Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

And you seriously consider this a rebuttal?

The opinion is supported with the logic of the argument given.
If you have issue with the argument, it behooves you to explain what it is you think is wrong with it, and why.
I have given explanation and argument as to why I consider your position wrong in this regard.
You have come back with nothing.

What do you think it means to be "a determiner"?
How are humans specifically determining anything, rather than the universe as a whole, when what humans do was predetermined long before life began?
One doesn't learn to be "a determiner" - the deterministic system necessitates that everything is determined by previous states.
No humans required.
Humans learning to be "a determiner" adds nothing to that.

No.
I have problems with the lack of substance, and the illogic, of your argument, as already explained.

If it was predetermined prior to the existence of the butterfly, in what way can it be said to be predetermined by the butterfly?
What is it that the "butterfly" offers that previous moments (i.e. before the butterfly existed) do not, given that all prior moments equally predetermine the current moment?
If all moments equally determine, how does focusing on the moments of the butterfly add anything other than a subjective focus upon that phenomenon?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We are talking about a universe that is assumed to be deterministic, which means predetermined from as far back as you wish to go.
You have to deal with that, and thus far you seem unable.

WTF?
I haven't brought up any butterfly other than in response to you doing so.
So wtf are you on about???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet you haven't defined what it means to be a "self-determiner" and how that differs from simple determination.
All you are doing, as I mentioned quite a long time ago, toward the start of this thread, is looking at a cog in a watch and trying to declare it somehow different from the workings of the rest of the watch.
You're calling the cog a "self-determiner" without showing how that means it is different to being a cog in a watch.
A cog that, as part of its predetermined path, learns, sure.
But it is still just a cog in a watch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Self determination suggests an action by a motivated intelligent actor. But IMO, it goes deeper that that.

Self-determination is merely one aspect of a self-referential system, not founded on motivated intelligence but an inherent universal potential which applies to all forms of information sharing. This is useful in solving natural equations, the foundation of universal values and functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference

 

and I am claiming that that universe's predetermination going all the way back led to evolving humans who could learn to predetermine to the best of their ability in their own right...etc...

Now unless you can offer solid reasoning that forbids such evolution, I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your inferior position.

 

have defined it many times...
and a cog is a universe unto itself... a watch with in a watch...localized macro deterministic impacts, infinite micro deterministic impacts... It is amazing how influential a "watch" in side a "watch" can be...

 

except to say that while you are entitled to your personal opinion, it's value to this discussion is drastically reduced as you offer no sound reasoning to support it.
You have no logical, reasonable objection to the inclusion of a self determiner ( as so many times previously defined) in a deterministic universe.

It is simply daft that you require others to lower their Intelligence to prop up your inadequacies.

Have you ever considered a "deterministic mirror", a reflection of the so called butterfly, where deterministic forces are reflected back on them selves. Of course you haven't. You actually have to study the subject in depth. Apparently you have not learned enough to gain the freedom that comes with it. "Oppression by willful ignorance."

Example:

Light source (steady state - white)
Mirror

Process:

Light is reflected back at the source.

questions:

• What impact does the reflected light have on the source?
• Why isn't a positive energy feedback loop established?
• How is an information feedback loop established with out an energy loop being established?
  
• Is the light source and mirror a self referencing system?

and so on...

Assume human Identity/will/self/John, is a light source and his environment/body/mind/intelligence, is his mirror...
End result:
self referencing system within a deterministic universe...

 

the logic in this statement is utterly bewildering...strawman after strawman...
I was not talking about anything other than the "butterfly" predetermining human evolution.
Why do you refer to previous moments.
What makes you think that the butterfly ( first cause ) didn't have the potential to evolve humans with self determination?
Your religious devotion to a butterfly that doesn't allow human self determination to evolve is outstanding...
An irrational belief without a shred of evidence of even logic to go with it.

 

By the fact that it was predetermined prior to the existence of the butterfly by the predetermination of the butterfly. The butterfly was predetermined to predetermine it - that's how it was predetermined.

Process is everything, in this matter. That's where the freedom of will - if any - is.

This is all easier to see, type, and follow, if you just use "determined". "Determined" and "predetermined" are the same thing, in a deterministic universe that works by cause and effect - i.e. forward in time.

 

He's using "self-determination" wrong, but as with your use of "illusion" and so forth this can be corrected by interpretation in context. That's what anyone trying to discuss the matter would do, in a forum like this.
As far as being different from a cog in a watch: it is making decisions based on internal mental processing, inputs to that decision coming from its own parts and agents, information from its own constantly changing and updating store. The cog is not doing any of that - it is reacting to externally sourced input only. Without external input, the cog cannot even act (Newton's Laws of Motion apply) - let alone choose between capabilities of action.

And that is flagrantly, immediately, by repeated explicit referral and repeated direct observation, obvious.
That is what attention to logical levels and complexity hands the analyzer, immediately.
It takes an effort of will to overlook something like that.

 

how do you normally define self determination?
my definition is in accord with the common dictionary meaning...
.....the process by which a person controls their own life.

 

Positing that determinism is limited to the purely instantaneous individual cause/effect processes, pre-determinism would then be distinguished as a process of long range deterministic forecast ability, IOW. long term future prediction that a thing will have a specific unalterable pattern, based on what the pattern was 1000 years ago.

Question is if determinism automatically produces pre-determinism, or if determinism allows for future local variables, externally caused chance mutations which would corrupt any notion of a predictable pre-determinism?

This would support the concept of mutative evolution and its expression in the variety in species originating from common ancestors, as well as the variety found in same species.

Should same species not be identical? And does the great variety of physical attributes in same species not argue against pre-determinism?

A perfect example of pre-determinism is the Silvery Salamander. All offspring are female and identical clones of the mother, due to the absence of male DNA, which the female rejects and uses only her own DNA as the growth template. However this is not a case of a willed self-referential process. It is a mathematical physical equation.

Types of determinism

• Genetic determinism.
• Biological determinism.
• Psychological determinism.
• Social determinism.
• Cultural determinism.
• Economic determinism.
• Logical determinism.
• Geographic determinism.

What sets each form of determinism apart from each other and what are the 'common denominators" in all these forms of determinism.

And in what category would self-determinism play a role?

 

Humans do not learn to predetermine.
The system that humans are part of is deterministic, and as such the system is one that is predeterministic.
To say that humans learn to predetermine is to fundamentally misunderstand what you are discussing.
Anything, and I really do mean anything, within a deterministic universe is part and parcel of that system.
The system, being deterministic, is one that means that all subsequent states are predetermined by the first, by the second, by the third etc.
Humans are nothing special in this regard.
They don't learn to predetermine, they are simply a part of a deterministic system, a system in which any state is predetermined by any previous state.
Your "learning to determine" or "learning to predetermine" are simply misunderstandings of what is going on, or at best a clumsy way to express what you do mean such that it still remains a mystery to anyone else.
Does a cog learn how to be deterministic?
Yet it is part of a deterministic system (the watch).
So in what way does a human "learn to determine" when it is part of a deterministic system and can do nothing else but adhere to that determinism, irrespective of what it learns (if anything at all).
You operate in as deterministic a manner (i.e. as a cog in a deterministic watch) as a brick.
As do I.
As does everything.
"Learn to pre/determine" is simply meaningless in that context.
Nothing learns to be deterministic.

Until you can show how part of a deterministic system learns how to be deterministic and/or predeterministic, you're really just throwing words together that you think sound good and expecting them to mean something.
For me to rebut the substance of what you are saying you first need to show that there is actually something to rebut.

 

Now, rather than simply assuming the freedom within that, maybe you want to explain how you think that process of "controlling their own life" is free, when you have assumed the universe is deterministic and thus every action the person does is predetermined from the dawn of time?
None of this "learning to predetermine" nonsense, please.
Someone no more learns how to predetermine (in a deterministic universe) than time learns how to pass, or liquid water learns how to to be wet.
Whatever happens is predetermined.
It can not be any other way.
"Learning" does not alter this, can not alter this.

 

why?
Can't you handle the straight forward logic involved?

of course it does...alter it tremendously.
The evidencce is all around you...

 

I wont be able to post for a few hours. maybe someone else would like to have a go at it...
what do you think?

 

I can only lead the horse to water.
Unfortunately in this case the horse wants to drink some psychedelic liquid and ignores all argument that what is in front of him is actually water.

I have no objection to it, as it is irrelevant to the issue.
The introduction of a "self determiner" is like adding a drop of water to the ocean when discussing whether the ocean is wet or not.
You are trying to create a distinction between that drop of water and the rest of the ocean.
But unless you can show how that drop requires one to consider it differently, you're just introducing irrelevancies.
Which is pretty much what your notion of "co-determinism" is.
Cog in a watch.

I'm actually looking for you to raise your game even to the point of merely making sense.

"Deterministic mirror" differs from an actual mirror... how?

Since no one has disputed the notion of a self-referencing system within a deterministic universe, of what purpose this foray into men of straw?

Because there are previous moments to the butterfly.
The butterfly is not the first cause in a deterministic universe.

In what sense do you think the butterfly is a first cause of anything.
If you mean the Big Bang, state it as such and avoid confusion.
If you mean that it is a first cause (rather than the Big Bang etc) then the onus is on you to show how anything can be a first cause in a deterministic universe, other than the Big Bang.
If you simply mean that the butterfly is an arbitrary starting point to a chain of events, and as such it is the butterfly that predetermines all subsequent events, then you are ignoring that there were events leading up to the butterfly that similarly predetermined the butterfly and all subsequent events.
If you simply focus on the butterfly and ignore what goes before then you are, as stated previously, simply looking at a subjective viewpoint.

Again, WTF are you going on about a butterfly for?
You introduced it, and now you are saying that I have a religious devotion to it??
WTF???

 

So now you've stopped all pretence at being able to discuss, and are simply saying "I'm right, you're wrong!"
Your true colours have once again been shown: muddled thinking, no real grasp of what you're talking about, efforts at deflection, and ultimately neither willing nor ability to support what you claim.

I guess I only have myself to blame for thinking you would ever change.

 

Still no logic... just waffle and call to authority...

 

Baldeee,
Why do you limit the cause and effect predetermination the way you do?