Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

north
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 10:59 pm

the thing is , is that , the subconscious makes the thought and it takes time for the subconscious thought to reach the consciousness

making the subconscious the essence of free-will
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:13 pm
And for those who are God believers and think that there is free will because of God, well...watch the video !

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:18 pm
@north,
The subconscious reacts to your inner genetic heritage and the stimuli around you...common ! Where is your control ???
 
Razzleg
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:29 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The subconscious reacts to your inner genetic heritage and the stimuli around you...common ! Where is your control ???


Why should free will be identified with control, and control of what?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:31 pm
As I consider myself a fair player where it goes the opposite version...

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:33 pm
@Razzleg,
1 - What is your suggestion in turn ? that we unconsciously choose what we want to do ??? It is called reaction as far as I know...

2 - of what ??? Decision !!!
 
north
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:37 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The subconscious reacts to your inner genetic heritage and the stimuli around you...common ! Where is your control ???


and the subconscious doesn't think of things differently from just genetics and enviromental stimuli ?

if that was true where then does the advancement of thought , ideas , inventions come from then ?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:41 pm
And on the other hand once more...

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:43 pm
@north,
Computational Power !
...its not that you don´t will...you will what you are capable of computing and the outcome is therefore precise...
 
north
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 11:49 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Computational Power !
...its not that you don´t will...you will what you are capable of computing and the outcome is therefore precise...


and if the computational is circular .... determined

precise circular determinism

hence no free-will

therefore no new thinking

free-will > a break from circular computing > new .....thoughts upon....

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 12:08 am
Do you believe that complex AI programs that are able to learn with their past mistakes act on their own free will ? Non linear calculus still is calculus...
 
Razzleg
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 12:27 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Well, I haven't kept up with this discussion in a while, and I probably shouldn't have stuck my head in and made a random comment in the middle of a debate that has left me far behind. Sorry 'bout that.

As I tried to demonstrate in my last post, waaaay back on page 71, I don't interpret free will to be a factor in a single instance of decision making, but rather its a pattern in the process of making multiple decisions. The more distinct the pattern the greater evidence there is for individual will, and the person is free in so far as they demonstrate an ability to improve the successful attainment of goals. This does not imply that the person need be in control of a situation or themselves, per se. However, I think it highly likely that a person presented with a familiar set of choices will be more likely to be in control of herself, as both the various factors involved in the decision (including her own imperatives) and the probable consequences for different choices might be better understood. To put it in a much simpler, but no less vague, way: A person does not demonstrate free will by controlling herself, but by being herself.

Perhaps I should have prefaced the above statement with a greater elaboration on a point I thought I had made in my last post, that, it seems to me, in the midst of a holistic causal network, individuals occur as self-interfering patterns, like vortices or knots. They function kind of like a feedback loop, so that a decision-event builds off of the past similar decisions. We are not self-caused, to be sure, but once born our metabolic processes come into play (please read "metabolic" here as a metaphor for various self-perpetuating cyclic processes, both material and immaterial.)
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:45 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

fast wrote:
PS: Is “Laws of nature” ambiguous such that it can refer to either the reguarities found in nature or the laws that describe the regularities?

As far as I understand it, there is a difference between prescriptive and descriptive laws. Unlike prescriptive laws which codify and enforce how things ought to be, descriptive laws describe how things are. Descriptive laws are discovered, while prescriptive laws are invented. Laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive, laws.


You said that "descriptive laws describe how things are," and my focus is upon the same thing that I think captures the attention of Ughaibu: the word, "describe." What is the ontological make-up of the thing that describes and how did it come to be? If it's a formula (for example), then though the thing that it describes was discovered, the formula itself is invented. If it's a set of statements (for a second example), then like earlier, though the things that the statements describe are discovered, the statements themselves are invented.

When you say, "descriptive laws describe how things are," I am being cautious not to confuse what is invented with what is discovered. The latter part of what you said "how things are" bring to mind that which exists independent of people (what you are apparently referring to as the laws of nature). Also, I agree that how things are exists for the discovering, so I hold that it's true that we discover how things are.

But, that which describes how things are seems to me to be a product of people (e.g. forumlas and statement sets).

So, it seems to me that descriptive laws (which are invented) do indeed describe (what's discovered) how things are.

Yet, you said "descriptive laws" are discovered, but as I explained, if the laws describe, and if what describes is man-made, then laws are invented--not discovered. What is discovered is what those invented laws describe.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 08:16 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

Necessitarianism is a stance about laws of nature, it is not a stance about free will, it is not even a stance about determinism
Maybe so. Free will and determinism emerge from the same thing: meaning. They both contain components of meaning. Therefore we're stuck with both.

Believe it or don't. Peace out.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 12:53 pm
fast wrote:
Yet, you said "descriptive laws" are discovered, but as I explained, if the laws describe, and if what describes is man-made, then laws are invented--not discovered. What is discovered is what those invented laws describe.

Think of the statement that expresses the proposition, "Elephants are mammals". The statement is of course man-made, but what it expresses is not. That is, elephants are mammals independent of humans. When we say, the statement "Elephants are mammals" is true, it is understood that we mean that the proposition expressed by the statement "Elephants are mammals" is true.

Similarly, we express true propositions, which we call laws of nature, with statements. The statements are of course man-made, but what is expressed by them is not. When I say that laws of nature are discovered, I mean that in just the same way I would mean that "Elephants are mammals" was discovered; I'm clearly not saying that the statement "Elephants are mammals" was discovered, I'm saying that what the statement expresses was discovered.
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 01:18 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

fast wrote:
Yet, you said "descriptive laws" are discovered, but as I explained, if the laws describe, and if what describes is man-made, then laws are invented--not discovered. What is discovered is what those invented laws describe.

Think of the statement that expresses the proposition, "Elephants are mammals". The statement is of course man-made, but what it expresses is not. That is, elephants are mammals independent of humans. When we say, the statement "Elephants are mammals" is true, it is understood that we mean that the proposition expressed by the statement "Elephants are mammals" is true.

Similarly, we express true propositions, which we call laws of nature, with statements. The statements are of course man-made, but what is expressed by them is not. When I say that laws of nature are discovered, I mean that in just the same way I would mean that "Elephants are mammals" was discovered; I'm clearly not saying that the statement "Elephants are mammals" was discovered, I'm saying that what the statement expresses was discovered.


Thus, you do not believe that the term "laws of nature" refers to the description (that which is invented) but instead refers to what is being described (that which is discovered).

What I find troublesome is the flip flop of what "law" refers to. I don't understand why "law" sometimes refers to what is invented and sometimes refers to what is discovered. Yet, I'm okay with the distinction between descriptive laws and prescriptive laws.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 01:54 pm
@fast,
It could just be my misuse of the term. However, when I think of scientific laws, like the laws of thermodynamics, I don't necessarily think of inventions. In this sense, I see the term "law" not only being used as a body of true statements (inventions), but as a term used to refer to governing regularities. And those regularities are of course not invented, but discovered.

That said, yes, I can absolutely see the confusion you speak of. But I think there are different senses of the term "law".
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 02:39 pm
@ughaibu,
@ Zetherin
ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
The issue is whether professional philosophers hold (or do not hold) that the notion of universal causal laws are an essential part of the idea of determinism. . . . I have presented in support two statements: One from the Cambridge Dictionary, and one from the On Line Encyclopedia.
kennethamy wrote:
Causal determinism (hereafter, simply “determinism”) is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature. Imagine a proposition that completely describes the way that the entire universe was at some point in the past, say 100 million years ago. Let us call this proposition “P.” Also imagine a proposition that expresses the conjunction of all the laws of nature; call this proposition “L.” Determinism then is the thesis that the conjunction of P and L entails a unique future. Given P and L, there is only one possible future, one possible way for things to end up.
There is no mention here of cause, is there? As I said, determinism is a thesis about laws of nature. There's no mention of "statements" or explanations, is there?
Further, you hold that the future, in a determined world is not fixed, dont you? The above piece, quoted by you, disagrees. By the same author "Since causal determinism removes all alternative possibilities, PAPf preserves the flicker strategist’s insistence that moral responsibility is incompatible with the truth of causal determinism."
http://home.sandiego.edu/~ktimpe/research/critique.pdf
You also hold that there can be "macro-determinism" even if determinism is false at the micro level, your source disagrees, doesn't it? "The course of the future is entirely determined".
You have been consistently and incorrigibly mistaken about determinism in almost its entirety, for all the time I've known you, instead of insisting, in the face of the facts, that you're correct, wouldn't you prefer to hold a view that actually is correct? At present, you claim to be a member of a group of people with whom you disagree!!


I’m going to do something that is often despised, but I’m going to do it with the best of intentions. I’m going to make a distinction with use of capital letters. I’m going to distinguish between 1) Laws of Nature and 2) laws of nature.

The first (Laws of Nature) [notice the capital letters] will refer to the inventions that often come subsequent to the discoveries. They usually take the form of either formulas and/or sets of statements.

The second (laws of nature) [notice the lower case letters] will refer to the discoveries or regularities found in nature that bring rise to subsequent inventions.

In short, if the term begins with uppercase letters, then I’m referring to the man-made descriptions, and if I use lower-case letters, then I am referring to what in nature is being described—that which is discovered.

I’m doing the same thing for all laws, be they laws of nature or scientific laws.

With that in mind, let us, Zetherin, turn back to Kennethamy’s and Ughaibu’s discussion quoted above and examine it to see if my suspicion’s are correct—that Ughaibu is not talking about laws of nature but instead Laws of Nature. The point of course is that Kennethamy brings up laws of nature while Ughaibu speaks instead of Laws of Nature. Why else would he say, “As I said, determinism is a thesis about [L]aws of [N]ature. There's no mention of "statements" or explanations, is there?”

The interesting part about this is that there is a substantive issue underlying what may appear on the surface as a verbal dispute. The verbal dispute can be corrected by temporarily adopting my distinction between Laws and laws.

I don’t suppose that Ughaibu is correct, but for the sake of argument, let us suppose anyway, for a few brief moments, that he is actually addressing what Kennethamy is talking about. If that is the case, then we should interpret what Kennethamy quoted as a discussion on Laws of Nature instead of laws of nature. But, I don’t think for a moment that what was being discussed was Laws of Nature, so I find it difficult to accept Ughaibu’s response, “As I said, determinism is a thesis about [L]aws of [N]ature. There's no mention of "statements" or explanations, is there?[,]” as in anyway pertaining to the issue.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 03:22 pm
@fast,
fast wrote:
The first (Laws of Nature) [notice the capital letters] will refer to the inventions that often come subsequent to the discoveries. They usually take the form of either formulas and/or sets of statements.


There's no need to reinvent terms. Those are called scientific laws as detailed in the introduction of this article: http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

The laws of science are often known to be false but good approximations such as Newton's Laws or Kepler's Laws, etc.
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 04:00 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

fast wrote:
The first (Laws of Nature) [notice the capital letters] will refer to the inventions that often come subsequent to the discoveries. They usually take the form of either formulas and/or sets of statements.


There's no need to reinvent terms. Those are called scientific laws as detailed in the introduction of this article: http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

The laws of science are often known to be false but good approximations such as Newton's Laws or Kepler's Laws, etc.
I recall that link. There was a poster a while back (on a different forum) demanding that other certain posters read it. I didn't want to incorporate the scope of that article into what I'm talking about.

I'll review the link again.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 11:57:39