The Difference Between Causality and Determinism

@ACB,

ACB;117514 wrote:

I think this is just a matter of words. It depends how one defines "free" and "compulsion". But now that I understand how you are using these words, I agree with you and Zetherin.

Whatever we say is a matter of words, but not just a matter of words. And, does the question of whether all causes compel rest just on how we define "compulsion". If you think so, then show me how that is? I think it is false that all causes compel, and it is false in exactly the meaning that the term, "compel" has in English. One cannot define words, words are defined not by individuals but by the way they are collectively used by fluent speakers of the language. If you agree with Z. and me then you agree in exactly the sense in which "free" and "compulsion" are used, and therefore, their ordinary meaning. The question is, why did you disagree (or do you now disagree)? For example, do you agree that if I act on someone's recommendation, although that recommendation causes me to do what is recommended, it does not compel me to do so, and therefore, I am do so of my own free will? In what sensible sense of those words would you disagree?

@prothero,

Fil. Albuquerque wrote:

To my best understanding free will as no place in physic\empirical approach on the problem...by the contrary it perfectly sounds Metaphysical...

So that I'm clear:

You think my having the ability to make choice has no physical cause?

If this is correct, then do you think I would be able to make choices without my brain? If so, how?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;117501 wrote:

In what speech are they? And why use that speech?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117574 wrote:

So that I'm clear:

You think my having the ability to make choice has no physical cause?

If this is correct, then do you think I would be able to make choices without my brain? If so, how?

Obviously what I am saying is an entirely different thing...

And that is, that if you have a brain and you are susceptible to the stimuli of the physical world, then your decision making goes accordingly with the state of reality around you, witch includes obviously your brain...quite the opposite is what you have defended so far, that despite of this total and integral relation, decision making is independent, an independent variable towards everything, witch is obviously plain wrong...there's no separation between your brain and reality in this matter, they are both at one integrated state, if you get my meaning, witch at this point I seriously doubt...:nonooo:

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 12:52 AM ----------

kennethamy;117575 wrote:

In what speech are they? And why use that speech?

...?!?...

Is there any point that your trying to bring up ? :sarcastic:
Or do you just keep playing and toying with words...

Unfortunately every time I read this Threads I keep having this strong impression that is a positive mark of middle class consumerism nowadays...to much reading to little knowledge...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;117578 wrote:

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 12:52 AM ----------

...?!?...

Is there any point that your trying to bring up ? :sarcastic:
Or do you just keep playing and toying with words...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117582 wrote:

why you were talking about? I suppose that was a mistake. I should have known you don't know what you are talking about.

"Why" or "What" ?!?

But I can reformulate:

...the mystery is in your awkward point of view...one that goes around things, and states issues and subtlety's in the speech construction

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;117584 wrote:

"Why" or "What" ?!?

But I can reformulate:

...the mystery is in your awkward point of view...one that goes around things, and states issues and subtlety's in the speech construction

I don't mind it being vulgar as long as it is true. What I look for is truth, not refinement. If you have a criticism that shows that what I wrote is not true, let me know about it. "Vulgar" is not such a criticism. And, if it is so easy, why didn't you say it?

@kennethamy,

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;117590 wrote:

But do you think what I wrote about free will and causation is true? That is what interests me. I want a sensible answer to the question whether free will is compatible with causation so that it is wrong to object that my action or my choice is not free because it is caused. Now, is that too much to ask? You are wrong to say I keep asking but never answering. I gave a straight answer to the question whether we have free will. My answer was, yes. And I gave my reasons why. So why do you say I did not answer?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117593 wrote:

But do you think what I wrote about free will and causation is true? That is what interests me. I want a sensible answer to the question whether free will is compatible with causation so that it is wrong to object that my action or my choice is not free because it is caused. Now, is that too much to ask? You are wrong to say I keep asking but never answering. I gave a straight answer to the question whether we have free will. My answer was, yes. And I gave my reasons why. So why do you say I did not answer?

To a honest question an honest answer. No and yes...In the "hard sense" no. (but that you already know)
In the soft approach yes, once there must be concordance between what I want to do, and what cause me to it...

But if we really want to take this matter seriously we would have to go to another totally different set of questions...What is will from a neurological point of view? How does it form in mind processes ? It emerges from the unconscious, but how is it filtered by conscientiousness and reasoning ?
...and so on...

...still I keep my view...

FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@Fil Albuquerque,

I'm not sure if I should post this in this thread, in a different thread, or start a new one so to start with I'll just post it here

Just a question I was pondering tonight:

If I were to play a game in which I set the rules...well nevermind let's just say I'm playing tag. The only rule of tag is that when you are "not it" you try not to get "tagged" by the person designated as "it". Meanwhile, the person who is "it" tries to "tag" the first person he can in the game.

If I was one of the "not it", knowing full well what I was supposed to do, and I decided to "let" myself get tagged, could this be considered free will or have I merely changed the rules in my mind?

Considering that I would be within the confines of an environment in which the only choice ought to be to keep from getting tagged, by running straight for the person who was "it" have I positively demonstrated my ability of free choice?

Or have I made the only choice I could make given what I was trying to prove?
In other words the cause would be to prove that I have free will. Or am I confusing having a cause with contradicting with free will?

I guess thinking about it my answer would be that everything obviously has a cause but this says nothing one way or the other about my free will. My free will would only come into question if I had no other choice but to do what I did.

@kennethamy,

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/causality.html

Etymology of Determinism

The term (sic) determinism is first attested in the late fourteenth century, "to come to an end," also "to settle, decide," from O.Fr. determiner (12c.), from L. determinare "set limits to," from de- "off" + terminare "to mark the end or boundary," from terminus "end, limit."

The sense of "coming to a firm decision" (to do something) is from 1450.

Determination as a "quality of being resolute" dates from 1822.

Before the nineteenth century determinists were called Necessarians. William Belsham contrasted them (favorably) with the incoherent Libertarians in 1789, the first use of Libertarian.

Determinism appears in 1846 in Sir William Hamilton's edition of Thomas Reid's works as a note on p.87.
There are two schemes of Necessity - the Necessitation by efficient - the Necessitation by final causes. The former is brute or blind Fate; the latter rational Determinism.

Causality

Belief in Causality is deeply held by many philosophers and scientists. Many say it is the basis for all thought and knowledge of the external world.
The core idea of causality is closely related to the idea of determinism. But we can have a "soft" causality without determinism.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;117599 wrote:

To a honest question an honest answer. No and yes...In the "hard sense" no. (but that you already know)
In the soft approach yes, once there must be concordance between what I want to do, and what cause me to it...

FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Your answer makes no sense, since there is no hard sense or soft sense of "determinism" as you seem to think. "Determinism" means exactly the same thing in both "hard determinism", and in "soft determinism". Therefore, you do not even know what those two terms mean, and therefore, any answer you try to give will be the result of confusion.

@prothero,

Fil. Albuquerque wrote:

Obviously what I am saying is an entirely different thing...

And that is, that if you have a brain and you are susceptible to the stimuli of the physical world, then your decision making goes accordingly with the state of reality around you, witch includes obviously your brain...quite the opposite is what you have defended so far, that despite of this total and integral relation, decision making is independent, an independent variable towards everything, witch is obviously plain wrong...there's no separation between your brain and reality in this matter, they are both at one integrated state, if you get my meaning, witch at this point I seriously doubt..

I don't know what this means. At one integrated state?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117519 wrote:

Whatever we say is a matter of words, but not just a matter of words. And, does the question of whether all causes compel rest just on how we define "compulsion". If you think so, then show me how that is? I think it is false that all causes compel, and it is false in exactly the meaning that the term, "compel" has in English. One cannot define words, words are defined not by individuals but by the way they are collectively used by fluent speakers of the language. If you agree with Z. and me then you agree in exactly the sense in which "free" and "compulsion" are used, and therefore, their ordinary meaning. The question is, why did you disagree (or do you now disagree)? For example, do you agree that if I act on someone's recommendation, although that recommendation causes me to do what is recommended, it does not compel me to do so, and therefore, I am do so of my own free will? In what sensible sense of those words would you disagree?

It all comes down to the question: When I make a choice, could I have chosen differently? If all my brain states are caused by deterministic, impersonal physical laws, then I could not. Do you agree on that specific point?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117649 wrote:

I don't know what this means. At one integrated state?

Only that? ..............

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 09:09 AM ----------

ACB;117654 wrote:

It all comes down to the question: When I make a choice, could I have chosen differently? If all my brain states are caused by deterministic, impersonal physical laws, then I could not. Do you agree on that specific point?

Of course I could have chosen differently. We do so all the time. We change our minds. Of course, if determinism is true then mind-changing is also determined. But all that means is that it is caused. Not that it was inevitable, or compelled.

@kennethamy,

Kennethamy - Regarding your reply to Fil. Albuquerque:

kennethamy;117643 wrote:

Your answer makes no sense, since there is no hard sense or soft sense of "determinism" as you seem to think.

This is a quibble. There are certainly hard and soft kinds of determinism, which is clearly what he means. (Just as hard cheese and soft cheese are two different kinds of cheese.)

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117643 wrote:

Your answer makes no sense, since there is no hard sense or soft sense of "determinism" as you seem to think. "Determinism" means exactly the same thing in both "hard determinism", and in "soft determinism". Therefore, you do not even know what those two terms mean, and therefore, any answer you try to give will be the result of confusion.

@prothero,

can free will be a cause?
(or any kind of will, since i liked kenneth's point that the word free seems to be a bit un-necessary)

and if we dont have it, wouldnt we have to believe that we have used language to describe the process of naturally occuring events following in sequence as something they are not? labeling whatever happens that we can possibly relate to our thought processes as a matter of our personal choice. in other words, is this a trick the ego plays? to make us feel important? seems a bit farfetched but i suppose it's possible.

all the minds of humanity got together and decided to invent a story of having free will that makes things happen to give us the illusion of control when in fact we could have just gone on about our buriness like squirrels without agonizing over these issues. i dont know, somehow it just doesnt sound likely...

@prothero,

ACB wrote:

It all comes down to the question: When I make a choice, could I have chosen differently? If all my brain states are caused by deterministic, impersonal physical laws, then I could not. Do you agree on that specific point?

I'm trying to understand why you think this. Say there are physical causes for every choice I make - why does this mean we aren't making choices? If I bend my legs and jump, am I not jumping, since I built up kinetic energy in my hamstrings and quads? Do we dismiss other things that happen, simply because they have a cause?

Philosophy Forum

The Difference Between Causality and Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know