Free-will or determinism - a question.

[Sriram]

If we take Nature as an independent and isolated system....everything has to be determined. Initial conditions determine final outcomes and all that. Fine!

But if Nature is not isolated and there is interference from Consciousness, then we have a combination of determination and intervention. Like making canals to and from a river.....or even a new river path itself.    We can divert the water where we want.

Some scientists have told us that consciousness could determine the working of the universe (refer other threads please). All the emergent properties and complexities in organisms need not be predetermined by the initial conditions during the Big Bang.  They could be induced by consciousness at various stages. 

I know many people think of consciousness itself as a emergent property of biological evolution....but that is the area of contention.

[Stranger]

It refers to the simple logic that if there is nothing but material reactions, there can be no freedom of any sort because everything will be entirely pre determined.

 

Back to your usual mindless mantra. The logic I gave in #1 didn't mention 'material' or 'physical' because they are irrelevant to the LOGIC.

You have been corrected on this multiple times, it's been explained multiple times. You have never once offered a coherent counterargument - you just repeat your foolish mantra about physical or material cause and effect with all the insight and intelligence of a poorly programmed robot (ironically).

If you're going to join this argument again - then tackle the actual logic. If you don't understand it, ask questions and don't pretend that you do.

If you think that the addition of 'physical' or 'material' constitutes a counterargument, then you don't understand it.

[Stranger]

If we take Nature as an independent and isolated system....everything has to be determined. Initial conditions determine final outcomes and all that. Fine!

But if Nature is not isolated and there is interference from Consciousness, then we have a combination of determination and intervention.

You (like Alan) seem to be neglecting the fact that consciousness (even if it isn't part of 'Nature') has to work somehow. Conscious choices are events that are either fully determined by their logical antecedents (within the consciousness in question or its inputs) or not, and if not the remaining choice between alternatives must be random (because that's what not determined means).

Imagining consciousness is not part of 'Nature' doesn't change the logic.

[Juan Toomany]

Hi - I don't thnk we've met before.
True, but we'd still have limited free-will.

It's quite a while since I've been here and good to see the enthusiasm is still here, not to mention the members.

However small  or insignificant or whimsical the impulse to make a choice still means that the choice was not Free. There must be something that tips the balance in favor of that choice, i.e. a cause.

It is very hard to imagine the mental process that could select one option from another (or many) that wasn't influenced in any way (why select any).

Regards Juan

[torridon]

Good to see you back again Juan 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some scientists have told us that consciousness could determine the working of the universe (refer other threads please). All the emergent properties and complexities in organisms need not be predetermined by the initial conditions during the Big Bang.  They could be induced by consciousness at various stages. 

Good Morning to you.
This caught my eye since how reductionists treat emergence is one of my big bug bears.
Obviously as an Abrahamic monotheist I am going to identify the consciousness as divine consciousness.
The problem the reductionist has is that her philosophy has been geared to the location and arrangement of the basic particles of nature. As I see it this cannot possibly describe the process of emergence.

For me the very term emergence demands both an emergence out of something vis the previous organisational level and into something quite different,

The picture I carry then is intelligence emerges, somehow becomes consciousness, which is no longer mere consciousness but this consciousness emerges into a consciousness environment. Thus knowledge of God who has always been conscious is possible.

I can then identify your idea of ''induction by consciousness'' as akin to ''Divine intervention. I would be interested in how you feel about this.

Finally emergence for me is a problem for a philosophical reductionism since emergence of novelty is a problem for reductionism as it is a problem for determinism.

Reductionists I think get round it in two ways either to deny novel emergences like Dennett with consciousness or pass the emergent property off as a souped up version of the previous organisational level eg if we just stoke on a bit more intelligence it will look like consciousness.

[ekim]

Those hopes. fears and preferences are the founding material from which our conscious choices are formed;  we cannot choose those preferences, we act on them.  The higher order feeling of control is an artefact of our psychology.

Perhaps what Alan is getting at is that many desires which form the 'founding material' are subconscious drivers which can imprison the individual, but by becoming conscious of them one can become free of the compulsion to always act the same way.  You may like chocolate, a like over which you have no control, but if you are consciously free to moderate your desire for it you could prevent it becoming a subconscious addiction and imprison you.  The same could be said about compulsive thoughts, thinking patterns and concepts.  If you are aware (conscious) of them then you have the possibility of being free from those attachments i.e. consciousness free from those attachments allows the will to act or not act more freely.

[torridon]

Perhaps what Alan is getting at is that many desires which form the 'founding material' are subconscious drivers which can imprison the individual, but by becoming conscious of them one can become free of the compulsion to always act the same way.  You may like chocolate, a like over which you have no control, but if you are consciously free to moderate your desire for it you could prevent it becoming a subconscious addiction and imprison you.  The same could be said about compulsive thoughts, thinking patterns and concepts.  If you are aware (conscious) of them then you have the possibility of being free from those attachments i.e. consciousness free from those attachments allows the will to act or not act more freely.

Taken from the pages of self help manuals and psychology textbooks perhaps, well yes, that all makes some sense within that context and within that level of conceptualisation.  It all still comes down to more primitive fundamentals at some point however; even if we do summon up the willpower to override previously unhelpful impulses, to 'free' ourselves from them, it just means that our desire to override dysfunctional habits has become stronger than our desire to indulge them.  We are still acting on our defacto preference at any moment of choice.

[Sriram]

Good Morning to you.
This caught my eye since how reductionists treat emergence is one of my big bug bears.
Obviously as an Abrahamic monotheist I am going to identify the consciousness as divine consciousness.
The problem the reductionist has is that her philosophy has been geared to the location and arrangement of the basic particles of nature. As I see it this cannot possibly describe the process of emergence.

For me the very term emergence demands both an emergence out of something vis the previous organisational level and into something quite different,

The picture I carry then is intelligence emerges, somehow becomes consciousness, which is no longer mere consciousness but this consciousness emerges into a consciousness environment. Thus knowledge of God who has always been conscious is possible.

I can then identify your idea of ''induction by consciousness'' as akin to ''Divine intervention. I would be interested in how you feel about this.

Finally emergence for me is a problem for a philosophical reductionism since emergence of novelty is a problem for reductionism as it is a problem for determinism.

Reductionists I think get round it in two ways either to deny novel emergences like Dennett with consciousness or pass the emergent property off as a souped up version of the previous organisational level eg if we just stoke on a bit more intelligence it will look like consciousness.

'Divine' consciousness is fine. No problem. What you call divine, some others would call as higher consciousness. Its about how we perceive it rather than what it really is....because what is beyond that we have no idea.

Once we  agree on external intervention into the physical world.....then it goes beyond our reasoning and logic...because we have no idea what laws if any, that the external force is subject to.  Does not matter what we call it.

[Stranger]

Once we  agree on external intervention into the physical world.....then it goes beyond our reasoning and logic...because we have no idea what laws if any, that the external force is subject to.

It doesn't have to be logical - it's magic, innit.     

[Alan Burns]

Back to your usual mindless mantra. The logic I gave in #1 didn't mention 'material' or 'physical' because they are irrelevant to the LOGIC.

You have been corrected on this multiple times, it's been explained multiple times. You have never once offered a coherent counterargument - you just repeat your foolish mantra about physical or material cause and effect with all the insight and intelligence of a poorly programmed robot (ironically).

If you're going to join this argument again - then tackle the actual logic. If you don't understand it, ask questions and don't pretend that you do.

If you think that the addition of 'physical' or 'material' constitutes a counterargument, then you don't understand it.

Of course I understand what you are saying, but can you not discern a potential difference between physical determinism, defined entirely by the aimless nature of scientific laws and material properties, and non-physical determinism which is driven by something outside nature and is not constrained by the uncontrollable forces of nature.

The enormous creative potential within every human being offers ample evidence that the driving forces behind this potential come from a source which is not restricted to the outcome of the aimless uncontrollable forces of nature.

[Stranger]

Of course I understand what you are saying, but can you not discern a potential difference between physical determinism, defined entirely by the aimless nature of scientific laws and material properties, and non-physical determinism which is driven by something outside nature and is not constrained by the uncontrollable forces of nature.

Once again you show that you don't understand what determinism means.

Unlike you, I'm going to explain what I mean when I say you don't understand, rather than just make a baseless claim that you don't "discern a potential difference".

Determinism is a logical property of a system. Any system at all can have the property or not.

It is not a statement about the physical universe which may or may not be deterministic.

A system is deterministic if the logical antecedents (all the reasons why it happened) of any event fully specify that event and could not have resulted in any other event.

Now - if the logical antecedents of an event do not define just one outcome, but rather a range of possible outcomes, then the choice between those outcomes cannot be for any reason at all (otherwise it would have been included in the antecedents). Something that happens for not reason at all is random.

So - to the extent a system (any system at all - physical or otherwise) is not deterministic, it is random.

Your post does not address this at all. Your claim of understanding obviously untrue.

[Alan Burns]

Once again you show that you don't understand what determinism means.

Unlike you, I'm going to explain what I mean when I say you don't understand, rather than just make a baseless claim that you don't "discern a potential difference".

Determinism is a logical property of a system. Any system at all can have the property or not.

It is not a statement about the physical universe which may or may not be deterministic.

A system is deterministic if the logical antecedents (all the reasons why it happened) of any event fully specify that event and could not have resulted in any other event.

Now - if the logical antecedents of an event do not define just one outcome, but rather a range of possible outcomes, then the choice between those outcomes cannot be for any reason at all (otherwise it would have been included in the antecedents). Something that happens for not reason at all is random.

So - to the extent a system (any system at all - physical or otherwise) is not deterministic, it is random.

Your post does not address this at all. Your claim of understanding obviously untrue.

I must agree with Kant in his criticism of the compatibalist view that free will and determinism are compatible - they are not and the explanations just amount to word garbage.  The fact is that we are free to think about how things ought to be rather than just contemplate how things are. This is nothing at all to do with random but everything to do with our freedom to think.

[Stranger]

I must agree with Kant in his criticism of the compatibalist view that free will and determinism are compatible - they are not and the explanations just amount to word garbage.

In what way do you think this is a reply to my post that you quoted?

Once again, you're running away from addressing the logic. Whether or not you think compatibilism is correct, you still can't escape the fact that to the extent a system is not deterministic, it is random.

The fact is that we are free to think about how things ought to be rather than just contemplate how things are.

In what way is that ability not compatible with determinism?

This is nothing at all to do with random but everything to do with our freedom to think.

Then address the logic that only leaves you only randomness or determinism.

[Alan Burns]

It's quite a while since I've been here and good to see the enthusiasm is still here, not to mention the members.

However small  or insignificant or whimsical the impulse to make a choice still means that the choice was not Free. There must be something that tips the balance in favor of that choice, i.e. a cause.

It is very hard to imagine the mental process that could select one option from another (or many) that wasn't influenced in any way (why select any).

Regards Juan

But if our apparent choices are bound by the deterministic nature of our universe, they are not choices at all but inevitable reactions.  The key to this is to discover what comprises the "something that tips the balance in favour of that choice".  Does it derive from something outside the physical chains of cause and effect which only the laws of nature control?  To understand what tips the balance we must understand what comprises conscious perception, and this property still defies any material definition.

[Stranger]

But if our apparent choices are bound the deterministic nature of our universe, they are not choices at all but inevitable reactions.  The key to this is to discover what comprises the "something that tips the balance in favour of that choice".  Does it derive from something outside the physical chains of cause and effect which only the laws of nature control?  To understand what tips the balance we must understand what comprises conscious perception, and this property still defies any material definition.

Why are you continuing with this blatant dishonesty?

• It is by no means certain that the universe has a "deterministic nature".
  
  
• Saying "outside the physical chains of cause" is an utterly dishonest qualification - something is either the result of deterministic "cause and effect" or not - physical has bugger all to do with it.
  
  
• Saying that "conscious perception" "defies any material definition" is blantantly dishonest because it implies you have an alternative that isn't physical - which you haven't.

You clearly don't care about truth and honesty...

[Nearly Sane]

Why are you continuing with this blatant dishonesty?

• It is by no means certain that the universe has a "deterministic nature".
  
  
• Saying "outside the physical chains of cause" is an utterly dishonest qualification - something is either the result of deterministic "cause and effect" or not - physical has bugger all to do with it.
  
  
• Saying that "conscious perception" "defies any material definition" is blantantly dishonest because it implies you have an alternative that isn't physical - which you haven't.

You clearly don't care about truth and honesty...

As ever with Alan, I doubt that he's dishonest - just not thinking logically

[ekim]

Taken from the pages of self help manuals and psychology textbooks perhaps, well yes, that all makes some sense within that context and within that level of conceptualisation.  It all still comes down to more primitive fundamentals at some point however; even if we do summon up the willpower to override previously unhelpful impulses, to 'free' ourselves from them, it just means that our desire to override dysfunctional habits has become stronger than our desire to indulge them.  We are still acting on our defacto preference at any moment of choice.

Perhaps that is as free as it gets ... consciously choosing the desire to willingly expand beyond self imposed boundaries rather than subconsciously succumb to will-lessly being imprisoned by them or to wilfully reinforcing that prison.  It may be that those who cannot see that possibility are imprisoned by the gravitational pull of their strongly held beliefs.

[Stranger]

As ever with Alan, I doubt that he's dishonest - just not thinking logically

You may be right but I simply cannot grasp how somebody can have an argument put to them that undermines what they're saying, obviously have no counterargument, and yet continue to repeat the same stuff as if it's never been put to them. Not without a basic disregard for honesty, anyway.

I also don't see how the continued use of "no material definition" (by which I assume he means 'explanation') can be honest, when he obviously doesn't have any definition/explanation at all and hasn't presented an argument that could rule out the material.

[Nearly Sane]

You may be right but I simply cannot grasp how somebody can have an argument put to them that undermines what they're saying, obviously have no counterargument, and yet continue to repeat the same stuff as if it's never been put to them. Not without a basic disregard for honesty, anyway.

I also don't see how the continued use of "no material definition" (by which I assume he means 'explanation') can be honest, when he obviously doesn't have any definition/explanation at all and hasn't presented an argument that could rule out the material.

And I don't see how he can think like that either but it appears that he does, I did a post - link below - tp raise aspects of this where I don't feel that Alan and I perceive things on certain areas in the same way

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13903.msg673953#msg673953

[Juan Toomany]

Good to see you back again Juan 

Thanks Torridon. I don't get as much time as I had before so I expect my visits will be sporadic.

Regards Juan

[Alan Burns]

You may be right but I simply cannot grasp how somebody can have an argument put to them that undermines what they're saying, obviously have no counterargument, and yet continue to repeat the same stuff as if it's never been put to them. Not without a basic disregard for honesty, anyway.

I also don't see how the continued use of "no material definition" (by which I assume he means 'explanation') can be honest, when he obviously doesn't have any definition/explanation at all and hasn't presented an argument that could rule out the material.

I thought it was obvious that I was implying that it is the spiritual power of the human soul that offers an alternative, more feasible explanation to a material definition of self awareness and free will.

[torridon]

I thought it was obvious that I was implying that it is the spiritual power of the human soul that offers an alternative, more feasible explanation to a material definition of self awareness and free will.

Given there's no evidence for spiritual souls, it's a bit of a non-starter, and given that the vast majority of creatures manage to make choices without this soul, it's spurious, and given that just adding 'spiritual' into the context does not make an incoherent claim into a coherent one, it is a pointless exercise anyway.  This is just escapism, you use baseless irrational fantasy beliefs as cover in a prolonged exercise in avoidance when by now you could be learning through observation and engagement.

[Stranger]

I thought it was obvious that I was implying that it is the spiritual power of the human soul that offers an alternative, more feasible explanation to a material definition of self awareness and free will.

Except that "spiritual power of the human soul" is just a string of words without any concrete meaning, it is not a counterargument to the one I presented, and it certainly does not excuse you from what appears to be a blatant disregard for truth and honesty.

Even if we were to imagine for a moment that there is something non-physical that we might label with your words, it still doesn't offer an alternative way in which decisions can be made that isn't some combination of determinism and randomness.

Once again for the hard-of-thinking: the argument is LOGICAL and assumes only that the system involved is subject to logic, NOT that it is physical.

We are also still left with your dishonest use of the phrase "...we must understand what comprises conscious perception, and this property still defies any material definition". When you haven't actually got any understanding or 'definition' of it yourself and you haven't ruled out a material understanding or 'definition'.

Can you not understand that the implication that a material understanding is impossible and that you have an alternative understanding amounts to dishonesty?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Material determinism has nothing to say about morality although it is used to deny human moral responsibility.
If determinism is at base concerned with the movement of basic particles and their arrangements then determinism can only describe the behaviour of those not the morality. That therefore has to be determined independent of material determinism.
That means morality is akin to say maths or the scientific method unchanged by material processes but manifestly governed by their own internal rules which are proved by experience.
Material determinists have no warrant to comment on moral responsibility.