Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

nope.
I am advancing the autonomy of the human being in a universal paradigm with out compromising deterministic principles of Cause and Effect.I am providing a solution to a 3000 year philosophical conundrum. A debate that has been going on endlessly chasing it's tail.
It is really that simple. Co-determination.
Compatabilism can not solve the issue of predeterminism and indeterminism.

The Buddhist and the Taosts almost had it....( as I discovered when researching)

In Buddhism, there is a theory called Dependent Origination (or Dependent Arising), which is similar to the Western concept of Determinism. Roughly speaking, it states that phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect, and that every phenomenon is conditioned by, and depends on, every other phenomena.

According to the ancient Chinese "Yi Jing" (or "I Ching", the "Book of Changes"), a kind of divine will sets the fundamental rules for the working out of the probabilities on which the universe operates, although human wills are also a factor in the ways in which we can deal with the real world situations we encounter.

src: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_determinism.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Note: As I have been publicly accuse of trolling by the site administrator, JamesR, I will no longer be participating in this thread or any other for some time...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(a) Bohmian self-referential causation. (Bohmian Mechanics)
(b) Pure determinism. (conditioned by and depending on every other phenomenon that precedes it) (Bohmian Mechanics)

(red) highligths mine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you have said, in a number of threads, even some that haven't been responded to since the start of the year. Maybe you'll take the time away to work on this "co-determinism" you favour, and come up with an actual explanation of what it is supposed to offer that is not merely compatibilism, or "cog in a watch" etc.
I look forward to your next post on the matter.

 

Arguing from a theist perspective.

If theism rests on the premise that "God's Will be done", that would logically imply Determinism and the assertion that God gave humans Free Will is misleading, as that would imply that Human Will could override God's Will and result in God's Will not being done.

As Carlin observed, if God's Plan (and Will) supercedes all other considerations, why would we expect any schmuck with a two dollar prayer book to have the ability to screw up God's Plan, by exercising FW and asking for something that is not in God's Plan.

 

Free-will does not exist. If something, "will" then that is determined by definition. How could someone possibly know what, "will"? Travel FROM the future? Being able to see the future? Neither explain how, "will" could possibly be free.

 

And if that will is is the one doing the willing then what?
Of course it is determined by the willer.

 

It is never free.

 

Absolutely correct. IMO.
In the context you are using...
The willer determinines his own will... true...

 

The will comes with the cost of having to live to use it too. So it certainly aint free.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Will is always determined.

 

Yep..agrees.

 

The will is self determined...
We are not borne capable of self determination but we are born with the fundamental desire to become self determined as much as possible.
Leaning to crawl, walk, run, sprint and so on. Educating ourselves through out our lives with the sole motivation to improve and maximize our ability to self determine that which has been determined for us.

We have to strive to be more than a mere cog in a watch. We spend out entire functional lives being any thing other than a cog in a watch.

and we do this by way of co-determining that which has been determined. ( internally and externally)

 

So you've come back after a time away and can't actually add anything by way of explanation to what you've said previously. Being a "cog in a watch" isn't about desires but about the way the universe operates. You accept that we are deterministic (assuming the universe is deterministic), so now all you do is point to a particular cog (us) and argue that it is "co-deterministic" with the rest of the watch (universe).
And you think this solves the argument between compatabilism and incompatibilism? Seriously? It is unfortunately nothing other than a form of compatibilism wearing some rather muddled clothes.

Try and actually explain how it works, rather than just saying what you think it is.
Show how what you are promoting is different than the notion of a cog in a watch co-determining the operation of the watch.
If the thoughts, desires, motivations etc are all outputs of a deterministic process, all pre-determined by that process, or-determined aeons ago, how are you proposing anything different than a compatibilist notion of freedom?

 

The two approaches to this vexation you refer to, fail to explain and discuss how life and will are intrinsically entwined.
On one hand we have a false analogy that appears to be adequate, claiming a thermostat as being willed and living and compatibilist that seek to accommodate such an absurdity.

Co determination involves a will, a living will and it is the very nature of that will to seek to self determine it's existence.
Until determinists and compatabilist include the will in their discussion of free-will I fail to see how those approaches are even relevant.

How can you discuss Free will with out referring to the will itself?

Self = will
will = life
will = determination
will determination = self determination
No will = No life = no self determination

Include life in your assessments and arguments and I think you would have a better argument than what you currently have.

Is a thermostat alive?

 

Opinion:
The key to this debate, though is introducing the reality of co-determinism that occurs regardless of freedom or degrees of freedom.
No determination can take place in isolation, so the act of co-determination is the only way to ensure the debate is inclusive of all causation/effects and not lopsided.

As described in the Quirky end times, The Reluctant Messiah, gedanken posted earlier (post#16), regardless of the issue of freedom co-determination is present always.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An example of a living entity co-determining an outcome.
A dead tree would not have been able to co-determine the outcome.

Are the terms "life" and "will" actually synonymous?

 

Don't know about that. A dead tree fell on our house and caused the gutters to spill over every time it rain. It forced me to pull out the chainsaw and take action. Also, we have to rent a dumpster to haul it away. We might have to hire someone to fix the gutters, too.

 

Hee hee....
Well... the tree definitely lost the will to remain standing....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The will refers to a process that funnels the various inputs one is conscious of into an output (e.g. action or thought). It is only "entwined" with life to the extent that the life in question is capable of being conscious of its inputs.
But what is important is the nature of the process, not who we hold the process to be capable of being actioned by.

There is no false analogy unless one is intent on begging the question. There is a deterministic process (the will) that converts input into action. The onus is on you to show how this is different, other than in mere complexity, with how a thermostat works.
At the moment you haven't, and don't seem able or willing to. Instead you appeal to that which we reserve the label for, rather than looking at the nature of the process.

Question begging. Please try to offer something that is more than that.

They probably aren't relevant to you, it seems, because you are simply not aasking or answering any question of any relevance to anyone other than your own question-begging self, rather invoking a pedestal upon which to place life, and going: "look: life! It stands separate from the universe!"

The will, its nature, and specifically the freedom within it, is at the heart of both the compatibilist and incompatibilist position. You seem to be failing to recognise it.

Care to put this into something more meaningful than fallacious equivocation?

The (in)compatibilist position considers life at the heart of its position. If you can't or don't recognise that then you're not even in the same zip code, let alone on the same page, in trying to understand those positions.
And you still aren't addressing the issues raised with your notion of "co-determinism". It's honestly as if you don't understand the criticism and are just repeating the same spiel.

Is the will a deterministic process? That‘s where the comparison lies. To dismiss the comparison because one process is not "alive" and the other is deemed to be, is a fallacy on your part, unless you can show that the nature of the process between a living one and non-living one is different with regard to being deterministic or not.
Can you do that? Are you arguing such a difference? If not then the comparison stands. Any rejection it simply because one is part of a larger process that is considered "alive" and one is not is simply fallacious.