Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Taiwo Faith 24]

World where all that can be done is from the option we choose. This options depends on individual and their determination

[Bahman]

World where all that can be done is from the option we choose.

No, sometimes we don't have any option,

This options depends on individual and their determination

Options depend on individuals' decisions.

[Barkun]

I can prove the universe is determined.

If I want to type, I don't do that directly, I don't go to my hands and apply typing action, I do it indirectly, targeting the action concept in mind and it results in me indirectly moving my arm and hands in a certain way that creates the effect of typing. Therefore, all action is indirect, including thought process(a function of mind-body; see Thinking is not Forced Directly: Thought is Forced Directly. Indirect actions happen because the body is part of an environment and using it is more like climbing an obstacle than it is like kicking a ball(I.e. the body is part of the environment to the mind it's just very close and under control).

Now, all mind-body functions are predetermined universally; this because, as I have stated previously, all action is indirect and thus not a result of free will, but will, in a deterministic system. Actions are thus options we choose and not complete serenity or mind.

We are actors, not agents, but one may suggest that what's predetermined is determined twice, once mentally, once physically and the two states are dynamic.

If a mind wants to leave the comfort of doing what it wants, and begins to only do what it needs(not as simple as fulfilling needs, but as complex as a pure need, which is a link to something else, or a uncomfortable action made comfortable through success), the body will leave the predetermined and predetermination of a different chain of events will unfold.

The mind predetermined state is only so much so, for where the mind matches the universe with imagination, it creates a universe matching image every smallest segment of time. Mind is as powerful as the universe, and does something system breaking every moment, meaning it's completely unpredictable. However, as said before mind-body functions are predetermined. Thoughts, predetermined; it's the pure imagination of mind and wisdom of such that isn't.

[LuckyR]

I can prove the universe is determined.

If I want to type, I don't do that directly, I don't go to my hands and apply typing action, I do it indirectly, targeting the action concept in mind and it results in me indirectly moving my arm and hands in a certain way that creates the effect of typing. Therefore, all action is indirect, including thought process(a function of mind-body; see Thinking is not Forced Directly: Thought is Forced Directly. Indirect actions happen because the body is part of an environment and using it is more like climbing an obstacle than it is like kicking a ball(I.e. the body is part of the environment to the mind it's just very close and under control).

Now, all mind-body functions are predetermined universally; this because, as I have stated previously, all action is indirect and thus not a result of free will, but will, in a deterministic system. Actions are thus options we choose and not complete serenity or mind.

We are actors, not agents, but one may suggest that what's predetermined is determined twice, once mentally, once physically and the two states are dynamic.

If a mind wants to leave the comfort of doing what it wants, and begins to only do what it needs(not as simple as fulfilling needs, but as complex as a pure need, which is a link to something else, or a uncomfortable action made comfortable through success), the body will leave the predetermined and predetermination of a different chain of events will unfold.

The mind predetermined state is only so much so, for where the mind matches the universe with imagination, it creates a universe matching image every smallest segment of time. Mind is as powerful as the universe, and does something system breaking every moment, meaning it's completely unpredictable. However, as said before mind-body functions are predetermined. Thoughts, predetermined; it's the pure imagination of mind and wisdom of such that isn't.

A nice review of Determinism. Certainly possible, though suffers from a lack of corroboration through the entirety of human experience.

[Bahman]

I can prove the universe is determined.

No, you cannot. The universe is only partially deterministic unless a part of it, an agent faces options.

If I want to type, I don't do that directly, I don't go to my hands and apply typing action, I do it indirectly, targeting the action concept in mind and it results in me indirectly moving my arm and hands in a certain way that creates the effect of typing. Therefore, all action is indirect, including thought process(a function of mind-body; see Thinking is not Forced Directly: Thought is Forced Directly. Indirect actions happen because the body is part of an environment and using it is more like climbing an obstacle than it is like kicking a ball(I.e. the body is part of the environment to the mind it's just very close and under control).

You are partly talking about the mind-body problem here. Sometimes you face options when you think. You pause, you think further, sometimes you don't even know how to proceed further! Options are real.

Now, all mind-body functions are predetermined universally; this because, as I have stated previously, all action is indirect and thus not a result of free will, but will, in a deterministic system. Actions are thus options we choose and not complete serenity or mind.

Will becomes important when you are dealing with options. Here, I am discussing about existence of option and not free will.

We are actors, not agents, but one may suggest that what's predetermined is determined twice, once mentally, once physically and the two states are dynamic.

That is a coincidence that is logically impossible.

[Leontiskos]

I guess I'm arguing the possibility of free will as an emergent phenomenon.

...To believe in non-deterministic realities or random realities is to reject Determinism. It doesn't matter if the non-deterministic realities "emerge" or if the random realities exist at the quantum level, etc.

I see three models - determinism, randomness, and choice.

If you think the three models are truly different then you have already accepted incompatibilism.

Ontologically determined but practically random...

Either it's determined or random; it can't be both. If "random" events are determined then random events do not exist, and your "random model" collapses into your deterministic model.

In the same way one can treat people as (practically) making choices; can apply the model of agency. Even whilst suspecting that deterministic physics controls brain function which controls mind. So that people's acts are believed to be ontologically determined but treated practically as a freely willed choice.

Either it's free or determined; it can't be both. If "free" events are determined then free events do not exist, and your "choice model" collapses into your deterministic model.

There is no requirement of logical consistency that insists that we have to postulate quantum randomness before we can play dice, or postulate ghost-in-the-machine indeterminacy before we can have theory of mind.

It is enough to say that unknowable reality is best described by one model at the subatomic level and a different model at the everyday level.

There is a requirement that we not contradict ourselves, and to claim that one event is simultaneously determined and random is to contradict oneself.

[Good_Egg]

There is a requirement that we not contradict ourselves, and to claim that one event is simultaneously determined and random is to contradict oneself.

To claim that the ontological reality of an event is simultaneously determined and random is indeed a contradiction.

But to claim that a deterministic model, a random model and a choice model each usefully represent aspects of complex reality involves no contradiction.

I assert that it is entirely reasonable to play billiards as if the interaction of the balls were deterministic, play backgammon as if the die rolls were random, and play both as if one is making real tactical choices.

[Leontiskos]

There is a requirement that we not contradict ourselves, and to claim that one event is simultaneously determined and random is to contradict oneself.

To claim that the ontological reality of an event is simultaneously determined and random is indeed a contradiction.

But to claim that a deterministic model, a random model and a choice model each usefully represent aspects of complex reality involves no contradiction.

I assert that it is entirely reasonable to play billiards as if the interaction of the balls were deterministic, play backgammon as if the die rolls were random, and play both as if one is making real tactical choices.

It is not reasonable to assert that something has two properties which are mutually incompatible. You are here attempting to justify a straightforward self-contradiction. We cannot act "as if" reality is a way that we know it is not, at least if we want to be rational and true.

[Good_Egg]

I assert that it is entirely reasonable to play billiards as if the interaction of the balls were deterministic, play backgammon as if the die rolls were random, and play both as if one is making real tactical choices.

It is not reasonable to assert that something has two properties which are mutually incompatible. You are here attempting to justify a straightforward self-contradiction. We cannot act "as if" reality is a way that we know it is not, at least if we want to be rational and true.

You really have a philosophy that forbids you to play both backgammon and billiards because they involve contradictory assumptions ?

There was I thinking all philosophers played backgammon...

I don't "know" that reality is such that one of those games involves false assumptions. I don't claim to understand the ontological nature of reality at all. I assert only that it is complex, and that we work with simplified models.

[Leontiskos]

I assert that it is entirely reasonable to play billiards as if the interaction of the balls were deterministic, play backgammon as if the die rolls were random, and play both as if one is making real tactical choices.

It is not reasonable to assert that something has two properties which are mutually incompatible. You are here attempting to justify a straightforward self-contradiction. We cannot act "as if" reality is a way that we know it is not, at least if we want to be rational and true.

You really have a philosophy that forbids you to play both backgammon and billiards because they involve contradictory assumptions ?

There was I thinking all philosophers played backgammon...

I don't "know" that reality is such that one of those games involves false assumptions. I don't claim to understand the ontological nature of reality at all. I assert only that it is complex, and that we work with simplified models.

If you act "as if" reality is fully deterministic, and then you go on to act "as if" reality is not fully deterministic (e.g. random or free) then you are going back and forth like a schizophrenic, moving between contradictory positions. Likewise, a man could devote himself exclusively to his wife on Sunday, another woman on Monday, another woman on Tuesday, and so on, changing his loyalties with the setting sun. In America we call this "flip-flopping" - a reliable inconsistency which is not based on reason and is in fact contrary to it.

As someone who is rational and consistent, I do not adopt a new model of reality when I engage in a game, nor do I flip flop back and forth when the wind changes.

[Good_Egg]

If you act "as if" reality is fully deterministic, and then you go on to act "as if" reality is not fully deterministic (e.g. random or free) then you are going back and forth like a schizophrenic, moving between contradictory positions...

...As someone who is rational and consistent, I do not adopt a new model of reality when I engage in a game

Are you asserting that playing billiards on Monday and backgammon on Tuesday is schizophrenic and irrational behaviour ?

Or are you saying that your idea of rational behaviour involves playing billiards outside the paradigm of Newtonian physics, which is a deterministic model of reality ?

Or is that you play backgammon without "acting as if" die rolls are random ? Are you saying you cheat at backgammon?

Good Egg: are die rolls random ?
Leontiskos (channelling WC Fields) : not the way I play...

???

[Leontiskos]

If you act "as if" reality is fully deterministic, and then you go on to act "as if" reality is not fully deterministic (e.g. random or free) then you are going back and forth like a schizophrenic, moving between contradictory positions...

...As someone who is rational and consistent, I do not adopt a new model of reality when I engage in a game

Are you asserting that...

You are still stuck on the error I outlined at the very outset:

...Philosophical novices often labor under the impression that causality is bound up with determinism, and that if we deny determinism then we must abandon causality. This is apparently what is happening here, but it is a very strange mistake. Determinism does not mean "causes exist;" determinism means, "all causes are event causes," or, "all events are determined by antecedent causes." This mistake is simply a misunderstanding of what determinism means.

Else you can try to give a different definition of "determinism" than the one we have accepted in this thread (link). I would say that anyone who thinks they have to adopt determinism when playing backgammon and reject it when playing dice does not understand what determinism means.

[Barkun]

It's simple:

Every action is based on choice available through chance.

The system is thus physically deterministic.

All mental activity is within a physically determined system and thus is determinable when acting without a change of philosophy(concerning all knowledge, the fundamental nature).

The mind has free will, but tends to prefer the comfort of lack of control, and thus is insecure.

[Good_Egg]

Determinism does not mean "causes exist;" determinism means, "all causes are event causes," or, "all events are determined by antecedent causes."

In the other thread you linked to, you talked about three possibilities - events being determined by previous events, events being random/uncaused, and events being agent-caused (i.e. the chain of causation originating in the will of an agent or a "free"/uncaused choice made by an agent). In case it's not evident, I agree with that three-way distinction.

Yes, determinism asserts that randomness and choice are illusions - that when you understand at a deep enough level, all events are determined by prior causes.

If, as you also assert, it is irrational to act as if a proposition is true when you believe it is not, what does a rational determinist do ? As soon as he chooses to do anything, is he not "acting as if" he really had a choice ?

Does his philosophy demand that he just sit and vegetate ? But is that not also a choice ? Seems like it is impossible to not choose.

Does this prove that there are no rational determinists ?

Or does it cast doubt on your assertion:

We cannot act "as if" reality is a way that we know it is not, at least if we want to be rational and true.

?

[Leontiskos]

Determinism does not mean "causes exist;" determinism means, "all causes are event causes," or, "all events are determined by antecedent causes."

In the other thread you linked to, you talked about three possibilities - events being determined by previous events, events being random/uncaused, and events being agent-caused (i.e. the chain of causation originating in the will of an agent or a "free"/uncaused choice made by an agent). In case it's not evident, I agree with that three-way distinction.

Yes, determinism asserts that randomness and choice are illusions - that when you understand at a deep enough level, all events are determined by prior causes.

If, as you also assert, it is irrational to act as if a proposition is true when you believe it is not, what does a rational determinist do ? As soon as he chooses to do anything, is he not "acting as if" he really had a choice ?

Does his philosophy demand that he just sit and vegetate ? But is that not also a choice ? Seems like it is impossible to not choose.

Does this prove that there are no rational determinists ?

Yes, it does prove that.

More specifically, according to the logic at hand one can either say that determinism is irrational or else they can say that self-contradiction is rational. I'll leave that choice up to you.