Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4355
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:19 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:14 pm if an antecedent state A has possible immediately consequent states B and C, so that we're talking about ontological freedom in that situation, it's NOT necessarily the case that B and C each have a equal, 50% chance of occurring.

That ain't freedom or free will or bein' free: that's just a coin flip.
Coin flips are ideally equiprobable, no?
Sure, but what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
What is has to do with it is that I had just explained that "When we're talking about ontological freedom in that situation, it's NOT necessarily the case that B and C each have an equal, 50% chance of occurring."

So talking about coin flips isn't the same thing.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12343
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:40 pm Didn't you read that comment about needing to crawl before we try to skateboard?
Yes. Except, not being a toddler, I'm able to move a whole lot faster than that. :wink: Besides, this isn't actually all that complicated a situation. It's consequences are pretty proximal to its premises, I'd say.

And the first problem that I see is this: Determinism, whether by "materials" or by "probability" is not choice. If either is the ultimate explanation of why "everything" (to use your pronoun) happens, then human will is summarily ruled out as being any kind of causal entity. With that, goes not only humanity and individuality, cognition and reason, but also morality, meaning and responsibility.

Those are high prices to pay for adopting any view of the nature of the universe. And I'm not yet saying they ought not to be paid, so long as the view in question is the truth. But if such a price is entailed, then a person who claims that's how things are needs to justify it.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4355
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:01 am Yes. Except, not being a toddler, I'm able to move a whole lot faster than that. Besides, this isn't actually all that complicated a situation.
Okay, but in my opinion we can't crawl.

So I guess we're at an impasse, because you won't strip this down to what I think we're having a problem with. It's not like I'm going to say, "Oh, you think you're understanding this just fine, so I guess I won't worry about it and I'll just move on."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12343
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:03 am ...you won't strip this down to what I think we're having a problem with....
Sure I will. I see that you're trying to say...
...the point there is SOLELY that the standard view in the sciences doesn't support that determinism is the case.
Except that, if by "the standard view of the sciences," you mean either Materialism/Physicalism or quantum mechanics, the conclusion there is not true. :shock:

Now, I agree that actual science does not necessitate either Materialism-Physicalism, or even quantum mechanics (which we both know is still in its infancy, really). That's because a good understanding of science is modest, not totalizing. Science itself is not the total sum of knowledge, nor is scientific knowing the only way of knowing things in the world. To believe otherwise is to become a victim of an ideology called "Scientism," i.e. the worship of science as the sine qua non of all wisdom. (Merriam-Webster: “An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities).” Much has been written about the problems with that, so I'll say no more.

Hopefully, that's not where you and I are at, and for sure, a good scientist knows that, too. So a good scientist need not be a Materialist or Physicalist.

But if science necessitated either Materialism/Physicalism or impersonal probabilistics, like in quantum theory, then Determinism would follow inevitably. :shock:

That's the problem. Now, if you want to toddle for a bit, then the first thing you're going to have to do is prove (not just state and assume) that impersonal probabilistics aren't Deterministic. We're giving you reasons they are; you've not provided us a reason why you believe they're not.

So go ahead, if you can. And in deference to your preference, we're still on step 1.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3042
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by RCSaunders »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:03 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:01 am Yes. Except, not being a toddler, I'm able to move a whole lot faster than that. Besides, this isn't actually all that complicated a situation.
Okay, but in my opinion we can't crawl.

So I guess we're at an impasse, because you won't strip this down to what I think we're having a problem with. It's not like I'm going to say, "Oh, you think you're understanding this just fine, so I guess I won't worry about it and I'll just move on."
Seems like an impasse is inevitable. Volition, that attribute of the human mind (or at least some human minds) which is the necessity and ability to consciously choose everything one thinks or does is as evident to those who are conscious and volitional as existence itself is to even you. But no one can actually observe anyone else's consciousness or know if they have volition or not. If someone claims they do not consciously choose their behavior, that it is nothing more than complex physical, chemical, electrical behavior, one has to take their word for it.

Since there are so many who are certain their behavior is determined, it is probably better to say, "some human beings are volitional and know it," and the rest are some kind of preprogrammed automatons that behave as if the were like volitional human beings, and for them it is probably impossible for them to understand what volition is.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12343
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:57 am If someone claims they do not consciously choose their behavior...
You mean, "If someone chooses to say that?" :wink:

Even to choose to follow blindly, to obey unhesitatingly, or to refuse to think further are examples of choices. So one need not take somebody who makes such a declaration seriously at all. In fact, if they actually made no decisions, they couldn't even declare their refusal.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 11287
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by henry quirk »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:42 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:19 pm

Coin flips are ideally equiprobable, no?
Sure, but what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
What is has to do with it is that I had just explained that "When we're talking about ontological freedom in that situation, it's NOT necessarily the case that B and C each have an equal, 50% chance of occurring."

So talking about coin flips isn't the same thing.
Well, let's look at another probabilistic event: the hurricane.

Here, in the gulf, conditions favor, but never guarantee, hurricane formation. Educated guesses are all we have in figurn' out if one will form and what the hell it'll do. About as probabilistic as you can get, yeah? And still casually determined.

Anyway: let's cut to the chase.

I take you accept some form of free will and I'm pretty sure it's not libertarian agent causation.

Let's talk about that.
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Janoah »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:17 pm
Janoah wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:47 pm 1. Free will
free from what?
from the laws of nature - not free.
Not free from but free to.
'Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.'
"unimpeded"

Outpouring of will, thinking, is expressed in physical, chemical processes in neurons, and occurs according to the laws of nature. Natural laws "impede" free will.
Age
Posts: 7784
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:29 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:45 pm

That is one definition, what are the others?
Those, which are given by 'you', human beings.

And, did you really want, or expect, me to look in EVERY dictionary, in EVERY different language, for ALL the other definitions?

I suggest if you REALLY want to know the other definitions for the word 'proof', then you look for them "yourself".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:45 pm If there are multiple definitions of proof then proof equivocates to a variety of things. Dually how does one act in establishing truth?
How does the word 'dually' apply here accurately?

If there is multiple definitions for words, as there OBVIOUSLY IS, then this in NO WAY infers NOR means what you PRESUME the answer is here.

How one does establish truth is just by agreement and acceptance. It REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE and EASY. just like Life, Itself, IS.

And, just so you are FULLY AWARE I, sometimes, do write in a way to separate those who are CURIOS from those who just make ASSUMPTIONS instead.
If truth is determined by agreement an acceptance then multiple groups of agreement means multiple truths on one hand,
Yes very true, but there is ONLY one Truth.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:29 pm in another hand it means someone must agree with you to be right.
This is untrue and NOT right at all.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:29 pm Third it necessitates truth as existing in parts if truth is determined by agreement of various individuals.
And, what would happen if EVERY one agrees on and accepts one thing?

Could that then be thee one and ONLY, or ACTUAL, Truth of things?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4355
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:53 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:03 am ...you won't strip this down to what I think we're having a problem with....
Sure I will. I see that you're trying to say...
...the point there is SOLELY that the standard view in the sciences doesn't support that determinism is the case.
Except that, if by "the standard view of the sciences," you mean either Materialism/Physicalism or quantum mechanics, the conclusion there is not true. :shock:
Huh?

You're saying that the standard view/the conventional wisdom in the sciences at present isn't that determinism isn't the case?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4355
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:57 am Seems like an impasse is inevitable. Volition, that attribute of the human mind (or at least some human minds) which is the necessity and ability to consciously choose everything one thinks or does is as evident to those who are conscious and volitional as existence itself is to even you.
The issue is actually twofold, re two simple dilemmas (even though what's necessary to describe them without misunderstanding might not be so simple):

(1) Is it the case from some antecedent state that there are at least two possible, mutually incompatible immediately-following consequent states. That is, is there some state of affairs A at time T1 where either state of affairs B or state of affairs C, but not both (because both can't obtain), are possible at T1, where just one will be actualized at T2, and where there's nothing else at play than B or C immediately following A.

(2) Is it the case that in at least some instances a la (1), "will" or volition can be involved in whether B or C obtains?

(1) has to be understood before we can tackle (2). (1) is not at all about will or volition (even though it doesn't preclude will or volition). It's a much more general/broad ontological issue.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4355
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:35 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:42 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:31 pm

Sure, but what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
What is has to do with it is that I had just explained that "When we're talking about ontological freedom in that situation, it's NOT necessarily the case that B and C each have an equal, 50% chance of occurring."

So talking about coin flips isn't the same thing.
Well, let's look at another probabilistic event: the hurricane.

Here, in the gulf, conditions favor, but never guarantee, hurricane formation. Educated guesses are all we have in figurn' out if one will form and what the hell it'll do. About as probabilistic as you can get, yeah? And still casually determined.

Anyway: let's cut to the chase.

I take you accept some form of free will and I'm pretty sure it's not libertarian agent causation.

Let's talk about that.
Re the last part, that's what I'm talking about, but there are prerequisites to talking about it.

There are phenomena in physics (and not just quantum phenomena) where the standard view is that they are not deterministic, there are no hidden variables making them deterministic. They are really "just" probabilistic, and there's no way around that.

Whether that's correct or not is another issue, but regardless, it's currently the standard view or the conventional wisdom.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 11287
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by henry quirk »

Janoah wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 9:23 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:17 pm
Janoah wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:40 pm

free from what?
from the laws of nature - not free.
Not free from but free to.
'*Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.'
"unimpeded"


**Outpouring of will, thinking, is expressed in physical, chemical processes in neurons, and occurs according to the laws of nature. Natural laws "impede" free will.
*That's one way to look at it.

Another...

Agent causation: a being who is not an event but who is an agent can cause events, in particular, his own actions. Agent causation contrasts with event causation, which occurs when an event causes another event. (swiped from the ubiquitous wikipedia)


**That's one way to look at it.

Another...

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/why-pion ... the-brain/ (a link I've posted many times, in multiple threads, cuz it's so damn useful)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 11287
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by henry quirk »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:34 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:35 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:42 pm

What is has to do with it is that I had just explained that "When we're talking about ontological freedom in that situation, it's NOT necessarily the case that B and C each have an equal, 50% chance of occurring."

So talking about coin flips isn't the same thing.
Well, let's look at another probabilistic event: the hurricane.

Here, in the gulf, conditions favor, but never guarantee, hurricane formation. Educated guesses are all we have in figurn' out if one will form and what the hell it'll do. About as probabilistic as you can get, yeah? And still casually determined.

Anyway: let's cut to the chase.

I take you accept some form of free will and I'm pretty sure it's not libertarian agent causation.

Let's talk about that.
Re the last part, that's what I'm talking about, but there are prerequisites to talking about it.

There are phenomena in physics (and not just quantum phenomena) where the standard view is that they are not deterministic, there are no hidden variables making them deterministic. They are really "just" probabilistic, and there's no way around that.

Whether that's correct or not is another issue, but regardless, *it's currently the standard view or the conventional wisdom.
*I'm gonna need some citations illustratin' this.

Determinism, at its root, is just cause and effect, and I know of no sea change among science folks wherein they deny cause and effect, or claim C & E doesn't hold across the board (not countin' the supposedly **spooky quantum interactions and notions like **retro-causality).

As it relates specifically to free will, determinism holds man and man's actions are merely effects, that man is nuthin' but a particular and peculiar link in some causal chain, and this seems to be the standard view or the conventional wisdom.




**has anyone actually recorded or demonstrated either?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 3042
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:47 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:57 am If someone claims they do not consciously choose their behavior...
You mean, "If someone chooses to say that?"
No, I mean exactly what I said. It's a bit satirical, IC.

There is no reason a machine could not be designed and programmed to make statements like, "I am not conscious and do not have volition," and of course the statement would be correct. Such a machine could be made even to simulate a human being like modern so-called sex-robots and be programmed to make any statement.

When something we assumes is a human being says, "consciousness is just some physical phenomenon and all my behavior is determined," how does one know whatever is saying that is not really the kind of automaton it's claiming to be. Of course you and I know if the declaration is really being made by a living human being, it is not true, but there is not much point in arguing with someone who denies their own nature, is there?
Post Reply