A challenge to show me wrong

[idav]

If the model is completely accurate, then you can't change the future, because your attempt to change it will fulfill the model's predictions.

This is why I hate those time traveling movies because there logic rarely follows. What would truly happen is that two lines of realities would come about and it would bounce back and forth, one in which you knew you had to change something and one in which there was nothing to change. It would go in circles ad infinitum.

 

[atanu]

I see, your agreeing with polyhedral. I don't quite agree though I understand the problem. This is the problem I have. If a person were oblivious to the future and just acting on pure volition then it is completely deterministic. However once a person knows the future this completely effects the outcome of this future in a way that alters the future. This is also a problem in quantum mechanics where the future is effecting the probability and ultimate destination of an electron. This isn't only a problem on the quantum level because time itself is not just linear.

Future holds key to quantum physics - USATODAY.com

See it this way.

Clark Gable has a contract that he has to finish the role of the thief. Now, even though he knows that he is not a thief, he cannot back out. But knowledge oh his real nature as Clark Gable has removed the pain. There is no pain at all of being a thief.

Similarly, actions intiated and held by the notion of doership will go to end as per natural laws. Mind is not beyond nature. But Self is.

 

[atanu]

I see, your agreeing with polyhedral. I don't quite agree though I understand the problem. This is the problem I have. If a person were oblivious to the future and just acting on pure volition then it is completely deterministic. However once a person knows the future this completely effects the outcome of this future in a way that alters the future. This is also a problem in quantum mechanics where the future is effecting the probability and ultimate destination of an electron. This isn't only a problem on the quantum level because time itself is not just linear.

Future holds key to quantum physics - USATODAY.com

I agree.

See future in respect of Clark Gable -- the real person has changed.

 

[PolyHedral]

This is why I hate those time traveling movies because there logic rarely follows. What would truly happen is that two lines of realities would come about and it would bounce back and forth, one in which you knew you had to change something and one in which there was nothing to change. It would go in circles ad infinitum.

But it's so much easier if you already changed the past before your time travel.

 

[idav]

But it's so much easier if you already changed the past before your time travel.

Thats why I think the Quantum Leap show was on to something. hehe

 

[idav]

See it this way.

Clark Gable has a contract that he has to finish the role of the thief. Now, even though he knows that he is not a thief, he cannot back out. But knowledge oh his real nature as Clark Gable has removed the pain. There is no pain at all of being a thief.

Similarly, actions intiated and held by the notion of doership will go to end as per natural laws. Mind is not beyond nature. But Self is.

Thats interesting but I might need some more coffee if I'm even going to understand how time works in the first place.

 

[atanu]

It is not possible to change an ongoing natural script. Natural laws will not allow that. Suppose, in the script, one's grandfather died two years back. Can you get him back (physically) in future? I think no.

 

[atanu]

Thats interesting but I might need some more coffee if I'm even going to understand how time works in the first place.

If you are in the realm of altering time you are not in natural realm.

 

[PolyHedral]

It is not possible to change an ongoing natural script. Natural laws will not allow that. Suppose, in the script, one's grandfather died two years back. Can you get him back (physically) in future? I think no.

Depends how he died. Did he disappear under mysterious circumstances?

 

[Willamena]

(Depends on the future scientists, too.)

 

[atanu]

This is why I hate those time traveling movies because there logic rarely follows. What would truly happen is that two lines of realities would come about and it would bounce back and forth, one in which you knew you had to change something and one in which there was nothing to change. It would go in circles ad infinitum.

A story called 'The Story of Leela' is the centrepiece of ancient scripture called 'Yoga Vasista'. The characters in the story travel through time back and forth and also at different speeds.

But each time realm is in a different consciousness layer and happenings in a layer do not clash with happenings in another layer, even when a character moves from one to another realm and finds a duplicate.

The Yoga Vasista is timeless. If you ever get a chance to read a translation of it, then do so. You will enjoy.

 

[idav]

A story called 'The Story of Leela' is the centrepiece of ancient scripture called 'Yoga Vasista'. The characters in the story travel through time back and forth and also at different speeds.

But each time realm is in a different consciousness layer and happenings in a layer do not clash with happenings in another layer, even when a character moves from one to another realm and finds a duplicate.

The Yoga Vasista is timeless. If you ever get a chance to read a translation of it, then do so. You will enjoy.

I will have to check that out sometime, thanks.

 

[Kenny]

As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than Robbie the Robot, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If I have no freedom of choice how can I be blamed for what I do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Forgetting the Christian comment, as you said, it is almost always regarded as a give.

Any exception to free will is seen as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't at all what the issue of free will is about. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think a decent working definition of "free will" is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished.

Good on this one.

Those who most disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused then we could not have done differently, therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic level: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice," "choosing,"chosen," or any other form of the word.

Here we begin to find agreement as well as disagreement.

Good definition on determinism.

Problem: You say that we need to "get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want." yet at the same time you state "Free will is an illusion" which would be equally wrong because you assume the position to be true. You go on to say "Fee will is an illusion". A statement as if it were true yet not proven.

Thus to say "no use of 'choice et al'", is to construct a parameter of your own choosing without really establishing that it is wrong.

Here's how I see it.
There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate, completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that negate any randomness.

Your basic take of two ways of actions is, in essence, correct. Those are two ways of actions to take place. However, we haven't established that it is complete. With people IMV there is a possibility of four - (regardless if my list is wrong the point is that you stated two as if there are no other possibilities. An incorrect position.)

1) Random action - result is not caused (dice)
2) Caused action - we can determine a cause (We were hungry and, with no food in the house, we went to a restaurant)
3) A random action that enabled created a caused action (An accident that just happen to have happened in front of you and you stopped to help)
4) A caused action that created a random act (A car speeding that eventually hit another car. Random in that you don't know which car he will hit)

To continue commenting on the rest of your statements would be wrong because if the initial position was flawed, then we are continuing a discussion based on a faulty foundation.

 

[Skwim]

Problem: You say that we need to "get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want." yet at the same time you state "Free will is an illusion" which would be equally wrong because you assume the position to be true. You go on to say "Fee will is an illusion".A statement as if it were true yet not proven.

which I immediately followed with "But before going into why . . . ." Meaning I would give you the reason in a moment, which I did by showing that all such notions of action are a false concept. To say in argument for freewill that one can choose assumes freewill to be true, the very thing you're trying to prove.

Your basic take of two ways of actions is, in essence, correct. Those are two ways of actions to take place. However, we haven't established that it is complete. With people IMV there is a possibility of four - (regardless if my list is wrong the point is that you stated two as if there are no other possibilities. An incorrect position.)

1) Random action - result is not caused (dice)

2) Caused action - we can determine a cause (We were hungry and, with no food in the house, we went to a restaurant)
3) A random action that enabled created a caused action (An accident that just happen to have happened in front of you and you stopped to help)
4) A caused action that created a random act (A car speeding that eventually hit another car. Random in that you don't know which car he will hit)

1) As I explained, the "random" action of thrown dice are not truly random: uncaused. It is caused by various physical forces impinging on the dice.

2)Okay, this is one form of a caused action: one we can ascribe a particular cause to. Most we cannot.

3)So what is the impetus behind this random action? Why did it occur rather than not occur?

4)But this isn't in accord to with my definition of "random," an utterly uncaused act. Not knowing a cause doesn't make it random. Again, I explained this in my reference to rolled dice.

 

[Caligula]

The cool thing about determinism is that it doesn't have to be entirely true in order to produce effects when talking about "free will" or merit/guilt. While there's only few that totally dismiss the points made about determinism, the same people have no problem doing so in regards to the effect it produces (totally dismissing them).
People accept that fact that independent factors (that ultimately can not be blamed or praised) such as: IQ, economical and social context, education, family etc. influences one's actions but still proclaim that one is entirely free to do as he pleases and is fully responsible for his actions. Something doesn't add up, doesn't it?

Every event or physical characteristic that is out of one's control should have an impact upon his moral responsibility. Even judicial systems accept mitigating circumstances. Tough social context (many kids, poverty etc.) or diminished IQ could be used by a lawyer in order to diminish the penalty. One could go even further on this road and establish that a person is being convicted or receiving a medal for being a unique human being.

I agree 100% with OP but I think the approach he takes is hard to digest for any. Yes, in absolute terms, there is no free will and moral responsibility. For example, in order to be entitled to morally judge a person one would have to demonstrate, the irrational assumption (if you ask me) that he would have done differently if he was in the exact same shoes as the one he is to judge. In reality empathy and the power to put yourself in one's shoes is always incomplete. When you think you could have acted differently there must be at least one discrepancy in your transpose; it is highly probable you still kept parts of you (ex: IQ, education, genes, social context, personal experience etc.). In reality, if you were me, you would have done exactly the same. Once again, uniqueness is the only thing one could judge; and uniqueness is neither a quality, nor a defect. So what's there to judge in the first place?

I will provide a real life example as to make my point easier to understand. I've already created a thread on this matter.
My following example has no need for a philosophical approach and has the role of making things easier to understand:

Are the children we see in the ISIS propaganda video morally responsible for a potential act that we subjectively find to be despicable?
I say they are constrained to act at least within their intelligence and social context limits. Which of these factors entitle one to blame the children? Could their perception of morality be shaped by the factors I've just mentioned?
If you are going to point the finger towards the adults of that society I must warn you that:
1. The adults of that society are nothing else but the same children I've talked about, ...just a bit older;
2. You just gave the start of an infinite guilt regression system.

How much liberty does a child brought up in that environment has to act differently? If your own children were in their place, would they have acted differently? Why would one be accountable for not acting/thinking differently (for changing) if he/she reaches 18-40 yo, and the context/environment has also remained the same? Should one be enlightened ...out of nowhere? No change in factors, no change at all. One is not independent of those unless he acts randomly.

Determinism is roughly based on the same concept but it establishes no borders at all. While, in my real-life example, I have offered only two factors (intelligence and social context) that can profoundly alter actions and establish limits, in reality there is no such limit.

We are all "brainwashed" into thinking only others are "brainwashed" .

 

[Skwim]

The cool thing about determinism is that it doesn't have to be entirely true in order to produce effects when talking about "free will" or merit/guilt.

If this is true then, having eliminated freewill and randomness as agents of action, what do you propose operates to produce effects if it isn't determinism?

Determinism is roughly based on the same concept but it establishes no borders at all. While, in my real-life example, I have offered only two factors (intelligence and social context) that can profoundly alter actions and establish limits, in reality there is no such limit.

Just keep in mind that examples don't equal principle.

 

[Caligula]

If this is true then, having eliminated freewill and randomness as agents of action, what do you propose operates to produce effects if it isn't determinism?

I have no idea what is the meaning and purpose of your question. ...I feel there's a misunderstanding here. I will (re)formulate: If one admits that only some but not all of the causes that determine events and behaviors are external to the will, that would still diminish the concept of free will and guilt/merit.
In reality, people admit that at least some causes that determine events are external to one's will but still prefer to consider him/her fully responsible for those exact same events about which they have admitted to have an external cause.

Just keep in mind that examples don't equal principle.

I'm cool with that and I'll try not to forget. From where I stand I see that I was comparing the concept behind the example (no or diminished free will and moral responsibility) with the concept behind determinism (no or diminished free will and moral responsibility). On top of that I used the expression "roughly the same" instead of "exactly the same" or "equal".

 

[Kenny]

which I immediately followed with "But before going into why . . . ." Meaning I would give you the reason in a moment, which I did by showing that all such notions of action are a false concept. To say in argument for freewill that one can choose assumes freewill to be true, the very thing you're trying to prove.



1) As I explained, the "random" action of thrown dice are not truly random: uncaused. It is caused by various physical forces impinging on the dice.

2)Okay, this is one form of a caused action: one we can ascribe a particular cause to. Most we cannot.

3)So what is the impetus behind this random action? Why did it occur rather than not occur?

4)But this isn't in accord to with my definition of "random," an utterly uncaused act. Not knowing a cause doesn't make it random. Again, I explained this in my reference to rolled dice.

Ok... this is where we go back in circles. Not being dogmatic or argumentative because, as I said, ultimately we will be convinced by our own definitions and premises.

1) Depends on what you call "uncaused" and "random". Picking up of the dice is not random. The roll is caused. The outcome is random.

2) Ok

3) Again... definitions and what was caused and what was free will. Free will, the driver likes driving fast. (Was it free will or ingrained? - If there is a cop close, he will slow down - is it caused? or is it because there is free will?).

4) Ok... then again... it is your definition and it may not be correct.

I'm not sure I want to continue this discussion because it seems like that the end will be simply, "I am a determinist" vs "I am of free will". Probably won't change a think in how we live our lives.

Do pray you have a great day.

Ken

 

[Norman]

This is amazing. But so convenient! "We can't help anything that we do." "We are a product of our environment."

How does this work in "real life?" Haven't you ever been angry at anyone? If so, why? Isn't that hypocritical? If people can't help being rude to you, why be angry at them? Oh wait - is it because you simply can't help being angry?

A few years ago I lost fifty pounds. I did this by going against every sort of automatic desire I had. It took great self control and small but difficult choices every single day for a year. Was this inevitable? Are you saying I really had no choice in this?

People aren't evil? Charles Manson isn't evil? The man who abducted Elizabeth Smart isn't evil? Are you saying they didn't make choices? Are you saying they couldn't help themselves?

I have an employee who is undergoing chemo treatments for a very aggressive form of cancer. She pushes herself every single day. As a bank teller, part of her job is to be on the lookout for customers who may need additional services, and to formally send a referral to one of the bankers in the branch when she sees a need so the banker can follow up with them. Though she is only working four days a week, and though her chemo treatments have slowed her pace down and made concentration more difficult, she is leading our branch in referrals - triple the rate of the other tellers in fact. This attention to detail takes sometimes great effort on her part - and if anyone had an excuse to do the barest minimum, it would be her.

Meanwhile, I have two other tellers who have no physical challenges at all, and who are young and healthy and intelligent. They however, in spite of coaching and training and every sort of motivational tool possible, simply choose - YES, CHOOSE - not to make the effort. I know this has to be a choice because there's no way they could possibly forget to do this. It's out of their comfort zone, and they choose not to go out of their comfort zone. But it's a choice.

I choose every night whether or not to take my three mile walk. I promise you, usually I don't want to do it. Sometimes I DON'T do it. But when I do, it's a choice which goes against my natural inclinations and desires.

I'm sorry - I just don't buy that self control and self discipline are not choices and are automatic. Nor do I believe that people who do awful, hurtful, abusive things to others simply can't help what they're doing. And if they CAN help it - then they have free will.

Norman:Hi Kathryn, I totally agree with you on this topic. I believe the problem today in our society is that people do not want to take responsibility for there actions. They want to put the blame for bad choices on someone else instead of stepping up to the plate and realize that the choice they made is there own free agency. I have been in law enforcement for years and some of my studies have been in criminal psychology. For example, in crime, people break the law because they simply think they can get away with it. If someone decides to kill another human being that is a choice they made. If someone decided to speed over the allowed speed limit that is a choice they made. We factually have free agency, we all need to make choices all the time through our life. There is no other way as I see it, we are not forced to do anything under normal circumstances, the choice is ours. Good Post.

 

[Kenny]

Norman:Hi Kathryn, I totally agree with you on this topic. I believe the problem today in our society is that people do not want to take responsibility for there actions.

I think this summarizes my position. It is easy to say "I couldn't help myself" or "The devil made me do it". I call it the Adam syndrome... blame anyone but yourself.