Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:22 am
If only it were a request for your self-assessment.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
If only it were a request for your self-assessment.
Yeah, longer than a textbook would surely be less of a mess given the numerous problems with just about every sentence.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:57 amDon't worry about it. It wasn't addressed to you. It is only meant for those with attentions spans capable of sustained reason over something longer than your typical university, "text book."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:29 pmWhat you wrote is a complete mess for maybe 20 or 30 different reasons.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:46 pm One very bad mistake being made in this entire discussion is about the nature of, "cause," and what determinism means.
The notion of "cause," was totally corrupted by Hume and the entire intellectual world has since swallowed his misrepresentation of cause, now almost universally described as, "cause and effect," meaning, "the same cause (event) always produces the same effect (event)."
Whatever it's called, in science, "cause," is never identified in those terms because scientific cause is not, "event," causation, but, "entity," causation. The wrong description of cause is, "event A will always result in effect B," or conversely, "effect B is always caused by event A." Three fundamental things are wrong with that view:
1. In the entire history of the word there have never been two identical events as either, "causes," or, "effects."
2. No event in history is isolated and every event is contingent on an infinite number of contributing variables.
3. Every event is the action of entities. What any entity does, how it behaves at any moment is determined by its own nature (the kind of entity it is) and it's immediate context (it's environment or it's relationship to all other entities).
The real meaning of the word, "cause," in the physical sciences, relative to events, is, "the explanation for." It is based on the principle that no physical event happens spontaneously, miraculously, by magic or without an explanation that is not itself physical. It does no mean the simple-minded sixth-grade notion of, "cause and effect."
The correct description of physical cause is based on the fact every entity has a specific nature that determines how it will behave relative to all other entities, which may be stated, "the same entity in the same context will always behave in the same way." Obviously, no two events are identical because there is never a single cause A that results in event B. Same cause same event is simply nonsense. For every event there are an infinite number of variables, any of which being different would result in a different event. In actual practice, very similar entities may be in very similar contexts, similar enough to satisfy any engineering requirements, but none will ever be identical.
What that means for determinism is that every physical event can only ever be what it is, because it is determined by what actually is, which is the nature of every entity which is part of that event. For every entity in every event is what it is and will behave as it does in that context and could never behave in any other way in that context. Every physical event is absolutely determined.
Statistics and probability are totally irrelevant to physical causation. There is no such thing as an indeterminate physical state, and every event that actually occurs had a 100% probability of happening.
Any event that actually occurs had a one hundred percent possibility of occurring, but no statistical method could ever have predicted it.
Can you explain how you're reading that into what I wrote?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:47 am
I think you are confusing probability, and perhaps statistics as well, as having some kind of efficient or efficatious power.
That's just silly. Most people know they consciously choose everything they think and do and the question would never come up if some philosopher or psychologist didn't try to convince them otherwise.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:39 pm The bottom line, by the way, is that people want to know if they can make a choice between at least two options or whether that's just an illusion.
I didn't read anything into what you wrote, It's what you wrote implies.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:46 amCan you explain how you're reading that into what I wrote?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:47 am
I think you are confusing probability, and perhaps statistics as well, as having some kind of efficient or efficatious power.
First, probability theory is not about, "possibility," but, "probability," and it does not determine anything. Nothing can be more possible than anything else, only more or less probable.So, the next step is that if we're talking about occurrences that are not determined in the sense of there being only one possible outcome (but we're also not talking about equiprobable occurences either), then something--whether a brute fact or something else, is biasing one possibility over the other.
That can't be the case if determinism is true, and science long suggested that determinism is true. Hence the dilemma.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:48 am That's just silly. Most people know they consciously choose everything they think
What I wrote there says nothing about probability determining anything. If you think what I wrote implies that, you'd have to explain it.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:27 pm I didn't read anything into what you wrote, It's what you wrote implies.
So, the next step is that if we're talking about occurrences that are not determined in the sense of there being only one possible outcome (but we're also not talking about equiprobable occurences either), then something--whether a brute fact or something else, is biasing one possibility over the other.
I wasn't writing about probability theory per se, especially not some standard account of it.First, probability theory is not about, "possibility,"
Yeah, not seein' diddly in either piece establishin', as fact, that mind, will, intent, purpose, personality, identity, etc. are processes in neurons.Janoah wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:11 pmHigher cerebral functionshenry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 7:33 pmHas it been established that mind, will, intent, purpose, personality, identity, etc. are processes in neurons? If so, then I'd like to see the map of it all along with the relevant explanations of how the brain generates mind, will, intent, purpose, personality, identity, etc.Janoah wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:33 pm
The actions of the "agent", and everything that happens in it, including thinking, processes in neurons, everything obeys the laws of nature, and is "limited" by them. Is there a scientific opinion that something does not obey the laws of nature? After all, no.
The neurons of the cerebral cortex constitute the highest level of control in the hierarchy of the nervous system. Consequently, the terms higher cerebral functions and higher cortical functions are used by neurologists and neuroscientists to refer to all conscious mental activity, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning, and to complex volitional behaviour such as speaking and carrying out purposive movement.
https://www.britannica.com/science/huma ... -functions
The frontal lobe is associated with executive functions including self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
*I think my bein' a free will, a causal agent, is perfectly natural.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:48 amThat's just silly. Most people know they consciously choose everything they think and do and the question would never come up if some philosopher or psychologist didn't try to convince them otherwise.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 11:39 pm The bottom line, by the way, is that people want to know if they can make a choice between at least two options or whether that's just an illusion.
You're the only own wrestling with that question, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I don't think trying to convince everyone else is the solution to your problem.
*It's also never an issue for dualists, like IC and Henry, (which I am not,) who just attribute consciousness and volition to something supernatural, while retaining **a deterministic view of physical existence. I think it's only a problem if you insist the only properties possible to existence are physical properties and try to make those physical properties non-deterministic, "in some cases," to explain volition.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:35 pmIn physical science determinism must be true, or there is no science.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:48 am That can't be the case if determinism is true, and science long suggested that determinism is true. Hence the dilemma.
There's only a dilemma if you've decided consciousness is some kind of phenomena produced by the physical.
What are you basing this on?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:00 pm In physical science determinism must be true, or there is no science.
That's two different things.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:39 pm When we're talking about two things with some non-zero probability for each, where they're following an immediately antecedent state, we're talking about two different possibilities.
Only you have an issue, because you want everything to be explained in terms of physics, and your issue is, either there is no volition because the physical is deterministic, or for there to be volition, something must be slipped in that in some cases makes the physical non-deterministic. I don't believe the latter can be true without undercutting the validity of science.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:39 pm The whole gist of the free will issue is whether there is more than one possibility following an antecedent state--or at least that's the minimum ontological fact necessary for it.
Holy crap you can't read.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:31 pmThat's two different things.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:39 pm When we're talking about two things with some non-zero probability for each, where they're following an immediately antecedent state, we're talking about two different possibilities.
Of course if you believe just anything is true if enough people agree with it, it's unlikely your views of science will be very objective.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:03 pmWhat are you basing this on?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:00 pm In physical science determinism must be true, or there is no science.
It's not the case, and once again, the consensus isn't that the world is deterministic any longer. That hasn't been the consensus for a long time.
Most don't want to, apparently.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:03 pm ... no one around here is capable of learning anything.
Views can't be objective.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:47 pm Of course if you believe just anything is true if enough people agree with it, it's unlikely your views of science will be very objective.