Determinism and the Illusion of Free Will

[T-Bone]

Just now, So_crates said:

Sounds like Saint Vic's in the soup

yeah, and he's in a special soup for the TIP class too - just ask for the Alphabet Soup - I think it's Mike's favorite - live long and LoShonta

[waysider]

"TWI Verbal Traditions" were an absolutely essential ingredient in The Way's success. Without personal reinforcement of doctrine and behavior at the twig level, the written materials would never have been enough to hold anyone's fealty to the organization or its agenda. That's why the organization was so hell-bent on promoting frequent twig fellowship attendance. This is pretty much true of any cult-like group, not just The Way. If you attended twig fellowships on a regular basis, you could not have simply avoided exposure to it and it continues to permeate our thought processes, whether you think it does or not. .

[So_crates]

 

[Nathan_Jr]

A thought experiment:

 

A man is warned of the severe health risks of the herbicide glyphosate. He is warned that it is known to cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Advice is given this man on how to safely handle glyphosate - gloves, safety glasses, respirators, etc. The man rejects the warning and advice and chooses to spray his fields all day every day for 36 days. This man died dead of cancer.

Now, did the glyphosate cause this man's cancerous death, or did he cause it himself? Who is responsible? 
 

@Mike

Edited November 16, 2022 by Nathan_Jr
Snow

[WordWolf]

11 hours ago, WordWolf said:

I'm just curious what motivates someone to hang out in groups of young folk and invoke the names and work of others. It sounds familiar somehow, as if I've heard it before.

 

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Did you purposely miss the part where I said their attitudes of great irresponsibility disgust me?  Or was that just a sloppy oversight on your part?

Some of the websites that promote the idea of there being no free will tend to attract irresponsible people who seek justification for their behavior.

They are heavily populated with people that argue precisely that:  no blame and no credit. 

The posters that focus on the "no credit" part are often Communists.

Many of them are young, European political activists and they are grinding an axe at the world's judicial systems. Some of them are just misfits and trying to justify their lives of failure.  Very bitter people, and full of glee to find a website that promotes the idea that there is no free will. 

Their motives in debating there is no free will are easy to see, and I find it disgusting.

I do believe in a type of free will
where we are responsible for our behavior,
and we can TRY to hold others
to be similarly responsible. 

 

 

I think it's quite telling what happened here.   I brought something up. The direct response was to insult me and change the subject.  That's right out of the vpw apologist playbook. Apparently, it signals an attempt to hide something uncomfortable that's indefensible.  (It has been, so far.)

So, whatever the truth is about why he's hanging out with them, he's uncomfortable about the reason and can't actually defend it.  His conscience bothers him about it.   I find that fascinating.

Next is either ignoring this, or- more likely-  yet another insult that bypasses the subject.

[Nathan_Jr]

34 minutes ago, So_crates said:

 

Thanks, Socrates.

This guy is a good teacher. Though he is able to clearly articulate a complex subject, I think I'll still need to watch it a couple more times. It raises more questions than answers - not a bad thing. (Victor HATED questions.)

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, So_crates said:

 

thanks So-crates!

PBS always has good thought-food.

I'll have to watch this a few more times - and check out the other videos that came up after this too!

 

[OldSkool]

1 hour ago, WordWolf said:

His conscience bothers him about it.   I find that fascinating.

I just posted a new topic to discuss this very thing...

 

[T-Bone]

On 11/13/2022 at 10:59 AM, Mike said:

Don't you think it takes a backbone to face all the criticism I get here? Backbones I am familiar with.  But duplicitous?  That doesn't make any sense. Googled:  Duplicitous is used to describe someone who intentionally misleads people, especially by saying different things to different people or acting in different ways at different times. 

And how am I a tool of deception? 
I am focused only on the good we got in PFAL.

 

The only "good" in PFAL was the bait of the bait-and-switch con.

and the "bait" was pseudo-Christian / Biblical sounding stuff - it wasn't real! 

You are being a tool of deception by promoting the "bait" 

PFAL did NOT deliver on any of the claims on the back of the green PFAL signup card

[Mike]

4 hours ago, So_crates said:

So, if the universe is as deterministic as you claim, how do you have control of self?

This contradicts what you said earlier, that every response is the result of something earlier.

Determinism can yield some freedoms.

It is easy to see that the universe of a sailboat is 100% deterministic.  Yet, there can still be freedom seen in the boat being independent of the determinism of wind direction. 

The way the boat does this it uses the determinism in the Bernoulli effect to gain this freedom from wind direction.

For a simple raft with a simple square sail, it can only go in the same direction as the wind.  The wind direction DETERMINES the direction of the boat. 

But when you add a steerable sail, a keel, and a rudder then the determinism patterns of those special shapes overcome the determinism patterns of wind direction.

So, raw determinism can force things to go a certain way, and cleverly manipulated determinism can allow for some freedoms.

Determinism in the raw pretty much means a lack of freedom, but determinism that is processed can yield some surprising freedoms when it seems they could not survive.

 

[T-Bone]

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

Determinism in the raw pretty much means a lack of freedom, but determinism that is processed

   More weird stuff !

Earlier Mike said there’s different types of free will,

now he says there’s processed determinism.

what’s next?

fate with a checkbox to option out?

Edited November 16, 2022 by T-Bone
Typo

[waysider]

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

It is easy to see that the universe of a sailboat is 100% deterministic.

"Hoist up the main sail."

"Aye,Aye, Cap'n."

 

edit: "This is the worst trip I've ever been on."

Edited November 16, 2022 by waysider

[So_crates]

58 minutes ago, Mike said:

Determinism can yield some freedoms.

It is easy to see that the universe of a sailboat is 100% deterministic.  Yet, there can still be freedom seen in the boat being independent of the determinism of wind direction. 

The way the boat does this it uses the determinism in the Bernoulli effect to gain this freedom from wind direction.

For a simple raft with a simple square sail, it can only go in the same direction as the wind.  The wind direction DETERMINES the direction of the boat. 

But when you add a steerable sail, a keel, and a rudder then the determinism patterns of those special shapes overcome the determinism patterns of wind direction.

So, raw determinism can force things to go a certain way, and cleverly manipulated determinism can allow for some freedoms.

Determinism in the raw pretty much means a lack of freedom, but determinism that is processed can yield some surprising freedoms when it seems they could not survive.

 

There's a story about a guy who went to see a psychiatrist because deluded, he believed he was a corpse. The psychiatrist tried his best to change the guy's mind. Finally, the psychiatrist asked him if corpses bleed. The guy said no. So the psychiatrist cut him.

"What do you know," the guy said, "corpses do bleed."

This reminds me of your claim.

You. Everything is predetermined.

Me. Then people aren't responsible for their actions.

You. I want them responsible, so there are some freedoms.

/*/*/*

With one fell swoop you negated the need for the PLAF.

If people are going to take it, they will.

If people are going to be born again, they will.

If some is going to heaven, they will regardless of what we do or don't do.

[So_crates]

 

 

[OldSkool]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

It is easy to see that the universe of a sailboat is 100% deterministic.  Yet, there can still be freedom seen in the boat being independent of the determinism of wind direction. 

A sailboat is an inanimate object incapable of any sort of will, free or otherwise. You make this stuff up as you go? You know what makes a sailboat move? Something else exerts some sort of force on the boat in such a way that it causes movement. No choice of the sailboat involved...it;s an INAMINATE object.

[OldSkool]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

determinism that is processed

I wonder if that's processed at my local Smithfielf plant or Tyson?

[So_crates]

 

[Mike]

2 hours ago, So_crates said:

      nothing
 

That video is good. I like Sean Carroll.
That's the second time this video was posted.

He mentions Libertarian Free Will. That's also called classical and contra-causal.

Sean Carroll is a Physicist and ALL the determinism he mentions here is the simple physics type.

My work is in the compatibilst area that he mentions.

I purposely designed minFW to be a compatibilist kind of FW by having it USE determinism to generate its freedom.

Someone here (Nathan_Jr ?) was aghast at the idea there could be more than one kind of free will.  Yes, there are.

Dennett wrote a whole book on the "other" varieties of free will.

[So_crates]

17 minutes ago, Mike said:

That video is good. I like Sean Carroll.
That's the second time this video was posted.

He mentions Libertarian Free Will. That's also called classical and contra-causal.

Sean Carroll is a Physicist and ALL the determinism he mentions here is the simple physics type.

My work is in the compatibilst area that he mentions.

I purposely designed minFW to be a compatibilist kind of FW by having it USE determinism to generate its freedom.

Someone here (Nathan_Jr ?) was aghast at the idea there could be more than one kind of free will.  Yes, there are.

Dennett wrote a whole book on the "other" varieties of free will.

You apparently missed the part where he said human being were different, whereas you categorize them as beasts.

You also missed the part were he said determinism and free will is asking two different questions.

You're trying two marry two separate realms onto an artificial  set of rules. It's  like expecting the quantum realm to obey the Newtonian realm or visa versa.

Edited November 17, 2022 by So_crates

[Mike]

14 minutes ago, So_crates said:

You apparently missed the part where he said human being were different, whereas you categorize them as beasts.

I saw it. That was where he was giving his hypothesis/slant/perspective on this free will versus determinism debate.  He is leaning towards Descartes and dualism, a sort of secularized soul.

I pulled the transcript from You-Tube and will be able to quote some passages. I am still working with it.

*/*/*/*/*

There are differing schools of thought in this debate , as I documented with a wiki paste the other day. 

Here is the text from the wiki on Crick's "Astonishing Hypothesis"

Crick's decidedly materialistic approach to explaining consciousness has many detractors both in the neuroscientific and philosophical communities. Some, such as neurologist and Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman believe that neural Darwinism is a more satisfactory explanation for the emergence of complex intelligence in humans. Another school of thought, this one largely made up of those outside of scientific disciplines, consider consciousness to either be simply beyond the possibility of explanation or at least dependent on some qualities that are not simply physical (i.e. molecules, etc.). Lastly, those who support quantum theory of mind also disagree with how Crick simplifies the workings of the brain to only classical physics.

Here is the same paragraph broke  up into schools of thought:

Crick's decidedly materialistic approach to explaining consciousness has many detractors both in the neuroscientific and philosophical communities.

Some, such as neurologist and Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman believe that neural Darwinism is a more satisfactory explanation for the emergence of complex intelligence in humans.

Another school of thought, this one largely made up of those outside of scientific disciplines, consider consciousness to either be simply beyond the possibility of explanation or at least dependent on some qualities that are not simply physical (i.e. molecules, etc.).

Lastly, those who support quantum theory of mind also disagree with how Crick simplifies the workings of the brain to only classical physics.

*/*/*/*/*/*

It looks like Sean Carroll is leaning towards the 2nd and/or 4th school.

I work within the first school, the materialist approach.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Mike

[So_crates]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

I saw it. That was where he was giving his hypothesis/slant/perspective on this free will versus determinism debate.  He is leaning toward's Descares and dualism, a sort of secularized soul.

I pulled the transcript from You-Tube and will be able to quote some passages. I am still working with it.

*/*/*/*/*

There are differing schools of thought in this debate , as I documented with a wiki paste the other day. 

Here is the text from the wiki on Crick's "Astonishind Hypothesis"

Crick's decidedly materialistic approach to explaining consciousness has many detractors both in the neuroscientific and philosophical communities. Some, such as neurologist and Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman believe that neural Darwinism is a more satisfactory explanation for the emergence of complex intelligence in humans. Another school of thought, this one largely made up of those outside of scientific disciplines, consider consciousness to either be simply beyond the possibility of explanation or at least dependent on some qualities that are not simply physical (i.e. molecules, etc.). Lastly, those who support quantum theory of mind also disagree with how Crick simplifies the workings of the brain to only classical physics.

Here is the same paragraph broke  up into schools of thought:

Crick's decidedly materialistic approach to explaining consciousness has many detractors both in the neuroscientific and philosophical communities.

Some, such as neurologist and Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman believe that neural Darwinism is a more satisfactory explanation for the emergence of complex intelligence in humans.

Another school of thought, this one largely made up of those outside of scientific disciplines, consider consciousness to either be simply beyond the possibility of explanation or at least dependent on some qualities that are not simply physical (i.e. molecules, etc.).

Lastly, those who support quantum theory of mind also disagree with how Crick simplifies the workings of the brain to only classical physics.

*/*/*/*/*/*

It looks like Sean Carroll is leaning towards the second school.
I hung out with the first school, the materialist approach.

Just as Crick is giving his slant.

Opinions are not facts.

[Nathan_Jr]

33 minutes ago, Mike said:

That video is good. I like Sean Carroll.
That's the second time this video was posted.

He mentions Libertarian Free Will. That's also called classical and contra-causal.

Sean Carroll is a Physicist and ALL the determinism he mentions here is the simple physics type.

My work is in the compatibilst area that he mentions.

I purposely designed minFW to be a compatibilist kind of FW by having it USE determinism to generate its freedom.

Someone here (Nathan_Jr ?) was aghast at the idea there could be more than one kind of free will.  Yes, there are.

Dennett wrote a whole book on the "other" varieties of free will.

Aghast? 

[So_crates]

5 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Aghast? 

You know how he likes to play fast and loose with definitions.

He defines questioning an outrageous statement as "aghast".

Edited November 18, 2022 by So_crates

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, So_crates said:

Just as Crick is giving his slant.

Opinions are not facts.

Right.  This is NOT finished science; it's the frontier.  No one has this stuff nailed down.  Carroll says so towards the end. He admits he doesn't know for sure.

Here is  his last sentence. I totally agree with it (with my bold fonts):

"What we have to say is, 'Given the choices I make, what is the future that I'm going to help bring about?' So like it or not, the world that we really know and live in is one where our choices matter. That's where meaning comes from, from recognizing that in the real world of the knowledge that we have and our computational boundedness, we have some responsibility for bringing about what is going to happen next."

Old fashioned Libertarian FW would have those bold fonted words different.  The "help" would be deleted, and the "some" would be chanted to "total."

So, Carroll is departing from classical free will here, like I do.

*/*/*/*/*

Usually, in this big debate, Compatibilism is defined as finding ways Libertarian FW and determinism can be reconciled.

I am an unconventional Compatibilist in that I am working on a way to have minFW and determinism reconciled.

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, So_crates said:

You know how he likes to play fast and loose with definitions.

He defines questioning an outrageous statement as "aghast".

It sounds like you are STILL aghast.  Did you see the subtitle in Dennett's "Elbow Room" yet?

His talks about all sorts of ways FW can be defined, and says we should shop around to see which one works best.