Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

At least 2 problems

1. Sarkus is correct, you are not discussing the topic with me. You are discussing it with Sarkus making the same mistakes over and over again.
   1. If you wish to seek clarification then you need to ask the author and not presume anything until qualified to do so.
2. You need to understand, By a process of learning how to self determine, an actor evolves from a state of illusion/delusion (due to ignorance) to greater quality of freedom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's no reason to discuss it with you.
And those aren't mistakes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nonsense!
And irrational
I think i am the only one that hasn't thought about putting u on iggy... perhaps i shall learn otherwise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Proves my point... perfectly... thanks

 

Perhaps it is a matter of logical symbolism which escapes you. Symbolic representations are not illusions, they are illustrations of natural constants.

The symbol X stands for an unspecified thing, not for an illusion. Therefore to say that X is not X is denying the existence of the thing you are trying to represent.

An Equation is a mathematical and logical truth of a self-referential equality in values.

Symmetry: X = X = true.

p.s. It meets the logical law of "necessity and sufficiency"

And so it is with X.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perhaps take you grudge match with Sarkus to another thread. It is obvious that you seek revenge. Irrational posts prove it.

 

But not when refering to abolutes in the manner involved at this depth of analysis.

 

Especially at this depth of analysis. This is fundamental logic, not some "flight of fancy".

You cannot start denying all of science in order to make room for your proposition. Stay within mainstream science. It's history is longer than your memory.

 

this is a philosophical discussion. believe it or not...
X is indeed X ( although many astute philosophers would even argue against that....)
but X might not equal X
Do you understand the distinction between equivalence and and self evident axioms?

You may find the study of the term Absolute worth while...

Either way it is still not much point if all your decisions and processes that lead to them are illusionary...

 

Heee heee HIS -story... is just that, a story...

if science wishes to consider itself to be an illusion then fine by me...

 

Do you understand the logic behind the saying:
"You can't have your cake and eat it too"?
That's what you are trying to do, but alas it is impossible.

You set up a paradox every time you use science to justify an illusion that, in turn, is supposed to justify science.

 

Then it cannot be written as X = X , (or 1+ 1 = 3)
C'mon QQ,

 

1+1 = 3
3+3 = 6
What does 1 equal?

What 1 is is very different to what 1 equals.

I am confident you are smart enough to get it... others here may not have a hope , but I think you might...

 

This is where you are conceptually wrong.

1 = 1 can only mean both sides of the equation equals 1 in value . You cannot mix sets of values with individual values unless you change the "given" value of one or both sides. And that is physucally impossible.
You cannot ignore the law of "necessity and sufficiency"

When I speak of relative values (instead of numbers) is because nature does not deal with numbers at all, it deals only with interactive values of all different kinds. We have assigned different relative symbolic values for human convenience. But E = Mc^2 is an equation and you cannot arrive at a different value, given the known relative values involved in the equation.

 

It has been made clear numerous times the manner in which "illusion" is meant in context: i.e. appears to do contrary to what is impossible. Thus a magician's trick (e.g. sawing in half) is an illusion, because it appears to be doing something that is impossible. The process that is actually undertaken is not an illusion. The people involved are not illusions. The stage, the audience, the building: not illusions.
Freewill is only considered an illusion because it appears to offer us the ability to do other than we end up doing, yet this is concluded to be impossible in a predetermined system: what we do was set in stone at the outset. It is a supremely convincing illusion, one that none of us can escape from, but illusion (per the meaning above) it is.
I hope that clarifies it (again).

I have no need to evade or duck, and will happily discuss it if that is what you want. I have hopefully corrected you on how the word "illusion" is used in context, and hopefully this will inform your future understanding.

 

Thanks for the attempt at clarification.
let's strip down what you have posted into bullet points.

1. It has been made clear numerous times the manner in which "illusion" is meant in context: i.e. appears to do contrary to what is impossible.
   1. Maybe that should read; appears to do contrary to what is deemed to be impossible.
2. Thus a magician's trick (e.g. sawing in half) is an illusion, because it appears to be doing something that is impossible.
   1. Again you really should in all fairness include the word deemed because what is and what isn't impossible is based on knowledge you have and knowledge that is currently unknown.
   2. Levitating a superconductor using Liquid Nitrogen looks like they are doing the impossible to the ignorant.
   3. Electricity was probably considered a trick also...
   4. Trying to maintain objectivity is very important.
3. The process that is actually undertaken is not an illusion.
   1. Yet delivers an outcome that is? You will have to support this bit of rational as it makes no sense if the out come is a predetermined illusion.
   2. Oh yes, the illusion is predetermined to be an illusion. A predetermined fraud.
   3. To believe so is to suggest the universal determinism has entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive humans in to thinking their most treasured gift, freedom, is in fact a deception...
   4. Q: Why would a universe per-determine the evolution of such a huge fraud?
   5. What possible reason is there for this fraud to be evolved when it is totally unnecessary to begin with.
   6. It fails the necessity and sufficiency test, not to mention efficient use of resources test and no doubt a few others so why?
4. The people involved are not illusions.
   1. What do you mean by people? Do you mean the deluded actor who makes decisions that are not his?
   2. If the decision is not his then where is our actor that makes the decisions?..
   3. You call that actor determinism... so a person is not present in the decision making because he has no control over the decisions that determinism makes...
5. The stage, the audience, the building: not illusions.
   1. They are an illusion if there is no actors present to decide such a notion. See point 4:1
6. Freewill is only considered an illusion because it appears to offer us the ability to do other than we end up doing, yet this is concluded to be impossible in a predetermined system.
   1. If your notions of determinism you are espousing are correct then it naturally follows.
   2. But it is the correctness of those notions that are in dispute in this thread.
   3. And it's a big IF
7. what we do was set in stone at the outset.
   1. including the predetermined evolution of self determination perhaps?
8. It is a supremely convincing illusion, one that none of us can escape from, but illusion (per the meaning above) it is.
   1. So you reckon.
   2. Due to arbitrary limitations being placed on what the universe can or can not predetermine to evolve.
   3. You really need to address this issue of arbitrary limitations to even get close to being convincing... Even just for your own benefit.

 

Arbitrary limitations on predetermined evolution?
any one?

 

No, I mean what is impossible. If you want to argue that it is possible to do other than one must in a deterministic universe, feel free

A logical impossibility is not possible, period.
There are no unknowns about it. If an argument is valid then that is all the information needed to know that the conclusion follows from the premises, and thus if the premises are accepted then the conclusion must be. In this instance there is a definition of freedom, a premise of a deterministic universe, and the conclusion that because of the determinism the freedom defined does not exist.
Of course, one might certainly think that something is an appearance of what one deems impossible, due to ignorance, as you highlight, but in this case I am using the term "illusion" specifically because it is known to be only the appearance. It is the valid logical conclusion.

The magician's trick: the process is not an illusion, but the outcome is: it appears to do that which is impossible.

Not fraud. There is no intent. Just an appearance of what it is not.

If your question is why we have evolved such a sense/appearance of freedom, of being able to do otherwise, I would suggest it probably has evolutionary benefits, or is simply a by-product of our consciousness. It may well be that one can not actually be conscious unless one has this sense of freedom.

Care to explain what these tests actually are before you claim it fails them? Or are we just to make up some tests?

No, I mean the entities that we have labelled as people.

Who has ever said the decision is not his? Just as the thermostat turning on or off is the result of actions taken by the thermostat.

The person is present, and I have never suggested otherwise. But there is no freedom in the process of decision making.

Again, deciding upon the labelling or even identification of such a notion does not alter reality. Things are what they are whether you have a word for it, or whether you are there to witness it or not.

I'm glad we agree on that much.

Feel free to look up causal determinism, since you're so fond of Google. And then how it leads to predetermination.

Again, that depends on what you mean by "self determination" and the nature of the freedom, if any, you include within it. If you consider self-determination to also be just a process, then we're back to this whole "co-determination" being nothing but a description of a cog in a watch.

Feel free to break out of it if you can.

There are no arbitrary limitations. The universe merely can not, nor will ever, produce that which is impossible. Everything else is fair game. If you define something that is impossible then the universe will never produce it. So the question is, and has always been, what do you define "self determination" to be? Then we can see if it is impossible, or if, perhaps, it really is just a cog in watch.

 

If....If.... If an argument is valid...
the key word is If..

And if it is not valid...the conclusion is not valid...

 

so why the arbitrary limitations being placed on predetermined evolution?
For all you know there may be two headed mutant Nijas that can self determine twice over out there in the universe somewhere...
Why do you think it is impossible? ( in context)