Does determinism really negate free will?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Indeed; and the precise nature of those concepts often varies according to the context of use. A difficulty in communication is establishing & agreeing on the concept and its application in a specific context.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

The concept and perception of free will are products of emergence because the macro-scale world we experience is emergent - as are we.

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.

No; the laws of physics describe how things change over time and space. It's true that if you consider the 4D Einsteinian 'block universe' as a whole, the concept of change is meaningless, it just is - but that's not what I'm doing.

"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.

Beneficial and detrimental are expressions of human values, based on human feelings and judgements - products of the functioning of human bodies & brains. I thought I explained this earlier...

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.

They don't have objective meaning - I'm glad you see that - they are subjective, IOW; they have meaning for me; feelings are a fundamental kind of meaning.

 

[Chesterton]

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.
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.

I was just asking Frumious to imagine a hypothetical.

 

[Chesterton]

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?

Personally, I'm not one to go around bestowing things. If a thing has meaning then it does, if it doesn't then it doesn't. Under Determinisn, nothing can have meaning.

 

[Chesterton]

The concept and perception of free will are products of emergence because the macro-scale world we experience is emergent - as are we.

You've disappointed me again. If you don't mind me resorting to Wiki, the first sentence in the article for Emergence says: "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole."

It occurs to me that a single atom of anything meets this definition, setting aside football teams and airplanes and brains. Do you know of an example of anything which is not emergent?

No; the laws of physics describe how things change over time and space. It's true that if you consider the 4D Einsteinian 'block universe' as a whole, the concept of change is meaningless, it just is - but that's not what I'm doing.

The so-called "laws" describe what happens. And we find they describe how things stay the same, not how things change. If I slipped off the roof of my house and fell away from the Earth instead of towards it, that would be a change.

Beneficial and detrimental are expressions of human values, based on human feelings and judgements - products of the functioning of human bodies & brains. I thought I explained this earlier...

I asked you how anything can be beneficial or detrimental. You answer that those words are expressions of human values. That doesn't answer the question.

They don't have objective meaning - I'm glad you see that - they are subjective, IOW; they have meaning for me; feelings are a fundamental kind of meaning.

Something being both "subjective" and "fundamemtal" does sort of sound like another contradiction. Charles Darwin once said a scientific man ought to have a heart of stone, but you sound more like this guy:

 

[durangodawood]

Personally, I'm not one to go around bestowing things. If a thing has meaning then it does, if it doesn't then it doesn't. Under Determinisn, nothing can have meaning.

I still don't know what you're looking for in terms of "meaning". Can you explain it using an example perhaps?

 

[Chesterton]

I still don't know what you're looking for in terms of "meaning". Can you explain it using an example perhaps?

I'm just asking Frumious what he means, because he's devoted to what's perceived by the senses and nothing more. For me it means something which is transcendent of the reality we perceive with our five senses, something which might actually be real, because our senses can be deceptive.

 

[SelfSim]

I was just asking Frumious to imagine a hypothetical.

Judging from his response, it seems he also saw the flaw in it, as we both came to the same conclusion ... even though you still aren't prepared to see that we have the benefit of an abundance of evidence to support the notion that human minds are the source of the meanings of 'benefits' and 'detriments' and that meanings aren't just 'things' floating around in space or something .. waiting for us to discover.

 

[SelfSim]

Personally, I'm not one to go around bestowing things. If a thing has meaning then it does, if it doesn't then it doesn't. Under Determinisn, nothing can have meaning.

I have to seriously ask the question: Do you accept the explanation that you were taught the meanings of common words by other humans, as you aged? (Ie: you weren't born with some innate language knowledge, when it comes to word meanings?)
Do you acknowledge that its this same process, repeated over and over again, that also results in dictionary definitions and also; that dictionaries also always contain multiple meanings for a given word, and they always disclose those multiple meanings as being dependent on the context of that word's usage?

If so, (I hope you do), then why would do you exclude 'benefit' and 'deteriment' from that same process?

 

[SelfSim]

I'm just asking Frumious what he means, because he's devoted to what's perceived by the senses and nothing more. For me it means something which is transcendent of the reality we perceive with our five senses, something which might actually be real, because our senses can be deceptive.

And yet, you seem oblivious to what we can all see .. ie: that its you who is (attempting) to give it that meaning .. even though in your previous post, you denied that you do that .. yet you state above that you do (see my underline).

I'd like to know how you access 'transcendent reality' when you presumably have the same five senses we all have, which are a fundamental part of how we go about giving 'reality' its meaning, too? Oh .. on second thoughts .. don't bother. I can already demonstrate that 'transcendent reality' is just something you believe in .. ie: its just another belief.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You've disappointed me again. If you don't mind me resorting to Wiki, the first sentence in the article for Emergence says: "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole."

It occurs to me that a single atom of anything meets this definition, setting aside football teams and airplanes and brains. Do you know of an example of anything which is not emergent?

That's basically what I said, the macro-scale world is emergent - so it's quite reasonable to say the idea of free will is emergent (if not particularly helpful). It might be more interesting to question whether it's an innate feeling or is emergent at a social or cultural level, but, meh.

The so-called "laws" describe what happens. And we find they describe how things stay the same, not how things change. If I slipped off the roof of my house and fell away from the Earth instead of towards it, that would be a change.

What happens is that things change according to relationships described by physical laws - e.g. Newton's law of gravity describes how the force between masses depends on, and changes with, their mass and separation, his laws of motion obviously describe change, and so on. So if you slipped off your roof and fell to the ground, your altitude would change, some of your gravitational potential energy would change into kinetic energy, some of that kinetic energy would change into material deformation and heat, the number of broken bones you had might change, the amount of pain you were in would change, and your level of consciousness and/or confusion might change.

I asked you how anything can be beneficial or detrimental. You answer that those words are expressions of human values. That doesn't answer the question.

You asked me what would be beneficial or detrimental in a universe without life - I said they were human values, expecting that you'd see that there wouldn't be humans in a universe without life, and so those concepts wouldn't exist.

But OK... Something is beneficial if it produces favourable or advantageous results. Whether something is favourable or advantageous depends on the objectives or goals you have, the values you put on those goals, and your ability to judge the situation and its consequences.

For example, if I don't want to die of thirst, it is beneficial to drink water when I'm thirsty and detrimental not to, but if I'm dying of thirst I may not be able to judge the situation well enough to realise that a mirage is not water. Apart from that, goals often overlap, or conflict, or are ill-defined, and some things can be beneficial in some ways and detrimental in others, and over different timescales - and people often disagree on them and on may be beneficial or detrimental with regard to them.

Something being both "subjective" and "fundamemtal" does sort of sound like another contradiction.

Why? Your perceptions are subjective and fundamental to how you experience the world; your feelings are subjective and fundamental to what things mean to you. Objectively, people may agree that the word 'dog' refers to a particular kind of mammal, but 'dog' may have very different subjective meanings for individuals, e.g. friendly, loyal, much-loved family pet, or scary, noisy, unpredictable, smelly, with a vicious bite; i.e. they feel very differently about them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm just asking Frumious what he means, because he's devoted to what's perceived by the senses and nothing more.

Incorrect. I suggest that if you want to know what I'm devoted to, you ask me.

 

[SelfSim]

Objectively, people may agree that the word 'dog' refers to a particular kind of mammal, but 'dog' may have very different subjective meanings for individuals, e.g. friendly, loyal, much-loved family pet, or scary, noisy, unpredictable, smelly, with a vicious bite; i.e. they feel very differently about them.

The 'feelings' attributes, which some people may associate with their own preferred model of 'a domestic dog', would not be attributes of the species 'Canis familiaris', but the behaviours, intelligence and communications attributes are testable, so they can be included in the species definition, eh?
Interestingly, even none of those latter attributes there (of the species), have to necessarily be taken as existing independently from our recognition, or testing, of them .. which would be, of course, a nonsensical notion.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm just asking Frumious what he means, because he's devoted to what's perceived by the senses and nothing more. For me it means something which is transcendent of the reality we perceive with our five senses, something which might actually be real, because our senses can be deceptive.

I was pretty sure that you were bemoaning a lack of meaning in a deterministic milieu, apart from anything Frumious was saying. Is that so?

If so, could you express what youd be missing in terms of an example?

If otoh you dont think a lack of meaning is a problem for the deterministic outlook, then sorry I keep bothering you with this.

 

[Neogaia777]

I think it's hilarious when people get the wind knocked out of their sails with the whole idea of determinism, etc, and say after that, that nothing has any kind of meaning or purpose anymore, etc, because, to me, it has even very much more meaning and/or purpose to me, etc, let me explain...

When I am going about my life, I often run into situations or circumstances, (or whatever), that were obviously destined, or predestined, etc, moments when I find out why that was all already predetermined/predestined in that very moment in time, etc, and it is very awesome to me a lot of the time, because it was done on purpose, and with a purpose, and maybe even perhaps toward an eventual ultimate purpose, etc, which is always mine to always be discovering, and marveling at, and finding and/or seeking out and/or chasing always, etc, and I think it's great, etc, I get to marvel at my Creators brilliance, and I quite literally think it is just simply "brilliant", etc, think it has "higher intelligence" written all over it to me, and if you ask me, and I get to see that, etc, and I think it's great, etc...

No meaning or purpose???

I think you are looking at it with the wrong set of lenses or kinds of eyes, etc...

I say be on the lookout for these times, etc, times where you know things were supposed to happen just specifically that way, and/or be intertwined just the way they were or are, etc, analyze it or mull it around in you mind either during or after, and reflect on it a little bit after, etc...

This means there could potentially be a very special purpose to every single moment maybe, and when you are going about your day and/or life, ask yourself, if I am supposed to be right here right now doing exactly what I am doing right now, and/or are thinking and/or saying right now, etc, then maybe it is for a very important reason and/or purpose, etc, seeing as God predestined and carefully constructed each and every moment, and did it all on purpose, etc, and I say dig a little bit deeper into that, etc, and you might be surprised at what you might find, etc...

I, for one, and when I become aware of these moments, always think it's just simply "brilliant" always, etc, just "absolutely brilliant" a lot of the time, etc, and it can make me marvel and/or blow my mind sometimes, etc...

Everything is always going/doing/happening on purpose, and with a purpose, at every single moment, etc, and if you don't find meaning in that, then I honestly don't know what to say to you, other than you need a drastic change in your own perspective on it maybe, etc...

It's not just a mess of random stuff, but is very highly ordered, and very, very organized, and is/was/is, is always, etc, all done on purpose, and with a purpose, etc, every single moment of it, etc, and it is ours to seek and/or search that out, and come to know it/Him a little bit better through it, or by it, etc...

Every single moment can seem providential, with the right perspective on it, because it all basically is basically, etc...

And if you can't find the wonder in that, then I feel sorry for you, etc...

All you have to do is just simply be aware of it, etc, and then just simply train yourself to notice when it/they happen and/or come, etc...

Because that is God's determinism and/or predestiny, etc...

He did that already, from before the beginning of time, etc...

Take just a split-second to wonder or marvel at it, and see the brilliance in it, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I think it's hilarious when people get the wind knocked out of their sails with the whole idea of determinism, etc, and say after that, that nothing has any kind of meaning or purpose anymore, etc, because, to me, it has even very much more meaning and/or purpose to me, etc, let me explain...

When I am going about my life, I often run into situations or circumstances, (or whatever), that were obviously destined, or predestined, etc, moments when I find out why that was all already predetermined/predestined in that very moment in time, etc, and it is very awesome to me a lot of the time, because it was done on purpose, and with a purpose, and maybe even perhaps toward an eventual ultimate purpose, etc, which is always mine to always be discovering, and marveling at, and finding and/or seeking out and/or chasing always, etc, and I think it's great, etc, I get to marvel at my Creators brilliance, and I quite literally think it is just simply "brilliant", etc, think it has "higher intelligence" written all over it to me, and if you ask me, and I get to see that, etc, and I think it's great, etc...

No meaning or purpose???

I think you are looking at it with the wrong set of lenses or kinds of eyes, etc...

I say be on the lookout for these times, etc, times where you know things were supposed to happen just specifically that way, and/or be intertwined just the way they were or are, etc, analyze it or mull it around in you mind either during or after, and reflect on it a little bit after, etc...

This means there could potentially be a very special purpose to every single moment maybe, and when you are going about your day and/or life, ask yourself, if I am supposed to be right here right now doing exactly what I am doing right now, and/or are thinking and/or saying right now, etc, then maybe it is for a very important reason and/or purpose, etc, seeing as God predestined and carefully constructed each and every moment, and did it all on purpose, etc, and I say dig a little bit deeper into that, etc, and you might be surprised at what you might find, etc...

I, for one, and when I become aware of these moments, always think it's just simply "brilliant" always, etc, just "absolutely brilliant" a lot of the time, etc, and it can make me marvel and/or blow my mind sometimes, etc...

Everything is always going/doing/happening on purpose, and with a purpose, at every single moment, etc, and if you don't find meaning in that, then I honestly don't know what to say to you, other than you need a drastic change in your own perspective on it maybe, etc...

It's not just a mess of random stuff, but is very highly ordered, and very, very organized, and is/was/is, is always, etc, all done on purpose, and with a purpose, etc, every single moment of it, etc, and it is ours to seek and/or search that out, and come to know it/Him a little bit better through it, or by it, etc...

Every single moment can seem providential, with the right perspective on it, because it all basically is basically, etc...

And if you can't find the wonder in that, then I feel sorry for you, etc...

All you have to do is just simply be aware of it, etc, and then just simply train yourself to notice when it/they happen and/or come, etc...

Because that is God's determinism and/or predestiny, etc...

He did that already, from before the beginning of time, etc...

Take just a split-second to wonder or marvel at it, and see the brilliance in it, etc...

God Bless!

You ever wonder why you can't even pull on one single string of your life without the whole entire tapestry unraveling...?

Because you might want to think about that in relation to what I just now said also, etc...

Because it is the same with the world also, etc...

Things (everything) is exactly where God wants them always, and are always where they were always meant to be always, etc, because it's a "tapestry", etc...

We are tapestries and the world is a tapestry, and we don't yet get to see the complete picture yet, but it is what we are always finding out more about, in and with more time, etc, or given enough time, etc, and I think that is a very beautiful and very, very wonderful thing, etc...

But you can't pull on the strings, etc...

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The 'feelings' attributes, which some people may associate with their own preferred model of 'a domestic dog', would not be attributes of the species 'Canis familiaris', but the behaviours, intelligence and communications attributes are testable, so they can be included in the species definition, eh?

Possibly. I'm not familiar with the species definition of canis familiaris - but I generally know a dog when I see one

 

[SelfSim]

Possibly. I'm not familiar with the species definition of canis familiaris - but I generally know a dog when I see one

How?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How?

It looks like a dog ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[SelfSim]

It looks like a dog ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

.. and how did you acquire the knowledge that what you're seeing is 'a dog'? Or do you just believe what you're seeing is 'a dog'?