Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

After skimming through 100's of theories and hypothesis about freewill vs determinism, it is incredible to notice that not one attempt to discuss the very premise that they use to arrive at their conclusions can be found.
They all presume that cause and effect determinisim is limited by some sort of means with out actually discussing it. So limited in fact that the very idea of a self determining entity called human could evolve is not even contemplated let alone discussed.

If you have ever heard of Rare earth Hypothesis you would know that the chances of our initial or even subsequent causal conditions generating the cause and effect pre-determinism to evolve complex life as it has, are incredibly and mind-boggling remote.
Yet here we are with a planet with a huge amount of biodiversity including intelligent humans that demonstrate complex social, intellectual activity, via schools, universities, research institutions and other forms of self generated learning.

The big question I have and would gladly ask any Philosopher or scientists is:

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

Because it appears I am the only one who doesn't.

What logical reason is there to simply and blindly accept that cause and effect pre-determination can produce complex organic life and yet not be able to produce life that is capable of learning to self determine.?

I can almost guarantee that there is no answer available, that they will not know why they limit cause and effect pre-determination in the way they do.

Perhaps here at scienceforum we might explore that issue a little and even provide a little insight in to this question and even perhaps lead the way to a solution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No real need to distinguish, as determinism implies that everything is predetermined. Distinguishing them, however, helps anchor to the initial assumption (deterministic universe) while also allowing specific invocation of the predetermined nature of that system.

It is automatic. Any future local variables that allow deviation from predetermination would mean the universe is indeterministic. Of course, practical predictability is a matter of knowledge and personal capability (of the one predicting), not the universe as a whole that doesn't lack that gap in knowledge. So if we look at a subsystem within the universe and are not in full knowledge of the process and inputs involved, it might appear that the output is not in accordance with what had been predicted. But if we were in full knowledge, and didn't err in our calculations, then we would have infallible prediction due to the predeterministic nature of the universe.

Mutation can happen in a predeterministic universe; we only see something as a mutation because of our lack of the knowledge and detail of how the mutation arose compared to what we were expecting.

No, why should it? It argues against practical predictability, but not predeterminism, which is the case of if you knew the current state and the laws that govern, you could predict any future state.

This is not the philosophical predeterminism that comes from the assumption of a deterministic universe.

While they are all of the same basic notion that X is the result of Y, they are higher level models, ideas, beliefs than the philsophical notion that the universe is deterministic. The list you give all take complex bodies and claim that one aspect is the result of another, or more often that X predisposes Y (I.e. mostly but likely with exceptions), whereas when one refers to a deterministic universe one is referring to the governing laws themselves, the unbreakable rules that have no exceptions, and to the interactions at the simplest orders of complexity.

Separate to those, and closer to the notion of the deterministic universe in relevance, I'd say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The premise is discussed, which is why you arrive at views such as Libertarianism, an incompatibilist view (I.e. Free will is incompatible with a deterministic universe but that since free will does exist, the universe can not be deterministic).

Yes, ant it is an hypothesis, so to then claim, as you do, that we "would know that the chances... are incredibly and mind-boggling remote" is to take the hypothesis as fact. It isn't. It's an hypothesis.
But that aside... so what?
How does the rare earth hypothesis support your case?

In what way do you think anyone here is limiting predetermination? No one here is. So, please, where/how do you think have they limited it?

It depends upon the nature of the freedom you ascribe to "self determine". Which is the crux of the entire debate. If you think that "self determine" is simply the appearance (to ourselves) of not being part of a predetermined course of events, for example, then sure, no one disputes what you are suggesting. But if one ascribes to "self determine" an actual ability to go against the course of events predetermined from the beginning then yes, we are limiting it due to the same logic that concludes that such freedom is not possible.
So take your pick.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thanks for your response however, I'll wait to see what logic is being applied to limit causal (pre)determinism in the way it is being limited.... before I respond.

 

by what reasoning do you limit causal predetermination to prohibiting the evolution of self determination in humans?

if you want to know the definition of self determination it is commonly available on the net...
On second thoughts, how would you word my question? ( even if you reject the implications)


Causual predetermination has evolved a planet of complex life, why is it not able to evolve self determining humans?

Why is it impossible for the universe to have at least two determiners in a co-operative relationship via co-determinism?

 

so your conclusion is the reasoning... simply that it is not possible...hmmmm in logic what sort of fallacy is that?

Remember "freedom" is a value and is immaterial.

 

How would you write my question...? ( even if you reject the implications)
"By what reasoning do you limit causal predetermination to prohibiting the evolution of genuine self determination in humans?"

Personally I believe that determinism is being greatly underestimated as to what is in fact possible....

 

Let's face it... the universe is a petty amazing place. We have only scratched the surface of what there is to know about it. Why people believe it is impossible to evolve genuine self determination in humans is bewildering....

 

Eh? You asked what the logic was, and I have replied that it is the same logic (I.e. logical argument) that ends up with the conclusion that such freedom is not possible. So go back and re-read the logic that leads to that conclusion, and you will have your answer. Simples.

By the same reasoning (already given in numerous threads) that ends with the conclusion that such freedom is impossible. If the conclusion of that reasoning is that such freedom is impossible, that impossibility does indeed stretch to the notion of such freedom within “self-determination”. Only if you change the nature of the freedom between the type that the logic concludes is impossible and the type that can be found (in humans, in thermostats etc).

I wouldn’t word it at all.

It depends on what nature of freedom you are referring to within “self determination”. Causal predetermination, per the logic, precludes the possibility of what some of us think is actual freedom. It does not preclude the existence of this other notion of freedom (such that is found in a thermostat, or in human self-determination).

An output is the result of a single system. If that system is separated into two (or more) parts then they are just cogs in a watch, needing to combine within the greater system to resolve the output. Thus there is but a single system for an output, not two, not more. Your “co-determinism” is nothing more than describing how two elements combine within a greater whole to produce a single output. This is just the description of a single system, even if you can refer to sub-systems. Subsystems produce outputs for use by other subsystems, but the eventual output is still only the output of the whole single system.

 

Not any longer.

Because the Rare Earth Hypothesis is just not true.

IMO, it was inevitable that some form of life would evolve given the available natural resources of the earth.
Abundant chemicals, enormous spatial surfaces, billions of years and a dynamic environment is all that are needed for life to emerge. See the Robert Hazen link for a comprehensive and entertaining synopsis of the latest updates in cosmology and the probability for life elsewhere in the universe.

The earth itself has performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions during its life time. That is aside from the bombardment of space debris and their additional chemical contributions such as gold.

Given the enormous spaces and times which planets enjoy (as compared to a laboratory) the evolution of biology from bio-chemicals had a very high probability of occurring. The enormous diversity of life on earth alone suggests that life is not all that rare and may well be quite common throughout the universe where hospitable conditions are found. Bio-chemicals are already present in cosmic clouds, before they even form stars and planets.

This is why cosmologists and biologists can say with high confidence that life elsewhere in the universe almost certainly has developed. It is just beyond our ability to observe for now, but we got eyes in the sky.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would suggest that any relatively complex system consists of trillions of deterministic mathematical values and functions performing as a cooperative deterministic self-referential system.

A single deterministic cause and effect would be a single causal quantum function and effect. A complex cause and effect would consist of a host of compound deterministic causal values and processing functions.
A human biome consists of trillions of deterministic causal values and effects, many of which are not even human but bacterial.

And here is where I begin to wonder that due to the enormous complexity of determinism at very small scales, if it is not possible that some "aberrant" behavior might creep in. In a probabilistic universe with almost infinite potential for expression, why should determinism be absolute and not have any probabilistic variable aspects itself under unusual circumstances?

 

and that logic fails to exclude the evolution of genuine self determination... eh?
simple !

remember again: freedom is a quality and immaterial.

There is no material freedom under any circumstances thermostat or other...everything, including genuine self determination is deterministic...simple...

I repeat:

Freedom is a quality and immaterial.

The question is only whether that immaterial quality called freedom is genuine or an illusion.

Hence the thread title :

Co-determinism and the reality of freewill.

Your deterministic logic forbids material freedom but does not forbid genuine self determination with it's inherent quality of freedom, relative to how well a human learns to self determine.

I repeat:
freedom is a quality and immaterial...

 

Because it isn't necessary?
Determinism rests on a logical self-referential law of "necessity and sufficiency".

Question; is determinism (as defined) "sufficient" for "necessity", or is self-determinism an additional "necessary" aspect for satisfying "sufficiency"?

 

How does the logic of determinism forbid a quality called freedom?

 

it is absolutely necessary but let's just deal with the basics for now... you guys can barely grasp the reasoning as it is...

• there so no logical reasoning that prohibits an immaterial quality called freedom....
• there is every logical reason why mechanical or material freedom is impossible.

can you see the distinction....
The question is whether that quality called freedom gained from genuine self determination is genuine or an illusion.
The answer can only be yes the quality of freedom gained from genuine self determination is genuine and NOT an illusion.

 

I think the word “cooperative” is redundant. It adds nothing to the understanding or explanation. A watch is a “cooperative” deterministic system (not self referential, though) but saying so adds nothing to “deterministic system”.

Agreed.

Determinism is either absolute or it is not determinism. The discussion assumes a deterministic universe, and it would be dishonest to introduce indeterminism into the nature of the universe. The only indeterminism would be the subjective appearance of such through a lack of knowledge of the system or inputs that gave rise to the abberant result.
I appreciate that we might consider reality to be indeterministic (e.g. probabilistic) but here we have assumed, and are discussing, a deterministic universe, and as such we really should consider it to be absolute.

 

It doesn’t fail at all. What it does do is say that if you want to consider freedom to exist in any form then it has to be a different notion to the one that the logic concludes does not exist in a deterministic universe.
But this has been stated from the beginning of each thread, along the lines of: different notion, different conclusion.

And duck eggs are relatively expensive. So what?

So what? Why are you linking determinism to “material freedom” (whatever that is)?

I repeat:

So what?

You’ve introduced a distinction between a “material freedom” and an “immaterial quality called freedom”. Care to ever explain what you mean by the terms, how they are to be considered different, examples of each etc? So that we can actually understand what otherwise appears to be mere obfuscation?

You’re going to need to do better than explaining the difference by merely stating that a logical arguments forbids one but not the other. Please actually explain what you mean by them. Or are we to guess?

I repeat:

So what?

 

The same logical restriction of freedom applies as in any deterministic mathematical equation.
2 + 2 = 4 , never 5!

 

Disagree

QQ was asking in Quality terms , not in numbers , which are quantitative .

Logic is not just based on numbers.

More importantly logic is based on physical physical thing(s) . Existing .

Further ; Reason defines the logic ; it is reason upon which logic dwells ; comes from .

And reason(ing) comes from knowledge .

 

Numbers and mathematical equations are based on logic.