Determinism Revisited

[Brandon]

Another thought:

Defenders of free will often cite man's "inherent feeling of freedom" as if it is, and always has been, a fundamental part of being human. But why do we assume that this "feeling of freedom" is itself not a conditioned response? After all, from a very early age, we are constantly told by parents, religious officials, and authority figures that we are free and totally responsible.

And if it were such a "natural" feeling, why is that many, if not all of the earliest peoples were fatalistic in their worldview?

[mburbank]

" The point is that it remains a viable theory for showing how determinism could work with quantum mechanics."

A mathematical formula which contains an unknown which would solve the equation is not a viable theory, is is a problem.

The hidden variable is "A number so that we could distinguish when an electron is a wave and when it is a particle".

Burbank's theory of faster than light travel, ie. FTL = CX, or Faster Than Light travel equals the Speed of Light times an unknown number which when multiplied by the speed of light results in a number greater than the speed of light is not a theory, it is a problem. Theories can at some future point or at VERY least in thought expiriments be tested. You can test E=MC2.


"How can quantum events that are observed be compared to quantum events that are not observed for such a conclusion to be drawn?"

To date you cannot observe any quantum events, only their after effects. No one has ever seen an atom, let alone an electron or a quark. You theorize their existance based on their observable effects, like Brownian motion.

"Show me the evidence"
I'm arguing for unpredictability, not predictability. There is no burden of proof at all. You CAN'T prove a negative. Determinism depends utterly on a predicatble, mechanical universe.

It's easy to see why determinism appeals to you, as you are the philisophical equivalent of a clockwork dog.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

A mathematical formula which contains an unknown which would solve the equation is not a viable theory, is is a problem.

The hidden variable is "A number so that we could distinguish when an electron is a wave and when it is a particle".

It is a viable theory for purposes of explanation.

Burbank's theory of faster than light travel, ie. FTL = CX, or Faster Than Light travel equals the Speed of Light times an unknown number which when multiplied by the speed of light results in a number greater than the speed of light is not a theory, it is a problem. Theories can at some future point or at VERY least in thought expiriments be tested. You can test E=MC2.

You don't understand why nothing can be faster than light. It would require an infinite mass.

To date you cannot observe any quantum events, only their after effects. No one has ever seen an atom, let alone an electron or a quark. You theorize their existance based on their observable effects, like Brownian motion.

That is irrelevant to your argument. It provides no support for the statement that mere observation alters the effects.

I'm arguing for unpredictability, not predictability. There is no burden of proof at all. You CAN'T prove a negative. Determinism depends utterly on a predicatble, mechanical universe.

Quantum results are still predictable, they simply are not deterministic; rather, they are probabilistic. That is no more "unpredictable" than, say, genetical results between two parents.

You CAN prove a negative. Consider mathematics. 2+2=5 can be disproven by the very axioms which mathematics is built upon. One could object to the axioms - but once this is done, you will realize that nothing can be proven.

It is theoretically impossible for science to create knowledge of any kind because it rests upon principles of induction.

It's easy to see why determinism appeals to you, as you are the philisophical equivalent of a clockwork dog.

No, it's not. AB pointed out that it makes it hard for me to justify libertarianism.

[kellychaos]

Sure, there may be some elaborate form of determinism at work but you know what? There are too many factors inolved that extend infinitely in time in space, forward and backward, that it is way beyond the capacity for my intellect to grasp it all. In other words, it feels like free will and that's good enough for me.

[mburbank]

You know what, OAO? You don't get what I'm saying, you don't even accept the possability that somebody might know more about something than you do and you start your arguments with the ironclad assumption you are already right. There is no uncertainty that argument with you is pointless.

Two things for you to go back and concider.

I already know that faster than light speed is impossible and I already know why. If that was my point, what was I saying to you? To be more direct, anyone can win any argument if hidden variable X= that thing which will make me win the argument.


Disproving 2+2=5 is not proving a negative, it is disproving a statement. Don't you have teachers? Or have the found your prancing so deterimental to the other students they have asked you to remain silent?

[theapportioner]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Another thought:

Defenders of free will often cite man's "inherent feeling of freedom" as if it is, and always has been, a fundamental part of being human. But why do we assume that this "feeling of freedom" is itself not a conditioned response? After all, from a very early age, we are constantly told by parents, religious officials, and authority figures that we are free and totally responsible.

And if it were such a "natural" feeling, why is that many, if not all of the earliest peoples were fatalistic in their worldview?

Interesting question. I think one has to distinguish feelings from worldviews (which are certainly not feelings). I'm not sure how to "feel" determined, especially as you said, determining causation is very problematic. If the sensation of a "free" conscious will is an emotion of some sort, then it's innate. (Like you can modulate happiness but you don't "teach" someone that happiness).

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Interesting question. I think one has to distinguish feelings from worldviews (which are certainly not feelings). I'm not sure how to "feel" determined, especially as you said, determining causation is very problematic. If the sensation of a "free" conscious will is an emotion of some sort, then it's innate. (Like you can modulate happiness but you don't "teach" someone that happiness).

True.

But I have to wonder--is that "feeling of freedom" really a gut feeling or just a common assumption we hold? Do we really feel as free as we say we do?

[Perndog]

I'm with Max on this one. Either we have free will or we're programmed to believe we do.

In the first case, my own philosophy already strongly advocates personal responsibility.

If, however, personal responsibility is false because everything is determined, then I don't really have a choice of what I want to believe. So if I were to decide that determinism really is true, I could stick to the same philosophy confident that it's not my decision - it's just a product of physical causes.

[kellychaos]

Isn't worrying about whether life is hinged on "free will" an argument made in vain, anyway? If all the infinite amount of causes in the universe determine your fate, to include the conditioning that gives you that feeling of "free will", then what difference is there to Joe Sixpack in the falsity of this belief? People base their whole lives on false beliefs of many kinds. One example is that of the various religions. Only one of them can be correct ... maybe not even one ... yet people live productive lives based a variety of false religions. The fact that the idea of free will stems from various religions is an interesting dichotomy in itself. The opposing (to me) ideas seem to keep each other in check. What would life of earth be like with no religions ("imagine there's no heaven") and, yet, everyone believed in free will ... keeping in mind the limits of our mortality. Would the general population just go insane with the knowledge that they have free reign to do anything yet they only have a limited amount of time to do this "anything". Actually, I don't think so. For some reason, people always invent some kind of morality to reel themselves in no matter if religion is involved. Nietzche may not agree with me but I don't think that it's religion that reigns us in so much as ourselves and the seemingly innate intellectual structure of "The Golden Rule".

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

Isn't worrying about whether life is hinged on "free will" an argument made in vain, anyway? If all the infinite amount of causes in the universe determine your fate, to include the conditioning that gives you that feeling of "free will", then what difference is there to Joe Sixpack in the falsity of this belief? People base their whole lives on false beliefs of many kinds. One example is that of the various religions. Only one of them can be correct ... maybe not even one ... yet people live productive lives based a variety of false religions. The fact that the idea of free will stems from various religions is an interesting dichotomy in itself. The opposing (to me) ideas seem to keep each other in check. What would life of earth be like with no religions ("imagine there's no heaven") and, yet, everyone believed in free will ... keeping in mind the limits of our mortality. Would the general population just go insane with the knowledge that they have free reign to do anything yet they only have a limited amount of time to do this "anything". Actually, I don't think so. For some reason, people always invent some kind of morality to reel themselves in no matter if religion is involved. Nietzche may not agree with me but I don't think that it's religion that reigns us in so much as ourselves and the seemingly innate intellectual structure of "The Golden Rule".

Arguing in vain? I couldn't disagree more. I feel that it's just the opposite--one of the most important issues in philosophy.

It's important because our entire justice system is set up on the premise of free will--the idea that people can freely choose and, as such, are responsible for each and every one of their actions (unless of course, utter insanity can be proven). If free will is an illusion, "justice" and "responsibility" are also illusions. Punishment for punishment's sake, then, should be done away with, and "moral lapses" would require treatment and reconditioning instead. The common man can go on believing in free will for as long as he wants, but people who know better shouldn't let that illusion influence the way we set up society.

Also, you may have misinterpreted Nietzsche. He believed that while morals were subjective, human creations, they were still vitally important to the structure of a society. He criticized certain religions (particularly Christianity), however, for indoctrinating western society with morals that were life-denying, meaning they went against the grain of what is in the best interest of humanity. He felt we needed to create a new morality, a re-valuation of values that would glorify pride, strength, instinct, and sexuality.

He wasn't even against religion per se, so long as said religion was a reflection of life-affirming values. Pagan polytheism, for example.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I already know that faster than light speed is impossible and I already know why. If that was my point, what was I saying to you? To be more direct, anyone can win any argument if hidden variable X= that thing which will make me win the argument.

Then you are guilty of commiting a false analogy. Variable X is a possibility, while the variable for past-light speed is impossible.

Disproving 2+2=5 is not proving a negative, it is disproving a statement. Don't you have teachers? Or have the found your prancing so deterimental to the other students they have asked you to remain silent?

Negative - Logic. Designating a proposition that denies agreement between a subject and its predicate.

Therefore, the statement "2+2 is not equal to 4" is, by definition, a disproven negative.

[Brandon]

Something else I've noticed:

We all agree with determinism when it comes to our dealings with other people. We manipulate, influence, and condition one another on an almost daily basis.

Take, for example, asking for a favor. We approach the person at an appropriate time, we make sure our question is in the proper tone of voice, and we phrase it in just such a way as to increase the odds of a positive answer.

But we always think it's different when it comes to oursleves, don't we? "Nothing controls me. I have free will."

[The One and Only...]

You are confusing accepting determinism with accepting personality.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

You are confusing accepting determinism with accepting personality.

Personality is a form of determinism.

[The One and Only...]

Why? Free will is not synonymous with unpredictability.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Why? Free will is not synonymous with unpredictability.

What the hell are you trying to say?

Personality is a component of determinism because it influences behavior and decisions.

[The One and Only...]

Personality is merely the observable result of our behavior and decisions. It comes from them, rather than influences them.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Personality is merely the observable result of our behavior and decisions. It comes from them, rather than influences them.

Even you know that's a bullshit statement. Not only does it contradict what psychological research has told us, but it stands in contrast to your earlier claim that you are an "introvert by nature."

[The One and Only...]

You read to much into such statements.

Psychology can't contradict that. All it can do is observe responses and call consistancies personality traits. It can't prove that personality even exists in the way you define it.

[theapportioner]

It is shocking to me that you are endorsing behaviorism.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

It is shocking to me that you are endorsing behaviorism.

He'll endorse whatever contradicts the person who first contradicted him, even if it doesn't coincide with his ideology. I think he'd rather die than have one of his statements be thought of as wrong.

Oh, and BTW:

Originally Posted by I

We all agree with determinism when it comes to our dealings with other people. We manipulate, influence, and condition one another on an almost daily basis.

Originally Posted by Dickface

You are confusing accepting determinism with accepting personality.

You're really going to have to clarify, because I don't see how that relates to my post in any way.

[sspadowsky]

THis thread still boring?

*cursory glance*

Yep. Sure enough.

[Dole]

And no one acknowledged my shit and obscure-ish joke. Bastards.

[executioneer]

wtf i didn't know that keiko died, what happened last i heard he (she?) was in a cage at iceland getting acclimated to semi-wild conditions

-willie

[The One and Only...]

I don't endorse behaviorism.

You said that we manipulate determinism, but to be more exact, we manipulate people's personalities. I don't see what's so hard to follow.