Free Will vs Determinism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dave Mangnall
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Dave Mangnall »

Immanuel Can wrote:But surely there is no "likely" in Determinism. For "likely" indicates a state of diverse possible outcomes, the "likelihood" of which can be calculated as more or "less" likely.

But in Determinism, there only ever is or was ONE outcome possible, and so there is no "likelihood" involved at all.


From my perspective your question about my use of “likely” illustrates my point about language perfectly. Your point about the lack of alternatives in determinism is a good one, so I must either debar myself from using this simple little word or I must take the trouble to explain how I am using it. I’m up to the task, though.

When I use “likely” I speak of subjective probability. I believe that all future events are determined, and will happen as they must. But, of course, I cannot predict with accuracy what these events will be. But, from my knowledge and experience, I can take a view of how probable, or likely, certain events might seem to be. Let’s take the standard mathematical convention that the probability of an event that is certain to happen is 1, and that the probability of an event that cannot happen is 0. Obviously, the probability that I will die one day is 1. I would guess, and it's only a guess, though an informed one, that the probability that I die within the next twenty years is greater than .5. So I’d express that by saying I believe it’s likely I’ll die in the next twenty years. I do believe there’s a fixed point in the future when I’m going to die, but I don’t know when it is. And I’m grateful for that!
Just as there can be no "failure".
My intention was to persuade you that the normal use of the word “failure” was consistent with determinism. Clearly I have “failed” to so persuade you. It was determined that I should “fail” to persuade you, just as it was determined that I should “fail” to understand why I have “failed” to persuade you, as is in fact the case. (I’m going to drop the apostrophes again, going forwards. They look messy.) I do hope you’re not holding to the line that any sort of intentionality is incompatible with determinism. My position denies free will, not the existence of any sort of will.
But I suggest that is not merely because language is "flawed," (for what else could it be but what it is, according to Determinism?), but because Deterministic language is actually incompatible with the very real way people encounter and understand the world.
I’m not saying that language is flawed. As you suggest, it is what it is. What I’m saying is that my task of articulation is made more difficult when I’m pulled up short for using a simple word like “likely” because of the free will connotations that you see in it. But don’t worry, I’m not complaining. I’m not asking for your sympathy!
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:14 pm

Salutations to the King of the Mountain.

Post by Dave Mangnall »

henry quirk wrote: You and booze: no offense, Dave, but mebbe some of what you interpret to be determinism is just booze-addle.
No offence taken, Henry, and maybe you’re right, although I don’t think so! All my writing and thinking’s done when I’m sober. (Well, most of it!)
Great chunks of my biology are automated but I sit atop it all, like you, (largely) as king of the mountain.
I like your “King of the Mountain” analogy. I guess I have a republican mountain!
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:14 pm

Philosophy and Drinking

Post by Dave Mangnall »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Dave Mangnall wrote: I drink quite a lot, and habitually at 6pm
How do you get from 6 a.m. to 5:59 p.m.? :wink:
Here it is, 6:30pm already, and this forum’s so fascinating I can’t drag myself away to go and get a drink!
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by thedoc »

If you drink Rum before noon, it doesn't mean that you are an alcoholic, it means that you are a Pirate.

And most people have Pirated someone else's philosophy.

So that would indicate that it's OK for a philosopher to drink before noon.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Philosophy and Drinking

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dave Mangnall wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:
Dave Mangnall wrote: I drink quite a lot, and habitually at 6pm
How do you get from 6 a.m. to 5:59 p.m.? :wink:
Here it is, 6:30pm already, and this forum’s so fascinating I can’t drag myself away to go and get a drink!
That's alright. There's nothing like alcohol to render our observations more expansive. Well, Socrates apparently thought so anyway.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dave Mangnall wrote:When I use “likely” I speak of subjective probability.
But "subjective" then must by a synonym for "misguided." For there is no "subject" to have a "subjective perspective." Each is only an object acted upon by previous forces...and even the existence of an illusion of subjectivity must be no more than the machinations of a Determined cosmos.
Just as there can be no "failure".
My intention was to persuade you that the normal use of the word “failure” was consistent with determinism. Clearly I have “failed” to so persuade you.
Only because it's actually unhelpful for you to resort to language one regards as merely metaphorical rather than literal, especially when one is trying to be precise, and especially when the metaphor to which one resorts is a free-will one. If Determinism is true, I think it should be able to make its case without using metaphors drawn from subjective or free-will paradigms. And if it cannot, the reasons may not be the language, but the inadequacy of Determinism as a literal descriptor of reality. That's what I'd propose.
My position denies free will, not the existence of any sort of will.
I suspect that that's inconsistent. For under Determinism, what can "will" of any kind be but a phony impression, an odd "delusion" experienced by actually-predetermined creatures, or else another mere free-will-drawn metaphor for "causality"? :shock:
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Belinda wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:Reality can manifest abstractions no different than a painter who is reflecting upon a sunset or stream. Physical reality reflects into the abstract. The abstract reflects into the physical.

That does not make the abstract real. The abstract only reflects perceptually into the physical, not in reality

The abstract, through the causality of an ideal, physicalizes certain ideas. Takes for example: The Ipad. It is just the physicalization of an ideal of convenience, even though "convenience" is not strictly a physical being.

Eodnihoj07i, can you find a usage for the verb 'to abstract'? What do you think "the abstract" is abstracted from?
Belinda that is a simple but actually interesting question..."to abstract"? I would argue that "to abstract" as a verb would equivocate it to a dynamic function, with a dynamic function being equivalent in definition to a flux. So to answer your question:

"I abstracted the argument into a paragraph." This would translate as "I observed the definition of an argument and restructured it to a lesser degree." I hope this example makes sense.

In regards to "what the abstract is abstracted from" I also like that question precisely because it is something I would ask.

I believe to answer this question one cannot limit it a simple 1 dimensional answer or structure... so here are some interrelated degrees I would argue:

1) What the abstract is abstracted from would imply a propagative function within the nature of what the abstract is. The abstract continually manifests itself, or continually manifests as a reflective property as the abstract (noun) abstracts (verb) the abstract (noun) and in doing so abstracts (verb) the abstract (noun).

Now this example may appear somewhat stupid because of it simplicity but in reality it observes:
A) A wave function v-w-v-w as values alternate between positive (verb as a dynamic movement) and negative (noun as a static/potential dynamic
movement).
B) A dynamic form or propagation through self-reflection. A further example would be me reflecting upon my thoughts and in doing so manifest
further thoughts upon which I reflect upon and manifest further thoughts...etc.,etc.

2) The abstract is generally a degree of primitive form base upon a prerequisite curvature. Take any of the platonic forms and observe them (in your mind) and they appear fundamentally as a curvature that is probabilistic in function (ex: The platonic tree has a limited form of possibilities that occur relative to its structure.) The platonic form reflects against itself to manifest other forms that are equal in structure but differ in degree.

3) The abstract as a "primitive" or "something that cannot be reduce to anything further that its self" manifests further definition through its relations to other primitives. Take for example the "line" it gains its definition in both form and function to the space and time it is relative to.

4) The abstract as a unifying "synthesis" where it take more than one primitive and combines them into something new while eliminating the old.
And example would be two colors combined and form into a new one.


And the examples can go on in theory, with many I would argue, reflecting equally as physical examples as the abstract and physical to some degree or another reflect.

Pardon the English, I just finished work.
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Dave Mangnall »

thedoc wrote:If you drink Rum before noon, it doesn't mean that you are an alcoholic, it means that you are a Pirate.

And most people have Pirated someone else's philosophy.

So that would indicate that it's OK for a philosopher to drink before noon.
That's good! And it's always before noon somewhere!
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Dave Mangnall »

Immanuel Can wrote:But "subjective" then must by a synonym for "misguided." For there is no "subject" to have a "subjective perspective." Each is only an object acted upon by previous forces...and even the existence of an illusion of subjectivity must be no more than the machinations of a Determined cosmos.
Hi, Immanuel.

I'm afraid I don’t understand what you’re saying to me here about subjective probability. Are you saying that being a Determinist debars me from saying that it’s likely that I’ll die in the next twenty years? Or are you saying that there can be no consciousness within the Determinism model, and that without consciousness I cannot experience myself as a subject? It was you who told me that Determinism can’t explain, or explain away, consciousness. Normally I’d do what most people do when they can’t understand someone else’s point, and make my own point again using different words! But I thought I’d already explained my point as clearly as it could be explained.

I’d be grateful for clarification of your position here, but one thing is already very clear, and has been from the start of our dialogue. The determinism in which you do not believe is very different from the determinism in which I do believe!
If Determinism is true, I think it should be able to make its case without using metaphors drawn from subjective or free-will paradigms. And if it cannot, the reasons may not be the language, but the inadequacy of Determinism as a literal descriptor of reality. That's what I'd propose.
If I’m to be debarred from using language that is to me, strictly speaking, metaphorical because of the free will connotations, then my supply of words will be severely restricted. Let’s take the simple statement of fact “I have failed to persuade Immanuel of the validity of my viewpoint.” How would you suggest that I rephrase that in order to conform to the demands of the determinism in which you do not believe?
I suspect that that's inconsistent. For under Determinism, what can "will" of any kind be but a phony impression, an odd "delusion" experienced by actually-predetermined creatures, or else another mere free-will-drawn metaphor for "causality"?
You exaggerate, or overestimate, the difference between us. I have will, just as you do. (And it’s just as unfree!) There are many things that I intend to do. The intentions are caused, of course, but they’re still there. When the outcome differs from the intention, I’ve failed. I failed as it was determined that I would fail, but I still failed. Again, how else would you have me express it?

There is something in your talk of delusion, though not as much as you imagine. This, of course, is because of the power of the Free Will Illusion. If the illusion wasn’t so powerful, it wouldn’t have deceived most of the world!
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Philosophy and Drinking

Post by thedoc »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Dave Mangnall wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:
How do you get from 6 a.m. to 5:59 p.m.? :wink:
Here it is, 6:30pm already, and this forum’s so fascinating I can’t drag myself away to go and get a drink!
That's alright. There's nothing like alcohol to render our observations more expansive. Well, Socrates apparently thought so anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7r5jIEe9s
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dave Mangnall wrote:Are you saying that being a Determinist debars me from saying that it’s likely that I’ll die in the next twenty years?
Not "debars," Dave, but rather "makes nonsensical." When you will die must be predetermined. But more importantly, there really isn't a "me" to make the statement, since the "me" in your question is just a collocation of predetermined forces as well.
Or are you saying that there can be no consciousness within the Determinism model, and that without consciousness I cannot experience myself as a subject?
No. I'm saying that because Determinism is untrue, you CAN experience yourself as a subject; if it were true, you could not.
The determinism in which you do not believe is very different from the determinism in which I do believe!
There can be only one Determinism. It means, "everything is predetermined." And that's necessary, because what's outside of "everything"? :shock:
If I’m to be debarred from using language that is to me, strictly speaking, metaphorical because of the free will connotations, then my supply of words will be severely restricted.
Yes, it would make things tough. But it should be possible, if Determinism is true.
Let’s take the simple statement of fact “I have failed to persuade Immanuel of the validity of my viewpoint.” How would you suggest that I rephrase that in order to conform to the demands of the determinism in which you do not believe?
I'm not sure I can help you make Determinism coherent, but I guess what you'd probably have to say is something like, "I said the words that I was predestined to say, and IC believed what he was predestined to believe."
The intentions are caused, of course,...
Then surely they're not your intentions. They are the intentions of the forces that compiled to make them happen. And there's no genuine you to have them, since there is no (non-metaphorical) subjectivity in a Determined cosmos.
There is something in your talk of delusion, though not as much as you imagine. This, of course, is because of the power of the Free Will Illusion. illusion wasn’t so powerful, it wouldn’t have deceived most of the world!
That's one way to imagine things. The other is to say that the free-will intuition is so strong and general that it needs to be accounted for in a non-reductional way...and thus, people are probably not "deceived" about it at all, but rather are really onto something.

But what is "deception" in a Determined cosmos anyway? People believe whatever they were predestined to believe: only if they could potentially believe otherwise can we speak of the world being "deceived" at all.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Philosophy and Drinking

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ah yes...I know it and love it.

G'day, Bruce.
User avatar
Vendetta
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Location: ehville

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Vendetta »

Or are you saying that there can be no consciousness within the Determinism model, and that without consciousness I cannot experience myself as a subject?
No. I'm saying that because Determinism is untrue, you CAN experience yourself as a subject; if it were true, you could not.
You still cannot experience yourself without consciousness as only with consciousness comes the ability to experience.
Consciousness can theoretically exist within Determinism as the ability to understand that which you are doing, but not to control what you will do or have done, however since there is no true "you" within Determinism due to simply being a product of a chain of events set off by some force (lack of subjectivity) then consciousness cannot exist.

But what is "deception" in a Determined cosmos anyway? People believe whatever they were predestined to believe: only if they could potentially believe otherwise can we speak of the world being "deceived" at all.
exactly! how can there even exist a concept of illusion with a lack of ability to perceive things? doesn't an illusion require those who can be fooled? and to be truly fooled, doesn't there need to exist some will to be so?
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:14 pm

Consciousness, Illusion and Deception.

Post by Dave Mangnall »

Hi, Vendetta. Welcome to the debate.
Vendetta wrote:.........however since there is no true "you" within Determinism due to simply being a product of a chain of events set off by some force (lack of subjectivity) then consciousness cannot exist.
I’m puzzled by this remark. I’d have thought that if there were free will then we would all still be the product of a chain of events, the difference being that some of those events would be the choices and decisions we made, exerting our free will. With determinism, consciousness still exists but, like everything else, it is determined.
But what is "deception" in a Determined cosmos anyway? People believe whatever they were predestined to believe: only if they could potentially believe otherwise can we speak of the world being "deceived" at all.
exactly! how can there even exist a concept of illusion with a lack of ability to perceive things? doesn't an illusion require those who can be fooled? and to be truly fooled, doesn't there need to exist some will to be so?
I think that both you and Immanuel, whom you quote, are using the ideas of illusion and deception in a strange way. Determinism in no way abolishes these phenomena. Within determinism you could easily be deceived by the illusion of free will, for example, as in fact most people are. And it would be determined that you were so deceived.
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Dave Mangnall »

I’m sorry, Immanuel, but on this occasion I’m struggling to interpret your post in a way that makes any sense whatsoever. You seem, from the way you write, to be quite an intelligent person, (Not for nothing did Spheres call me a “condescending putz”!) so I’m strongly tempted to think that you’re indulging in sophistry here, and that the fact that you're missing (by a mile) every point I make is down to disingenuity rather than genuine confusion.

Let’s take your remarks point by point.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Dave Mangnall wrote:Are you saying that being a Determinist debars me from saying that it’s likely that I’ll die in the next twenty years?
Not "debars," Dave, but rather "makes nonsensical."
1. You’re pretending not to understand the concept of subjective probability. Being predetermined is consistent with being unpredictable in practice, which is the situation to which subjective probability applies. I’m pretty sure you know that.
Or are you saying that there can be no consciousness within the Determinism model, and that without consciousness I cannot experience myself as a subject?
No. I'm saying that because Determinism is untrue, you CAN experience yourself as a subject; if it were true, you could not.
2. You’re pretending to believe that being the result of causal forces means that you don’t exist at all. You can’t possibly believe that!
The determinism in which you do not believe is very different from the determinism in which I do believe!
There can be only one Determinism. It means, "everything is predetermined." And that's necessary, because what's outside of "everything"?
3. You say “There can only be one determinism”, which is trivially true in itself, when I was clearly contrasting your model of determinism with my model of determinism. Let me put the matter simply for you, beyond the reach of misunderstanding or the pretence at misunderstanding. You don’t understand determinism. You think you do but you don’t. You don’t understand it because you don’t believe in it. And you don’t believe in it because you don’t understand it.
I'm not sure I can help you make Determinism coherent, but I guess what you'd probably have to say is something like, "I said the words that I was predestined to say, and IC believed what he was predestined to believe."
4. You can’t possibly believe that I was asking you to help me make Determinism coherent. Ok, I’ll put that one down to one of your occasional unworthy lapses into sarcasm rather than disingenuity.
Then surely they're not your intentions. They are the intentions of the forces that compiled to make them happen. And there's no genuine you to have them, since there is no (non-metaphorical) subjectivity in a Determined cosmos.
5. You’re pretending, and not for the first time, to believe that just because a state of affairs is predetermined then it is unreal. So, for example, if you are predestined to be deceived then you’re not really deceived at all. Again, you can’t possibly believe that. It makes exactly as much sense as saying that that because I was predestined to be under six feet tall then I’m not really under six feet tall at all. Go on, tell me it doesn’t!

To summarise, in the immortal words of that great philosopher John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”
Post Reply