Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[LuckyR]

There is talk of meaninglessness. By those refusing to answer a simply question."How are choices made?".

If a choice were "free" would we not be flouting the most basic fabric of the universe by being able to ignore cause and effect?
If we could reset the previous moment of time presumably the "free will" would be able to make a different choice? If this is the case then this could only render our choices meaningless, even random.
A choice can only make sense to us and the universe if it is determined by the conditions of the moment, else it would be meaningless and capricious.

"How are choices made?" This is one of the most profound questions about "consciousness".

No it is not.
Maybe I should re-phrase? How do YOU make a choice?
I mean just in the ordinary day to day sense of the word. You made a choice. What was happening?

You continue to ask this question, "simply", as it's something obvious in your mind, as we all should somehow "know" what "consciousness" actually is. That would be just fine, except what your proposed: "determined choice" doesn't make sense.

"If a choice were "free" would we not be flouting the most basic fabric of the universe by being able to ignore cause and effect?"
How so? How would "free Will" violate cause and effect, when your Will is the "cause"?

If you could have chosen otherwise then none of our choices are valid.
If you have the option of chocolate or strawberry ice-cream, you cannot choses vanilla.
But the truth is that before you have the option your choice is already determined with as much surety as not having vanilla.
If your choice is chocolate then it does not matter how many times you could turn the clock back 5 seconds, your choice will remain chocolate for an infinite number of times. Now tell me, if you turned back the clock what would it mean for your choice to change to strawberry as you freely think you can? Would that not potentially invalidate every single choice you ever made? Surely given the circumstances of the moment chocolate was the choice based on your needs, desire, volition, taste. None of which you have control over; none.
And when you reached adolescence did you chose your sexual orientation? Did you chose to be gay or straight or trans? Do you chose to be born? Did you chose your body, your parents your school.
And when you did start to make your "free" choices - how do you do that, what did you base your conscious choices on?

The "truth"? According to what? Don't get me wrong your theory is possible, but since it goes against all subjective and objective experience in the entirety of the existance of humans, it is the epitome of hubris to try to pass it off as the "truth".

[Sculptor1]

Assertion in our discussion: With determinism it is posed that consciousness is a product of an intrinsic existing cosmos that is bound by laws. As a result any 'option' is predetermined.

No. There is no PRE-determination. I am atheist. Only a god can know the future. Maybe this is where we differ.
As individuals we are causal agents, able to reflect. Change is not only possible but determinedly so, both responsive and relevant. The problem would be that if free choice were possible regardless of cause and effect and regardless of antecedent truth.

If an outcome cannot have been other than what it became due to an intrinsic existing cosmos of which consciousness is a deterministic product, then consciousness would fundamentally observe information that would PRE-exist (pre-known) on cosmos-level.

That makes no sense what so ever.

It would render the act of observing meaningless from the perspective of the cosmos.

The issue that I am addressing is the fact that the described situation implies that 'any information' in the cosmos is pre-known to any conscious observer or 'option'.

But that is absurd.
DO you believe in God or something?

I am not religious and I am also not an atheist which is a religion in my opinion.

That is false.
I asked you if you were a theist.
Clearly you arel and clearly this is where you get this bizarre notion of "cosmic consciousness".
I suggest, so that you can understand exactly how determinism works with a sense of godness - please consult Spinoza.

If consciousness is a product of an intrinsic existing cosmos then consciousness would be bound by causality within that cosmos and any information that is observed must have PRE-existed (pre-known) relative to consciousness.

You keep repeating this stuff as is you think it means something.
It obviously means something to you, but despite me asking what you mean nothing you have said has conveyed any meaning.

It implies that consciousness derives its 'meaning' as a product of the information within the intrinsic existing cosmos. That is nonsensical because it implies that the act of observing is applied to the pre-existing information that underlays that act of observing.

no and no.
What you are saying is not making any sense. It is not even wrong.

1) the cosmos exists intrinsically by laws
2) consciousness is a product of that cosmos and is bound by the same causal laws

In this situation the cosmos existed independently BEFORE consciousness and that means that any information that consciousness could observe must have originated from the cosmos causally.

No. there is a time factor, and new information occurs in time.

The described situation is nonsensical and that means that determinism - 'conscious options as a causal product of the cosmos' - cannot be true.

You are not giving an argument to that effect.

It would render consciousness meaningless and that is not justified because one is obligated to explain consciousness.

What is the "it" in this sentence? It is often an indication of loss of reason when an "it" is inserted in lieu of an actual established idea.
So this thing renders consciousness meaningless. Why?
Consciousness is our means of agency. It is the decisive process between thought and action. It lies between the causes of the world and the operation of our nervous system. These causes determine the outcome.
That is my obligation to explain the role of consciousness fulfilled.

'It' refers to the preceding assertion that information that is fundamentally pre-known from the perspective of the cosmos (as causal origin of consciousness) has no reason to be observed.

Determinism would imply that information of the cosmos would produce consciousness causally through laws, to look at that same information. That is absurd.

Your god-like understanding of it is absurd.
There is no change without determinism and not determinism without change.

An analogy would be a fountain that has a conscious eye on top of it as a causal product of that fountain that would then look back at the stream of water from which that eye itself is made in the same time.

Conclusion: a proper addressing of the why question of consciousness prohibits the claim that consciousness is a deterministic product of the cosmos, because that would render the act of observing - and the cosmos with it - fundamentally meaningless.

You seem to be arguing from adverse consequences. It can't be right because you can't figure it out.

No. The demand to answer the why question of consciousness - to explain its meaningfulness - is justified in my opinion and the preceding reasoning has shown that both consciousness and the cosmos would lose their meaningfulness when consciousness would be a deterministic product of the cosmos.

I do not think there is anything to be gained by going round this roundabout again.

[Sculptor1]

There is talk of meaninglessness. By those refusing to answer a simply question."How are choices made?".

If a choice were "free" would we not be flouting the most basic fabric of the universe by being able to ignore cause and effect?
If we could reset the previous moment of time presumably the "free will" would be able to make a different choice? If this is the case then this could only render our choices meaningless, even random.
A choice can only make sense to us and the universe if it is determined by the conditions of the moment, else it would be meaningless and capricious.

"How are choices made?" This is one of the most profound questions about "consciousness".

No it is not.
Maybe I should re-phrase? How do YOU make a choice?
I mean just in the ordinary day to day sense of the word. You made a choice. What was happening?

You continue to ask this question, "simply", as it's something obvious in your mind, as we all should somehow "know" what "consciousness" actually is. That would be just fine, except what your proposed: "determined choice" doesn't make sense.

"If a choice were "free" would we not be flouting the most basic fabric of the universe by being able to ignore cause and effect?"
How so? How would "free Will" violate cause and effect, when your Will is the "cause"?

If you could have chosen otherwise then none of our choices are valid.
If you have the option of chocolate or strawberry ice-cream, you cannot choses vanilla.
But the truth is that before you have the option your choice is already determined with as much surety as not having vanilla.
If your choice is chocolate then it does not matter how many times you could turn the clock back 5 seconds, your choice will remain chocolate for an infinite number of times. Now tell me, if you turned back the clock what would it mean for your choice to change to strawberry as you freely think you can? Would that not potentially invalidate every single choice you ever made? Surely given the circumstances of the moment chocolate was the choice based on your needs, desire, volition, taste. None of which you have control over; none.
And when you reached adolescence did you chose your sexual orientation? Did you chose to be gay or straight or trans? Do you chose to be born? Did you chose your body, your parents your school.
And when you did start to make your "free" choices - how do you do that, what did you base your conscious choices on?

The "truth"? According to what? Don't get me wrong your theory is possible, but since it goes against all subjective and objective experience in the entirety of the existance of humans, it is the epitome of hubris to try to pass it off as the "truth".

The truth is in the scenario was that vanilla is not a possible choice since it in not part of the scenario. The fact that you chose chocolate is the choice of that unique moment in history of the individual and so, like it or not, even though strawberry is on the table that too is not a possible choice; was never a possible choice. From hindsight choosing strawberry could only ever have been meaningless and random, because you favour chocolate.
The TRUTH is that our decisions are made consciously, and providing no one has a gun at our head these endogenous choices may be termed free because they are Determined by us alone.
And this is how the idea of freewill is compatible with an utterly deterministic universe.
And if you are like Value, worried by change, you have only to imagine a situation where you find you are fed up with chocolate, or this time it tasted of, or someone said that the strawberry is better - these ARE potentially causal factors that might mean that next time you will try strawberry.
That would be your WILL. Determined but changed. Determinism is all about change; meaningful change.

[Good_Egg]

Seems to me that reality is complex. From observing it, we have three different concepts of causation:

- an event being deterministically caused by previous events - by the positions and velocities of objects

- an event being caused by a choice made by a mind

- an event being random, uncaused

These are alternative basic models - concepts by which we interpret and simplify reality. And different models fit better to different parts of our experience.

Seems to me that these days many do not believe that anything is truly random. The fall of the dice is in principle determined by which way up it starts and how hard you throw it. But probability - the maths of randomness - is still a useful model for some purposes.

Treating dicerolls as random and playing to the probabilities is usually a more effective game strategy than trying to observe how hard each player rolls the dice and compute the physics of which face will land uppermost

So I'm wondering whether, similarly, treating minds as being able to choose and working from there is a more effective way of addressing issues of interpersonal behaviour than focussing on trying to work out how the state of the neurons in the brain will lead to a particular choice being made...

On other words, accepting free will as a working hypothesis, in the knowledge that deterministic causation isn't The Truth either, just a different working hypothesis that is useful at different levels of system complexity.

[value]

If an outcome cannot have been other than what it became due to an intrinsic existing cosmos of which consciousness is a deterministic product, then consciousness would fundamentally observe information that would PRE-exist (pre-known) on cosmos-level.

That makes no sense what so ever.

Can you please answer the following two questions?

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

That is false.
I asked you if you were a theist.
Clearly you arel and clearly this is where you get this bizarre notion of "cosmic consciousness".
I suggest, so that you can understand exactly how determinism works with a sense of godness - please consult Spinoza.

I am not a theist. The idea of a 'Being' to be the origin of the cosmos is absurd in my opinion since whatever factor would fundamentally underlay the cosmos cannot be a Being.

My logic indicates that meaning must be a priori to the cosmos. Value would be 'beholder of meaning' in my opinion and the act of valuing - moral reasoning or 'philosophy' - would fundamentally underlay the cosmos. There is no suggestion of a God or a 'magical deterministic law'. There is simply logic.

In determinism the why question (meaning) is diverted to magical laws that are to exist intrinsically without mind, which is not justified in my opinion.

No. there is a time factor, and new information occurs in time.

Can it be said that an observer observes new information unbound by historic causality? Would that new information not be causally determined in time?

[Ranvier]

Good_Egg

I encounter this quite often, as claimed by many as "obvious":

"Deterministically caused" - it's an improper splicing of two different concepts "colorful error". It can make sense as a figure of language "idiom" but without a logical correlation. Causes produce effects and every effect has its cause. We can use our knowledge to force an outcome we wish to achieve, in effect to "determine" that outcome. In my estimation this forced effect by our choice is the only way "deterministic" outcome makes any sense. Otherwise, we can only discuss "destiny" of outcome from probabilities in eventual 50/50 outcome in coin toss, which would be the "destined" outcome.

- "an event being random, uncaused" - This is another gem often claimed as being "obvious". I'm unaware of any event ever to be "uncaused", so I'll relegate it to the realm of imagination. Random - doesn't mean "uncaused", "without cause", or even "without a specific" cause. We can go as far as "unknown cause" but there is a definite cause by the mere fact that "random" exists.
Random - simply means without discernable pattern. There may be some pattern, as in algorithm that generates "random" distribution but we just can't perceive that algorithm. In any case, it has nothing to do with the cause for the static.

[Sculptor1]

If an outcome cannot have been other than what it became due to an intrinsic existing cosmos of which consciousness is a deterministic product, then consciousness would fundamentally observe information that would PRE-exist (pre-known) on cosmos-level.

That makes no sense what so ever.

Can you please answer the following two questions?

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

1. "Intrinsic existence". No. That is a mind loaded perception. Is there a universe outside my perception of it , yes.
2. The existenceof what we like to call "mind" is a feature of our perception of what we call ourselves. Everything in the universe has been caused by other conditions in the unvierse. This is never "a cause" but a complex multitude of causes.

That is false.
I asked you if you were a theist.
Clearly you arel and clearly this is where you get this bizarre notion of "cosmic consciousness".
I suggest, so that you can understand exactly how determinism works with a sense of godness - please consult Spinoza.

I am not a theist. The idea of a 'Being' to be the origin of the cosmos is absurd in my opinion since whatever factor would fundamentally underlay the cosmos cannot be a Being.

You are either a theist or an atheist. There is nothing outside these conditions.

My logic indicates that meaning must be a priori to the cosmos. Value would be 'beholder of meaning' in my opinion and the act of valuing - moral reasoning or 'philosophy' - would fundamentally underlay the cosmos. There is no suggestion of a God or a 'magical deterministic law'. There is simply logic.

In determinism the why question (meaning) is diverted to magical laws that are to exist intrinsically without mind, which is not justified in my opinion.

No. there is a time factor, and new information occurs in time.

Can it be said that an observer observes new information unbound by historic causality? Would that new information not be causally determined in time?

NO, obviously not. ANd yes all new things are emerged determinedly, That they are "new" is a matter of perpective.

[Carter Blunt]

I am not religious and I am also not an atheist which is a religion in my opinion.

I have had sex but am also a virgin, which to me is a sexuality.

[value]

I am not religious and I am also not an atheist which is a religion in my opinion.

I have had sex but am also a virgin, which to me is a sexuality.

I prefer to step outside the boundaries of dialectical reasoning.

The following topic (whose author is potentially Robert Pirsig, the author of the most sold philosophy book) provides an example that logic has a limit.

Logic is it's own fallacy.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4253

My opinion is that the limit of logic is not 'the end of the road' for philosophy.

Logic involves a relational context which implies plurality which is finite (limiting) of nature. The potential for reason and logic itself would be at question and that question is equal to the question into the origin of the cosmos (the why question).

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted to explain it in book Tao Te Ching. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

Philosophers and scientists have predicted that at some point in time, humans should start exploring an area of meaning that is not 'repeatable' of nature.

Albert Einstein once wrote the following prophecy about it:

"Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

Does the theory attempted by philosopher Gottfried Leibniz concern theism?

No. Theism seeks to argue on behalf of the idea of existence of a God while atheism does the exact opposite.

You are either a theist or an atheist. There is nothing outside these conditions.

It is false to claim that there is no alternative. One would just have to look at the prophecy of Albert Einstein or the idea of non-locality being applicable to reality (in real time) to know that the why question of the cosmos cannot be limited to an idea of existence or non-existence within the boundaries of logic.

With regard atheism being a religion. Consider the international atheism campaign with big billboards along highways and with bus and taxi advertising.

"There is no God - enjoy your life as purpose of life"
no-god-400.jpg (35.86 KiB) Viewed 482 times

Atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they seem to hope to find stability in life.

Residing in the essence of philosophical exploration on behalf of what can be considered 'good' has no name other than the pursuit of virtue or a 'moral life'. It doesn't require any dogma or belief.

[Carter Blunt]

I prefer to step outside the boundaries of dialectical reasoning.

Then non-atheism is a religion, and you may as well just admit to being religious.

[Ranvier]

Value

Your entire line of reasoning is just fine, except:
"It is false to claim that there is no alternative. One would just have to look at the prophecy of Albert Einstein or the idea of non-locality being applicable to reality (in real time) to know that the why question of the cosmos cannot be limited to an idea of existence or non-existence within the boundaries of logic".

Without the [Reason] there would be no such question "WHY" and the following doesn't make sense without the [Reason]:

"Residing in the essence of philosophical exploration on behalf of what can be considered 'good' has no name other than the pursuit of virtue or a 'moral life'. It doesn't require any dogma or belief".

[Ranvier]

"It doesn't require any dogma or belief" - belief should also be in red

[Sculptor1]

I am not religious and I am also not an atheist which is a religion in my opinion.

I have had sex but am also a virgin, which to me is a sexuality.

Sorry - but where is the punchline?

It's like saying I am a murderer, but never killed anyone.

[Sculptor1]

I am not religious and I am also not an atheist which is a religion in my opinion.

I have had sex but am also a virgin, which to me is a sexuality.

I prefer to step outside the boundaries of dialectical reasoning.

Indeed. But you have made the same mistake.

Is this Carter Blunt actually you?

If not what he might have said with greater credibility is : Although I have had sex, I chose to be celibate.

You cannot be a virgin if you have had sex, but can be celibate if you chose to not have anymore sex.

Atheism and theisms are two sides of a coin for which there is no other choice; like having sex and virginity.

Anything else is an abuse of language.

[Sculptor1]

I prefer to step outside the boundaries of dialectical reasoning.

Then non-atheism is a religion, and you may as well just admit to being religious.

Some many misconceptions; so little time.

NO. Neither theism nor atheism are religions.

Non-atheism, a clumsy double negative is "theism". But theism is not a religion. Is merely is a statement of belief.
Religion is a practice.

This is all simple English.