Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Ranvier]

Value

Agreed. Although, in your argument, it's important to remember that the cause.: effect isn't a one to one relationship. Every effect has a cause but the same effect may result from multiple different causes. Conversely a single cause may have multiple different effects depending on circumstances of other variables. Therefore, application of the cause and effect principle, doesn't equate with determinism.

[Sculptor1]

The argument is simply that when that which is observed is fundamentally known cosmic-wise that the act of observing would be rendered meaningless.

Nope - not making head nor tail of this.
You are not making yourself clear.
Maybe if you answered my questions we could move on?
What to you mean "cosmic level"?
Cosmic how?
WFT is cosmic consciousness? DO you have any evidence of such a thing?

With cosmic level is meant 'the whole of information' (totality) in a purely causal and deterministic cosmos. The term was used to indicate not consciousness but 'any information' originating from intrinsic existence that would fundamentally underlay consciousness (observing) of that information.

Surely this is some sort of fantasy?
No entity is capable of this since consciousness is atomised to the lived experience of conscious entitiues?

The argument is that such 'cosmic level' (pre-known) information doesn't require an observer or consciousness, rendering consciousness meaningless, of which it is said that that is not justified.

Simplified: it is not justified to neglect the meaning of consciousness. One is obligated to explain consciousness.

When it concerns meaning it concerns the 'why' question of the cosmos. The act of observing - 'consciousness' - is necessarily meaningful and one is obligated to explain it's why question (why it is meaningful).

It is then seen that a proper addressing of the why question of consciousness prohibits one to claim that consciousness is a product of the cosmos because that would render the act of observing - and the cosmos with it - meaningless.

1. Causality (determinism) acquires its meaning from the concept 'begin' (subjective perspective).
2. The act of observing - 'consciousness' - acquires its meaning from being the origin of a begin (the essence of a subjective perspective) that therefore must fundamentally underlay the cosmos.

Therefore, when it concerns conscious options, there is a moral reasoning component involved which is the 'why' question of the cosmos that fundamentally underlays any conscious option.

In a deterministic world in which consciousness would be produced as a meaningless product, options would be just as meaningless as the consciousness that is produced by the 'cosmic level' (pre-known) information that it is observing.

The idea that determinism is true therefore is prohibited by the obligation to answer the why question of consciousness.

My objection pretty much renders the rest of what you say utterly moot.
I suppose it might have some sort of appeal to a Theist.

[Bahman]

However, here's what I wrote:

"I opted to have lunch at McDonalds yesterday."

I cannot, of course, opt otherwise at this stage of the game. Nonetheless, the sentence is coherent, descriptive, and meaningful. If we can "choose" in the past tense, surely we can choose in the present tense. "Options" is a meaningful word whether or not they are determined.

Ok, that means that you believe that options are real. Now could you answer the question in the title given the definition of determinism in OP?

The OP poses a linguistic puzzle, not a philosophical problem. An option is "a thing that is or may be chosen." A "choice" is "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities." '

What does "faced with" mean? It refers to the point of view of the chooser. When LeBron James became eligible for the NBA draft, it was a forgone conclusion that he would be "chosen" first. Does this mean that "choice" is an inappropriate word in this case? I don't think so. When one says, "I chose to go to the store yesterday" no other choice is possible (any more). So what? The word "choice" aptly describes the sense in which you decided to go to the store.

The fact that there are reasons for choosing as we do is irrelevant. So is the notion that our choices may be inevitable. The word describes our mental processes, not the state of the universe, or the knowledge of an omniscient God.

I am not talking about the decision made in the past but the decision we make now. Do you believe that options are real when we are making a decision? Do you believe in determinism?

[Bahman]

As I already said: "My question is not how a person can choose one of the options but how options could be real in a deterministic world.". I don't really know how to explain it more simpler than this for you.

It might help if your underlying assumptions did not lead you to this contradiction.
1) Do you think the world is deterministic?
2) Do choices exist?

Cool. Now you get my point. I am challenging determinism here so I assume that determinism and choices are both true and show that there is a contradiction! Of course, I have my argument for options to be real as it is illustrated in OP and as it is discussed in several posts in this thread.

No I asked you two questions. You cannot infer from two questions that I "now get your point".
Please answer the questions so that we can get on with the discussion.

What I believe is not the subject of this thread. I am attacking determinism.

[Bahman]

My question is not how a person can choose one of the options but how options could be real in a deterministic world.

How they MIGHT be real? Maybe that quantum nonsense about "the secret", where the observer-dependent state of quantum particles is literally the observer choosing an option. Of course, that still wouldn't rule out the possibility that the ''soul" itself was always gonna come to the same decisions.

How options could not be real when you delay for making the decision in a situation for a while, day, or even years.

[Sculptor1]

It might help if your underlying assumptions did not lead you to this contradiction.
1) Do you think the world is deterministic?
2) Do choices exist?

Cool. Now you get my point. I am challenging determinism here so I assume that determinism and choices are both true and show that there is a contradiction! Of course, I have my argument for options to be real as it is illustrated in OP and as it is discussed in several posts in this thread.

No I asked you two questions. You cannot infer from two questions that I "now get your point".
Please answer the questions so that we can get on with the discussion.

What I believe is not the subject of this thread. I am attacking determinism.

So you do not think the world is deterministic, yes?
And do choices exist?
I assume you think they exist "freely" is some way.
SO why do you think a deterministic world could not have choices?
How do you personally make a choice?

[Ranvier]

Why is this topic so challenging to decipher?

If the determinism was in fact a true nature of reality, there would be no consciousness. There could be no consciousness, as every outcome would be known. No mystery, just the same movie playing out over and over in exactly the same predetermined way. Not even a need for an observer of the movie. Why isn't this obvious? This is no different than discussing a morality with an atheist, who can't comprehend the logical consequence of the proposition.

[Ecurb]

I am not talking about the decision made in the past but the decision we make now. Do you believe that options are real when we are making a decision? Do you believe in determinism?

As I've clearly stated, I believe options are real regardless of whether the universe is deterministic. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. I used the example of the past tense because options made in the past are clearly "determined", yet the word is still used appropriately.

[Ranvier]

As I've clearly stated, I believe options are real regardless of whether the universe is deterministic.

This sentence should reveal to you that you don't comprehend. There would be no past, present, or future, as everything would be "known" (deterministic). If universe was in fact deterministic, there would be no "you", as there couldn't be any cognition of "time" concept. No different than a stone flying though the vastness of space.

[value]

Value

Agreed. Although, in your argument, it's important to remember that the cause.: effect isn't a one to one relationship. Every effect has a cause but the same effect may result from multiple different causes. Conversely a single cause may have multiple different effects depending on circumstances of other variables. Therefore, application of the cause and effect principle, doesn't equate with determinism.

When causality is true that would imply that the outcome of causality within the scope of available variables is bound by laws and is always the same, which would imply that determinism is true.

"Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

How would it be possible to escape determinism when causality is true?

[value]

With cosmic level is meant 'the whole of information' (totality) in a purely causal and deterministic cosmos. The term was used to indicate not consciousness but 'any information' originating from intrinsic existence that would fundamentally underlay consciousness (observing) of that information.

Surely this is some sort of fantasy?
No entity is capable of this since consciousness is atomised to the lived experience of conscious entitiues?

There is no need for an individual to know any information in the cosmos when it would be 'given' to them by a cosmos that fundamentally pre-exists intrinsically relative to the observer. This same argument renders conscious observation - and the cosmos with it - fundamentally meaningless.

it is not justified to neglect the meaning of consciousness. One is obligated to explain consciousness.
...
when it concerns conscious options, there is a moral reasoning component involved which is the 'why' question of the cosmos that fundamentally underlays any conscious option.
...
The idea that determinism is true therefore is prohibited by the obligation to answer the why question of consciousness.

My objection pretty much renders the rest of what you say utterly moot.
I suppose it might have some sort of appeal to a Theist.

In my opinion the denoted obligation to answer the 'why' question of consciousness cannot be neglected. That obligation translates to the required 'meaningfulness' of consciousness and the corresponding implication that the cosmos would be rendered meaningless when consciousness were to be a deterministic (law bound) product of an intrinsic pre-existing causal cosmos, which would prohibit the belief that determinism is true.

[Ecurb]

This sentence should reveal to you that you don't comprehend. There would be no past, present, or future, as everything would be "known" (deterministic). If universe was in fact deterministic, there would be no "you", as there couldn't be any cognition of "time" concept. No different than a stone flying though the vastness of space.

You are right. I don't comprehend. Perhaps, however, this is because what you write is incomprehensible. (I admit I hven't read your posts until this one.)

[Bahman]

Cool. Now you get my point. I am challenging determinism here so I assume that determinism and choices are both true and show that there is a contradiction! Of course, I have my argument for options to be real as it is illustrated in OP and as it is discussed in several posts in this thread.

No I asked you two questions. You cannot infer from two questions that I "now get your point".
Please answer the questions so that we can get on with the discussion.

What I believe is not the subject of this thread. I am attacking determinism.

So you do not think the world is deterministic, yes?

I believe in a version of substance dualism where the mind, one of the substances, is necessary for change. The mind has the ability to decide when options are available.

And do choices exist?

Yes.

I assume you think they exist "freely" is some way.
SO why do you think a deterministic world could not have choices?

Because in a deterministic world (I already defined determinism in OP), only one outcome (one option) can exist so you could not have options.

How do you personally make a choice?

That is the ability of my mind which is an irreducible substance.

[Sculptor1]

With cosmic level is meant 'the whole of information' (totality) in a purely causal and deterministic cosmos. The term was used to indicate not consciousness but 'any information' originating from intrinsic existence that would fundamentally underlay consciousness (observing) of that information.

Surely this is some sort of fantasy?
No entity is capable of this since consciousness is atomised to the lived experience of conscious entitiues?

There is no need for an individual to know any information in the cosmos when it would be 'given' to them by a cosmos that fundamentally pre-exists intrinsically relative to the observer. This same argument renders conscious observation - and the cosmos with it - fundamentally meaningless.

I understood "fundamentally meaningless"
The rest does not makes sense and was not a response to my post.

it is not justified to neglect the meaning of consciousness. One is obligated to explain consciousness.
...
when it concerns conscious options, there is a moral reasoning component involved which is the 'why' question of the cosmos that fundamentally underlays any conscious option.
...
The idea that determinism is true therefore is prohibited by the obligation to answer the why question of consciousness.

My objection pretty much renders the rest of what you say utterly moot.
I suppose it might have some sort of appeal to a Theist.

In my opinion the denoted obligation to answer the 'why' question of consciousness cannot be neglected. That obligation translates to the required 'meaningfulness' of consciousness and the corresponding implication that the cosmos would be rendered meaningless when consciousness were to be a deterministic (law bound) product of an intrinsic pre-existing causal cosmos, which would prohibit the belief that determinism is true.

Nope.

[Sculptor1]

No I asked you two questions. You cannot infer from two questions that I "now get your point".
Please answer the questions so that we can get on with the discussion.

What I believe is not the subject of this thread. I am attacking determinism.

So you do not think the world is deterministic, yes?

I believe in a version of substance dualism where the mind, one of the substances, is necessary for change. The mind has the ability to decide when options are available.

And do choices exist?

Yes.

I assume you think they exist "freely" is some way.
SO why do you think a deterministic world could not have choices?

Because in a deterministic world (I already defined determinism in OP), only one outcome (one option) can exist so you could not have options.

How do you personally make a choice?

That is the ability of my mind which is an irreducible substance.

Each time I ask a straight question you avoid answering it.

How do you make a choice?