Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7r5jIEe9s

Ah yes...I know it and love it.

G'day, Bruce.

I'd have to argue with

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

, of course.

Dave Mangnall wrote:Let’s take your remarks point by point.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dave Mangnall wrote:Are you saying that being a Determinist debars me from saying that it’s likely that I’ll die in the next twenty years?

Not "debars," Dave, but rather "makes nonsensical."

1. You’re pretending not to understand the concept of subjective probability. Being predetermined is consistent with being unpredictable in practice, which is the situation to which subjective probability applies. I’m pretty sure you know that.

No. "Subjective" is not a real thing under Determinism. It's an "epiphenomenon," an illusionary byproduct of an essentially Determined universe. So you're resting your explanation on a "free will" word -- "subjective."

I'm just saying that rationally, you cannot do that.

Likewise, "probability." There are no counterfactual possibilities to the Determined, so there is no reality to "possibility" as an idea under Determinism.

I'm just saying that if you're going to declare Determinism true, then in order to remain rational, you need to give up using the words "subjective" and "probability" entirely. Otherwise, you're using doublespeak and confusing your case.

Or are you saying that there can be no consciousness within the Determinism model, and that without consciousness I cannot experience myself as a subject?

No. I'm saying that because Determinism is untrue, you CAN experience yourself as a subject; if it were true, you could not.

2. You’re pretending to believe that being the result of causal forces means that you don’t exist at all. You can’t possibly believe that!

No. You've attributed to me a reversed cause-effect statement I did not make or imply. Look again at your wording, and then at mine, and you'll see it.

Essentially, I'm saying that you DO exist, and you Do exist as a self-experiencing subject; therefore, we have a strong, experiential reason to deny Determinism. For were Determinism true, there would be no reason for such an existential experience to exist.

You don’t understand determinism.

Well, I'll go with you this far; perhaps one of us doesn't.

You don’t understand it because you don’t believe in it.

So...if a person doesn't believe in it, he can't possibly understand it? One has to believe first, and then, and only then, it becomes understandable?

That might be true for some things (like, say, "being an artist") but it's not true for rational or scientific propositions. By definition, then, Determinism is, by your account, a pre-rational faith conviction that issues in "understanding" only after the fact.

I think that's not true. But you can affirm that if you wish; just not rationally.

Then surely they're not your intentions. They are the intentions of the forces that compiled to make them happen. And there's no genuine you to have them, since there is no (non-metaphorical) subjectivity in a Determined cosmos.

5. You’re pretending, and not for the first time, to believe that just because a state of affairs is predetermined then it is unreal.

False. I'm saying that your subjectivity is illusory if Determinism is true.

So, for example, if you are predestined to be deceived then you’re not really deceived at all.

False again. I'm saying that there is no potential state of affairs in which you do not believe X, therefore no one can speak meaningfully of you being "deceived" about X. For "deceived" is a word that implies comparison to a state of affairs in which the agent in question believes the truth. But he or she cannot believe the truth, because he or she was predestined to believe exactly what he or she believes, and "deception" is a value-laden term.

You cannot accuse someone of being "deceived" or "deceptive" if they had absolutely no choice about what they did. As the Ethics axiom goes, "Ought implies can." But Determinism implies one "cannot-do-otherwise-than-one-did."

Interesting, Dave...but do try not to take me for being difficult just because I disagree with you. I'm not provoking you; my objections are genuine, and I do not care to "score points" in front of anyone here.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dave Mangnall wrote:Let’s take your remarks point by point.

Immanuel Can wrote: Not "debars," Dave, but rather "makes nonsensical."

1. You’re pretending not to understand the concept of subjective probability. Being predetermined is consistent with being unpredictable in practice, which is the situation to which subjective probability applies. I’m pretty sure you know that.

No. "Subjective" is not a real thing under Determinism. It's an "epiphenomenon," an illusionary byproduct of an essentially Determined universe. So you're resting your explanation on a "free will" word -- "subjective."

I'm just saying that rationally, you cannot do that.

Likewise, "probability." There are no counterfactual possibilities to the Determined, so there is no reality to "possibility" as an idea under Determinism.

I'm just saying that if you're going to declare Determinism true, then in order to remain rational, you need to give up using the words "subjective" and "probability" entirely. Otherwise, you're using doublespeak and confusing your case.

I'm not sure I even understand how you are justifying using words such as probability or possibility, Dave, when there exists only one truth in the realm of determinism, and that is what has happened and what causes and continues to cause it.

You don’t understand determinism.

Well, I'll go with you this far; perhaps one of us doesn't.

You additionally cannot assume that Immanuel's understanding is incorrect just because it differs from that of yourself.

So, for example, if you are predestined to be deceived then you’re not really deceived at all.

False again. I'm saying that there is no potential state of affairs in which you do not believe X, therefore no one can speak meaningfully of you being "deceived" about X. For "deceived" is a word that implies comparison to a state of affairs in which the agent in question believes the truth. But he or she cannot believe the truth, because he or she was predestined to believe exactly what he or she believes, and "deception" is a value-laden term.

You cannot accuse someone of being "deceived" or "deceptive" if they had absolutely no choice about what they did. As the Ethics axiom goes, "Ought implies can." But Determinism implies one "cannot-do-otherwise-than-one-did."

Interesting, Dave...but do try not to take me for being difficult just because I disagree with you. I'm not provoking you; my objections are genuine, and I do not care to "score points" in front of anyone here.

This is exactly what I was saying. There is no way to be deceived in Determinism as that would imply that there is an instance in which it the person believes the truth to compare it to, which cannot exist as the person is already predetermined to believe what they believe. This cancels out the possibility of of there being an instance in which they believe that truth, as the existence of that would imply the existence of choice, which is not present within Determinism.

Hi, again, Immanuel.

Immanuel Can wrote: No. "Subjective" is not a real thing under Determinism. It's an "epiphenomenon," an illusionary byproduct of an essentially Determined universe. So you're resting your explanation on a "free will" word -- "subjective."

Why do you say “illusionary”? I know it suits your argument to do so, but how do you justify it? The relevant bit of the definition of “epiphenomenon” in my Concise Oxford is “a mental state regarded as a by-product of brain activity”. That is in fact the meaning I’ve always gone with, and there’s nothing illusory there.

Likewise, "probability." There are no counterfactual possibilities to the Determined, so there is no reality to "possibility" as an idea under Determinism.

I'm just saying that if you're going to declare Determinism true, then in order to remain rational, you need to give up using the words "subjective" and "probability" entirely. Otherwise, you're using doublespeak and confusing your case.

I can’t allow you to render me mute by arrogating for your own use all the words in the language!

I don’t know about confusing my case but I’m clearly confusing you. It seems that I’m not as articulate as I like to think. Let me try again. This time I’ll take an example of subjective probability that is clearly outside the free will debate, in order to demonstrate how it applies to determinists and free willies alike.

I toss a coin. Now I hope, and believe, that you will agree with me that the way it lands, heads or tails, is entirely determined by the way I toss it. It’s no affront to the idea of free will to say this about a coin.

Now, if it lands heads, it had to land heads. There is, as you put it, no counterfactual. But before it landed, I did not know how it would land. My knowledge of very basic probability theory led me to say that there was a fifty percent probability of it landing heads. Suppose a small child were to ask me the probability of tossing four consecutive heads. Are you seriously trying to tell me that I’m debarred, by my belief in determinism, from answering “one in sixteen” and that I must instead say “There is no reality to possibility”? If you are, then I recommend you give up this line of defence for your free will hypothesis, because, frankly, it taints the hypothesis with its absurdity.

No. I'm saying that because Determinism is untrue, you CAN experience yourself as a subject; if it were true, you could not.

2. You’re pretending to believe that being the result of causal forces means that you don’t exist at all. You can’t possibly believe that!

No. You've attributed to me a reversed cause-effect statement I did not make or imply. Look again at your wording, and then at mine, and you'll see it.

Essentially, I'm saying that you DO exist, and you Do exist as a self-experiencing subject; therefore, we have a strong, experiential reason to deny Determinism. For were Determinism true, there would be no reason for such an existential experience to exist.

I’m sticking to my guns here. Not only did you say it, but you’ve said it again while denying you said it. Look at the two underlined sentences.

You don’t understand it because you don’t believe in it.

So...if a person doesn't believe in it, he can't possibly understand it? One has to believe first, and then, and only then, it becomes understandable?

That might be true for some things (like, say, "being an artist") but it's not true for rational or scientific propositions. By definition, then, Determinism is, by your account, a pre-rational faith conviction that issues in "understanding" only after the fact.

I think that's not true. But you can affirm that if you wish; just not rationally.

Ah, you picked up on the closed loop and the apparent paradox involved. I’m not, you understand, making a general assertion about the link between understanding and belief. In general, I would, of course, agree with what you say above. But in this particular case, the case of you and determinism, this is how it’s clearly working. You believe in free will. So your understanding, or misunderstanding, of determinism is based on examining it according to the principles of the free will model. Naturally you conclude that it’s irrational. This is outside-looking-in thinking. So, you do not understand determinism because you do not believe in it. And, of course, as your misunderstanding of determinism leads to all the strange and irrational implications that you attribute to it, like the abolition of subjectivity and the abolition of probability theory, you’re hardly going to start to believe in it, are you?

5. You’re pretending, and not for the first time, to believe that just because a state of affairs is predetermined then it is unreal.

False. I'm saying that your subjectivity is illusory if Determinism is true.

There’s no point saying “false” if you’re then just going to repeat what you deny saying using different words! If I’m misunderstanding you, please explain how “your subjectivity is illusory” differs from “a state of affairs is unreal”.

You cannot accuse someone of being "deceived" or "deceptive" if they had absolutely no choice about what they did. ........
Interesting, Dave...but do try not to take me for being difficult just because I disagree with you. I'm not provoking you; my objections are genuine, and I do not care to "score points" in front of anyone here.

If you tell me you’re not being difficult then I accept that and I apologise. On "deception", your meaning of the word is more complex than mine. To me, the word implies no more than the comparison between a state of affairs and one’s belief about that state of affairs. Perhaps it would be better to use the word “mistaken”, to avoid any inference of external intentionality. So, perhaps we can put this one to bed, unless you’re going to tell me that being mistaken is an invalid concept within the determinism model.

Hi, Vendetta.

Vendetta wrote:I'm not sure I even understand how you are justifying using words such as probability or possibility, Dave, when there exists only one truth in the realm of determinism, and that is what has happened and what causes and continues to cause it.

I need probability to live. Also, I need it to play bridge. Supposing I know that one of my opponents has four spades and the other has only one. If I also know that one of them has the Ace, then, whichever of them has it, that is a fact. He has to have it, and the other opponent cannot have it. But, short of peeking at their cards, I cannot know who has the Ace. Probability tells me that there’s an 80% chance that the opponent with four spades holds the ace. That’s the assumption I’ll make, and one time in five I’ll be mistaken.

Probability, in life or in games, is nothing to do with free will or determinism. I have noted a general tendency, among those who would deny determinism, to hugely overestimate its impact on the world.

You additionally cannot assume that Immanuel's understanding is incorrect just because it differs from that of yourself.

I’m not assuming that Immanuel is wrong because he disagrees with me. I’m assuming that he disagrees with me because he’s wrong.

Immanuel and I, and, indeed, all the others, will continue to assume that we’re right until we’re convinced otherwise. And if I assume I’m right (And wouldn’t it be a logical paradox to assume I’m wrong?) then I must assume that those who disagree with me are wrong.

This is exactly what I was saying. There is no way to be deceived in Determinism as that would imply that there is an instance in which it the person believes the truth to compare it to, which cannot exist as the person is already predetermined to believe what they believe. This cancels out the possibility of of there being an instance in which they believe that truth, as the existence of that would imply the existence of choice, which is not present within Determinism.

Let me illustrate the flaw in your argument with a little story.

Suppose your wife was having an affair. You believed that she was faithful to you. Then you discovered the truth.

In a deterministic world, at the time you believed your wife to be faithful it would have been predetermined that you believed her to be faithful. You could not have done otherwise. Yet you would have been deceived.

How sad for all of you when 'I' (primitive with a pointy stick) have to be the one to shove this train wreck of a thread back onto the tracks.

Somebody has to.

Simply....

Determinism means the universe is nuthin' but an elaborate domino show with countless lil black rectangles topplin' into other lil black rectangles. Under this scheme, you and me and him and her, we're all just dominos too, gettin' toppled.

No matter how you dress it up, soften it, cast it, frame it: in a determined reality, we're all just 'events'.

Free will (agent causation) on the other hand, fully accepts a deterministic reality, full-to-overflowing with events. However, plunked down in the middle of all these events are 'us' (you and me and him and her) and we get to choose, get to pause and ponder about which direction to go, which action to take; we get to consider the possibilities of 'this' instead of 'that'.

Let's get back to that as the focus of debate.

All this dissection of motive is tiresome.

Me: I don't give a flip 'why' one skews toward roboticism and the other towards self-direction.

Merits of the argument is what matters, yes?

Me: my position is clear...determinism has no explanation for the on-going, direct, experience of the individual as he chooses. Declarations (dismissals) of this experience as illusion fall flat and don't explain diddly.

Simply: determinism can explain fire, but is useless in explaining why I use fire (consider it, see the possibilities of it, do sumthin' with it).

Dave Mangnall wrote:Why do you say “illusionary”?

Because it has to be an illusion...it cannot be really there, if Determinism is true.

I can’t allow you to render me mute by arrogating for your own use all the words in the language!

I'm not trying to "render" you "mute," Dave; I want you to talk. I want you to talk about Determinism in terms that make sense because they are consistent with Determinism itself.

But free-will language cannot be legitimately used to articulate Determinism, because those terms themselves deny Determinism. I'm just trying to point that out to you.

Another way to say this is that I'm trying to encourage you to articulate your views rationally -- i.e. in such a way that the link between Determinist premises and your conclusions actually follows by way of logic and language.

I don’t know about confusing my case but I’m clearly confusing you.

Funny...I don't feel confused at all. I know exactly where we are on this.

...before it landed, I did not know how it would land.

Right. But that just meant you didn't know something. It doesn't imply that the thing "could have been different".

Are you seriously trying to tell me that I’m debarred, by my belief in determinism, from answering “one in sixteen” and that I must instead say “There is no reality to possibility”?

That is exactly what would be the case if Determinism is true. For when you said, "one in sixteen," you would be expressing your own lack-of-knowledge, but nothing about the coin.

In other words, you were fooled. But reality was not. And so the words you said were a mistake on your part: there was no possibility of the coin being anything other than it was.

You believe in free will. So your understanding, or misunderstanding, of determinism is based on examining it according to the principles of the free will model.

Not so. It's based on looking at BOTH models.

Naturally you conclude that it’s irrational. This is outside-looking-in thinking. So, you do not understand determinism because you do not believe in it.

Not so. I understand it, but find it implausible in light of how we experience reality.

I did not come to the question with any prior commitment to free will, when I first tackled the question. There are Theists who are Determinists, and those that are not. But when I listened to the arguments of the Determinists, I found faults in their logic and existential inconsistencies in their applications of their paradigm. And so I rejected it for rational reasons, which I'm now sharing with you.

And, of course, as your misunderstanding of determinism leads to all the strange and irrational implications that you attribute to it, like the abolition of subjectivity and the abolition of probability theory, you’re hardly going to start to believe in it, are you?

Quite so. But I think it's you who has not realized up to this point that Determinism does these things. And I quite understand; Determinism is so counterintuitive to the way we normally live and think that our language really doesn't fit it at all. But that does not bespeak any bias on my part -- only the inadequacy of Determinism to correspond to normal human experience and language.

If I’m misunderstanding you, please explain how “your subjectivity is illusory” differs from “a state of affairs is unreal”.

I wrote, "I'm saying that your subjectivity is illusory if Determinism is true." But Determinism is NOT true; and one of the ways you know is that you do (at least think that you) have genuine subjectivity.

If you tell me you’re not being difficult then I accept that and I apologise.

No harm done.

On "deception", your meaning of the word is more complex than mine. To me, the word implies no more than the comparison between a state of affairs and one’s belief about that state of affairs. Perhaps it would be better to use the word “mistaken”, to avoid any inference of external intentionality. So, perhaps we can put this one to bed, unless you’re going to tell me that being mistaken is an invalid concept within the determinism model

.
No problem. I've said above that I recognize mistakenness as a genuine descriptor of human knowledge. But I have added that mistakenness is NOT a feature of the real world under Determinism, but only a descriptor of the insufficiency of one's own knowledge of the real world.

So to say one is "mistaken" is only to say that one's brain has failed to recall the fact of Predetermination, and one has therefore been induced to speak nonsense. And I'm trying to encourage you not to speak nonsense as you frame your account of Determinism -- not to talk about Determinism as if it includes features like "probability," or "subjectivity," since according to Determinist logic, these can be no more real than are unicorns...which can also be imagined in the mind but not actualized in fact.

Let's be less "mistaken" in our language about Determinism, I'm suggesting.

Dave Mangnall wrote:I need probability to live.

This confession, if true, should be enough to convince you, Dave, that Determinism is untrue. If you "need probability," then you can't have it in a Determined world...all you can have is the delusion of it.

Probability, in life or in games, is nothing to do with free will or determinism.

Au contraire: if Determinism is true, you cannot have probability. You can perceive things as if it existed, because you are fooling yourself into thinking things "could be" otherwise than they are; but you cannot have it in actuality.

I have noted a general tendency, among those who would deny determinism, to hugely overestimate its impact on the world.

And I would note the general tendency among Determinists to lapse into acting as if free will is true, for the simple reason that the consequences of Determinism, if lived out rationally, would be so overwhelming as to stultify every attempt of a Determinist to describe what he's really doing, and would paralyze him if he tried to live as his Determinism would teach him to.

I’m not assuming that Immanuel is wrong because he disagrees with me. I’m assuming that he disagrees with me because he’s wrong.

Well, we shall see. The matter will not be settled either way because I or you disagrees, but because either Determinism is both rational and true or free will is. And that's the only way it can be settled.

I must assume that those who disagree with me are wrong.

That is fair. Until you see reasons, you should not change your view.

Let me illustrate the flaw in your argument with a little story.

Suppose your wife was having an affair. You believed that she was faithful to you. Then you discovered the truth.

In a deterministic world, at the time you believed your wife to be faithful it would have been predetermined that you believed her to be faithful. You could not have done otherwise. Yet you would have been deceived.

Yes. But that is because you do not live in a Determined world. You can be "deceived" because there IS another state of affairs that can be said to have been possible, namely the state in which your wife did NOT cheat on you. Otherwise, whatever you believed was just....well, whatever you believed.

As an additional note, in a Determined universe, your wife cannot be "bad" for cheating on you. Nor can she "cheat," since that would imply she made a choice. Rather, she enacted only that which the Big Bang (or whatever prior causes it had) MADE her sleep with someone else.

So if it ever happened, you'd have to wonder, why are you angry? You have no reason to be. .

How does IC deal with his omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent 'God' and our 'freewill'?

As if we have this 'freewill' then this 'God' is missing an omni' or two so not much of a 'God' then.

Arising_uk wrote:How does IC deal with his omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent 'God' and our 'freewill'?

As if we have this 'freewill' then this 'God' is missing an omni' or two so not much of a 'God' then.

The existence of God does not rely on the fact that this being caused/s everything to happen. It is easy to look at God from a purely Deterministic perspective as it is commonly believed that God created and caused everything in the universe. However, God can still be omniscient and omnipotent with the presence of free will. One must look at God as a guiding force rather than a great decider. It is possible for God to know all, be everywhere, and have influence over things without using those abilities to determine exactly how we will all behave. Instead of deciding what we should do, perhaps God guides us in a specific direction, but in the end allows us to choose the path we will take. He may know what is going to happen, but that doesn't mean that he causes it to be so. Instead of the great instigator, he is the great overseer.

Vendetta wrote:... However, God can still be omniscient and omnipotent with the presence of free will. One must look at God as a guiding force rather than a great decider. It is possible for God to know all, be everywhere, and have influence over things without using those abilities to determine exactly how we will all behave. Instead of deciding what we should do, perhaps God guides us in a specific direction, but in the end allows us to choose the path we will take. He may know what is going to happen, but that doesn't mean that he causes it to be so. Instead of the great instigator, he is the great overseer.

So 'it's' the foreman. Who's the boss?

If this 'God' knows what's going to happen then it's guidance is of no use.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dave Mangnall wrote:I need probability to live.

This confession, if true, should be enough to convince you, Dave, that Determinism is untrue. If you "need probability," then you can't have it in a Determined world...all you can have is the delusion of it.

Probability, in life or in games, is nothing to do with free will or determinism.

Au contraire: if Determinism is true, you cannot have probability. You can perceive things as if it existed, because you are fooling yourself into thinking things "could be" otherwise than they are; but you cannot have it in actuality.

Oh dear, Immanuel, it’s really hard to get through to you on this matter of probability. Are you sure you’re not trying to wind me up? Ok, sorry, you’ve already said you’re not, and I’ve already accepted that.

Right, then, let’s try one more time. Take the example of the coin toss. You say there is no probability in a determined world. You’re clearly including the subjective probability that I’ve explained as deriving from the subjective unpredictability of an objectively determined outcome. So, to be clear, are you telling me that it makes no sense to say that I should estimate the chance of a coin toss producing heads as 50%?

Now with a coin toss, the outcome is just as determined in your free will model as it is in my determinism model. As you know full well, chance has nothing to do with it. It’s entirely to do with how the coin is tossed. So are you saying that it makes sense for you, who believe in free will, to say the chance of heads is one in two? And are you saying that, in the identical situation, it makes no sense for me to say the exact same thing, just because I believe in determinism?

I’m sincerely trying to understand what you believe here, Immanuel. But, oh boy, it’s hard!

Dave Mangnall wrote: Now with a coin toss, the outcome is just as determined in your free will model as it is in my determinism model. As you know full well, chance has nothing to do with it. It’s entirely to do with how the coin is tossed. So are you saying that it makes sense for you, who believe in free will, to say the chance of heads is one in two? And are you saying that, in the identical situation, it makes no sense for me to say the exact same thing, just because I believe in determinism?

Knowing the outcome of a coin toss is much different than the outcome being determined. Just because that outcome is determined in advance, the person tossing or the person watching might not know the outcome, and their prediction is properly a probability.

Dave Mangnall wrote:Right, then, let’s try one more time. Take the example of the coin toss. You say there is no probability in a determined world.

Right. But probability DOES exist, therefore, Determinism is not true. That's where I'd go with that.

You’re clearly including the subjective probability that I’ve explained as deriving from the subjective unpredictability of an objectively determined outcome.

No. "Subjective probability" is the wrong wording for you to be using, if Determinism were true. "Subjective ignorance" would be the right term -- and I'm not trying to be insulting when I use that. I'm saying that probability wouldn't exist at all; however, subjectively speaking, you could confess your subjective ignorance of the outcome that was predestined to occur. There would be nothing unusual in your doing so.

But that would not mean probability was involved: only a deficiency in the relevant knowledge on the part of a subjective agent.

So, to be clear, are you telling me that it makes no sense to say that I should estimate the chance of a coin toss producing heads as 50%?

If you mean, "I don't know what the predestined head or tail will be," then that is what you should say. But you couldn't say, "There's a chance this coin will flip something other than the predestined head or tail."

Now with a coin toss, the outcome is just as determined in your free will model as it is in my determinism model.

...and that is why I say that you must watch your wording if you want to be precise about what you are actually doing there, assuming Determinism were true.

... are you saying that, in the identical situation, it makes no sense for me to say the exact same thing, just because I believe in determinism?

Actually, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. You'd be misspeaking, in that case. Your wording could only be some kind of misleading figure of speech, but not an actual description of what was going on, according to Determinism.

I’m sincerely trying to understand what you believe here, Immanuel. But, oh boy, it’s hard!

I hope it's a bit clearer now. Is it?

Immanuel Can wrote:I hope it's a bit clearer now. Is it?

Hi, Immanuel.

Well, yes! What's clear is that you have a really peculiar idea of what determinism is and what it implies!

Let's move on from probability, as we're never going to get anywhere. You've said other interesting things in your recent posts which I'll comment on in due course, in the hopes of at least finding some common ground as a basis for discussion.