determinism Cultural Dictionary In ethics, the view that human actions are entirely controlled by previous conditions, operating under laws of nature. Determinism is often understood as ruling out free will. I haven’t explored the varieties of determinism. I take it you aren’t a theological determinism supporter, Doreen.
Sisyphus From Wikipedia, In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was a king punished in Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this throughout eternity. The word sisyphean means, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, "endless and unavailing, as labor or a task." A new definition of hell.
From Wikipedia, Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not — determinism versus indeterminism — and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not — compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, 'hard determinists' are incompatibilists who argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible. Libertarians are also incompatibilists. They believe that free will exists and strict causal determinism is false. Their problem is to reconcile free will with chance or indeterminism, which threatens to make actions random. The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it implies that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. The question Doreen has been asking is do we have free will or not? Determinism versus indeterminism, I'm thinking about it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Determinism versus indeterminism, I'm thinking about it. I'm still thinking, however, so far I think uncertainty exists. Also, I think we make choices. It seems uncertainty and choices work together. I think I'll start off with uncertainty and choices to make. I choose to use natural selection, according to Darwin, that which is beneficial will be preserved. Through the Darwinian selection process we choose beneficially and gain experience. Once gaining a little experience we develop a preference concerning choices. We end up, through the experience of choosing that which is beneficial, surviving. Given our level of intelligence we learn to do better. Looks like I go for randomness, Doreen. "Free Will" should be determined in context within the Darwinian natural selection process. IMO, if we do have a "free will" then it can be recognized by our choice to do better and is deep-rooted as part of the evolutionary process.
Correct. I am raising the issue to show that most atheists make assumptions based on faith, often running counter to evidence. Free will and the existence of a self that persists throught time are two of these. Of course, even if I am correct, the existence of these beliefs does not support a belief in God. I do think, however, it places any such discussion, between atheists and theists, on more humane footing.
OK. You are choosing randomness. This means that your belief in Darwin is random. If not, it is determined by causes set in motion long before you were born. In either case, I can't see where free will comes in IN A FORM THAT SOMEONE THINKING THEY BASE THEIR DECISIONS ON REASON will like.
The uncertainty principle is not saying that things are random. It is saying there is only so much you can know in a given instance. There are parts of QM that imply 'randomness.' I am being a devil's advocate here. This argument is problematic because it could be used as an argument against you being an intelligent creature. Quantum processes hold in the atoms making up your brain. In fact, I am making that argument. If you want to go with the determinists, choice and control fly out the window. If you want to go with randomness choice also goes out the windown. Things happen. You did not control your body, it simply randomly headed in this or that direction. Of course you could see yourself as a stochastic process - determined and random elements coming together. I think this is most likely version for the rational non-theists. It is pretty clear there are patterns, even to your choices. But if these patterns are based on a combination of randomness and utterly determined cause effect flows I see no room for freedom as we usually mean it. If I am bobbing along in a chaotic field OF WHICH I AM A PART I am not free. Just as some dust particle being tossed around in brownian motion in a beaker is not free.
I think we begin in the evolutionary process as uncertain about everything and little by little we gain information about our environment. Starting with something like remembering the best place to eat. "Free Will" should be determined in context within the Darwinian natural selection process. IMO, if we do have a "free will" then it can be recognized by our choice to do better and is deep-rooted as part of the evolutionary process.
Living beings like yourself and I control some things within our envoriment but can’t reasonable think we can control everything completely. We're not in a situation where its control all or nothing. First one must have intelligence to be able to control anything. No intelligence then no control.
I ask what freedoms have I lost? All that randomness quantum mechanics theory measures doesn't have intelligence and doesn't think. Those individual atoms don't possess thinking skills. Who is it that's recognizing control in the first place, certainly nothing at the quantum level. I think basically you’ve stated that all living organisms are controlled by their environment. And the organisms environment dictates everything that happens. I think in reality it’s a give and take cooperative between organisms and their environment and control is something we alone think about. It would be fair to seperate out controlling agents and since only intelligence does any thinking about control. Non-thinking controlling agents should be placed under a seperate category something like the environment. Now, who is it removing my freedoms? Do I have a foe to battle or is it simply limitations because of my existing within an ecosphere? Through evolution human ancestors had to choose beneficially to survive or else die, and that established trait continues through the generations. If one asked the question, where does will come from? I would say, our will developed because of our uncertainty in what to do and then us making beneficial choices in accordance with the Darwinian natural selection process. It became our will "to choose things that are beneficial" because of the evolutionary process our specie's ancestry lived through. A real life do or die situation. We have beneficial embedded into our brains. Self isn't always 100%, sometimes a choice can be made when self doesn't enter into the decision making process and still be beneficial. There are beneficial aspects to doing beneficial things. QM is measuring the existence of randomness at the atomic level resulting in showing uncertainty and also is observable in reality. This uncertainty effecting reality is causing indecisiveness and the need for choosing. If one is certain about the choice then it is no longer choosing in the "not sure" state, it has either become a preference or dislike. We start with no knowledge and no language, then evolve from there. To be uncertainty the effect of the choice made isn't known in advanced like the throw of dice or can be never tried before and the outcome is unknown. It always comes down to the observer. I think we can recognize a causality within the Darwinian natural selection process and quantum level randomness. Observing uncertainty in reality is true. Random events exists and scientist have developed math to analyze the results of those events. The developing pattern you're looking for are the "survivors" resulting within the Darwinian natural selection process. You can say the universe was before me and it will be after me, I'm just an observer. You wouldn't be wrong. Decide to exercise enough control to get the things you want out of life.
Earth, Doreen: some more fuel to the fire... First, determinism on a strict basis means "same inputs = same outputs". What I refer to as probabilistic determinism (not sure of what philosphers call it) builds in the quantum uncertainty / randomness to the outputs - so that the "same inputs = same probability function for the output" - but the exact ouput is random but obeying the probability function. With regard choice / freewill: At a macro level it appears we make choices - that given some inputs we can assess the possible outputs and make a "choice" - exercise free-will. This is all well and good on a macro-level - or so it seems. But on a micro-level - at the quantum level etc... We have inputs. We have probabilistically determined outputs. The output can not assess its own probability function and determine its own outcome - it can not make a choice. So if individual atoms etc can not make choices... how can you scale that up to the macro and be sure that choices are made? And just using cause and effect: We have cause. We have (a probabilistic) effect. A "choice" would be the equivalent of a non-caused agent assessing the various possible outcomes and selecting which one. But there are no non-caused agents if you think cause/effect hold. Any "choice" through such an agent that interrupts another cause/effect action to determine the effect is itself an effect of a preceeding cause. So think of it like this: A causes B or C or D (probabilistic effect). You, as a person, would like to think that you can assess B, C and D and "choose" which one you want. You choose B. You, as a person, are now an additional parameter to the cause/effect relationship. So this is now like A+X causes B. So what the cause/effect chain actually is would be more like: A causes assessment of B/C/D (which we'll call X) which causes a feedbackloop to result in A+X causes B. The assessment, X, is also the effect of another chain of cause/effect, with a vast complexity of interconnected feedback loops etc. And it is this vast complexity that most likely gives rise to what we deem consciousness, and the ideas of choice and free-will. So if it does not exist at the quantum / atomic level - how can it exist in the macro world? When you examine all supposed "choices" - there are causes upon causes upon causes... and we have actually made no "choice" at all - but our conciousness gives us that illusion - or perhaps our consciousness IS that illusion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Comparatively, consciousness at the quantum level would be the same as our DNA or genome being conscious. The difference is our genome is entangled and alive, atoms at the quantum level aren't thought of as living and don't have the characteristics of anything living. How can consciousness exist without being alive? To be able to choose you have to be alive. By scientific definition lifeis a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms
I'm not saying that anything is conscious at a quantum level, or even atomic level - or even molecular level. Consciousness is a pattern of the macro level, not micro. But you're also throwing around terms such as "alive" and "living" without actually saying what it is? In your view, what is it that turns our DNA - a series of chemicals in a certain order and pattern - into a "living" organism?
To be able to choose you have to be alive. By scientific definition life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms From Wikipedia, Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes ("alive," "living"), from those which do not either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate." Do have a reference to the observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true that there is a consciousness at the macro level?
This is where I should step back and examine the facts. I can’t allow choice making without the one choosing living or in other words alive. Otherwise we have inanimate objects doing choosing with volition developing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Science can't as of yet completely answer your question. From Wikipedia, In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose. Science is getting closer to answering the age old question. The Origin of Life on Earth from the September 2009 Scientific American Magazine.
Only in "living" organisms do you find a consciousness. consciousness, 1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. 7. Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.
