Does determinism really negate free will?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What do you think would be sufficient to change the inevitable? (Doh! Now you've got me speaking in contradictions!)

Determinism doesn't preclude changes in patterns of behaviour, whether the system question is a river, a machine, or a living creature.

And secondly, would you want the change? Would you want people to reflect this knowledge? Have you ever contemplated the enormity of this absurd philosophy?

I already said I think taking it into account would be beneficial in some circumstances.

Every war, every peace, every love, every hate, every crime and every virtue...none of it real, all of it meaningless. Just a set of mindless physical processes playing themselves out for no reason. I think it would be unbearable if it were possible to actually believe it (which IMO it isn't). I think suicide would be in order to escape the torturous illusions, once the knowledge was had.

No offence, but that is a very naive view of it. It doesn't stop us having feelings and emotions, preferences and inclinations, a sense of right and wrong, love, hate, etc. - or a sense of meaning. But it does mean that we develop those attributes and characteristics that make us the unique individuals that we are, having the feelings we do, thinking the thoughts we do, behaving as we do, through a complex series of prior events, including how our brains have processed those life experiences.

It doesn't mean you're an unfeeling robot or that nothing has meaning - things have meaning for you according to how you feel about them, and how you feel about them depends on the sort of person you have developed into over your life so far. New experiences can and will change you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It begs the question, if a person came to have all knowledge about everything that is deterministic (which in my mind is everything, etc) but and/or anyway, if a person came to have all knowledge about everything that is deterministic, including himself, etc, would he or she then be able to choose, or think, or do or act or behave, etc, differently, etc...?

I don't think they would, because the way in which they would have came to that knowledge in the first place would have all been deterministic, etc, so it would all just be yet just another set of already determined, or already pre-determined, set of paths or courses already, etc...?

Seems to be no escape from it until we leave this world for something different to me, etc...?

And that's still only still just a "maybe" still at that, etc...?

Anyway, just some of my thoughts right now...

That's an interesting point, and has been used to suggest that divine omniscience and divine free will as contradictory.

But such a Laplace's demon would know what they'd done, why they did it, and what they were going to do, why they were going to do it, and how they'd feel about it and why, so presumably, they wouldn't have a sense of free will.

Whereas we generally have little detailed insight into why we do what we do, and why we feel the way we do about things.

 

[zippy2006]

I've explained what I meant by the word and the context for that usage. If you won't accept it, so be it.

Again, to explain the word 'mistake' as "sufficiently similar to human behavior," is just to commit the fallacy of begging the question. These sorts of logical fallacies are ultimately what your position reduces to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Frumious would no doubt agree with me that determinism is the thesis that every event is deterministically caused, and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about applying such a theory on a "case-by-case" basis.

Sufficient to say 'every event is caused (and every cause is an event)'.

I think it is possible to apply a deterministic view on a case-by-case basis. The deterministic laws of physics (if such they are) give rise, at macro scales, to emergent complexity that has its own, higher-level laws, a world for which we have a different descriptive language & vocabulary (entities, agents, actions, motivations, choices, intent, etc). These give us a useful handle on the world - but this doesn't mean we can't take advantage of that foundational knowledge of determinism when it might be useful - just as we don't have to know the position & momentum of every molecule in a container of gas to calculate its temperature and pressure, but knowing that it's made of molecules can be very useful.

 

[zippy2006]

Sufficient to say 'every event is caused (and every cause is an event)'.

I think it is possible to apply a deterministic view on a case-by-case basis. The deterministic laws of physics (if such they are) give rise, at macro scales, to emergent complexity that has its own, higher-level laws, a world for which we have a different descriptive language & vocabulary (entities, agents, actions, motivations, choices, intent, etc). These give us a useful handle on the world - but this doesn't mean we can't take advantage of that foundational knowledge of determinism when it might be useful - just as we don't have to know the position & momentum of every molecule in a container of gas to calculate its temperature and pressure, but knowing that it's made of molecules can be very useful.

You are equivocating between 'deterministic' and 'determinism'.

Here is the original quote in question:

...but my leaning is towards using the concept of Determinism, on a case-by-case objective basis...

We can say that some realities are deterministic, but we cannot say that Determinism means something that does not apply to all of reality. The word does not mean that, whether it is being used in the OP, in philosophy, or in science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Again, to explain the word 'mistake' as "sufficiently similar to human behavior," is just to commit the fallacy of begging the question. These sorts of logical fallacies are ultimately what your position reduces to.

I explained that in the context of how we use words in general. I was hoping an explanation would enable you to glean my meaning despite what you see as an unfamiliar use of the word. Apparently not; you seem to want to focus on the word rather than the intended meaning ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[zippy2006]

I explained that in the context of how we use words in general. I was hoping an explanation would enable you to glean my meaning despite what you see as an unfamiliar use of the word. Apparently not; you seem to want to focus on the word rather than the intended meaning ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I explained in detail why you are committing the fallacy in <this post>. Feel free to address it if you like. I am guessing you won't, because you haven't addressed any of my previous arguments.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We can say that some realities are deterministic, but we cannot say that Determinism means something that does not apply to all of reality.

I'm not saying that. I'm talking about the concepts we use to describe our experience.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I explained in detail why you are committing the fallacy in <this post>. Feel free to address it if you like. I am guessing you won't, because you haven't addressed any of my previous arguments.

I don't understand your objection, just as you don't seem to understand my argument.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't understand your objection, just as you don't seem to understand my argument.

I believe I understand your argument just fine, but it seems to me that this is a good place to end the conversation.

If you ever grow tired of the cognitive dissonance demanded by determinism, feel free to come on over to the other side.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I believe I understand your argument just fine

That may be the problem...

If you ever grow tired of the cognitive dissonance demanded by determinism, feel free to come on over to the other side.

Once you understand the reason for it, it's not a problem.

 

[SelfSim]

We can say that some realities are deterministic, but we cannot say that Determinism means something that does not apply to all of reality.

I'm not saying that. I'm talking about the concepts we use to describe our experience.

Determinism is also a concept used to describe something which appears to be an experience(?)
Either way, all words describe some concept or another.

 

[Chesterton]

I should tell you that I do admire your position. There are some who say "I'm a staunch materialist, but I believe in some kind of 'emergence' of free will", and then go on to blather some incoherent nonsense about what "emergence" means. I respect that you have the intellectual honesty and integrity not to go that route, and you stick to your guns.

I also admire your continued civility in the face of my occasional snarkiness.

Determinism doesn't preclude changes in patterns of behaviour, whether the system question is a river, a machine, or a living creature.

Of course it precludes changes. "Change" has to be a meaningless word for you. In your view, the laws of physics, and nothing else, will control the motion and direction of a billiard ball I strike. I can aim straight for a corner pocket, or try and curve it into a side pocket, but it seems to slip your mind that my decision is also controlled by the laws of physics, so which pocket I aim for was determined at the "time" of the Big Bang. The fact that I showed up at the billiard parlor, the fact that I was born, everything was determined.

I already said I think taking it into account would be beneficial in some circumstances.

"Beneficial". Another meaningless word. Imagine the same universe we're in, but devoid of life and consciousness. Just stars, planets, gas, dust, etc. What would "beneficial" or "detrimental" mean in that universe?

Now imagine the actual universe, with human consciousness in it. What would be any different with this physical product called "consciousness"? Some people are fond of saying of humans that "we are stardust, we are made of stars". If that's true, and there's nothing more to it, explain to me how anything can be beneficial or detrimental.

No offence, but that is a very naive view of it. It doesn't stop us having feelings and emotions, preferences and inclinations, a sense of right and wrong, love, hate, etc. - or a sense of meaning. But it does mean that we develop those attributes and characteristics that make us the unique individuals that we are, having the feelings we do, thinking the thoughts we do, behaving as we do, through a complex series of prior events, including how our brains have processed those life experiences.

It doesn't mean you're an unfeeling robot or that nothing has meaning - things have meaning for you according to how you feel about them, and how you feel about them depends on the sort of person you have developed into over your life so far. New experiences can and will change you.

I never thought I'd quote Ben Shapiro, but it's a strange situation when I as a religious Christian am talking to a man of science who deals in facts, and I have to remind you that "facts don't care about your feelings". You may respond that your feelings are another fact, which is true, but your feelings are facts in the exact same way that the motion of a billiard ball or the flow of the Thames river are facts. They are devoid of meaning. They cannot be true or false, they cannot be good or bad.

 

[SelfSim]

"Beneficial". Another meaningless word. Imagine the same universe we're in, but devoid of life and consciousness. Just stars, planets, gas, dust, etc. What would "beneficial" or "detrimental" mean in that universe?

Firstly, what is it that's doing the 'imagining' in that 'universe'?

If there truly was no human mind in such a universe then no words would have any meaning and there would also be no meaning for universe .. just as your entire hypothetical would have no meaning.
But alas, we can easily see that you have sneaked a conscious, imagining mind into that hypothetical. All you're arguing there is your opinion that beneficial has no meaning.

Its our word, its our meaning and if we perceive benefits, then so be it.

Now imagine the actual universe, with human consciousness in it. What would be any different with this physical product called "consciousness"? Some people are fond of saying of humans that "we are stardust, we are made of stars". If that's true, and there's nothing more to it, explain to me how anything can be beneficial or detrimental.

Well where do you think the meanings of the words 'beneficial' and 'detrimental' came from there, if it wasn't the conscious mind you just added?

They're our words, they're our meanings and if we perceive benefits and detriments, then so be it.

 

[durangodawood]

....your feelings are facts in the exact same way that the motion of a billiard ball or the flow of the Thames river are facts. They are devoid of meaning. They cannot be true or false, they cannot be good or bad.

What is this need for meaning? What exactly are you asking for? In a deterministic world feelings are causes (and effects). And they are ways you experience yourself. If we want to bestow those with meaning, why not?

 

[renniks]

So, then the question becomes even harder, how do you tell the difference between a reality in which you're forced to always make the same choice, and one in which you would always freely

How is one better than the other? There's still no free will in either reality.

 

[zippy2006]

What is this need for meaning? What exactly are you asking for? In a deterministic world feelings are causes (and effects). And they are ways you experience yourself. If we want to bestow those with meaning, why not?

Because bestowal of meaning is not arbitrary. I mean, you can bestow the collision of two billiard balls with meaning if you like, but if you believe there is no actual difference between the collision of two billiard balls and a "free and gratuitous" act of love, then your value-differentiation between those two events is arbitrary and ultimately irrational. In that case the bestowal of meaning has no rational basis, and is quite silly.

This is the same way that Frumious is irrational when he claims that humans can make mistakes but grass cannot, for according to his definition both are equally capable of making mistakes. Such basic rational distinctions are not possible on determinism, and therefore the determinist is by definition a very irrational person.

 

[Neogaia777]

I should tell you that I do admire your position. There are some who say "I'm a staunch materialist, but I believe in some kind of 'emergence' of free will", and then go on to blather some incoherent nonsense about what "emergence" means. I respect that you have the intellectual honesty and integrity not to go that route, and you stick to your guns.

I also admire your continued civility in the face of my occasional snarkiness.


Of course it precludes changes. "Change" has to be a meaningless word for you. In your view, the laws of physics, and nothing else, will control the motion and direction of a billiard ball I strike. I can aim straight for a corner pocket, or try and curve it into a side pocket, but it seems to slip your mind that my decision is also controlled by the laws of physics, so which pocket I aim for was determined at the "time" of the Big Bang. The fact that I showed up at the billiard parlor, the fact that I was born, everything was determined.

"Beneficial". Another meaningless word. Imagine the same universe we're in, but devoid of life and consciousness. Just stars, planets, gas, dust, etc. What would "beneficial" or "detrimental" mean in that universe?

Now imagine the actual universe, with human consciousness in it. What would be any different with this physical product called "consciousness"? Some people are fond of saying of humans that "we are stardust, we are made of stars". If that's true, and there's nothing more to it, explain to me how anything can be beneficial or detrimental.

I never thought I'd quote Ben Shapiro, but it's a strange situation when I as a religious Christian am talking to a man of science who deals in facts, and I have to remind you that "facts don't care about your feelings". You may respond that your feelings are another fact, which is true, but your feelings are facts in the exact same way that the motion of a billiard ball or the flow of the Thames river are facts. They are devoid of meaning. They cannot be true or false, they cannot be good or bad.

Maybe people do not go to heaven or quote/unquote "hell", because they are/were, either good, or else bad, etc...

Even Jesus wouldn't allow us to call him "good", but he knew where he was going, etc, and he knew those were two very different places that people go, and/or do wind up in, etc...

And maybe we don't really actually know what hell really truly actually is either, etc, (or why people truly go there) (already said, etc), other than the descriptions of what it is/will/does feel like when you/me/we are there as opposed to being in heaven, etc...

I feel like I know, and already know the answers to all of these questions, but you guys, you're not even close, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Those who wind up in "hell", have already been in hell prior to this, and are still in it now still presently, and will always and forever continue to be in it (still) after this, and it will be those one's forever eternally after this, etc...

While those going to heaven, will join/rejoin with those others who already went there prior to this/that, and then they will, at that time after that, be forever together in heaven after that/this, awaiting those others who will join/rejoin them in time after that/this, just as their kind or type did before that/this, etc, and this/these (both types or kinds that went to either heaven of hell after that) will both forever be and will last forever after that, just as it or these (or both of these types of places or kinds) forever were (already) before that, and so will also continue to be after that, just as they already were forever already, prior to that, etc...

Neither chose it or did it themselves, God the Father did that part already, always has done that part already, it/this was just necessary first for those who will go to heaven after it/this/these/that first, etc...

And all of this will be or last forever (as far as we know) just as it has always been or be or has already lasted forever prior to that, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Those who wind up in "hell", have already been in hell prior to this, and are still in it now still presently, and will always and forever continue to be in it (still) after this, and it will be those one's forever eternally after this, etc...

While those going to heaven, will join/rejoin with those others who already went there prior to this/that, and then they will, at that time after that, be forever together in heaven after that/this, awaiting those others who will join/rejoin them in time after that/this, just as their kind or type did before that/this, etc, and this/these (both types or kinds that went to either heaven of hell after that) will both forever be and will last forever after that, just as it or these (or both of these types of places or kinds) forever were (already) before that, and so will also continue to be after that, just as they already were forever already, prior to that, etc...

Neither chose it or did it themselves, God the Father did that part already, always has done that part already, it/this was just necessary first for those who will go to heaven after it/this/these/that first, etc...

And all of this will be or last forever (as far as we know) just as it has always been or be or has already lasted forever prior to that, etc...

God Bless!

Some are made for here, and just only more of here, and some were made to go beyond it, and this is eternal, and we don't get to choose it, but that decision/choice has already been made (up) for us, etc...

So that God will not have to share His Glory with anyone, etc...

God Bless!