Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes Choice wrote:

This changes nothing, since your reason is also determined.

Yes, but reason is what allows us to predict, insofar as we can predict. Correct predictions give power and thus increased freedom. It's also possible to transfer reason from one person to another.

Belinda wrote:Hobbes Choice wrote:

This changes nothing, since your reason is also determined.

Yes, but reason is what allows us to predict, insofar as we can predict. Correct predictions give power and thus increased freedom. It's also possible to transfer reason from one person to another.

Yes, its called causality. Shit happens; we react, things change. Are we on the same page?

Belinda wrote:Yes, but reason is what allows us to predict, insofar as we can predict. Correct predictions give power and thus increased freedom. It's also possible to transfer reason from one person to another.

Well, this is odd.

How can reason "give power and freedom," when Determinism requires that the explanation of "power" is "the sum of previous material, causal determinants," and the explanation of "freedom" is "the feeling that non-autonomous creatures have when they imagine Determinism is not true"? (note: These definitions are not yours, of course; but they are analytically necessary to Determinism, it would seem.)

What's left of power that is powerful-for-me, or of freedom that is actually freeing-from-predetermined-outcomes if Determinism is true?

Yes sir, it is.

'I'm restrained but free': poop, poop, and more poop.

When it comes to 'Free Will vs Determinism' it really does come to 'this' or 'that'.

If the universe is determined (not simply deterministic [rule-bound but open] but literally determined as in a row of falling dominoes is determined [rule-bound and closed]) then free will is manure, we're all bio-automatons, and 01000110 01010101 01000011 01001011 01011001 01001111 01010101 00100001 too.

But if free will is real (that is, a person can choose 'this' instead of 'that' without restraint by the past) then determinism is (in some way, in some aspects, at least part of the time) false.

Pick your poison, drink it down, and get on with it (being a robot, or being an agent).

As long as it seems the same, who cares. Except when you base your reasoning on one or the other.

Yep.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote:Yes, but reason is what allows us to predict, insofar as we can predict. Correct predictions give power and thus increased freedom. It's also possible to transfer reason from one person to another.

Well, this is odd.

How can reason "give power and freedom," when Determinism requires that the explanation of "power" is "the sum of previous material, causal determinants," and the explanation of "freedom" is "the feeling that non-autonomous creatures have when they imagine Determinism is not true"? (note: These definitions are not yours, of course; but they are analytically necessary to Determinism, it would seem.)

What's left of power that is powerful-for-me, or of freedom that is actually freeing-from-predetermined-outcomes if Determinism is true?

Are you saying there can be such a thing as an uncaused effect?

How many human beings have actually ever pondered over WHY must it be a case of one vs the other or one over the other?

Could it be possible that free will and determinism both belong and exist, maybe even equally?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote:Yes, but reason is what allows us to predict, insofar as we can predict. Correct predictions give power and thus increased freedom. It's also possible to transfer reason from one person to another.

Well, this is odd.

How can reason "give power and freedom," when Determinism requires that the explanation of "power" is "the sum of previous material, causal determinants," and the explanation of "freedom" is "the feeling that non-autonomous creatures have when they imagine Determinism is not true"? (note: These definitions are not yours, of course; but they are analytically necessary to Determinism, it would seem.)

What's left of power that is powerful-for-me, or of freedom that is actually freeing-from-predetermined-outcomes if Determinism is true?

Are you saying there can be such a thing as an uncaused effect?

Because the sum of previous events cannot be understood with or without reason, however with reason the sum of previous events is better understood than it is for instance by an ignoramus who knows nothing about previous events or has never learned to make reasoned predictions.Please remember that I am not trying to protect the idea of so-called 'Free Will';I'm trying to promote the idea of relative freedom, by which I mean that for instance an individual who stops being an ignoramus will have upped their level of freedom of choice.

A concrete example is that someone who learns to control their anger when it's not required will be more powerful than when they were emotionally reactive. Not every deterministic constraint can be countered but ignorance is one which intelligent learners can to some extent dispel. If, on the other hand, there were some malign -intentioned fate this entity could control the future despite our efforts. But determinism isn't fate .Determinism means that what has happened necessarily happened. Determinism is not that which will happen necessarily will happen. (The latter definition is fate not determinism)

I am saying that there is no uncaused effect. I am not saying that future events are 100% predictable even in principle, as the future is too chaotic for that to be the case. I am saying that reason is some help towards limited predictability. This is not my fantasy. Science has made some amazing and enduring predictions.

ken wrote:How many human beings have actually ever pondered over WHY must it be a case of one vs the other or one over the other?

Could it be possible that free will and determinism both belong and exist, maybe even equally?

Determinism seems to be the trump card here, as there are those that insist that their actions are free even of themselves, which is absurd.
As far as I am concerned all acts of will have to be determined by who and what we are else they are meaningless. With each new choice, each new situation we both weigh up the consequences and according to how we feel, we act. Call this 'free' if you wish, but there is a seriously flawed legacy with the idea of 'free will'
Once again, as with so much, religion has corrupted common sense. How does the atheist ask can I accept God when he has made my such that my reason demands he does not exist?
God bestows the impossible, a free choice to all ( presumably even if you've never heard of Jesus), to accept or reject god's love. But this is absurd. I did not choose to be born into the life I have, nor do I have ultimate overview of all experience; yet inevitably my experience has led me to atheism. I could not more be a theist than I could, be a female negro dwarf.
John Calvin recognised this rather obvious problem with causality and the myth of free will, and concluded that an all powerful, all knowing god HAS TO HAVE KNOWN since the beginning of time who are the saved and who are the damned. Proving that some theists are not completely stupid, and are at least clever enough to fudge their belief system in the light of reason.

Belinda wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, this is odd.

How can reason "give power and freedom," when Determinism requires that the explanation of "power" is "the sum of previous material, causal determinants," and the explanation of "freedom" is "the feeling that non-autonomous creatures have when they imagine Determinism is not true"? (note: These definitions are not yours, of course; but they are analytically necessary to Determinism, it would seem.)

What's left of power that is powerful-for-me, or of freedom that is actually freeing-from-predetermined-outcomes if Determinism is true?

Are you saying there can be such a thing as an uncaused effect?

Because the sum of previous events cannot be understood with or without reason, however with reason the sum of previous events is better understood than it is for instance by an ignoramus who knows nothing about previous events or has never learned to make reasoned predictions.Please remember that I am not trying to protect the idea of so-called 'Free Will';I'm trying to promote the idea of relative freedom, by which I mean that for instance an individual who stops being an ignoramus will have upped their level of freedom of choice.

A concrete example is that someone who learns to control their anger when it's not required will be more powerful than when they were emotionally reactive. Not every deterministic constraint can be countered but ignorance is one which intelligent learners can to some extent dispel. If, on the other hand, there were some malign -intentioned fate this entity could control the future despite our efforts. But determinism isn't fate .Determinism means that what has happened necessarily happened. Determinism is not that which will happen necessarily will happen. (The latter definition is fate not determinism)

I am saying that there is no uncaused effect. I am not saying that future events are 100% predictable even in principle, as the future is too chaotic for that to be the case. I am saying that reason is some help towards limited predictability. This is not my fantasy. Science has made some amazing and enduring predictions.

Belinda.
You do realise that my question was not directed at you?
I get the difference between determinism and fatalism. Fatalism is only the same as determinism if you are god; actually if god exists.
I think you are I are on exactly the same page.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Are you saying there can be such a thing as an uncaused effect?

No, because if something is an "effect" you've already posited a "cause." So that would be self-contradiction; your choice of the question has imposed that.

However, semantics aside, I would rather take issue with the presupposition that material things are the only causal agents. It seems to me that human wills do qualify as capable of at least contributing in a somewhat autonomous (or to use normal language, at least somewhat "free") way to the stock of things that do indeed cause other things to happen.

In other words, I think human choice matters. It does change things -- not everything, but at least some things.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Fatalism is only the same as determinism if you are god; actually if god exists.

Non-sequitur.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Fatalism is only the same as determinism if you are god; actually if god exists.

Non-sequitur.

Show your reasoning! I won't hold my breath.


My is as follows.
As god is omniscient he has to have knowledge of all events from the beginning of time, and with each creation shall know who shall be saved and who shall be damned. To God all events unfold with inevitability. An all powerful god cannot not have made any mistakes, so changing the causal path, or any kind of capriciousness is a contradiction, so that which is deterministic, with ultimate knowledge means that it is fated.

I wonder if threads on predeterminism, determinism and free will are themselves determined, predetermined OR just plain all screwed up to the extent free will allows!