The Mind; determinism and its reality

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Mind; determinism and its reality

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 04:10 am
The notion of freewill has been a philosophical topic of which some of the most prominent Intellectuals have debated refutably over since the Ancient Greek era up to the Contemporary age with no agreeable concur.
The philosophical concept which hypothesises that the Mind is not exempt to the laws of Quantum Mechanics and thus is not immune to the same principles as any other material in the Objective World of space in/and time is determinism. In this concept it infers the view that every event, including human cognition, behaviour, decision, and action, is casually determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.
The premises of which are usually postulated to contrary the idea is that the consciousness of the Mind is indeed unique in its relationship with that of the Object body of which adheres to the same laws of physics as every other object that is apparent to us within the realm of 3 Dimensional reality of contiguity and causality (The contiguity and causality of which establishes motion and change to exist). Due to the Human Mind's seemingly alternative reality which seems to somewhat contradict the Laws and principles of Science, the same set of principles are not applicable to the Human consciousness and thus to freewill.
It does seem somewhat plausible to postulate and make justifications that alternative realities can exist and exhibit alternative laws of which we can only attempt to imagine. An example could constitute alternative laws of motion and causality, or not at all. It is unintelligible to gather notions of alternative principles of which are entirely different to which we have experienced in our existence. We are only capable of using alternative forms of which we are accustomed with that can be tangible notions all of which were established by our experiences in the Empiricist Realm of likely limited parallels.
One book in particular of which attempts to dissuade persons for believing that Sentimental Beings with consciousness that Humans consist, are purely objective; is Being And Time by Heidegger. Within its rich contents are propositions as to why the Selves are not objects. He concluded that tensed time is constitutive of human being and that self aware being is time, and that this is central to the premises of why it the we are not purely objects. He inferred that there is no 'ground of being'-being, as tensed as a temporary, is not grounded in anything at all. This rather daunting conclusion of which he reaches may be pivotal to justified truth. One such mistake that Heidegger makes is equating existence with the capacity to be an object of conscious experience, and therefore mistakenly attributes to all existence the tensed temporariness that characterised experience.
The theory of which seems more intelligible but indeed more overawe is that Selves are not exempt to the same set of Principles as that of Objects. The notion of Determinism asserts that all actions from a human are influenced by antecedent influences and the proceeding notions and actions are also influenced by a priori set of attributes. If One were to refute the idea with the conceit that formulated cues within the mind is spontaneous and is purely willed to the self, one could contradict such a proposition with a more atomic theory of viewpoint. All ideas, states and memories are bounded by neurological structures to Mind within the Brain. The consciousness is formed and maintained by such atomic structures. Such structures of which, according to the principle laws of Science, are too bounded in Quantum Mechanics of contingency, antecedent reactions and posteriori deterministic states.

We can never truly have clarity over the matter due to limited realm of which knowledge is established. But I recognise that such a topic can be both copious in debilitation to many deep individuals and also bearing fascination in manifolds.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 12:31 pm
@raidon04,
I believe in causality and ordered possiblities but not determinism.
Does mind (will) have agency in the world?
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 01:49 pm
@raidon04,
If "Mind" is subject to physical laws, then the very essence of mind is cancelled. No need in philosophy - Quantum Mechanics is enough.
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 02:08 pm
@raidon04,
I don't think it's advisable to identify mind = will.
 
ValueRanger
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 03:29 pm
@raidon04,
de:term:in:ism

Root Cause, term, a spacetime object. As long as spacetime persists, terms de and pro (example: deficiency/proficiency, or entropy/genesis - all dialectical terms in Flux?) persist as a range of spacetime Flux.

Is the give-and-take of reality in constant, dialectical Flux?.. as long as spacetime persists?
 
raidon04
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 04:39 pm
@raidon04,
Many determinists although argue that materialism does not present a complete understanding of the universe, because while it can describe determinate interactions among material things, it ignores the minds or souls of conscious beings, i.e. that the Mind maybe exempt from the set of laws posited by science
A number of positions can be postulated:
-Immaterial souls exist and exert a non-deterministic causal influence on bodies. (Traditional free-will, Interactionist dualism)
-Immaterial souls exist, but are part of deterministic framework.
-Immaterial souls exist, but exert no causal influence, free or determined (Epiphenomenalism, occasionalism)
-Immaterial souls do not exist - and that the Mind-Body issue has some other solution.
-Immaterial souls are all that exist (asserted in Idealism)

No such conclusion can be agreed upon on the matter as we can never have full awareness outside of ourselves as Human Beings, and thus we will never be able to fuse both inner and outer experiences to form a better understanding of life.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 06:09 pm
@raidon04,
raidon04;94943 wrote:
Many determinists although argue that materialism does not present a complete understanding of the universe,

No such conclusion can be agreed upon on the matter as we can never have full awareness outside of ourselves as Human Beings, and thus we will never be able to fuse both inner and outer experiences to form a better understanding of life.

There is no comprehensive materialist mechanistic deterministic theory or explanation of mind, phenomenology and subjective experience.

Your dedicated materialist will tell you it is only a matter of time and science before one becomes available. A metaphysical speculation of the first order.

Those with non materialist ontologies will tell you that science will only ever offer a paritial and incomplete picture of "experience". That science inherently only deals with the external measurable observable properties of "reality"

At the current time there is no way to definitiely settle such questions. It may be there will never be a solution. Individuals can take a position and describe why they hold that position (taking science and the facts fully into account) but both sides are engaging in philosophical speculation.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 08:46 pm
@raidon04,
raidon04;94879 wrote:
The philosophical concept which hypothesises that the Mind is not exempt to the laws of Quantum Mechanics and thus is not immune to the same principles as any other material in the Objective World of space in/and time is determinism.


... I thought the poster child of determinism was Laplace's Demon (which was undermined by quantum mechanics) ... I think what you have described here would more appropriately be called "physicalism" ... and since we are still learning new things about quantum mechanics and how it decoheres into and interacts with classical mechanics, even a hard-core physicalist has to admit that the jury is still out on whether or not free will is an ontological reality ...
 
richrf
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 09:06 pm
@paulhanke,
I have to thank Rupert Sheldrake for this interesting idea.

If everything in the universe is evolving there is reason to believe that even physical laws evolve. If this is so, and the laws of physics are evolving (a possibility) then there is reason to doubt any notion of determinism since the laws of nature (as they are called) may be nothing more than habits that are subject to change, and are therefore possibilities or probabilities instead of certainties..

Rich
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 09:24 pm
@richrf,
richrf;94971 wrote:
I have to thank Rupert Sheldrake for this interesting idea.
If everything in the universe is evolving there is reason to believe that even physical laws evolve. If this is so, and the laws of physics are evolving (a possibility) then there is reason to doubt any notion of determinism since the laws of nature (as they are called) may be nothing more than habits that are subject to change, and are therefore possibilities or probabilities instead of certainties..Rich

The laws of nature do not appear to be deterministic but stochastic (ordered possiblities). Although I like the notion of the laws of nature as habits, there is no evidence that the laws of nature have changed over time or that the laws of nature are not uniform throughout our universe.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 06:53 am
@richrf,
richrf;94971 wrote:

If everything in the universe is evolving there is reason to believe that even physical laws evolve.
Rich


It is by no means certain that Everything in the universe Evolves. Rocks do not evolve; rocks change. So one might rephrase the first part of the conditional argument to "if everything in the universe changes." But doesn't this statement apply, as far as we know, to physical objects and their spacial and temporal positions?
If so, then the conclusion that "physical laws" Evolve (or better, change) is without warrant since laws are not things. Laws may be modified to take into account new data, or to increase the field of their explanation, but they do not seem to change in a strict sense:--- we do not have a law of gravity one morning and a law of un-gravity the next.
 
ValueRanger
 
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 10:39 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;95025 wrote:
It is by no means certain that Everything in the universe Evolves. Rocks do not evolve; rocks change. So one might rephrase the first part of the conditional argument to "if everything in the universe changes." But doesn't this statement apply, as far as we know, to physical objects and their spacial and temporal positions?
If so, then the conclusion that "physical laws" Evolve (or better, change) is without warrant since laws are not things. Laws may be modified to take into account new data, or to increase the field of their explanation, but they do not seem to change in a strict sense:--- we do not have a law of gravity one morning and a law of un-gravity the next.

Flux Venns to reality being a modular, scalar model.

The law of inverse proportion (Golden Proportion): as humans become more and more in control of the physics we are byproducts of, the potential for us to transform life in greater, more evolved Mean...

Are we equally capable of creating as we have been created? Do we have an underlying cause, as defiant to our persistent momentum as we are, to become the greater God? And if this is our consistent objective, can your subjective part equally evolve?
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:34 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;95025 wrote:
It is by no means certain that Everything in the universe Evolves. Rocks do not evolve; rocks change.


It appears to me that the quantum structure is changing in all cases. This would be the case for the universe as a whole which is evolving (changing) all the time. Humans and other species are just part of the general overall evolving structure. Everything is being pulled along with it.

jgweed;95025 wrote:
If so, then the conclusion that "physical laws" Evolve (or better, change) is without warrant since laws are not things.


What are labeled as laws are simply descriptions that attempt to organize observations. Since what is being observed (some aspect of the universe) is constantly evolving, the laws will change right along with it. As you may have observed, laws are changing all of the time.

jgweed;95025 wrote:
Laws may be modified to take into account new data, or to increase the field of their explanation, but they do not seem to change in a strict sense:--- we do not have a law of gravity one morning and a law of un-gravity the next.


Exactly, they are being modifided all the time as what we are observing is changing. To what extent the object and subject are entangled is one of further exploration. What it certainly appears that one is changing right along with the other as are all of the descriptions that we use/label.

Rich

---------- Post added 10-04-2009 at 12:38 PM ----------

prothero;94978 wrote:
The laws of nature do not appear to be deterministic but stochastic (ordered possiblities). Although I like the notion of the laws of nature as habits, there is no evidence that the laws of nature have changed over time or that the laws of nature are not uniform throughout our universe.


Certainly, what we call laws are changing all of the time. One may say that we were mistaken, but I think this is just avoiding the whole situation which is basically:

1) The universe is evolving

2) Humans, animal, earth, and all forms of matter that are composed of elementary particles (quantum) are evolving necessarily with the universe

3) The laws that we apply are evolving/changing by simple observation.

Everything is evolving in tandem because everything is interlinked.

What we view as temporary laws seem to be nothing more than habits - of ourselves and our surrounding universe, which are evolving and changing.

I think Sheldrake provides remarkable insights with this simple observation. I personally think it is a marvelous evolving way to view an evolving universe.

Rich
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:02 pm
@richrf,
richrf;95047 wrote:
It appears to me that the quantum structure is changing in all cases. This would be the case for the universe as a whole which is evolving (changing) all the time. Humans and other species are just part of the general overall evolving structure. Everything is being pulled along with it. What we view as temporary laws seem to be nothing more than habits - of ourselves and our surrounding universe, which are evolving and changing.

I think Sheldrake provides remarkable insights with this simple observation. I personally think it is a marvelous evolving way to view an evolving universe.

Rich

I have a process evolutionary view of life and the physical sturcture of the universe.
but
I am pretty sure gravity existed before newton and fundamentally has not changed in the way it operates since the birth of the universe.
It should take some kind of actual evidence to change that notion.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:09 pm
@prothero,
prothero;95113 wrote:
I have a process evolutionary view of life and the physical sturcture of the universe.
but
I am pretty sure gravity existed before newton and fundamentally has not changed in the way it operates since the birth of the universe.
It should take some kind of actual evidence to change that notion.


It is your belief. And over time, the nature of gravity may be better understood and everyone's viewpoint of it may change. That is the beauty of life, it is constantly evolving.

Rich
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:46 pm
@raidon04,
Even speculative philosophy is based on reason (coherence) and takes into account the facts of experience and science (correlation).
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 07:37 am
@prothero,
prothero;95120 wrote:
Even speculative philosophy is based on reason (coherence) and takes into account the facts of experience and science (correlation).


And what experience has taught me is that every Law eventually changes. I am simply recognizing simple observations. Sheldrake has put a little more meat the issue by describing Laws as habits. I think that is a very nice way of describing humans and the universe as a whole.

Rich
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 10:34 pm
@raidon04,
raidon04;94879 wrote:
The notion of freewill has been a philosophical topic of which some of the most prominent Intellectuals have debated refutably over since the Ancient Greek era up to the Contemporary age with no agreeable concur.
The philosophical concept which hypothesises that the Mind is not exempt to the laws of Quantum Mechanics and thus is not immune to the same principles as any other material in the Objective World of space in/and time is determinism. In this concept it infers the view that every event, including human cognition, behaviour, decision, and action, is casually determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.
The premises of which are usually postulated to contrary the idea is that the consciousness of the Mind is indeed unique in its relationship with that of the Object body of which adheres to the same laws of physics as every other object that is apparent to us within the realm of 3 Dimensional reality of contiguity and causality (The contiguity and causality of which establishes motion and change to exist). Due to the Human Mind's seemingly alternative reality which seems to somewhat contradict the Laws and principles of Science, the same set of principles are not applicable to the Human consciousness and thus to freewill.


The principles of physics are not applicable to free will or anything else insofar as those things are experienced phenomena. The succession of one's experiences in consciousness has not the slightest respect for laws of physics. In fact, even trying to apply scientific principles to experienced phenomena is nonsense: a confusion of terms, like saying that the action 'walking' is red.

However, if we're talking about our behavior as observed from a 3rd person perspective, then I don't see any argument for free will as a casual force. If we assume that our behavior is the product of physical developments in the animal man, then those developments are subject to cause and effect like everthing else in the physical world.

So I would say that free will exists insofar as it is the familiar experience of willing, but that it does not if by 'free will' we mean the actual causal power of some unknown agent (soul e.g.) over physical reality.

Well explained Sir, nice thread
 
ValueRanger
 
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 11:44 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;95369 wrote:
The principles of physics are not applicable to free will or anything else insofar as those things are experienced phenomena. The succession of one's experiences in consciousness has not the slightest respect for laws of physics. In fact, even trying to apply scientific principles to experienced phenomena is nonsense: a confusion of terms, like saying that the action 'walking' is red.

However, if we're talking about our behavior as observed from a 3rd person perspective, then I don't see any argument for free will as a casual force. If we assume that our behavior is the product of physical developments in the animal man, then those developments are subject to cause and effect like everthing else in the physical world.

So I would say that free will exists insofar as it is the familiar experience of willing, but that it does not if by 'free will' we mean the actual causal power of some unknown agent (soul e.g.) over physical reality.

Well explained Sir, nice thread

For every action, equal and opposite reaction, relative to the set scale. The more or less free will application of two people duct taped together, and on opposite sides of the planet, can be equitable. But when causal chains are erroneously sustained with the intentions of equally valuable distribution, then erroneously breaking such chains is also true.

So counter to err, we have more and more choice, relative to quantified states of individual qualia, to distribute value through such sustainable physics.


I see more and more of self refutation, like the quote above, regarding scalar physics in human choice. What worries me most, for the sake of sustainability, is most of these people don't know they're doing it - yet continue to make devaluing choices while the more valuable physics math is right there in front of them, and within them.

If the transitional sequencing of the laws of physics are too often breached with our own genetic hardware, what chance does our philosophical software stand in sustainability? And as the hardware is to the software, so the software is eventually to the hardware.

Education, as usual, is key.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2009 09:51 pm
@ValueRanger,
ValueRanger;95540 wrote:
For every action, equal and opposite reaction, relative to the set scale. The more or less free will application of two people duct taped together, and on opposite sides of the planet, can be equitable. But when causal chains are erroneously sustained with the intentions of equally valuable distribution, then erroneously breaking such chains is also true.

So counter to err, we have more and more choice, relative to quantified states of individual qualia, to distribute value through such sustainable physics.


I see more and more of self refutation, like the quote above, regarding scalar physics in human choice. What worries me most, for the sake of sustainability, is most of these people don't know they're doing it - yet continue to make devaluing choices while the more valuable physics math is right there in front of them, and within them.

If the transitional sequencing of the laws of physics are too often breached with our own genetic hardware, what chance does our philosophical software stand in sustainability? And as the hardware is to the software, so the software is eventually to the hardware.

Education, as usual, is key.


Perhaps you could explain what you mean to say in such a way that the words in the post, taken together as a thought, have meaning. Smile
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Mind; determinism and its reality
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/19/2020 at 09:42:59