Determinism vs Free Will

Author: Crocodile ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 130
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 900
    3
    2
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @zedvictor4
    "Uncaused cause" is the inconceivable beginning....Everything else is a succession of caused events.....One does because one is.
    Then the notion, "everything [necessarily] has a cause," as I mentioned above, needs reworking. Or more to the point, everything has an independent cause needs reworking. I do not subscribe to the notion or argument that "self-caused" is incoherent.

  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 900
    3
    2
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @fauxlaw
    If only there were a beginning; a concept to which only finite minds adhere.
    Are you suggesting that everything always was?

  • armoredcat
    armoredcat avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 246
    0
    4
    11
    armoredcat avatar
    armoredcat
    I think that the actions of people are extremely related to genetic and environmental forces. I think that free will likely exists in a very limited way if at all. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 33
    Forum posts: 930
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Athias
    In its current form, no. But I am suggesting eternity does not have a beginning. The two terms are incompatible.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,191
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    Concepts are all that's available....Assuming righteousness is conceptual.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,191
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Athias
    So, what is "everything"?...As I see it, everything has three basic qualities or requirements, time and space, to allow event and duration, and matter to perform.....Only matter requires a necessary cause...... There is seemingly a process of events, which by the very nature of procession is an ongoing cause....Call it evolution if you will, but don't get bogged down in Darwin...... In a sequence of events, primary cause is also the conclusion and as such infinitely possible....Though the beginning still remains inconceivable.....Easily assumable, though nonetheless  inconceivable (fauxlaw).

    Disregarding the inconceivable beginning, then an infinite sequence of universal events is reliant upon predetermination, which inevitably includes the sentient organic (us)  phase of the process, and all the processes contained within that phase, including human function.

    Therefore, do we have free will independent of the evolutionary process?......Hmmmmmm, maybe we can choose or change our mind....but why would we do that and risk "everything".
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @zedvictor4
    "Uncaused cause" is the inconceivable beginning....Everything else is a succession of caused events.....One does because one is.
    Certainly there "is/was" "some" "thing" "before" "the big bang", but whatever that "is/was" is BEYOND OUR EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS.

    What we find ourselves in NOW is concrete cause-and-effect.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    I do not subscribe to the notion or argument that "self-caused" is incoherent.
    (IFF) you are unable or unwilling to present a cogent, sound, logical (tautological) statement defending the bald assertion that "self-caused" is logically coherent (THEN) your claim (appeal to ignorance) cannot be evaluated for veracity and is therefore unfalsifiable and is therefore (indistinguishable from) unsound.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,191
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @3RU7AL
    Yep.
  • ebuc
    ebuc avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 975
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc avatar
    ebuc
    --> @3RU7AL
    3BR, While true there does appear to be a limit to, to what we can know beyond a specified time of our Universe's existence, there is a new technology; LINK

    ...."Using the skewness of the probability distribution (or more precisely, the so-called three-point function) as a measure of non-Gaussianity, they found that while gravitational waves produced by vacuum fluctuations only have a skewness of few times their variance squared (see Fig. 2), those sourced by gauge fields can have a skewness almost a million times their variance squared.

    ....This can be easily observed in upcoming CMB missions such as Japan’s LiteBIRD, which greatly improves upon the sensitivities of WMAP and Planck, and in which MPA scientists are also heavily involved.

    .....If we find that the observed primordial gravitational waves are indeed highly non-Gaussian, their skewness can be used to measure the energy density fraction of gauge fields during inflation, allowing us to probe the constituents of our Universe when it was less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (10-36) of a second old.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    LINK...."LiteBIRD is in the most advanced phase among such future satellites, targeting its launch in Japanese Fiscal Year 2027 (2027FY) with JAXA’s H3 rocket. It will accommodate more than 4000 TESs in focal planes of reflective low-frequency and refractive medium-and-high-frequency telescopes in order to detect a signature imprinted on the CMB by the primordial gravitational waves predicted in cosmic inflation. The total wide frequency coverage between 34 and 448 GHz enables us to extract such weak spiral polarization patterns through the precise subtraction of our Galaxy’s foreground emission by using spectral differences among CMB and foreground signals."......
  • ebuc
    ebuc avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 975
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc avatar
    ebuc
    --> @zedvictor4

    ..."when viewed from the next aeon these glowing black holes – Hawking Points – will be amongst the largest continuous energy sources in the CMB night sky. The reason we do not see these points without computer analysis is they are very faint and the early universe has scattered them over a large area. What once was a point is now a disk around five times the diameter of our moon.

    ....Careful analysis of the night sky has found around 30 of these points in the cosmic microwave background map. Five of these points coincide with previously discovered concentric circles in the CMB sky. Interestingly one of the points coincides with the observation window of the BICEP 2 observatory opening up the ability to examine coincidences with the magnetic field patterns which CCC would also predict at Hawking Points."...

    Aeons are R Penroses name for time periods after and before the next  WOW! { Bucky Fuller }  --ak Big Bang { Fred Hoyle }--- and the next WOW!.

    So in the last two posts we have two potential ways to know something about existence of Universe, before a specified time called BB or WOW!

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ebuc
    Thanks for the link!

    If we find that the observed primordial gravitational waves are indeed highly non-Gaussian, their skewness can be used to measure the energy density fraction of gauge fields during inflation, allowing us to probe the constituents of our Universe when it was less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (10-36) of a second old.
    BETTER DETECTION = BETTER DATA
  • ebuc
    ebuc avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 975
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc avatar
    ebuc
    --> @3RU7AL
    Welcome  3RU
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 900
    3
    2
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    (IFF) you are unable or unwilling to present a cogent, sound, logical (tautological) statement defending the bald assertion that "self-caused" is logically coherent (THEN) your claim (appeal to ignorance) cannot be evaluated for veracity and is therefore unfalsifiable and is therefore (indistinguishable from) unsound.

    The irony is that this is an appeal to ignorance: my unwillingness or incapacity to substantiate an argument doesn't not render it unverifiable or unfalsifiable; thus, you must qualify your statement with "indistinguishable" rather than extend your premises to their logical conclusion.

    But I have no problem substantiating the argument: I am because I am (tautology.) And I'm not referring to the trillions of cells which constitute my corporeal form. I'm referring to that which is discoverable only once it manifests--the self. You can argue that the transitivity of causation necessitates an infinitely regressive reduction, but this is no less subject to the qualia one exhibits/experiences since one cannot control for that which occurs independent of his or her own experience of it (epistemological solipsism.) The only argument I can posit with certainty is that I as a subject of everything I experience have a mind which exists. (To contradict this is to contradict my contradiction.) And since I cannot experience anything (physics, logic, etc.) independent of my mind, I therefore conclude that my mind necessarily informs and/or "causes" the entirety of my experience. [Yes, I would argue that the laws of physics is QUALIA; and QUANTA is subject or subordinate to QUALIA.]

    So then, doesn't the mind have a cause? I would presume some would argue the brain, but even one's perception and understanding of the brain is subject to the mind. If we are to sustain the transitivity of causation, it would then follow that the mind is the first cause (anything before or "outside" the mind is irrational.) And anything conceptualized or experienced starts with the mind.

    P1: The Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it.
    P2: That which comes before or remains "outside" the mind is irrational to any subject.
    P3: One's mind and One are the same.
    P4: I perceive myself.
    C1: Therefore, I am self-caused.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    The irony is that this is an appeal to ignorance: my unwillingness or incapacity to substantiate an argument doesn't not render it unverifiable or unfalsifiable; thus, you must qualify your statement with "indistinguishable" rather than extend your premises to their logical conclusion.
    I've very carefully and comprehensively laid out the variables.

    (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination

    And you're "answer" is "nuh-uh".

    This is not an "argument".  Technically this is referred to as "gain-saying".
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    Strangely enough, I agree with you that Quanta (science) is a sub-category of Qualia (metaphysics).

    HOWeVer, this does not mean that you can simply throw empirical observation out-of-the-proverbial-window.

    Click to watch 30 seconds,

    P1: The Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it.
    This bald assertion is beyond our epistemological limits. 

    "The Mind" might be our individual metaphysical "bedrock", but that does not exclude the possibility of "The Mind" being an aspect of NOUMENON.

    P2: That which comes before or remains "outside" the mind is irrational to any subject.
    I agree, it is irrational to attempt to discuss anything that might be considered "truly" "incomprehensible" (GNOSIS).

    P3: One's mind and One are the same.
    Have you ever "changed your mind"?

    P4: I perceive myself.
    I certainly hope so.

    C1: Therefore, I am self-caused.
    This conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow from your stated premises, and therefore fails to qualify as sound logic.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 900
    3
    2
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    I've very carefully and comprehensively laid out the variables.

    (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination

    And you're "answer" is "nuh-uh".

    This is not an "argument".  Technically this is referred to as "gain-saying".
    My response wouldn't amount to a "nuh-uh." I'm pointing out that you're evaluating the veracity or falsifiability of the claim, "self-caused" contingent on  my capacity to substantiate it, rather than evaluate the claim itself. [You have done so before but not in this instance.] That's an appeal to ignorance:

    (IFF) you are unable or unwilling to present a cogent, sound, logical (tautological) statement defending the bald assertion that "self-caused" is logically coherent (THEN) your claim (appeal to ignorance) cannot be evaluated for veracity and is therefore unfalsifiable and is therefore (indistinguishable from) unsound.
    You created a logical biconditional premised on my capacity or "willingness" which are impertinent to the soundness of a claim.

    Strangely enough, I agree with you that Quanta (science) is a sub-category of Qualia (metaphysics).

    HOWeVer, this does not mean that you can simply throw empirical observation out-of-the-proverbial-window.
    I'm not suggesting that it be thrown out the window; I'm suggesting it be understood in context. The mind is the starting point for all evaluation.

    This bald assertion is beyond our epistemological limits. 

    "The Mind" might be our individual metaphysical "bedrock", but that does not exclude the possibility of "The Mind" being an aspect of NOUMENON.
    Actually, it's precisely within our epistemological limits because the premise doesn't presume that everything is "metaphysical." And you presume that which one has labeled "Noumenon." Pondering the possibility of Noumenon is a manifestation of your mind, and even if you were to comprehend and rationalize it, Noumenon would then be subjected by your mind, making it not Noumenon. It is not a bald assertion to state that the Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it because the mind informs subjective experience. And subjective experience cannot be controlled for independent of the mind. Even one's conception and understanding of the brain is informed by the mind. As I stated above, the mind is the starting point for all evaluation. And existence independent of these evaluations is irrational.

    I agree, it is irrational to attempt to discuss anything that might be considered "truly" "incomprehensible" (GNOSIS).
    I see what you did there. But that does not define the scope of the premise.

    Have you ever "changed your mind"?
    Yes, as in changing an opinion, not swapping. That more an issue of lexicon than anything else.

    This conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow from your stated premises, and therefore fails to qualify as sound logic.
    Yes it does.

    P1: The Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it.
    P2: That which comes before or remains "outside" the mind is irrational to any subject.
    P3: One's mind and One are the same.
    P4: I perceive myself.
    C1: Therefore, I am self-caused.

    You can challenge my rationalizations of the premises but the conclusion does follow.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    My response wouldn't amount to a "nuh-uh." I'm pointing out that you're evaluating the veracity or falsifiability of the claim, "self-caused" contingent on  my capacity to substantiate it, rather than evaluate the claim itself. [You have done so before but not in this instance.] That's an appeal to ignorance:
    It doesn't matter what you prefer to call it.

    "Self-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination

    "God-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination

    "Spirit-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination

    This is tautological (encompassing all possible variables) and NOT an "appeal to ignorance".

    No claim can be considered SOUND unless it is presented in the appropriate format.

    You don't get "the benefit of the doubt".  Neither do I.  Nor does anyone.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    P1: The Mind is the cause of everything as one perceives it.
    How do you draw this particular conclusion?
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 900
    3
    2
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    It doesn't matter what you prefer to call it.

    "Self-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination

    "God-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination

    "Spirit-caused" is (EITHER) cause and effect (OR) non-causal (OR) some combination

    This is tautological (encompassing all possible variables) and NOT an "appeal to ignorance".

    No claim can be considered SOUND unless it is presented in the appropriate format.

    You don't get "the benefit of the doubt".  Neither do I.  Nor does anyone.
    I do not question this, only whether soundness is contingent on my presentation. And that's what your biconditional did even if you didn't intend for it to communicate that stipulation.

    How do you draw this particular conclusion?
    By description and the irrationality of its negation. The mind is "that" which facilitates/allows for reason, discretion, emotion, cognition, perception, experience etc. Let's consider these two arguments:

    1. The mind allows for the experience of phenomena, all of which is enclosed in Noumenon, the extent of which is imperceptible to any subject. In other words, the mind--presumably the faculty of logic--acts as an intermediary between subjective and intersubjective (or objective) existence. This is irrational. It would presume that a faculty of the mind can be employed to "reason" that which is independent of the mind.

    2. The mind allows for the experience of phenomena all of which is enclosed within in the mind, the extent of which is perceptible to any subject. The mind is not an intermediary; the mind is the whole, allowing us to reason all that which we experience without the irrational presumption that said reasoning can be conducted where the mind and its content are not the subjects.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    You are phenomenally astute.

    1. The mind allows for the experience of phenomena, all of which is enclosed in Noumenon, the extent of which is imperceptible to any subject.
    "Your mind" is like a lens through which "The Mind" observes (explores and catalogs) aspects of NOUMENON.

    In other words, the mind--presumably the faculty of logic--acts as an intermediary between subjective and intersubjective (or objective) existence.
    "Your mind" (your faculty of logic) is not 100% conscious of itself.  "Your mind" (your faculty of logic) has subconscious impulses that you can indirectly observe the effects of (post-facto).

    And I believe it is critical to point out that humans are fully incapable of detecting "anything" purely OBJECTIVE.

    This is irrational.
    Please explain.

    It would presume that a faculty of the mind can be employed to "reason" that which is independent of the mind.
    "Your mind" is a fully integrated module of "The Mind" which is itself a fully integrated module of NOUMENON.

    There is no "part" that is "independent".

    Click to watch 39 seconds,
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 165
    0
    1
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @3RU7AL
    Are you indeterministic? Do you think randomness c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶s̶ manifests free-will? 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Reece101
    (In)determinism is logically incompatible with "freewill".
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,191
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @3RU7AL
    Very true.

    The very nature of the mass (subconscious) and the programming of the mind makes the whole an integrated part of a system.


  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 900
    3
    2
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @3RU7AL
    "Your mind" is like a lens through which "The Mind" observes (explores and catalogs) aspects of NOUMENON.
    If the mind is being described as the "lens," then what is NOUMENON independent of said lens?

    "Your mind" (your faculty of logic) is not 100% conscious of itself.
    The problem with quantifying these relations especially with the employment of percentages is the presumed lack of understanding of 100%. If the mind is not 100% conscious of itself, then how would one know or experience a mind that is 100% conscious of itself? Much less quantify the relation between one's current state to this presumably intangible projected state?

    "Your mind" (your faculty of logic) has subconscious impulses that you can indirectly observe the effects of (post-facto).
    Like dreams?

    And I believe it is critical to point out that humans are fully incapable of detecting "anything" purely OBJECTIVE.
    So then, does the "objective" exist?

    Please explain.
    Because tools like reason are of the mind. How can one "reason" that which is independent of the mind? Once one employs reason, the mind subjects that which is reasoned.


    Your mind" is a fully integrated module of "The Mind" which is itself a fully integrated module of NOUMENON.

    There is no "part" that is "independent".
    Isn't Noumeon independent of the mind by definition? One can argue that one's mind, and the mind, are dependent on Noumenon, but is Noumenon dependent on one's mind, and the mind?

    Great movie. And a great line (at the end) delivered by Dustin Hoffman.