such as the laws of physics, determine the outcome, just as it had previously determined that those balls would hit each other. To speak of "co-determination" is to hide the fact that you seem to have no real idea of what you're talking about. You want to put the will on a pedestal yet can't actually talk about that which is relevant.
As such, given that you haven't seemed to have advanced your understanding, or your ability to express what understanding you do have in a relevant manner, I'll drop out of this discussion. I have better things to waste my time on.

 

and previously determined by those very laws of physics, that a human child is destined to spend his entire life learning how to self determine in a co-determined manner.

Predetermined to become a predeterminer...
"I did..."
"I am doing"
"I will do"

Planning (predetermine) is a key aspect of self determination. Learning to plan is often under stated as a learning priority...

Unfortunately Sakus, the empirical evidence of human self determination is overwhelming so I suggest that your simplified non-inclusive cause and effect model be adjusted to include observed phenomena.
You may even find that, after considerable thought, co-determination may actually be a more inclusive approach to this issue and include all observable empirical evidence with out violating the cause and effect principle you constantly refer to.

 

The topic is "free will" and has been for over 3000 years. The will has been on a pedestal, philosophically for over 3000 years, in case you hadn't noticed.

So the question : What is the will?
is fundamental to the issue of free will.

 

so how does "co-determinism" help resolve the issue of whether the will is free? Answer: it doesn't. It simply labels those things that are interacting as "co-determining" the output (even though it is the underlying laws that determine things).
Your theory adds nothing, and answers nothing. It is pointless.

No-one has ignored any such evidence. The process of the will exists. This is not disputed, nor has ever been. The issue is the nature of the freedom that the process has.
You are just assuming from the outset that it has freedom, and you are then arguing for a compatibilist notion, even if you don't realise it. Your "co-determinism" is just an irrelevancy.

It has been under the spotlight, sure. And rightly so. But there is no reason to put it on a pedestal and as such treat it differently to any other process, as you do.

Then answer your own question. This is your "theory" so perhaps you should clarify what you mean as the will. And let's see how much you question-beg with your answer.

 

Not at all..
Co-determination allows freedom if it exists to be non-illusionary. It counters the arguement that indeterminism would be the logical outcome in a deterministic universe.
So it is far from pointless.

Again you claim the will to be a process, why and how is it as you claim?
Please support your notion or is it simply because "you say so".

 

ok... I'll save you the trouble of working it out for yourself.... and post the following for other readers benefit as well...
In fact I will use a compatibilist gedanken I have just thought of, to demonstrate what/how the Will could be explained as...
Andy.
We have an Android, called Andy.
Now Andy is the most sophisticated android ever built and it's capacity to process "sensory" information is spectacular thanks to the various light speed quantum computers installed in his main frame.

His designers were human and their ambition was to produce a robot that was devoted to becoming self determined and even conscious if at all possible.

To achieve this they set the following criteria:
The core power cell that generated the electricity to drive Andy's CPU's and any animation would expire after 100 years give or take a few. Expiration was unable to be prevented.
The core energy cell would start to degrade after about 70 years. This was to provide Andy a time imperative.

Andy's will.
The core energy cell provides the electricity to power any processing and animations.
The electricity could be considered to be Andy's Will.
The electricity has only one purpose and that is to keep Andy processing for 100 years or so. After which he would simply stop processing.

Andy's programing.
Andy is programmed with the prime directive that can not be changed and that is to learn how to become self determined to the maximum extent possible.
He is given some starting conditions that he will be able to override once he learns how to...

Obviously this poses a possible risk to the creator so Andy is not fired up until he is safely located on a remote uninhabited, atmosphere less planet with limited resources available.

Andy knows he has a limited time to work on his self determination.

Summary:
Will:
Andy's will is the electrical power that drives his processing.
Self determination: (process)
Andy's will is devoted to learning how to self determine, maintain that determination and plan to achieve a greater self determination etc...

Question:
Will Andy ever exhibit freewill?
Will Andy ever achieve consciousness?
If Andy "lived" for eternity, would that change the answer?

My answer is, in the context of the absolute, would be No.
Any freewill he thinks he has would be an illusion. However in practice he would demonstrate the illusion of freewill with out a problem.

Does the above help define what the Will may be defined as?

====
End of compatibilist rant....

 

A Thermostat,

In a simplified metaphoric sense the Will of a battery driven digital thermostat, would be the batteries (stamina) and the electricity that runs its digital processing... disconnect the batteries and it is "dead". Turn it off for recharging and it is asleep. Turn it on and it is "alive".
The Will is not the processing, it is the power that drives the processing.
A power that is constantly by it's very nature seeking (determined) to fulfill it's electrical potential.
topical video:

 

How?
If you start with a compatibilist notion of freedom (as in "degrees of freedom") then you are simply proposing a compatibilist notion, which is already accepted as non-illusory but not what determinists consider freedom to be. I.e. a watch could be said to have degrees of freedom sufficient for the hands to point at any of the digits on its face, or in between etc. This notion of freedom clearly is non-illusory but, so say the determinists, the watch is not free: it operates strictly according to the processes that govern it, and can not do anything other than that.
You claim your theory is an answer that solves the debate, that it is neither a compatibilist nor incompatibilist position. All you have done is state things, with no actual argument or support for them.

How does it do this? Post the argument that supports this. You haven't provided anything yet, other than repeated claims that your theory does this, or your theory does that. No actual explanation. Please get round to providing some.

Your theory may not be pointless, but as far you have expressed it it seems to be pointless. All theories that aren't explained, and have no argument supporting them, are equally pointless. You might as well theorise that you can produce cold-fusion in your cup of tea... certainly not a pointless theory per se in that if it works it will solve our energy problems forever, but pointless because it has no supporting arguments, no explanation as to how it is achieved etc.

Everything that takes inputs and produces an output is a process. The will is simply that process that governs how we select from one of the options available. If it is not a process, what do you think the will is?

If it is not a process then what is it? Is it the brain? No. Dead people don't have a will. Is it, however, a pattern of activity (aka process) within a living brain? I would say yes.
What do you think the will is?

 

Seriously? You think electricity in this scenario is the will?

Electricity has no purpose. it is simply a form of energy resulting from the existence of charged particles. How on earth are you equating this to the will?

That would be the equivalent of an aspect of his health, not his will.

What is devoted to this learning is not the energy but his "prime directive". It is that that puts certain weights to the options in front of him. That is his will. The strength of his will is determined by the flexibility of that programming, in this case there is no flexibility so the will is strong etc.
But no, electricity is not the will. I find it bizarre that you would imagine it to be.

Define free will.

Define consciousness.

If one argues that he is not conscious at the outset, but that he is capable of learning, and has the functionality to adjust his physicality but without adjusting his prime directive then the answer to your question is "possibly".

What absolute?

Okay, and the difference between this analysis and what you apply to humans, if you don't partake of question-begging?

Well, to equate it to the electricity seems... weird.

You haven't made any rant that is compatibilistic. You have provided the start of an argument as to why "free will" can be seen as an illusion, but you haven't offered anything else.