Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[shunyadragon]

"Fundamentally determistic" but not fully deterministic? What is the meaning behind that first adjective?

Fully deterministic would indicate hard determinism and no free will. Fundamentally deterministic would indicate that determinism is the foundation of the nature of our existence, and allows limited free will as in the philosophy of compatibilism.

The "macro universe" has not been determined beyond all reasonable doubt to be deterministic.

Yes it has. There is no objectively falsifiable evidence that indicates otherwise. Again . . .

Pretty much all the scientific research and development of theories and hypothesis have demonstrated that our universe has predicable natural laws that are fundamentally deterministic even in the predictable nature of the Quantum World.

You have failed to provide any objective verifiable evidence that our physical existence is not deterministic,

 

[Curious George]

Fully deterministic would indicate hard determinism and no free will. Fundamentally deterministic would indicate that determinism is the foundation of the nature of our existence, and allows limited free will as in the philosophy of compatibilism.



Yes it has. There is no objectively falsifiable evidence that indicates otherwise. Again . . .

Pretty much all the scientific research and development of theories and hypothesis have demonstrated that our universe has predicable natural laws that are fundamentally deterministic even in the predictable nature of the Quantum World.

You have failed to provide any objective verifiable evidence that our physical existence is not deterministic,

Hey as long as you allow for free will. Cheers.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no line between the quantum world and the macro world.

Yes there is a recognized scalar line between the Quantum World and the macro world and that line is on the scale of Quanta, and the behavior of the basic particles of matter, and not in the macro scale greater than the behavior of the particles in atoms:

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics or quantum theory), including quantum field theory, is a branch of physics which is the fundamental theory of nature at the small scales and energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles.

Current theories suggest nature is not strictly deterministic.

You need to back up your assertion with academic sources that the macro world above the Quantum scale is not deterministic.

Still waiting . . .

There is no objective verifiable evidence that objectively determines that consciousness exists outside neural networks. If you can cite scientific research that falsifies the existence of consciousness outside neural networks please do.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Curious George]

Yes there is a recognized scalar line between the Quantum World and the macro world and that line is on the scale of Quanta, and the behavior of the basic particles of matter, and not in the macro scale greater than the behavior of the particles in atoms:

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics or quantum theory), including quantum field theory, is a branch of physics which is the fundamental theory of nature at the small scales and energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles.



You need to back up your assertion with academic sources that the macro world above the Quantum scale is not deterministic.

Still waiting . . .

There is no objective verifiable evidence that objectively determines that consciousness exists outside neural networks. If you can cite scientific research that falsifies the existence of consciousness outside neural networks please do.

Still waiting . . .

You can keep waiting. You have qualified your point of view in such a way as to not deny free will. I am content with that.

 

[Indagator]

The argument is that the determination happens on a much smaller level than thinking A causes B so I will stop A. The idea is that based on stimuli neural networks fire. These cause you to want or not want to do things. This also causes your brain to send messages to act or not act. Effectively, this cuts off will. The resulting feeling of free will is an illusion which is the result of evolution. Many factors are involved but the general idea your ego tricks you into thinking you are in control. Consciousness is still possible. However the control the consciousness percieved is supposed to be illusory.

No not really, if you cant be aware of simple things like, why i did x. That would imply that consciousness have a huge limitation to the point where one should question if consciousness is really conscious. Free Will is always possibility if one excepts that we are conscious. Now if one say that consciousness is illusion as well, then one can make an argument for determinism, but then one can also always ask what else is an illusion.

If you push materialism far enough you will arrive at idealism and vice versa i guess

Of course it is, but who said it?

I did.

I ask because I've never seen anything like it before. Sounds like a straw man argument to me.
.

LMAO. You use words like "ad homin" and "straw man" without really know when to use them.

 

[Curious George]

No not really, if you cant be aware of simple things like, why i did x. That would imply that consciousness have a huge limitation to the point where one should question if consciousness is really conscious. Free Will is always possibility if one excepts that we are conscious. Now if one say that consciousness is illusion as well, then one can make an argument for determinism, but then one can also always ask what else is an illusion.

If you push materialism far enough you will arrive at idealism and vice versa i guess
.

Yes really. That is roughly the argument. So, you were accessing the argument after the free will had been precluded. Consciousness is not defined with the degree of specificity to conclude that it is limited if one is not aware of why they did things. Really all this does is force one to question their idea of consciousness.

I agree that freewill is always a possibility. I recognize that we all assume free will. I just think that if you are going to attack determinist arguments you should do so at the level that is relevant. We know that neural activity precedes choice amd action. The question then is there A) something external to this neural activity that can in some degree choose, B) is there an emergent property of this neural network that allows for choice, C) is this neural activity a mechanical process which is predictable if we had all the mechanical variables or D) something else?

 

[Repox]

Since the brain is a physical organ that is bound by cause and effect I can only see that determinism is true.

Awaiting proof for determinism of the brain, it is so complicated. It is possible for God to have designed our brains for freewill. If you think, do you have choices, or are you just a robot fulfilling a predetermined design. How do you know? Could you say of angels, they are programmed to love and obey God? It is a theological question having to do with Satan. Assuming Satan, a rebellious angel, made choices to oppose God or to try to be a god, is there freewill in the supernatural world? If there are no consequences for bad actions, humans are robots executing biological functions.

I believe the most direct evidence for freewill of humans are Old Testament stories about God's chosen people disobeying God, and the consequences thereof. We don't have comparable stories about God and other species.

 

[Skwim]

I did.

That's what I figured, but just wanted to make sure.

LMAO. You use words like "ad homin" and "straw man" without really know when to use them.

Here, let me help you out.

"In its simplest definition, straw man is the name of a logical fallacy, which means that if you carefully dissect the argument or statement, it doesn't make sense. Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position."
source​

In order to disparage determinists, you ascribe a spurious definition of free will to them so as to shoot down them down.

"Definition of Free Will: Ability to determine yourself, choose what determines you, be your on cause.

If you are aware of your determinism you are not deterministic. Because if you know that A causes B, you can just stop doing A, there you go, the chain is broken, or if you know that and continue to do A so it causes B, you are now doing it out of your own free will.

The only way one can disagree with this is by saying that we are not conscious, and if one does that i say that this person got some mental problems, perhaps something to do with chromosomes."
​

No serious determinist would ever concoct such a wacky definition, which is why you had to come up with it.

.

 

[Indagator]

Yes really. That is roughly the argument. So, you were accessing the argument after the free will had been precluded. Consciousness is not defined with the degree of specificity to conclude that it is limited if one is not aware of why they did things. Really all this does is force one to question their idea of consciousness.

I stand by with what i said: If you are not aware of your thought processes you are not really conscious.

I agree that freewill is always a possibility. I recognize that we all assume free will. I just think that if you are going to attack determinist arguments you should do so at the level that is relevant. We know that neural activity precedes choice amd action. The question then is there A) something external to this neural activity that can in some degree choose, B) is there an emergent property of this neural network that allows for choice, C) is this neural activity a mechanical process which is predictable if we had all the mechanical variables or D) something else?

I put determinism in question on the level i find relevant.

In order to disparage determinists, you ascribe a spurious definition of free will to them so as to shoot down them down.

My definition is pretty good. 10/10. Much better than simplistic rubbish determinist are proposing (sometimes).
​

No serious determinist would ever concoct such a wacky definition, which is why you had to come up with it.

Determinists cant be serious, and i already explained why that is in my first post in this thread.

Btw. I was not even talking to you... feeling lonely or something?

 

[Curious George]

I stand by with what i said: If you are not aware of your thought processes you are not really conscious.



I put determinism in question on the level i find relevant.

My definition is pretty good. 10/10. Much better than simplistic rubbish determinist are proposing (sometimes).
​

Determinists cant be serious, and i already explained why that is in my first post in this thread.

Btw. I was not even talking to you... feeling lonely or something?

Lol, you said something, I replied. That is how the forum works. I didn't realize you thought this was a private conversation.

Go on and continue missing the point then. If you want to argue about the rule of Icing while everyone else is talking about basketball...be my guest.

 

[Indagator]

Awaiting proof for determinism of the brain, it is so complicated. It is possible for God to have designed our brains for freewill. If you think, do you have choices, or are you just a robot fulfilling a predetermined design. How do you know? Could you say of angels, they are programmed to love and obey God? It is a theological question having to do with Satan. Assuming Satan, a rebellious angel, made choices to oppose God or to try to be a god, is there freewill in the supernatural world? If there are no consequences for bad actions, humans are robots executing biological functions.

I believe the most direct evidence for freewill of humans are Old Testament stories about God's chosen people disobeying God, and the consequences thereof. We don't have comparable stories about God and other species.

I thought about this as well. The apple and the tree thing sounds like some kind of test experiment to see if humans have free will. Everything was a set up in order for humans to make a choice.

(i am no OT expert thought)

 

[Indagator]

Lol, you said something, I replied. That is how the forum works. I didn't realize you thought this was a private conversation.

Go on and continue missing the point then. If you want to argue about the rule of Icing while everyone else is talking about basketball...be my guest.

lol... My reply was to another poster that prefers to talk about rhetorics.

 

[Curious George]

lol... My reply was to another poster that prefers to talk about rhetorics.

It is ok.

I did not realize i would offend by posting. Had I realized you would have taken this as an intrusion, I would have remained silent. By all means, carry on.

Cheers

 

[Indagator]

It is ok.

I did not realize i would offend by posting. Had I realized you would have taken this as an intrusion, I would have remained silent. By all means, carry on.

Cheers

I think it was a misunderstanding here. haha... i have no problem talking to you.

Maybe it is the way i set up my post or my English (my 3rd language) was terrible or something ...

I meant no offense and i am certainly not offended. We good

Anyway, have a nice day. Cheers.

 

[Skwim]

My definition is pretty good.​

I'm sure that's exactly what you think. And I guess it's good you care because I doubt anyone else does.

Much better than simplistic rubbish determinist are proposing (sometimes).

Hmm, Sounds like you've been taken down a peg or two in the past and can't let go of a grudge. My sympathies. . . . . sort of.

Btw. I was not even talking to you... feeling lonely or something?

FYI. When you fail to address your posts to anyone in particular you're open season to everyone.

And even if you do you're still not out of the woods.

And . . . . . I'm sorry. . . . .sort of. . . . .that my reply got your panties all in a twist.

.​

 

[Twilight Hue]

First there are theories that the universe itself is conscious, so suggesting computers have some degree of will is not too out there.

This part is kind of interesting as it applies to the concept of free will as it relates with determinism.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...n-creepy-preview-of-our-potential-future/amp/

 

[JustWondering]

So you think that physical objects can be conscious?

Brains are physical objects, so yes.

 

[JustWondering]

How about the situation of "objective self awareness," the means by which we analyze and determine outcomes. When we think do we decide this or that based on self interest, or do we just let out thoughts proceed without having any influence? How do you define the decision making process for "objective self awareness?" Evidence is clear, each person analyzes and concludes based on individual characteristics, not necessarily predetermined factors.

The problem with your reasoning is that you ignore that each persons individual characteristics didn't just magically manifest out of nothingness. Genetics and environment determine what a person choses to do. We live in a cause and effect universe, therefore we live in a universe where past events inevitably cause specific future events.

 

[DavidFirth]

Whenever I see this thread I get a craving for macadamia nuts...

 

[JustWondering]

Awaiting proof for determinism of the brain, it is so complicated. It is possible for God to have designed our brains for freewill. If you think, do you have choices, or are you just a robot fulfilling a predetermined design. How do you know? Could you say of angels, they are programmed to love and obey God? It is a theological question having to do with Satan. Assuming Satan, a rebellious angel, made choices to oppose God or to try to be a god, is there freewill in the supernatural world? If there are no consequences for bad actions, humans are robots executing biological functions.

I believe the most direct evidence for freewill of humans are Old Testament stories about God's chosen people disobeying God, and the consequences thereof. We don't have comparable stories about God and other species.

The brain is a physical organ that exists in a cause and effect universe. I do not believe in the supernatural. If something exists it is part of the natural universe. Everything we have examined and studied in nature acts according to rules and laws. If the universe were a completely chaotic mess where the current laws of nature didn't exist life wouldn't even exist. Your idea of "free will" suggests we can just spontaneously make decisions that are untethered to the ordered universe we are a part of (not separate from), that is not supported by all the evidence we have for an ordered, cause and effect universe.

If you were starving and offered a choice between two food items to eat, one you can't stand the taste of (just the thought of eating it makes you gag) and the other being your favorite food in the world, which food would you choose? Why? What determined what your favorite food is?