hey guys, since there's no official debate section on Dakka (which there totally should be FYI) I've decided to start a debate thread or two in here, based on some things I find rather interesting.
I am a subscriber to the view of a deterministic universe: I believe all of time is (generally) predetermined, and as a consequence (a bitch on a one) we technically have no real free will.
Now, this of course applies only in a metaphysical sense: we CAN still choose to make decision, out of our own volition, its still OUR choice. However, metaphysically, it is still pre-determined by the external world: although it is my choice whether I am going to take option A or option B, due to cause and effect, it is predetermined that I am going to take option A.
So, I'd like to see what kind of a response I get to this before I post up my arguments. If anyones interested in opposing me, just say you'll get involved, then I'll shout out my opening speech.
Well if you ascribe to Everett's 'trousers of time' theory, then everything is predetermined because every possible option is played out in a different dimension. Otherwise, no.
Even then, it kinda does.
I'm going to lay out a deductive argument here, basically meaning that if you accept all my premises, (points 1-6) you have to accept my conclusion. Here we go:
1) everything in the universe has a cause: every action is the result of another action (for example the tree will fall over because the axe caused its structure to weaken. In turn the axe caused this because it has a sharp point (caused by it being sharpened) and the arms swinging it into the tree along with a host of other variables.)
2) our choices have causes, just like everything else
3) these causes boil down basically to our personality (I will choose to help the woman across the road because I have a generally nice personality)
4) our personality will have a cause (a person who has a generally angry personality may find the cause of that angriness in their sad childhood for example (as just one cause))
5) the cause of our personality can be tracked back to the external world: as finite beings, the chain of causation must at some point leave us. We are originally caused by our parents choice to create life (using a bit of a euphemism there. Plus I just made you think about something you don't want to ) and our brains are developed by our DNA. From there, we receive external stimuli, which causes our thoughts/personality to change. There is nothing in our brains that doesn't have a cause itself outside our brains, that would cause our personality to change in some way.)
6) since all our actions are part of a chain of causation that finds its root in the external world, our actions are cause by the external world.
conclusion) our actions are predetermined.
Feel free to object in any way you like!
(furthermore, since the world of physics runs on cause and effect, each event can be tracked back in a chain of causation to the big bang: in effect the way the big bang happened, the particular velocity/energy/direction/whatever-the-f***-was-happening of the particles, determined the next stage of causation, which determined the next, up until present day.
Measuring the validity of a ruler, cannot be done with a ruler. It is impossible for us to actually examine the nature of our own consciousness.
Ergo, get a proper degree
The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.
Anyway, i think the idea of fate is kinda silly, even if you do allow for God. Weird example, but think of Horoscopes; everyone knows that they are Bullcrap but by the end of the week, would you look at that; It came true. It came true because you made it happen, you, often subconciously, tried to meet 'a new person' or 'form a new relationship'. The horoscope was less of a prophecy more a pep-talk. This doesnt disprove anything obviously but it offers an alternative.
Yes.
People have logic because logic proved to be evolutionary advantageous.
Using logic to examine itself is therefore impossible. Would you use a torch to see light?
Perkustin wrote:The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.
Well M-theory and such rely on there being 11 dimensions, I think the trousers of time stuff is the 5th, don't quote me on that though.
Perkustin wrote:The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.
Anyway, i think the idea of fate is kinda silly, even if you do allow for God. Weird example, but think of Horoscopes; everyone knows that they are Bullcrap but by the end of the week, would you look at that; It came true. It came true because you made it happen, you, often subconciously, tried to meet 'a new person' or 'form a new relationship'. The horoscope was less of a prophecy more a pep-talk. This doesnt disprove anything obviously but it offers an alternative.
No it isn't, quite a few prominent physicists (including Hawking IIRC) support the multiverse theory.
Spontaneous actions were observed scientifically by a psychology lab, before Piaget wrote Insights and Illusions of Philosophy. I just finished it, but since it was packed full of info and names I'm not familiar with, I'll just mention it before I can find the exact name of the researcher.
At a different interpretative level, I like Schopenhauer's very simplistic interpretation of free-will : You are a part in the causal world, thus you will be submitted to causality whenever an external action will cause in you a reaction. And you can only react as you are right now. But at any given time, you can also determine that you shouldn't react in this way, so you can become your own causality for future events. Basically, you can't help reacting a certain way because of who you are, but you can help yourself at becoming better.
At least, I think it has more to do with the ability to have a mental discourse than any faculty of the soul...
Perkustin wrote:The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.
Anyway, i think the idea of fate is kinda silly, even if you do allow for God. Weird example, but think of Horoscopes; everyone knows that they are Bullcrap but by the end of the week, would you look at that; It came true. It came true because you made it happen, you, often subconciously, tried to meet 'a new person' or 'form a new relationship'. The horoscope was less of a prophecy more a pep-talk. This doesnt disprove anything obviously but it offers an alternative.
No it isn't, quite a few prominent physicists (including Hawking IIRC) support the multiverse theory.
'Fraid so. The multiverse theory is, rather misleadingly, the name given to the concept of (functionally)infinite universes. The idea of Multiple Universes, which i think you mean, is not disproven.
Perkustin wrote:I meant the 'infinite universes' idea. That's the disproven one.
Infinite universes is another of the dimensions of M theory, there's all sorts, including infinite universes with infinitely different laws of physics.
It was my understanding that Hawking was for the idea of "Trousers of time" splitting at every conceivable moment thus yielding functionally infinite parallel universes (not dimensions).
Sorry, damn, this is hard because of the thingy they use to swipe images. It's the third one from the end, which looks like a red grain of salt.
Oh and the third one on the second row is a 'microeye', a small explosion observed at random times when building the nanofilaments of a quantum computer transistor (I assume they talk about the D-Wave, but they don't specify)
@ Melissa: If you view this thread as pointless, why bother posting in it? I personally view it as very interesting, I'm not trying to achieve anything here, I'm just trying to have a bit of fun I will totally agree, IT HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on everyday life, I won't stop making decisions just because determinism is the logical conslusion of my view of the world: you put the philosophy aside when you go home. In the words of my teacher, when you're wife asks you to do the dishes, and you reply "I will not do the dishes, the dishes don't exist", you're not going to be a very happy bunny for quite a few nights
"People have logic because logic proved to be evolutionary advantageous.
Using logic to examine itself is therefore impossible. Would you use a torch to see light?" 1) Your first point isn't an argument dude, the first point doesn't lead onto your conclusion in any meaningful way. Lay it out in a clear argument if you want me to take you seriously.
2) Um, yes you would use a torch to see light? The torch generates light energy which reflects off objects and into your eyes? That's what a torch DOES.
3) Just because I HAVE logic doesn't mean I can't use it to examine logic? I have no idea where you got that from. Why you felt the need to bring evolution into it, I have no idea.
Furthermore, if all you have to say is "philosophy is bullcrap", as you seem to be implying by your (quite offensive and utterly ignorant) 'ergo get a proper degree' speech, then what place do you have in this disscussion
@ perkustin: I think you misunderstand me when I say time is predetermined. I am not in any way mentioning 'fate', or 'god', as some sort of mystical force. I'm simply talking about cause and effect. In fact, your post on horoscopes completely supported my view: our actions in such instances find their cause in how we react to the horoscopes.
To fully illustrate this argument, lets imagine a world with no life, simply inanimate matter. This world, just like ours, operates under the laws of cause and effect.
Take a split second in time from this universe, where every one of a finite number of particles is in a specific place, with a specific velocity. Now, imagine you KNOW both the position and velocity of all of these particles (Yes, this is impossible, but its hypothetical anyway) and had the mental capacity to fully remember and understand them, and process their movement. I believe you would agree with me in saying that you could predict the position and velocity of each of these particles in the next moment, as such things would be determined by their current qualities. Also you could determine the collision and reactions of any of these particles. If you had the mental capacity, you could predict how each of these would continue to function for however long you want to: you could use cause and effect to predict the future.
Now, that is entirely hypothetical, as we know that it is pretty much impossible. However it does illustrate my point, as the things going on at one moment in time will determine the things going on in the next, and so on for infinity.
Add in humans (assuming human minds function under the same laws as the rest of the universe) and we are still predetermined. Any (developed, intelligent) retorts?
@biccat: simply not true. You're ascribing to a simply empirical understanding of the universe, where nothing empirically verifiable is meaningless. This fails in the same manner as Ayer's verification principle.
Furthermore, if you don't agree with me, prove what you're saying. You are simply laying down a conclusion without any supporting arguments. That isn't convincing.
TO CONCLUDE: please guys, if all you have to contribute is "this topic is crap/meaningless/shouldnt be talked about, then please don't post at all. everyone else who wants to discuss this topic is actually trying to, whereas all you have to say is "i find this discussion meaningless". It doesn't really contribute anything at all.
@Dael : I don't know that they do. I don't know much about it, so I can't say honestly, but it seems that the D-Wave is capable of working out a few specific tasks pretty well. Admittedly, it's still contested that it's actually a quantum computer...
But quantum physics as little to do with determinism, since our brain is in no way a proper environment for quantum effects (or at least it doesn't seem so). Free Will must be explained psychologically, I think.
To fully illustrate this argument, lets imagine a world with no life, simply inanimate matter. This world, just like ours, operates under the laws of cause and effect.
Take a split second in time from this universe, where every one of a finite number of particles is in a specific place, with a specific velocity. Now, imagine you KNOW both the position and velocity of all of these particles (Yes, this is impossible, but its hypothetical anyway) and had the mental capacity to fully remember and understand them, and process their movement. I believe you would agree with me in saying that you could predict the position and velocity of each of these particles in the next moment, as such things would be determined by their current qualities. Also you could determine the collision and reactions of any of these particles. If you had the mental capacity, you could predict how each of these would continue to function for however long you want to: you could use cause and effect to predict the future.
This would not work, quantum uncertainty principle will create particles randomly which will affect the overall model.
walker90234 wrote:
"People have logic because logic proved to be evolutionary advantageous.
Using logic to examine itself is therefore impossible. Would you use a torch to see light?"[/b]
1) Your first point isn't an argument dude, the first point doesn't lead onto your conclusion in any meaningful way. Lay it out in a clear argument if you want me to take you seriously.
2) Um, yes you would use a torch to see light? The torch generates light energy which reflects off objects and into your eyes? That's what a torch DOES.
3) Just because I HAVE logic doesn't mean I can't use it to examine logic? I have no idea where you got that from. Why you felt the need to bring evolution into it, I have no idea.
Furthermore, if all you have to say is "philosophy is bullcrap", as you seem to be implying by your (quite offensive and utterly ignorant) 'ergo get a proper degree' speech, then what place do you have in this disscussion
1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.
If the universe is deterministic, and there is only one set path, then why does random chance exist?
Just asking. I admit I do not understand the concept all too well.
Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly. 2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable. 3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim: Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us. So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.
I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.
Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.
I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.
All of which is the outcome of your own logic. You have subjectively decided that it is objective.
walker90234 wrote:@ Melissa: If you view this thread as pointless, why bother posting in it?
I never said this thread was pointless. It, after all, exists for my amusement
Not purely for your amusement. This is a community, and the OP has created the thread for a purpose. To disregard that purpose and dismiss or derail the thread because you consider the discussion pointless is rude. It's like when people troll a memorial thread to say they don't give a crap that the person died. Don't do it. If you find the thread amusing but pointless, you can enjoy it by reading it, rather than posting just to annoy people.
Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.
I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.
All of which is the outcome of your own logic. You have subjectively decided that it is objective.
Then you must believe in solipsism and metaphysical nihilism?
Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.
I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.
All of which is the outcome of your own logic. You have subjectively decided that it is objective.
You assumed that logic is subjective (I see no proof for it in your original argument: you simply said 'logic is subjective' with no proof.) Kovnik has shown that it is NOT objective. However you have dismissed this arguments simply because you ASSUME that logic is subjective. You are not debating, you are simply making unsupported statements. THAT ISN'T A DEBATE! Support your arguments or they are invalid.
Furthermore, he hasn't even used logic to prove logic. Logic itself is defined as use of tautological statements. A priori knowledge. A logical statement is by its very definition objective. Examples are 1+1=2. You're not seriously going to tell me that the logic I use to define 1+1 as 2 is subjective are you?
If I say:
"a=k
j=k
therefore a=j"
that I am using subjective reasoning? Its simple fact derived from objective logic.
I will ask you to provide on instance of logic being subjective. Do so and I may agree (but you won't).
I'm sorry mate, but I'm not the dim one. I'm making developed deductive arguments. You're just saying random crap. Plus don't insult me, you're being ad hominem, and achieving nothing by it other than showing yourself to be petty and unable to support your own arguments without resorting to insults.
Furthermore, you say that logic is used to process a posteriori facts. this is simply not true, logic is able to do so much more.
1+1=2 is a logically accepted statement. We logically (via a priori learning) know that 1+1=2, as you cannot prove that 1+1=2 via empirical observation. You can use logic to analyse anything that fits a logical pattern, it doesn't matter if it relates to the world or not.
Furthermore, even if you're correct in saying such a thing, my observations concerning determinism are entirely empirical, so that argument in no way applies.
Come on man, actually debate, don't just spew out nonsense. Its no fun that way, I actually want an intelligent discussion. Make your posts more than 3 lines long, as me and my friend Kovnik have been doing. Support your claims.
Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.
I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.
All of which is the outcome of your own logic. You have subjectively decided that it is objective.
Then you must believe in solipsism and metaphysical nihilism?
You mean, even though I disagree with the premise of your logic, I still fit into your catagories? Not really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
walker90234 wrote:
You assumed that logic is subjective (I see no proof for it in your original argument: you simply said 'logic is subjective' with no proof.) Kovnik has shown that it is NOT objective. However you have dismissed this arguments simply because you ASSUME that logic is subjective. You are not debating, you are simply making unsupported statements. THAT ISN'T A DEBATE! Support your arguments or they are invalid.
So I should use your own version of logic, in order to prove that your logic is worthless?
However you haven't supported your arguments, as I have already shown, whereas Kovnik has, therefore your arguments are void one liners, that don't conclude anything. Sorry, you need to address what I have said, otherwise your entire argument is void.
its not MY version of logic. It is THE version of logic.
It is objective not subjective.
You have failed to show in any way that it is subjective. What you seem to be saying is that "i say its subjective and so it is". If that, by your standards, is logic then I don't even know why you are in this topic. If logic is simply saying "I say so, so its true" then yes, it is subjective. But thats not what logic is. Logic, by definition, is using tautological statements. What you are using, although you label it logic, ISNT logic! Stop pretending it is. if you can SHOW it is, I will agree, but if you can't, and logic is simply assumption, I can say "i win this thread" and i auto magically do. Thats not logic, sorry.
Furthermore, you have ignored half of my post. It overturns your arguments. Address it or retire, those are your options.
If you're going to have an intelligent discussion, back up your points.
Show me an instance of subjective logic, otherwise your points are void.
Anyway, I'm going to now take the advice of Scrabb, since as you are adding nothing to the debate, you are no longer relevant.
Unless joey can provide something meaningful, I suggest we all stop pandering to his whims.
You have a fair point, since Joey is basically adding nothing to the thread, and cannot seem to wrap his brain around logic in any way, I shall address Dael and a number of others.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:If the universe is deterministic, and there is only one set path, then why does random chance exist?
Just asking. I admit I do not understand the concept all too well.
Yeah, I had this problem too, but I will do my best to explain it to you.
I assume by random chance you mean events such as rolling dice? If you roll a dice, it seems as if the number chosen is completely random. However this is not actually the case, as you will readily admit that the number which comes up is a direct result of such variables as the dices velocity across the table, the texture of the table, the weight of the dice, ect.
Since I'm on Dakka, I can illustrate this quite well: we've all heard of practiced rolling. If I hold a dice in my hand with a 6 facing up, and roll it in a particular back hand flick (I can actually do this 50% of the time btw, though I choose not to) it will come up with a 6. The number that has come up has been determined by a number of variables, which I have determined consciously.
Now, when we roll a dice normally, these variable still exist (although my rolling motion and the way the dice faces has been selected subconsciously, just on whim (the dice is lying with the 6 facing up, I pick it up so that the 6 is facing down just by the fact that it was facing up and my thoughts at the time ect.) and my motions are unintended, and just occur by unknown causes) and as such, the way the dice rolls is determined by its surroundings, all of which themselves have causes.
Random number algorithms also have causes behind them, although we can't see it. So does the choice of number in the human brain ect. ect.
@Dael: I really don't have much knowledge on quantum theory, or whether it has been proven, or just seems to be that way. Furthermore, I have also heard that such events do have causes, but they are simply unknown as of yet, though I don't know whether that is actually true. Please enlighten me?
walker90234 wrote:However you haven't supported your arguments, as I have already shown, whereas Kovnik has, therefore your arguments are void one liners, that don't conclude anything. Sorry, you need to address what I have said, otherwise your entire argument is void.
Yes, you're asking me to use YOUR logic, to explain why I think YOUR logic doesn't work.
Clearly you don't understand what I'm trying to say.
This is the great rift valley:
Within which, logic works.
Take it outside of that, into the very large or the very small, and it breaks. We've known this for a while.
Problem is people use that to justify the existence of a god (which is bs).
What you call "logic" is the plaything of bourgeois layabouts, it has no practical or technical use whatsoever, and is bunk.
But you use your own logic to justify its validity, so it doesn't bother you. If you can't see that paradox, I pity you.
walker90234 wrote:You have a fair point, since Joey is basically adding nothing to the thread, and cannot seem to wrap his brain around logic in any way, I shall address Dael and a number of others.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:If the universe is deterministic, and there is only one set path, then why does random chance exist?
Just asking. I admit I do not understand the concept all too well.
Yeah, I had this problem too, but I will do my best to explain it to you.
I assume by random chance you mean events such as rolling dice? If you roll a dice, it seems as if the number chosen is completely random. However this is not actually the case, as you will readily admit that the number which comes up is a direct result of such variables as the dices velocity across the table, the texture of the table, the weight of the dice, ect.
Since I'm on Dakka, I can illustrate this quite well: we've all heard of practiced rolling. If I hold a dice in my hand with a 6 facing up, and roll it in a particular back hand flick (I can actually do this 50% of the time btw, though I choose not to) it will come up with a 6. The number that has come up has been determined by a number of variables, which I have determined consciously.
Now, when we roll a dice normally, these variable still exist (although my rolling motion and the way the dice faces has been selected subconsciously, just on whim (the dice is lying with the 6 facing up, I pick it up so that the 6 is facing down just by the fact that it was facing up and my thoughts at the time ect.) and my motions are unintended, and just occur by unknown causes) and as such, the way the dice rolls is determined by its surroundings, all of which themselves have causes.
Random number algorithms also have causes behind them, although we can't see it. So does the choice of number in the human brain ect. ect.
@Dael: I really don't have much knowledge on quantum theory, or whether it has been proven, or just seems to be that way. Furthermore, I have also heard that such events do have causes, but they are simply unknown as of yet, though I don't know whether that is actually true. Please enlighten me?
Oh, so you mean determinism as a product of a series of underlying factors and causes?
Oh yeah, that totally makes sense, cause and effect and all that jazz.
I think chaos theory (or was it the butterfly effect?) said something similar.
"Take it outside of that, into the very large or the very small, and it breaks. We've known this for a while. "
explain?
"Problem is people use that to justify the existence of a god (which is bs)."
Not really a problem. People TRY to justify the existence of god. whether their particular attempt at logic fails or not doesn't debunk the whole theory of logic.
An example: Anslem tried to use logic to prove God existed by definition. He failed. Does this mean logic is wrong because it seemed to make sense in his argument? No, it just means he used his logic wrong.
"What you call "logic" is the plaything of bourgeois layabouts, it has no practical or technical use whatsoever, and is bunk. "
I am not even arguing the importance of logic in this thread, I'm not saying it has a practical or technical use. I'm simply having fun, if you have eve heard of such a thing. You should try it some time, its very appealing. Furthermore, just because you can't use it to say, build a car, doesn't make the use we put it to any the less valid. Just because you see logic as having no use, does make it "subjective".
"But you use your own logic to justify its validity, so it doesn't bother you. If you can't see that paradox, I pity you."
I'M NOT USING MY OWN LOGIC TO JUSTIFY THE MEANING OF LOGIC. I'M SIMPLY SAYING, THE DEFINITION OF LOGIC IS THAT USED BY PHILOSOPHY. furthermore, we don't need to justify logic, it just works. Logical statements are those which follow a deductive pattern (this is the philosophical definition of logic, if you want to use a different definition, that definition has no application to this thread, as this thread relies on such deductive logic, not your pseudo-logic) and arguments which follow a deductive pattern are mathematical in their structure: they follow the same patterns as found in pure mathematics (algebra ect) in the fact that the premises lead intuitively to one another.
Take this deductive example:
1) John is a man
2) men are bad at driving
conclusion: john is bad at driving
That is a logical argument. The premises, if they are true, lead to the conclusion. Explain in any what, whatsoever, how the layout of that argument is, as you say, subjective? yes, the premises may not be true, but the logical layout IS.
now the kicker:
"Yes, you're asking me to use YOUR logic, to explain why I think YOUR logic doesn't work. "
I'm asking you to use ANYTHING to justify why my logic doesn't work. You're really not phrasing yourself well. Show me, in any way, why logic is "subjective". You have failed to do so, so far, other than to say "logic is subjective". You haven't defined logic in any meaningful way. In you opinion, what is logic? Why do you think it is subjective? Use anything to do this. SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. and unsupported argument is not an arguments. Support it in any way at all, even if that doesn't follow 'my logic'
So I'm simply going to ask you nicely, one last time, before I finally dismiss you as a complete idiot, to make a meaningful contribution. In ANY way. define why logic is subjective. make an argument, in ANY way.
All you have said is "Logic is subjective"
I can't reply to that, as you say your logic proves that, but you haven't defined your logic. Define your logic. otherwise all you are saying is "its right because I say so"
Final note:This is a philosophical debate. In a philosophical debate, whatever your views on this pseudo logic of yours, the laws of philosophical logic apply. As such, your arguments really have no place here. Prove IN ANY WAY that our logic is subjective, or get out.
EDIT: @cuthulluspy: Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying, its really just based on chaos theory!
EDIT: We have a little misunderstanding on page one: when I said care to expand on that, i was referring to the post above your,a s you hadn't posted yet. I hadn't noticed your analogy.
I shall attempt to address it:
you us an analogy to try take down my claim (an analogy is a logical tool btw). The thing is, the human mind and a ruler are incredibly different things, and as such comparing them is absurd. Its like saying, if I try to have sex with a cow, its internal pressure will rip my organs out. Therefore, since a human is an animal, if i try to do the same thing with one of those, I will have my organs ripped out.
See how that argument fails? In order for analogies to work, the things being compared need to be similar, whereas anatomically, humans and cows are very different, therefore the analogy doesn't work.
Now, the human mind is very different to a ruler, and as such works to an even lesser extent than the cow-human one.
Analogies work by saying "these things are similar in way A therefore must be similar in way B"
this works with very similar things:
If I see you, a human (i assume), hit yourself in the thumb with a hammer, and you cry out, I can assume that since you are human and cry out when you hit yourself with a hammer, just like me (we are the same in way A) that you must have a similar nervous similar to me (we are similar in way B) the analogy is fairly simple and the two are so similar so it works. Your analogy however is too different to actually work.
This is also the reason why the teleological argument for the existence of God fails, fyi. research David Hume if you want more info on it.
walker90234 wrote:"Take it outside of that, into the very large or the very small, and it breaks. We've known this for a while. "
explain?
Quantum physics is pretty fething illogical, as is gravity on a large scale.
walker90234 wrote:
I'M NOT USING MY OWN LOGIC TO JUSTIFY THE MEANING OF LOGIC. I'M SIMPLY SAYING, THE DEFINITION OF LOGIC IS THAT USED BY PHILOSOPHY. furthermore, we don't need to justify logic, it just works. Logical statements are those which follow a deductive pattern (this is the philosophical definition of logic, if you want to use a different definition, that definition has no application to this thread, as this thread relies on such deductive logic, not your pseudo-logic) and arguments which follow a deductive pattern are mathematical in their structure: they follow the same patterns as found in pure mathematics (algebra ect) in the fact that the premises lead intuitively to one another.
Take this deductive example:
1) John is a man
2) men are bad at driving
conclusion: john is bad at driving
That is a logical argument. The premises, if they are true, lead to the conclusion. Explain in any what, whatsoever, how the layout of that argument is, as you say, subjective? yes, the premises may not be true, but the logical layout IS.
Here's my logical example:
1)I can prove that something is true once
2)It must now always be true
You really need to question your own methods more.
walker90234 wrote:
now the kicker:
"Yes, you're asking me to use YOUR logic, to explain why I think YOUR logic doesn't work. "
I'm asking you to use ANYTHING to justify why my logic doesn't work. You're really not phrasing yourself well. Show me, in any way, why logic is "subjective". You have failed to do so, so far, other than to say "logic is subjective". You haven't defined logic in any meaningful way. In you opinion, what is logic? Why do you think it is subjective? Use anything to do this. SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. and unsupported argument is not an arguments. Support it in any way at all, even if that doesn't follow 'my logic'
All proof is based upon assumptions or "axioms". It's impossible to prove anything.
walker90234 wrote:
So I'm simply going to ask you nicely, one last time, before I finally dismiss you as a complete idiot, to make a meaningful contribution. In ANY way. define why logic is subjective. make an argument, in ANY way.
All you have said is "Logic is subjective"
I can't reply to that, as you say your logic proves that, but you haven't defined your logic. Define your logic. otherwise all you are saying is "its right because I say so"[/b]
Final note:This is a philosophical debate. In a philosophical debate, whatever your views on this pseudo logic of yours, the laws of philosophical logic apply. As such, your arguments really have no place here. Prove IN ANY WAY that our logic is subjective, or get out.
Again, you're asking me to use your world view, to explain why I don't believe in your world view.
I think you need to question more, and pontificate less. People with useful things to say are rarely verbose.
Firstly, read the end of my last post after i edited, just so I don't have to repost.
"Here's my logical example:
1)I can prove that something is true once
2)It must now always be true "
I don't really get what you're trying to say here? that this shows logic is subjective? All it shows is that inductive reasoning doesn't always work. I completely agree with that!
But you use inductive reassigning throughout your life: you assume because you press down on the keyboard keys, it will type, because it has done so in the past.
Yes, inductive reasoning may have its flaws, but that doesn't make all logic subjective, it simply means some logic doesn't lead to a certainty.
"All proof is based upon assumptions or "axioms". It's impossible to prove anything."
yes, I do philosophy A-level, and maths, I know what axioms are, I know that not everything is proven.
Are you claiming that your argument that logic is subjective is an axiom? Is that what your trying to say? your really not making yourself clear.
"Again, you're asking me to use your world view, to explain why I don't believe in your world view. "
I'm asking you to tell me what YOUR world view is, rather than simply saying mine is wrong, So far you haven't.
"I think you need to question more, and pontificate less. People with useful things to say are rarely verbose."
I'd rather someone verbose who actually says things, than someone who fails to explain what they are saying?
walker90234 wrote:Firstly, read the end of my last post after i edited, just so I don't have to repost.
"Here's my logical example:
1)I can prove that something is true once
2)It must now always be true "
I don't really get what you're trying to say here? that this shows logic is subjective? All it shows is that inductive reasoning doesn't always work. I completely agree with that!
But you use inductive reassigning throughout your life: you assume because you press down on the keyboard keys, it will type, because it has done so in the past.
Yes, inductive reasoning may have its flaws, but that doesn't make all logic subjective, it simply means some logic doesn't lead to a certainty.
Right, so you're still using other criteria to establish truth. I may as well say "people with blue eyes are more intelligent", simply because most intelligent people I know have blue eyes. It would be right, most of the time. But the method is flawed.
walker90234 wrote:
"All proof is based upon assumptions or "axioms". It's impossible to prove anything."
yes, I do philosophy A-level, and maths, I know what axioms are, I know that not everything is proven.
Are you claiming that your argument that logic is subjective is an axiom? Is that what your trying to say? your really not making yourself clear.
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you do A-level philosophy.
I am making myself clear - you can only justify the validity of logic, using logic itself. Since logic is a tool that our ancestors evolved to survive in the wild, you can't extrapolate it to anything beyond what could be considered "the human realm". Quantum physics is a brilliant example of this.
walker90234 wrote:
"Again, you're asking me to use your world view, to explain why I don't believe in your world view. "
I'm asking you to tell me what YOUR world view is, rather than simply saying mine is wrong, So far you haven't.
I don't have a world view. The world is a random, chaotic and uncaring entropic mess. Or it may not be. I don't really care either way.
walker90234 wrote:
"I think you need to question more, and pontificate less. People with useful things to say are rarely verbose."
I'd rather someone verbose who actually says things, than someone who fails to explain what they are saying?
Oh, orwellss fantastc, iveread that for my personal statement (doing English). And ur being a bit if a hypocrite their with all your pontificates and verboses
walker90234 wrote:Firstly, read the end of my last post after i edited, just so I don't have to repost.
"Here's my logical example: 1)I can prove that something is true once 2)It must now always be true " I don't really get what you're trying to say here? that this shows logic is subjective? All it shows is that inductive reasoning doesn't always work. I completely agree with that! But you use inductive reassigning throughout your life: you assume because you press down on the keyboard keys, it will type, because it has done so in the past.
Yes, inductive reasoning may have its flaws, but that doesn't make all logic subjective, it simply means some logic doesn't lead to a certainty.
Right, so you're still using other criteria to establish truth. I may as well say "people with blue eyes are more intelligent", simply because most intelligent people I know have blue eyes. It would be right, most of the time. But the method is flawed.
walker90234 wrote: "All proof is based upon assumptions or "axioms". It's impossible to prove anything." yes, I do philosophy A-level, and maths, I know what axioms are, I know that not everything is proven. Are you claiming that your argument that logic is subjective is an axiom? Is that what your trying to say? your really not making yourself clear.
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you do A-level philosophy. I am making myself clear - you can only justify the validity of logic, using logic itself. Since logic is a tool that our ancestors evolved to survive in the wild, you can't extrapolate it to anything beyond what could be considered "the human realm". Quantum physics is a brilliant example of this.
walker90234 wrote: "Again, you're asking me to use your world view, to explain why I don't believe in your world view. " I'm asking you to tell me what YOUR world view is, rather than simply saying mine is wrong, So far you haven't.
I don't have a world view. The world is a random, chaotic and uncaring entropic mess. Or it may not be. I don't really care either way.
walker90234 wrote: "I think you need to question more, and pontificate less. People with useful things to say are rarely verbose." I'd rather someone verbose who actually says things, than someone who fails to explain what they are saying?
Sorry, mate, but I must at least here say that most of what you say on quantum physics is still considered undetermined by most experts. Quantum logic is all but illogical, if what' I've understood about it isn't completely false, it's simply very complicated adiabatic logic. Here's a crash course : http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dev-tutorial-intro.html. No one knows right now exactly what is the incoherent state that is the hallmark of quantum effects, but one thing that is pretty much sure, it's that it's not a default state, it can only remain 'undetermined' for so long (and 'so long' is very short), before the state become coherent once more. That's why it's not necessarily correct to say that it 'breaks' classical logic.
Your take on logic doesn't take in account the common development of logical modules in children of the same age in different countries and societies. Children around the world at 5-6 will learn 'quantitative conservation', by which a group, when split up, retains the same number across the two new groups. Around 10-12, the child will then learn about the proper structure of causality, which is to say that the first event caused the result. and not the result causing the event, like it is often believed in finalist explanations. If all human cognitive systems balance themselves around the same perceptions, I don't see what makes them entirely subjective (as in relative to the subject).
Now they aren't true, as in they don't describe accurately a fact, (logic doesn't say anything about facts) but they are objectively valid, since the relations they represent are tautological relations.
I at first thought debates about determinism were interesting, but about 2-3 years ago, I learnt the three words that automatically (trying not to be presumptuous here) show that determinism cannot exist.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you cannot know both exactly where something is, and its velocity, if you know one the other cannot be known. This also applies to energy levels over a period of time.
If the universe is deterministic (which it isn't) than the uncertainty principle cannot hold true, but if you do a quick google search for picosecond lasers you will find that it does in fact hold true.
While I can't answer the ultimate question, I can tell you with complete certainty this:
The next person who resorts to calling another poster an idiot is going to find their ability to participate in any discussion curtailed.
If you can't make your point without name-calling, your argument is fatally undermined, in that I will deny you the ability to present it. Clear, I hope?
Krellnus wrote:I at first thought debates about determinism were interesting, but about 2-3 years ago, I learnt the three words that automatically (trying not to be presumptuous here) show that determinism cannot exist.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you cannot know both exactly where something is, and its velocity, if you know one the other cannot be known. This also applies to energy levels over a period of time.
If the universe is deterministic (which it isn't) than the uncertainty principle cannot hold true, but if you do a quick google search for picosecond lasers you will find that it does in fact hold true.
Yeah, I was just thinking of that too.
I guess one could argue though that its inevitable that the particle will be in a location, we just don't know when.
@Dael: I really don't have much knowledge on quantum theory, or whether it has been proven, or just seems to be that way. Furthermore, I have also heard that such events do have causes, but they are simply unknown as of yet, though I don't know whether that is actually true. Please enlighten me?
I don't know about proven, it's quantum theory rather than quantum law, but then relativity is a theory rather than a law too, but quantum theory shows some really interesting things, such as a single object existing in two places at the same time, and all electrons in the universe being in communication with each other. The problem with causality in the quantum world is difficult as in our world if you do the same action, to the same object, under the same conditions, you will always get the same result. In the quantum world if you do the same action, to the same object, under the same conditions, you will always get a different result. Quantum uncertainty principle is when particles appear and disappear from reality for split seconds, this occurs millions of times a second in our own bodies, so translate that for a whole universe, scientists believe strongly in this principle as it is the basis of Hawking Radiation. There is also a theory that shows if you put a box around something the smaller you make the box the less chance there is of the thing being in the box once its opened (Is that covered under Heisenburg's?).
walker90234 wrote:Oh, orwellss fantastc, iveread that for my personal statement (doing English). And ur being a bit if a hypocrite their with all your pontificates and verboses
Try reading for pleasure rather than by dictat. You'll find that you learn a lot more when your knowledge is not manipulated by others.
@joey: "Try reading for pleasure rather than by dictat. You'll find that you learn a lot more when your knowledge is not manipulated by others."
You think just because I found something interesting enough that it deserved a place on my uni application that I didn't enjoy it? Seriously, stop trying to make jabs at peoples intelligence to make yourself look bigger, as the mods have said, they're gonna kick anyone who does. it doesn't add anything.
Furthermore, you do realise that people CHOOSE the stuff to put on their personal statement, rather than having a reading list? If someone dictated a reading list to a class, the uni would notice that the entire centre had the same things on their statements, and hence know that the people had no real independent interest in the subject, hence kicking them out? Stop talking like you know me so as to make me seem small and big up your own arguments. it doesn't get you anywhere. These 'pearls of wisdom' of yours seem a bit condescending.
FURTHERMORE:
If A then B.
A.
Therefore B.
This is not subjective in any way. It is also not made up, or evolved, by humans. It is discovered by humans. Logic is not a "thing" which can be objective or subjective; it is truth. When something is logically true, or "necessary", it is defined as "true in all possible universes".
You are not using your logic and i am not using mine, because logic is not a subjective thing. It cannot be said to exist - it is just truth. It cannot be right or wrong - it is used to prove what is right or wrong. People can USE it incorrectly, but that doesn't make the logic itself correct or incorrect.
FURTHERMORE: Logic is not something that was gained through evolution.
Evolution is the process of BIOLOGICAL progression through a series of random GENETIC mutations.
I think you will agree that the ability to use logic is not a biological feature, but a brain function. As such, since evolution is the passing on of biological features, logic itself is not a product of evolution. Logic is simply a tool which we humans can understand. Like math. one pen + one pen = 2 pens regardless of human interaction (don't bother bringing in axioms, I know that line of reasoning and have used it, but it just brings us to a stupid, solopsistic state that is really kinda useless, and which none of us honestly believe).
The brainpower needed to UNDERSTAND logic might come from biological development, but the logic itself is not dependent upon the human mind.
EDIT: By the way joey, that bear thread of yours is fething awesome!
walker90234 wrote:Oh, orwellss fantastc, iveread that for my personal statement (doing English). And ur being a bit if a hypocrite their with all your pontificates and verboses
Try reading for pleasure rather than by dictat. You'll find that you learn a lot more when your knowledge is not manipulated by others.
You can bring out plenty of pretty maxims to support your point, but it remains the same ; learning is mostly a social interaction. Few enough times are you not under another's manipulation, be it that of your previous teachers, of the author, or of some other figure that influenced you greatly in your intellectual development.
There are hundreds of reason to dislike the structure in which Philosophy is currently taught, and say that it isn't optimal for teaching its material. I don't think the fact that there's a teacher-student relation is one of them, tho.
The problem with causality in the quantum world is difficult as in our world if you do the same action, to the same object, under the same conditions, you will always get the same result. In the quantum world if you do the same action, to the same object, under the same conditions, you will always get a different result.
Not always different, the result will remain undifferentiated across the possible states. Basically, the light trap won't ever start singing heavy metal, but it will become impossible for us to distinguish between the range of expected states it should be in (emitting light and not emitting light). Apparently, this is why quantum scientists are starting to use the term 'superposition of states' instead of 'incoherence'.
And I think you nailed the hearth of the problem, by using the word 'world'. We differentiate both scales, quantum and classic, because the theory of relativity tells us that once past a certain point, different scaling ranges start acting like different 'universes' in regards to the set of laws we can apply to them. There's a separation there that doesn't take in account the fact that the universe isn't necessarily differentiated between scaling ranges ; if there is a difference between classical logic and quantum logic, it might be because we haven't been able yet to unify a theory regarding the universal logic. A theory which could, speculatively, take in account the fact that, for some reason, unpredictable events seem to happen in the microcosm and not in the macrocosm, and only in the incredibly short term and not the long term. Such a theory could conclude to a sort of primacy of classical explanations over quantum explanations, by some sort of primacy of the 'coherent' states over the 'superposed' states, like some sort of entropy of incoherence.
Is free will an illusion? Was I predetermined to make this post? What set of circumstances caused me to make this post? Is it possible I really didn't make this post, the universe did?
From my point of view, there is free will. Sure, there are many things that influence free will, but if there is no free will then there is no responsability. Those slimebags who claim they 'had to' rape and kill that girl are correct... and I just can't believe it. I can't bring myself to beleive it.
If they are right... then what possible justification is there for a benevolent, omnipotent God? Obviously he's not so benevolent if he made things like that happen (as implied by him being onmipotent and humans having no choice). And don't give me any 'something good comes out of it' garbage either, what possible good can come out of a girl being assaulted, beaten, having her most precious gift ripped from her, and then having her earthly existance ended in an incredibly painful manner? Because if God allows - nay, causes - this sort of stuff on earth, heaven ain't exactly going to be a picnic.
So on the level of Christian Theology, Determinism fails. If your acts are predetermined by God, then God is an hole. Chistians believe God is NOT an hole. So, we have free will... and sometimes choose very poorly.
(Note that an omnisienct God who allows free choice, knowing full well the slimebag is going to rape and kill the girl and yet fails to act to stop it isn't much better. Thus my belief that there is no benevolent God in control of the universe. This is not to say that there isn't a God in control... just that I don't beleive in his benevolence.)
The problem with Determinism is that there is no way to test for it. Can someone override their environment and make a different choice? We see examples all the time - the kid from the projects whose parents are druggies/prostitutes/whatever and yet the kid keeps out of trouble, gets good grades, goes to college, and makes a sucess of him/herself. What external force drove this particular kid to succeed, when hundreds - if not thousands - of other kids around him fail?
The problem with Determinism is that there is no way to test for it. Can someone override their environment and make a different choice? We see examples all the time - the kid from the projects whose parents are druggies/prostitutes/whatever and yet the kid keeps out of trouble, gets good grades, goes to college, and makes a success of him/herself. What external force drove this particular kid to succeed, when hundreds - if not thousands - of other kids around him fail?
A part of the problem is that Free Will is essentially a religious concept, to which we try to apply a physical or psychological meaning. Ideally, we should only use Free Will to get the conversation rolling, and then redefine it completely so that we do not carry over any cognitive dissonance.
So, I ask ;
1) If we were to show spontaneous actions in the subject, that is, actions that answer to no other causality than some internal event, would we have evidence of Free Will?
2) Isn't there some internal events that shouldn't be differentiated from external events, like desires, and if so what are those events?
3) In the case that it is impossible to completely isolate a subject from external or internal causality, does this mean that there is no such thing as Free Will, since the subject cannot be himself in isolation of causality?
walker90234 wrote:
FURTHERMORE: Logic is not something that was gained through evolution.
Evolution is the process of BIOLOGICAL progression through a series of random GENETIC mutations.
I think you will agree that the ability to use logic is not a biological feature, but a brain function. As such, since evolution is the passing on of biological features, logic itself is not a product of evolution. Logic is simply a tool which we humans can understand. Like math. one pen + one pen = 2 pens regardless of human interaction (don't bother bringing in axioms, I know that line of reasoning and have used it, but it just brings us to a stupid, solopsistic state that is really kinda useless, and which none of us honestly believe).
The brainpower needed to UNDERSTAND logic might come from biological development, but the logic itself is not dependent upon the human mind.
The ability to use logic and brain function in general is evolutionary, those that could survived and thrived, thus evolution.
One problem with that being that higher logic isn't really at all that useful when your faced with the issues inherent with the life in the wilds. Just about every other apex animal happily ignore quantitative conservation, something that is incredibly basic to us human (adult) minds. And in the event that there would be a natural use in distinguishing the exact conservation of quantity before and after the separation of one group in two (which there isn't, every animal again would be happy at simply distinguishing intuitively the size of the two new groups), that's still evidence of a mechanism that needs contact to the empirical world before taking effect. In average circumstances, the cognitive development of humans continue up until their 50s and early 60s. If it was all the result of evolutionary biology, why take so much time to emerge?
In nature, there's almost no need for anything further than a sort of intuition of causality, like when the cat trips out because he just pushed an object off the table and saw that it fell on the ground. The baby dear has an intuitive knowledge of the importance of keeping away from the Kodiak's teeth, and that's enough for dears to have survived and thrived in nature.
Humans have transcended that state, apparently in part because of the biological predisposition we have at learning logic. But beyond those biological events of comprehension of the logic of the world, we have also pushed logic into what is almost an art form. No simple biological process can explain the model of quantum logic, we need to grasp an enormous amount of purely ideal material to understand it.
Members of the crow family have displayed reasoning and problem solving, by creating tools. Logic as in I need something to happen, what steps can I take to make the thing I need happen happen is prevalent around the animal kingdom, see the likes of eagles dropping tortoises from great heights for example. I don't know whether this would be classed as reasoning or logic but both are brain function.
That's exactly what I meant by 'intuitive causation'. And yes, there are some cool examples of animals also developing certain logical modules, like the crow. Supposedly, they have a very good quantitative perception, and when the see a source of food, they will communicate not only the location, but the size, and only the crows in a area determined by the quantity of available food will then go to it. That's an example of pretty good logic applied to a very basic problem : sustainment. That's still the best they will ever do, while in humans minds you could see this behavior arising pretty early, and at a later age, we would develop additional means to optimize it.
It's this optimization that isn't explained by biology, in my opinion, or at least not by the conception of a natural selection.
@ Dael and Kovnik: Exactly my point, Kovnik. While we as animals can, by evolution, develop the brain power necessary to use logic, this isn't an evolution of logic that results in it being passed on genetically. We simply gain the brain power to understand it.
Would you say that just because humans have evolved the brainpower to understand complicated mathematics that they have evolved/invented maths? No, maths is based upon an objective truth (yes an axiom, but you cannot reject axioms without being reduced to solipsism and nihilism, which are really stupid, undesirable states.) as is logic: just because humans evolve the brain power to interpret that truth doesn't mean that they evolved or created that truth. Logic is not the result of evolution.
@Kovnik: Regarding quantum theory - I think I see what you're getting at: are you saying that because quantum physics has not been fully explained, and still needs more work put into it, it is still entirely possible that it can be reconciled with general logic and theories such at determinism? In lamens terms.
@Vulcan: FIRSTLY: "From my point of view, there is free will. Sure, there are many things that influence free will, but if there is no free will then there is no responsability. Those slimebags who claim they 'had to' rape and kill that girl are correct... and I just can't believe it. I can't bring myself to beleive it."
See, I would argue that if the human mind functions under the same laws as the rest of the universe (if you believe in dualism this argument fails, but I don't) then its operations must have a direct cause, not just influences: there is nothing in our world that is simply 'partially influenced', logic and physics dictate that everything has a direct cause. As such, it seems this is the case with the human mind. Furthermore, I don't actually see this determinism as a reason to abandon morals ect.
Put it this way:
If a man does a very evil act (such as rape), does the fact that the act was pre-determined make the act any less evil? No! As such, it should be condemned in the same way! Furthermore, and I cannot stress this enough, DETERMINISM AND THE MAJORITY OF PHILOSOPHY IS SIMPLY METAPHYSICAL and should not be applied to every day life. Just because in a roundabout way, actions may be predetermined, this doesn't mean we should live our lives as if they were: it is impossible to trace the chain of causation so as to predict our determined actions, there are simply too many variables, and as such life appears undetermined. In everyday life, it makes sense to think of ourselves as having free will. As such, I am a mitigated-determinist: while I believe it is true, I put it aside after I'm finished with it, tuck it away in its own little drawer, and live my life as if it didn't exist.
it can be looked at in the same way as if the human mind's choices were simply influenced rather than caused: just because these slime balls were influenced by the fact that they had a bad childhood, this does make them less guilty of the crime, and it doesn't make their choices less evil (if good and evil is objective. Either way, in our society we have defined such things, and it doesn't change their status in regard to our definition). As such, i wouldn't view it as a problem.
SECONDLY:
"If they are right... then what possible justification is there for a benevolent, omnipotent God? Obviously he's not so benevolent if he made things like that happened"
The type of determinism I am talking about (where the human mind is subject to physics and hence free will is erased) and the existence of a Christian(ish) god are mutually exclusive events: If a christian(ish) God exists, then humans have a soul, and as such our minds are dualistic, and hence not entirely subject to the laws of cause and effect: as such if god exists, the universe is not deterministic in this way: as such determinism doesn't really function as an argument against God, since if God exists, determinism doesn't (at least not this kind).
"Obviously he's not so benevolent if he made things like that happen"
Because of the above note, God wouldn't cause this kind of determinism, and hence this point is really moot. I would note however that if an omniscient God were to exist, it is implied that he knows everything that will happen in the world before he creates it, hence his omniscience would cause a different type of determinism: divine determinism rather than causal determinism. This again is re-iterating this point:
"(Note that an omnisienct God who allows free choice, knowing full well the slimebag is going to rape and kill the girl and yet fails to act to stop it isn't much better. Thus my belief that there is no benevolent God in control of the universe. This is not to say that there isn't a God in control... just that I don't beleive in his benevolence."
Oh and by the way, that religious view is called Deism. believing in an impersonal god that isn't one of those from religion. I'm a deist, and I struggled to find the correct word for ages. Hope that helps you in some way
Of course I would rather not go into the whole problem of evil here, as it really would take us down a totally different tangent. Should we start a separate thread for it?
THIRDLY:
"The problem with Determinism is that there is no way to test for it."
theres no way to empirically test for it, no, but thats not the only way of gaining knowledge: in fact its not used that much in philosophy. You can gain just as much knowledge through (good) inductive reasoning as you can through empirical observation. In fact, empirical observation relies heavily on inductive reasoning (assuming things will remain the same as they are during test conditions. that physics won't suddenly break). You don't need to test EVERYTHING to conclude that things are correct.
"Can someone override their environment and make a different choice? We see examples all the time - the kid from the projects whose parents are druggies/prostitutes/whatever and yet the kid keeps out of trouble, gets good grades, goes to college, and makes a sucess of him/herself. What external force drove this particular kid to succeed, when hundreds - if not thousands - of other kids around him fail? "
Just because you don't see the causes doesn't mean they don't exist. I would argue that events will have transpired in the persons childhood which didn't occur to the others, which made him feel like he didn't belong in the dead end. He felt like he needed to escape.
That is the only explanation for it if determinism holds true. And unless you can overturn my deductive argument, it kind of does. I'd love to see you manage it, I've tried myself and can never seem to.
Ok, I would like to add my 2 cents. As just an FYI, I am a CompSci major that has an ABet Accredited degree, so I have taken several Physics and Mathematics courses and Theory of Computing (helps with looking at deterministic/non-determinstic behavior).
This is my take on the universe and it's deterministic/non-deterministic actions:
If everything in the universe started with the Big Bang, then everything deterministicly happened as it should, at least at the macro-level. Sense we have no unifying theory of Electromagnetism and Quantem Physics, then the current laws of Physics today tell us things happen in a deterministic way. Chance is a human construct for events we can not determine yet due to understanding, at least at the macro-level. Take dice for example, when you roll them, if you knew the exact variables ranging from the weight of the dice to air resistance of that day to the angle and speed it left your hand, you can calculate exactly what side it will land on. A good way to look at this is if we can determine the location of where the Moon was several years ago, then why can we not apply the same behavior and Mathematics/Physics to determine the position of the Earth? Sure, we might not have all the variables yet but there is nothing random about the location of Earth in the universe.
Now, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. As far as we can tell, this still only applies to the very small and does not directly affect the larger universe. But, our bodies do interact with chemicals in the small scale, thus could be affected by principles of Quantum Mechanics. Thus, I think our own thought processes could easily work on the Quantum level and thus be non-determinstic.
So, in the end, I think free will does exist but the universe at the grand scale is determinstic while the very small is non-determinstic. And while there is no unifying theory, then these two never clash with each other and are seperate systems. Of course, I could see humanity (or any other civilization, if they exist) having a non-determinstic action on the grand scale, thus changing everything.
First lets define logic:
Logic is the philosophical study of valid reasoning (wikipedia)
What everyone is referring to here is reasoning, not logic, logic is the study of reasoning, without reasoning there is no logic, but even if there is no logic. Logic is subjective by this definition as what one individual believes to be valid, may not be shared by another, pre-disposition to logic would also be able to be passed on to successive traits as those who know the difference between 'stupid' and 'slightly less stupid' are more likely to survive and have offspring.
Now maybe that definition will give us all something to go on.
Now @walker90234
Your opinion on axioms is rather confusing, in one post you completely disregard them and in another you seem to praise them, perhaps you are confused about what an axiom is?
An axiom is merely a premise or starting point of reasoning, they don't lead us to soliphistic and nihilistic conclusions. All reasoning requires the use of axioms, mathematics, science, skepticism, even your seemingly beloved determinism. It is without the use of axioms (or more specificly, choosing to disregard certain ones) that leads to interesting results.
Take Non-Euclidean geometry for example, it was gained specifically by ignore Euclid's 5th postulate with regards to geometry, allowing us to have interesting results, such as an elipse have two sides that are parallel to each other.
@Zyllos Thank you for your input as someone with an education in such matters, I have great interest in theoretical physics but little knowledge of the maths underpinning it. It would make sense if we think in electricity that it would be quantum. We can trace the universe back to a singularity with the big bang, but if the universe were truly deterministic then surely, even with entropy, we would just as easily be able to trace it forward, and yet there have been many theories, the big crunch, the big rip, and the currently held heat death of the universe. Now surley if everything was set in stone in that first nanosecond we would have established what would happen pretty soon after establishing what had. Or am I being too simplistic, I mean with eons of entropy providing googles of variables I'm sure it wouldn't be easy but I can't imagine extrapolating the big bang was either.
@krellnus: Ah, I think I probably wasn't clear in my second post on axioms. I wasn't saying that axioms lead to solopsism, but that abandoning them would (we generally see it as axiomatic that the external wrold exists, since it is impossible to prove that it does) as I remember joey arguing that philosophy, because it was based on axioms, was as he called it 'bunk'. I was just supporting the view that axioms are necessary in every aspect of life.
Furthermore, I believe in this particular debate we were using logic synonymously with philosophical reasoning. In that manner yes, the wiki definition of logic is subjective, but what we were talking about isn't. So we should probably agree that in all our previous posts we were simply talking of philisophical reasoning (i know I was). Furthermore, while many peoples views on this reasoning may be subjectve, as you have said, deductive/inducitve arguments and analytic truths (and all the a priori stuff) is in no way subjective in and of itself: how and why we choose to employ it may be subjective, but this doeesnt make logic itself subjective.
@Dael: I dont think you can determie the future through determinism, there are simply too many variables for us to really process.
We would have to take into account every particle in existence, a feat I simply dont believe us capable of.
@DeathReaper: yes, whimsy is a cause, as there must be A cause to everything. Unless you subscribe to dualism (just say if you do) then you have to accept that your mind functions under the laws of causation, and therefore with determinism.
Random chance kind of messes with the "We do not have free will" thought.
We all make choices, and some choices, made on a whim, could never be pre-determined, as they are as unknown to the individual as they are to everyone else.
walker90234 wrote:
@Dael: I dont think you can determie the future through determinism, there are simply too many variables for us to really process.
We would have to take into account every particle in existence, a feat I simply dont believe us capable of.
Us perhaps not, however we stand on the threshold of a singularity of AI, and once we have created a computer smarter than ourselves, it will create a computer smarter than itself, then repeat indefinitely. Would these minds, which would be near infinite in their wisdom, if fed every piece of information, be able to predict the rest of time without a single mistake?
@DeathReaper: it doesnt matter whether or not we are aware of the reasons why we make a choice, but there are variables involved that will determine what happens. (I think you may be confusing 'pre-meditated' and 'predetermined'. One refers to concious choice of which action to take, whereas the other simply refrences an action being bound to happen due to causation.) If youd've read the whole thread you would have noticed my post which removes 'random chance' in a determinisic universe:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
"If the universe is deterministic, and there is only one set path, then why does random chance exist?"
I replied
"Yeah, I had this problem too, but I will do my best to explain it to you.
I assume by random chance you mean events such as rolling dice? If you roll a dice, it seems as if the number chosen is completely random. However this is not actually the case, as you will readily admit that the number which comes up is a direct result of such variables as the dices velocity across the table, the texture of the table, the weight of the dice, ect.
Since I'm on Dakka, I can illustrate this quite well: we've all heard of practiced rolling. If I hold a dice in my hand with a 6 facing up, and roll it in a particular back hand flick (I can actually do this 50% of the time btw, though I choose not to) it will come up with a 6. The number that has come up has been determined by a number of variables, which I have determined consciously.
Now, when we roll a dice normally, these variable still exist (although my rolling motion and the way the dice faces has been selected subconsciously, just on whim (the dice is lying with the 6 facing up, I pick it up so that the 6 is facing down just by the fact that it was facing up and my thoughts at the time ect.) and my motions are unintended, and just occur by unknown causes) and as such, the way the dice rolls is determined by its surroundings, all of which themselves have causes. For example the way the dice is facing in my hand is determined by the way it was facing when it was on the table, which itself was determined by the way in which I poured them onto the table which was determined by...ect.ect (along with loads of other variables, such as my emotions at the time, which might determine th vigour with which I emptied the dice bag, alongwith a shedload of other variables)
Random number algorithms also have causes behind them, although we can't see it. So does the apparant 'random' choice of number in the human brain ect. ect. "
So, an example of a 'random choice' in the brain, which we think is random (as we are unaware of the variables involved) is the choice of a random number.
One of my friends a couple days back showed me a card trick. He asked me to pick a card from the deck, and give him the card. Then he made me close my eyes, and he put the card in a random place in the deck. After that, he asked me to 'choose a random number' and take that many cards from the top of the deck.
Now, you might argue that the choice of a random number is random because I haven't cociously chosen it beforehand. HOWEVER when I chose the nukber 6, and took 6 cards from the deck, the sixth card was the one I had chosen?
How had my friend done this?
Well, according to him, he had been feeding me the number 6 throughout the day, (i think he stole this idea from derren brown) dropping it in as many sentances as he could. Now, because of this I chose the nukber 6, as I had a subconcious pre-disposition towards it. As such, we can see how a seemingly random choice is indeed determined by the external world.
You might say that "oh, this doesnt count as it was determined by your friend", however this isnt the case. No matter whether or not someone had been CONCIOUSLY feeding me random numbers, I would still be recieving them simply through my random interactions with the world around me, along with being effected by a number of other variables. As such, even though my 'random number' seems random, it is in fact predetermined by a plethora of variables which work together to lead me to a decision. I'm sure i could pick apart any 'random choice' in the same way.
I'll also post my deductive argument again:
1) everything in the universe has a cause: every action is the result of another action
2) our choices are part of the universe and therefore must have causes, just like everything else
3) whatever these causes are, (for example our personality) they too must have causes
4) as must these, and so on, traing back either to infinity, or a 'first cause' (doesnt matter which)
5) as finite beings, the chain of causation must at some point have originated outside of us: if the chain is infinite this is the logical conclusion. Even if it isnt and there is a first cause (the big bang/god/quantum physics crap/the flying spaghetti monster) we can agree that this cause origionated at the time of the big bang, and we dont date back that far, only being several years old rather than billions. Since out internal chain of causation cannot stretch bak to the first cause, it must link to an external chain.
6) since all our actions are part of a chain of causation that finds its root in the external world, our actions are cause by the external world.
conclusion) our actions are predetermined.
As such, there is no apparent 'random action' which can not be predetermined, unless you subscribe to dualism (the view that our minds are transcendent to this universe, ie: not a part of it)
any retort?
@Dael: seems pretty convincing, and I was about to agree, apart from when looking back at posts I remembered mentiono of the uncertainty principle: Zyloss, would this destroy the computers ability?
walker90234 wrote:@Dael: seems pretty convincing, and I was about to agree, apart from when looking back at posts I remembered mentiono of the uncertainty principle: Zyloss, would this destroy the computers ability?
Only in the sense that it will preven them from making measurements that are 100% accurate on the either the quantum or macro scale.
walker90234 wrote:okay, and given the size of the data involved, this may screw it up a bit?
Well considering said AI would be for all intents and purposes God-like, I can't imagine that too much data would be a problem. Collecting the data in the first place wouldn't be easy, but computational power shouldn't.
walker90234 wrote:@DeathReaper: it doesnt matter whether or not we are aware of the reasons why we make a choice, but there are variables involved that will determine what happens.
Kovnik Obama wrote:That's exactly what I meant by 'intuitive causation'. And yes, there are some cool examples of animals also developing certain logical modules, like the crow. Supposedly, they have a very good quantitative perception, and when the see a source of food, they will communicate not only the location, but the size, and only the crows in a area determined by the quantity of available food will then go to it. That's an example of pretty good logic applied to a very basic problem : sustainment. That's still the best they will ever do, while in humans minds you could see this behavior arising pretty early, and at a later age, we would develop additional means to optimize it.
It's this optimization that isn't explained by biology, in my opinion, or at least not by the conception of a natural selection.
Well, I guess we got better and better at using logic for sustenance, until it advanced to the point where we could use logic for other things as well. First to make tools, then maybe to find better ways to communicate. As our minds got more advanced, then perhaps we started to question our origin?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote:
walker90234 wrote:@DeathReaper: it doesnt matter whether or not we are aware of the reasons why we make a choice, but there are variables involved that will determine what happens.
Prove it.
Seriously, why ponder things that can probably never be solved with science? The time spend uh, "philosohpizing" could better be spent on discovering things and testing things we can actually prove. I think we'll find that everything that exists can be explained by science, even if there are some things we may never have a chance to study in depth and explain.
Yes.
People have logic because logic proved to be evolutionary advantageous.
Using logic to examine itself is therefore impossible. Would you use a torch to see light?
You can use a torch to examine another torch, so wouldn't that mean you could use logic to examine another person's logic? It only seems logical. While you cannot see light, you can perceive light and compare it to dark.
Entropy is the stuff of the universe, chaos and chance. Humans like to bring order and classification to things, as Joey said its all due to evolution. In order to classify we developed language, symbols, etc and eventually mathematics. Now as far as determinism goes, you can guess the outcome of a person but there is a large multitude of factors that cause a person to be what they are. Genetics are responsible in a lot of cases, but then you have cases where a person's brain development was affected in utero due to the mother being exposed to different environmental factors. So even though the genetic coding says the brain should develop one way, environmental factors may prevent it from actually developing it that way. Now the coding only predisposes individuals to these conditions and thought processes in most cases, for example a neurologist did a study to determine if there was a specific pattern of brain activity in inmates and he saw that there was indeed a pattern, however he compared it to his own results and they also matched his. So brain functioning does not always mean a person will act one way, but we can make a pretty good guess that it may be a cause of a way of thinking or pathological mental state.
I can take two individuals with the same brain, same age, same gender, etc and then present them with a difficult situation such as a person being brutally beaten in front of them. I can look at their history and make a guess as to how they will react but I can't give a 100% sure answer because there is only a chance that they will react in the way they were "programmed" to react. Twin studies are incredibly indicative of this, a high correlation of a genetic cause may come from only 30% of monozygotic twins developing the same disorder. Now these are monozygotic twins, same in utero environment, same external factors, and identical genetics yet they can still turn out different.
Well, I guess we got better and better at using logic for sustenance, until it advanced to the point where we could use logic for other things as well. First to make tools, then maybe to find better ways to communicate. As our minds got more advanced, then perhaps we started to question our origin?
Logic (at first, but then also for quite a while) is way simpler than making tools, it's realizing that the moon doesn't 'move' behind you because your moving. Or that events can go on without you having them in conscience. I actually remember when I first realized that events could be parallel : I was 5-6, and was surprised when I realized that the tv show didn't start back on the same image as I had left it. These 'logical realization' events are pretty much programmed in every human, as long as they have enough contact with other humans.
On that other post ; you assume both that philosophy doesn't regard facts (that's okay, many people do, but it should be supported when advanced) and that science will never be able to provide an explicative model of the mind. We've done pretty awesome strides in that regard in the last 80 years or so. For example, we don't know yet how the structure that support intelligence is effectively run, but we know how fast it runs. 4.4 quadrillions cycles. A cat's brain is clocked at 72 billions. I'm reading William James, a philosopher/psychologist from the 19th ; he comments on how fast our brain must be, that we don't actually feel ourselves giving fiat to actions, and how the mind must surely 'slow itself' when it starts to 'mentally enunciate'.
150 years later, we know exactly how fast our minds go. Frakking fast. Give us 100 more years, we'll have put minds in machines.
Lol, I didn't say science will never be able to provide an explicative model of the mind. I highly encourage research like that, because it is definitley something we don't know much about, and I myself would like to know more on that subject. But it's still science, and we are still explaining it with facts.
The philosphers pretty much just came up with brilliant hypotheses but didn't test them. Many of their hypotheses were proven right years later, when people decided to test them. Many were found totally wrong too, like Ptolemy and his model of the universe, though that was a bit farther in the past than the one you mentioned.
I remember back in the day when we were taught that everything was made from water. Then some whippersnapper decided to say that water puts out fire which means that fire wasn't made out of water. Completely set me behind in my academics.
Yeah, because the presocratic natural philosopher are the most representative members of philosophy. Logic, epistemology, psychology, political science, anthropology, economy... The list of sciences that have started out as purely speculative ventures, then developed alongside the evolution of philosophy, and vice-versa, is pretty huge...
We differentiate knowledge now based on methodical conventions we have established. For some reason, it has given rise in the latest centuries, to a form of stupid contest over who has the right knowledge ; philosophers or scientist. Unless there's a strong bias for one already (for example, in France at the beginning of the century, psychology was completely descriptive ; the 'specialists' were philosophers, and anything done in labs was considered pointless, because you couldn't ''observe the subject as an object'' (as if sentences like these have such a meaning anyway). That's an example of a situation in which science must oppose philosophy. Doesn't mean you can deride philosophy as a whole because the first speculators didn't have much material to work with.
I kind of get annoyed at this view of scientists that philosophy is bunk, and so too at the views of certain philosophers that view philosophy as more important.
Surely both methods of thought can work hand in hand? In fact, the support each other to a great degree, as they deal with things that the other can rarely prove (science cannot deal with epistemology, or speculations about realism, whereas philosophy cannot be used to discover the nature of DNA) and often build off one another: In trying to support representative realism (by discrediting Direct realism) philosophers can often take into account scientific theories of smell so as to back up their arguments. Also the entirety of scientific theory is based upon a foundation of direct realism.
I dont understand why people see it as an either/or distinction.
Now to posts:
@galactic defender:
"The philosphers pretty much just came up with brilliant hypotheses but didn't test them"
You do realise that the majority of philosophical theories are based on deductive or inductive arguments (epistemology, realism, the ontological argument) rather than testing, and can find very little proof by empirical testing?
"Seriously, why ponder things that can probably never be solved with science? The time spend uh, "philosohpizing" could better be spent on discovering things and testing things we can actually prove. I think we'll find that everything that exists can be explained by science, even if there are some things we may never have a chance to study in depth and explain."
Philosophy is one of the humanities, like history. Humanities are subjects which cannot be deciphered by purely scientific means, and as such you have failed to recognise altogether that science is not the only way of establishing truth. Furthermore, look at the last sentence of your post: don't you find that inherently contradictory? Philosophy is there to support those things which science cannot explain. Furthermore, you might argue that philosophy can never truly 'prove' anything in the way science can. however, science itself can never really 'prove' anything, as it too rests upon axioms on which philosophy does: neither subject can lead to absolute proof, so arguing that a single one doesn't is entirely useless: your simply stating half of the facts.
"But it's still science, and we are still explaining it with facts."
Again, there are things science cannot explain which philosophy can (and vis versa), they are totally different areas of knowledge (although there is some overlap) and so we can really never choose one over the other.
FINALLY: I don't understand this preoccupation in this thread over arguing the importance/use of philosophy! This is an argument about DETERMINISM, a particular field of philosophy, and as such is a debate that already assumes the validity of philosophy. Its kind of going OT talking about philosophy in general rather than determinism specifically.
@halonachos: "I can take two individuals with the same brain, same age, same gender, etc and then present them with a difficult situation such as a person being brutally beaten in front of them. I can look at their history and make a guess as to how they will react but I can't give a 100% sure answer because there is only a chance that they will react in the way they were "programmed" to react."
I would really argue you have reached a wrong conclusion here: instead of assuming that you know EXACTLY how they were programmed to react, and that there is a chance they will go against this programming (this is impossible unless you overturn my deductive argument) why not turn to the more logical conclusion that, because you have not seen everything a certain individual has experienced, you cannot predict at all how they were programmed?
Your example takes a very general piece of data: it lacks precision. If you take two people with similar upbringings, you miss out all the precise details of their upbringing. This will affect your prediction in the same way as imprecision would in science, by giving you a different answer. If we miss out a decimal place in a calculation, for example, we get a slightly different answer.
Yet the imprecision in such an example is far greater than a simple decimal place, as you literally know nothing but generalities of that persons life. Its like rounding to the nearest billion within a mathematical sum(not rounding the answers but the multipliers): the answer will be not only imprecise but totally inaccurate!
So really you have reached a false conclusion.
FURTHERMORE IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE AGAINST DETERMINISM YOU HAVE TO OVERTURN MY DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT.
(thats the other thing I should mention to GalacticDefender: You argue that philosophy can never 'prove' anything, however deductive reasoning provides a more reliable proof than empirical evidence, as if you accept the premises, you HAVE to accept the conclusion, whereas conclusions made by science are not so absolute.)
@DeathReaper:
Um, I kind of HAVE proved it? Again, see my deductive argument. I'll past it AGAIN.
"1) everything in the universe has a cause: every action is the result of another action
2) our choices are part of the universe and therefore must have causes, just like everything else
3) whatever these causes are, (for example our personality) they too must have causes
4) as must these, and so on, traing back either to infinity, or a 'first cause' (doesnt matter which)
5) as finite beings, the chain of causation must at some point have originated outside of us: if the chain is infinite this is the logical conclusion. Even if it isnt and there is a first cause (the big bang/god/quantum physics crap/the flying spaghetti monster) we can agree that this cause origionated at the time of the big bang, and we dont date back that far, only being several years old rather than billions. Since out internal chain of causation cannot stretch bak to the first cause, it must link to an external chain.
6) since all our actions are part of a chain of causation that finds its root in the external world, our actions are cause by the external world.
conclusion) our actions are predetermined. "
Unless you can overturn this argument DeathReaper, you kind of have to accept that "it doesnt matter whether or not we are aware of the reasons why we make a choice, but there are variables involved that will determine what happens."
Furthermore, since it is a deductive argument, if you accept points 1-6, you HAVE to accept my conclusion, as it's 'logically watertight'.
SO REALLY, UNLESS YOU CAN OVERTURN ONE OF POINTS 1-6, YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST DETERMINISM WILL FAIL, AS THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, IF MY PREMISES STAND, PROVES DETERMINSIM.
(I would actually really like you to have a stab at one of points 1-6 to be honest, no one has so far, and I really want someone to)
walker90234 wrote:I kind of get annoyed at this view of scientists that philosophy is bunk, and so too at the views of certain philosophers that view philosophy as more important.
Surely both methods of thought can work hand in hand? In fact, the support each other to a great degree, as they deal with things that the other can rarely prove (science cannot deal with epistemology, or speculations about realism, whereas philosophy cannot be used to discover the nature of DNA) and often build off one another: In trying to support representative realism (by discrediting Direct realism) philosophers can often take into account scientific theories of smell so as to back up their arguments. Also the entirety of scientific theory is based upon a foundation of direct realism.
I dont understand why people see it as an either/or distinction.
Science, by its very nature is in fact, a branch of philosophy, whereas mathematics is not (technincally literacy is too, but lets not go there).
Can I just simply not accept the premise? That seems like the simplest option.
Also, I dislike the way you're arguing your point. You sound as though determinism is some form of immutable law, which is untrue. It is simply one philosophical theory that has many contrary theories that go directly against it.
So, no, I don't believe in your theory of determinism. If I cared enough about philosophy, I would become more educated in the theories that oppose your posited one.
"1) everything in the universe has a cause: every action is the result of another action 2) our choices are part of the universe and therefore must have causes, just like everything else 3) whatever these causes are, (for example our personality) they too must have causes 4) as must these, and so on, traing back either to infinity, or a 'first cause' (doesnt matter which) 5) as finite beings, the chain of causation must at some point have originated outside of us: if the chain is infinite this is the logical conclusion. Even if it isnt and there is a first cause (the big bang/god/quantum physics crap/the flying spaghetti monster) we can agree that this cause origionated at the time of the big bang, and we dont date back that far, only being several years old rather than billions. Since out internal chain of causation cannot stretch bak to the first cause, it must link to an external chain. 6) since all our actions are part of a chain of causation that finds its root in the external world, our actions are cause by the external world. conclusion) our actions are predetermined. "
SO REALLY, UNLESS YOU CAN OVERTURN ONE OF POINTS 1-6, YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST DETERMINISM WILL FAIL, AS THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, IF MY PREMISES STAND, PROVES DETERMINSIM.
Challenge accepted. "Rolls up sleeves''
1) Ok. 2) You would have to be more precise on the type of cause you refer to here. My existence is a cause of my choices. So's my parents, so's what I ate today, and so's the terms of the choice and my perception of them at the time of the choice. They can all be termed 'causes' to that choice, but all with a slightly different meaning, and with slightly different implications. What I ate this morning might have little importance over the result of the choice (choosing whether or not to go to the bathroom), but might actually be incredibly important over the fact that I have to make the choice (having to make the choice of whether or not going to the bathroom). 3) Yes, but they again will be causes according to different meanings and different implications. 4) That's assuming that you can't 'initiate' causation of certain types (like psychological), as differentiated from other chains of causation that are more ever present 5) On one side, yes, it's obvious that we are the result of external causes, and even that our effective cause is entirely external. That still doesn't imply that we cannot be original sources of causations for certain events. 6) You have not sufficiently demonstrated the underlying premise of 3), 4) and 5) to draw a conclusion.
Sorry for posting so late, I've been quite busy.
ANYWAY:
@blacksails:
"Can I just simply not accept the premise? That seems like the simplest option."
Yes, but as kovnik has done, you have to demonstrate WHY you don't accept my premises, rather than simply stating that you don't because you don't like my conclusion.
"Also, I dislike the way you're arguing your point. You sound as though determinism is some form of immutable law,"
I'm assuming you dislike the way I'm arguing the deductive argument? If thats the case then I apologise for not explaining myself; each of the points 1-6 is stated as if it is fact, rather than as a possibility, which is where I believe you problem lies? I think the misunderstanding here is that by phrasing them as fact, I'm not trying to STATE that they are facts: its simply the layout of the deductive argument. I feel no need in points 1-6 to individually label each of them as possibilities which can be argued against, as I have already stated that they are premises, which labels them, inherently, as possibilities which can be argued against.
On the other hand, if you are arguing that the rest of my posts state it as an immutable law, then here I agree with you: since I intuitively accept the premises themselves, I personally see it as an immutable law. The rest of my arguments all rest upon the deductive argument I have made, and so long as it stands, the other points tend to flow from it, hence I state them as if determinism has already been proven. Non-deductive arguments against a theory (such as those I have addressed), so long as a deductive argument for the theory stands, tend to be obsolete.
So yes, my counter-arguments are phrased as though determinism is already a law, but up until now, no one has addressed the deductive argument, meaning that it had to be accepted as true.
@Kovnik:
Nice implementation of the Barney line there I'm glad you've taken a stab at this, ought to be a fun debate
So, to your first point:
"You would have to be more precise on the type of cause you refer to here. My existence is a cause of my choices. So's my parents, so's what I ate today, and so's the terms of the choice and my perception of them at the time of the choice. They can all be termed 'causes' to that choice, but all with a slightly different meaning, and with slightly different implications. What I ate this morning might have little importance over the result of the choice (choosing whether or not to go to the bathroom), but might actually be incredibly important over the fact that I have to make the choice (having to make the choice of whether or not going to the bathroom). "
Okay, you have a point here, there are a number of different TYPES of causes which affect our decision, true.
I'm still confused over what point your making here though? Please elaborate, as I don't really get what you're saying: so what if there are different types of causes/influences? All of these causes/influences still combine together to cause our decision don't they? In that way, so what if there are different types of causes, or actions are still determined by the combination of those causes aren't they?
"Yes, but they again will be causes according to different meanings and different implications. "
True, but again we have the same problem: so what if the causes of this effect it in different ways? they still combined together to determine it didn't they?
Lets take snow melting as an analogy: yes, the strength of the sun is one type of cause, and the fact that the snow is actually there to melt (having precipitated) is another, but I would argue this doesn't matter, as they all combine together (along with the arrangement of particles, nature of the ground underneath, humidity in the air ect.) to cause the snow to melt don't they?
So I would argue your first two objections don't really function as objections at all.
Now to your main ones:
" That's assuming that you can't 'initiate' causation of certain types (like psychological), as differentiated from other chains of causation that are more ever present"
I'm assuming that the point your making here is that its possible for a chain of causation to initiate within the human mind? IE: an uncaused cause appearing spontaneously in the mind?
The illustration you make here is of psychological causation, and i think its here where our main sticking point is. I believe you're arguing here that our psychological makeup (our personality if you will) is a cause of what our actions will be, and that this is separate from the chain of causation?
This does appear an elegant solution, however thinking about it, since our personality is a part of our minds, unless our minds are separate from the laws of physics then our personalities must too have causes. Hence they're not separate from the chain of causation. Taking the theories of Freud, our adult psychology is affected by childhood events: I would argue that this theory of his doesn't quite go far enough: no, instead our personalities are determined ENTIRLEY by our DNA and our past experience (side they are a part of this world and hence function under its laws of cause and effect. AGAIN, theists can readily argue against this view, as they believe the mind doesn't function under the laws of the universe)
"That still doesn't imply that we cannot be original sources of causations for certain events. "
This seems to rest on your precious point.
Please demonstrate to me a clear instance in which someone is an original source of causation.
Again, I must point out that you continue to speak as though determinism has crossed over from theory into lae. I must stress that no matter how you may believe determinism to be true, it is not proven and there are several theories that differ from it, as I discovered from a quick wikipedia search (yes Im well aware wikipedia isnt academically acceptable, but it will work for demonstrating that other theories exist).
I must say that you are debating this rather cooly and nothing has flared up, which is strange considering this is the internet. However, your theory is not cold hard truth, and many others stand in contradiction in one way or another. Addressing these other theories would go a long way to your credibiltiy.
Anyways, I have no real desire to debate this as I find philosophy tedious and not particularly valuable or applicable in the real world, but your arguments tend to be rather one-sided and fail to address the various theories that stand as equally valid opponents to your theory. I would post links but Im on my phone posting this.
meh, I'm sorry if I come across that way, I suppose I'm just not that brilliant at the phrasing of my internet debates. Post one of those arguments though, and I'll gladly attempt to address it
EDIT: just to clarify, take all of these seeming statement of fact that I have made as opinion. That might clear stuff up.
I find it hard to explain, but here is how I see it: there's no such thing as 'free will' or 'random', because everything is subject to the laws of physics and nature. Things which are supposedly random are not random from the perspective of science: they are just results that you didn't measure. When you flip a coin, it lands on either heads or tails. If you measure and control all the variable factors, you can predict and control the outcome. As for the human mind, choices we make are all determined by measurable factors. The neurons in your brain, chemical effects on the brain, external influences - they all point you to the outcome. Everything that's going to happen is going to happen.
A universe which is not deterministic is one in which you cannot really grab an apple. You might be able to, but you don't know you can. Indeed, most times, you'll try to and then grab a guinea pig; which no one wants to do (wretched beasts).
But, in a deterministic universe, you'll try to grab an apple, and most likely grab an apple. Why you did that might be the result of another event. But then what is "free will" anyway?
I think that the universe splits off whenever something could happen either way. I think that the cause and effect theory at the sub atomic level preventing free will (everything we do is the result of interactions between sub atomic particles) is incorrect because of that. If there are no decisions, than there's really nowhere for the universe to split off.
A universe which is not deterministic is one in which you cannot really grab an apple. You might be able to, but you don't know you can. Indeed, most times, you'll try to and then grab a guinea pig; which no one wants to do (wretched beasts).
But, in a deterministic universe, you'll try to grab an apple, and most likely grab an apple. Why you did that might be the result of another event. But then what is "free will" anyway?
Yeah, I dont think you understand what determinism is, sorry: even in an undeterministic universe, apples won't spontaneously become guineapigs (and how dare you dis dem! day taste lurvley )
I suggest you read the whole thread, as determinism is simply saying all of time is predetermined, whereas indeterminism is simply saying that it isn't. thats all. I have no idea where this spontaneous guniepigging came from.
and where did "In other news, even being "you" requires a deterministic universe." come from?
Furthermore, at ehrenstein: yes, the two are indeed mutually exclusive. I suppose i choose not to believe in parallel universes, as they seem to be more unsupported than determinism (might just be because i haven't looked at any proofs for them though)
Okay, actually, Dogma's question might have helped me at understanding why so many posts came unto the subject of physics, which really isn't a predilect approach at understanding Free Will. You think (or advance) that determinism is correct because the entirety of the universe obeys causality. Each events are predetermined completely if we know how to interpret the forces and movements of the Universe at any given time.
Now, from this point on, the argument can be split into two privileged ways of explorations, if this thread can be taken as an example. On one side you have the micro universe, or the events as described by physics, and on the other the macro (or mezzo, I guess, the human not being that big), or the psychological events. Now if you ask the question on the micro side, you can't ask the question here and hope an appropriate answer ; none of us is an expert in experimental quantum physics, AFAIK. Admittedly, it's a pretty common trope to say that 'scientists have discovered irrationals events', as in events that have no causality whatsoever.
So I'll assume you were interested entirely by the other side ; the human side. In this regard, I see the advances in physical science as being rather meaningless ; there's no indication that our brains are capable or 'irrational physical events', and at the same time, it's not necessary. We were capable of doing everything the D-Wave Quantum computer is capable of way before we built it, so it isn't impossible that our brains could be described as binary logical engines capable of adiabatic (quantum) computation. So basically, nothing described by physical science restricts what we can say about the way the mind operate.
Coming back to my point (long way coming), I advanced that not all causalities are causalities to the same degree or nature. Mainly ; event A may force event B to happen, but have no other influence over what B will be like. Alternatively, event C might not be the cause of event D in the sense that it made D happen, but might be incredibly important over how D end up happening. So, what if Free Will works somewhat the same way? Then choices and influences aren't two opposite path of explanations, but two parts of a process leading to action.
walker90234 wrote:
I suggest you read the whole thread, as determinism is simply saying all of time is predetermined, whereas indeterminism is simply saying that it isn't. thats all. I have no idea where this spontaneous guniepigging came from.
First: guinea pigs are delicious, you're correct there.
Second: You misunderstand. For X to be X, at all, X must determine itself.
walker90234 wrote:
and where did "In other news, even being "you" requires a deterministic universe." come from?
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:I think that the universe splits off whenever something could happen either way. I think that the cause and effect theory at the sub atomic level preventing free will (everything we do is the result of interactions between sub atomic particles) is incorrect because of that. If there are no decisions, than there's really nowhere for the universe to split off.
That's assuming things could go one way or the other. As I argue, they can't. Every decision we make is determined by set factors.
walker90234 wrote:yeah, that makes sense. Are you using it for or against determinism though? That's whats confusing me :/
I think that's what's called a compatibilist Free Will theory. Basically, I believe that humans are beings in a causal universe, that will answer to external and internal forces, but that can constitute there own Self into a causal force, with enough maturity and conscious effort.
With a more empirical approach ; humans are incredibly adept at understanding causality, we spend about 15-20% of our life developing almost reflexively our cognition through empirical observation of logical relations. When object/beings act according to a causality, and we can observe them, it doesn't take long before someone offers a good explanations as to what might be the mechanism behind it. And even after years of observing my cat, I can't predict all it's actions. With time I get better, for sure, so to me that's an indication that I'm getting better at understanding the forces and reactions of my cat. Humans are another world altogether, we go nuts when we finish each other's sentences, but try guessing the third sentence from this one, and you see the point... I also seem to notice that simpler minds and children are more subject to causality... so experience seems to suggest to me that Free Will isn't really a gift humans have, it's more an art that we have been predisposed to possibly master.
I think many psychological problems can be described as a weakening or incapacity to form and assert ourself in a willing way.
That is what we call an AXIOM and is something we naturally accept as a law of the universe.
I'm sure everyone will agree with me here. Furthermore, use any website, any philosophical journal, any physics (apart from quantum physics which may/may not have a cause, however none of us seem to be able to confirm this) journal act.ect. and EVERY SINGLE ONE will tell you there is no such thing as an uncaused event, all of which are written by people much more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I.
walker90234 wrote:apart from quantum physics which may/may not have a cause, however none of us seem to be able to confirm this
I can absolutely confirm that every second particles spring into and out of existence for no reason whatsoever, this principle is what Hawking Radiation is based on.
I'm glad I'm fething leathered.. Because this thread makes no sense. I should feel foolish if tomorrow it makes perfect sense and all arguments are presented in perfect flawless logic..
Fortunately I rather doubt that will be the case.!
I remember us reaching an impasse about quantum physics/uncaused events somewhere on pages 2-3? Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember someone clearly stating that we couldn't agree whether it worked or not.
also
"This is my take on the universe and it's deterministic/non-deterministic actions:
If everything in the universe started with the Big Bang, then everything deterministicly happened as it should, at least at the macro-level. Sense we have no unifying theory of Electromagnetism and Quantem Physics, then the current laws of Physics today tell us things happen in a deterministic way. Chance is a human construct for events we can not determine yet due to understanding, at least at the macro-level. Take dice for example, when you roll them, if you knew the exact variables ranging from the weight of the dice to air resistance of that day to the angle and speed it left your hand, you can calculate exactly what side it will land on. A good way to look at this is if we can determine the location of where the Moon was several years ago, then why can we not apply the same behavior and Mathematics/Physics to determine the position of the Earth? Sure, we might not have all the variables yet but there is nothing random about the location of Earth in the universe. "
I also remember a denial of human action working on a micro level rathe than a macro level?
@matyrm: Ignore the argument between me, kovnik and joey, as most of the arguments in that line of reasoning seem a bit feathed up. It gets good near the bottom of page 2. Till then, have fun being leathered, drink some more booze
Deathreaper does hit one of the epistemological problems of science : How do you devise an experiment that proves that experiments proves things? It's not enough to say that it's an axiom of science, one should at least describe how he handles that conundrum.
And I stated on p. 2-3 that scientists do not agree on the relation the quantum scale holds to our scale in the universe. Irrational states like 'superposition' are observed, we just don't agree on what implication they have over our common existence.
Perkustin wrote:The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.
Anyway, i think the idea of fate is kinda silly, even if you do allow for God. Weird example, but think of Horoscopes; everyone knows that they are Bullcrap but by the end of the week, would you look at that; It came true. It came true because you made it happen, you, often subconciously, tried to meet 'a new person' or 'form a new relationship'. The horoscope was less of a prophecy more a pep-talk. This doesnt disprove anything obviously but it offers an alternative.
I also think it's because horoscope are so vague that it's easy to interpret your life's experiences as being a part of that horoscope.
"How do you devise an experiment that proves that experiments proves things? It's not enough to say that it's an axiom of science, one should at least describe how he handles that conundrum. "
Saying its an axiom of science is the only thing we can do, because there is no way of handling that conundrum.
Say we devise an experiment that proves that experiments prove things. How do we prove that such an experiment is true? We have to prove it with an experiment.
So lets call general experiments A
Lets call the experiment that proves experiments B
lets call the experiment which proved B C
So, in order for A we need B
In order for B we need C
C is an experiment, and hence C=A
Therefore
In order for A to be true, we must prove B
In order for B to be true, we must prove A
Its a circular argument, and hence has no real starting point. Devising such an experiment would be pointless. Therefore, if you wish to accept experiments as a part of the universe, you have to simply accept that A is true, as an axiom.
Similarly, inductive reasoning rests on the same problem. We also generally accept that as an axiom.
@Dael: I believe there is cause for every effect, even at the quantum level. The fact that we are unable to discern or measure that cause does not, in my opinion, negate the likelihood that there was a cause.
walker90234 wrote:"How do you devise an experiment that proves that experiments proves things? It's not enough to say that it's an axiom of science, one should at least describe how he handles that conundrum. "
Saying its an axiom of science is the only thing we can do, because there is no way of handling that conundrum.
So it's a question of faith then. Cool. Personnaly, I'd rather have faith in my capacity to make choices.
Induction is the determination of a truth function according to a correlation.
If I question causation, you can't say induction is evidence toward causation, because I'm questioning the existence of that which you try to make your correlation as.
It's the same as someone telling you that imperfections are evidence for the existence of perfections...
) and our brains are developed by our DNA. From there, we receive external stimuli, which causes our thoughts/personality to change. There is nothing in our brains that doesn't have a cause itself outside our brains, that would cause our personality to change in some way.)
if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
hole. Chistians believe God is NOT an 