determinism and free will [Archive]

McLeft

23rd October 2006, 20:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 12:53 am
scientists think the human mind is "casual determinist".

that is that you do not really have a "choice", your decisions are made up of multiple stimuli, experiences, and your genetical disposition. There is just the "illusion" of free will, because the elements making up decisions can conbine into infinite results. There are finite elements that make up decisions, but such elements can be computed into infinite decisions. however, we do not have still the scientifical knowledge to predict many of the decisions such conbinations would yield.

It is interesting how this point of view renders political philosophy and morality practically meaningless.

So yah, do you believe there is free will and why?
This very dangerous!

Basically these scientists are implying that we're no free to make choices. If we're not free then we cannot be blamed for wrong actions or for making wrong decisions. IMO Sartre's version of Existentialism tackles this issue. "Man exists without purpose, finds himself in the world and defines the meaning of his existence". The Individual Consciuousness constructs a "self" for itself, such as an identity which can inclide beliefs, projects, and other things of value. (such as decisions) The individual is responsible for the choices that he/she makes regarless of the consequences. Sartre said that We are condemned to be free because our actions and choices are ours alone therefore we are condemned to be responsible for our free choices. A very simple sentence can show how free we are:

"I am a being for myself because I do not need to be what I am and I can change into what I'm not"

That's my two cents.

armedpoet

24th October 2006, 08:46

Well said Mcleft.

I was hinting at the existentialist idea of freedom.

You are quite right that it is VERY dangerous to accept the nature of determinism and therefore indeterminism and 'soft' determinism as defined by positivism.

Positivism was designed to give weight to the empirical method of science. The assumptions it makes are huge and dangerous.

Ironically new science like Quantum Physics is discovering that these assumptions were inherently flawed. In particular you cannot separate the subjective from the objective.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th October 2006, 16:54

Once again, comrades should check this link out:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51313

There I was able to show that determinism can only be made to work if one is prepared to anthropomorphise nature, and attribute it with a universal will.

Its opposite, indeterminism, is similarly unworkable.

Hit The North

24th October 2006, 18:59

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 24, 2006 04:54 pm
Once again, comrades should check this link out:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51313

There I was able to show that determinism can only be made to work if one is prepared to anthropomorphise nature, and attribute it with a universal will.

Its opposite, indeterminism, is similarly unworkable.
Leaving us with what?

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th October 2006, 22:22

Z:

Leaving us with what?

More than you can handle....

apathy maybe

25th October 2006, 02:08

Rosa Lichtenstein I have to say that I have read what you wrote in the other thread (at least some of it) and it seems like a load of shit. I'll go through and reply extensively to it latter, I just thought I'ld let you know now.

I too am interested in what is left if you reject indeterminism and determinism, I mean if you reject both we must be left with some metaphysical thing. It seems to me that the claim that humans are not governed by the laws of nature (and we obviously are in some regards, such as gravity) is arrogant in the extreme, and quite simply wrong.

To quote from a draft of an essay I wrote (I did fix it up for the final version, but I can't just find it)
However, if one accepts that there are physical laws (though we may not know them all) that govern the universe, then they also govern human behaviour, under such an account the liberation account is not worth diddly squat.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th October 2006, 03:33

A path:

Rosa Lichtenstein I have to say that I have read what you wrote in the other thread (at least some of it) and it seems like a load of shit.

Get new glasses, then.

It seems to me that the claim that humans are not governed by the laws of nature (and we obviously are in some regards, such as gravity) is arrogant in the extreme, and quite simply wrong.

Same comment, since I handled that particular pathetic response.

Get a new brain, or learn to construct an argument, or both.

Opinions on their own, no matter how badly expressed, like yours, are worthless.

apathy maybe

25th October 2006, 03:49

I have read a lot of what you wrote (in the other thread), and frankly it doesn't make that much sense. Now I don't think it is because I need new glasses (the bloke who looked at my eyes the other day said they were pretty good). So I might need a new brain. But well it has worked well in the past, so I am inclined to think that it is your arguments that are not up to scratch.

Humans are governed by the laws of nature, there. I don't know how to really express that in an argument form, perhaps, "humans are governed by the laws of nature, therefore humans are governed by the laws of nature", but that is a tautology.

So my question to you is, do you think that humans are governed by the laws of nature? And if not, why not?

You don't need to put it in argument form, a simple opinion would be fine.

(If you rule out determinism and indeterminism, it seems to me that you just ruled out science and materialism, you wouldn't be trying to sneak metaphysics in would you?)

armedpoet

25th October 2006, 04:32

What laws of nature?

The ones that we perceive?

you just ruled out science and materialism

I would hope so.

Positivism assumes that there is a separate and determinable static reality that is discoverable by empirical means. It is separate and unaffected by, but available to human consciousness. One problem that arises is that the world is not static but always in a process of change. This is evident from our experience of the world. This is supported by the discoveries of Quantum Physics in particular wave and particle theory. Wave and particle theory has also challenged the validity of an impartial observer.

I do not think that we can assume the existence of a reality which is static and determinable and available to human consciousness without the influence of that consciousness through perception, action and interaction.

black magick hustla

25th October 2006, 04:34

yah i barely understood what rosa said in the other thread

however, while i was reading, i think revolver actually won the argument.

i just understood that rosa argued that of there was determinism, the universe had to have "human like characteristics". i think that is kinda arrogant, because rosa is implying that only humans can make "orderly things", and thus the universe cannot have an "orderly structure".

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

25th October 2006, 05:41

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 24, 2006 07:49 pm
I have read a lot of what you wrote (in the other thread), and frankly it doesn't make that much sense. Now I don't think it is because I need new glasses (the bloke who looked at my eyes the other day said they were pretty good). So I might need a new brain. But well it has worked well in the past, so I am inclined to think that it is your arguments that are not up to scratch.

Humans are governed by the laws of nature, there. I don't know how to really express that in an argument form, perhaps, "humans are governed by the laws of nature, therefore humans are governed by the laws of nature", but that is a tautology.

So my question to you is, do you think that humans are governed by the laws of nature? And if not, why not?

You don't need to put it in argument form, a simple opinion would be fine.

(If you rule out determinism and indeterminism, it seems to me that you just ruled out science and materialism, you wouldn't be trying to sneak metaphysics in would you?)
Don't pay much attention to Rosa. She is completely illogical. If you ask her to supply a proof or argument, she will say she already has (and she may have presented a fallacious one). She takes no responsibility for communicating her ideas to others and always accuses those who disagree with her as ignorant. She will pretend her arguments are far too complex to be simplified, which they may be. Essentially, you cannot prove Rosa wrong because her being correct relies on everyone else being stuck inside the cave. Despite all this, she has the nerve to call everyone else a mystic.

I myself am inclined to believe determinism is true. Hume recognizes that I am inclined to believe this - the notion of causes - but that there is no justification for it. I cannot think of such a justification. However, the latter side, indeterminism, I can think of no justification for either. The idea of a random event is not self-assumed in the absence of causation, as I see it, because it is a metaphysical claim in and of itself. Therefore, as much as I disagree with his notions of truth, I have to turn to James and go with a pragmatic approach since correspondence has left me with only ignorance.

apathy maybe

25th October 2006, 06:17

Originally posted by armedpoet+--> (armedpoet)What laws of nature?

The ones that we perceive?[/b]The ones that are there, whether we perceive them or not. (Assuming that ...) E=MC2 a thousand years ago, and two thousand years ago and so on. Gravity works whether we know how it does or not. When I talk of the 'laws of nature', I mean the fundamental nature of the universe, how it operates.

It is like the Game of Life, the rules are the same, even if the objects with in the universe become self aware.

armedpoet
I would hope so.

Positivism assumes that there is a separate and determinable static reality that is discoverable by empirical means. It is separate and unaffected by, but available to human consciousness. One problem that arises is that the world is not static but always in a process of change. This is evident from our experience of the world. This is supported by the discoveries of Quantum Physics in particular wave and particle theory. Wave and particle theory has also challenged the validity of an impartial observer.

I do not think that we can assume the existence of a reality which is static and determinable and available to human consciousness without the influence of that consciousness through perception, action and interaction.I did not say that there is a reality that is discoverable by humans by empirical means or otherwise.

I fully accept that it is perfectly possible (even probable) that we will not ever learn all the 'laws of nature'.

But that does not mean that we should introduce metaphysics. Materialism is the way to go. Even if do not know how everything works, we should assume a material/physical universe.

So I do not think that it is a good idea to rule out materialism.

As to science, taking into account what I said above, I feel that science can offer us the possibility of understanding at least some of the universe. And I feel that, based on current understandings of quantum physics, that indeterminism is correct.

Science is telling us that indeterminism is correct.

Materialism is telling us that indeterminism or determinism is correct (for what else is there?).

Who needs metaphysics?

armedpoet

25th October 2006, 06:47

I did not say that there is a reality that is discoverable by humans by empirical means or otherwise.

Yes you did and you have again in this post :)

The ones that are there, whether we perceive them or not.

I fully accept that it is perfectly possible (even probable) that we will not ever learn all the 'laws of nature'.

It is not about learning the laws of nature it is about understanding that we create our reality through a process of interaction and perception.

Who needs metaphysics?

How do you explain the nature of subatomic particles without metaphysics?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

25th October 2006, 08:10

Of course reality is discovered by humans through emperical means. How else is it discovered? Magic? And don't give me nonsense about it being a human construct without backing up that claim.

apathy maybe

25th October 2006, 12:00

Originally posted by armedpoet+--> (armedpoet)
Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)I did not say that there is a reality that is discoverable by humans by empirical means or otherwise.[/b]

Yes you did and you have again in this post smile.gif

Originally posted by apathy maybe
The ones that are there, whether we perceive them or not.

Originally posted by apathy maybe
I fully accept that it is perfectly possible (even probable) that we will not ever learn all the 'laws of nature'.

It is not about learning the laws of nature it is about understanding that we create our reality through a process of interaction and perception.[/b]
I think maybe you misunderstood me, or else I don't know what you are talking about :huh:?
I do think there is a 'true' and 'underlying' reality. I think that is the case whether humans exist or not. I think that there are uniform regularities, whether humans find them or not.

But while this reality exists, humans might not be able to 'discover' it. I think that there is a reality that exists, independently of humans (and all other animals, intelligent or not). I think that all the complexities might not be discoverable, however.

While I do think that there is then an underlying 'ultimate' reality, I think I get your point about humans "creating" our own reality. But while our perceptions change the way we 'see' the world, it does not actually change the world it self. The world exists independently of our perceiving it.

Originally posted by armedpoet

apathy [email protected]
Who needs metaphysics?

How do you explain the nature of subatomic particles without metaphysics?
OK then, I maybe using the term differently to how you are using it. From wikipedia, "More recently, the term 'metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/metaphysics)' has also been used to refer to 'subjects which are beyond the physical world'".

I'll rephrase my statement,

Who needs crap that posits the existence of a non-materialistic substance or being?

In other words, the universe is physical and everything in it (including the mind) is physical.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Of course reality is discovered by humans through emperical means. How else is it discovered? Magic? And don't give me nonsense about it being a human construct without backing up that claim.I take your point. But Newton thought that he had discovered facts about the world. It turns out that he was not 'correct'. Einstein offered a much better approximation of the way the universe operates, but still it might not be 'correct'. Thus while humans discover things using empirical means, it is perfectly possible (even probable) that humans cannot discover everything there is to know.

(Stupid fucking quotes, why can't the computer just work out what I meant?)

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th October 2006, 14:28

A path:

Humans are governed by the laws of nature, there

As you would have seen, if you had put those new glasses on, I claimed that you can only make this 'theory' work if you anthropomorphise nature.

This latest comment of yours merely confirms that: human beings 'controlled' by ideal objects like 'laws' (passed by whom?). And how are we 'controlled' (except by those pesky cosmic intelligences)?

You are an idealist.

[I gave several references and links which develop these ideas -- do not check them out before that overdue appointment of yours with an optician).

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th October 2006, 17:28

Dooga:

Don't pay much attention to Rosa. She is completely illogical. If you ask her to supply a proof or argument

You were supplied with the above, claimed you weren't, and then began sulking (and it looks like you still are).

And, you made the same mistakes as A path, above; you too were unable to explain your ideas without anthropomorphising nature.

And you still can't.

As far as being illogical is concerned, since you do not know any logic, you are in no position to judge.

armedpoet

25th October 2006, 17:35

the universe is physical and everything in it (including the mind) is physical.

Actually subatomic particles are not static and it is more than possible that our 'mind' exists on a subatomic level. But that is another kettle of fish.

The point is yes there is an objective reality - you would have to be insane to think that there wasn't, but it is shaped by our subjective mind.

Through our actions we create our perceived reality.

Bomshanka.

apathy maybe

26th October 2006, 11:22

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)As you would have seen, if you had put those new glasses on, I claimed that you can only make this 'theory' work if you anthropomorphise nature.

This latest comment of yours merely confirms that: human beings 'controlled' by ideal objects like 'laws' (passed by whom?). And how are we 'controlled' (except by those pesky cosmic intelligences)?

You are an idealist.

[I gave several references and links which develop these ideas -- do not check them out before that overdue appointment of yours with an optician).[/b]
Oh dear. First, if you had bothered reading one of my posts above, I said "I don't think ... I need new glasses (the bloke who looked at my eyes the other day said they were pretty good)". I did read you claim, I just disagree with it.

Anyway, shit happens.

I am starting to think that you are an idealist, not myself. Lets see if we can agree on something. I'll ask some questions, then it would be really good if you could answer them all. All of them. If you think that a question relies on an assumption that you do not agree with, you are welcome to simply state that.

Do you think that humans are made of matter?

Do you think that science actually does anything?

Do you believe that there exist regularities in nature (such as gravity)?

Do you think that these regularities (such as gravity) apply to humans?

Do you honestly think that there is no such thing as a 'law of nature' (the word 'law' is not being used here in the socio/political sense, but in the scientific sense)?

How the fuck do you think everything works if there are not 'laws of nature'?

If humans are not governed by these 'laws of nature', why can't we fly without assistance on Earth?

If other material is governed by 'laws of nature' (such as rocks and water etc.) why do you think that humans do not?

Do you believe in things that are not made of physical material (such as Descartes disembodied mind)?

armedpoet
Actually subatomic particles are not static and it is more than possible that our 'mind' exists on a subatomic level. But that is another kettle of fish.
I think this is the case too, but subatomic particles are still physical things, they still exist, as it were.
So our mind is still physical (though quite complex).

The point is yes there is an objective reality - you would have to be insane to think that there wasn't, but it is shaped by our subjective mind.

Through our actions we create our perceived reality.Yes, I agree.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th October 2006, 15:09

A path:

I said "I don't think ... I need new glasses (the bloke who looked at my eyes the other day said they were pretty good)". I did read you claim, I just disagree with it.

I did read it, and it was apparent from what you wrote next that you were indeed in need of an optician's assistance.

You clearly missed my response, and why I had to make this point a second time, and for that very reason.

Should I type in capitals in future to help you out?

I am starting to think that you are an idealist,

Well, it is you, not I, who has to anthropomorphise nature to make his 'theory work.

How the fuck do you think everything works if there are not 'laws of nature'?

Did I say there were no laws of nature (I passed no comment on this); I merely questioned why you think they 'controlled' what we do.

And note: like others who have tried to solve this non-problem over the last 2400 years, you will need to use yet more anthropomorphic language to explain how they do this.

So, these 'laws' (passed by no one, so how are they laws?) are 'intelligent' (for, it looks like they issue orders -- how else could they 'control' anything?), and matter 'obeys' them, too, having understood what it must do when told to do it.

How very co-opeartive of un-intelligent matter, that it can obey something, and to the letter (but when these orders have not been written in letters -- I suppose these 'laws' must then whisper to matter, which, is all ears, so that it knows just what to do).

On this view, it is 'disembodied laws' that control us; so that must mean you believe in a disembodied sort of intelligence -- these intelligent laws.

As to your other questions, my views are irrelevant; they are not under scrutiny here. I am not trying to propound a philosophical theory (since I reject them all), merely raise questions as to why you and others think nature is mind.

You are the one who wants to anthropomorphise nature (in this oh so traditional manner); so what [i]you think is relevant.

So ask your dopey questions of someone else.

[And no, I do not believe in a 'disembodied' mind; there is no such thing as 'the mind' to begin with, disembodied or otherwise.]

BurnTheOliveTree

26th October 2006, 19:24

Now now, children. Handbags away. Here's my general question to anyone:

Is there an alternative to determinism and indeterminism? Or is it a straight choice between the two?

-Alex

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th October 2006, 22:14

Burn:

Is there an alternative to determinism and indeterminism? Or is it a straight choice between the two?

Since both theories make no sense, except we anthorpomorphise nature, they do not even make the list.

And why do we need a philosophical theory here?

Science can tell us all we need to know about nature.

black magick hustla

26th October 2006, 23:55

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2006 09:14 pm
Burn:

Is there an alternative to determinism and indeterminism? Or is it a straight choice between the two?

Since both theories make no sense, except we anthorpomorphise nature, they do not even make the list.

And why do we need a philosophical theory here?

Science can tell us all we need to know about nature.
and science has told us that the mind is deterministic

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 00:00

Marmot:

and science has told us that the mind is deterministic

Not so, this is a metaphysical theory knitted onto the science, as scientists try to do some amateur philosophy.

Scientists are no more experts in the use of words than you or I; if they use words that imply the world is mind, or run by a cosmic will, then they need pulling up for that.

But what thanks do I get....?

black magick hustla

27th October 2006, 00:06

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Marmot:

and science has told us that the mind is deterministic

Not so, this is a metaphysical theory knitted onto the science, as scientists try to do some amateur philosophy.

Scientists are no more experts in the use of words than you or I; if they use words that imply the world is mind, or run by a cosmic will, then they need pulling up for that.

But what thanks do I get....?
It is not cosmic will, what the hell are you talking about.

The mind reacts to different stimuli and from such stimuli--depending on your cultural background and some of your genetics--you produce different decisions. You are not really "taking" a decision.

That is why the mind is deterministic.

You cannot control the chemical reactions and electrical impulses inside your head. Unless, of course, you are implying that we have a "spark of logos" that other things do not have.

Do you imply that comrade?

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 00:21

Marmot;

It is not cosmic will, what the hell are you talking about.

Well, you obviously know nothing of this debate; this has been a concern of philosophers for some time (especially materialists): determinism uses anthropomorphic language.

That implies events are controlled, and intelligently.

Read the links I posted on that thread I referred to. You will see that this is not a novel claim, unique to me. I just push it further than anyone has ever done.

And we can do without the amateur brain science:

The mind reacts to different stimuli and from such stimuli--depending on your cultural background and some of your genetics--you produce different decisions. You are not really "taking" a decision.

Recall, I am not questioning the science (but I cannot call the above that), just the metaphysical spin you all seem locked onto.

That is why the mind is deterministic.

This is an assertion, not a proof, and to make it work, to spell out the details (which you clearly have not thought through -- your use of language tells me you are simply a dabbler in this field, hence the emotive words), you will need to help yourself to anthropomorphic language.

Philosophers have been doing that for 2400 years, and have advanced not one jot in that time; it's time we waved goodbye to such ancient mystical ideas.

You cannot control the chemical reactions and electrical impulses inside your head. Unless, of course, you are implying that we have a "spark of logos" that other things do not have.

I m sorry, where have I even remotely suggested this?

Recall once again, I am not propounding a theory of my own (not to be awkward, but because I reject all philosophical theories), so I could hardly go in for immaterialism, could I?

We just need science, here; leave the metaphysics to the Idealists.

black magick hustla

27th October 2006, 00:34

then you are just debating about the bad use of language right?

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 00:55

Marmot:

then you are just debating about the bad use of language right?

Well, if that were all, I think I would not bother.

It's the beliefs such an inappropiate use of language engenders.

For example: that nature has a will, while we do not. It decides (or 'determines', for that is what this word means), we do not.

This makes us seem like the pawns of forces we allegedly cannot control, a classic ruling-class trick.

We have to accept the status quo, since we can't fight nature.

'So, get back to work, and doff your cap in future....'

You get the picture, I am sure.

'The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.'

This idea has ruled now for 2400 or more years, and it rules the minds of far too many militants.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

27th October 2006, 01:55

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2006 04:55 pm
Marmot:

then you are just debating about the bad use of language right?

Well, if that were all, I think I would not bother.

It's the beliefs such an inappropiate use of language engenders.

For example: that nature has a will, while we do not. It decides (or 'determines', for that is what this word means), we do not.

This makes us seem like the pawns of forces we allegedly cannot control, a classic ruling-class trick.

We have to accept the status quo, since we can't fight nature.

'So, get back to work, and doff your cap in future....'

You get the picture, I am sure.

'The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.'

This idea has ruled now for 2400 or more years, and it rules the minds of far too many militants.
So you believe one thing "gravity" cannot cause humans to behave in a certain thing while humans cause their own behavior? No "decides" or "determines." Just the word "cause."

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 08:45

Dooga, who needs to update his physics:

So you believe one thing "gravity" cannot cause humans to behave in a certain thing while humans cause their own behavior? No "decides" or "determines." Just the word "cause."

Gravity, as a force, no longer exists; what we have are geodesics along which things move, on their world-lines, in a scalar field.

As to the cause of all this, physicists have yet to tell us. [But see, below.]

Still, that is what we as human beings do: we move along such geodesics if we, say, jump off things. Science can describe what occurs, it can calculate, and balance the books, and predict with a high level of probability; but provide a philosophical explanation why things happen it cannot do (for there is none -- unless nature is mind).

As to the cause of our own actions (or anyone else's), I suspect you already know how to account for those, since you know how to use ordinary language.

But, I might be attributing to you a level of skill which you have yet to display.

Asking the sorts of questions you tend to do suggests I may indeed be expecting too much of you.

armedpoet

27th October 2006, 12:16

The mind reacts to different stimuli and from such stimuli--depending on your cultural background and some of your genetics--you produce different decisions. You are not really "taking" a decision.

Woah cowboy.

You do realise that you are practically regurgitating fascism here?

Learn a little history about the behaviourists and their agenda.

Skinner was a fucking Nazi, as is well represented in his *cough* 'philosophy'.

Existence is not as simple as these cretins would like to make out.

If anyone is interested here is a paper i recently completed on the subject of determinism and free will. Yes it is an undergrad paper that I threw together jittered on coffee whilst the walls were twisting in on themselves. But in my mind it conveys a few important points..

http://perth.indymedia.org/index.php?actio...arentview=34741 (http://perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=34741)

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 18:14

Armed P, nice clear essay, but you rely on Capra(!!) to define positivism, and his definition is woefully deficient, to say the least.

Then you rely on Sartre, a thinker who is to clarity what Bush is to world peace.

All the while you offer us opinion, rather than argument.

And, I have to say, your whole problematic is set in the discredited metaphysical traditon, the one that has gone nowhere slowly over the last 2500 years.

Indeed, there is no 'problem' of the free will/determinism; the whole thing is a product of the misuse of language (or the use of inappropriate language), as I have shown on several threads at this site.

But, you write very well, and with application, will make a good essayist.

Stay clear of Capra, though....

BurnTheOliveTree

27th October 2006, 19:46

So determinism isn't science, Rosa? I am a novice of the absolute kind on the subject, so don't rudely point that out, but I thought that it was to do with there being no accidents at the atomic level and therefore no accidents at all and therefore everything is "destined" if you like. It certainly sounds like science.

-Alex

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 20:47

Burn:

So determinism isn't science, Rosa?

Nope.

but I thought that it was to do with there being no accidents at the atomic level and therefore no accidents at all and therefore everything is "destined" if you like. It certainly sounds like science.

Well, there is no question-begging way of defining 'accident' that does not implicate human will at some point.

The word 'destined' itself is a give-away -- since it derived from Greek ideas of destiny, as set out by the 'gods'.

So, it's not science, just the sloppy use of words, compounded by the careless use of greek mythology.

[Can you do, for example, an experiment to test if something is 'destined'?]

so don't rudely point that out,

I hope I am never rude to you, Burn, and if I have ever been I apologise.... :blush:

BurnTheOliveTree

27th October 2006, 23:34

It isn't that you're rude to me really, I was just taking preventative measures because I watch your debates with the DM people. :)

Hmm. I was cautious to use the word destined, because it does sound mystical.

But we have to allow for the possibility that science might lead us into ideas and concepts that do sound mystical, right? And if there aren't any coincidences, shall we say, at the atomic level, there can be no coincidence. Right? I know I'm repeating myself, I have to be spoon fed my conclusions occasionally. Sometimes. A lot of the time. Vast majority, to be fair. :P

-Alex

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

28th October 2006, 00:02

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2006 12:45 am
Dooga, who needs to update his physics:

So you believe one thing "gravity" cannot cause humans to behave in a certain thing while humans cause their own behavior? No "decides" or "determines." Just the word "cause."

Still, that is what we as human beings do: we move along such geodesics if we, say, jump off things. Science can describe what occurs, it can calculate, and balance the books, and predict with a high level of probability; but provide a philosophical explanation why things happen it cannot do (for there is none -- unless nature is mind).
I do need to update my physics, I am sure. However, let me rephrase my example. Let us say:

Person A lights Person B on fire. The fire "causes" person B to experience pain. True or False?

A person is given a choice between A and B. Because, in the past, they found A was superior to B, this "caused" them to choose A. True or False?

Determinism, as I am defining it, is the following:

It is hot outside. The heat causes me to desire a drink. This desire for drink causes me to purchase a drink. The interactions or causes in play are simplified, but I am sure you understand what I am getting at.

There is no purpose. No choice. I cannot help that when I put a marble on an incline, it will either roll or remain in place. Environmental factors (the weight of the marble, et cetera) determine whether or not (they do not choose merely determine) it will roll or remain in place. Since these laws occur amongst physical objects, and humans are physical objects, what reason is there to believe they do not apply?

I don't disagree with determinism, but I do not accept it as I have in the past since I have encountered Hume's skepticism of causation. However, I do not understand the angle from where you are criticizing determinism? To me, it seems, that if you accept casuation, you should accept determinism.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th October 2006, 03:00

Burn:

But we have to allow for the possibility that science might lead us into ideas and concepts that do sound mystical, right?

Well, no, because mystical entities can explain nothing, and science cannot go down that route.

And if there aren't any coincidences, shall we say, at the atomic level, there can be no coincidence.

I am not sure why you bring in 'coincience' here; I do not think it is relevant.

It isn't that you're rude to me really, I was just taking preventative measures because I watch your debates with the DM people

Check the times when I have been rude: it is generally in response to an unprovoked attack on me by the other correspondent.

I always give at least as good as I get, often worse.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th October 2006, 03:04

Dooga, what gave you the idea I was denying causation?

We have been through this before; please try to pay attention.

Why you want to drag the word 'determine' in here (which is irrevocably linked to the operation of some mind or other) I do not know.

Causation is fine on its own.

apathy maybe

28th October 2006, 03:56

OK Rosa, I'm seriously trying to understand where you stand here. You are a materialist (at least you have stated so elsewhere), you believe in "science" (at least it seems to me that you do), you reject the conception of a god or mind or other such non-physical things.

If I am correct so far, it seems we agree (at least on those points). What I am attempting to do, is not to debate you, but rather just draw out in easy to understand language what it is you actually think.

Originally posted by RL+--> (RL)Did I say there were no laws of nature (I passed no comment on this); I merely questioned why you think they 'controlled' what we do.[/b]'Cause we are made of matter.

Originally posted by RL+--> (RL)And note: like others who have tried to solve this non-problem over the last 2400 years, you will need to use yet more anthropomorphic language to explain how they do this.[/b]
OK... I'll try not to then ...

Originally posted by RL
So, these 'laws' (passed by no one, so how are they laws?) are 'intelligent' (for, it looks like they issue orders -- how else could they 'control' anything?), and matter 'obeys' them, too, having understood what it must do when told to do it.When I am talking about 'laws of nature', I use "the word 'law' [not] in the socio/political sense, but in the scientific sense". So of course no one passed them, they are not intelligent, it is simply the way things are. Light travels at a certain speed in a vacuum, not because it wants to, but because it just does. That is a "law". Light does not wish anything, it simply does what it does, 'cause if it didn't, then it would not be light.

I am claiming that all matter follows "laws" in a similar sense. Electrons are 'attracted' to protons, not 'cause they have a feeling of love for each other, but because that is simply how they are. There is a "law" that positive and negative forces are 'attracted' to each other. (Again, the use of the word 'attracted' is not meant in an anthropomorphic sense, but in a scientific sense. Scientists (and philosophers and lots of other people) commonly redefine words to mean what they what them to mean.)

Originally posted by RL
How very co-opeartive of un-intelligent matter, that it can obey something, and to the letter (but when these orders have not been written in letters -- I suppose these 'laws' must then whisper to matter, which, is all ears, so that it knows just what to do).

On this view, it is 'disembodied laws' that control us; so that must mean you believe in a disembodied sort of intelligence -- these intelligent laws.No, I think that "laws" are regularities, matter "obeys" them, 'cause if it didn't, then it would not be matter.

These "laws" are not written anywhere, they just are. Matter is "attracted" to other matter in relationship that I can't just remember at the moment. This "attraction" is commonly called a "law".

Originally posted by RL
[If you check out some of the (on-line) references I gave in the thread I referred you to (which you must have missed owing to your bad eyesight), you will see there are other ways of viewing these 'laws' that do not imply that they are intelligent, while we are not.]I never stated that I thought these "laws" were intelligent.

Originally posted by RL
As to your other questions, my views are irrelevant; they are not under scrutiny here. I am not trying to propound a philosophical theory (since I reject them all), merely raise questions as to why you and others think nature is mind.You views are under scrutiny here, otherwise I would not continue to post in reply to you. You believe the universe operates in a certain way, I am attempting to find out how similar your position is to mine.

I have never said that nature is mind. I think that nature just is. I believe that there is an objective existence to the universe. I think that matter exists, but non-matter (such as Descartes 'soul') does not.

Originally posted by RL
You are the one who wants to anthropomorphise nature (in this oh so traditional manner); so what you think is relevant.No I don't! I am claiming that the universe operates in a particular way, and it will do so whether we like it or not.

I am claiming that because we are made of matter, the "laws" of the universe affect us just as they affect all matter. I am claiming that humans are not special.

We are "attracted" to other matter, for example.

Originally posted by RL
So ask your dopey questions of someone else.No! I would like to know what you think, that is why I am asking them. You see I had a suspicion that you were a closet non-materialist, the way you talked about humans being able to decide what we can do. But then you give me this

Originally posted by RL
[And no, I do not believe in a 'disembodied' mind; there is no such thing as 'the mind' to begin with, disembodied or otherwise.]
So why do humans do things?

Originally posted by RL
Science can tell us all we need to know about nature.So what then does science tell us about nature? Why does light travel at a certain speed in a vacuum and slower in gases?

Dooga Aetrus [email protected]
I cannot help that when I put a marble on an incline, it will either roll or remain in place. Environmental factors (the weight of the marble, et cetera) determine whether or not (they do not choose merely determine) it will roll or remain in place. Since these laws occur amongst physical objects, and humans are physical objects, what reason is there to believe they do not apply?Quite correct old boy. This is the point I am attempting to make.

DAB
I don't disagree with determinism, but I do not accept it as I have in the past since I have encountered Hume's skepticism of causation. However, I do not understand the angle from where you are criticizing determinism? To me, it seems, that if you accept casuation, you should accept determinism.No, I accept 'causation', but I also accept that things can happen randomly, which means that they are not determined. In fact my understanding of Quantum Physics suggests that some things are not even caused, they just are.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

28th October 2006, 09:27

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2006 07:04 pm
Dooga, what gave you the idea I was denying causation?

We have been through this before; please try to pay attention.

Why you want to drag the word 'determine' in here (which is irrevocably linked to the operation of some mind or other) I do not know.

Causation is fine on its own.
Ok, so you agree with causation. Does causation apply in all circumstances or can something be uncaused?

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th October 2006, 12:42

Apathy:

'Cause we are made of matter.

You need to ask what then the word 'control' means in this context. How, for instance, can anything non-intelligent, or which is not an agent of some sort, 'control' anything else?

Just think about the loose use of language your theory has to rely on.

I use "the word 'law' [not] in the socio/political sense, but in the scientific sense".

The two are connected (the legalistic sense and the alleged 'scientific' sense) historically, when used metaphysically, as is easy to show.

I gave references that show this.

Of course, there are as many interpretations of the word 'law', as it is used in science, as there are those who have bothered to think about this topic, and some are not the least bit metaphysical (in fact, you use one such later).

However, the one associated with 'determinism' is, since it suggests that laws are intelligent and can 'control' things.

This personifies these 'laws' and makes it seem like they can act as agents.

As I said, you can only make this 'theory' work if you anthropomorphise nature.

Light travels at a certain speed in a vacuum, not because it wants to, but because it just does. That is a "law".

Well, you can quote any number of these laws, and say the same thing all day long, it makes not one jot of difference (since I do not deny the facts of science)but if you think that an immaterial 'law' can 'control' anything in material reality, you are an idealist.

No, I think that "laws" are regularities, matter "obeys" them, 'cause if it didn't, then it would not be matter.

Ah, now you have altered the meaning of this word; if a law is merely a 'regularity' then its linguistic form becomes a simple description of what does in fact happen; but a description (which we draw up, nature does no do this) cannot 'control' anything.

If you slide between these two meanings of this word, no wonder you are a mite confused.

Scientists (and philosophers and lots of other people) commonly redefine words to mean what they what them to mean.)

No problem with that, but then the results of human linguistic juggling like this can only be projeted onto nature if you are an idealist.

Or a conventionalist, and hence a subjectivist.

There is another way to handle this (one that does not slide into idealism, or subjectivism), which I will reveal in an Essay I will be posting next year some time.

I never stated that I thought these "laws" were intelligent.

No, but you help yourself to language that implies that this is what they are.

Once more: you can only make this 'theory' work if you anthropomorphise nature.

The fact that you are continually constrained to use such revealing language merely confirms this.

Your views are under scrutiny here, otherwise I would not continue to post in reply to you.

Not so: I have no theory to offer you all; you are the ones defending a mystical view of nature, not me.

I reject all such (non-scientific) theories as nonsensical.

You believe the universe operates in a certain way

Not so; I leave all that to scientists; as a socialist I do not care how the world operates.

The point is to change it. [Where have we heard that before...??]

I do care that other socialists cling onto such mystical ideas, though.

So why do humans do things?

I will leave that one to psychologists and novelists to tell us.

I have no general theory (and none at all), and do not want one.

Why does light travel at a certain speed in a vacuum and slower in gases?

Ask a scientist; I am not one.

The ruling-ideas are always those of the ruling-class.

This mystical notion has been around for over 2500 years (so it's a pretty solid boss-class 'theory'); time to ditch it I think.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th October 2006, 12:43

Dooga:

Does causation apply in all circumstances or can something be uncaused?

I think we should leave that to scientists to decide.

I have no opinion on this.

black magick hustla

28th October 2006, 17:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 11:16 am

The mind reacts to different stimuli and from such stimuli--depending on your cultural background and some of your genetics--you produce different decisions. You are not really "taking" a decision.

Woah cowboy.

You do realise that you are practically regurgitating fascism here?

Learn a little history about the behaviourists and their agenda.

Skinner was a fucking Nazi, as is well represented in his *cough* 'philosophy'.

Existence is not as simple as these cretins would like to make out.

If anyone is interested here is a paper i recently completed on the subject of determinism and free will. Yes it is an undergrad paper that I threw together jittered on coffee whilst the walls were twisting in on themselves. But in my mind it conveys a few important points..

http://perth.indymedia.org/index.php?actio...arentview=34741 (http://perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=34741)
No it isn't.

It has nothing to do with fascism.

Half of the scientific community believes that some of our behaviors are atleast influenced by our genetics. The other half is divided between the ones that are not sure about it and the ones that afirm genetics have nothing to do.

It doesnt matters though. Genetics do play a role, but I believe material surroundings play an even greater role.

Existence seems very complex at first, but unless you believe men have a metaphysical quality over the chemical reactions and electrical impulses, I dont see why would someone disagree with me.

apathy maybe

29th October 2006, 00:26

Originally posted by RL+--> (RL)You need to ask what then the word 'control' means in this context. How, for instance, can anything non-intelligent, or which is not an agent of some sort, 'control' anything else?

Just think about the loose use of language your theory has to rely on.[/b]
Firstly, if you hadn't noticed, I don't believe in determinism. I think that quantum mechanics tells us that things are indeterministic. I also can't see how there can be an third alternative (other then determinism or indeterminism) that is non-materialistic.

I know you keep telling me that to believe in determinism or indeterminism is to "anthropomorphise nature", but I have yet to really seen you explain it (except by talking about use of language, which I feel is a semantic point, and thus not really relevant).

Secondly, I think that you might have fought so much with DM fanatics that you are attributing to those who aren't (such as myself) characteristics of those who are.

Originally posted by RL+--> (RL)The two are connected (the legalistic sense and the alleged 'scientific' sense) historically, when used metaphysically, as is easy to show.

I gave references that show this.

Of course, there are as many interpretations of the word 'law', as it is used in science, as there are those who have bothered to think about this topic, and some are not the least bit metaphysical (in fact, you use one such later).

However, the one associated with 'determinism' is, since it suggests that laws are intelligent and can 'control' things.

This personifies these 'laws' and makes it seem like they can act as agents.

As I said, you can only make this 'theory' work if you anthropomorphise nature.[/b]Now then, I have attempted to use the word "law" in the sense that I gave (the one that is "not the least bit metaphysical"). I think that the use of the word in this sense, allows 'determinism', but does not "anthropomorphise nature".

Originally posted by RL
Well, you can quote any number of these laws, and say the same thing all day long, it makes not one jot of difference (since I do not deny the facts of science)but if you think that an immaterial 'law' can 'control' anything in material reality, you are an idealist.Well good thing I don't think this. I don't think the "laws of nature" control anything, I think that it is just a descriptive for how the universe operates.

Originally posted by RL
Ah, now you have altered the meaning of this word; if a law is merely a 'regularity' then its linguistic form becomes a simple description of what does in fact happen; but a description (which we draw up, nature does no do this) cannot 'control' anything.

If you slide between these two meanings of this word, no wonder you are a mite confused.Can you point me to where I have used another meaning? 'Cause it was my intention, whenever I used the word "law" in this discussion for it to mean something similar to what I had here.

[email protected]
No, but you help yourself to language that implies that this is what they are.

Once more: you can only make this 'theory' work if you anthropomorphise nature.

The fact that your are continually constrained to use such revealing language merely confirms this.While your at it, tell me which theory I am trying to make work. I think that using the definition of "law" given, that determinism can be shown (assuming that such things as randomness does not exist) without anthropomorphising anything.

RL
Not so: I have no theory to offer you all; you are the ones defending a mystical view of nature, not me.

I reject all such (non-scientific) theories as nonsensical.Right, glad to have cleared that up. You are attacking people who have an opinion, though you don't have one yourself.

I am not defending a mystical view of nature at all. I have come to the conclusion that this discussion is actually a problem of semantics, of the meaning of words. You think that I am using words in a certain way, which I am not.

A quick run down of some meanings,
Law of nature (sometimes shortened to simply 'law') - are regularities, matter "obeys" them, 'cause if it didn't, then it would not be matter. The words is used as a descriptive of how things are. These laws do not change and are not passed as social/political "laws" are. They just are. These laws do not control anything, 'cause as you point out that would anthropomorphise nature. Instead matter simply does what matter does.

Determinism - determinism states that given an initial point in the universe, along with the "laws of nature" (how things work in other words), another point will be inevitable. An example from a simple universe, have you heard of the Game of Life? Well do a search for "Conway's Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life)" if you have not. It has "Laws" that "dictate" how the game works. Given an initial state and these "laws", the game will produce a specific result. That is how things operate, they could not go any other way. No control is happening, no intelligent being is dictating what things are going to happen (except, perhaps, initially setting up the board).

Indeterminism - indeterminism states that given an initial point in the universe, along with the "laws of nature", another point is not inevitable. Indeterminism introduces the concept of randomness, the possibility that something might go more then one way. Sometimes the possibility of something not even having a cause is also introduced (see some interpretations of quantum mechanics). Back to Conway's Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life), if we modified one of the "laws", (for example the fourth one) we could introduce randomness. "Any dead cell with exactly three neighbours has a 90% change of coming to life." This means that it is not possible to predict an outcome for any particular game. Again no control is happening, there is no anthropomorphising nature.

I view the universe as simply a more complicated Game of Life. Matter interacts with other matter, following these "laws". I don't know how the initial state was made like it was (I personally think it was random), but since then matter has simply followed the "laws of nature". And because I think that randomness is involved I think the universe is indeterminist. However, I will grant that I could be wrong about randomness existing, in which case I would say that the universe is deterministic. And I can't see a materialist alternative to those two.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th October 2006, 01:12

Apathy:

Firstly, if you hadn't noticed, I don't believe in determinism

On re-edit: yes, I see from earlier that this is your position; forgive me for attributing the opposite opinion to you. My only defence, and it is pathetically weak, is that you mentioned this before I joined this debate.

I think that quantum mechanics tells us that things are indeterministic

Since 'indeterminism' feeds off 'determinism', and the latter depends on an anthropomorphic view of reality, the former in fact is an empty term, since the latter is too.

I also can't see how there can be an third alternative (other then determinism or indeterminism) that is non-materialistic

I am not offering an alternative: both these options are meaningless.

Recall, once more, I am not proposing a better philosophical theory, since I reject them all.

but I have yet to really seen you explain it (except by talking about use of language, which I feel is a semantic point, and thus not really relevant)

I think you must have missed it: once you try (not once I try), once you try to spell out the details of how one event does or does not 'control' others, or they 'obey' what they are forced to do, you will have to use anthropomorphic language, or make your alternative relate negatively to that use of language in the option you are rejecting.

So, since you have yet to try to fill in the details, the proof is in your hands.

You can see you keep teetering on the edge of this abyss when you use words like 'obey'.

Others have tried before you, and in extensive detail, but the result is always the same.

Check out the references I gave, you will see that I am summarising several centuries of philosophical debate here you are clearly unaware of.

Secondly, I think that you might have fought so much with DM fanatics that you are attributing to those who aren't (such as myself) characteristics of those who are

Appologies if I am, but recall I trace all forms of philosophy back to ruling-class forms of thought, DM is just a poor cousin in all this. So, all forms of traditional philosophy depend on some form of idealism, and in many cases, anthropomorphic uses of language.

So, you are merely being caught in the crossfire here.

Now then, I have attempted to use the word "law" in the sense that I gave (the one that is "not the least bit metaphysical"). I think that the use of the word in this sense, allows 'determinism', but does not "anthropomorphise nature"

You actually used it in two senses, one in which it was merely a description of regularities (no problem with that), and one in which things 'obey' these laws. That is an anthropomorphic use of language, for to make it work you have to imagine that unintelligent matter can 'obey' instructions from an immaterial thing called a 'law'.

Well good thing I don't think this. I don't think the "laws of nature" control anything, I think that it is just a descriptive for how the universe operates

This is not what you said earlier:

No, I think that "laws" are regularities, matter "obeys" them, 'cause if it didn't, then it would not be matter

"Obeys", see.

If humans are not governed by these 'laws of nature', why can't we fly without assistance on Earth?

"Governed", see again.

If other material is governed by 'laws of nature' (such as rocks and water etc.) why do you think that humans do not?

"Governed", once more.

I am claiming that because we are made of matter, the "laws" of the universe affect us just as they affect all matter. I am claiming that humans are not special

So, now laws are not [i]just regularities as you claimed, they 'affect us'; how can a summary of a set of regularities 'affect' us?

You claim to be a materilaist but you see these immaterial entities in nature, these mere summaries of regularities, 'governing' and 'affecting' us, which things 'obey'.

So, your words imply that you believe this aspect of nature is intelligent and non-material -- or if you do not believe this then you have chosen language which seriously compromises my opinion of what you do believe.

So, you need to make your mind up: if you are a believer in regularity, fine, no problem.

But if you think these laws 'affect' us and 'govern' us, which things 'obey', then you are an idealist.

Can you point me to where I have used another meaning?

See above.

While your at it, tell me which theory I am trying to make work

You will note that I put the word "theory" in 'scare' quotes since I do not think you have one, just a set of confused ideas, which only work because you slip into using anthropomorphic language all the time, even while you deny that is what you are doing.

You are attacking people who have an opinion, though you don't have one yourself

I am in fact arguing that these 'opinions' all use empty words that have been bandied about for centuries, invented by idealists and mystics, which amateur metaphysicans here have latched onto without giving them much thought.

And, in so far as there are no other opinions, I'd be foolish to try to adopt one.

And now you slip right back into a mystical view of nature you claimed you did not accept:

Law of nature (sometimes shortened to simply 'law') - are regularities, matter "obeys" them, 'cause if it didn't, then it would not be matter

So, you think matter is intelligent, and immaterial entities can order things about the place, do you?

The rest of what you say did not seem to me to be at all to the point, or was merely repetitive.

Bretty123

29th October 2006, 20:14

What about degree's of a state being determined?

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th October 2006, 20:21

Bretty:

What about degree's of a state being determined?

By what?

Bretty123

29th October 2006, 23:37

circumstances

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th October 2006, 00:27

Bretty:

circumstances

I see, so 'circumstances' can plan and decide things, can they?

Bretty123

30th October 2006, 00:58

No they cannot decide or plan things, circumstances just exist without any plan or determination. They are composed of material things with no metaphysical connection to each other.

So the word determined is not suitable. It's more of a degree of limitations brought about by material circumstance.

Bretty123

30th October 2006, 01:12

Determined would only be usable if the circumstance regarded was imposed by an animal, most likely human.

Bretty123

30th October 2006, 02:53

I think I understand the concept of determination and free will as being nonsensical.

apathy maybe

30th October 2006, 03:40

Rosa, I am going to attempt to explain my position again. I now understand your position (though I find your faith in science strangely disturbing, why is science better then any other knowledge system?).

I am trying to show that regardless of then language I use, the position I take is not at all non-materialist. It also does in no way anthropomorphise nature.

I provide definitions for what I meant by the words "determinism" and "indeterminism", which show that you don't need to anthropomorphise anything and you could still have a valid meaning. Which is not to say that some people haven't anthropomorphised nature. These definitions may or may not use anthropomorphic language, however, they do not need to.

The simple use of anthropomorphic language, does not in and of it self anthropomorphise anything. It is simply a way of describing what one means, it is metaphorical.

To explain 'determinism' and 'indeterminism' without using anthropomorphic language, I provided an analogy with the "Game of Life", a cellular automaton. This potential Universal Turing Machine environment has four simple rules (though it is possible to reformulate them in two (found in earlier versions of the Wikipedia article))

Originally posted by Wikipedia
1. Any live cell with fewer than two neighbours dies, as if by loneliness.
2. Any live cell with more than three neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
3. Any live cell with two or three neighbours lives, unchanged, to the next generation.
4. Any dead cell with exactly three neighbours comes to life. and is "played" on an infinite chequered board (each being a 'cell').

These rules (or the "laws of nature" for the Game of Life universe) describe how things operate. One could also use the word "dictate" instead of describe, but notice how despite the "anthropomorphic" language I didn't actually anthropomorphise anything?

Using the original laws (given above), and an initial starting point, it is possible to "predict" what the universe will look like after X number of generations (even if that involves running the thing for that long). No matter how many times you run the Game, if it starts with the same initial layout, it will always look the same after X generations. This is determinism. (Extrapolate for the obviously more complex universe that we call our own.)

Now if we modify the laws, one or more, to introduce randomness we have a different scenario. Take the modified law that I provide, "Any dead cell with exactly three neighbours has a 90% change of coming to life". Now we can choose a starting point, but it is not possible to predict what the universe will look like after X generations. Not only that, if you start the game again with the same starting layout, it is probable that the universe will not look the same, after X generations, as it did the first time. This is indeterminism, and again extrapolate for the obviously more complex universe that we live in.

So there are "laws of nature" that describe how things operate, they do not force anything to do anything. If we accept that randomness does not exist, then given a starting point (the Big Bang), a particular layout of the universe is inevitable, that is it is "determined" (hence determinism). However, if randomness does exist, then it is not possible to "predict" (beyond statistically) what the universe will look like.

So we have determinism and indeterminism, neither use anthropomorphic language, but both can. The words used to describe how the two operates do not in anyway lessen the meaning of the words determinism and indeterminism, nor does it mean that the person using particular words (such as "obey" or "dictate") is anthropomorphising nature. It is simply a metaphorical language shortcut.

So my position, based on my understanding of determinism and indeterminism (which I have given above), is that the only alternative is a non-materialist alternative. Determinism and indeterminism are quite compatible with materialism, anything else is not.

(And actually on the topic of Free Will, you can find my position in a thread I gave earlier.)

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th October 2006, 11:35

Apathy Maybe, thank you for trying to make your position clear, but I am afraid to say that we are no nearer the stated goal than we were at the beginning of this exchange.

While you claim you are not anthropomorphising nature, merely using 'metaphors', you need to ask yourself why these metaphors and not others.

But, as these 'metaphors' are and were based on an anthropomorphic view of nature, so is your view.

What was wanted was a literal account of the interaction of these ideal entities (i.e., 'laws') and the events that ‘obey’ them, so that this is consistent with materialism (not idealism), and it is that which I deny you (or anyone else) can give.

This is not to pick on you, even professional philosophers cannot do this without descending into idealism

There are deeper logical reasons why this is so; I give a summary of these here (the full account will appear some time next year):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

Now, you can disclaim all you like, but your use of language (not mine), your use of language backs you into an idealist corner.

Your ‘definitions’ of determinism etc. are in fact loosely-worded characterisations, padded out with obscurre metaphors, which I defy you to explain.

[Anyone can use a metaphor to bail a theory out, the question is, what does it mean, and how does it work? So, if I were to say that Capitalism is 'heavenly', and you queried the use of this word, I do not think for one minute you'd accept me saying it's just a metaphor.]

Your description of that game you keep trying to depict I do not think is relevant, so I will not comment on it.

Elsewhere you begin to confuse this issue with our capacity to predict --, which is a distinct topic --, so I will not comment on that either.

[But, if you want to go down that route, you will sink further into the mire; my advice: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.]

Bretty123

30th October 2006, 23:09

How is my conclusion idealist?

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 00:23

Bretty:

How is my conclusion idealist?

Who said it was, and which conclusion are we talking about?

Bretty123

31st October 2006, 03:02

Freedom based on material circumstances.
or:
degree of limitations brought about by material circumstance.

Would you consider these idealist definitions of freedom?

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 11:04

Bretty:

Would you consider these idealist definitions of freedom?

Well, they are not definitions to begin with.

Bretty123

31st October 2006, 13:43

What if someone asked me to define the terms of my existence? I'm not breaking any rules of language.

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 16:20

Bretty:

What if someone asked me to define the terms of my existence?

Tell him/her to sober up -- or seek treatment.

I'm not breaking any rules of language.

Who said you were? It's just that definitions are not easy to construct, even where the terms are clear.

In this case, with a terminally-obscure notion like 'determinism' you stand no chance.

bretty

31st October 2006, 18:44

What about using Wittgenstein's use of the game of chess (like in his blue book) as the way to describe freedom?

By describing what the game is you come to a stop.

But the rules exist for the game to exist otherwise you'd just have a board and pieces.

Your freedom could be similar to the movement that the rules dictate. Once you say what is a rule it is difficult to describe. But the rules still exist for the game to exist.

The game is similar to life
The pieces are similar to matter.
The rules are material natural laws.

What do you think?

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 22:51

Bretty:

What about using Wittgenstein's use of the game of chess (like in his blue book) as the way to describe freedom?

Well, you are nominalising something (i.e., giving it name), and treating it as if it were one 'thing'.

That is perhaps the first thing he'd say to you.

[His motto was "I'll teach you differences."]

We have scores of words in ordinary language with which we can depict our capacity to choose things.

So why look anywhere else?

Hit The North

1st November 2006, 00:11

We have scores of words in ordinary language with which we can depict our capacity to choose things.

But the debate is more than about which words we use. It's about the actual scope for free choice within the objective constraints imposed by material or social reality.

What was wanted was a literal account of the interaction of these ideal entities (i.e., 'laws') and the events that ‘obey’ them, so that this is consistent with materialism (not idealism), and it is that which I deny you (or anyone else) can give.

Perhaps we have to accept that there is a limit to how far words can capture these interactions without resorting to metaphor.

Elsewhere you begin to confuse this issue with our capacity to predict --, which is a distinct topic --, so I will not comment on that either.

Except the practical point of this debate relates to our ability to predict reality. If it's indeterminate then it cannot be predicted.

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st November 2006, 06:35

Z weighs in:

But the debate is more than about which words we use. It's about the actual scope for free choice within the objective constraints imposed by material or social reality.

Oh dear, you made the mistake of using words to tell us this.

Now, try again, but on no account use any language to communicate your thoughts.

Otherwise, my point will apply to you, too.

Perhaps we have to accept that there is a limit to how far words can capture these interactions without resorting to metaphor.

Absolutely, and that is why when you mystics try to tell us in materialist terms what you mean you can only appeal to inappropriate metaphors (which you cannot explain to anyone), idealist concepts and the misuse of language -- just like believers in God (see my post on the mysterious 'Totality' you lot worship).

You very rapidly slide into your own via negativa, as I said you would.

Except the practical point of this debate relates to our ability to predict reality. If it's indeterminate then it cannot be predicted.

And when you fill in the details of this use of language, you will have to anthropomorphise nature once more.

The details are in the references I gave earlier.

You need to pay attention.

apathy maybe

1st November 2006, 07:57

Rosa, this is going to be my last post in this thread unless either, you come up with some new arguments based on what I have said (rather then based on what you think I mean) or some one else posts something I want to reply to.

Originally posted by RL+--> (RL)While you claim you are not anthropomorphising nature, merely using 'metaphors', you need to ask yourself why these metaphors and not others.

But, as these 'metaphors' are and were based on an anthropomorphic view of nature, so is your view.[/b]I have described my views without the use of anthropomorphic language. My use of anthropomorphic language is similar to how I use it in an essay, when I write "this essay will say ... and will then go onto talk about ...". While I have used anthropomorphic language in the essay, that does not mean that I am anthropomorphising the essay.

Originally posted by RL+--> (RL)What was wanted was a literal account of the interaction of these ideal entities (i.e., 'laws') and the events that ‘obey’ them, so that this is consistent with materialism (not idealism), and it is that which I deny you (or anyone else) can give.[/b]I am not attempting to give a literal account of the interaction between the 'laws' and the events that 'obey' them. This is because this is not what I mean by laws. If you examine what I said about "Conway's Game of Life" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Conway's+Game+of+Life"), you'll notice that the 'laws' are descriptives about how things are, they do not force anything to do anything.

Originally posted by RL
Your ‘definitions’ of determinism etc. are in fact loosely-worded characterisations, padded out with obscurre metaphors, which I defy you to explain.I was attempting to define by analogy. I wish I could talk to you in real life, it would be much easier to explain what I meant. But I'll try and explain to others around me and see if they understand what I mean.

[email protected]
Your description of that game you keep trying to depict I do not think is relevant, so I will not comment on it.You might not think that it is relevant, but it is the main point. I can describe how the 'game' operates without using anthropomorphic language, the universe operates in a similar way. Simple -> complex.

RL
Elsewhere you begin to confuse this issue with our capacity to predict --, which is a distinct topic --, so I will not comment on that either.No I was not confusing anything, which is why I had "predict" in quotes. I guess I shouldn't try and talk to you, you take use of language too literally.

Using the "laws" given, and an initial starting point (in the 'game'), there is no possible way for the game to turn out a different way, no matter how many times it is run (so long as the starting point is the same). Why don't you try it out your self http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ and http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/ both have patterns.

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st November 2006, 08:07

Apathy:

I have described my views without the use of anthropomorphic language.

No, you used metaphors that were based on this.

when I write "this essay will say ... and will then go onto talk about ...". While I have used anthropomorphic language in the essay, that does not mean that I am anthropomorphising the essay.

And you can expand on this metaphor (if it is one), and explain the metaphor in ordinary, literal terms.

This you cannot do with the metaphors you used.

I am not attempting to give a literal account of the interaction between the 'laws' and the events that 'obey' them. This is because this is not what I mean by laws. If you examine what I said about "Conway's Game of Life", you'll notice that the 'laws' are descriptives about how things are, they do not force anything to do anything.

Then it is of no use to science; perhaps it as of use to poets and other assorted artists/mystics.

And, once more you quote a game which is of tenuous relevance.

I was attempting to define by analogy. I wish I could talk to you in real life, it would be much easier to explain what I meant. But I'll try and explain to others around me and see if they understand what I mean.

Yet again, you have to use figurative language; theologians have to do the same when they speak of God. Notice the connection?

You might not think that it is relevant, but it is the main point. I can describe how the 'game' operates without using anthropomorphic language, the universe operates in a similar way. Simple -> complex.

Well, since this game was designed by humans, I take it you mean that the universe was too.

No I was not confusing anything, which is why I had "predict" in quotes. I guess I shouldn't try and talk to you, you take use of language too literally.

Once more, you can only make your ideas work by putting words in quotes, and using language that is of no use to materialists who want a literal account of how nature works.

As to that game you keep trying to sell me, I'd rather watch my toe-nails grow.