Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 01:07 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
The fact remains that no one (at least on this forum) can make out what you are saying.
You now have the burden of supporting this contention too. As my response to Zetherin has been thanked, it seems likely that at least one member understood it.
your giving an intelligible response
So it was an intelligible response but no one can make out what it says?!?




As you can tell, unlike you or me, Zeth is a very nice person; maybe too nice. Certainly, quite tolerant.
 
fast
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 01:37 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
The point to remember is that although all causes that compel, do compel, not all causes compel.
That point has not escaped me. All events are caused, but only some events are compelled, so although some events that are caused compel, not all events that are caused compel; therefore, there are 1) compelled causes and 2) uncompelled causes.

For example, there is a cause for why the tree fell--the wind blew sufficiently hard to knock it over, but never was it so (despite that) that the wind compelled the tree to fall over. Furthermore, there is a cause for why I went to the restaurant--I wanted to go, but never is it so (despite that) did my wanting to go compel me such that I could not refrain from going. So, in both cases, there was a cause, yet in neither case was there compulsion.

Ughaibu believes that 'determinism' (for lack of a better term) is the view that our world is clock-like such what will happen must happen. By "must", however, I do not mean "logically necessary." I mean physically necessary. He views a world ran on 'deterministic' principles as a world ran by gears that wind in only one direction, but because it's ran by gears, the implication is that if it could be rewound like a VCR, then each moment in the past would repeat itself if rewound and played over.

He may deny (or even feverishly deny) that his view is such, but it's the close as I have gotten to what I believe the implications of his view to be. For clarity, he doesn’t believe that view is true; he just believes that that is the view of determinism. He thinks that if 'determinism' is true (not to be confused with determinism, of course), then (and back to the tree example), no other physical possibility was present except for the tree to fall--it had to fall. Hence, despite the presence of logical possibilities (e.g. if the winds didn't blow, the tree wouldn't have fell because of the wind), the physical cause and effect relationship, being a consequence of laws of nature, would have been such that the tree had to fall. The point is that no other physical possibility was present, so things couldn't have happened otherwise. Logically, they could have, but physically because of the laws of nature, they could not have.

That point is made only to serve as the foundation for the next point about my wanting to go to the restaurant. Logically, I didn't have to go; after all, I wasn't compelled to go despite the causes, so I most certainly did go of my own free will, and I went despite the other logical possibilities ... for instance, going somewhere else or nowhere at all.

The real question though is how could I not have gone given the laws of nature—that apply not only to the tree and wind buy my wants and decisions? That I made the decision of my volition to go? The contention by one that would espouse 'determinism' is that of course you could have logically chosen otherwise, just as you agree that you could have chosen to not take your mile walk, but they also contend that the laws of nature have such an impact on us that even our very wants are governed by the laws of nature such that everything we think and do is a product of physical causes that not merely do happen but must happen in the before-mentioned clocklike gear run fashion.

Still, as you say, determinism is compatible with free will. That remains so. But, 'determinism', however, that's not so clear cut.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 02:47 pm
@fast,
fast wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
The point to remember is that although all causes that compel, do compel, not all causes compel.
That point has not escaped me. All events are caused, but only some events are compelled, so although some events that are caused compel, not all events that are caused compel; therefore, there are 1) compelled causes and 2) uncompelled causes.

For example, there is a cause for why the tree fell--the wind blew sufficiently hard to knock it over, but never was it so (despite that) that the wind compelled the tree to fall over. Furthermore, there is a cause for why I went to the restaurant--I wanted to go, but never is it so (despite that) did my wanting to go compel me such that I could not refrain from going. So, in both cases, there was a cause, yet in neither case was there compulsion.

Ughaibu believes that 'determinism' (for lack of a better term) is the view that our world is clock-like such what will happen must happen. By "must", however, I do not mean "logically necessary." I mean physically necessary. He views a world ran on 'deterministic' principles as a world ran by gears that wind in only one direction, but because it's ran by gears, the implication is that if it could be rewound like a VCR, then each moment in the past would repeat itself if rewound and played over.

He may deny (or even feverishly deny) that his view is such, but it's the close as I have gotten to what I believe the implications of his view to be. For clarity, he doesn’t believe that view is true; he just believes that that is the view of determinism. He thinks that if 'determinism' is true (not to be confused with determinism, of course), then (and back to the tree example), no other physical possibility was present except for the tree to fall--it had to fall. Hence, despite the presence of logical possibilities (e.g. if the winds didn't blow, the tree wouldn't have fell because of the wind), the physical cause and effect relationship, being a consequence of laws of nature, would have been such that the tree had to fall. The point is that no other physical possibility was present, so things couldn't have happened otherwise. Logically, they could have, but physically because of the laws of nature, they could not have.

That point is made only to serve as the foundation for the next point about my wanting to go to the restaurant. Logically, I didn't have to go; after all, I wasn't compelled to go despite the causes, so I most certainly did go of my own free will, and I went despite the other logical possibilities ... for instance, going somewhere else or nowhere at all.

The real question though is how could I not have gone given the laws of nature—that apply not only to the tree and wind buy my wants and decisions? That I made the decision of my volition to go? The contention by one that would espouse 'determinism' is that of course you could have logically chosen otherwise, just as you agree that you could have chosen to not take your mile walk, but they also contend that the laws of nature have such an impact on us that even our very wants are governed by the laws of nature such that everything we think and do is a product of physical causes that not merely do happen but must happen in the before-mentioned clocklike gear run fashion.

Still, as you say, determinism is compatible with free will. That remains so. But, 'determinism', however, that's not so clear cut.


If you realize that not all causes compel, and you realize that to say that A causes B is to say that A is physically or maybe psychologically necessary for B to occur, and if you realize that unless a cause compels it is not incompatible with freedom of the will, then I wonder why you are still troubled by whether causation is compatible with free will.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 06:49 pm
@fast,
fast wrote:
Ughaibu believes that 'determinism' (for lack of a better term) is the view that our world is clock-like such what will happen must happen. . . . .
This is ridiculous, have you never heard of the clockwork universe?
The upshot of all this was a mechanical world-view that regarded the Universe as something that unfolded according to mathematical laws with all the precision and inevitability of a well-made clock. The detailed character of the Newtonian laws was such that once this majestic clockwork had been set in motion, its future development was, in principle, entirely predictable. This property of Newtonian mechanics is called determinism.
http://physicalworld.org/restless_universe/html/ru_2_14.html
 
fast
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 10:58 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
If you realize that not all causes compel, and you realize that to say that A causes B is to say that A is physically or maybe psychologically necessary for B to occur, and if you realize that unless a cause compels it is not incompatible with freedom of the will, then I wonder why you are still troubled by whether causation is compatible with free will.
If I acted of my own free will, then I was not compelled to act as I did, and because what I did was an event, there was a cause for it, but although I could have done otherwise (logically speaking), that's not to say that the laws of nature would leave room for the physical possibility for doing otherwise.

The tree could not have remained standing giving the conditions, just as you could not have walked the mile. Logically speaking, the tree could have fell (if the winds were blowing), and logically speaking, you could have walked the mile (had you wanted to and chose to). But, the tree had to fall (because of physics, laws of nature, regularities, and all that jazz), and you had to want to stay in bed, and you had to decide to stay in bed and not walk at all that morning (even though you were not compelled to stay in bed), all because of the same laws of nature that made it so that the tree couldn't fall ... yet keep in mind that I'm not espousing that view. The laws of nature had a grip on your wants and choices--or so seems to be the implication of a clock-work-like universe. And no, I'm not saying there is good reason to think we live in such a world.




 
fast
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 11:01 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:
This is ridiculous, have you never heard of the clockwork universe?
Can you take my tree example and change it such that your view is captured by it? When I read your view of what you think determinism is and try to make an example that helps explain it, I strike out. How about you play ball.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 11:11 pm
@fast,
fast wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
This is ridiculous, have you never heard of the clockwork universe?
When I read your view of what you think determinism is. . . . .
This not my view of what determinism is, it is what determinism is. The essential minimal unavoidable component which can not be removed from the claim of determinism without that claim ceasing to be a claim of determinism, is that everything about the evolution of the world is fixed. Until you get your head round this very simple point of definition, you will continue to be mistaken when you talk about "determinism".
I've been seeing you in determinism discussions for more than three years, so I assume that you have some interest in the matter. And as far as I recall, you describe yourself as a determinist, so you have some stake in the matter, your self-representation. How can it be that after three years of motivated interest, you still have not even got the essential claim of determinism?
Surely you have enough time to at least read up on the basics: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 12:54 am
There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 01:21 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.


So if someone asks me (impolitely) whether I married Esmeralda because I loved her, or whether I was forced to marry her, and if I replied that I married her of my own free will, because I loved her, not because I had to, you would say that I was lying because there is no free will?
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 01:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.


So if someone asks me (impolitely) whether I married Esmeralda because I loved her, or whether I was forced to marry her, and if I replied that I married her of my own free will, because I loved her, not because I had to, you would say that I was lying because there is no free will?


Perhaps what you can say is " Look, guy, i want to mate with her, and give her my baby, because I am driven by my physical biology to do so". In this response, the biology is derivative of the laws.

 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 01:46 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
In this response, the biology is derivative of the laws.
Really? What deterministic laws are even mooted as models, in contemporary biology?
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 01:50 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
In this response, the biology is derivative of the laws.
Really? What deterministic laws are even mooted as models, in contemporary biology?


Does that matter? In any case, the biology is just physics, and the physics is just math.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 01:51 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.


So if someone asks me (impolitely) whether I married Esmeralda because I loved her, or whether I was forced to marry her, and if I replied that I married her of my own free will, because I loved her, not because I had to, you would say that I was lying because there is no free will?


Perhaps what you can say is " Look, guy, i want to mate with her, and give her my baby, because I am driven by my physical biology to do so". In this response, the biology is derivative of the laws.




That all may be true, but what that means is that I married Esmeralda of my own free will, because, as you say, I wanted to, and nothing forced me to do it. What you are doing is only explaining why I wanted to do it.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 01:54 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
What deterministic laws are even mooted as models, in contemporary biology?
Does that matter?
Of course.
TuringEquivalent wrote:
biology is just physics, and the physics is just math.
Can you support this contention? Perhaps produce a demonstration that biology is fully mathematisable, or at least quote a contemporary philosopher of biology who expounds this view, so that I can see some arguments.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 01:55 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.


So if someone asks me (impolitely) whether I married Esmeralda because I loved her, or whether I was forced to marry her, and if I replied that I married her of my own free will, because I loved her, not because I had to, you would say that I was lying because there is no free will?


Perhaps what you can say is " Look, guy, i want to mate with her, and give her my baby, because I am driven by my physical biology to do so". In this response, the biology is derivative of the laws.




That all may be true, but what that means is that I married Esmeralda of my own free will, because, as you say, I wanted to, and nothing forced me to do it. What you are doing is only explaining why I wanted to do it.


What? Since, when is "want to" the same as "free will"? It is not. The former is a psychological state, and that state is physics.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:00 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
What deterministic laws are even mooted as models, in contemporary biology?
Does that matter?
Of course.
TuringEquivalent wrote:
biology is just physics, and the physics is just math.
Can you support this contention? Perhaps produce a demonstration that biology is fully mathematisable, or at least quote a contemporary philosopher of biology who expounds this view, so that I can see some arguments.


Can you explain why this is not obvious? Explanation is needed when something is not obvious. since it is so obvious, thus, no explanation is needed.

Can you see a contrapositive in the above?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:03 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
What deterministic laws are even mooted as models, in contemporary biology?
Does that matter?
Of course.
TuringEquivalent wrote:
biology is just physics, and the physics is just math.
Can you support this contention? Perhaps produce a demonstration that biology is fully mathematisable, or at least quote a contemporary philosopher of biology who expounds this view, so that I can see some arguments.


Can you explain why this is not obvious? Explanation is needed when something is not obvious. since it is so obvious, thus, no explanation is needed.

Can you see a contrapositive in the above?


It was obvious that apples fell to the ground and did not soar upward. But Newton explained that by postulating gravity.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:07 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
What deterministic laws are even mooted as models, in contemporary biology?
Does that matter?
Of course.
TuringEquivalent wrote:
biology is just physics, and the physics is just math.
Can you support this contention? Perhaps produce a demonstration that biology is fully mathematisable, or at least quote a contemporary philosopher of biology who expounds this view, so that I can see some arguments.


Can you explain why this is not obvious? Explanation is needed when something is not obvious. since it is so obvious, thus, no explanation is needed.

Can you see a contrapositive in the above?


It was obvious that apples fell to the ground and did not soar upward. But Newton explained that by postulating gravity.


What is wrong with you? If apples falling is obvious, then newton would not posit gravity to explain it. Apple falling is clearly not obvious. Thus, there is a need to be explain.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:09 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
Can you explain why this is not obvious? Explanation is needed when something is not obvious. since it is so obvious, thus, no explanation is needed.
On the contrary, it's quite obviously false. If you produce a piece of mathematics that states which of a given pair of numbers I will choose, I can choose the alternative, thus demonstrating that your mathematical determinism fails. If there is any serious philosopher who supports your position, link me to their publications page.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:16 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
Can you explain why this is not obvious? Explanation is needed when something is not obvious. since it is so obvious, thus, no explanation is needed.
On the contrary, it's quite obviously false. If you produce a piece of mathematics that states which of a given pair of numbers I will choose, I can choose the alternative, thus demonstrating that your mathematical determinism fails. If there is any serious philosopher who supports your position, link me to their publications page.


You said " i will choose", or "i can choose the alternative", but in both cases, you are presupposing that you do have a "choice". No, you don` t have a choice, and you choice is an illusion of the deep reality that it is only math in the sky. You argument don` t work, since you are supposing the very thing you are trying to show, namely, choice.


 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 11:30:16