Why Determinism is Superior to Free Will
Winston_H
philosophies based on it don't lead to joy, fulfillment and happiness to
the degree that these states are achievable and sustainable. I have few
complaints about Objectivism but I think it works better when adjusted for
determinism. Free will has no basis in science...determinism is consistent
with science. Determinism as an understanding leads to freedom, joy, and
happiness. Free will leads to judgementality and all its ramifications.
I've put down a few of my thoughts on it here. This is in no way
comprehensive or complete.
With determinism, we are free to feel great almost all of the time. Here's
a few reasons why:
1) If we are deterministic, then everyone is doing their absolute best at
all times without fail. That means no one should feel blame, shame,
guilt or remorse for anything. I'm not saying we don't need prisons or that
there should be no consequences for anti-social behavior. I'm saying let
yourself feel the inner peace of accepting reality: everyone is doing their
absolute best at all times.
2) If we are in fact deterministic, then no one is to blame for anything
they do. That doesn't mean they should not be held accountable, but it
means that everyone should be accepted in total without shame, blame, or
guilt.
3) If we are deterministic, then it is foolish to emotionally resist the
reality of what others think, say or do because it is as stupid as resisting
the reality that a tree fell over and crushed the dog house.
4) Free will brings the notion that we need to be perfect: that we should
have known better, should have done better, that we "deserve" to feel
guilty, that we "deserve" to feel bad. Its a crock of shit with no basis in
science or reality that I can see.
5) Free will tells us that its okay, right, and correct to blame others, to
be angry toward others, to retaliate against others, on and on into
limitless negativity.
You see? Emotional acceptance and happiness is the issue. Disharmony in
relationships is ENTIRELY due to emotional judgementality, period. With
determinism its nonsense to judge: the other person could not have said or
done otherwise. Reality just IS what it IS.
All negative, destructive emotions are based on one thing: judging an
occurrence in reality against
your values and then (stupidly) resisting the reality that that thing
occurred and causing ourselves pain over it. With an understanding that we
are all doing our very best and can't do otherwise we can feel good about
ourselves and others. With an understanding that we could not possibly have
made a different choice we forgive and accept each other. Most importantly,
we can accept ourselves in full. If you don't know why that's important,
then ignore this thread...we're wasting time with each other.
These are just scratching the surface of the ramifications of determinism.
I see a vast, beautiful philosophy springing out of determinism, and one
that largely harmonizes with Objectivism. And you know what? Unlike free
will, determinism is consistent with science and the real world around us.
Its all cause and effect. Determinism is reality: the rest of you who
adhere to free will are in the camp of the voo doo doctors, the religious
folks and all the others who believe in something just because they believe
in it, period. I asked you to explain why you believe in free will and not
one of you could do it: that's because its bunk. That's because you are
not completely free of the culture that teaches you its okay to believe in
something for which there is not only no proof but no supporting logic
either.
--
---------------Winston H.
John Shafto
news:fXvp8.3958$nt1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> These are just scratching the surface of the ramifications of determinism.
> I see a vast, beautiful philosophy springing out of determinism,
Yeah, you and Karl Marx.
> and one that largely harmonizes with Objectivism.
Unless, of course, freewill happens to be true. Then, any
philosophy that evades the empirical fact that people(s) who
believe they can and do make a difference fair *much* better
than those who don't, will in fact, not be very objective at all.
> And you know what? Unlike free will, determinism is
> consistent with science and the real world around us.
Unless it's not. Better make your case, because I see
free will around us, empirically.
Steve A Simon
Winston_H
That's the whole point of my other thread: I want to know how you see this
because I don't see it. I'm only advocating my point now because no one was
able to show me the evidence to the contrary. Everyone keeps taking the
function of decision-making as though they are some kind of
extra-terrestrial being inhabiting and controlling their own mind. That
whole sense of "you" and "your decisions" is just a neurochemical phenomenon
that is part of the design of our species to make us thrive. This deep
sense of "I" is just an artifice of biology to keep you working on your own
behalf, in your own self interest. All pain and pleasure signals feed into
your "personal" experience because the boundary of this city of individual
cells making up your body is best defined at that limit: your current
physical body. Other species never act on their own behalf and move as a
group because that happens to be the way they thrive best in their
ecosystem.
--
---------------Winston H.
"John Shafto" <_john_@_shafto.org_> wrote in message
news:uad4rm7...@corp.supernews.com...
Winston_H
happiness, joy, and freedom is ours for the taking if we understand ethics
and morality correctly, since ethics and morality will guide our behavior in
such a way as to bring freedom and fulfillment not only to ourselves and our
families but to the extended family of mankind.
Life is a complex system of chemical chain reactions fueled by the sun
that continues to occur for no other reason than that nothing has yet
stopped it. The point?.....Its just energy flow from sun to plants to
animals until that star burns out. That doesn't mean there is no meaning to
life though, since I still want to feel good as much of the time while alive
as possible and that means I have to study philosophy to understand how to
achieve that. People like Ayn Rand show us how happiness IS the point.
That is also the natural order of things. I think all healthy creatures
feel good most of the time except for sickness, childbirth, cold snaps, etc.
In the main, life is enjoyable for all or at least designed to potentially
be so. The one difference between humans and animals that makes us so
miserable so much of the time is very simple: judgementality. We judge each
other left and right and cause counterjudgement and all kinds of negative
feelings that escalate into the huge mess with religious bullshit thrown on
top. When someone says something that pisses me off was it what they said
or my reaction to it that caused my anger? It was me: my judgementality.
All they did was establish a reality and I judged and then emotionally
resisted that reality. We cause our own suffering 97% of the time.
Whether free will or determinism is correct: what difference does it make?
How could it make the reality of your life any different from what it is
today? It won't, although I claim that recognizing the reality of
determinism has far more power to make us happy.
--
---------------Winston H.
"Steve A Simon" <steve...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020331010212...@mb-ml.aol.com...
Malenor
Or shall I allow determinism to determine this for me?
John Shafto
> If you see free will around you empirically please tell me what you see.
You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.
(I actually think compatiblism is probably most correct,
but you go first, support your position)
> That's the whole point of my other thread: I want to know how you see this
> because I don't see it.
Do you see anything? You haven't done anything but assert how
wonderful life would be if only determinism were true.
> I'm only advocating my point now because no one was
> able to show me the evidence to the contrary.
So you think that you can believe anything you want,
provided there is no evidence against it?
<snip babble>
Reynard the Fox
> Shall I use free will to choose determinism as my philosophy?
> Or shall I allow determinism to determine this for me?
>
Very funny. :-) I think this year I'll have a determinist Easter.
Resijinth
our general nature permits us to have free will and consciousness,
which are necesarily true because they are observed directly.
Determinism is an inevitability of the applicaiton of laws of
cause-and-effect and other such metaphysical and objective principals.
Franc wrote something at
http://www.objectivethought.com/articles/dualityofthewill.html on this
issue, resolving that he beleive in metaphysical determinism and
epistemic volition, since they can both exist at the same time with no
conflict whatsoever.
George Dance
56...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Free will is not real and that's why assumptions, behaviors, and
> philosophies based on it don't lead to joy, fulfillment and happiness to
> the degree that these states are achievable and sustainable. I have few
> complaints about Objectivism but I think it works better when adjusted for
> determinism.
And how does a moral agent make such an adjustment, pray tell?
Free will has no basis in science...determinism is consistent
> with science. Determinism as an understanding leads to freedom, joy, and
> happiness. Free will leads to judgementality and all its ramifications.
> I've put down a few of my thoughts on it here. This is in no way
> comprehensive or complete.
Certainly it is not comprehensive. If all of a person's beliefs are
pre-determined; then how in the world could he choose to believe in
determinism? Either he already believes in determinism, and there's
nothing he can do about that; or he already believes in free will, and
there's nothing he can do about that.
> With determinism, we are free to feel great almost all of the time. Here's
> a few reasons why:
>
> 1) If we are deterministic, then everyone is doing their absolute best at
> all times without fail. That means no one should feel blame, shame,
> guilt or remorse for anything.
But they will feel guilt and shame, if guilt and shame are determined.
> I'm not saying we don't need prisons or that
> there should be no consequences for anti-social behavior. I'm saying let
> yourself feel the inner peace of accepting reality: everyone is doing their
> absolute best at all times.
> 2) If we are in fact deterministic, then no one is to blame for anything
> they do. That doesn't mean they should not be held accountable, but it
> means that everyone should be accepted in total without shame, blame, or
> guilt.
If we're not blaming anyone for anything, what would we be holding
them accountable for?
> 3) If we are deterministic, then it is foolish to emotionally resist the
> reality of what others think, say or do because it is as stupid as resisting
> the reality that a tree fell over and crushed the dog house.
But it would be equally foolish, for anyone resisting what others
think, to try not to.
> 4) Free will brings the notion that we need to be perfect: that we should
> have known better, should have done better, that we "deserve" to feel
> guilty, that we "deserve" to feel bad. Its a crock of shit with no basis in
> science or reality that I can see.
> 5) Free will tells us that its okay, right, and correct to blame others, to
> be angry toward others, to retaliate against others, on and on into
> limitless negativity.
> You see? Emotional acceptance and happiness is the issue. Disharmony in
> relationships is ENTIRELY due to emotional judgementality, period. With
> determinism its nonsense to judge: the other person could not have said or
> done otherwise. Reality just IS what it IS.
The issue is whether emotional acceptance and happiness are possible.
If determinism is true, then they are possible only for those who
already feel them.
> All negative, destructive emotions are based on one thing: judging an
> occurrence in reality against
> your values and then (stupidly) resisting the reality that that thing
> occurred and causing ourselves pain over it. With an understanding that we
> are all doing our very best and can't do otherwise we can feel good about
> ourselves and others. With an understanding that we could not possibly have
> made a different choice we forgive and accept each other. Most importantly,
> we can accept ourselves in full. If you don't know why that's important,
> then ignore this thread...we're wasting time with each other.
If someone doesn't know why it's important, they aren't going to get
it by reading some words on a computer screen. Your task is showing
how this self-acceptance is even possible.
> These are just scratching the surface of the ramifications of determinism.
> I see a vast, beautiful philosophy springing out of determinism, and one
> that largely harmonizes with Objectivism. And you know what? Unlike free
> will, determinism is consistent with science and the real world around us.
> Its all cause and effect. Determinism is reality: the rest of you who
> adhere to free will are in the camp of the voo doo doctors, the religious
> folks and all the others who believe in something just because they believe
> in it, period.
If determinism is true, everyone is in the camp of those who believe
in things just because they believe in them, period; reasons for
belief being irrelevant, and the (relevant) causes of belief being
unknown.
> I asked you to explain why you believe in free will and not
> one of you could do it: that's because its bunk.
> That's because you are
> not completely free of the culture that teaches you its okay to believe in
> something for which there is not only no proof but no supporting logic
> either.
And there's no way of getting free of that culture, either; it simply
happens or it doesn't.
Malenor
"Reynard the Fox" <reynar...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:uadh77p...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Shall I use free will to choose determinism as my philosophy?
> > Or shall I allow determinism to determine this for me?
> >
>
> Very funny. :-) I think this year I'll have a determinist Easter.
>
>
Ha ha...
Philosophy can be fun too. However, I also have a serious,
sincere answer for the problem.
Walter supposes that the answers to such questions must be
scientific. But what does science really know? If it tries to find
a first cause for the chain of causal events that has determined
the state of the universe up to now, it finds itself in the quandary
of wondering how a first cause is possible in the first place.
On the other hand, the lack of a first cause implies that the
chain of causality must require an infinite amount of time to
reach the present moment. But this is contradictory because
an infinite presupposes no stopping point by definition, and
yet the present moment is such a stopping point.
Therefore, science is arrogant in assuming as truth what
it should only hold as belief, that the universe is deterministic.
In order to avoid the contradiction posed by the eternalist
view of causality, science must presuppose a first cause.
But if it can assume a primal event that itself had no cause
(an apparent impossibility, but not a contradiction), then it
can also allow for first causes within the universe itself.
These first causes occur all the time, they are in fact the
action of free-will.
This free-will is nothing more than a belief, but then, *so
is determinism*.
From another perspective, science has no real idea of
the basic causes of events in the world. Scientists assume
that some *forces* or other are at work in the world
to produce law-governed changes. However, they don't
know what these forces are. They are predictable, they
can be measured mathematically. But to call such forces
"gravity" or "kinetic energy" is nothing but the use of
hypothetical explanations that happen to work for the
moment. It is on the same level to explain certain events
as the result of free-will, nothing but belief that works
to the advantage of explanatory hypotheses.
Walter's argument was two-tiered: 1. determinism expresses
the truth about the universe (which is preposterous), and 2.
believing in determinism is to our selfish advantage (the
tie-in with Objectivism). I dealt with argument (2) on
another thread, and with this response the task of
answering Walter's post is formally complete.
david
groups and was intrigued by the cummunicational abilities of the
members. the thing that set off warning bells in my head were the
comments on the validity of free WILL and the frequent use of the word
"real".
perhaps, persons truly interested in furthering their own growth,
spiritual and mental, would further benefit themselves and
subsequently others by reading a little- or alot- of Robert Anton
Wilson in an attemt to formulate a more reasonable vocabulary to
better communate the ideas that our language does not account for.
as to the validity of free WILL, i do understand that a person
desperatley hanging on to archaic ideas of "reality" based on
patriarchal slave mentality such as is laid out in any organized
religeon may not be able at this time to fully grasp some of these
more lofty ideas that inherently require a reasonable knowledge of
ones self allowing, not automatically, but rather by WILL to act not
re-act to their perceived environment in a non judgemental, loving way
that encompasses ALL aspects of being.
also, science, while interesting and fun, and a favorite pastime of
mine, does not provide us with absolute answers, i.e. "isness", merely
a "working" mode or hypothesis. science doesnt know anything. it
merely measures measurable effects of things or not things as the case
may or may not be that are assumed or conjected to be "real. no one
can show you gravity. merely the perceived effects of a phenomenon
that science calls gravity. same with a vortex, thermo dynamics,
quantum anthing. the list goes on and on.
these "fundementalist" views set forth by ayn rand and parroted by
some, but not all, posters is frankly frighteneing. realize that MY
senses are SUBjective and that if any person can show me "reality"
without using their senses i will gladly spring for ice cream.
love is the law
david
George Dance <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0203
310357....@posting.google.com>...
R Lawrence
> Free will has no basis in science...determinism is consistent
>with science.
The following statements are at least as true as the ones above:
Determinism has no basis in science ... free will is consistent with
science.
Neither the belief in determinism nor the belief in free will is based in
science. They are philosophical positions rooted in unsystematic
impressions of how the world works. No scientific experiment has ever
directly tested for determinism or free will.
The fact that many determinists prance about falsely proclaiming that their
position is "proven" by "science" does not change this situation one bit.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
Acar
Is relativity deterministic? If time is like another dimension of reality we
are moving through time as we move through Newtonian space, from one
pre-existing place to another pre-existing place. The relativity concept AIU
is that what happened yesterday through what is happening today to what will
happen tomorrow is all one four dimensional package.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malenor" <smu...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Why Determinism is Superior to Free Will
>
> "Reynard the Fox" <reynar...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
> news:uadh77p...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > Shall I use free will to choose determinism as my philosophy?
> > > Or shall I allow determinism to determine this for me?
> >
> > Very funny. :-) I think this year I'll have a determinist Easter.
> >
> Ha ha...
> Philosophy can be fun too. However, I also have a serious,
> sincere answer for the problem.
>
> Walter supposes that the answers to such questions must be
> scientific. But what does science really know? If it tries to find
> a first cause for the chain of causal events that has determined
> the state of the universe up to now, it finds itself in the quandary
> of wondering how a first cause is possible in the first place.
The Big Bang theory presuposes an inconceivably small kernel packing an
inconceivably large amount of energy in an inconceivable state of existence
in some hypothetical non-Newtonian venue. A lot of naive people believe that
this is actually the case, rather than a useful working model.
x
x
x
Malenor
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:006f01c1d8f0$dc39a300$6501...@cinci.rr.com...
I think that has become the standard theory. But then there are those
who broaden that theory to include black holes: The universe is
doomed to become one vast black hole which will then explode
outward into a new universe, and so on. These types of theories,
based on physicality not pure logic, go around and around never
settling on any one answer.
My answer did not exclude the seemingly impossible big bang idea
as a first cause, but only the contradictory notion of an eternal universe.
That one should exclude the contradictory is obvious. But the
idea of a first cause is at least not contradictory, it seems only
impossible, or rather, *unreasonable*, in accordance with our
*known* laws of phenomenal behavior. But as noumenal, it is not
therefore necessarily impossible. It is on the contrary worthy of a
modicum of acceptance, that is, belief. In terms of science, it is only
a model, not reality.
Winston_H
http://www.objectivethought.com/articles/dualityofthewill.html :
"In fact the clash of both concepts is nothing more than a false dichotomy.
There is nothing in the notion of choice that inherently forbids it from
being determined. The concept of free will depends on consent, not on
determination. As long as the choice is made of one's own consent, whenever
it is inevitable or not becomes irrelevant."
--
---------------Winston H.
"Winston_H" <clim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fXvp8.3958$nt1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Malenor
I don't see the determinism in that.
m
mmmmm
mm
m
m
m
mm
m
m
m
Lon
> Free will is not real and that's why assumptions, behaviors, and
> philosophies based on it don't lead to joy, fulfillment and happiness to
> the degree that these states are achievable and sustainable. I have few
> complaints about Objectivism but I think it works better when adjusted for
> determinism. Free will has no basis in science...determinism is consistent
> with science. Determinism as an understanding leads to freedom, joy, and
> happiness. Free will leads to judgementality and all its ramifications.
> I've put down a few of my thoughts on it here. This is in no way
> comprehensive or complete.
The argument here does not give reasons to believe
that determinism is true, rather it gives reasons for
wishing that determinism is true. If I accepted views
on such a basis I would likely become a born again
Christian, they seem a blissful lot. But of course
most people can't accept views just on the basis that
it would be nice if they were true. But on top of that
your arguments don't work very well to show what you
are claiming is true.
>
> With determinism, we are free to feel great almost all of the time. Here's
> a few reasons why:
>
> 1) If we are deterministic, then everyone is doing their absolute best at
> all times without fail. That means no one should feel blame, shame,
> guilt or remorse for anything. I'm not saying we don't need prisons or that
> there should be no consequences for anti-social behavior. I'm saying let
> yourself feel the inner peace of accepting reality: everyone is doing their
> absolute best at all times.
This may be true, but it would be equally true that
everyone is doing their worst at all times without
fail. This means that noone should feel pride or a
sense of accomplishment for anything. This is a
particularly poor tradeoff.
> 2) If we are in fact deterministic, then no one is to blame for anything
> they do. That doesn't mean they should not be held accountable, but it
> means that everyone should be accepted in total without shame, blame, or
> guilt.
But again they don't deserve credit for the same reasons
and so this is more bad then good.
> 3) If we are deterministic, then it is foolish to emotionally resist the
> reality of what others think, say or do because it is as stupid as resisting
> the reality that a tree fell over and crushed the dog house.
I'm not sure exactly what it is to emotional resist
the reality of what others think. My guess is that you
mean there is no point in being bothered by others poor
opinion of you. It isn't clear that one should be so
concerned with what others think anyway. But again
this is a symmetrical issue. People who are bothered
that people think ill of them tend to be pleased that
people think well of them. I'm not sure why I am
supposed to be happy to find out that my wife loves
me only because she had no choice.
> 4) Free will brings the notion that we need to be perfect: that we should
> have known better, should have done better, that we "deserve" to feel
> guilty, that we "deserve" to feel bad. Its a crock of shit with no basis in
> science or reality that I can see.
You would need to give some argument as to how science
shows that we are not responsible, but as far as whether
this is an advantage, the trade off here seems
particularly poor. I have no doubt that I have not done
as much as I could have, but I have done more than I have
to, and I certainly see no advantage to giving up my
accomplishments just to avoid a bit of blame.
> 5) Free will tells us that its okay, right, and correct to blame others, to
> be angry toward others, to retaliate against others, on and on into
> limitless negativity.
>
But it also tells us that its okay, right, and correct
to respect people for their accomplishments and to be
pleased with others and to reward them and on and on to
limitless positivity.
You begin your posting here with a correct
observation, namely that we do not know empirically
that we have free will. Such an argument can be
found nicely spelled out in Hume's Enquiry as well.
The other popular argument for libertarian free will
that is popular here, that reasoning about free will
presupposes free will, is equally nonsense. But that
said I have not seen any argument from you which
actually shows there is no free will. There is nothing
in our current scientific knowledge which rules out
free will. I good article which covers both of these
points is A.J. Ayre's "Freedom and Necessity" which
largely updates Hume's argument to 20th century science.
Your case that determinism is a good thing though
seems to me to be particularly weak. What you point
to is the impossibility of being blameworthy in a
deterministic world. But this is true only because
credit of any sort disappears. I for one would not
want to give up the possibility of accomplishment
just to avoid the risk of failure. The result is that
the philosophy that you seem to find so promising is
likely to be a weakkneed new-age view where we all love
everybody because everybody is vapidly blame free.
Susan Wolf has argued that determinism gets rid of
blame but not credit. While she does as good a job
as possible defending this view, I think it is ultimately
indefensible. Derk Pereboom has also written on the
consequences of a deterministic view (in as positive
a light as is possible). You can find all of this
stuff in Pereboom's collection on Free Will from Hackett
(which means it is a reasonably cheap collection).
Lon
Lon
cinci.rr.com>...
deterministic in the sense that the state of an object
at a given time is completely determined by its past
light cone (that is those events in its causal path.)
Of course one can paste on top of the space time
indeterministic laws, but there is nothing about
relativity as such which is incompatible with determinism.
Similarly one could come up with physical laws such
that the state of a system at a particular place is
determined by the events at other places and so make
a spatially deterministic system. It is not plausible
that such a set of laws would be the correct ones, but
that doesn't mean it is not possible. The point is that
make time like another spatial dimension could show us
that time is different than we normally think it is,
but it also could show us that space is different than
we normally think it is.
Lon
Acar
From time to time I run into this analogy: In 3-dimensional space you can
travel from New York to Paris. At one point you are in NY, but the fact that
you are not in Paris doesn't mean that Paris does not exist. Same way when
you get to Paris, NY continues to exist. If the analogy is valid, then
traveling through time means that the past and future are not affected by
our traveling through time; we just navigate from one to the other. That
sounds deterministic to me, but then the analogy may be an
oversimplification. (My reply to Malenor as well).
x
x
x
x
1Z
> With determinism, we are free to feel great almost all of the time. Here's
> a few reasons why:
>
> 1) If we are deterministic, then everyone is doing their absolute best at
> all times without fail.
Non-sequitur.
> 2) If we are in fact deterministic, then no one is to blame for anything
> they do.
Competent philosophers usually regard that as an argument *agasint* determi
nism.
> 3) If we are deterministic, then it is foolish to emotionally resist the
> reality of what others think, say or do because it is as stupid as resisting
> the reality that a tree fell over and crushed the dog house.
So ?
> 4) Free will brings the notion that we need to be perfect: that we should
> have known better, should have done better, that we "deserve" to feel
> guilty, that we "deserve" to feel bad. Its a crock of shit with no basis in
> science or reality that I can see.
Fw is wrong because FW is wrong. Great stuff.
> 5) Free will tells us that its okay, right, and correct to blame others, to
> be angry toward others, to retaliate against others, on and on into
> limitless negativity.
>
No, there is nothing in the idea of FW that negativity should
be limitless, Straw-man (or non-sequitur -- wrong anyway).
> You see? Emotional acceptance and happiness is the issue. Disharmony in
> relationships is ENTIRELY due to emotional judgementality, period.
If detemninism is true, and we are determined to judge, judge we must.
RussK
Objectivists are evil judgers, why the hell are you posting this
garbage. oops I should have asked why your overlord is such a moron
as to make you post something so stupid. After all, I have no control
over myself, my opinions, acts, or emotions; Objectivists have no
control of believing in free will. Right? errr..
Resijinth
d...@posting.google.com>...
The problem is simply that these people's arguments for determinism
and all arguments for free will beg the question.
For example:
Why do I beleive in determinism? Because that's just the way things
are.
Another one:
Why do I beleive in free will? Because I chose to.
Those arguments seem to be the ones most popularly used in ones
defense. I could just as well say:
Why do I beleive in The Big Bagel? Because The Big Bagel exists.
That would be saying just as much as either of the two examples at the
top.
As I said before, STOP USING EXAMPLES FOR YOUR IDEAS THAT BEG THE
QUESTION!
Again, I will point to
http://www.objectivethought.com/articles/dualityofthewill.html which
is not my own work but a friend's. His name is Franc. He goes on IRC
on DALnet in the #Objectivism and #Objectivists channel.
Brad Aisa
>
> Free will is not real [...remainder of post.]
Perhaps the poster was hoping that the humans exposed to his post would
start deterministically engaging in agreement behavior.
"hoping"....
oops!
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@NOSPAMbrad-aisa.com>
http://www.brad-aisa.com/ -- PGP public key available at:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Brad+Aisa&op=index
Malenor
>
> From time to time I run into this analogy: In 3-dimensional space you can
> travel from New York to Paris. At one point you are in NY, but the fact
that
> you are not in Paris doesn't mean that Paris does not exist. Same way when
> you get to Paris, NY continues to exist. If the analogy is valid, then
> traveling through time means that the past and future are not affected by
> our traveling through time; we just navigate from one to the other. That
> sounds deterministic to me, but then the analogy may be an
> oversimplification. (My reply to Malenor as well).
>
Relativity theory is of a different substance than determinism.
Determinism is only a discursive model that pretends to an
absolute knowledge of the nature of existence. Relativity
theory is based on certain and secure mathematics, but admits
to itself its own contingent nature as applied science. In fact, it
could turn out that different geometrical postulates better fit the
picture of reality given to us through instruments that probe
through space and time where are senses cannot travel.
Determinism otoh, a product of "positive science," is an entirely
negative theory. What is its purpose? It does nothing positive
for our thinking; it does, however, intend to negate the idea
of a free-will, as Winston made clearly obvious. Relativity
theory has no such negativistic pretensions. It does not stand
as a metaphysical philosophy opposing someone else's
philosophy, although I'll grant that somebody could make it
such. I'm assuming that the latter was not your goal there.
That is why I have a lot of trouble seeing the connections you
keep bringing up between relativity and determinism. But if
you intend to bring up determinism in association with relativity
in order to prove that relativity is anti-free will, the burden
of that proof is upon you. Apart from that, there is no reason
to put the two theories together.
Acar
> It does not stand
> as a metaphysical philosophy opposing someone else's
> philosophy, although I'll grant that somebody could make it
> such. I'm assuming that the latter was not your goal there.
>
> That is why I have a lot of trouble seeing the connections you
> keep bringing up between relativity and determinism. But if
> you intend to bring up determinism in association with relativity
> in order to prove that relativity is anti-free will, the burden
> of that proof is upon you. Apart from that, there is no reason
> to put the two theories together.
There's a difference between an argument and a question. I know nothing
about relativity but considering the analogy the question came to mind. Of
course any assumptions of relativity are theory. If two different models
(relativity and quantum) that do not fuse seamlessly are needed to
manipulate reality, you know that neither is congruent with reality.
Malenor
> There's a difference between an argument and a question. I know nothing
> about relativity but considering the analogy the question came to mind. Of
> course any assumptions of relativity are theory. If two different models
> (relativity and quantum) that do not fuse seamlessly are needed to
> manipulate reality, you know that neither is congruent with reality.
>
They may not form such a synthesis now, but that doesn't mean they
can't. The state of our present knowledge is only such that they don't
quite work together. If this present state improves, that situation with
the theories may change for the better.
As for your other issue: is quantum theory necessarily deterministic? It
could be a case of physicists with philosophical pretensions deciding
that the status of the universe metaphysically-speaking is dependent
on some mere model of quantum mechanics that happens to hold
general favor at the present time.
I think you are saying there that both theories are false (incongruent)
simply because they both offer good explanations of the same
phenomena.
I'm not sure if that's what you meant. However, the theories do
not deal with the same phenomena in the same way. Regarding
gravity for instance, general relativity has great predictive
capacity. QM, on the other hand, makes no predictions, it
only postulates various quantum causes of gravity.
Relativity is congruent with reality so long as the predictions
hold up to reality. If they don't, then perhaps the theory needs
a little tweaking, or perhaps even a whole new apriori paradigm
needs to be created. QM is congruent with reality for the same
reasons, so long as it drops its ontological pretensions. Either
way, reality is the test of a theory's truth-value, although I agree
with those who claim that a theory itself is not based on factual
evidence alone or even primarily. The best theories come from
gathering a great deal of theoretical knowledge, and when this
somehow naturally comes together in one great intuitive flash
of insight, one knows that it is only a matter of time until reality
brings forth the justification.
Lon
your opening question to be arguing the opposite of what
you meant to be arguing (or questioning if you prefer).
I took you to be asking whether relativity is compatible
with determinism when in fact you were asking whether
it is compatible with indetminism.
The answer is largely the same. Space-time, whether
it is relativistic or not, is the set of occassions
on which events occur. It does not tell us anything
about how the events there are related causally. We
tend to think that causality only makes sense in a
positive time direction (which is a reasonable enough
assumption) but this is not a feature of the geometry
of space it is something on top of the geometry. It
happens that in relativity, like in euclidean space-time
there is enough of a distinction between space and time
to support this intuition about causality and time.
That is to say that in relativity any two points in
spacetime are either spacelike related or timelike
related (or on the light cone itself but we can ignore
that case here) and in the former case we say that
events cannot be directly causally related and in the
latter that they can. But we can understand either
deterministic or indeterministic causal processes
under these systems. What we need to shift is our
understanding of simultaneity. What gives out is an
absolute sense of what has happened so far across the
universe.
Lon
Lon
3c56...@posting.google.com>...
> Free will is a factor of human consciousness and sentience, that is,
> our general nature permits us to have free will and consciousness,
> which are necesarily true because they are observed directly.
> Determinism is an inevitability of the applicaiton of laws of
> cause-and-effect and other such metaphysical and objective principals.
>
what free will is. Most people when they wonder if
we have free will are wondering if we have the kind of
freedom which could support moral responsibility. We
experience that there are often more than one thing
we could do if we chose to, but we don't experience
that the choice is not ultimately determined by factors
outside of our control. Most people think that if they
are then this kind of freedom does not allow for moral
responsibility. So pointing to this level of choice
does not really address the interesting questions about
free will.
> Franc wrote something at
> http://www.objectivethought.com/articles/dualityofthewill.html on this
> issue, resolving that he beleive in metaphysical determinism and
> epistemic volition, since they can both exist at the same time with no
> conflict whatsoever.
Most of the article you point to offers a basic
compatibilist position which defines freedom and
determinism so that they are not in conflict. Most
philosophers who have addressed the topic have taken
this approach. But this is not interesting unless it
can be shown that this definition of freedom is what
is needed to support moral responsibility. Unfortunately
on the view given, the freedom seems to be a result of
our ignorance of the true causal processes involved
which is not a satisfying way to bring about
responsibility. Our actions appear to be out of our
control on this view, and we simply do not have the
vantage point to recognize it. I don't think many
people will think that solves the problem.
Lon
Eddie LeBaron
56...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Free will is not real and that's why assumptions, behaviors, and
> philosophies based on it don't lead to joy, fulfillment and happiness to
> the degree that these states are achievable and sustainable.
Let us ignore the question of whether free will is "not real" and
examine the issue of whether belief in determinism leads to joy,
fulfillment, happiness, etc. Given the fact that most people are
inclined to believe (for emotional reasons if for no other) that
determinism is absurd, the view that determinism leads to happiness is
probably only true for a small minority of people. Most individuals
are not made happy by thinking that they are helpless pawns of forces
outside their control.
>I have few
> complaints about Objectivism but I think it works better when adjusted for
> determinism.
Objectivism is impossible without free will. The whole thing,
philosophically, falls apart without it. Rand's view of man is based
entirely on an extreme view of free will--i.e., that man is a
self-made creature.
>Free will has no basis in science...determinism is consistent
> with science.
This is something of a mistake. Science is only methodological
deterministic, which is to say, science assumes that matters of
inquiry can be ultimately explained in terms of physical cause and
effect. But there is no evidence to suggest that this methodological
presupposition is universally valid. It is only valid of things that
are fully explicable in terms of invioable natural laws.
>Free will leads to judgementality and all its ramifications.
> I've put down a few of my thoughts on it here.
Yes, that's true, and I'm not denying that there are unpleasant
consequences from this fact. But at the same time, there are good
things that come from "judgementality." It encourages people to be
more responsible than they were told they can do anything they feel
like because they can't help it.
.
> If we are deterministic, then it is foolish to emotionally resist the
> reality of what others think, say or do because it is as stupid as resisting
> the reality that a tree fell over and crushed the dog house.
There is something to be said for this. How many people spend their
consumed with moral indignation because the majority of people refuse
to be rational or decent or just? But individuals don't need
determinism to get over this busybody mentality. Free will does not
mean free will over other people, but simply free will over one's own
self. What others think, believe, or do is not something one can
control, but is in fact determined by outside forces, i.e., the free
will of other people.
> 4) Free will brings the notion that we need to be perfect: that we should
> have known better, should have done better, that we "deserve" to feel
> guilty, that we "deserve" to feel bad. Its a crock of shit with no basis in
> science or reality that I can see.
Yes, guilt is a drag. But it is also a motivator to do better.
Obviously, there are monomaniacs that take it too far. But the
opposite extreme would probably turn out to be worse.
> 5) Free will tells us that its okay, right, and correct to blame others, to
> be angry toward others, to retaliate against others, on and on into
> limitless negativity.
Again, there is truth in this. But can we actually live in a world
where we never blame people at all? Yes, there are a lot of things
that happen that are nobody's fault. But there are some really bad
things that are somebody's fault, and that somebody has to be held
responsible for it, if only to discourage others from doing those bad
things.
Reynard the Fox
But this is contradictory because
> an infinite presupposes no stopping point by definition, and
> yet the present moment is such a stopping point.
But can't the present moment be considered a stopping point only in regards
to the limitations of our consciousness? We experience time linearly, but
our consciousness can only directly experience a point on the line. And as
individuals, we exist for only a period of time on that same line.
Whether or not the Universe is deterministic would require that time is not
linear, but at the very least planar.
I don't know if my using geometric terms helps with the problem or not, but
this is how I have long viewed it.
George Dance
0df...@posting.google.com>...
> i have spent the last few hours reading strands in this and other
> groups and was intrigued by the cummunicational abilities of the
> members. the thing that set off warning bells in my head were the
> comments on the validity of free WILL and the frequent use of the word
> "real".
snip
> as to the validity of free WILL, i do understand that a person
> desperatley hanging on to archaic ideas of "reality" based on
> patriarchal slave mentality such as is laid out in any organized
> religeon may not be able at this time to fully grasp some of these
> more lofty ideas that inherently require a reasonable knowledge of
> ones self allowing, not automatically, but rather by WILL to act not
> re-act to their perceived environment in a non judgemental, loving way
> that encompasses ALL aspects of being.
Well, the claim of 'free will' is a claim that people can act by will
in certain states, as opposed to all of their actions (or their
decisions to act) being fully determined by external stimuli.
> also, science, while interesting and fun, and a favorite pastime of
> mine, does not provide us with absolute answers, i.e. "isness", merely
> a "working" mode or hypothesis. science doesnt know anything. it
> merely measures measurable effects of things or not things as the case
> may or may not be that are assumed or conjected to be "real. no one
> can show you gravity. merely the perceived effects of a phenomenon
> that science calls gravity. same with a vortex, thermo dynamics,
> quantum anthing. the list goes on and on.
True. Science cannot tell that if the ontologically real you drops an
ontologically real heavy object, that it will really fall; only that
if, in experienced reality, if you drop a heavy object, it will fall
(ie, if you have the experience that you drop it, you will have the
experience that it will fall). And that is certainly true; test it by
your own experience.
> these "fundementalist" views set forth by ayn rand and parroted by
> some, but not all, posters is frankly frighteneing. realize that MY
> senses are SUBjective and that if any person can show me "reality"
> without using their senses i will gladly spring for ice cream.
> love is the law
> david
Would I take you up on that? What's to stop you from going into a
store, and coming out with (by my perceptions) nothing at all, while
you tell me that (by your perceptions) you are holding an ice-cream
cone for me?
g
g
g
g
g
Acar
> Either
> way, reality is the test of a theory's truth-value,
Since the definition of "theory" implies ignorance of reality that could
hardly be the case. I would say that experience is the test.
stockjobber
<Stockjobber deterministically snips a lot of stuff 'bout why free will is
superior to determinism>
So by your logic my belief in free will is deterministic and I should just
accept it?
Malenor
m
m
m
m
m
m
Malenor
by direct experience, or by anything a posteriori to himself. It is your
ability
to imagine the a priori that frees you from such physical limitations. But
this imagination itself is limited to the forms. You can imagine away the
laws of nature, but not time and space themselves. For example, you can
imagine the proverbial bachelor flying to the moon on gossamer wings, and
yet even this fantasy is represented in a priori space and time which can
never be reasonably disputed without first accepting them.
By bringing in your example of planar time, *if* you are attempting to
dispute the notion of linear time, yet the plane itself consists of a
continuity of
(time-)lines. Your "planar time" is a fun, yet noumenal, notion to
contemplate.
It suggests that there could be a break in our natural experiences due
to the intersection of an infinity of other lines through the same point in
time.
There is no contradiction in that notion, there is only the problem of
"how do you know this" and "how do you validate your theory." If you
were to experience such a break in *objective* time (not your subjective
sensation of time which people often conflate with objective time),
how would you know it for what it was? You would probably just
write it off as an unexplained occurrence that has one or another natural
explanation (natural to your way of thinking). But the fact that it was not
actually natural is something you have no way of knowing, because
nature is an apriori limitation of your mind set onto experience (i.e.,
objective judgment as compared to fantasy or illusion), not a product of
natural events themselves.
Geometric terms are useful for illustrating transcendental problems,
but the proofs themselves cannot be mathematical because
experience is not a mathematical construct.
Bob Kolker
Malenor wrote:
>
> >
> My instinct is to answer that the mind is not limited by a man's lifespan,
> by direct experience, or by anything a posteriori to himself. It is your
> ability
> to imagine the a priori that frees you from such physical limitations.
Do you believe in ghosts? Or in spirits?
Bob Kolker
David Schwartz
> If you see free will around you empirically please tell me what you see.
The question isn't up for grabs. If you don't believe that you have
free will, then you can assert anything you want until you're blue in
the face but you'll be trapped in contradiction. If your decision
whether to conclude that free will is correct or determinism is correct
is based upon factors that have nothing to do with this comparison that
existed before you were born, then there's no way you can argue that
your conclusion is rational.
You can argue all you want that men have evolved 'self-correcting'
mechanisms. But I can equally well reply that we may have evolved
'self-deluding' mechanisms. And how could we ever tell which? If men are
deterministic like computers, then if 'constructed' to inevititably
print out '2+2=5', then that's what they'll do. The output is no longer
evidence for the conclusion it purports to support.
It is only when men are literally free to accept only those conclusions
that they test to correspond with reality and are literally free to
reject those that fail the test that reason is possible. A deterministic
computer could never, ever reason. There must be some fundamental
contact with reality to avoid all the 'brain in a jar' arguments, and
that fundamental contact is most likely found through free will.
DS
Lon
5...@webmaster.com>...
> Winston_H wrote:
>
> > If you see free will around you empirically please tell me what you see.
>
> The question isn't up for grabs. If you don't believe that you have
> free will, then you can assert anything you want until you're blue in
> the face but you'll be trapped in contradiction. If your decision
> whether to conclude that free will is correct or determinism is correct
> is based upon factors that have nothing to do with this comparison that
> existed before you were born, then there's no way you can argue that
> your conclusion is rational.
>
> You can argue all you want that men have evolved 'self-correcting'
> mechanisms. But I can equally well reply that we may have evolved
> 'self-deluding' mechanisms. And how could we ever tell which? If men are
> deterministic like computers, then if 'constructed' to inevititably
> print out '2+2=5', then that's what they'll do. The output is no longer
> evidence for the conclusion it purports to support.
>
silly argument since as you no doubt know having free
will does not prevent such kinds of mistakes. The
determinist can give a good explanation as to why
the mechanism that evolve are not likely to be self-
deluding. After all the creatures that make plans
based on the belief that 2+2=5 are likely to make
bad plans and die out. What is harder to do is explain
why free will is going to be free of such self-delusion.
Everything you can point to which increases the likelihood
of good reasoning is part of the deterministic world.
What you add to this with freedom is just the likelihood
to go wrong. If free will exists, then people who freely
choose to make bad decisions, but the survivors will
still have that free will and be as likely to make
poor decisions. So determinism has all of the reasons
to make deliberation dependable and lacks one reason
that makes it undependable.
> It is only when men are literally free to accept only those conclusions
> that they test to correspond with reality and are literally free to
> reject those that fail the test that reason is possible. A deterministic
> computer could never, ever reason. There must be some fundamental
> contact with reality to avoid all the 'brain in a jar' arguments, and
> that fundamental contact is most likely found through free will.
>
See here you seem to be fudging on the view. It is the
nature of your notion of free will that what you say
above could as accurately be described as "it is only
when men are literally free to reject those conclusions
that they test to correspond to reality and are
literally free to accept those that fail the test that
reason becomes possible. But then it would be clear
that the argument is silly. In general one will reason
better when one is determined to accept those things
which they test to correspond to reality that reason
becomes most dependable. The freedom to reject this
certainly does not add to the dependibility here.
Lon
> DS
David Schwartz
> > You can argue all you want that men have evolved 'self-correcting'
> > mechanisms. But I can equally well reply that we may have evolved
> > 'self-deluding' mechanisms. And how could we ever tell which? If men are
> > deterministic like computers, then if 'constructed' to inevititably
> > print out '2+2=5', then that's what they'll do. The output is no longer
> > evidence for the conclusion it purports to support.
> You may well argue this, but it would be a kind of
> silly argument since as you no doubt know having free
> will does not prevent such kinds of mistakes.
Free will allows for mistakes but also allows for the possibility of
correcting them. Rejection of free will not only allows for mistakes but
makes it impossible to correct them.
> The
> determinist can give a good explanation as to why
> the mechanism that evolve are not likely to be self-
> deluding.
Sure he can, so long as he begins by assuming what he wants to prove,
namely that his thought processes are free and not self-deluding.
> After all the creatures that make plans
> based on the belief that 2+2=5 are likely to make
> bad plans and die out. What is harder to do is explain
> why free will is going to be free of such self-delusion.
I never said it would be, only that it could be. While deterministic
systems can never show that they themselves are free from such things.
Think about, for example, a computer. How could it ever demonstrate that
it is in contact with reality and that it's conclusions are really true
and not just '10 print "2+2=5"'
> Everything you can point to which increases the likelihood
> of good reasoning is part of the deterministic world.
> What you add to this with freedom is just the likelihood
> to go wrong. If free will exists, then people who freely
> choose to make bad decisions, but the survivors will
> still have that free will and be as likely to make
> poor decisions. So determinism has all of the reasons
> to make deliberation dependable and lacks one reason
> that makes it undependable.
Again, you are assuming what you want to prove, namely that you are
capable of accurate reasoning.
> > It is only when men are literally free to accept only those conclusions
> > that they test to correspond with reality and are literally free to
> > reject those that fail the test that reason is possible. A deterministic
> > computer could never, ever reason. There must be some fundamental
> > contact with reality to avoid all the 'brain in a jar' arguments, and
> > that fundamental contact is most likely found through free will.
> See here you seem to be fudging on the view. It is the
> nature of your notion of free will that what you say
> above could as accurately be described as "it is only
> when men are literally free to reject those conclusions
> that they test to correspond to reality and are
> literally free to accept those that fail the test that
> reason becomes possible. But then it would be clear
> that the argument is silly. In general one will reason
> better when one is determined to accept those things
> which they test to correspond to reality that reason
> becomes most dependable. The freedom to reject this
> certainly does not add to the dependibility here.
The ability to do this is what adds to the dependability. A
determinstic machine cannot do this, in principle. Yet in principle, for
a machine with free will, there is no fundamental limit on what it might
ultimately learn, do, or acquire. Our genes limit us? We can alter them.
Or if we like them we can keep them.
But a computer cannot change its programming -- it is not *free* to.
Literally.
DS
Symmetry
>Date: 4/6/02 2:50 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3CAEB6DD...@webmaster.com>
>> You may well argue this, but it would be a kind of
>> silly argument since as you no doubt know having free
>> will does not prevent such kinds of mistakes.
>
> Free will allows for mistakes but also allows for the possibility of
>correcting them. Rejection of free will not only allows for mistakes but
>makes it impossible to correct them.
That is incorrect. There is no reason why a deterministic entity could not
correct previous mistakes that it has made. I could in fact write a computer
program right now which first quickly tried to solve various problems, and then
went back and considered them in more depth and corrected its earlier errors.
>> The
>> determinist can give a good explanation as to why
>> the mechanism that evolve are not likely to be self-
>> deluding.
>
> Sure he can, so long as he begins by assuming what he wants to prove,
>namely that his thought processes are free and not self-deluding.
>
You seem to think the issues of 'free' thought and not being self deluded have
more to do w/ eachother than they really do.
> But a computer cannot change its programming -- it is not *free* to.
>Literally.
Of course it can. You seem rather ignorant about computers.
s
s
s
s
s
sss
s
s
s
s
s
ss
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Lon
D...@webmaster.com>...
> Free will allows for mistakes but also allows for the possibility of
> correcting them. Rejection of free will not only allows for mistakes but
> makes it impossible to correct them.
>
repeatedly) which if true would be a serious
defeat for the determinist position. The problem
is that there is no basis to your claim, and nothing
that you do in your argument constitutes more than
repeating the claim that a deterministic being
can't do it, and pointing to the computers that we
build which only learn to a limited degree to show
that some deterministic systems don't learn.
I left the first of your claims above as an
example, so lets look at it. We have a deterministic
system which is determined by a goal, in this case
to mimic the beings around it. So they make certain
sounds our deterministic being (lets call it a baby)
makes certain sounds. When the sounds match the people
around it act in a way that makes the baby happy, they
gather round they coo at it, etc. The baby now has
an incentive to do what it just did, and so learns to
repeat those sounds. In contrast, when it makes the
wrong sounds it does not get this positive feedback
and so continues trying to make new sounds until it
hits on the ones that give it the positive feedback.
In other words, positive feedback determines repetition
of correct sounds, lack of positive feedback decreases
the chances of repitions of incorrect sounds. The result
will be that a deterministic creature will learn language,
In fact babies learn language faster before the period
where it makes sense to attribute free will to them.
At that stage language acquisition is clearly a
deterministic process.
I suppose you could argue that this still supports
free will. It is true that learning goes fastest when
there is no free will, but maybe the difficulty in
learning later on is due to the fact that now the person
is handicapped by having free will get in the way. I
will leave it to you to decide if you wish to pursue
such an argument. But the argument you are pursuing
begins with a false premise. (And pretty much ends there
too).
Lon
David Schwartz
> >Free will allows for mistakes but also allows for the possibility of
> >correcting them. Rejection of free will not only allows for mistakes but
> >makes it impossible to correct them.
> That is incorrect. There is no reason why a deterministic entity could not
> correct previous mistakes that it has made. I could in fact write a computer
> program right now which first quickly tried to solve various problems, an
> d then
> went back and considered them in more depth and corrected its earlier errors.
I did not say it was impossible for a deterministic entity to correct a
mistake.
> >> The
> >> determinist can give a good explanation as to why
> >> the mechanism that evolve are not likely to be self-
> >> deluding.
> >Sure he can, so long as he begins by assuming what he wants to prove,
> >namely that his thought processes are free and not self-deluding.
> You seem to think the issues of 'free' thought and not being self deluded
> have
> more to do w/ eachother than they really do.
Again you misunderstand me. Either a deterministic entity or a free
entity can be self-deluded. However, only an entity with free will can
establish that is not deluded.
> >But a computer cannot change its programming -- it is not *free* to.
> >Literally.
> Of course it can. You seem rather ignorant about computers.
Well, yes, in this particular universe, it seems that computers really
can change their programming. But what I meant was a more theoretical
model of a computer -- one truly bound by hard physical determinism. So
I'll rephrase it, a Turing machine cannot change its programming.
Whatever it does is simply the effects of its original programming
acting on its input.
DS
David Schwartz
> David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message news:<3CAEB6DD.26828
> D...@webmaster.com>...
> > Free will allows for mistakes but also allows for the possibility of
> > correcting them. Rejection of free will not only allows for mistakes but
> > makes it impossible to correct them.
> You make a number of claims (really one claim
> repeatedly) which if true would be a serious
> defeat for the determinist position. The problem
> is that there is no basis to your claim, and nothing
> that you do in your argument constitutes more than
> repeating the claim that a deterministic being
> can't do it, and pointing to the computers that we
> build which only learn to a limited degree to show
> that some deterministic systems don't learn.
Learning is not the issue. Fundamental contact with reality is the
issue.
> I left the first of your claims above as an
> example, so lets look at it. We have a deterministic
> system which is determined by a goal, in this case
> to mimic the beings around it. So they make certain
> sounds our deterministic being (lets call it a baby)
> makes certain sounds. When the sounds match the people
> around it act in a way that makes the baby happy, they
> gather round they coo at it, etc. The baby now has
> an incentive to do what it just did, and so learns to
> repeat those sounds. In contrast, when it makes the
> wrong sounds it does not get this positive feedback
> and so continues trying to make new sounds until it
> hits on the ones that give it the positive feedback.
> In other words, positive feedback determines repetition
> of correct sounds, lack of positive feedback decreases
> the chances of repitions of incorrect sounds. The result
> will be that a deterministic creature will learn language,
> In fact babies learn language faster before the period
> where it makes sense to attribute free will to them.
> At that stage language acquisition is clearly a
> deterministic process.
Of course, we could just as well construct such a being the opposite
way around.
> I suppose you could argue that this still supports
> free will. It is true that learning goes fastest when
> there is no free will, but maybe the difficulty in
> learning later on is due to the fact that now the person
> is handicapped by having free will get in the way. I
> will leave it to you to decide if you wish to pursue
> such an argument. But the argument you are pursuing
> begins with a false premise. (And pretty much ends there
> too).
My argument has nothing to do with learning or speed of learning. It
has to do with validity of construction. A deterministic being, if
misconstructed, can never do anything in principle to fix it. A computer
coded with '10 print "2+2=5"' will never print anything else and to the
extent that it can do so, it will be operating correctly.
On the other hand, there are no philosophical limitations to a being
with free will provided it meets a certain minimum criterion. Our genes
limit us? We can change them. Our brains limit us? We can extend them.
But my fundamental argument is definitely not about learning. It's that
a determined being can be 'misconstructed' easily and, in principle,
cannot fix the defects if it is not constructed to do so. (For a very
clear exposition of this argument, see Nathaniel Branden's 'The
Contradiction of Determinism', The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963.)
DS
marlon
56...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Free will is not real and that's why assumptions, behaviors, and
> philosophies based on it don't lead to joy, fulfillment and happiness to
> complaints about Objectivism but I think it works better when adjusted for
> with science. Determinism as an understanding leads to freedom, joy, and
> happiness. Free will leads to judgementality and all its ramifications.
> I've put down a few of my thoughts on it here. This is in no way
> comprehensive or complete.
What strikes me odd is that you *need* to feel all thouse things,
ofcourse to some point this is good, but if you were to disregard
feelings like blame and shame then it would make learning impossible.
> With determinism, we are free to feel great almost all of the time. Here's
> a few reasons why:
>
> 1) If we are deterministic, then everyone is doing their absolute best at
> all times without fail. That means no one should feel blame, shame,
> guilt or remorse for anything. I'm not saying we don't need prisons or that
> there should be no consequences for anti-social behavior. I'm saying let
> yourself feel the inner peace of accepting reality: everyone is doing their
> absolute best at all times.
Yes and even if it all goes to hell, everyone is happy and holding
hands. Thinking that they did their best, they wouldnt *learn*
anything.
> 3) If we are deterministic, then it is foolish to emotionally resist the
> reality of what others think, say or do because it is as stupid as resisting
> the reality that a tree fell over and crushed the dog house.
That in it's self was foolish. Everyone *is* then - to some extent -
they think.
> 4) Free will brings the notion that we need to be perfect: that we should
> have known better, should have done better, that we "deserve" to feel
> guilty, that we "deserve" to feel bad. Its a crock of shit with no basis in
> science or reality that I can see.
This is called LEARNING.
> 5) Free will tells us that its okay, right, and correct to blame others, to
> be angry toward others, to retaliate against others, on and on into
> limitless negativity.
Well... a wiseman learns from other peoples mistakes.
To blame is humain to forgive is divine.
marlon
People are raised and thought to do the right thing.
Free Will
Is to guestion the teaching.
(To the first message)
Emotion
If you would feel only good things, then how would you know it was good?
Lon
D...@webmaster.com>...
> Lon wrote:
>
> > David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message news:<3CAEB6DD.26828
> > D...@webmaster.com>...
> >
> has to do with validity of construction. A deterministic being, if
> misconstructed, can never do anything in principle to fix it. A computer
> coded with '10 print "2+2=5"' will never print anything else and to the
> extent that it can do so, it will be operating correctly.
>
> On the other hand, there are no philosophical limitations to a being
> with free will provided it meets a certain minimum criterion. Our genes
> limit us? We can change them. Our brains limit us? We can extend them.
>
> But my fundamental argument is definitely not about learning. It's that
> a determined being can be 'misconstructed' easily and, in principle,
> cannot fix the defects if it is not constructed to do so. (For a very
> clear exposition of this argument, see Nathaniel Branden's 'The
> Contradiction of Determinism', The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1963.)
is true. If we imagine that there exists a being which
is so constructed that all of the factors that determine
its behaviour lead it to reason poorly, then it will
reason poorly. And if that same being is imagined
to have free will then it will be possible in some
weak sense for it to reason correctly. Similarly
if that being takes those deterministic faculties
and then adds a random factor in it will be possible
in that same weak sense for it to reason correctly
(although in this last case it is clearly unlikely
and in the middle class there is nothing which makes
it likely)
Of course it is also true that it is possible for
a deterministic being to be constructed such that it
reasons well. And if the same being is imagined to
have free will then it will be possible at least in
that same weak sense for it to reason incorrectly. And
again if it adds a random element it may reason
incorrectly.
It is not clear whether you mean to be offering
a claim that the level of reason that one finds in
the world is incompatible with determinism, or whether
one would be more likely to reason well if one has
free will than if one does not. But your argument
does not show either of these things. Taking the main
argument to be the second of these things, the relevant
factors would be how likely is it for nature to produce
well constructed machines, and how likely is it for
it to produce poorly constructed machines. The other
relevant factor will be not whether it is possible for
free will to make one reason better, but whether there
is any reason to believe that it actually would make
one reason better. Since you have not yet given any
content to your notion of free will to make things
concrete I will use random decision making as the
stand in, until you give some explanation of why one
should expect the influence of free will to act
otherwise.
If one simply takes mechanisms to exist at random,
then since there are so many ways to reason poorly
and limited ways to reason well, we should expect
that most mechanism would be poorly constructed.
If we added to this a random decision process, then
most cases we will have poorly constructed machines
reasoning poorly. We will have limited cases of
poorly constructed machines happening to reason
well. Among our well constructed machines most
will reason poorly because of the random factor.
A negligable number would reason well because it
is well constucted and is fortunate in its random
decision making. The net result would be that
it wouldn't make much difference which type we had
neither would be likely to reason well.
Are there any reasons to think that actual things
created by nature will reason better than this? In
the case of the random factors there is not much to
do because they are random. But with the determinist
aspects there are reasons to think that actual
beings would tend to reason better because they
did not develop randomly, but rather were shaped
by reality. This is generally known as the theory
of evolution, and it gives good reasons for believing
that well constructed mechanisms will survive while
poorly constructed mechanisms will not. Mechanisms
which are not responsive to reality will not pass on
their genetic structure, while those that are responsive
to reality will. This means that while it is true
that it is likely that many poorly constructed
mechanisms have been created, they were not likely
to survive, and so in a deterministic world we should
expect good reasoning to develop. The addition of
a random element will not help although it is possible
that if it is weak enough it will not necessarily lead
to the construct's death.
I know that you want to insist that your version of
free will is not mere randomness. But unless you
actually give a reason for thinking this that goes
beyond a new ageish free your mind, your brain is
a hindrance, there is no reason to believe that this
will be a problem.
Note that it is precisely because reality is what
determines evolution that we have reason to expect
reason to develop accurately in a deterministic world.
To the degree that your decisions are not determined
by reality, why should a disconnect from reality help
one reason better?
Lon
> DS
Jim Klein
news:f200c1dc.02040...@posting.google.com...
>>Free will is not real
Wow...you mean you didn't choose to write that? Do tell.
It's not that determinism is "superior" to free will; it's that it's
applicable to a far, far wider context. And yes, this means that free will
is technically an instance of determinism, properly understood.
But no, it doesn't therefore mean that it's not "real." The instances
subsumed under Special Relativity are real too; they're just not as
many--as wide a context--as those subsumed under General Relativity.
jk
Winston_H
--
---------------Winston H.
"Jim Klein" <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a91lqp$c0e$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...