Is Free Will Possible in a Deterministic Universe?

[apeiron]

Anyway, the concept of determinism as it applies in the sciences is generally meant to be void of human perspective. That is, a deterministic system will evolve in the same way every time as long as the initial conditions are exactly the same (and the system is isolated, of course). This should happen regardless of human opinion.

Let's again make the distinction between reality and our models of reality. Our models are clearly "deterministic". That is just built into them as an axiom. If a, then b. It is the way we do maths and logic. We assume as a formal model that this must lead to that which must lead to the next, in strict step by step fashion.

But the map is not the terrain. Reality may behave with sufficient regularity that deterministic models give us simple maps. But what may underly that superficial regularity could be a more complex causality. And we start to appreciated this fact when we start to look at reality on the scale of the very small and the very energetic.

So determinism (and randomness) are concrete features of our formal models. They are "real" in that epistemological sense. But we don't know them to be true of reality in an ontological sense. And indeed, as we stretch our observations, we find reality starting to behave in ways which don't conform to our simple maps.

Just consider the quantum zeno effect. This is equally troubling for a naive belief in either the determined or the random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

 

[imiyakawa]

Does anyone here think the definition of free will through the prism of physics is applicable? That's the discussion I see to have more dire consequences.. Despite any correct set of premises that basically begs the question,

Georg, when you hear people deny free will in the total sense, it's highly likely they're talking about it from a physicist's perspective. This definition has achieved attention in the literature and so this is likely what you've heard, much to your dismay.

They're likely asserting that a third type of causality that would enable conscious causation (there are two ways of looking at conscious will, I'm talking from the physicist's perspective) has no reason to exist until demonstrated why a complex system that has "emergent properties" can lead to this [this doesn't include a type of law that enacts on the level that consciousness 'arises', if it does actually arise on a particular 'level', as it is still determined [not literally, perhaps] by laws][/size]. They also assert that the illusion of it is no issue as consciousness doesn't emerge on the fundamental level.

 

[The riddler]

No one really knows if the universe is deterministic or random (simples).

But with free-will I am not sure. Answers.com defines free-will as "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies" but we're effected by external agencies when we make desicisions all the time. For example, I dare whoever is reading this reply to put your fist through your computer screen right now, you wouldn't do it (i assume) due to the following reasons:

1. You'd probably have to spend money buying another one from some company
2. Over the years the world has taught you that it would be a stupid thing to do
3. Anyone in the room with you would think you were nuts causing you to become sociable upset
4. You might hurt your hand

Reason 2 is based on what exeternal agencies have taught you since you were very young (Causing a perminent effect). Some people may suggest that reasons 3 and 4 do count as free-will because they are based on nature, but is that not an external agency in itself?

 

[brainstorm]

But with free-will I am not sure. Answers.com defines free-will as "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies" but we're effected by external agencies when we make desicisions all the time.

I hear the argument repeatedly that the impossibility of absolute freedom means that freedom is absolutely impossible. That's a logical mistake. Relative freedom is still freedom. It's an ingredient in the mix. Then you have to look at the extent to which free-will is constrained or influenced by other factors. I don't think anyone would claim that free-will has absolute power over everything, but then who would argue that free-will has no effect on anything either?

 

[nismaratwork]

I hear the argument repeatedly that the impossibility of absolute freedom means that freedom is absolutely impossible. That's a logical mistake. Relative freedom is still freedom. It's an ingredient in the mix. Then you have to look at the extent to which free-will is constrained or influenced by other factors. I don't think anyone would claim that free-will has absolute power over everything, but then who would argue that free-will has no effect on anything either?

People who believe in a completely deterministic universe, fates, and so forth. In other words, anyone who thinks that a god writes a destiny for them, or that the initial conditions at the BB did the same. I don't believe that, but plenty do, and their concept of free-will combined with fate obviates the element of freedom.

 

[imiyakawa]

I don't believe that, but plenty do, and their concept of free-will combined with fate obviates the element of freedom.

How does randomness make it any better? A physicist I've spoken to says the future probability distributions of any system of wave functions is determined under a random interpretation, as the values in complex state space are determined (I'm not sure about HUP). It seems the best you can have is random & determined will. The outlook for a brain consciousness is just as bleak under both models. Neither has consciousness as a self-causal property, which is required for the free will that people on the street think they have (the ability to do otherwise - "emergence" and "downwards causation", i.e. the ability to either bias the brain's future probability distributions or bias what has to be under determinism). I don't see such a definition of free will to be possible under materialism.

I'm not talking about apeiron's, Georg's, brainstorm's definitions of free will.

In closing, randomness in the quantum realm is JUST as bad for free will as pure determinism. Neither gives a causally efficacious will.

However, as I've said, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, apeiron's, Georg's, and brainstorm's definitions of free will are valid.

This is not an invalid definition of free will. It has received substantive coverage in the literature. See wikipedia, consc.net, Kim's 2005 book has a nice section on this.

 

[GeorgCantor]

People here seem to consistently forget that the WHOLE notion of causality is under question and in certain interpretations Determinism actually plays NO role. What Bell and Aspect proved was that determinism is very likely a fairytale. Now don't go multiversing on me before we can settle that at least 1 universe exists before i look/measure or potentially inquire about it.

If anyone is able to see the so-called God's view of the universe in their mind and is NOT majorly confused, he/she is not only deeply wrong about it, they have failed to grasp the fundamentals of what science is suggesting.

 

[imiyakawa]

People here seem to consistently forget that the WHOLE notion of causality is under question and in certain interpretations Determinism actually plays NO role. What Bell and Aspect proved was that determinism is very likely a fairytale.

That's true.. Randomness could be (or is, by definition?) acausal.

Do you think self-causation of consciousness, assuming physicalism (i.e. no "soul"), is possible? Even logically possible?

 

[Pythagorean]

apeiron:

It's generally assumed that we're making guesses about the territory based on the map. In general, that's what philosophy is (where science is more in the business of map-making).

 

[GeorgCantor]

Do you think self-causation of consciousness, assuming physicalism (i.e. no "soul"), is possible? Even logically possible?

If we denounce realism, we are left with "esse ist percipi", or as George Berkeley would say - Are we but thoughts in the Mind of God?

Do you see another possibility? Bolzmann brains?

 

[apeiron]

It's generally assumed that we're making guesses about the territory based on the map. In general, that's what philosophy is (where science is more in the business of map-making).

Personally, I don't see a huge difference between philosophy and science (done properly!). Both can be described epistemologically as a modelling relation with the world.

http://www.panmere.com/?page_id=18

Philosophy is more generalised or meta. So science is making the map of this actual world, and philosophy is dreaming about the map of all possible worlds perhaps.

Science tightly ties the models to the observations. Philosophy generalises from the specifically observed to create ideas about general objects. And also generalises the logic of formal models so as to suggest general truths.

Taking a systems science view of anything, I would have a general philosophical map which says it must be organised as a local~global hierarchy and persist as a structure due to some throughput of entropy.

Or if I was taking a mechanical view of anything, I would have a different map of its probable structure - any structure would be composed of a set of definite atoms with intrinsic properties.

 

[brainstorm]

People who believe in a completely deterministic universe, fates, and so forth. In other words, anyone who thinks that a god writes a destiny for them, or that the initial conditions at the BB did the same. I don't believe that, but plenty do, and their concept of free-will combined with fate obviates the element of freedom.

You can have a deterministic system without free-will that still is not pre-destined in any planned sense. Think of a tennis ball falling down through the branches of a tree. It can bounce in various directions, run into leaves, the wind blows it, etc. such that each interaction with other matter changes the path it takes to the next deterministic bounce or brush with leaves. Still, the ball doesn't have free-will in any sense. It's just the cocktail of deterministic forces it is subject to at any moment are partly the product of coincidence and randomness in the last deterministic impulse. You can't predict the path the ball will take, but it's not because it is exercising free-will.

 

[imiyakawa]

You can have a deterministic system without free-will that still is not pre-destined in any planned sense. Think of a tennis ball falling down through the branches of a tree. It can bounce in various directions, run into leaves, the wind blows it, etc. such that each interaction with other matter changes the path it takes to the next deterministic bounce or brush with leaves. Still, the ball doesn't have free-will in any sense. It's just the cocktail of deterministic forces it is subject to at any moment are partly the product of coincidence and randomness in the last deterministic impulse. You can't predict the path the ball will take, but it's not because it is exercising free-will.

You're mixing unpredictability (in practice only) with randomness.

In a deterministic world, it is determined! That ball's path is determined. Everything is determined. You think the universe didn't know the wind was coming and it "slipped" or something?

Chaos never implies fundamental indeterminacy.

 

[JoeDawg]

You think the universe didn't know...

This, in my opinion, is one of the problems with understanding determinism.
No, the universe did not know. The universe doesn't know anything and certainly not ahead of time. You are anthropomorphising, and this only confuses the issue.

Initial conditions merely lead, causally, to resulting conditions.
Knowledge is a separate issue.

Put more simply, the causal chain does not imply purpose, or direction.

If a mobster pays a boxer to throw a fight, then the result of the fight is predetermined, even if most people predicted he would win and bet accordingly. What determines the winner however, in this case, is the ten count.
If a clumsy person with no training enters the ring against a champion, that would be an example of fate. No amount of effort on that person's part would make them win. (Assuming they have no choice but to fight fair)

Chaos never implies fundamental indeterminacy

True.

 

[GeorgCantor]

This, in my opinion, is one of the problems with understanding determinism.
No, the universe did not know. The universe doesn't know anything and certainly not ahead of time. You are anthropomorphising, and this only confuses the issue.

Huh? What is the Universe in your opinion?! And how do you know it?

People are naive and like to assume, assume, assume... People now think they know everything. But the only thing they still don't know is that they actually don't know ANYTHING.

People always need someone to give it to them point blank, like "Sorry people, realism is wrong, there is no universe..."


You need to go back and rethink the double slit experiment done with C60 molecules and what it says about the assumption of objective reality. Molecules, atoms, and matter only have definite properties when you look, measure and inquire about them(this is also confirmed by the quantum eraser experiment, Bell's theorem, the HUP, the EPR, etc...).

Now we can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity - what the Hell is really going on?

Initial conditions merely lead, causally, to resulting conditions.

Naivety is the other name of humanity.

 

[imiyakawa]

No, the universe did not know.

Lol! Of course I didn't mean it literally! Just for purposes of exposition.

People are naive and like to assume, assume, assume...

Joe simply said that a deterministic physical universe doesn't possesses the human semantic category of knowledge. That's all he's asserting. Of course it doesn't, unless the universe is aware. A prerequisite of knowledge is awareness.

If the universe isn't "real", then the universe cannot know, and so Joe is still correct.

Joe is not saying that the universe is deterministic. Joe is saying that a determined universe doesn't, as far as we know, posses knowledge.

 

[GeorgCantor]

If the universe isn't "real", then the universe cannot know, and so Joe is still correct.

Joe is not saying that the universe is deterministic. Joe is saying that a determined universe doesn't, as far as we know, posses knowledge.

I took issue with the anthropomorphising part and it's visible(I think) from what followed in my post about the 'real' universe and what it actually is.

 

[alt]

Huh? What is the Universe in your opinion?! And how do you know it?

People are naive and like to assume, assume, assume... People now think they know everything. But the only thing they still don't know is that they actually don't know ANYTHING.

Do people always need someone to give it to them point blank, like "Sorry people, realism is wrong, there is no universe..."?


You need to go back and rethink the double slit experiment done with C60 molecules and what it says about the assumption of objective reality. Molecules, atoms, and matter only have definite properties when you look, measure and inquire about them(this is also confirmed by the quantum eraser experiment, Bell's theorem, the HUP, the EPR, etc...).

Now we can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity - what the Hell is really going on?








Naivety is the other name of humanity.

what the Hell is really going on?

There is a giant melaluca (native gum tree) in my back yard. Probably about 40m high and 2m diameter at the base of the trunk. I visit it often. It is inhabited by a billion ants(more or less). I watch them as they go about their little lives in their little universe, furiously and incessantly rushing up and down the trunk.

Occasionally, I bang my fist on the trunk near their path. I suppose they would sense that, as I would sense a clap of thunder on my horizon.

Once I ripped off a piece of bark, and it came off in a large jagged sheet, causing much damage and havoc to the ants for some considerable time. I suppose to them, that would be as an earthquake would be to me, ripping the ground apart and rendering the Earth asunder.

Now we (they) can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity (antity) - what the Hell is really going on?

 

[nismaratwork]

what the Hell is really going on?

There is a giant melaluca (native gum tree) in my back yard. Probably about 40m high and 2m diameter at the base of the trunk. I visit it often. It is inhabited by a billion ants(more or less). I watch them as they go about their little lives in their little universe, furiously and incessantly rushing up and down the trunk.

Occasionally, I bang my fist on the trunk near their path. I suppose they would sense that, as I would sense a clap of thunder on my horizon.

Once I ripped off a piece of bark, and it came off in a large jagged sheet, causing much damage and havoc to the ants for some considerable time. I suppose to them, that would be as an earthquake would be to me, ripping the ground apart and rendering the Earth asunder.

Now we (they) can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity (antity) - what the Hell is really going on?

My takeaway from this is that I really don't want to be an ant on your gum tree! ;)

Brainstorm: Imiyakawa beat me to it, but I never said that unpredictability obviates free will, or that it implies free will. Unpredictability, randomness, deterministic, and probabilistic... these are issues on the table and they are distinct, if linked. QM is probabilistic, not deterministic, but it is not random, although within a given domain it can be unpredictable. Where your photon strikes a detector screen is unpredictable, the distribution over time is predictable at large scales (interference patterns), but overall it is probabilistic, not deterministic. Random would have to include the null result, and many more.

 

[GeorgCantor]

what the Hell is really going on?

There is a giant melaluca (native gum tree) in my back yard. Probably about 40m high and 2m diameter at the base of the trunk. I visit it often. It is inhabited by a billion ants(more or less). I watch them as they go about their little lives in their little universe, furiously and incessantly rushing up and down the trunk.

Occasionally, I bang my fist on the trunk near their path. I suppose they would sense that, as I would sense a clap of thunder on my horizon.

Once I ripped off a piece of bark, and it came off in a large jagged sheet, causing much damage and havoc to the ants for some considerable time. I suppose to them, that would be as an earthquake would be to me, ripping the ground apart and rendering the Earth asunder.

Now we (they) can sit down and talk about the most SERIOUS issue there could ever be before humanity (antity) - what the Hell is really going on?

I wouldn't spend much time worrying about what kind of reality de-localized, indefinite, unmeasured and non-existent ants would experience.

Can non-existent ants wonder - what the Hell is really going on?

 

[brainstorm]

You're mixing unpredictability (in practice only) with randomness.

In a deterministic world, it is determined! That ball's path is determined. Everything is determined. You think the universe didn't know the wind was coming and it "slipped" or something?

Chaos never implies fundamental indeterminacy.

The bounce-trajectory of one bounce and the wind determines the trajectory of the next bounce, but whatever factors intervene in the trajectory after that will influence where the next bounce occurs, etc. The ball's path is being determined, yes, but how can you say the factors determining it do not change according to how earlier factors interact? Do you mean to say that the entire course of events from the initial dropping of the ball to its final position on the ground could be predicted by a complex enough model? I think there are random variables that occur at multiple points in the ball's fall that reset the particular path the ball will take, which will be deterministic, until the next random factor is introduced.

 

[apeiron]

.The ball's path is being determined, yes, but how can you say the factors determining it do not change according to how earlier factors interact? Do you mean to say that the entire course of events from the initial dropping of the ball to its final position on the ground could be predicted by a complex enough model? I think there are random variables that occur at multiple points in the ball's fall that reset the particular path the ball will take, which will be deterministic, until the next random factor is introduced.

Models of chaos don't demand that the local events are deterministic or random. What they demand is that events are uncorrelated. Then what emerges at the macro level is "determined" by global information, the system's boundary constraints. Or instead of saying determined, we should actually say constrained.

I mentioned this reference already in this thread, but it really is excellent on these issues.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...906.3507v1.pdf

This is why, for instance, the same fractal patterns like Barnsley's fern or a Menger sponge can be generated by either iterative (deterministic) or stochastic (random) processes.

With a determined model, local events or processes become effectively un-correlated because of non-linear effects. With a random model, a lack of correlation is presumed. But chaos theory is about the system view where what counts is local independence in some strict fashion (call it spontaneity, but it could be either random or deterministic so long as it has the more essential property of being uncorrelated). And then also the second part of the systems story, the existence of global constraints to force the essentially unpatterned into a pattern.

Chaos theory (which was called deterministic chaos of course, because iterative non-linear processes were the early example) is thus good evidence of why determined~random is not a fundamental issue at the level of complex systems.

 

[JoeDawg]

Huh?

Sigh.

What is the Universe in your opinion?!

The universe is:
1) what is out there
2) everything I observe
3) the model I create that explains 1 and 2.

And how do you know it?

Through observation and reason.

You need to go back and rethink the double slit experiment

When you have managed to wedge Mike Tyson through a double slit, you will then have addressed my point. Until then, this is a non-sequitar.

Oh, and I recommend you ask nicely before you try, his freewill might decide to beat you to a bloody pulp.

 

[JoeDawg]

Lol! Of course I didn't mean it literally! Just for purposes of exposition.

But, when one talks about initial conditions predetermining outcomes, intent is implied.

This confuses the issue. Determinism is not about a goal or specific outcome, so when someone says that the initial conditions of the universe lead to my choice of ice cream flavor all they have done is moved the choice... from me... to whomever chose initial conditions. This makes a determinist argument against freewill nothing more than reductio ad absurdum. It is a demand for some sort of ultimate choice.

If the initial conditions are random, in the sense that they have no cause, then what you have are differing levels of freedom throughout the universe. In our case, we are self-contained systems that can interact with the external system. Thus, we have freewill... within that scope. Absolute freewill of course is nonsense.

 

[brainstorm]

Models of chaos don't demand that the local events are deterministic or random. What they demand is that events are uncorrelated. Then what emerges at the macro level is "determined" by global information, the system's boundary constraints. Or instead of saying determined, we should actually say constrained.

I mentioned this reference already in this thread, but it really is excellent on these issues.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...906.3507v1.pdf

This is why, for instance, the same fractal patterns like Barnsley's fern or a Menger sponge can be generated by either iterative (deterministic) or stochastic (random) processes.

With a determined model, local events or processes become effectively un-correlated because of non-linear effects. With a random model, a lack of correlation is presumed. But chaos theory is about the system view where what counts is local independence in some strict fashion (call it spontaneity, but it could be either random or deterministic so long as it has the more essential property of being uncorrelated). And then also the second part of the systems story, the existence of global constraints to force the essentially unpatterned into a pattern.

Chaos theory (which was called deterministic chaos of course, because iterative non-linear processes were the early example) is thus good evidence of why determined~random is not a fundamental issue at the level of complex systems.

You're saying what I meant, but in formal terms. Thanks. I was just trying to point out that chain-determinism isn't the only form determinism can take. Like I said in an earlier post, I think some people assume that determinism is synonymous with fate or destiny, as in event Z already being determined by event A without any intermediating variables in between. Events B-Y don't have to involve the exercise of free-will for them to influence the outcome at a subsequent event.

Also, I think your idea about finding macro-level systems-wide constraints is a little overly hopeful, but I do think relative consistency in certain patterns could be attributed to macro-factors expressed as distributed to micro processes and elements. For example, gravity does not always result in everything falling at the same speed or the same way as anything else, but it does account for a general pattern caused by the same force being expressed in everything in the same altitude of a given gravity well.

I would like to get into my obsession with attributing patterns of matter-energy expressions at the molecular level to macro-effects of the gravitational field on all interacting particles, but that would be hijacking the thread.

 

[brainstorm]

But, when one talks about initial conditions predetermining outcomes, intent is implied.

This confuses the issue. Determinism is not about a goal or specific outcome, so when someone says that the initial conditions of the universe lead to my choice of ice cream flavor all they have done is moved the choice... from me... to whomever chose initial conditions. This makes a determinist argument against freewill nothing more than reductio ad absurdum. It is a demand for some sort of ultimate choice.

If the initial conditions are random, in the sense that they have no cause, then what you have are differing levels of freedom throughout the universe. In our case, we are self-contained systems that can interact with the external system. Thus, we have freewill... within that scope. Absolute freewill of course is nonsense.

You've touched on a quintessential problem in free-will vs. determinism here, imo. I.e. the fact that people DESIRE to attribute choices to deterministic factors or, vice-versa, relatively determined choices to free will. Clearly the fact that both cases are possible indicate that free-will is undeniable (except insofar as people freely choose to deny it).

The really interesting question to me is what causes people to desire to deny their free-will in reflecting on particular choices or actions? Fear of responsibility or blame would be an obvious one, but are there potentially other benefits to hiding or denying one's voluntarism in making particular choices or engaging in certain actions/behaviors? What attracts people to the idea that they are an involuntary puppet?

 

[JoeDawg]

What attracts people to the idea that they are an involuntary puppet?

What attracts people to blaming individuals for every aspect of their current situation?

People want simple answers... because the world is often overwhelming.

 

[brainstorm]

What attracts people to blaming individuals for every aspect of their current situation?

The line between blaming and recognizing responsibility for actions is a fine one much of the time. Attributing responsibility to individuals for things they do has a lot to do with ascertaining whether someone actually committed a particular action, what their intent was in doing so, and whether they were aware of the potential effects of what they were doing. Of course, being ignorant of the effects doesn't prevent them from occurring, but it can mean the difference between attributing blame or simply ignorant responsibility.

What I find ironic is when ppl avoid blaming others because they have an internalized an ideology that no matter whose fault something is, blaming yourself wins you social approval points. This is why you have to listen to customer service reps constantly blame themselves for things that aren't their fault - i.e. because they're trying to manipulate you to like them and forgive them and their company. They don't actually care if it's their fault or their companies, nor do they honestly feel sorry.

People want simple answers... because the world is often overwhelming.

This also amazes me, especially because people often demand simplicity in the name of realism. If reality is complex, you would think that people would want to be realistic by NOT reducing the complexity of reality. Instead the opposite is true. People insist that "the reality is . . ." and then assert something deceptively simple. Only the truest scientists are interested in reality as it actually exists - and everyone else just uses knowledge to play social games and vie for power (not that scientists never do this - that's why I say "true" scientists).

 

[apeiron]

This confuses the issue. Determinism is not about a goal or specific outcome...

It would be true that determinism leads to the idea that everything simply unfolds from initial conditions, and so there is no room at all in this scheme for teleology of any stripe. Outcomes can have no effect on what happens, they are simply the emergent result. Determinism says there is only efficient cause (coupled with material cause).

But QM nonlocality is at least one experimentally verified and strong reason to doubt that this can be a "true" model of reality (as opposed to a generally useful one).

I am arguing from the perspective of a different model which accepts all four of Aristotle's causes, including finality. Constraints emerge, but also have a top-down or retrocausal role in the way they shape up what exists locally.

And it is a fact that people find it almost impossible not to think about reality in a-teleological terms. In evolution, for instance, people want to say traits evolve to fulfil a purpose. To a strict reductionist, presuming that only efficient causality exists, this is heresy. But systems science is quite comfortable with teleological language as it does have a proper place in the models - as a systems memory and anticipations, as its global constraints.

 

[GeorgCantor]

When you have managed to wedge Mike Tyson through a double slit, you will then have addressed my point. Until then, this is a non-sequitar.

LOL

"Some things are so serious, that one can only joke about them".


Actually, molecules are matter and ironically, that which you've been taught in school - that you are to a large extent your own DNA, is also a molecule which will display particular characteristics only when YOU inquire about it.

The universe is:
1) what is out there

Yes, there exists an out there.

2) everything I observe

Yes, there are THINGS that are real and have properties out there whether you measure them or not.

3) the model I create that explains 1 and 2.

Now the only problem with the model you've created above is that it's contradicted by facts established in experiments and mathematical theorems. Einstein's dream is shattered but his ultimate dismay:


"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

may have finally been answered.

Through observation and reason.

Actually, that's a relevant point you are raising here as it pertains to the current discussion - namely the "everything is obvious" mentality, which has left us unable to answer 3 much simpler questions than that of freewill and determinism. Namely:


1. What the Hell is really going on?
2. What is really the difference between here and there?
3. What is really the difference between something and nothing?

Oh, and I recommend you ask nicely before you try, his freewill might decide to beat you to a bloody pulp.

lol

Ironically, your 'proposition' may be all it will take to answer the above three questions.

 

[GeorgCantor]

It would be true that determinism leads to the idea that everything simply unfolds from initial conditions, and so there is no room at all in this scheme for teleology of any stripe. Outcomes can have no effect on what happens, they are simply the emergent result. Determinism says there is only efficient cause (coupled with material cause).

But QM nonlocality is at least one experimentally verified and strong reason to doubt that this can be a "true" model of reality (as opposed to a generally useful one).

I am arguing from the perspective of a different model which accepts all four of Aristotle's causes, including finality. Constraints emerge, but also have a top-down or retrocausal role in the way they shape up what exists locally.

And it is a fact that people find it almost impossible not to think about reality in a-teleological terms. In evolution, for instance, people want to say traits evolve to fulfil a purpose. To a strict reductionist, presuming that only efficient causality exists, this is heresy. But systems science is quite comfortable with teleological language as it does have a proper place in the models - as a systems memory and anticipations, as its global constraints.

I am glad to see people who show flexibility in their thinking, even if i don't agree with everything you say.

The point of the Philosophy forum should not be about who is right, but who is LESS wrong.

 

[GeorgCantor]

What attracts people to the idea that they are an involuntary puppet?

Perhaps they really are involuntary puppets(as they claim), and their sole purpose is to spread confusion among those who actually exist and are actually thinking about that which exists.

 

[imiyakawa]

The ball's path is being determined, yes, but how can you say the factors determining it do not change according to how earlier factors interact?

I'm not saying this. In this deterministic universe that we're talking about, I'm not denying the violation of the superposition principle (non-linearity in the tennis ball system) OR that certain systems are unpredictably (in practice only) chaotic.

Do you mean to say that the entire course of events from the initial dropping of the ball to its final position on the ground could be predicted by a complex enough model?

If the universe is deterministic, then only in principle (probably).

I think there are random variables that occur at multiple points in the ball's fall that reset the particular path the ball will take, which will be deterministic, until the next random factor is introduced.

Could you clarify what you mean by "will be deterministic, until the next random factor is introduced". It sounds to me that you're trying to slip in randomness into this hypothetical. Or do you simply mean it's a stochastic process - the definition that statisticians et al. use?
----

What attracts people to the idea that they are an involuntary puppet?

It depends on perspective. IF the universe is fully deterministic, I am going to do 'X' 100% of the time (I probably won't be able to predict it, but this doesn't change anything). You may still think you have "Free will". I won't think so, even if the premise of determinism begs the question. I am going to think a certain thought right now and there's nothing that can be done about it. It's not about being attracted to the idea. It's a logical consequence of determinism. For practical purposes only, though, I will have consciously efficacious will.
----

If the initial conditions are random, in the sense that they have no cause, then what you have are differing levels of freedom throughout the universe. In our case, we are self-contained systems that can interact with the external system. Thus, we have freewill... within that scope. Absolute freewill of course is nonsense.

Yes. What you're doing is crucial. People either argue from the definition of ultimate free will, deny it, get argued with from the other definition. Or, they say that free will exists for practical purposes, and get argued from those coming in from the deterministic/determined random perspective.

You said "determinism isn't about a specific outcome." I think you're arguing from the point of view of antecedent conditions, be they random or otherwise. I don't see how this changes anything, could you clarify?
-----

(on teleology in systems) .. In evolution, for instance, people want to say traits evolve to fulfil a purpose... But systems science is quite comfortable with teleological language as it does have a proper place in the models - as a systems memory and anticipations, as its global constraints.

Surely evolution is not an example of the teleological evolution of a system? Actually... there are different way of thinking about evolution, that could definitely be one of them. My confusion is likely sourced from my misappropriation of your definition of a teleological process.

 

[alt]

My takeaway from this is that I really don't want to be an ant on your gum tree! ;)

..and that was even before I fired up the 22' Timberbear !

(just kidding - I love that tree !)

 

[brainstorm]

Perhaps they really are involuntary puppets(as they claim), and their sole purpose is to spread confusion among those who actually exist and are actually thinking about that which exists.

The problem is that I don't think anyone can actually ever transcend their free-will to truly become an involuntary puppet. I think their free-will always plays an integral role in their choice to go along with the puppeteer. No matter how habituated they become to responding to impetuses for action they perceive as totally external to themselves, I don't think their actions ever transcend free-will and become directly determined by external influences. They would just be hiding their free-will, I think.

 

[nismaratwork]

The problem is that I don't think anyone can actually ever transcend their free-will to truly become an involuntary puppet. I think their free-will always plays an integral role in their choice to go along with the puppeteer. No matter how habituated they become to responding to impetuses for action they perceive as totally external to themselves, I don't think their actions ever transcend free-will and become directly determined by external influences. They would just be hiding their free-will, I think.

In a very small way, the concept of an abreaction during hypnosis is probably a fine example of your point.

 

[nismaratwork]

..and that was even before I fired up the 22' Timberbear !

(just kidding - I love that tree !)

Oh, I can see you love the tree, it is the ants who live in a constant state of anty dread (the anty-particle to dread).

I think you're enormously lucky to have a fine tree, and a million ants to observe at your leisure, and the ants are lucky that you appreciate both.

 

[alt]

I wouldn't spend much time worrying about what kind of reality de-localized, indefinite, unmeasured and non-existent ants would experience

But you (we) do so with humans with little progress. I thought it would be neat to start again with ants.

Can non-existent ants wonder - what the Hell is really going on?

Of course ! They were flurrying around in a mad panic for several minutes. I'm sure they were thinking what the Hell is really going on?

 

[alt]

Oh, I can see you love the tree, it is the ants who live in a constant state of anty dread (the anty-particle to dread).

I think you're enormously lucky to have a fine tree, and a million ants to observe at your leisure, and the ants are lucky that you appreciate both.

I find it a microcosm of all there is .. a universe in a grain of sand, in a Blakish sort of a way :-)

 

[alt]

The line between blaming and recognizing responsibility for actions is a fine one much of the time. Attributing responsibility to individuals for things they do has a lot to do with ascertaining whether someone actually committed a particular action, what their intent was in doing so, and whether they were aware of the potential effects of what they were doing. Of course, being ignorant of the effects doesn't prevent them from occurring, but it can mean the difference between attributing blame or simply ignorant responsibility.

What I find ironic is when ppl avoid blaming others because they have an internalized an ideology that no matter whose fault something is, blaming yourself wins you social approval points. This is why you have to listen to customer service reps constantly blame themselves for things that aren't their fault - i.e. because they're trying to manipulate you to like them and forgive them and their company. They don't actually care if it's their fault or their companies, nor do they honestly feel sorry.



This also amazes me, especially because people often demand simplicity in the name of realism. If reality is complex, you would think that people would want to be realistic by NOT reducing the complexity of reality. Instead the opposite is true. People insist that "the reality is . . ." and then assert something deceptively simple. Only the truest scientists are interested in reality as it actually exists - and everyone else just uses knowledge to play social games and vie for power (not that scientists never do this - that's why I say "true" scientists).

I don't mean to intrude too much on this thread, the intellection of which I'm quite in awe of, but can you tell, who are these 'true' scientists who are interested in reality as it actually exists ?

 

[brainstorm]

I don't mean to intrude too much on this thread, the intellection of which I'm quite in awe of, but can you tell, who are these 'true' scientists who are interested in reality as it actually exists ?

You can't really divide the world into people who are interested in true reality and those that aren't. It's more like anyone can have the experience of wanting to cut through obfuscation to really know something beyond what other people want them to know about it or what is convenient for themselves to know. Who hasn't had the experience of wanting to know the real truth, even when they suspect it would disrupt their reality or otherwise hurt them. What kid doesn't eventually want to know the truth about Santa Claus, even if they know it's going to ruin the magic of Christmas if it turns out he doesn't really exist?

 

[nismaratwork]

You can't really divide the world into people who are interested in true reality and those that aren't. It's more like anyone can have the experience of wanting to cut through obfuscation to really know something beyond what other people want them to know about it or what is convenient for themselves to know. Who hasn't had the experience of wanting to know the real truth, even when they suspect it would disrupt their reality or otherwise hurt them. What kid doesn't eventually want to know the truth about Santa Claus, even if they know it's going to ruin the magic of Christmas if it turns out he doesn't really exist?

We are chock full of monkey curiosity; it's built into us and largely embraced.

 

[brainstorm]

We are chock full of monkey curiosity; it's built into us and largely embraced.

Maybe at some level of abstract romanticism, but few people have the discipline to actually embrace and appreciate will to truth and will to power in everyday life. Most of the time, people are engaged in avoiding freedom and truth for the sake of generating harmonious interaction. Cyborg is the ultimately attractive social-image that has evolved, imo. People want all the aesthetics of healthy living flesh with the behavioral control and conformity of a robot. This is how, imo, free-will degenerates into little more than a means of following protocols and conforming to cultural prescriptions - and of course eschewing those who fail to follow suit. I'm not sure why creativity and individualism are under attack, but I have the idea that it has something to do with repression and the corresponding sadism of taking out your frustration on others instead of liberating yourself, which you are of course always free to do if you would dare.

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe at some level of abstract romanticism, but few people have the discipline to actually embrace and appreciate will to truth and will to power in everyday life. Most of the time, people are engaged in avoiding freedom and truth for the sake of generating harmonious interaction. Cyborg is the ultimately attractive social-image that has evolved, imo. People want all the aesthetics of healthy living flesh with the behavioral control and conformity of a robot. This is how, imo, free-will degenerates into little more than a means of following protocols and conforming to cultural prescriptions - and of course eschewing those who fail to follow suit. I'm not sure why creativity and individualism are under attack, but I have the idea that it has something to do with repression and the corresponding sadism of taking out your frustration on others instead of liberating yourself, which you are of course always free to do if you would dare.

Interesting, and do I detect a hint of Nietzsche there? For myself, I remain as before, full of monkey curiosity. I agree with Dirac, that one can replace a faith in god or religion with a faith that we need to improve. I don't see homogenizing society and punishing those who fail to conform as improvement. I don't necessarily agree with the cyborg angle, because beyond control there is enhancement; I might point to drug use as a better example. People want control, it's natural, but at some point as you say, it crushes who you are or could be.

 

[brainstorm]

Interesting, and do I detect a hint of Nietzsche there? For myself, I remain as before, full of monkey curiosity. I agree with Dirac, that one can replace a faith in god or religion with a faith that we need to improve. I don't see homogenizing society and punishing those who fail to conform as improvement. I don't necessarily agree with the cyborg angle, because beyond control there is enhancement; I might point to drug use as a better example. People want control, it's natural, but at some point as you say, it crushes who you are or could be.

"Detect a hint of Nietzche?" Yes, "will to power" is a Nietzchean idea but you either recognize what it is empirically or not. It's so annoying when people act like these concepts are completely relative to the philosopher or "school of thought" they are attributed to. I also don't get why you call curiosity "monkey curiosity." It seems as if you're trying to associate curiosity with irrational animalistic behavior. It may be linked to that, but will to truth goes beyond what monkeys feel when searching through your pockets for shiny objects. Will to power motivates people to conform without fear of punishment or even a desire to homogeneity most of the time, imo. Oftentimes, people conform by distinguishing themselves from so-called Others, and by doing so only sub-consciously end up conforming to other others who represent differentiation from the others they wish to differentiate themselves from. In race & ethnic studies, for example, negative stereotypes circulated regarding ethnic others are utilized to stimulate conformity to whiteness as transcendence of behavior seen as "ethnic" and therefore lower. The result is diversity within white culture, although there is conformity to the attitude that transcending behavioral characteristics identified as low/ethnic is good. So there is a will to whiteness in the sense it is seen as a form of power to secure certain privileges (although avoidance of poverty could be seen as punishment avoidance too). That's slightly different from active conformity and pursuit of homogeneity, isn't it?

 

[nismaratwork]

"Detect a hint of Nietzche?" Yes, "will to power" is a Nietzchean idea but you either recognize what it is empirically or not. It's so annoying when people act like these concepts are completely relative to the philosopher or "school of thought" they are attributed to. I also don't get why you call curiosity "monkey curiosity." It seems as if you're trying to associate curiosity with irrational animalistic behavior. It may be linked to that, but will to truth goes beyond what monkeys feel when searching through your pockets for shiny objects. Will to power motivates people to conform without fear of punishment or even a desire to homogeneity most of the time, imo. Oftentimes, people conform by distinguishing themselves from so-called Others, and by doing so only sub-consciously end up conforming to other others who represent differentiation from the others they wish to differentiate themselves from. In race & ethnic studies, for example, negative stereotypes circulated regarding ethnic others are utilized to stimulate conformity to whiteness as transcendence of behavior seen as "ethnic" and therefore lower. The result is diversity within white culture, although there is conformity to the attitude that transcending behavioral characteristics identified as low/ethnic is good. So there is a will to whiteness in the sense it is seen as a form of power to secure certain privileges (although avoidance of poverty could be seen as punishment avoidance too). That's slightly different from active conformity and pursuit of homogeneity, isn't it?

No... I attribute human curiosity to our evolutionary heritage, and "der will zur macht" may not be specific to the philosopher, but it's still fairly recognizable. Perhaps you learned that specific turn of phrase elsewhere, but tell me, was I wrong?

 

[brainstorm]

No... I attribute human curiosity to our evolutionary heritage, and "der will zur macht" may not be specific to the philosopher, but it's still fairly recognizable. Perhaps you learned that specific turn of phrase elsewhere, but tell me, was I wrong?

Probably Nietzche through Foucault, yes, but don't you think the genealogical citations distract from the substantive discussion of content? Positioning and posturing really gets on my nerves in academic discourse. What's worse is how often it is taken as a substitute for any substantive argumentation AT ALL. It's just flag-waving.

 

[JoeDawg]

The line between blaming and recognizing responsibility for actions is a fine one much of the time.

I'd argue its a mile-wide and full of grey.

Only the truest scientists are interested in reality as it actually exists

Science isn't interested in what exists, its interested in what can be consistently observed.
And everyday reality is quite different from the highly structured reality of math/science. When people say they want simple, they mean straight-forward and useful. Pursuing the details, for their own sake, is just autism.

 

[brainstorm]

I'd argue its a mile-wide and full of grey.

that's vague.

Science isn't interested in what exists, its interested in what can be consistently observed.
And everyday reality is quite different from the highly structured reality of math/science. When people say they want simple, they mean straight-forward and useful. Pursuing the details, for their own sake, is just autism.

Sounds like someone who's afraid of the unabashed pursuit of truth. Pursuing truth is just anti-obfuscation. It has nothing to do with autism.

 

[JoeDawg]

that's vague.

Yes. It is.

Sounds like someone who's afraid of the unabashed pursuit of truth. Pursuing truth is just anti-obfuscation. It has nothing to do with autism.

Counting the number of ants in an anthill is pursuing truth, about an anthill, but its a waste of time(for most people) unless you are someone who gets off on counting things.

Philosophy isn't just about navel gazing, its about how we choose to live.