HUMANS DO NOT ACT, BUT REACT, SO MUCH FOR FREE WILL

[Gary Childress]

I'm using "absurd" in the logical sense, Gary, not the Existentialist sense. Determinism is wrong because it's dumb and self-defeating, not because it's painful or confusing.

I thought you said determinism is wrong because it is absurd.

Absurd in the logical sense. Dumb. Self-contradictory. Doesn't add up. Not to be believed rationally.

How does the idea that our actions may be determined "contradict" itself? Where is the contradiction in the statement "our actions are causally pre-determined"?

[Immanuel Can]

I thought you said determinism is wrong because it is absurd.

Absurd in the logical sense. Dumb. Self-contradictory. Doesn't add up. Not to be believed rationally.

How does the idea that our actions may be determined "contradict" itself?

Go back and read my previous messages on the subject. It's all there.

[Gary Childress]

Absurd in the logical sense. Dumb. Self-contradictory. Doesn't add up. Not to be believed rationally.

How does the idea that our actions may be determined "contradict" itself?

Go back and read my previous messages on the subject. It's all there.

IIRC, you stated that the determinist is trying to inform people that they have no free will. But if there is no free will, then informing people has no effect.

But if we have no free will, then we have no free will and people could be pre-determined to say many different things including that we do or don't have free will. A logical contradiction would be trying to maintain that people are both determined and not determined (both A and not the case A are true). If the determinist is only saying that we have no free will then he is not saying both that we have free will and that we don't have free will. Where's the "contradiction" in the statement that human actions are causally pre-determined?

[Immanuel Can]

How does the idea that our actions may be determined "contradict" itself?

Go back and read my previous messages on the subject. It's all there.

IIRC, you stated that the determinist is trying to inform people that they have no free will. But if there is no free will, then informing people has no effect.

You didn't read. I never used the word "inform." I used the word "argue." I also used the word "reason."

Determinism has no place for either in any causal explanation it recognizes as valid. So neither can be sponsoring belief in Determinism...if Determinism were true.

It's just that silly.

[Walker]

You're quite right. If you have sufficient knowledge of all preceding events and a god-like intellect, you could predict future events, but that applies solely to imaginary friends. As I stated previously, give me one example of a behaviour of humanity that is not previously motivated and can legitimately be called a human action, not a reaction. One, not including epileptic seizures.

To say that human agency cannot be excluded from The Principle of Inevitability does not contradict the fact that an outcome need not be preconceived to be inevitable.

[Gary Childress]

Go back and read my previous messages on the subject. It's all there.

IIRC, you stated that the determinist is trying to inform people that they have no free will. But if there is no free will, then informing people has no effect.

You didn't read. I never used the word "inform." I used the word "argue." I also used the word "reason."

Determinism has no place for either in any causal explanation it recognizes as valid. So neither can be sponsoring belief in Determinism...if Determinism were true.

It's just that silly.

It's certainly far from proven that determinism is the case. However, it doesn't appear to be conclusively ruled out. I'll leave it at that.

[popeye1945]

You're quite right. If you have sufficient knowledge of all preceding events and a god-like intellect, you could predict future events, but that applies solely to imaginary friends. As I stated previously, give me one example of a behaviour of humanity that is not previously motivated and can legitimately be called a human action, not a reaction. One, not including epileptic seizures.

To say that human agency cannot be excluded from The Principle of Inevitability does not contradict the fact that an outcome need not be preconceived to be inevitable.

Walker
Excellent point; we could never know the limits of possibility without understanding the creative field structures for both form and the possibilities of form.

[Walker]

Along those lines, it appears that logically, conceptions of Determinism must include Inevitability, however, conceptions of Determinism need not include preconceptions of the future.

[Immanuel Can]

IIRC, you stated that the determinist is trying to inform people that they have no free will. But if there is no free will, then informing people has no effect.

You didn't read. I never used the word "inform." I used the word "argue." I also used the word "reason."

Determinism has no place for either in any causal explanation it recognizes as valid. So neither can be sponsoring belief in Determinism...if Determinism were true.

It's just that silly.

It's certainly far from proven that determinism is the case. However, it doesn't appear to be conclusively ruled out. I'll leave it at that.

What IS ruled out is any coherence to a man arguing in favour of it, or claiming it's a product of reason. And he can't even really choose to believe it himself, since he denies that anybody can choose to believe anything.

So his posture of superior knowledge is simple rubbish. By his own account, he's nothing but the mindless playing-out of prior physical causes. He has no real "mind," no particular "identity," no "ability to discern," no "faculty of reason"; rather, whatever beliefs he holds, including his belief in Determinism, is entirely an accidental matter, something caused by physical forces, not required by intelligence.

If Determinism were true, then, we would all be trapped in a world in which all our situations, feelings, thinking and beliefs are nothing but such accidents. We've completely lost any ability to ask "why," since there's no longer any person, self, intelligence, mind or reason to ask or consider such a thing.

And yes, you might think that's possible. But if it is, then abandon all hope. Because there's no way out of that trap, and no way you even understand the trap itself. All your self-pity and poor-meism is empty mewling into the void. Nobody's hearing you...not God, not me, not anybody else, and not even yourself, since none of us exist as distinct entities. All there is, is the mindless playing out of chains of cause and effect.

So what's the payoff for insisting on that? Who's going to reward you for it? What are you going to win? There isn't even a way to call it "good" or "realistic," since neither term has any meaning in a Determinist universe. What Gary thinks/feels is just what Gary is being caused to think/feel, and boo hoo. That's the implication.

You want to live with that?

[Gary Childress]

And yes, you might think that's possible. But if it is, then abandon all hope. Because there's no way out of that trap, and no way you even understand the trap itself. All your self-pity and poor-meism is empty mewling into the void. Nobody's hearing you...not God, not me, not anybody else, and not even yourself, since none of us exist as distinct entities. All there is, is the mindless playing out of chains of cause and effect.

So what's the payoff for insisting on that? Who's going to reward you for it? What are you going to win? There isn't even a way to call it "good" or "realistic," since neither term has any meaning in a Determinist universe. What Gary thinks/feels is just what Gary is being caused to think/feel, and boo hoo. That's the implication.

You want to live with that?

It's not up to me whether or not I "want" to live with that. It's a matter of what is the case. As I say it's far from proven, however, there is the possibility. And...perhaps responding to your comment this is just me playing out my determined path. Had I not responded to your comment, then that would have been my determined path. But, unfortunately, I am a mere mortal, so either we have free will and as a mere mortal, I don't know it. Or we are determined and I know nothing at all.

If it makes you feel any better, my belief in the possibility of determinism rests on the Libet experiment and nothing else. I can think of reasons to disbelieve the conclusion that we are determined (based on the Libet experiment ) but it may just be me playing out my determined path in doing so. In the meantime, in case we have free will, I will continue to do or not do, say or not say, be or not be, to the best of my reckoning, etc. I see no logical reason to proceed with the assumption that we don't have free will. Except, perhaps, maybe it would help me feel less judgmental toward others who do really crappy things.

[Immanuel Can]

And yes, you might think that's possible. But if it is, then abandon all hope. Because there's no way out of that trap, and no way you even understand the trap itself. All your self-pity and poor-meism is empty mewling into the void. Nobody's hearing you...not God, not me, not anybody else, and not even yourself, since none of us exist as distinct entities. All there is, is the mindless playing out of chains of cause and effect.

So what's the payoff for insisting on that? Who's going to reward you for it? What are you going to win? There isn't even a way to call it "good" or "realistic," since neither term has any meaning in a Determinist universe. What Gary thinks/feels is just what Gary is being caused to think/feel, and boo hoo. That's the implication.

You want to live with that?

It's not up to me whether or not I "want" to live with that. It's a matter of what is the case.

Under Determinism, that would be true. But then, if Determinism were true, there'd be no "Gary" to observe it.

[Gary Childress]

And yes, you might think that's possible. But if it is, then abandon all hope. Because there's no way out of that trap, and no way you even understand the trap itself. All your self-pity and poor-meism is empty mewling into the void. Nobody's hearing you...not God, not me, not anybody else, and not even yourself, since none of us exist as distinct entities. All there is, is the mindless playing out of chains of cause and effect.

So what's the payoff for insisting on that? Who's going to reward you for it? What are you going to win? There isn't even a way to call it "good" or "realistic," since neither term has any meaning in a Determinist universe. What Gary thinks/feels is just what Gary is being caused to think/feel, and boo hoo. That's the implication.

You want to live with that?

It's not up to me whether or not I "want" to live with that. It's a matter of what is the case.

Under Determinism, that would be true. But then, if Determinism were true, there'd be no "Gary" to observe it.

I don't know. It seems to me that I could still be me and be on a path completely causally determined by neural reactions that are beyond my control or knowledge. Being conscious could possibly be separate from free will or not free will.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not up to me whether or not I "want" to live with that. It's a matter of what is the case.

Under Determinism, that would be true. But then, if Determinism were true, there'd be no "Gary" to observe it.

I don't know. It seems to me that I could still be me and be on a path completely causally determined by neural reactions that are beyond my control or knowledge. Being conscious could possibly be separate from free will or not free will.

Consciousness is not a material property, just like "mind" and "brain" are not the same. Determinism allows the material to exist, but simply expresses gratuitous disbelief in the immaterial real.

Ironically, there's no "person" to express such a thing, because "personhood" is an immaterial property.

[Gary Childress]

Under Determinism, that would be true. But then, if Determinism were true, there'd be no "Gary" to observe it.

I don't know. It seems to me that I could still be me and be on a path completely causally determined by neural reactions that are beyond my control or knowledge. Being conscious could possibly be separate from free will or not free will.

Consciousness is not a material property, just like "mind" and "brain" are not the same. Determinism allows the material to exist, but simply expresses gratuitous disbelief in the immaterial real.

Ironically, there's no "person" to express such a thing, because "personhood" is an immaterial property.

True. Consciousness is not a material property. However, brain and consciousness are clearly connected. It seems fair to me to think that when the brain goes, so will all the conscious processes that rely on physical features of the body, which may include memories and consciousness itself. However, there's no evidence to believe that consciousness would be impossible without free will.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know. It seems to me that I could still be me and be on a path completely causally determined by neural reactions that are beyond my control or knowledge. Being conscious could possibly be separate from free will or not free will.

Consciousness is not a material property, just like "mind" and "brain" are not the same. Determinism allows the material to exist, but simply expresses gratuitous disbelief in the immaterial real.

Ironically, there's no "person" to express such a thing, because "personhood" is an immaterial property.

True. Consciousness is not a material property.

Here's the key: is it a REAL property? Is it a REAL thing?

If it is, Determinism isn't true.

However, brain and consciousness are clearly connected.

Yes, but not in any conventional way. It's a marvel how the mind keeps operating when the brain is, say, injured, dysfunctional, incorrectly formed...experts have a word for it: they call it "neuroplasticity." But that doesn't even quite capture it. There are actually people who are devoid of large portions of brain material, yet who are as intelligent as you or me. How is that possible, if "brain" were the same as "mind'? It wouldn't be.

As to whether the mind outlives the brain...that's a different question, too.

...there's no evidence to believe that consciousness would be impossible without free will.

It depends on what you mean by "consciousness," then. In a deterministic world, there could be entities that experience phenomena similar to cognition. But those phenomena could not mean anything, could not be any part of a description of what's really happening, and could not be included in any causal chain. They could be a kind of delusion called an "epiphenomenon," but not a real thing, and certainly not something that was involved in causing actions.

Dumb. That's all one can say about Determinism. It denies the very existence of the mind, while trying to appeal to the mind. Dumb.