Philosophy Now Forum

alpha wrote:and was i caused to make that choice, or did i make that choice randomly? at some point you're gonna have to accept that our choices aren't truly ours, unless you think we somehow had an actual choice in our own conception and birth and so on.

Obvious Leo wrote:This is a false dichotomy and thus a straw man.

you're a man of a few words... when it suits you. explain the false dichotomy to me.

alpha wrote:hobbes, a rock too affects its environment, but no idiot calls it "self-determining".

Obvious Leo wrote:You are using the term self determining incorrectly. As Hobbes points out, the rock is both actor and acted upon in its wider environment and this is what defines the entire system as self-determining. Look up Ilya Prigogine's dissipative structures to see how this principle applies at the molecular scale and you'll see how self determining systems can give rise to living systems without the slightest teleological overtones. Life emerged in the universe because it couldn't possibly have done otherwise, because this is the way that self-organising systems work, not because it was determined by an external causal agent. You are confusing the intentional self-determinism of a sentient mind with the unintentional self-determinism of an entire system but in biology this distinction is easily maintained. The biosphere is self-determining but this doesn't mean it has a plan.

what determines the intentions of "the intentional self-determinism of a sentient mind"? you clearly said you reject randomness, so what determines it?

alpha wrote:you're a man of a few words... when it suits you. explain the false dichotomy to me.

I've explained it to you dozens of times but you simply refuse to accept it, which is why I hate free will arguments. You're conflating determinism with pre-determinism. Do you seriously reckon that it was written into the "laws of nature" at the time of the big bang that you would write that last comment? A self-determining reality is one which simply makes it up as it goes along. Here's a quote from a bloke who knew a bit about the "shit happens" universe

"Life is what happens to you while you're making other plans"....John Lennon

You're both an observer and a player in the cosmic drama and you should just see your SELF as the central character in your own private soap opera. You are at once ACTOR and ACTED UPON and it is this reciprocity of action which defines reality as a PROCESS.

alpha wrote:what determines the intentions of "the intentional self-determinism of a sentient mind"? you clearly said you reject randomness, so what determines it?

There are literally trillions of determining factors in a neuronal network and none of them are weighted equally. The executive function of the pre-frontal cortex basically just responds as best it can in the time frame which it allocates itself but some actions can bypass this executive function altogether and in those cases you can literally say that the will plays no role whatsoever. If a child suddenly jumps out in front of your car as you're driving along you don't need to "choose" to hit the brakes. As an experienced driver you'll have a conditioned response to do so which doesn't involve executive function at all so essentially you'll hit the brakes before you're even aware of having seen the kid. A learner driver is unlikely to autonomously have this feature.

alpha wrote:you're a man of a few words... when it suits you. explain the false dichotomy to me.

Obvious Leo wrote:... You're conflating determinism with pre-determinism. Do you seriously reckon that it was written into the "laws of nature" at the time of the big bang that you would write that last comment? A self-determining reality is one which simply makes it up as it goes along....

this sounds a lot like randomly caused determinism to me. because if this determinism is not predetermined (intentionally, or unintentionally), then it's randomly caused.

alpha wrote:what determines the intentions of "the intentional self-determinism of a sentient mind"? you clearly said you reject randomness, so what determines it?

Obvious Leo wrote:There are literally trillions of determining factors in a neuronal network and none of them are weighted equally. The executive function of the pre-frontal cortex basically just responds as best it can in the time frame which it allocates itself but some actions can bypass this executive function altogether and in those cases you can literally say that the will plays no role whatsoever....

if they're not weighted equally, then they are predetermined!!!!!! the only way true choice (even 0.00001% genuine choice) can happen is if all the determining factors are weighted equally; because as i said, ultimately, the stronger factors/forces will always win, so where's the choice in that? that's exactly how automatons work!

alpha wrote:this sounds a lot like randomly caused determinism to me. because if this determinism is not predetermined (intentionally, or unintentionally), then it's randomly caused.

We seem to be going around in circles here but this is one point I thought we were in agreement on. If by random you mean uncaused then the very suggestion is nonsensical. Instead of just thinking of a single object as being self-determining you need to think of a physical system as being self-determining. My impression is that you seem to see the Self as some sort of Cartesian homunculus, or soul if you like, who just sits in your head and conducts the neural orchestra. I've found in the past that almost everybody who doesn't understand the will is a closet dualist so that might be the problem.

alpha wrote:if they're not weighted equally, then they are predetermined!!!!!

Nothing like it. You'll just have to read some neuroscience or you'll never get it.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Wrong wrong wrong. All our choices are by definition wholly ours. We are caused by a range of factors from genes, environment, social programming ad infinitem.
But your problem is you idea of 'self', 'we', 'us', 'ours'. What we are is what we have been determined to be. ANd the self is a caused and causal agent.

alpha wrote:hobbes, a rock too affects its environment, but no idiot calls it "self-determining". i also have issue with the phrase "can affect"; the environment "must affect" the human, and the human "must affect" the environment in exactly the same way the environment "must affect" a rock, and a rock "must affect its environment. again, just because a human is much much more complex than a rock, that doesn't change the absolutely strict causality inside and outside of the human. the human has no actual choice but to do (or not do) what he does (or doesn't do). so if you were to live your life (with exactly the same initial genes, exactly the same environment and circumstances, and so on) 999 trillion times, the outcome would be exactly the same to a tee every single time. if you dispute this, then you're nothing more than a libertarian who's a wannabe determinist.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:A rock is immobile. There is nothing else to say
A choice is a set of alternative that are offered for examination by "OUR" programming, and a selection based on a rational and emotional response concerning the possible outcome and consequences is made. This is determined by our ever changing experience. This is nothing like an automaton, which has no motivation.

hobbes, i really don't know how to make people like you and leo understand simple concepts. do you disagree with the underlined part of my statement above? if you do, then i'm speechless

I agree fully with that statement, which would be true what ever you might think of free will and determinism. It could not be any other way.

. if you don't, then we are automatons. so called choices are not made by reasoning etc..

We are not automata, for the cogent reasons I already laid out before you. In the same way a rock is not a tree, is not an animal, is not a bunch of bananas.

the fact of the matter is that a human is subjected to countless forces, both internal and external, none of which are by choice, and the stronger force -in any given situation (the force that is stronger at the time)- always wins. the person simply experiences the struggle among the forces and thinks that he's actually making some sort of choice or decision. sorry, but i'm afraid it's all illusory.

Exactly, determined by conditions NOT PREDICTABLE BY HIS INITIAL GENETIC SET UP - which you objected to.
Given that the entire universe is deterministic, and given the fact that in ordinary parlance humans are confronted with determined situations that change their determined pathways, by decisions they have determinedly made, we call this situations 'choices'. Each situation it not predicted by the fact that they are a human, whereas outcomes are predicted by being rocks and automata; humans each respond in "their" "own way". The deterministic outcome of all such situations are called choices. In the same way a computer makes a choice. In a tiny minority of programs this can change their programming; in humans this always changes their programming, and to be human is to change.
The human is thus a causal black-box, and has within its boundaries intentions and motivations; this is what we call the will. Obviously enough it is nor 'free' but it makes perfect sense to understand our determined actions as choices of the will.

Seriously I think I was where you are with this about 20 years ago. Before I'd understood a more subtle understanding of the consequences of determinism and the use of language.
If you want to insist that 'its all an illusion', then obviously you can follow that thought; everything you think and perceive, by this rubric is an illusion; I don't exist, the the computer you are looking at is a figment of your imagination.
But since I like to think that the world I have constructed in my head relates more or less to a hard reality it is clear that I have a perceptual apparatus in which choices are made assessed against an internal structure of intentionality and limited by the perceived environment around me.
The will as delusion is a good argument against an omnipotent force, who pretends to give us free will, but clearly since god has to have known since the beginning of time that I would die a sinner, and in that knowledge he has created me thus- where is free will now?

Aside from that we see people making choices determinedly, and when we don't like it (determined by our ever changing program) we can react determinedly to that. The future might be predictable but it is far too complex to compute, so what's the problem here? We are changing the future with each choice we make, like a storm that breaks down tree, that were previously determined to grow.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The will as delusion is a good argument against an omnipotent force, who pretends to give us free will, but clearly since god has to have known since the beginning of time that I would die a sinner, and in that knowledge he has created me thus- where is free will now?

I think you might have this back to front. The assumption of such an omnipotent force effectively defines the will as illusory, surely? The men in frocks had all sorts of clever stories to try and make this complication go away but even a child could easily tell the difference between reasoning and rationalising. If the omniscient big G made the universe then he knows all the plays in advance and this foreknowledge is logically indistinguishable from making it so.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The will as delusion is a good argument against an omnipotent force, who pretends to give us free will, but clearly since god has to have known since the beginning of time that I would die a sinner, and in that knowledge he has created me thus- where is free will now?

I think you might have this back to front. The assumption of such an omnipotent force effectively defines the will as illusory, surely? The men in frocks had all sorts of clever stories to try and make this complication go away but even a child could easily tell the difference between reasoning and rationalising. If the omniscient big G made the universe then he knows all the plays in advance and this foreknowledge is logically indistinguishable from making it so.

Which is exactly what I said.

John Calvin figured this one out, and logically concluded that God had already 'chosen' those who would be saved; pretty convenient as John Calvin was obviously first on the list.

I realise it's a digression but the "block universe" conclusion from the Minkowski spacetime also disqualifies the possibility of the will because it makes no metaphysical distinction between past, present and future. This caused Einstein plenty of sleepless nights, as if the poor bugger didn't have enough on his plate with a dice-playing god, spooky action at a distance and cats which could be simultaneously dead and alive. It was a lucky thing Albert had a sense of humour.

Obvious Leo wrote:I realise it's a digression but the "block universe" conclusion from the Minkowski spacetime also disqualifies the possibility of the will because it makes no metaphysical distinction between past, present and future. This caused Einstein plenty of sleepless nights, as if the poor bugger didn't have enough on his plate with a dice-playing god, spooky action at a distance and cats which could be simultaneously dead and alive. It was a lucky thing Albert had a sense of humour.

Thankfully, all of those cats that have been shown to be both dead and alive simultaneously are all models.
And much as I would wish it i'd love to be able to continually eat breakfast without putting on any weight, whilst not also having to throw up.
History is against this objection: its just one fucking thing after another.

alpha wrote:this sounds a lot like randomly caused determinism to me. because if this determinism is not predetermined (intentionally, or unintentionally), then it's randomly caused.

Obvious Leo wrote:We seem to be going around in circles here but this is one point I thought we were in agreement on. If by random you mean uncaused then the very suggestion is nonsensical.

the suggestion is nonsensical, yet it's the only conclusion that can be made from your statements. if the current deterministic system was caused to be this way, then it was predetermined; and if it wasn't caused to be this way, then its current deterministicness is uncaused, which as you agreed, is nonsensical, but rejecting predeterminism (intentional or unintentional) can only lead to this nonsense.

Obvious Leo wrote:Instead of just thinking of a single object as being self-determining you need to think of a physical system as being self-determining. My impression is that you seem to see the Self as some sort of Cartesian homunculus, or soul if you like, who just sits in your head and conducts the neural orchestra. I've found in the past that almost everybody who doesn't understand the will is a closet dualist so that might be the problem.

what i believe about the soul is not relevant to this argument, contrary to what you might think. my argument has nothing to do with souls, biology, neuroscience, physics, thermodynamics and so on. it's a strictly philosophical argument based on the logical principle of sufficient reason.

alpha wrote:if they're not weighted equally, then they are predetermined!!!!!

Obvious Leo wrote:Nothing like it. You'll just have to read some neuroscience or you'll never get it.

again, logic and philosophy don't give a shit about neuroscience or biology etc..

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I agree fully with that statement, which would be true what ever you might think of free will and determinism. It could not be any other way.

that is on which my whole argument is built. since it can't be any other way, then true freewill (that entails actual accountability) is impossible. note that i don't dismiss the necessity of what i call notional freewill and notional responsibility.

alpha wrote:the fact of the matter is that a human is subjected to countless forces, both internal and external, none of which are by choice, and the stronger force -in any given situation (the force that is stronger at the time)- always wins. the person simply experiences the struggle among the forces and thinks that he's actually making some sort of choice or decision. sorry, but i'm afraid it's all illusory.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Exactly, determined by conditions NOT PREDICTABLE BY HIS INITIAL GENETIC SET UP - which you objected to.
Given that the entire universe is deterministic, and given the fact that in ordinary parlance humans are confronted with determined situations that change their determined pathways, by decisions they have determinedly made, we call this situations 'choices'. Each situation it not predicted by the fact that they are a human, whereas outcomes are predicted by being rocks and automata; humans each respond in "their" "own way". The deterministic outcome of all such situations are called choices. In the same way a computer makes a choice. In a tiny minority of programs this can change their programming; in humans this always changes their programming, and to be human is to change.
The human is thus a causal black-box, and has within its boundaries intentions and motivations; this is what we call the will. Obviously enough it is nor 'free' but it makes perfect sense to understand our determined actions as choices of the will.

Seriously I think I was where you are with this about 20 years ago. Before I'd understood a more subtle understanding of the consequences of determinism and the use of language.
If you want to insist that 'its all an illusion', then obviously you can follow that thought; everything you think and perceive, by this rubric is an illusion; I don't exist, the the computer you are looking at is a figment of your imagination.
But since I like to think that the world I have constructed in my head relates more or less to a hard reality it is clear that I have a perceptual apparatus in which choices are made assessed against an internal structure of intentionality and limited by the perceived environment around me.
The will as delusion is a good argument against an omnipotent force, who pretends to give us free will, but clearly since god has to have known since the beginning of time that I would die a sinner, and in that knowledge he has created me thus- where is free will now?

Aside from that we see people making choices determinedly, and when we don't like it (determined by our ever changing program) we can react determinedly to that. The future might be predictable but it is far too complex to compute, so what's the problem here? We are changing the future with each choice we make, like a storm that breaks down tree, that were previously determined to grow.

how difficult or easy it is to compute is irrelevant. you know as well as i do, that it's logically possible, which is the whole point.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The will as delusion is a good argument against an omnipotent force, who pretends to give us free will, but clearly since god has to have known since the beginning of time that I would die a sinner, and in that knowledge he has created me thus- where is free will now?

Obvious Leo wrote:I think you might have this back to front. The assumption of such an omnipotent force effectively defines the will as illusory, surely? The men in frocks had all sorts of clever stories to try and make this complication go away but even a child could easily tell the difference between reasoning and rationalising. If the omniscient big G made the universe then he knows all the plays in advance and this foreknowledge is logically indistinguishable from making it so.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Which is exactly what I said.

John Calvin figured this one out, and logically concluded that God had already 'chosen' those who would be saved; pretty convenient as John Calvin was obviously first on the list.

the point you both are missing is that whether god exists or not, and whether he knows anything in advance or not, changes nothing in terms of us being in actual/true/genuine/real control of our wills. we simply are not; because as we all agree (at least hobbes and i) that it couldn't have been any other way; none of us could have made any different choices at any point in our lives.

I think what you said here is problematic- that we could not make any different choices. One of the definitions of choice is deciding between different things. So people have the ability to choose one way or another.

alpha wrote:the suggestion is nonsensical, yet it's the only conclusion that can be made from your statements. if the current deterministic system was caused to be this way, then it was predetermined; and if it wasn't caused to be this way, then its current deterministicness is uncaused, which as you agreed, is nonsensical, but rejecting predeterminism (intentional or unintentional) can only lead to this nonsense.

Simply repeating the same mantra over and over again doesn't make it any more coherent. Until you learn what chaotic determinism is you're just never going to get it.

alpha wrote: none of us could have made any different choices at any point in our lives.

I refuse to accept that you truly believe this because no sane mind could accommodate such a concept and I don't suspect you of being insane. Illogical, yes. Crazy, no. Your argument is bogus.