determimism

[Hobbes' Choice]

The universe made itself at with each step determined by the last and determining the next.

The bit that baffles me about this self-evident truth is the fact that those who favour the god hypothesis don't find this awe-inspiring enough. In my opinion only a philistine with neither music in his heart nor poetry in his soul could fail to be awe-struck by a self-causal cosmos which mandates its own comprehensibility. The universe sufficient to its own existence is a truth far bigger than god and one which many of the ancient philosophies have cherished for millennia.

I know. There is nothing more incomprehensible than Faith. Those Christians are Crazy Toc, Toc!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think much of the confusion of this topic lies with slippery translations of meaning regarding which is the thing 'determining'.... Nature or people?

In fact both nature and people determine things, the difference is that, that which nature determines, is set in stone, and that which humans determine is relative to their knowledge/ignorance, truth/belief, which is what gives way to that which is called free will.

[Necromancer]

Science, all in all, has not a nitbit of meaning in it, IMO, given the outside sphere of science itself. I.e., you can say that this and that has meaning, but only insofar as it relates to science itself. Other than that, you can equally ask a car to yield meaning for you.

The question in science on the other hand is scientific realism or something else, but what?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Science, all in all, has not a nitbit of meaning in it, IMO, given the outside sphere of science itself. I.e., you can say that this and that has meaning, but only insofar as it relates to science itself. Other than that, you can equally ask a car to yield meaning for you.
Says he who's avatar and nym support supposed communication with the dead so as to be capable of foretelling the future and discovering hidden knowledge via supernatural means. Yet he does so on a machine born of science, and I assume he travels to work in a machine also born of science, ever been sick and gone to a doctor, again born of science. So you tell me what all that science you use and depend upon means? Or did you create this message while naked in the woods waving a stick around, while talking to the dead.


The question in science on the other hand is scientific realism or something else, but what?

[Briancrc]

When someone offers a view of determinism and the response by another is, "You're stupid," is the person offering up the insult determined to be a douche or choosing to be one?

[Scott Mayers]

When someone offers a view of determinism and the response by another is, "You're stupid," is the person offering up the insult determined to be a douche or choosing to be one?

Good one.

But I think we're determined to know that we are indeterminate about what we could determine about what we know we could not determine infinitely. Unless, that is, you are determined to just stop at trying to determine infinitely.

[Hobbes' Choice]

When someone offers a view of determinism and the response by another is, "You're stupid," is the person offering up the insult determined to be a douche or choosing to be one?

Good one.

But I think we're determined to know that we are indeterminate about what we could determine about what we know we could not determine infinitely. Unless, that is, you are determined to just stop at trying to determine infinitely.

But everything I do is determined, and I am determined to assert this point voluntarily.

[Obvious Leo]

But everything I do is determined, and I am determined to assert this point voluntarily.

In that case you stand accused of being a scientific heretic and you may thank your lucky stars that burning your like at the stake is no longer regarded as a fashionable form of popular entertainment. Since 1908 it has been considered canon science that determinism and pre-determinism are synonymous constructs and thus according to the geeks your claim that you are privileged to assert anything at all voluntarily is bollocks, Hobbes.

Your assertions are written in the stars, pal, so suck it up and learn to live with it. However you may find comfort in the knowledge that you and I could find ourselves on adjacent pyres if the fashions should revert and the canon orthodoxies are once again reinforced with their former enthusiasm. We can sullenly mutter "eppur si muove" in the ancient Italian and then burst into a stirring rendition of "gaudeamus igitur" before going up in flames. It should be a barrel of laughs.

[Hobbes' Choice]

But everything I do is determined, and I am determined to assert this point voluntarily.

In that case you stand accused of being a scientific heretic and you may thank your lucky stars that burning your like at the stake is no longer regarded as a fashionable form of popular entertainment. Since 1908 it has been considered canon science that determinism and pre-determinism are synonymous constructs and thus according to the geeks your claim that you are privileged to assert anything at all voluntarily is bollocks, Hobbes.

Your assertions are written in the stars, pal, so suck it up and learn to live with it. However you may find comfort in the knowledge that you and I could find ourselves on adjacent pyres if the fashions should revert and the canon orthodoxies are once again reinforced with their former enthusiasm. We can sullenly mutter "eppur si muove" in the ancient Italian and then burst into a stirring rendition of "gaudeamus igitur" before going up in flames. It should be a barrel of laughs.

I've always thought Hume had the whole question nailed down pretty satisfactorily with compatibilism- a philosophical idea so remote that the spelling checker does not even recognise the word.
It's all a matter of the form of words. As vocal and mobile determinants we are agents of change and causality, in a deterministic world for which no effect happens without cause. This only becomes problematic when confronted with the concept of an omniscient deity who would have to know since the beginning of time every sparrow that falls.
Since that being does not seem to exist, then there is no problem. And we talk about the exercise of our will all the time with unknowable consequences. We can and do as we will; but we cannot will as we will as Schop said, that will is only as free as it is unencumbered by the wills of others and the limitations of the environment; hence compatible with determinism.

[Obvious Leo]

I had my compatibilism explained to me by the men in frocks when I was but a callow youth and it never made a lick of sense to me then just as it doesn't now so I like Hume's version a hell of a lot better. The Jesuits were a clever lot but they were never quite capable of making the nuanced distinction between reasoning and rationalising to the satisfaction of an inveterate contrarian and what you say is absolutely correct. The notion of the human will is incompatible with the notion of a divine creator no matter how eloquently they present their arguments to the contrary. It is also utterly incompatible with the linear determinism of Newtonian physics and one of the conclusions of the block universe assumptions of spacetime which caused Einstein to recoil with horror. It caused him no end of existential angst because poor old Albert was really a Spinozan at heart.

[Obvious Leo]

What the Newtonian model completely disregards is that determinism operates both top down and bottom up in physically real systems. If you feel thirsty this is because your body's cells need water and this information reaches your higher brain functions through a causal chain operating from the bottom up. However it is not mandated that you quench your thirst by walking to the tap because you can be a pigheaded idiot and die of thirst instead if this happens to be your personal preference. However if you do choose to have a drink of water then the information that you have done so quickly finds its way back down the causal chain and changes your cellular chemistry accordingly and your thirst will go away. This is hardly rocket science but in fact this is incompatible with the so-called "laws of physics" so it's a funny old world we live in.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What the Newtonian model completely disregards is that determinism operates both top down and bottom up in physically real systems. If you feel thirsty this is because your body's cells need water and this information reaches your higher brain functions through a causal chain operating from the bottom up. However it is not mandated that you quench your thirst by walking to the tap because you can be a pigheaded idiot and die of thirst instead if this happens to be your personal preference. However if you do choose to have a drink of water then the information that you have done so quickly finds its way back down the causal chain and changes your cellular chemistry accordingly and your thirst will go away. This is hardly rocket science but in fact this is incompatible with the so-called "laws of physics" so it's a funny old world we live in.

Deciding to drink water, is in ordinary parlance an act of will. The trick is to know what that actually entails, rather than a childish and simplistic idea that the choice is freely made - free from what exactly? And so drawing water from the tap and drinking it makes perfect sense only when you know that this action is stimulated by a chain of causality which does not stop at the imbibing and refreshing the blood with water, but continues in an infinite and multitude of causes and effects. The will is important as humans are able to prioritise drinking, or not, over some other action, such as dodging a bullet, or looking at a shapely leg. What we call volition or motivation is a thing decided in each 'black box' of causality that is our body. The willful actions of those might appear free, but this is due to the unknown causal factors hidden in the black-box.

[PoeticUniverse]

We can and do as we will; but we cannot will as we will as Schop said, that will is only as free as it is unencumbered by the wills of others and the limitations of the environment; hence compatible with determinism.

Yes, this is all that compatiblism is delivering to us, as if it some great blended solution, which it isn't, for all it says that we as humans are able to operate, as 'free', without coercion, but within that is the admitted determinism.

Well, they forgot that the events that coerce us, like other people, big weather storms, sickness, and such were also going to happen, via that same determinism that they hold to.

I still get what they are after, that we are somewhat separate entities, and can operate, but that we can't will the will, which can never be in any sense free from being fixed (to what we've become at that instant of usage).

Yes, I had to write this, in this way, based on what I've become up to now.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We can and do as we will; but we cannot will as we will as Schop said, that will is only as free as it is unencumbered by the wills of others and the limitations of the environment; hence compatible with determinism.

Yes, this is all that compatiblism is delivering to us, as if it some great blended solution, which it isn't, for all it says that we as humans are able to operate, as 'free', without coercion, but within that is the admitted determinism.

Well, they forgot that the events that coerce us, like other people, big weather storms, sickness, and such were also going to happen, via that same determinism that they hold to.

NO. "THEY" whomsoever you think "they" are, did not forget that.

I still get what they are after, that we are somewhat separate entities, and can operate, but that we can't will the will, which can never be in any sense free from being fixed (to what we've become at that instant of usage).

Yes, I had to write this, in this way, based on what I've become up to now.

And Hume agrees with you completely. There is not problem here. Compatibilism does not allow classical free will - it simply reconciles what we mean by it within the framework which is wholly deterministic.

[Obvious Leo]

Yes, I had to write this, in this way, based on what I've become up to now.

Up to Now is a slippery beast. I agree with what you say but this doesn't' negate the will because quite literally trillions of trillions of trillions of moments Now pass every second of our lives. One moment Now will determine it's own next moment Now at the Planck scale but at the scale of an emergent entity such as a poet all our moments Now are multi-causal. This makes them no less determinate but utterly unpredictable because of the complexity of the entire suite of causal dynamics which make the poet do what he does. In other words what you write next is yet to be determined because it hasn't been determined yet, if I can be allowed such a tautology. You can even change your mind in mid-sentence if you wish and thoroughly baffle us all.

I generally try to avoid free will arguments in philosophy forums because not many people actually understand non-linear determinism and thus they can often be in furious argument with each other while actually saying the same thing.