The Mind; determinism and its reality

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;95369 wrote:

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

I respectfully disagree
As Hume noted we do not observe cause and effect (we observe that certain events follow other events) and by deductive reasoning infer cause and effect for certain events. Its extrapolation to an inviolatable law of nature for all events and experiences is metaphysical.

We also observe and experience that we can raise our little finger or not as we "will" it.

The assertion that mind has no agency in the world "at all" is neither proven nor experienced. In fact it is a denial of our most fundamental intuition and what everyone presupposes in practice (hard core common sense or as Pierce would have it "commonsenism". Even the behavior of "quantum" particles defies LaPlace like determinism.

@prothero,

prothero;97334 wrote:

I respectfully disagree
As Hume noted we do not observe cause and effect (we observe that certain events follow other events) and by deductive reasoning infer cause and effect for certain events. Its extrapolation to an inviolatable law of nature for all events and experiences is metaphysical.

We also observe and experience that we can raise our little finger or not as we "will" it.

The assertion that mind has no agency in the world "at all" is neither proven nor experienced. In fact it is a denial of our most fundamental intuition and what everyone presupposes in practice (hard core common sense or as Pierce would have it "commonsenism". Even the behavior of "quantum" particles defies LaPlace like determinism.

That is somewhat true, but only if one focuses upon the apparent. Indeed Quantum Physics indicates that Random and in-casual changes can ensue in reactions which leads those observers to the tangible conclusion that not all is of Causal Determinism. But as humans, lacking both the ability to observe the noumenon of ourselves and the incapability of observation and interaction with all that is contained within all parallels, we will always be only capable of viewing and understanding the temporal. Because we cannot view the complete picture of antecedence, we will truly never know whether complete determinism is tangible.

@prothero,

prothero;97334 wrote:

I respectfully disagree
As Hume noted we do not observe cause and effect (we observe that certain events follow other events) and by deductive reasoning infer cause and effect for certain events. Its extrapolation to an inviolatable law of nature for all events and experiences is metaphysical.

We also observe and experience that we can raise our little finger or not as we "will" it.

Ah, indeed. If I'm reading you correctly, I think the argument is that it is illogical to say that will (as actual causal power) is imaginary because causality itself could be considered imaginary in the same way; i.e. we infer an agent that wills, as we infer cause and effect. I agree completely. I want to adress this in more detail, as it involves larger questions, like the relation between external world and phenomenological world, and how in fact we define those terms. But, I've got to get to a class...I'll be back.

Quote:

The assertion that mind has no agency in the world "at all" is neither proven nor experienced. In fact it is a denial of our most fundamental intuition and what everyone presupposes in practice

Certinainly, but that doesn't make it (beleif in will) true or justified. A belief can be essential for survival and still be false. The 'impotence hypothesis' is just that: an unproven (and unprovable) hypothesis. I find it persuasive, many do not.

@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

From the laws of physics change does not necessarily follow there is a reason to doubt any notion of determinism. It depends on how the laws of physics change: in deterministic way or randomly. Smile

Regards,
Kirill

@raidon04,

I, in my humble opinion, Determinism is a fact not just for Mind itself, but for everything !
I don?t agree with Heisenberg principle of uncertainty...turns to much to Metaphysics in a Transcendent way...somehow it must be wrong ! We will see...hopefully !

Another thing is that, what is given to us is not ours to decide...therefore there is no such thing as free will...

The fact is that "things" relate to each other... Evolution itself, is enough proof of this, and in that sense, we can speak of a "Gestalt effect" in witch the causal order is previous to space/time relation... comes "? priori" like in a simulation, a film, where motion, Space and Time, all of them, their function, is to bring up the pictures already in place...Things are, in ONE ! (Monism view)
...from the Noumenon at the basis, the "Entities" are as a revelation thru space/time of this Unity, precisely because they bring in themselves the signature and the inflection of the all Totality itself, imposing their own "situation", their specific place, form, and gravitational relation with other things/objects...actually this is why Causality is the basis of Logic... without it, it simply can?t run, does n?t work...as no sense, no direction, no motive...

Freedom, lies in front of me like a "dodgy" concept witch i don't really understand, once it is, itself by definition, against Logic in it?s core !
(...there is no End in sight in Randomness...)
Philosophy cannot accept this awkward Idea without posting some very big questions, about its deepest meaning...

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

POST SCRIPTUM: Some of you will probably say that my concept of Evolution is in essence very close to Intelligent Design just because it does not support the notion of random mutations...it?s true, it does n?t support any notion of randomness, only discretion. In fact i am not an adept of the Concept of Int. Design in any possible way, once i do actually support the notion of mutation itself. Just not, as a truly random thing...
Evolution is, the way i see it, a transition of states in things. One that comes in "packets" thru Space/Time...those "states" are ORDER itself, in simulated "motion", happening, Being, showing unity thru LOGIC, like a super structural algorithm that brings itself up !

...The end of the Walk is, in it?s very own beginning ! Otherwise were would the Walk go, what would the Walk be ?

Apologies for my English...:sarcastic:

@wholethinker,

wholethinker;97945 wrote:

From the laws of physics change does not necessarily follow there is a reason to doubt any notion of determinism. It depends on how the laws of physics change: in deterministic way or randomly.

Regards,
Kirill

It is possible, that there is one guiding force for everything. Some people call it God. Others call it the Dao. Some call it the The Theory of Everything, which is now being amplified to include a Theory of Everything that defines how the Theory itself changes. I think it is safe to say that we are a bit away from this, if such a thing exists.

On the other hand, it is just as likely that things just POP! based upon the movement and force of the creative Mind (Mind being universal and/or individual in nature), which can move this way or that way as it wishes. I prefer this notion since it is what I experience everyday.

Either approach will do. One can believe one or the other as one wishes since it is a belief no matter what and one can live accordingly.

Rich

---------- Post added 10-16-2009 at 11:10 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;97964 wrote:

I, in my humble opinion, Determinism is a fact not just for Mind itself, but for everything !

I have never seen any evidence in my own life for determinism. Most things end up either totally different than expected or at best an approximation. If anything is pre-determined, I have yet to witness it.

Rich

@raidon04,

Whether or not everything in the universe is predetermined is immaterial so long as we have no conception of its complexity, we have only a crude ability to make rational predictions, and we are convinced that we have free will. Fine, let it all be predetermined -- but it doesn't seem that way, and that's all that will ever actually matter.

@BrightNoon,

[QUOTE=BrightNoon;97706] Ah, indeed. If I'm reading you correctly, I think the argument is that it is illogical to say that will (as actual causal power) is imaginary because causality itself could be considered imaginary in the same way; i.e. we infer an agent that wills, as we infer cause and effect. I agree completely. [/QUOTE]
It is both illogical and useless. Why one desires to deny in theory that which must be affirmed in practice (in living, willing and acting) is beyond my comprehension. The burden of proof should be squarely on the determinist and even physics can not show that the world is deterministic at its very core.

[QUOTE=BrightNoon;97706] Centennially, but that doesn't make it (belief in will) true or justified. A belief can be essential for survival and still be false. The 'impotence hypothesis' is just that: an unproven (and unprovable) hypothesis. I find it persuasive, many do not. [/QUOTE] One should assume that beliefs essential for survival are true unless then can irrefutably be shown to be false. Given the matter is currently not provable one way or the other I suggest one go with the necessary belief. I happen to accept the truth of certain a priori intuitions about the nature of reality at least until they can be proven false by other more reliable means. Griffin's "Hard core common sense" or Pierce's "commonsenisms". Strict empiricists are actually a pretty rare breed among notable philosophers and overall not a very admirable lot.

@raidon04,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
I have never seen any evidence in my own life for determinism. Most things end up either totally different than expected or at best an approximation. If anything is pre-determined, I have yet to witness it.

Prediction and Determinism are to different things...

One would need to control the entire Universe at one point in Time to really Determine Reality?s Evolution in one simple vector once it emerges from the Totality inflection in itself...One can?t do that.

...1 of 10 as not the same Nature that 1 of 5...they have different Natures because they emerge from different backgrounds...This is the notion of Gestalt that i was speaking of before...the number of quality interactions between them, as a all, also changes, therefore their inherent Nature as to change as a result...

1 of 10 as X Time/Space in its Nature...1 of 5 as Y Time/Space in its Nature...that simple...

...one thing is it?s circumstance...

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;98054 wrote:

Prediction and Determinism are to different things...

One would need to control the entire Universe at one point in Time to really Determine Reality?s Evolution in one simple vector once it emerges from the Totality inflection in itself...One can?t do that.

Exactly. So we are dealing with beliefs in all cases. One can believe what one wishes and live accordingly.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;98015 wrote:

I have never seen any evidence in my own life for determinism. Most things end up either totally different than expected or at best an approximation. If anything is pre-determined, I have yet to witness it.

Rich, You can witness it in three cases:
1) You are the one who pre-determines;
2) The one who pre-determines shares his plans with you;
3) You by your own efforts or otherwise, disclose the program of things to happen.

None of the above is a condition for determinism.

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;98162 wrote:

Rich, You can witness it in three cases:
1) You are the one who pre-determines;
2) The one who pre-determines shares his plans with you;
3) You by your own efforts or otherwise, disclose the program of things to happen.

None of the above is a condition for determinism.

Hi,

I think everyone plans but I have never had one plan that turned out as planned. That is the thing. Things pop up and I change my mind. This is the key component. The ability for the mind to change direction.

Rich

@richrf,

I find amazing that someone can truly believe that things can just pop up...unless they already exist in a given time frame...self proven, sort to speech... now common, out of nowhere ? Smile

@richrf,

richrf;98015 wrote:

On the other hand, it is just as likely that things just POP! based upon the movement and force of the creative Mind (Mind being universal and/or individual in nature), which can move this way or that way as it wishes. I prefer this notion since it is what I experience everyday.

Rich

This "creative Mind" is the only one that has free will, and we don't? And where is it, in our space-time?

Regards,

Kirill

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 09:10 PM ----------

richrf;98015 wrote:

I have never seen any evidence in my own life for determinism. Most things end up either totally different than expected or at best an approximation. If anything is pre-determined, I have yet to witness it.

Rich

If Bohm's Implicate Order and the Holographic Universe paradigms are true, we have all information about the universe including the past and the future already stored.
In this case we can say everything is pre-determined, though I would prefer to live as if I have free will; this illusion is necessary.

Regards,

Kirill

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;98165 wrote:

I find amazing that someone can truly believe that things can just pop up...unless they already exist in a given time frame...self proven, sort to speech... now common, out of nowhere ?

Out of non-locality, I think. But in this case it's not out of nowhere, of course.
It's easy to believe in "things just pop up" randomly, the same as I believe that the noise in a CD or DVD is random, though I can see that this noise has exactly the same waveform each time I play CD or DVD since it is digitally coded.

Regards,

Kirill

@wholethinker,

wholethinker;98195 wrote:

This "creative Mind" is the only one that has free will, and we don't? And where is it, in our space-time?

Isn't philosophy an attempt of enslaved will to liberate itself (In vain, of course)?

@wholethinker,

Hi Krill,

wholethinker;98195 wrote:

This "creative Mind" is the only one that has free will, and we don't? And where is it, in our space-time?

I would say that learning about this is part of the exploration. Suffice to say, that the ability to change direction seems to be very real. It think the whole notion of determinism is a relic of the past few centuries where scientists sought to put themselves on a pedestal by declaring that they can predict anything using mathematical formulas. And when it became apparent they couldn't, they simply responded by saying it was too complex to model.

Determinism is a faith born out of beliefs developed with a budding 17th century group of scientists. Nothing more. It flies in the face of everyday experience which makes it more astounding that people hold on to this faith. For what reason? Do they want to be nothing more than billiard balls? I don't know.

wholethinker;98195 wrote:

If Bohm's Implicate Order and the Holographic Universe paradigms are true, we have all information about the universe including the past and the future already stored.
In this case we can say everything is pre-determined, though I would prefer to live as if I have free will; this illusion is necessary.

While Bohm's Implicate Order can be interpreted as bring back determinism into the quantum physics, it does also enfold the concept of consciousness. This appears to leave open the possibility of free will since who is to say that consciousness cannot change direction - i.e., change the nature of the quantum force in which it is enfolded.

Rich

@richrf,

Quote:

While Bohm's Implicate Order can be interpreted as bring back determinism into the quantum physics, it does also enfold the concept of consciousness. This appears to leave open the possibility of free will since who is to say that consciousness cannot change direction - i.e., change the nature of the quantum force in which it is enfolded.

Conscious participates, but what it wants, is what was given to "it" to want in the first place...an influence witch is in it?s genetics and field reality around.
...even if you are not aware of what you will want, its there, its defined, there is no perfect balance in decision to consider it free...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@richrf,

richrf;98370 wrote:

Do they want to be nothing more than billiard balls? I don't know.

You continually seem to think that what people want has anything at all to do with what is philosophically true. It does not.

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey;98380 wrote:

You continually seem to think that what people want has anything at all to do with what is philosophically true. It does not.

The fact of the matter is that quantum particles do not behave like "billard balls" at all and neither do people so "what is philosophically true" is up for debate.

Philosophy Forum

The Mind; determinism and its reality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know