Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:30 pm "He did not redefine determinism."

I believe if you review this thread you'll find you yourself claimed the old definition of determinism is wrong and your dad's definition was correct...sound like 'redefining' to me.

Redefining would be changing the definition entirely. He didn't change the definition. He just tweaked it to help reconcile the two opposing ideologies by showing that although we are compelled to do what we do (hence why our will is not free), we also are not forced to do anything against our will. Nothing but nothing can make us act in ways we don't want, not even a "causal" event. This has created a big problem in these debates.

#

henry quirk wrote:"He just clarified what determinism means."

And I just clarified what free will means.

And I agreed that those definitions are valid, but the definition that most people find significant is the issue over moral responsibility.

#

peacegirl wrote:"You obviously haven't absorbed why man's will is not free."

henry quirk wrote:No, you obviously haven't accepted that you are a free will.

If that's all you have to say, then there's nothing more to discuss.

#

peacegirl wrote:I cannot do better in explaining these facts, so let's agree to disagree."

henry quirk wrote:Okay.

#

"Some people just won't get it, and that's okay."

Oh, I get it. Thing is: your dad is wrong.

You can think what you want. I will post this one more time for anyone who is trying to understand why the term "free will" does not mean we actually have freedom of the will. We are not free to choose A or B equally, A representing hurting someone without a justification (which you cannot do) and B not hurting someone which doesn't require a justification. Which choice shall it be? If you were free you could choose A just as well as B, but you cannot. We are constrained by internal forces that compel us only to choose only that which we want, not that which we don't want.

The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

Of course it was.

Again: you and your dad misunderstand 'free' as used with 'will'.

By your dad's reckoning, a free market cannot be a 'free' market cuz folks gotta pay.

A free market is where folks transact without restriction, not where folks go to get free shit.

A free will is one who chooses freely within the context of the world (and initiates new causal chains and bends old ones), not some disembedded, disinterested, magical creature.

Your dad wrote a whole book based on a misunderstanding of one lil word, wasting a whole whack of his time (and yours).

#

"You can think what you want."

I can, I do, I will (cuz *ahem* I'm a free will).

#

"free will" does not mean we actually have freedom of the will."

Correct. Free wills are what you and I are, not a quality we possess.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:01 pm Of course it was.

Again: you and your dad misunderstand 'free' as used with 'will'.

No he did not misunderstand anything.

henry quirk wrote:By your dad's reckoning, a free market cannot be a 'free' market cuz folks gotta pay.

A free market is where folks transact without restriction, not where folks go to get free shit.

Determinism does not mean we don't have this kind of freedom, which he went over. But this freedom (this doing what one desires) doesn't grant us free will. Did you not read my previous post?

henry quirk wrote:A free will is one who chooses freely within the context of the world (and initiates new causal chains and bends old ones), not some disembedded, disinterested, magical creature.

A causal chain is exactly what is confusing people because it means that the chain can't bend; that we are machines that are programmed to do what the machine tells us to do like robots. The chain CAN bend because past events cannot force a choice on us. We live in the present and we make choices in the present. No past event can cause an agent to do anything without his permission.

henry quirk wrote:Your dad wrote a whole book based on a misunderstanding of one lil word, wasting a whole whack of his time (and yours).

There is no misunderstanding, there is a greater understanding.

#

peacegirl wrote:"You can think what you want."

I can, I do, I will (cuz *ahem* I'm a free will).

No, whatever choice you make it's not a free one. If you would like to continue posting, try stopping. Don't post anymore. Show me how free your will is by choosing what you don't prefer.

#

peacegirl wrote:"free will" does not mean we actually have freedom of the will."

henry quirk wrote:Correct. Free wills are what you and I are, not a quality we possess.

Whatever that means.

More 'satisfying' to pretend you don't know what I'm talkin' about.

As you like.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:16 pm Logik you asked Peacegirl what "greater satisfaction " predicts. Here is the rest of what Peacegirl wrote about greater satisfaction:

Once again, you recognize that negative emotions aren't good for you (this is part of your growing knowledge base) therefore you have decided (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to remove drama queens from your social circle. This does not negate the fact that man's will is not free based on the greater satisfaction principle.

The decision involving drama queens I believe was Henry Quirk's .
The reasoning man may defer satisfaction so that there will be greater satisfaction at a later time or place. It's difficult to predict what an individual man will do even when one is aware of his predispositions. The direction of greater satisfaction is easier to predict when the individual is emotionally reactive than when the individual is reflective.

It's impossible to predict what large groups of people will do in the long term because of the chaos of possibilities. It's comparatively easy for a naturalist to predict what large groups of other animals will do because other animals especially wild animals behave mostly instinctively, and any cultural transmission from mother to offspring will be a lot slower than the sometimes lightning-fast cultural shifts of men.

So predict SOMETHING.Anything!

Currently all that is being said is that "people will choose that which brings upon maximum satisfaction".
What is THE satisfaction that majority of people desire? You would expect that to maximise through the system.

That is nothing more than a re-wording of the selection principle. That which is being selected FOR will maximise through the system.
Natural selection selects for survival. Therefore there are more surviving species and less extinct species to be observed (DUH!)

This is (literally) survivorship bias.

That is how positive feedback loops work.

But you can't tell me WHICH species will survive and which will be extinct 1000 years from now.

Controlled experiments in chemistry yield high degrees of prediction for the same process as variables are artificially excluded. Similarly for artificial animal breeding where one or very few specific traits are bred for there is a high degree of prediction that parent animals will breed true to type.

An individual human who is a drug addict will behave predictably compared with another individual human whose choices are more varied and numerous.

History shows that humans en masse are supremely unpredictable. On the morning of 24 June 2016 David Cameron knew that humans en masse are supremely unpredictable regarding what satisfies them the most.

What is THE satisfaction that majority of people desire? You would expect that to maximise through the system.

No historian expects to be able to predict what a mass of people will desire. No specific cultural or ideological desire has maximised in the long term.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:51 am Controlled experiments in chemistry yield high degrees of prediction for the same process as variables are artificially excluded. Similarly for artificial animal breeding where one or very few specific traits are bred for there is a high degree of prediction that parent animals will breed true to type.

An individual human who is a drug addict will behave predictably compared with another individual human whose choices are more varied and numerous.

History shows that humans en masse are supremely unpredictable. On the morning of 24 June 2016 David Cameron knew that humans en masse are supremely unpredictable regarding what satisfies them the most.

What is THE satisfaction that majority of people desire? You would expect that to maximise through the system.

No historian expects to be able to predict what a mass of people will desire. No specific cultural or ideological desire has maximised in the long term.

So then what is it that this principle tells you?

Because information (by definition) empirically answers at least one yes/no question.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:43 pm This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions.

Somebody doesn't understand that logic is mathematics, so they are trying to draw a distinction to justify an unjustifiable claim.

It's a poorly disguised appeal to common sense.

Belinda wrote:No historian expects to be able to predict what a mass of people will desire. No specific cultural or ideological desire has maximised in the long term.

AI a trillion times smarter than a human will challenge such assumed probabilities and maybe even close the empirical door on free will … much as Einstein had to wait for fast-moving aeroplanes to empirically prove his rationality since the haircut didn’t do it for him.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:51 am No historian expects to be able to predict what a mass of people will desire. No specific cultural or ideological desire has maximised in the long term.

By the way, Will Durant would disagree, and his observation is in line with Peacegirl's "revolutionary idea".

A nation is born stoic, and dies epicurean. At its cradle (to repeat a thoughtful adage) religion stands, and philosophy accompanies it to the grave.

The principle being discussed can simply be seen as a tendency from stoicism towards epicureanism. It's still a qualitative prediction.

Henry Quirk wrote:

I chose to keep the pad even though it would better serve me to just trash it and get another, and I can do this cuz I'm a free will.

That's evidence that you are decisive. What is the cause of your decisive will ?

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:25 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:51 am No historian expects to be able to predict what a mass of people will desire. No specific cultural or ideological desire has maximised in the long term.

By the way, Will Durant would disagree, and his observation is in line with Peacegirl's "revolutionary idea".

A nation is born stoic, and dies epicurean. At its cradle (to repeat a thoughtful adage) religion stands, and philosophy accompanies it to the grave.

The principle being discussed can simply be seen as a tendency from stoicism towards epicureanism. It's still a qualitative prediction.

But grand narratives of history ('metahistories')are suspected of presuming the theory or ideology and thus skewing or discounting the available evidence. BTW your second quote is not from me.

Like Peacegirl I'm a Determinist. Determinism doesn't imply prediction, so in that respect I disagree with Peacegirl. Grand narratives that predict are not reliable. Large groups of humans are notoriously unpredictable e.g. the Brexit referendum.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:15 pm BTW your second quote is not from me.

Yes. It's Will Durant's quote.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:15 pm Like Peacegirl I'm a Determinist. Determinism doesn't imply prediction, so in that respect I disagree with Peacegirl. Grand narratives that predict are not reliable. Large groups of humans are notoriously unpredictable e.g. the Brexit referendum.

I have long stopped playing the "label myself" game. I am Logik.

The way I understand and use the concept of 'determinism' is the ability to predict better than coin.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:15 pm Large groups of humans are notoriously unpredictable e.g. the Brexit referendum.

Any Individual event/outcome is notoriously difficult to predict - like the outcomes of referendums.

The behavior of humans over a period of time shows general trends though.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:37 am More 'satisfying' to pretend you don't know what I'm talkin' about.

As you like.

If you say you're a free will, I can say I'm a no free will. It doesn't change anything.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:40 pm If you say you're a free will, I can say I'm a no free will. It doesn't change anything.

Exactly!

You are just playing language games.

So whether you label or don't label yourself as a 'free will' it makes no difference.

What we do makes a difference.

You are still no closer to telling us what we SHOULD do to fix the world.

Relabeling 'free will' to 'non-free will' is unlikely to fix anything.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:06 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:43 pm This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions.

Somebody doesn't understand that logic is mathematics, so they are trying to draw a distinction to justify an unjustifiable claim.

It's a poorly disguised appeal to common sense.

He tried to distinguish logic --- which can often be valid but unsound --- from mathematics which is sound when done correctly. He didn't want people to get caught up in the language because he knew it was imprecise. He wanted to convey that the words mathematical, scientific, and undeniable were being used interchangeably so that people would know not to get caught up so much in the words but rather the proof.