Determinism vs Free Will

Author: Crocodile

Posts

Total: 161
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you indeterministic? Do you think randomness c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶s̶ manifests free-will? 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
(In)determinism is logically incompatible with "freewill".
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@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.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If the mind is being described as the "lens," then what is NOUMENON independent of said lens?
They are not "independent" (because if they were "independent" they would not be able to detect each other).

They are inter-dependent (both aspects of a single, monistic system).  In the same way your eye is distinguishable from your brain.

They are distinguishable, but not "independent".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
"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?
Even at the level of the brain, we know there are chemical triggers and electrical signals that are constantly in motion that are integral to our thought process.

We can model most of these, but you cannot simultaneously function and know everything your brain and body are "doing" under your skin at every moment you are awake.

"Your conscious mind" has a very limited capacity to accumulate and store and retrieve data.

In order to be 100% conscious of your function, you would require the capacity to fully understand all of the inner workings of your own physiology and the inner workings of all systems that interact with you in any way.  The very definitions of "human" and "sanity" preclude such understanding (at the very least it precludes communication of such understanding).

The "you" that is distinguishable from "everything else" is only a fractional part of many much larger and much more complex systems.

The "everything" is only "knowable" to the "you" through the function of "your mind", but that does not mean the window itself is the world.

In 6 minutes,
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
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?
Objective existence is logically necessary (an integral aspect of NOUMENON).

However, it is buried beneath an incomprehensible number of indistinguishable layers of subjective phenomena beyond our epistemological limits.

And by the very definition of "objectivity" it is fully inaccessible to humans.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
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.
Only comprehensible concepts can be entertained.

The incomprehensible (NOUMENON) can only be "known" by logical deduction (as more of an abstract category).

Any "thing" truly "independent" of "The Mind" can never logically interact in any way with "The Mind" and as such can be considered indistinguishable from non-existent (THEREFORE, EPISTEMOLOGICAL MONISM IS NECESSARILY TRUE).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
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?
Every component is integral and necessary.

Without "your mind", NOUMENON could not "exist".

Particular aspects appear to wax and wane, but that is merely due to our practically infinitesimal perceptual scope.

13 days later

simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
The all have the same options but it's not relevant to the matter of determinism vs libertarian free will.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
The all have the same options but it's not relevant to the matter of determinism vs libertarian free will.
Please detail what you consider "the salient facts".

23 days later

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
They are not "independent" (because if they were "independent" they would not be able to detect each other).

They are inter-dependent (both aspects of a single, monistic system).  In the same way your eye is distinguishable from your brain.

They are distinguishable, but not "independent".
Yes, but the difference between the eye and the brain presumably can be "observed" (?) by an independent party. How is this done with the mind and NOUMENON? Can one see one's own brain?


Even at the level of the brain, we know there are chemical triggers and electrical signals that are constantly in motion that are integral to our thought process.

We can model most of these, but you cannot simultaneously function and know everything your brain and body are "doing" under your skin at every moment you are awake.

"Your conscious mind" has a very limited capacity to accumulate and store and retrieve data.
Yes but the understanding of these phenomena are reflected by the scope of our consciousnesses. Would the data be the same if the limits of our  consciousnesses were either broken or expanded? Wouldn't that beg for new limits?

In order to be 100% conscious of your function, you would require the capacity to fully understand all of the inner workings of your own physiology and the inner workings of all systems that interact with you in any way.  The very definitions of "human" and "sanity" preclude such understanding (at the very least it precludes communication of such understanding).

The "you" that is distinguishable from "everything else" is only a fractional part of many much larger and much more complex systems.

The "everything" is only "knowable" to the "you" through the function of "your mind", but that does not mean the window itself is the world.
Wouldn't that conclude that we know nothing. Because whatever we do understand will be a fraction of an infinite progression (or regression dependent on how you see it.) Any constant outside of infinity over infinity produces zero, right?

Interesting video.

Objective existence is logically necessary (an integral aspect of NOUMENON).

However, it is buried beneath an incomprehensible number of indistinguishable layers of subjective phenomena beyond our epistemological limits.
(This is very identical to something I'd argue.)

And by the very definition of "objectivity" it is fully inaccessible to humans.
Then how can one perceive it, let alone identify it in the form of definition?


Only comprehensible concepts can be entertained.

The incomprehensible (NOUMENON) can only be "known" by logical deduction (as more of an abstract category).

Any "thing" truly "independent" of "The Mind" can never logically interact in any way with "The Mind" and as such can be considered indistinguishable from non-existent (THEREFORE, EPISTEMOLOGICAL MONISM IS NECESSARILY TRUE).
Wouldn't this suggest that logic is independent of the mind? And if this is the claim, how so?

Every component is integral and necessary.

Without "your mind", NOUMENON could not "exist".

Particular aspects appear to wax and wane, but that is merely due to our practically infinitesimal perceptual scope.
So then how do you reconcile your description with its definition?


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Yes, but the difference between the eye and the brain presumably can be "observed" (?) by an independent party. How is this done with the mind and NOUMENON? Can one see one's own brain?
Your mind can know what it knows.

Your mind can also know that it doesn't know everything.

This creates a clear (modal) distinction (but NOT a fundamental distinction).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Yes but the understanding of these phenomena are reflected by the scope of our consciousnesses. Would the data be the same if the limits of our  consciousnesses were either broken or expanded? Wouldn't that beg for new limits?
The model is flexible.

Some minds know more.

Some minds know less.

In all cases, there remains some ability to discern between what one knows and what one doesn't know.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Wouldn't that conclude that we know nothing. Because whatever we do understand will be a fraction of an infinite progression (or regression dependent on how you see it.) Any constant outside of infinity over infinity produces zero, right?
Whatever we do understand is a fraction of an incomprehensible (not infinite) progression.

Whatever is beyond our epistemological limit is of unknown quantity/quality.

This emphasizes (magnifies) the relative importance of what we know.

The very concept of "important" only exists as a byproduct of our own ignorance.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Then how can one perceive it, let alone identify it in the form of definition?
Definitions themselves are (unfortunately) not limited by logic.

Any number of terms and concepts can be defined by contradictory (incoherent) combinations of primary axioms.

For example, "nothingness" is incoherent (there can be no such "thing" as "nothingness" because it could only "exist" no-where at no-time).

Also, "infinite" is incoherent (any "thing" truly "without limit" would necessarily supersede all other "things" in existence, rendering variation impossible).

In a similar manner, "objectivity" is defined (by common definitions) as "incomprehensible" and "unobservable" ("independent" of human observation).

The ontological fallacy does not magically "make real" any concept that can be defined and imagined (saying "gods" does not make "gods" exist).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Wouldn't this suggest that logic is independent of the mind? And if this is the claim, how so?
Logic is an integral aspect of "the mind".

Logic cannot exist "independently" of "the mind".

And "the mind" cannot exist without logic.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Every component is integral and necessary.

Without "your mind", NOUMENON could not "exist".

Particular aspects appear to wax and wane, but that is merely due to our practically infinitesimal perceptual scope.
So then how do you reconcile your description with its definition?
Please make your perceived conflict explicit.

17 days later

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Your mind can know what it knows.

Your mind can also know that it doesn't know everything.

This creates a clear (modal) distinction (but NOT a fundamental distinction).

The model is flexible.

Some minds know more.

Some minds know less.

In all cases, there remains some ability to discern between what one knows and what one doesn't know.

The model is flexible.

Some minds know more.

Some minds know less.

In all cases, there remains some ability to discern between what one knows and what one doesn't know.

Whatever we do understand is a fraction of an incomprehensible (not infinite) progression.

Whatever is beyond our epistemological limit is of unknown quantity/quality.

This emphasizes (magnifies) the relative importance of what we know.

The very concept of "important" only exists as a byproduct of our own ignorance.
Would this not render "everything" in your argument as conception? You mentioned that some people know more and some people know less. This relation could only be made with respect to a fixed quantity or quality. If "we don't know everything," then any amount we relate automatically would be dictated by the domain of possibilities we  conceive (not this metaphysical "everything.") Therefore, the statement "we don't know everything" (of course, in place of "I don't know everything") would be contradicted since the domain of "everything" is necessarily informed, at least for our epistemological purposes, by everything we do know.

Definitions themselves are (unfortunately) not limited by logic.

Any number of terms and concepts can be defined by contradictory (incoherent) combinations of primary axioms.

For example, "nothingness" is incoherent (there can be no such "thing" as "nothingness" because it could only "exist" no-where at no-time).
Agreed.

Also, "infinite" is incoherent (any "thing" truly "without limit" would necessarily supersede all other "things" in existence, rendering variation impossible).
Could one not reciprocally the coherence of variation? Why is variation necessary?

In a similar manner, "objectivity" is defined (by common definitions) as "incomprehensible" and "unobservable" ("independent" of human observation).
Agreed. And I'll revisit this below.


The ontological fallacy does not magically "make real" any concept that can be defined and imagined (saying "gods" does not make "gods" exist).
Why not?

Logic is an integral aspect of "the mind".

Logic cannot exist "independently" of "the mind".

And "the mind" cannot exist without logic.
If there's a necessary mutual dependence, then logic could not be merely an "aspect" of the mind.

Please make your perceived conflict explicit.
Is noumenon not that which is independent of the senses or perception? What function does the mind bear under that condition?

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
For example, "nothingness" is incoherent (there can be no such "thing" as "nothingness" because it could only "exist" no-where at no-time).
False. We live in a finite, occupied Space Universe ergo the only rattional, logical common sense sense conclusion, is that, what exists outside our finite, occupied Space Universe, is macro-infinite non-occupied Space.

This rather simple, romper-room logic that 6 - 10 year olds could follow.


Also, "infinite" is incoherent (any "thing" truly "without limit" would necessarily supersede all other "things" in existence, rendering variation impossible).
False. Macro-infinite Space is coherent without having integrity, that, is associated only with occupied Space.

Infinite is beyond comprehension, since comprehension is requires a wholistic integral value.

There exists only two kinds of infinite:

1} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied Space },

2} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts of infinite this or infinite that ex infinite Pi or infinite Phi etc.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Would this not render "everything" in your argument as conception?
Everything that is "conceivable" is not necessarily "purely conceptual".

The scope of our analysis (discussion) is necessarily limited to the "conceivable".

You mentioned that some people know more and some people know less.
By relative QUANTITY.

This relation could only be made with respect to a fixed quantity or quality.
Not necessarily.

Even a printed page can contain MORE data than another printed page.

If "we don't know everything," then any amount we relate automatically would be dictated by the domain of possibilities we  conceive (not this metaphysical "everything.")
The total percentage of "everything" "known" in relation to the total percentage of "everything" "unknown" is indeterminate.

Therefore, the statement "we don't know everything" (of course, in place of "I don't know everything") would be contradicted since the domain of "everything" is necessarily informed, at least for our epistemological purposes, by everything we do know.
Simply because we don't know the full scope of what we don't know, does not contradict the demonstrable fact "we don't know everything".

The only possible counter-claim would be "we DO know everything" (which is provably false).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Why is variation necessary?
Without variation, individual identification and ontological division would be impossible.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The ontological fallacy does not magically "make real" any concept that can be defined and imagined (saying "gods" does not make "gods" exist).
Why not?
Because of the definition of "existence".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If there's a necessary mutual [inter]dependence, then logic could not be merely an "aspect" of the mind.
"The Mind" is a series of divisions (variations).

These divisions necessitate interaction.

The predictability of these interactions are LOGIC.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Is noumenon not that which is independent of the senses or perception? What function does the mind bear under that condition?
"The Mind" is not 100% known (or perceivable).
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Athias
Is noumenon not that which is independent of the senses or perception?

"perception" transposes or translate as angle-of-viewpoint and angle of viewpoint is value of degree.  360 degrees is common base unity but any value can be applied.

..."nou·me·non  (in Kantian philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes."..

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept exists for what it, is a non-spatial 'thing' i.e. a complement to  occupied or non-occupied Space and not a line-of-relationship to either of those.

Occupied Space is tangent to non-occupied Space.


1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of triangles, Space, God, Universe, basket balls etc

------------------------------conceptual line-of-demarcation-----------------------------------------------

2} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied Space,

3} Physical occupied Space Universe.

This above Cosmic Trinity Outline is the top of the cosmic hierarchy and none will ever add to or detract from these truths.





Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything that is "conceivable" is not necessarily "purely conceptual".

The scope of our analysis (discussion) is necessarily limited to the "conceivable".
How do you distinguish the purely conceptual from the the not purely conceptual?

Not necessarily.

Even a printed page can contain MORE data than another printed page.
How does one gauge this without considering a fixed amount? Using your example, would one consider the amount of words, or the subjects broached? What would "more" mean?

The total percentage of "everything" "known" in relation to the total percentage of "everything" "unknown" is indeterminate.
It would be the total amount of "everything" "known" in relation to the total amount of "everything" "known" and "everything" "unknown" presuming of course that "everything" consists of the known and unknown. The closer the unknown is to 0, the closer we are to knowing everything; the closer the unknown is to infinity (or indefinite quantity) the closer we are to knowing (next to) nothing. Tautologically, we don't know what we don't know. It serves no utility in any expression of a relation. Past experience may indicate that we've made "discoveries," but the unknown with respect to what we do know has never changed.

Simply because we don't know the full scope of what we don't know, does not contradict the demonstrable fact "we don't know everything".
Presuming of course there is a "scope." And please demonstrate that we don't known everything.

The only possible counter-claim would be "we DO know everything" (which is provably false).
Please demonstrate or reference this proof of falsehood.

Without variation, individual identification and ontological division would be impossible.
That begs the question: why is individual identification and ontological division necessary?


Because of the definition of "existence".
There are many definitions of existence.

"The Mind" is a series of divisions (variations).

These divisions necessitate interaction.

The predictability of these interactions are LOGIC
If logic is the predictability of these interactions, how then is the mind dependent on logic? Does the mind require prediction?

"The Mind" is not 100% known (or perceivable).
Please elaborate.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
How do you distinguish the purely conceptual from the the not purely conceptual?
Logical necessity.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
How does one gauge this without considering a fixed amount? Using your example, would one consider the amount of words, or the subjects broached? What would "more" mean?
You can compare two pages to figure out which page contains more information.

There is absolutely no reason to demand "perfect knowledge" of a "known maximum".