Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

Oh, I consider the universe to be totally deterministic as I stated clearly in the OP. Even the title of the thread states it...
Why do you think I don't?

not if it must lead to freewill being an illusion....
thus it fails terribly.
the logic is flawed terribly.
Co-determinism incorporates self determination and universal determination with out a problem.
no need to consider everything that makes you you, an illusion.

The sheer fact that the theory you espouse is unfalsifiable places it in the realm of fantasy at the worst, pseudo science at the least.

Come up with a scientific theory, with out-comes that can be tested and you have something worth serious consideration.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
​

Please provide evidence that supports the outcome that Freewill is an illusion?
Logic alone is totally insufficient...especially when you consider that there is an abundance of evidence to conclude that humans are self determining.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you assume, for the purposes of thread discussion, that the universe is deterministic then it is irrelevant whether that assumption is falsifiable or not.
You want it to be relevant, therefore it questions whether you are adhering to your own assumption on the matter.

If one considers the logic valid then, by definition, one considers the logic to not be flawed in terms of structure.
If you think the logic valid then at best you can consider it unsound, which is not a matter of the logic but the premises.
One can not consider an argument valid and at the same time claim the logic flawed.
So again, you're invoking notions you seem to simply not understand.

You are also appealing to the conclusion, and then crying foul.
Yet you have accepted the premise of determinism, considered the logic valid, so what does that leave you?
Oh, yes, the notion of freedom.
Which brings us back to whether the notion of freedom you need for your free will is that found in a thermostat or not.

Like a cog in a watch.

It's a logical argument, that starts from assumptions, applies logic, and reaches a conclusion.
You have accepted one of the assumptions.
You haven't shown where the logic is invalid.
All you have done is looked at the conclusion and panicked.

And something trivial, because you're left with checking that your thermostat is working.
This is a philosophy forum.
Discussing the conclusions of metaphysical assumptions via logic, not evidence.
Deal with it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Limitations and scope.
One of the first things I look for when assessing an idea or concept or logical trail are the limitations and the scope.
I ask; "Is this concept all inclusive or limited to a particular realm."

Determinism that leads to freewill being an illusion ( thus making all the evidence of self determination considered a supernatural phenomena) only does so because it is primarily about in-animated, non-organic matter.
It simply fails to the holistic test, and will never in it's current form allow science to develop a TOE.

This limitation is demonstrated and typical of most current scientific thought ( apart from that which includes living entities such as medical, psychology etc)

Even Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Bohr etc failed to consider how to include living organisms into their theorizing into the complete picture of what makes this universe tick. (TOE)

Non-duality vs Duality.
The logic of determinism is quite adequate when working with a non-duality as long as life is not included.
It is great when explaining the physics of cause and effect in a simplistic fashion.
However this universe is 4 dimensional and a duality. The main duality I refer to is non-organic vs organic and as such determinism fails to be inclusive logically.

Co-determinism as proposed removes this logical limitation of organic exclusion and renders determinism in dualistic terms that accommodates self determination and removes the need for the illusion of free will to be a logical consequence. Co -determination is also falsifiable where as non-dualistic determinism is not. ( when applied to the real universe and not some abstract logical concept.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"We are not just stewards of the planet Earth, we are also stewards of the universe" ~anon

 

Once again you have simply tacked away from the criticisms already posted.

This is wrong.
Determinism is about all matter, and the fundamental metaphysics of the universe.
If you want to special plead about the role of a living thing within this universe, you have to show how it is not governed by the same determinism.
If you can't do, if you accept that a human is just as bound by the deterministic nature as the rest of the universe, then the argument stands, because it covers everything within that universe.

This is wrong.
The evidence of self determination does not make anything a supernatural phenomenon.
It makes it an evidenced phenomenon, just not one that operates with the freedom that the incompatibilists require for it be a genuine free will.
It is something else, something not supernatural, just a process with the same freedom as in a thermostat.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with science developing a TOE.
There is no holistic test for anything else.
It is simply a logical argument that starts with premises and leads to conclusions.

And your point of this is...?
Please stop introducing irrelevancies into the discussion.
Your notion of "co-determinism" has been offered up, it has been duly criticised, and so far you have done everything you can to avoid facing that criticism.
You deflect, evade, introduce other irrelevant notions (such as the TOE here, such as "limitations and scope" etc) and seem to have zero desire to actuall discuss anything.

So what?
If you want to place life on a pedestal within your theory you need to do more than bring to the table more than just what you see as the failure of others to consider that which you want to consider.
You know, you actually need to consider it.
Show why it's important, why it is not simply special pleading, why it is in any way relevant.
You know, put an actual argument together.

What is it about organic that you consider to be different to the inorganic such that you now wish to invoke a duality?
Does the organic behave deterministically?

You have made no case for a "logical limitation".
You have simply introduced a duality within the universe between organic and inorganic without any notion as to what this duality is i.e. why we should consider a duality.
You have simply said "there is a limitation. My theory removes it."
But there is no actual explanation in anything you have put forward that argues successfully for the limitation being there initially, and you certainly haven't shown how your theory of co-determination removes it.
At the moment, and considering all else you have said in this thread, you are simply describing a cog in a watch, and now trying to make a duality out of the cog (organic) and the watch (non-organic).
All you are doing, and all you have done, is simply state things.
Not things that are true, but things you want to be true.
There is no support, no evidence, nothing but you making claims.
There is certainly nothing that constitutes an actual argument here.

Yet another claim, one more without evidence, one more without anything that constitutes an actual argument in support of it.
You have simply asserted an issue and that your "theory" resolves it.

If you're not going to take discussion of your own theory seriously, why should anyone else?

 

What do you mean by fundamental metaphysics?

no it doesn't, and what is more it can not even be tested.
Why should I believe that to be the case when so many things suggest other wise?
Determinism as it stand is not law, it is merely a logic puzzle that has little relevance to reality.
Co-determinism is about reality.

It is not I that is making such a huge claim and stating that freewill and everything directly associated with it is an illusion.
It is you that is making the claim, so it up to you to prove your case not I.
Such a big claim requires even bigger evidence to support it and so far you a have provided zilch.
You are claiming that you yourself are an illusion. That Baldeee the poster doesn't exist as an identity. That you have no persona that is unique to you and that everything you learned through out your life is futile.

Such a big self defeating claim requires some serious evidence beyond just logic.
Again I see none, zilch, narda.

oh no , not the thermostat again.... false analogy... the rest is screwed up so bad I don't know were to start...
It is the logic of determinism.... nah... I'll copy and paste my post for you to not read again. ( when I get round to it)

not in your context no, it behaves co-deterministically...
Why are you not considering the life factor?
Is it too hard to accommodate into your determinism is that it? So you just put it aside and ignore the elephant in the room.

What is life to your determinism?
How does the universe determine what life does?
How does the metaphorical butterfly impact on a human being in a way that determines his choices?

You can't answer but your will go to your grave believing you have.
You haven't provided any mechanism for your determinism that would take control over a humans will and choices. yet claim emphatically call to authority based on logic only....

You don't know what a duality is?
The limitation is as posted:

liar!

This is not a discussion Baldeee, never has been. certainly not an objective one...

 

Co- determination removes the need to show how a universe can control a persons thoughts, desires, emotions, intelligence etc.
There is no mechanism that can be explained that affords the universe such a capacity.
Co-determinism removes this obstacle as there is no need to show what doesn't exist.

The autonomy of a self determining human being is guaranteed by the very physics that the determinist rely upon.

 

The word "fundamental" is a bit of a redundancy, admittedly, as metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of reality.
So I simply mean metaphysics.
The added "fundamental" was for emphasis.

It's a matter of metaphysics.
Once you accept that, the rest follows.
If you want to reject it then you're no longer making the assumptions you initially assumed.

Because you assumed that the universe was deterministic from the outset.
If you consider the logic to be valid, and you accept the premises, then you need to accept the conclusions.

Determinism is a description of the fundamental way the universe works.
Metaphysics.
If you accept it from the outset then why do you want to see if it has any relevance to reality?

You are complaining about determinism yet you have specifically stated that you are assuming the universe to be deterministic.
You can not honestly assume something from the outset and then reject the conclusions simply because you don't think the assumption reflects reality.
Whether or not you think determinism reflects reality or not, you have assumed it to be the case in your "theory".

You have offered nothing but your personal incredulity on the matter.
You have accepted the premise of determinism, and you have not identified any invalid logic.
You have simply looked at the conclusion and gone "that's absurd!".
In response to that you have come up with "co-determinism" that starts with the same assumption of a deterministic universe, and then simply makes claims.
No argument, no evidence, nothing.

This is your thread proposing "co-determinism".
You have yet to show that there is any issue that your "theory" is resolving.
You have yet to show any evidence, any support for your claims.

As for the argument that was presented for the lack of freedom in freewill: it starts with the assumption of determinism and a notion of (non-trivial) freedom.
Logic takes care of the rest.
If you wish to disagree with it, dispute the logic, or dispute the premises.

Where have I claimed this?
I get that you're reading that claim into the conclusion that the will has no non-trivial freedom, but unless you can show how it follows, it's yet another of your unsupported claims to add to the list.

If I was to make such a claim, I would support it.
Since I am not, I see no need to support it.

You continually claim it a false analogy but you have never explained why.
Simply repeating posts that I have already responded to, and which you have subsequently failed to address, will get you nowhere.

Yet you haven't explained anywhere how that differs to being deterministic.
You have simply asserted.

I am considering it.
It is a process.
Just like any other within the deterministic universe.
More complex, yes, certainly, but a process nonetheless, and as adherant to determinism as anything else.
On what basis should I treat it differently to any other process.
You clearly want to.
Why should I?

A process.

The universe simply acts in a deterministic manner.

It could be an infinite number of ways.
The proverbial flap of a butterfly wing could ultimately influence the course of a tornado, for example.

"take control"?
What on earth are you talking about?

Furthermore I don't need to come up with a mechanism.
The nature of determinism itself is sufficient.
The argument itself is a logical one.
If you wish to dispute it then point out the invalid logic, point to the flawed premises.
But don't cry foul about "call to authority based on logic only" when the argument itself is one of logic.
Do you complain in a maths class that the teacher is relying on the authority of maths?

I know what is usually meant.
It does not mean simply taking two things of the same nature and referring to them as dualistic.

I am aware of what you have stated.
The criticism of what you have stated is also as posted.
Notably that your introduction of failing to help reach a TOE is an utter irrelevancy.
You have not addressed this criticism but instead simply appeal to your irrelevancy again.

If you think so, report me.
But I am demonstrably not a liar.
There is no content to your theory that is not simply describing a cog (organic or otherwise) in a watch.
You have now, only after several pages, introduced a duality to the theory, but you seem unable to explain exactly how the dualism addresses the underlying deterministic nature of the whole, and why we should treat them differently.
You also claim co-determination falsifiable... so please explain how you think it can be "falsified" when it relies on a deterministic universe (you know, the same assumption that makes the initial logical argumen unfalsifiable in your view)?
You simply assert things.
And you asserting me to be a liar is just one more added onto the list.

Thank you for admitting that much.
I appreciate that you have a "theory" you wish to protect, and thus will not be objective, but simply stating a "theory" and then effectively ignoring and tacking away from any criticism of it is not conducive to a discussion.
Maybe if you address that, you can start to actually want to discuss things?

 

Another claim, without any explanation or evidentiary support, and certainly no logical argument presented.

Do you mean now, or ever, or that such a mechanism simply does not exist?
Is that your starting assumption?

How does it remove the obstacle of your personal incredulity?
Even if we assume that there is no mechanism that affords the universe such a capacity, how does this do anything other than shift the deterministic system from the universe as a whole to the individual?
You are still left with having to explain how the deterministic system that governs the person affords those things.
You can't simply say that the mechanism doesn't exist (assumption)... and then say that it exists within a person.
That is contradictory.
So how does your "theory" work?
How does it do what you think it does?
These shouldn't be such difficult questions for you to answer, yet rather than answer them you simply avoid them.

You have simply asserted this.
It appears to have zero link to any other part of your "theory".

 

oh.. there is a lot more to introduce so don't hold your breath...

 

look around you, observe humanity doing what it always has done - self determine.

Prove other wise...

 

Then you are being dishonest.

The argument to the contrary is in the other thread - you know, the one with the logic you don't like but can't seem to invalidate, and the deterministic assumption you don't like but assume in your "theory".
But you are still not explaining how your theory works, how it does what you think it does.
You have simply pointed to a process and gone "Look! Self determination!"

Is that it?

 

now that is almost funny.....

YOU want ME to provide evidence for something that is non-existent.....

and you consider yourself to be good with logic....

 

how so..?

 

logic is not evidence Baldeee....
look around you, now that's evidence. Or are you saying the city in the picture below somehow magically built itself to serve itself and not the humans who reside and work there?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

prove other wise?

 

try this again and see if you can empower yourself...with understanding...


We have a slow moving shallow stream that a farming man is wading in.
The water passing through the man's legs can only do what it does according to determining laws of physics that govern the flow of water.
The water has no choice to consider, is is entirely passive to it's pre determinations.
The water has no will or ability to determine itself.

Pre- Summary:

• River water is entirely passive to any determining factors.
• River water can only react and not act.
• River water is entirely predetermined by determining factors, such as gravity, temperature, slope of land, quantity, source, etc...

The farming man though, standing in the middle of this passively flowing stream of water thinks for a while and then proceeds to walk up stream, against the flow of the water.
He is proactively and deliberately by choice, moving against the flow of the streams predetermination.
Not only is he standing, defying gravity, he is also walking against the determination of the water.
He had chosen to defy the universes determination and co-determine the streams water flow as it is disturbed past his legs.

He eventually comes to where he PLANNED ( predetermined himself) to be and started to build a dam to block the flow of water.

He builds his dam and completely blocks the flow of the water to provide irrigation for his crops.

Pre summary:

• The man is using his will to be proactive in determining how he responds to other wise determining factors.
• The man is both reacting and acting.
• The man is both determined by external determining factors, and self determined by his own learned abilities such as being able to stand against gravity and walk in the stream and build his dam to irrigate his crops.

Summary:

• The use of a river flow to use as an example or analogy of human freewill is false.
• The use of a river flow to use as an example or analogy of passive universal determinism is true.

Combined:

• We can clearly demonstrate Co-determination.

==========

The farming man gets home at the end of the day and thinks to himself how the day went as he predetermined it to be in an act of co-determination.

• The course of the stream has been permanently changed
• The man's crops get irrigated.

Co-determination.

 

Notes:
It only took 11 days and Google has indexed this thread and placed it on the first page. ( I thought they would be faster but hey that's life)
Search terms : co-determinism
Guess what Baldeee? You are going to be famous....world first!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Seriously though, the point of running this thread was also to entice some good thinkers to come and register to sciforums.com and get involved in discussion.
The power of social media is happening as well now that Google has picked it up... so it should be interesting to see what happens

 

I will be very interested in what people will post regarding this comment...

 

You're advancing Compatibilism.