Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:I haven't decided if I am going to post in this thread or not.

I dare you.

whitedragon wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I haven't decided if I am going to post in this thread or not.

I dare you.

Its not worth it Ahtman.

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).

walker90234 wrote: if you accept the premises

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.

walker90234 wrote:

"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.

Funfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfun!

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.

walker90234 wrote:
Funfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfun!

I've not read the thread, but, how does one have free will if one cannot choose anything? As one could not in a universe that is not deterministic.

wha?

I believe Dogma was talking about the duck. You know, that one in the attic.

Oh, you mean Fred? Yeah, he's a great guy, when he quacks it almost sounds like English!!! Though what relevance he has to determinism I don't know...

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.

walker90234 wrote:wha?

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.

In other news, even being "you" requires a deterministic universe.

dogma wrote:

walker90234 wrote:wha?

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.

yeah, that makes sense. Are you using it for or against determinism though? That's whats confusing me :/

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?

Dan Dennett, by paraphrase.

can you expand? offer perhaps an explanation?

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:can you expand? offer perhaps an explanation?

I mean, not really. Not without simply reiterating and eventually running into the same problem that Russel did in the Tractatus.

To sort of expand, X=X. That X can equal X requires that X determines X in the same way that 1 determines 1, and 2 determines 2.

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.

walker90234 wrote:@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

Until you can Prove #1 you have proven nothing.

We must have free will, because random choices have no cause.

I do things for no reason some times.

It is just a decision I make in the moment, and I am the originator of everything that comes from that choice.

Unless you can prove otherwise, your line of thinking is false.

*facepalm*

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNCAUSED EVENT!

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

walker90234 wrote:*facepalm*

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNCAUSED EVENT!

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.