Physical actions are indeed constrained by the limiting laws of physics. But meta-physical (mental) choices are not subject to physical laws --- perhaps only the laws of Logic. — Gnomon
One has to be careful about language here. . . .
The physical both constrains and enables what we do. — Ludwig V
Do you think I'm being fast & loose with my language here? In my thesis and my posts, I provide specific definitions of such terms as "physics" and "meta-physics", giving examples from the history of science & philosophy. For example, I specify that my use of the "meta-" term is Aristotelian, not Scholastic ; psychological, not religious. Are you uncomfortable with my use of "meta-physics" in reference to mental processes. Are Ideas subject to physical laws of gravity, or is there some other force that gives "weight" to opinions?
Is there some other "language" in my posts that give you pause? I haven't been indoctrinated in the legalistic "linguistic turn" in philosophy (Wittgenstein, etc). So my language is generally vernacular & informal, and may sometimes run afoul of "legal" usage. We tend to use physical metaphors to describe psychological concepts, but are the analogies intended to be taken literally & physically?
Of course, physics "constrains" what we do physically. But does it also limit what we think, and how we reason? How do physical limitations affect abstract ideas? Do you know how laws of physics could roboticize your beliefs & behaviors? Or is that just an unfounded Physicalist belief?
Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.
___ Oxford dictionary
Note --- Which definition do you think applies to my use of the term? Are the "abstract concepts" listed above physical or meta-physical? Is Space a physical thing or an abstract idea about the extension of physical things? Is Being constrained by physics or ontology?
TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
Re: TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
In fact then when Gnomon's idea is viewed as an ontological idea, that "Physical actions are indeed constrained by the limiting laws of physics. But meta-physical (mental) choices are not subject to physical laws --- perhaps only the laws of Logic", it can be argued that he is making the argument that there's something else than the physical. But has there to be a separation? — ssu
Aristotle intuitively made a distinction between physical and mental processes in the world. He divided his treatise of Phusis (nature) into an encyclopedia of observations by early scientists. Then in a separate (meta-) chapter, he summarizes some of the opinions of theoretical scientists (philosophers) to explain those facts. That "separation" was later formalized by others into categories of A> Physics : particular material objects and B> Metaphysics : general mental ideas (universal principles) about those objects.
Those Generalizations and Categorizations -- "something else" than material/temporal specimens -- are computed by Reason/Logic, which he regarded as a timeless power, capacity or force, accessible to philosophically-inclined humans. For non-rational animals though, there may be only observed things, and no inferred species of things. So, yes, for those who seek holistic Principles instead of isolated Instances, there has to be a separation.
Metaphysics :
The word 'metaphysics' was coined by an ancient editor of Aristotle's works, who simply used it for the books listed after those on physics. The physics books discussed things that change; the metaphysics books discussed things that don't change.
https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blo ... taphysics/
What did Aristotle mean by reason? :
Perhaps, then, Aristotle means that scientific reason is distinguished by thinking about the necessary, unchanging principles of things, and also about the things which have these as their principles and causes.
https://academic.oup.com/book/4546/chap ... /146639079?
Aristotle intuitively made a distinction between physical and mental processes in the world. He divided his treatise of Phusis (nature) into an encyclopedia of observations by early scientists. Then in a separate (meta-) chapter, he summarizes some of the opinions of theoretical scientists (philosophers) to explain those facts. That "separation" was later formalized by others into categories of A> Physics : particular material objects and B> Metaphysics : general mental ideas (universal principles) about those objects.
Those Generalizations and Categorizations -- "something else" than material/temporal specimens -- are computed by Reason/Logic, which he regarded as a timeless power, capacity or force, accessible to philosophically-inclined humans. For non-rational animals though, there may be only observed things, and no inferred species of things. So, yes, for those who seek holistic Principles instead of isolated Instances, there has to be a separation.
Metaphysics :
The word 'metaphysics' was coined by an ancient editor of Aristotle's works, who simply used it for the books listed after those on physics. The physics books discussed things that change; the metaphysics books discussed things that don't change.
https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blo ... taphysics/
What did Aristotle mean by reason? :
Perhaps, then, Aristotle means that scientific reason is distinguished by thinking about the necessary, unchanging principles of things, and also about the things which have these as their principles and causes.
https://academic.oup.com/book/4546/chap ... /146639079?
Re: TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
What material evidence to you have to support your belief that personal choice is illusory? — Gnomon
That's not what I said. I said there "is an illusion of freedom". — Relativist
When you come to a fork in the road, do you stop and imagine taking the road less traveled, or do you start walking in the desired direction? In what sense is an actual choice an illusion?
That's not what I said. I said there "is an illusion of freedom". — Relativist
When you come to a fork in the road, do you stop and imagine taking the road less traveled, or do you start walking in the desired direction? In what sense is an actual choice an illusion?
Re: TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
When you come to a fork in the road, do you stop and imagine taking the road less traveled, or do you start walking in the desired direction? In what sense is an actual choice an illusion? — Gnomon
The choice is not an illusion: we are actually making the choice - we have to actually go through the mental process to reach that choice.
The illusion is that of hindsight : that we could actually have made a different one. In actuality, we could have only made a different choice had there been something different within us (a different set of beliefs, disposltions, impulse...). — Relativist
If a single path suddenly & surprisingly branches into two paths, with completely different end-points, is that not a true philosophical dilemma? One end-point may be my original intended destination, and the other a different unintended destination : as in Robert Frost's Path Not Taken. But if I didn't know that alternative when I set out, my choice to change destinations would be a change of personal intention (goal selection). Was that new information also eternally destined to make the choice for me?
The "mental process" of choosing may be a change of intentions, based on new information. Or perhaps, in the case of the "road less traveled", merely the desire to experience something new, or unknown, or mysterious. In Physics, the well-traveled road might be the path of least resistance ; in which case, Nature would always "choose" that option. But humans are not so mechanical, and sometimes "choose" to take the more resistant path.
According to Pre-destination, even that desire for novelty is programmed into us by all-powerful Nature, or LaPlace's Demon. But what about the statistical uncertainties in natural processes? Are our intentional choices certain, or probabilistic? What about physical Relativity vs physical Absolutism? Was Einstein wrong to conclude that Newton's space & time were not as rigid as his calculations assumed? What if human choices are locally Causal, just as the Demon's determination is universally Causal?
An old saying is that "hindsight is 20/20"*1, implying that we see the meaning of events more clearly after they happened. But you seem to be saying that the meaning -- in this case the new destination -- was never a real option. Instead, the Destiny Demon had the foresight to force me to make an un-free Choice. As an omniscient Demon, if you had to choose between Fate & Freewill*2 for your little deluded choosers, which would you decide on, and why?
*1. Hindsight is the ability to understand and realize something about an event after it has happened, although you did not understand or realize it at the time.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... /hindsight
*2. Fate Vs Free Will :
Fate is a predetermined course of events. It’s what makes some people say things like “it was meant to be” or “it was written in the stars”. Free will, on the other hand, is your ability to make choices and control your own destiny. If you have free will then that means what happens with your life depends on what you do and how you live it. . . .
There are two different ways in which we can look at the idea of free will. On one hand, there’s the philosophical view that all our actions are pre-determined by events prior to them (Determinism). On the other hand, there’s the philosophical view that we have some control over what we do in life and how we behave (Compatibilism) – essentially saying ‘what if I could make my own decisions regardless of what happens before me?’
https://os.me/destiny-or-free-will-what-do-you-choose/
IN THE GARDEN OF FORKING PATHS, ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME?
https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc4f84123-a07e-4d5b-a752-069077f1a139_1792x1024.png
The choice is not an illusion: we are actually making the choice - we have to actually go through the mental process to reach that choice.
The illusion is that of hindsight : that we could actually have made a different one. In actuality, we could have only made a different choice had there been something different within us (a different set of beliefs, disposltions, impulse...). — Relativist
If a single path suddenly & surprisingly branches into two paths, with completely different end-points, is that not a true philosophical dilemma? One end-point may be my original intended destination, and the other a different unintended destination : as in Robert Frost's Path Not Taken. But if I didn't know that alternative when I set out, my choice to change destinations would be a change of personal intention (goal selection). Was that new information also eternally destined to make the choice for me?
The "mental process" of choosing may be a change of intentions, based on new information. Or perhaps, in the case of the "road less traveled", merely the desire to experience something new, or unknown, or mysterious. In Physics, the well-traveled road might be the path of least resistance ; in which case, Nature would always "choose" that option. But humans are not so mechanical, and sometimes "choose" to take the more resistant path.
According to Pre-destination, even that desire for novelty is programmed into us by all-powerful Nature, or LaPlace's Demon. But what about the statistical uncertainties in natural processes? Are our intentional choices certain, or probabilistic? What about physical Relativity vs physical Absolutism? Was Einstein wrong to conclude that Newton's space & time were not as rigid as his calculations assumed? What if human choices are locally Causal, just as the Demon's determination is universally Causal?
An old saying is that "hindsight is 20/20"*1, implying that we see the meaning of events more clearly after they happened. But you seem to be saying that the meaning -- in this case the new destination -- was never a real option. Instead, the Destiny Demon had the foresight to force me to make an un-free Choice. As an omniscient Demon, if you had to choose between Fate & Freewill*2 for your little deluded choosers, which would you decide on, and why?
*1. Hindsight is the ability to understand and realize something about an event after it has happened, although you did not understand or realize it at the time.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... /hindsight
*2. Fate Vs Free Will :
Fate is a predetermined course of events. It’s what makes some people say things like “it was meant to be” or “it was written in the stars”. Free will, on the other hand, is your ability to make choices and control your own destiny. If you have free will then that means what happens with your life depends on what you do and how you live it. . . .
There are two different ways in which we can look at the idea of free will. On one hand, there’s the philosophical view that all our actions are pre-determined by events prior to them (Determinism). On the other hand, there’s the philosophical view that we have some control over what we do in life and how we behave (Compatibilism) – essentially saying ‘what if I could make my own decisions regardless of what happens before me?’
https://os.me/destiny-or-free-will-what-do-you-choose/
IN THE GARDEN OF FORKING PATHS, ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME?
https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc4f84123-a07e-4d5b-a752-069077f1a139_1792x1024.png
Re: TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
Strict materialism and physicalism simply leads people to make silly generalizations and to wrong conclusions. — ssu
Historically, Enlightenment era scientists & philosophers were forced into Materialist & Physicalist positions by the Catholic church's Spiritualist & Dogmatic positions & propaganda. Burning at the stake as punishment for Mental transgressions (unbelief or heretical belief) would tend to radicalize freethinkers. But, since then, the world has moved toward more liberal positions, that allow for broader worldviews.
So, by the 20th century, the hardline (strict) Physicalist position was no longer mandatory for philosophers. And the Quantum science departure from Classical Physics*1 opened the door for investigations of formerly taboo topics for science, such as : the Mind/Body problem (Mind over Matter), and Freewill*2. Hence, today, we have classical physics hardliners, who burn holistic heretics at the scornful sarcasm stake.
*1. Classical Physics versus Quantum Physics :
https://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0241v1.pdf
*2. Quantum Mechanics, the Mind-Body Problem and Negative Theology :
Philosophy addresses questions that probably can’t be solved, now or ever. Examples (and these are of course debatable, some philosophers and scientists insist that science can answer all questions worth asking): Why is there something rather than nothing? Does free will exist? How does matter make a mind? What does quantum mechanics mean?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -theology/
I didn't know that. I meant metaphysics as things before physics, like the nature of existence (and universal principles) and as the study of mind-independent features of reality. It's really hard to prove something with the scientific method of these kind of basic questions. Hence even if very important, it's not a field you can assume to have dramatic breakthroughs. — ssu
The term "meta-physics" was applied by medieval scholars to certain aspects of Aristotle's ouvre (collected writings), that were of special interest to theologians*3. Literally, it referred to the later books, that discussed opinions & interpretations (philosophy) instead of observations & investigations (science). But metaphorically, "meta-" came to be associated with "above" in the sense of spiritually transcending the material world.
That's why I refer to OP topic -- Freewill vs Determinism -- as a holistic metaphysical question, not answerable by reductive scientific methods, as you said. However, modern philosophy still finds logical conjectures & conclusions unacceptable, unless supported with hard (empirical) evidence. Hence, the hardline position of Scientism. It's the transcendent implications of "meta-" that are offensive to immanent Materialism.
*3. Metaphysics :
mid 16th century: representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics’, referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural’.
___Oxford Languages : https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/
Well, I think that animals are also rational, so they don't have to be just "philosophically inclined" to have rational thoughts. That we just have and advance language and even the abiltiy to store it (written language) makes us quite different in my view, but still we are animals (even if smart ones). — ssu
I agree. But I was referring to the formalization of Reason & Logic that is characteristic of Philosophy in the Greek tradition. Mathematical Logic pervades all aspects of the world. But only humans have made Language & Logic into systems appropriate for online forum discussions.
Historically, Enlightenment era scientists & philosophers were forced into Materialist & Physicalist positions by the Catholic church's Spiritualist & Dogmatic positions & propaganda. Burning at the stake as punishment for Mental transgressions (unbelief or heretical belief) would tend to radicalize freethinkers. But, since then, the world has moved toward more liberal positions, that allow for broader worldviews.
So, by the 20th century, the hardline (strict) Physicalist position was no longer mandatory for philosophers. And the Quantum science departure from Classical Physics*1 opened the door for investigations of formerly taboo topics for science, such as : the Mind/Body problem (Mind over Matter), and Freewill*2. Hence, today, we have classical physics hardliners, who burn holistic heretics at the scornful sarcasm stake.
*1. Classical Physics versus Quantum Physics :
https://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0241v1.pdf
*2. Quantum Mechanics, the Mind-Body Problem and Negative Theology :
Philosophy addresses questions that probably can’t be solved, now or ever. Examples (and these are of course debatable, some philosophers and scientists insist that science can answer all questions worth asking): Why is there something rather than nothing? Does free will exist? How does matter make a mind? What does quantum mechanics mean?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -theology/
I didn't know that. I meant metaphysics as things before physics, like the nature of existence (and universal principles) and as the study of mind-independent features of reality. It's really hard to prove something with the scientific method of these kind of basic questions. Hence even if very important, it's not a field you can assume to have dramatic breakthroughs. — ssu
The term "meta-physics" was applied by medieval scholars to certain aspects of Aristotle's ouvre (collected writings), that were of special interest to theologians*3. Literally, it referred to the later books, that discussed opinions & interpretations (philosophy) instead of observations & investigations (science). But metaphorically, "meta-" came to be associated with "above" in the sense of spiritually transcending the material world.
That's why I refer to OP topic -- Freewill vs Determinism -- as a holistic metaphysical question, not answerable by reductive scientific methods, as you said. However, modern philosophy still finds logical conjectures & conclusions unacceptable, unless supported with hard (empirical) evidence. Hence, the hardline position of Scientism. It's the transcendent implications of "meta-" that are offensive to immanent Materialism.
*3. Metaphysics :
mid 16th century: representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics’, referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural’.
___Oxford Languages : https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/
Well, I think that animals are also rational, so they don't have to be just "philosophically inclined" to have rational thoughts. That we just have and advance language and even the abiltiy to store it (written language) makes us quite different in my view, but still we are animals (even if smart ones). — ssu
I agree. But I was referring to the formalization of Reason & Logic that is characteristic of Philosophy in the Greek tradition. Mathematical Logic pervades all aspects of the world. But only humans have made Language & Logic into systems appropriate for online forum discussions.
Re: TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
Earlier in the thread, we discussed Peter Tse's physicalist account of mental causation. If something like this is correct, it means that the product of our thoughts truly has causal efficacy. We're not just going along for the ride (as you seem to be suggesting) we're driving. — Relativist
I missed the earlier discussion. But I Googled "Peter Tse's physicalist account of mental causation", and found the contrary argument below*1. We could argue the rational vs empirical merits of Physical vs Mental Causation forever. But Quantum Physics has contradicted the Classical Physics assumption*2 of Determinism (causal completeness) by revealing the role of Randomness in the chain of causation. For me, that's enough to allow me to believe that I am in command of my little jello-like bundle of cerebral Causation. My car is not a self-driving Tesla, it's a Myself-driven conveyance.
Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation :
The second reason to doubt Tse's account is the causal closure of physics, or the causal completeness of physics (CCP). If CCP is true, then no such thing as free will is possible because there is no sense in which there is any form of free action
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/neural-basi ... causation/
*2. Determinism is an unprovable metaphysical belief, just as FreeWill is. So I freely choose to believe that when I drive my car I am in command, not the laws of nature or sparking neurons. If I get to my chosen destination, that's enough evidence for me. And those CCP commies can't force me to believe otherwise.
I missed the earlier discussion. But I Googled "Peter Tse's physicalist account of mental causation", and found the contrary argument below*1. We could argue the rational vs empirical merits of Physical vs Mental Causation forever. But Quantum Physics has contradicted the Classical Physics assumption*2 of Determinism (causal completeness) by revealing the role of Randomness in the chain of causation. For me, that's enough to allow me to believe that I am in command of my little jello-like bundle of cerebral Causation. My car is not a self-driving Tesla, it's a Myself-driven conveyance.
Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation :
The second reason to doubt Tse's account is the causal closure of physics, or the causal completeness of physics (CCP). If CCP is true, then no such thing as free will is possible because there is no sense in which there is any form of free action
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/neural-basi ... causation/
*2. Determinism is an unprovable metaphysical belief, just as FreeWill is. So I freely choose to believe that when I drive my car I am in command, not the laws of nature or sparking neurons. If I get to my chosen destination, that's enough evidence for me. And those CCP commies can't force me to believe otherwise.
Re: TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
In my view both are very useful concepts. I will argue that you can have determinism and free will. Free will is a great concept to use as it easy describing various events and phenomena extremely well. Yet so is determinism too. What we have is logical limitations in understanding a deterministic reality, making predictions about it or calculating what will happen. — ssu
I agree with your Both/And conclusion. My latest BothAnd Blog post is on the topic of Synchrony*1. The author of the 2003 book SYNCH, Steven Strogatz, says "These, then, are the defining features of chaos : erratic, seemingly random behavior in an otherwise deterministic system ; predictability in the short run, because of deterministic laws ; and unpredictability in the long run, because of the butterfly effect*2." The physical universe is an almost infinite system of malleable Matter and deterministic Thermodynamic laws that is also chaotic at the core, but with pockets of sublime order, such as our own blue planet. which defies the destiny of Entropy with emergent Life & Mind.
,
The "logical limitations" can be observed in physical Phase Transitions, where a stable organization of molecules can suddenly transform from one structural state (water) to another (ice), but scientists can't follow the steps in between. Another logical difficulty is with the non-linear mathematics of Creative Chaos*3 as opposed to the linear math of stable Organized systems. Strogatz says, "In a linear system, the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts". He doesn't use the taboo term, but what he's talking about is Holism.
Reductive Science looks for predictable linear systems, but has difficulty with non-linear effects, such as the emergence of a metaphysical willful Mind from a network of physical neurons. That may be why some posters on this forum have difficulty seeing the Mental forest for the Neural trees. The human mind is a holistic effect of neural cells that cooperate and inter-communicate to produce a state of mind that is sometimes unpredictable and willful. Holism doesn't break physical laws, but it does bend them into novel directions.
Long story short : our world is both linearly Deterministic and spontaneously Creative.
*1. Synchrony :
Emergence, as a natural phenomenon, is controversial, since it has implications for the evolution of Life from inanimate Matter, and of Consciousness from Gray Matter. For some thinkers, the discontinuous appearance of Life from Non-life, seems to defy the laws of gradual evolution.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page21.html
*2. Butterfly Effect :
In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
*3. Creative Chaos Theory :
Scientists once believed that events or occurrences in nature were predictable or able to be mathematically calculated and predicted. Then along came chaos theory, proposing that many events are, in fact, chaotic—having no order or predictability, occurring in a completely random way. But more recently, even the most chaotic occurrences have been found to contain pattern and order,
https://www.secondwindonline.com/creati ... ournal=239
I agree with your Both/And conclusion. My latest BothAnd Blog post is on the topic of Synchrony*1. The author of the 2003 book SYNCH, Steven Strogatz, says "These, then, are the defining features of chaos : erratic, seemingly random behavior in an otherwise deterministic system ; predictability in the short run, because of deterministic laws ; and unpredictability in the long run, because of the butterfly effect*2." The physical universe is an almost infinite system of malleable Matter and deterministic Thermodynamic laws that is also chaotic at the core, but with pockets of sublime order, such as our own blue planet. which defies the destiny of Entropy with emergent Life & Mind.
,
The "logical limitations" can be observed in physical Phase Transitions, where a stable organization of molecules can suddenly transform from one structural state (water) to another (ice), but scientists can't follow the steps in between. Another logical difficulty is with the non-linear mathematics of Creative Chaos*3 as opposed to the linear math of stable Organized systems. Strogatz says, "In a linear system, the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts". He doesn't use the taboo term, but what he's talking about is Holism.
Reductive Science looks for predictable linear systems, but has difficulty with non-linear effects, such as the emergence of a metaphysical willful Mind from a network of physical neurons. That may be why some posters on this forum have difficulty seeing the Mental forest for the Neural trees. The human mind is a holistic effect of neural cells that cooperate and inter-communicate to produce a state of mind that is sometimes unpredictable and willful. Holism doesn't break physical laws, but it does bend them into novel directions.
Long story short : our world is both linearly Deterministic and spontaneously Creative.
*1. Synchrony :
Emergence, as a natural phenomenon, is controversial, since it has implications for the evolution of Life from inanimate Matter, and of Consciousness from Gray Matter. For some thinkers, the discontinuous appearance of Life from Non-life, seems to defy the laws of gradual evolution.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page21.html
*2. Butterfly Effect :
In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
*3. Creative Chaos Theory :
Scientists once believed that events or occurrences in nature were predictable or able to be mathematically calculated and predicted. Then along came chaos theory, proposing that many events are, in fact, chaotic—having no order or predictability, occurring in a completely random way. But more recently, even the most chaotic occurrences have been found to contain pattern and order,
https://www.secondwindonline.com/creati ... ournal=239
Re: TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
↪Gnomon
Thanks for the link to Bishop's review. Bishop's most salient point is that physicalism is inconstent with libertarian free will (LFW) because of Jaegwon Kim's causal closure argument. — Relativist
Yes. Causal Closure (Determinism) was a simplifying assumption of 17th century physics. But 20th century physics has complicated the math with non-linear Chaos, and causal Uncertainty at the physical roots of reality.
Thanks for the link to Bishop's review. Bishop's most salient point is that physicalism is inconstent with libertarian free will (LFW) because of Jaegwon Kim's causal closure argument. — Relativist
Yes. Causal Closure (Determinism) was a simplifying assumption of 17th century physics. But 20th century physics has complicated the math with non-linear Chaos, and causal Uncertainty at the physical roots of reality.
Re: TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
Thanks for the invitation. I can try. But as long as people think that the search for free will is the search for an uncaused cause or a search for indeterminacy, I doubt that anyone will be interested. — Ludwig V
I think ↪ssu was arguing for compatibility of natural human FreeWill, not as an abnormal exception to Causation, but as a statistical option within causal Determinism. Not for supernatural freedom from Causation, as in the ex nihilo Big Bang Theory. Compatibility does not require total chaotic indeterminism, but only a few short-cuts on the road to destiny.
As a philosophical position, Compatibilism*1 assumes that the world system is a dynamic blend of linear Causation (1+1+1+1=4) and non-linear (1+1+1+X=?) Randomness*2. Including both dependent and independent variables ; both global regularity and small-world spontaneity. For example, the highly interconnected human brain is both a linear logic machine, and a non-linear insight producer*3. Our physical actions may not be free, but our meta-physical intentions are free as a bird, to defy gravity by flapping. "If god intended man to fly, he would have given him wings". Instead, he gave us imagination.
In footnote 2, please add Philosophers to the list of professionals who are "interested" in non-linear causation as a shortcut that allows some Freedom within Determinism*4.
*1. Compatibilism. Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences ... bilism.htm
Note --- The man is not free --- he can be imprisoned --- but his mind is free : to roam the world of ideas.
*2. Non-linear Math :
[In mathematics and science, a nonlinear system is a system in which the change of the output is not proportional to the change of the input. Nonlinear problems are of interest to engineers, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and many other scientists since most systems are inherently nonlinear in nature. ___Wikipedia
Note --- In a Small World network, like the human brain, some interconnections are non-linear in that the output (novelty) is more than the input (data). Hence, spontaneous and not rigidly determined.
*3. Small World Network, brain insights :
https://jewishcamp.org/wp-content/uploa ... nsight.pdf
*4. Freedom Within Determinism :
Compatibilism is the doctrine that determinism is logically compatible or consistent with what is said to be a single idea of freedom that really concerns us and with a related kind of moral responsibility -- the freedom in question being voluntariness.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwTerminology.html
LINEAR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN NODES
NONLINEAR SHORTCUT BETWEEN CLUSTERS
slide_23.jpg
I think ↪ssu was arguing for compatibility of natural human FreeWill, not as an abnormal exception to Causation, but as a statistical option within causal Determinism. Not for supernatural freedom from Causation, as in the ex nihilo Big Bang Theory. Compatibility does not require total chaotic indeterminism, but only a few short-cuts on the road to destiny.
As a philosophical position, Compatibilism*1 assumes that the world system is a dynamic blend of linear Causation (1+1+1+1=4) and non-linear (1+1+1+X=?) Randomness*2. Including both dependent and independent variables ; both global regularity and small-world spontaneity. For example, the highly interconnected human brain is both a linear logic machine, and a non-linear insight producer*3. Our physical actions may not be free, but our meta-physical intentions are free as a bird, to defy gravity by flapping. "If god intended man to fly, he would have given him wings". Instead, he gave us imagination.
In footnote 2, please add Philosophers to the list of professionals who are "interested" in non-linear causation as a shortcut that allows some Freedom within Determinism*4.
*1. Compatibilism. Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences ... bilism.htm
Note --- The man is not free --- he can be imprisoned --- but his mind is free : to roam the world of ideas.
*2. Non-linear Math :
[In mathematics and science, a nonlinear system is a system in which the change of the output is not proportional to the change of the input. Nonlinear problems are of interest to engineers, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and many other scientists since most systems are inherently nonlinear in nature. ___Wikipedia
Note --- In a Small World network, like the human brain, some interconnections are non-linear in that the output (novelty) is more than the input (data). Hence, spontaneous and not rigidly determined.
*3. Small World Network, brain insights :
https://jewishcamp.org/wp-content/uploa ... nsight.pdf
*4. Freedom Within Determinism :
Compatibilism is the doctrine that determinism is logically compatible or consistent with what is said to be a single idea of freedom that really concerns us and with a related kind of moral responsibility -- the freedom in question being voluntariness.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwTerminology.html
LINEAR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN NODES
NONLINEAR SHORTCUT BETWEEN CLUSTERS
slide_23.jpg
Re: TPF : Determinism vs FreeWill -- Chaos freedom
Compatibility does not require total chaotic indeterminism, but only a few short-cuts on the road to destiny. — Gnomon
I get the first half of the sentence. But the meaning of the second half is not at all clear to me. Your diagram in your "Small world model" doesn't help. — Ludwig V
Sorry. I'm currently reading a book that gets into Small World math & physics. I didn't really expect you to grasp the concept of "short-cuts" without a long digression. But I liked the neatness of the concept, in the context of this thread. So I wrote it down.
The "small world" Wiki link mentions "short-cuts", but not in detail. The most well-known example of Small World networks is the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" meme from the 1990s. A 'degree of separation' is a measure of social distance between people. In the WWW diagram below, the long lines between clusters are the "short-cuts" that reduce the number of steps between any two nodes. And their arbitrary placement can be spontaneous & indeterminate
Suffice it to say : in a Small World network, like the World Wide Web, most interconnections are to neighboring nodes (necessary & deterministic). But a few (optional) long-distance connections between major nodes reduce the number of links (degrees) required to connect to any other node (arbitrary & in-deterministic). Philosophically, just a few "short-cuts" convert a deterministic-but-chaotic tangle, into a freer and more accessible system. This ad hoc interpretation might make a good Phd thesis for some mathematical philosopher ; but it's too-much-too-late for me.
Are you suggesting that an imagined freedom is any substitute for the real thing? Seems like a very poor exchange to me. — Ludwig V
As Daniel Dennett, in Freedom Evolves, concluded : "… although in the strict physical sense our actions might be determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved". The example I gave before is the Panama Canal, which was only an imaginary dream for over a century, until many people, motivated by that dream, devised ways to move mountains. That small-world social mind-meld (inter-communication of motivation) is one of the "abilities" that Dennett noted. I think it's a pretty good trade-off as a substitute for non-human impotence or super-natural magic.
In case, the freedom to "roam the world of ideas" is no substitute for the freedom to go home to you partner and kids. — Ludwig V
It's not the heavenly ideal, but a free-roaming mind is better than being a sentient mind trapped in an imprisoned body. N'cest pas? In a Matter-only world, "it is what it is" ; but in a Mind & Matter world, what is imagined might also become realized. As one writer put it : "I feel that as human beings with free will, the mind tends to limit itself from living to the fullest when we become prisoners of our own mind." Is your mind locked-in?
Imagination becoming reality :
Creativity and Invention: Imagination often precedes innovation and creation. Many of the inventions and creations that shape our world start as ideas in someone's imagination. When these ideas are acted upon and brought into the physical world through effort, experimentation, and implementation, they can become a reality. This process involves turning abstract thoughts into tangible products, technologies, or works of art.
https://www.quora.com/When-does-imagina ... for-humans
3)the causes of voluntary behaviour are certain states, events, or conditions within the agent: acts of will or volitions, choices, decisions, desires etc... — The Chapter you cited entitled Compatibilism
So an action is free if its causes are inside the agent. If the causes of those causes are outside the agent, can we conclude that his acts of will, etc are not free? — Ludwig V
Perhaps, but the "cause" of willful action --- as contrasted with physical actions --- is presumed to be within the agent. That's why we call it "Will Power". Otherwise, the action would be pre-determined instead of free-will.
SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION
Note the few long lines between clusters of short lines.
GcLt2VQbyWif744LAXJWxj-1200-80.jpg
I get the first half of the sentence. But the meaning of the second half is not at all clear to me. Your diagram in your "Small world model" doesn't help. — Ludwig V
Sorry. I'm currently reading a book that gets into Small World math & physics. I didn't really expect you to grasp the concept of "short-cuts" without a long digression. But I liked the neatness of the concept, in the context of this thread. So I wrote it down.
The "small world" Wiki link mentions "short-cuts", but not in detail. The most well-known example of Small World networks is the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" meme from the 1990s. A 'degree of separation' is a measure of social distance between people. In the WWW diagram below, the long lines between clusters are the "short-cuts" that reduce the number of steps between any two nodes. And their arbitrary placement can be spontaneous & indeterminate
Suffice it to say : in a Small World network, like the World Wide Web, most interconnections are to neighboring nodes (necessary & deterministic). But a few (optional) long-distance connections between major nodes reduce the number of links (degrees) required to connect to any other node (arbitrary & in-deterministic). Philosophically, just a few "short-cuts" convert a deterministic-but-chaotic tangle, into a freer and more accessible system. This ad hoc interpretation might make a good Phd thesis for some mathematical philosopher ; but it's too-much-too-late for me.
Are you suggesting that an imagined freedom is any substitute for the real thing? Seems like a very poor exchange to me. — Ludwig V
As Daniel Dennett, in Freedom Evolves, concluded : "… although in the strict physical sense our actions might be determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved". The example I gave before is the Panama Canal, which was only an imaginary dream for over a century, until many people, motivated by that dream, devised ways to move mountains. That small-world social mind-meld (inter-communication of motivation) is one of the "abilities" that Dennett noted. I think it's a pretty good trade-off as a substitute for non-human impotence or super-natural magic.
In case, the freedom to "roam the world of ideas" is no substitute for the freedom to go home to you partner and kids. — Ludwig V
It's not the heavenly ideal, but a free-roaming mind is better than being a sentient mind trapped in an imprisoned body. N'cest pas? In a Matter-only world, "it is what it is" ; but in a Mind & Matter world, what is imagined might also become realized. As one writer put it : "I feel that as human beings with free will, the mind tends to limit itself from living to the fullest when we become prisoners of our own mind." Is your mind locked-in?
Imagination becoming reality :
Creativity and Invention: Imagination often precedes innovation and creation. Many of the inventions and creations that shape our world start as ideas in someone's imagination. When these ideas are acted upon and brought into the physical world through effort, experimentation, and implementation, they can become a reality. This process involves turning abstract thoughts into tangible products, technologies, or works of art.
https://www.quora.com/When-does-imagina ... for-humans
3)the causes of voluntary behaviour are certain states, events, or conditions within the agent: acts of will or volitions, choices, decisions, desires etc... — The Chapter you cited entitled Compatibilism
So an action is free if its causes are inside the agent. If the causes of those causes are outside the agent, can we conclude that his acts of will, etc are not free? — Ludwig V
Perhaps, but the "cause" of willful action --- as contrasted with physical actions --- is presumed to be within the agent. That's why we call it "Will Power". Otherwise, the action would be pre-determined instead of free-will.
SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION
Note the few long lines between clusters of short lines.
GcLt2VQbyWif744LAXJWxj-1200-80.jpg
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests