Determinism. [Archive]

apathy maybe

29th January 2008, 09:24

Determinism doesn't effect anything anymore than non-determinism. It's a pointless discussion that doesn't affect anything beyond what someone wants to be affected.

Whether or not there is an absolute chain of cause-and-effect or cause-and-effect is fluid, doesn't change our current state nor the fact that we can't observe what's yet to come--you can't tell the difference either way.

This.

It is like arguing if we have free will or not. We can't tell either way, it appears that we do though. Pointless to discuss it any more then this. (See http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-why-discussions-t50219/ for a further discussion.)

(Ignoring Rosa's position, which to tell the truth, I don't completely understand what exactly she is arguing for (nothing?)...)

There are two main arguments in materialist discussions of determinism (which are the only ones that matter...).
The determinism position, that is given a set starting point, everything will always end up the same, no matter how many times you run that scenario.

The non-determinism position, that is, given a set starting point, depending on events within the scenario will determine the outcome. These events are random events, that is they are not affected by consciousness.

Personally, I lean towards the second. I think that Quantum theory demonstrates randomness sufficiently that to continue to claim a deterministic position is ignorant.

P.S. Rosa baby, did you ever actually finish that essay you promised me on your position regarding this question? I am interested in reading it still.

Hit The North

29th January 2008, 11:52

Quantum theory is a theory of material reality, it is not a theory of human action and the debate about free will and determinism only makes sense in terms of human action.

The question is about how free we are to change our circumstances and how much those circumstances constrain our ability to change them.

To see it in metaphysical terms, necessitating either the will of God or a law of nature or time, misses the point. The question really relates to history and is summed up in this neat dialectical formulation by Marx:

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

Hit The North

29th January 2008, 11:54

Hello. Neat forum.

I am a determinist. I believe that everything, including every human action, is predetermined...

Well, you're "free" to believe what you want. You'll never be able to prove it.

RedAnarchist

29th January 2008, 12:01

apathy maybe

29th January 2008, 12:10

Quantum theory is a theory of material reality, it is not a theory of human action and the debate about free will and determinism only makes sense in terms of human action.

The question is about how free we are to change our circumstances and how much those circumstances constrain our ability to change them.

To see it in metaphysical terms, necessitating either the will of God or a law of nature or time, misses the point. The question really relates to history and is summed up in this neat dialectical formulation by Marx:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

Wait, so you are saying that humans are not affected by quantum physics? Because that sounds rather non-materialist if you ask me...

Humans are just as much chemicals and quantum events as any other thing.

And the debate about free will and determinism only makes sense if you consider that humans (and everything else) are part of the universe and made up of material substance.

(Next you will be trying to tell me that we have "souls" or that our minds are somehow separate from our bodies...)

Hit The North

29th January 2008, 13:15

Vanguard1917

29th January 2008, 14:11

Wait, so you are saying that humans are not affected by quantum physics? Because that sounds rather non-materialist if you ask me...

Humans are just as much chemicals and quantum events as any other thing.

And the debate about free will and determinism only makes sense if you consider that humans (and everything else) are part of the universe and made up of material substance.

(Next you will be trying to tell me that we have "souls" or that our minds are somehow separate from our bodies...)

Humans are conscious beings - which is what makes them unique. As a result, they're able to consciously change their material surroundings to suit what they see as their interests.

We have to be wary of all forms of determinism. Like Red_Anarchist kind of suggested above, wherever there is determinism, there also tends to be fatalism - the idea that change is outside of human control.

One of Marx's key achievements was to show that, while there are indeed historical constraints on what human beings have been able to achieve, historical change itself is brought about by human action. As a radical humanist, Marx emphasised human agency against the vulgar materialists of his time who downplayed it.

Like Marx says: 'To be radical is to go to the root of the matter. For man, however, the root is man himself.'

apathy maybe

29th January 2008, 14:16

And next you'll be telling me that human behaviour is the result of biological determinism or that the decisions we make lie outside the actual rational process of thinking and is really the result of interactions independent of my will at the quantum level.
Well yes. Pretty much.

Wait, so you are saying that humans are not affected by quantum physics? Because that sounds rather non-materialist if you ask me...

I'm not saying that - I don't know. But I'm certain that history isn't the result of quantum physics or that capitalism is a conspiracy of quarks.
Well, history is the result of physics certainly. That is, the interaction of particles and so on. As for capitalism, like everything else, it is a result of the interactions of particles. I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy of quarks" (nice quote though), because obviously quarks don't think or conspire.

What I'm pretty sure of is that in my day to day life my actions are constrained or enabled by relations which are created by other human beings as they pursue their interests. I am both active and acted up on.

If you want to maintain an argument that sees human action and thought as determined (constrained or otherwise) by remote, anonymous, a-historical processes of nature, that's up to you.
Well heck, it is the only materialist position to take. (Though, I don't say 'determined', or 'remote' (because obviously they are all around us, happening right now...), or 'anonymous' (unless you only mean unable to to tell one from another), or 'a-historical' (as they are creating history...). Heck, I don't even say 'processes of nature', though I guess that is a perfectly legitimate term to use. Hey Rosa, do you have a problem with "processes of nature" like you do with "laws of nature"?)

I prefer historical materialism, myself. :)
Because "historical materialism" isn't... Actually, talking about "historical materialism" (and assuming that it is a science, a question which I feel is still up for debate), it is sorta like biology. That is, you can study biology and make connections and so on, and think you actually understand something. But ultimately, it is all physics, and you can't escape that.

apathy maybe

29th January 2008, 14:34

Humans are conscious beings - which is what makes them unique. As a result, they're able to consciously change their material surroundings to suit what they see as their interests.
Don't you get tired of repeating the same unproven, boring rubbish over and over again?
And, even if it is true and all that, doesn't change that we are run by chemical reactions and quantum events.

We have to be wary of all forms of determinism. Like Red_Anarchist kind of suggested above, wherever there is determinism, there also tends to be fatalism - the idea that change is outside of human control.
Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that physics is bigger then you are.

One of Marx's key achievements was to show that, while there are indeed historical constraints on what human beings have been able to achieve, historical change itself is brought about by human action. As a radical humanist, Marx emphasised human agency against the vulgar materialists of his time who downplayed it.
Wow. Doesn't change the fact that physics is bigger then you are.

Like Marx says: 'To be radical is to go to the root of the matter. For man, however, the root is man himself.'Yay, appeal to authority! And pithy irrelevant quote.
I at least am talking about physics and the fundamental nature of things. As I said above, you can talk about historical materialism all you want, but its relation to physics is about the same as the relationship between biology and physics.

I am constantly amazed by the so called "materialists" who are so often actually idealists and irrationalists. It almost seems to be a badge of pride not to believe in physics, but instead to constantly harp on about dialectics

Vanguard1917

29th January 2008, 14:45

Don't you get tired of repeating the same unproven, boring rubbish over and over again?

It is unproven that human beings are unique in that they can consciously shape their material surroundings?

And, even if it is true and all that, doesn't change that we are run by chemical reactions and quantum events.

What are you talking about? Human society is not governed by 'chemical reactions and quantum events'.

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that physics is bigger then you are.

What does that actually mean?

Wow. Doesn't change the fact that physics is bigger then you are.

Please don't waste my time.

apathy maybe

29th January 2008, 14:55

Hit The North

29th January 2008, 15:07

I am constantly amazed by the so called "materialists" who are so often actually idealists and irrationalists. It almost seems to be a badge of pride not to believe in physics, but instead to constantly harp on about dialecticsWell, for a start, physics, is the study of matter and no one is suggesting that we should abandon physics. However, physics is not the study of human history - and it sure as hell cannot explain it.

Your materialism denies the existence of consciousness except as a manifestation of unthinking particles. It creates an explanatory universe which is purely metaphysical (and theological in its structure) and you end up substituting God with Nature. Here is the evidence:

Well, history is the result of physics certainly. That is, the interaction of particles and so on. As for capitalism, like everything else, it is a result of the interactions of particles.Unseen, mysterious acts of Nature do all the work, are at the root of all things, and human beings have no practical or creative input into their own lives. You therefore deny a central tenent of any revolutionary theory: that society is the result of human action and can be transformed by human action.

Again, to repeat Vanguard1917's quote by Marx:
To be radical is to go to the root of the matter. For man, however, the root is man himself.Your materialism has no room for radicalism of any kind.

Vanguard1917

29th January 2008, 15:13

Well, for a start, physics, is the study of matter and no one is suggesting that we should abandon physics. However, physics is not the study of human history - and it sure as hell cannot explain it.

Your materialism denies the existence of consciousness except as a manifestation of unthinking particles. It creates an explanatory universe which is purely metaphysical and you end up substituting God for Nature.

Well put.

Marxists are materialists - but materialists of a special kind. Let's not forget that materialism existed long before Marx. What Marx achieved was to explain that reality needs to be understood as 'sensuous human activity' (Theses on Feuerbach). Social reality needs to be understood from the perspective of human practice. Like he states in the Theses on Feuerbach: 'All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.'

LuÃs Henrique

29th January 2008, 16:09

Please leave your comments. I'll answer any questions.

Who's going to win the Democratic nomination for the US presidential election of 2008?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

29th January 2008, 16:19

Well, history is the result of physics certainly. That is, the interaction of particles and so on. As for capitalism, like everything else, it is a result of the interactions of particles.

This is a completely empty statement; if capitalism is the result of interaction of particles, the question is (and it is an unanswerable question, so don't lose your time trying) - which interactions of particles are responsible for capitalism, and how they differ, for instance, from the interactions of particles that are responsible for feudalism...

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

29th January 2008, 16:24

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th January 2008, 01:27

LH:

See, Rosa, what kind of ignoranteism you embold with your anti-dialectic rants?

Who is name-calling now?

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th January 2008, 01:30

In general, looks like most of the above comrades are happy to rehearse and then re-shuffle the same, tired old, and failed ideas of the past.

LuÃs Henrique

30th January 2008, 15:33

Who is name-calling now?

"Ignorant" is a badwurz now? Or is it "rant"?

This discussion is not about dialectics. It is about determinism. apathy maybe's position of the nature of science is extremely outdated, to say the least; it reveals a complete miscomprehension of how science works. Besides, it has nothing to do with dialectics or anti-dialectics as well; his use of the term is opportunistic. And this is what it has to do with your "rants": you make it fashionable to defend a XIX century comprehension of science...

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

30th January 2008, 15:39

If "everything is particles", then "knowledge" "is particles", too, isn't it? (if not, how not?)

If knowledge is particles... then if I have the universe in a state A, which is not known to me, and I become to know the universe in that state A, then the universe is no longer in that state A (because "knowledge is particles", the particles in a universe in which I know its state must be in different relations to each others than in a universe in which I do not know such state).

So, when I come to know the universe such as it is, the universe immediately changes, by the fact from my knowledge, into something different than that I knew.

Ergo, if the universe is in fact completely deterministic, no rational being can actually know its "determinations", so the hypothesis that the universe is completely deterministic is either false or useless.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th January 2008, 15:42

LH: well, I deliberately used this descriptor, since it is about as accurate as your first post in that thread in the CC.

This discussion is not about dialectics.

You are the one who mentioned this, not me. If I were to do this, I'd be accused of 'de-railing'; now who'd want to do that?

And this is what it has to do with your "rants"

Why do you mystics like to use this word to describe anything you either do not like, or cannot answer?

Hit The North

30th January 2008, 15:46

And this is what it has to do with your "rants": you make it fashionable to defend a XIX century comprehension of science...

Is this because without a dialectical appreciation of science - i.e. seeing it as a social practice which influences and is influenced by other social practices - Rosa allows people to fetishize science as an oracle, abstracted from its social relations and the history of those relations?

Or what?

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th January 2008, 15:53

Z:

Rosa allows people to fetishize science as an oracle, abstracted from its social relations and the history of those relations?

How do I do that? I specifically argue that science is a social practice. You have to make stuff up about me all the time, don't you?

And it's you mystics who cloud the issues.

LuÃs Henrique

30th January 2008, 18:24

You are the one who mentioned this, not me.In fact, it was apathy maybe.

Luís Henrique

Hit The North

30th January 2008, 22:07

Z:

How do I do that? I specifically argue that science is a social practice. You have to make stuff up about me all the time, don't you?

And it's you mystics who cloud the issues.

A) I was asking a question, not making an assertion, wondering what Luis meant by his statement.

B) Do you argue that its a social practice which is dialectically linked to other social practices?

C) I am not a mystic.

LuÃs Henrique

30th January 2008, 22:35

Is this because without a dialectical appreciation of science - i.e. seeing it as a social practice which influences and is influenced by other social practices - Rosa allows people to fetishize science as an oracle, abstracted from its social relations and the history of those relations?

I think in most cases it is quite more shallow - it gives some people an alibi and a pre-fabricated discourse. Take for instance this thread, and apathy maybe's intervention in it: nobody was discussing dialectics; but apathy maybe introduced it as a kind of "negative mantra". In defending a XIX century vision of science and "physics' imperialism", he felt that blaming those who disagree with him of "dialectic mysticism" would give him some kind of carte blanche to say any absurd, or perhaps that it would protect him from proper criticism.

In other words, I believe his fetishism of science is, so to say, pre-Rosa (it's a common element of bourgeois ideology we learn in school and outdated science books); it's only his boldness in stating it that is influenced by (a misreading of) Rosa.

In fact, if I understand Rosa's position (and I don't claim I do), I have the impression that she would not agree with apathy maybe's idea that all science is reducible to physics - if he had left his mantra out of his discourse, she would probably have lambasted him as usual. As he didn't, she refrains from criticising him because he's "an ally", and prefers to attack "us" and our "mysticism".

Rosa, what's your position on apathy maybe's particular brand of XVIII/XIX century scientificism?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th January 2008, 23:01

Z:

Do you argue that its a social practice which is dialectically linked to other social practices?

Your question contains a meaningless word (i.e., 'dialectically'), and is therefore incapable of being answered.

I am not a mystic.

That must mean you have abandoned that mystical theory you have been half-heartedly defending for the last 18 months or so.

I am glad to hear it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th January 2008, 23:02

LH:

Rosa, what's your position on apathy maybe's particular brand of XVIII/XIX century scientificism?

The same as it is on your defence of mysticism: I reject both.

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th January 2008, 23:07

VG:

Hey Rosa, do you have a problem with "processes of nature" like you do with "laws of nature"?

I like to leave science to those who know about it -- i.e., to scientists (especially those who have not been bought off by the likes of Exxon, and inlike you).

I do, however, have a problem with those who pontificate about fundamental aspects of reality based on the obsolete writings of 19th century mystics like Hegel and Engels.

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th January 2008, 23:23

Apathy Maybe:

Rosa baby, did you ever actually finish that essay you promised me on your position regarding this question? I am interested in reading it still.

No, sweetie, but I am about to publish a new Essay demolishing Lenin's lamentably poor book 'Materialism and Empirio-criticism'.

The Essay on determinism is way down the list of priorities.

It might see the light of day in 2009/10.

It's one on language and mind next (where I demolish Voloshinov's whacko theory, and in the event pick apart core ideas from dialectical materialists on the nature of 'mind', and the origin and nature of language), then science (where I undermine scientific realism, without losing the realism), then why Hegel (or any idealist, or 'materialist dialectician' -- same thing! -- for that matter) has no theory of falsehood, then one on an important strand of ruling class ideology (sometimes known as 'Philosophy', the ideas from which discipline certainly 'rule' a few minds at RevLeft, as Marx said they would), then perhaps the determinism Essay.

We'll see.

LuÃs Henrique

31st January 2008, 12:17

By the way, what will be cryingants/flyingpants new screen name when he creates a new sockpuppet? I bet tryingrants...

Luís Henrique

Guest1

31st January 2008, 16:38

Neither determinist nor non-determinist... sounds contradictory... even downright dialectical.:laugh:

Seriously, we've got to look at the implications of Chaos theory in explaining the relationship between chaos and order. There are statistical patterns, but a free flow within those limits.

Kinda fractal, if you know what I mean.

There's also a collusion of cause and effect, with a seemingly minor change, under tense conditions, causing catastrophic change.

This can be found in nature at all levels, and even in human society.

black magick hustla

31st January 2008, 18:42

when acting as a human agent, the discussion about free will/determinism is meaningless. when you are about to make a choice you dont think on terms of such false dichonomy.

however when analyzing things from a scientific perspective, it is reasonable to say everything can be reduced to particle movement--there is no spark of "logos" in everyone of us. i think the only people that dont like that idea are liberal arts majors and goddamn christians.

but again its stupid to make decisions absed on the fact that "thought" is just an accumulation of chemical reactions.

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st January 2008, 19:51

CYM:

Neither determinist nor non-determinist... sounds contradictory...

No, it is to reject the traditional way of doing philosophy, and the bogus options it offers.

Seriously, we've got to look at the implications of Chaos theory in explaining the relationship between chaos and order. There are statistical patterns, but a free flow within those limits.

Kinda fractal, if you know what I mean.

There's also a collusion of cause and effect, with a seemingly minor change, under tense conditions, causing catastrophic change.

This can be found in nature at all levels, and even in human society.

Science cannot help solve problems that were originally created by confused thought.

cryingants

5th February 2008, 23:43

Sheeky breeky!

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th February 2008, 00:19

Nice Martian -- but could you translate please?

cryingants

6th February 2008, 00:25

Rosa, what the hell?!

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th February 2008, 01:12

Now that is closer to Earthling-speak, but it is still somewhat obscure.

FireFry

6th February 2008, 01:32

The determinism position, that is given a set starting point, everything will always end up the same, no matter how many times you run that scenario.

The non-determinism position, that is, given a set starting point, depending on events within the scenario will determine the outcome. These events are random events, that is they are not affected by consciousness.

NO!!

That is simply unacceptable. If any of you ever read anything, besides Communist leaflets and manifestos and the philosophical economic work of Karl Marx and Engels (which was very accurate!) you'll find that there is predictable patterns to anything. Oscillating events recurring on mathematically calculable frequencies throughout history (ice ages, dark ages, tyrant ages, etc) , repeating itself in planned (we're aware of it) or unplanned (we're unaware of it) fashions.

Because you're not aware of something that's happening, it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. That is, there is only one universe, there is no alternate force of random properties. There is no "random" particle in the universe that could go heads or tails at any point, all particles and all energy fields and dimensions have predictable and discoverable properties.

This idea, of free will, is the type of shit that religious fundamentalists, residue from fuedal ages, peddle all the time. Because it confuses you and makes you believe you have control over your fate, ignoring existing class and cultural and social conditions. As well as your emotional condition of that time. As that popular saying went, "Free will is just an illusion!"

Historians also like the idea of "free will" because it makes them fancy that things could have ended differently for mankind in different cases for different people. This is crap. Things happened because they had to happen, if they could happen another way, they would have happened that way. BUT IT DIDN'T. It's also a good them for science fiction, but then again, so is a lot of "leftist" crap.

Of course, I'm not arguing that people don't have choice, they do have a freedom of options. But the factors that determine options chosen are predetermined before any options are ever known.

Non-determinism is garbage, it's basically the misunderstanding of determinism. Determinism is not "scientific", that is, it isn't tested in a "controlled environment", whatever the fuck that means. But it's observed in everyday life repeatedly. Some of the hardest problems cannot be "tested" or "experimented", but can only be observed and seen and shown. There is no "scenario", and "scenarios" are not "run" in virtual reality or in giant test chambers, this is real physics I'm talking. Look away from the monitor for a moment and you'll find that there is a reason for the way everything is that can be traced back to an original universal beginning for all things. And that's beautiful.

It represents of triumph in mankind's understanding of the universe, when he discovers that he has no control over most of his observable world, and his destiny. Even with our machines, our cars and even if our bosses and our TVs would like to say that we have some choice, you really don't have a choice over what choices your choose.

We need to analyse the idea with known knowledge of thermodynamics, particles, energy, space and time. And observe it, like digging through a mine shaft, from the most complex (human pyschology) to the least complex (physics) and determine that all things can be determined, if we had discovered enough properties of the universe.

That's scary, predicting the future. It's politically hazardous, too, but it's possible. Just as many other terrible things are possible.

cryingants

6th February 2008, 05:14

but.. but.. but.. DIALECTICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

non-hegelian materialism

(ps dialectics)

FireFry

6th February 2008, 05:23

but.. but.. but.. DIALECTICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

non-hegelian materialism

(ps dialectics)

:lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th February 2008, 15:05

Crying Pants:

but.. but.. but.. DIALECTICS

That sub-standard 'theory' has been demolished in several threads at this site, for example here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nti-dialectics-made-t67725/index.html

But more thoroughly at my site (links in my signature).

Anyway, I fail to see what that mystical 'theory' has to do with this topic.

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th February 2008, 15:08

Firefly I see you too have fallen for that failed theory, sometimes called 'determinism'.

I have shown why it is a dead-end here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/freedom-state-mind-t56836/index.html?t=56836

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=894937&postcount=2

cryingants

7th February 2008, 09:14

Stop shouting! I'm not deaf!

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th February 2008, 10:41

Cryingants:

Stop shouting! I'm not deaf!

Stop exaggerating, I'm not your mum.

apathy maybe

7th February 2008, 13:53

OK, I said I would get back to this thread. But I was at a loss as to how to explain what I was trying to say...

So, I'm just going to point people who haven't already seen it, to this thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-t69582/index.html and in particular to Publius's comments.
(Which I feel do a good job of explaining (within certain parameters which aren't relevant) what I was trying to say here.)

(Actually, I've also explained before using Conway's Game of Life, but I can't just find that thread...)

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th February 2008, 15:43

Thanks for that AM, but fortunately I managed to put that confused traditionalist in his place.

apathy maybe

7th February 2008, 17:00

That's all right. I don't mind. You can keep your delusions, and I'll keep mine. :)

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th February 2008, 02:10

Apathy:

You can keep your delusions, and I'll keep mine.

In which case, the above is a delusion, meaning that I have none.

I agree.

cryingants

14th February 2008, 08:34

NO!!!
What's the matter? Relax!

We need to analyse the idea with known knowledge of thermodynamics, particles, energy, space and time. And observe it, like digging through a mine shaft, from the most complex (human pyschology) to the least complex (physics) and determine that all things can be determined, if we had discovered enough properties of the universe.
What do you mean, "we"? What do you need us for?

It represents of triumph in mankind's understanding of the universe, when he discovers that he has no control over most of his observable world, and his destiny. Even with our machines, our cars and even if our bosses and our TVs would like to say that we have some choice, you really don't have a choice over what choices your choose.

This must be what they mean by.. poetic justice.

See, Rosa, what kind of ignoranteism you embold with your anti-dialectic rants?
I don't like you using foul language.

Whatever your name is, get ready for the big surprise. Listen to me very carefully:

This is a huge, complex issue in philosophy, but I'll just cut to the chase: we don't have what most people call "free will", what religious people call "free will."

Yes.

Crying Pants:
That sub-standard 'theory' has been demolished in several threads at this site, for example here:

Yeah. Do you expect me to believe you? You know you're lying.

That's all right. I don't mind. You can keep your delusions, and I'll keep mine.

No deal.

In which case, the above is a delusion, meaning that I have none.

I agree.

Stop it. It has to end here, so don't give me that crap.

In case you forget, I will be checking back with you.

Douglas Quaid

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 09:48

cryingants:

Yeah. Do you expect me to believe you? You know you're lying.

Stop it. It has to end here, so don't give me that crap.

In case you forget, I will be checking back with you.

Warning: I will delete any more slurs like this.

You can accuse me of being wrong, confused, or uninteresting, and that would be your right.

But if you think you can come here and insult me, you will soon find how wrong you are.

careyprice31

14th February 2008, 13:22

Hello. Neat forum.

I am a determinist. I believe that everything, including every human action, is predetermined (resulting from a preceeding chain of cause and effect) and that there is no (magic) libertarian free will. I also believe this can play an important role in the creation of a new society, but that's a topic for another day.

Please leave your comments. I'll answer any questions.

yes I do believe in determinism. It is most of what makes a person. The rest is genetics and the type of personality a person is born with. Obviously only certain kind of personality falls into a life of crime for example. But even that may be determinism. Why do some personalities turn to a life of crime? How does society affect these personalities so.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 15:15

Thankyou for that Svetlana, and welcome to the board.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out to cryingants before he became abusive, I have already dismantled determinism (and its opposite) in earllier threads.

For example, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/freedom-state-mind-t56836/index.html?t=56836

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=894937&postcount=2

careyprice31

14th February 2008, 18:06

Thankyou for that Svetlana, and welcome to the board.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out to cryingants before he became abusive, I have already dismantled determinism (and its opposite) in earllier threads.

thank you for the welcome, and as for my post, you're welcome. :)

btw I see you are a Trotskyite.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 02:05

No, I am no more a Trotskyite than you are a Bukharinist.

cryingants

24th February 2008, 20:31

What the fuck did I do wrong?!

Douglas Quaid

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2008, 20:53

Cryingants, read my post, again.

That's what you did wrong.

PsciStudent

24th February 2008, 22:14

cryingants, as a true determinist, there are no judgments of right or wrong. There is no use lamenting the necessary, as determinism entails.

LudicrousCommunistDancer

25th March 2008, 22:38

Is cryingants drunk or something?

I am not a determinist but I do not believe in free will either. My position is based on science. Before quantum mechanics scientists thought everything obeyed the laws of motion described by Newton and was thus completely predictable. Quantum mechanics showed that on a smaller scale the movement of particles is unpredictable. This dismantled hard determinism but not free will. If movement of particles is random then it is still not controllable by a person. The person can not control the random actions of the particle. The phrase "free will" does not make any sense if you think about it. I mean, actions are always caused by something, even if that something is unpredictable. If you accept that actions have a cause then it can't be "free will" because it was caused by something else. "Free will" implies that actions are not caused by anything else. Determinism and free will are both false and unsupported by science.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th March 2008, 01:25

Well, it could be that quantum mechanics is incomplete (as many scientists believe), in which case it is no threat to 'determinism'.

On the other hand, as my posts have shown, since both determinism and indeterminism are based on an anthropomorphic view of nature, neither doctrine is coherent.

LudicrousCommunistDancer

26th March 2008, 01:54

Well, it could be that quantum mechanics is incomplete That is true. Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity are incompatible which is why modern physicists are searching for a theory of "quantum gravity". The major theory they are working on is string theory. However, just because it is incomplete does not mean it is incorrect.

EDIT: I read what you posted in another thread about determinism having an animist view of nature. First it didn't make any sense but now it does and I agree with you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th March 2008, 03:44

LCD:

The major theory they are working on is string theory.

You perhaps need to read Lee Smolin's book on this:

http://www.leesmolin.com/

http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-inelegant-universe&colID=12

Volderbeek

26th March 2008, 22:30

Unfortunately, it seems as if many of you have a flawed conception of determinism. No one's ever really proven that there is a breakdown in cause and effect. The arguments against it come in two flavors:

Vs. Free Will: is a cause itself, that is, the will of the person. If you put two different people in the same exact circumstances, they won't act exactly the same. Some say that things like neurotransmitters and hormones disprove free will, but how are those things not part of the person? Free will is just the internal aspect of the cause. Libertarianism relies on free will, so don't be so hasty to toss it aside (unless you're a Stalinist of course).

Vs. Randomness: A lot of you have been using quantum mechanics to try to show a breakdown in cause and effect. That simply isn't true. The uncertainty described by QM is that of probability. That is the extent of "randomness" in the real world. Things are only random when cause cannot yet be determined. If something has a probability, you'd have had to determine it. Probability is just a shortcut for making predictions when determining cause would be excessively difficult. From Wikipedia:

In a deterministic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) universe, based on Newtonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_mechanics) concepts, there is no probability if all conditions are known. In the case of a roulette wheel, if the force of the hand and the period of that force are known, then the number on which the ball will stop would be a certainty. Of course, this also assumes knowledge of inertia and friction of the wheel, weight, smoothness and roundness of the ball, variations in hand speed during the turning and so forth. A probabilistic description can thus be more useful than Newtonian mechanics for analysing the pattern of outcomes of repeated rolls of roulette wheel.You could also easily compile things that we can easily predict into statistics and determine probabilities. In this case, lack of certainty proves the existence of certainty.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th March 2008, 00:11

V:

No one's ever really proven that there is a breakdown in cause and effect.

What has that got to do with 'determinism'?

LudicrousCommunistDancer

27th March 2008, 01:38

V:

What do you mean by the term "free will"? I know that people can do what they want. So what? Determinists know that too. The question is, can people control what they want? If you accept science you would know that what people think is solely caused by the particles of their brain. If you agree with this it may be just semantics that we disagree on. You think that doing what you want is free will, but I think it is actually controlling what you want, which is impossible.

Volderbeek

27th March 2008, 02:01

What do you mean by the term "free will"? I know that people can do what they want. So what? Determinists know that too. The question is, can people control what they want? If you accept science you would know that what people think is solely caused by the particles of their brain. If you agree with this it may be just semantics that we disagree on. You think that doing what you want is free will, but I think it is actually controlling what you want, which is impossible.

Your problem here is how you define "you" - the person in question. How are the particles in your brain not you? They're part of your body. My point is that this argument treats consciousness as if it's something separate from the body - a soul of sorts. And that's what seems most incompatible with science to me.

Apollodorus

5th April 2008, 13:08

Am I allowed to revive this discussion?

I will assume that the answer is yes for now, and continue.

I am with Apathy Maybe on this one. Quantum mechanics narrows it down to either determinism or indeterminism (randomness). I can get you some scientific articles if you require them.

Rosa, from what I have gathered from scanning a couple of the posts in those links you supplied (I do not have time at present to go over them in detail), your position is that quantum mechanics is not relevant to the issue. How so? If quanta are random, this definitively disproves determinism, and vice versa.

I personally lean towards determinism, because it is more elegant, but this is not supported by any evidence nor any reasoning.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th April 2008, 19:28

Apollodorus:

Rosa, from what I have gathered from scanning a couple of the posts in those links you supplied (I do not have time at present to go over them in detail), your position is that quantum mechanics is not relevant to the issue. How so? If quanta are random, this definitively disproves determinism, and vice versa.

I personally lean towards determinism, because it is more elegant, but this is not supported by any evidence nor any reasoning.

1) We do not know that quantum phenomena are random.

2) Even if they were, that would not affect my argunment, which is that both determinism and indeterminism rely on an anthropomorphisation of nature.

I explained all this in those posts you said you read. May I suggest you re-read them.

cryingants

1st September 2008, 18:11

Cryingants, if you have come here to make stupid remarks like that, I suggest you go elsewhere.

I have argued my case very carefully in the threads to which I linked; if you have anything to say about it worth saying, fine. If not, don't.

Any more stupid comments will be deleted.

No problemo. I would like to talk to you about Thomas Aquinas.

alkemistsvart

1st September 2008, 18:21

concordo pienamente,con svetlana...

gla22

1st September 2008, 18:28

cryingants

7th September 2008, 09:48

But.. how real does it seem?

cryingants

11th September 2008, 04:14

What's the matter? I've got a few more questions if you don't mind.

trivas7

11th September 2008, 05:01

Apollodorus:
1) We do not know that quantum phenomena are random.

Nonsense. By any measure of the term, we do know quantum phenomena are random.

Oneironaut

11th September 2008, 06:47

Wait, so you are saying that humans are not affected by quantum physics? Because that sounds rather non-materialist if you ask me...)

I entirely agree with you. But have you heard of string theory? I think it ties everything together up to the quantum level. This doesn't necessarily mean that i don't think we have some level of "free will" though.

Rosa Lichtenstein

11th September 2008, 10:06

Have you read this book on String Theory?

http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/

The author, Lee Smolin, shows that String Theory is part of the reason why there have been no fundamental advances in Physics now for over a generation (the first time that has happened since Galileo's day).

Anyway, no theory in Physics can solve this philosophical 'problem', since, as I have shown in this and the following threads, it is based on conceptual confusion:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/freedom-state-mind-t56836/index.html?t=56836

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=894937&postcount=2

Rosa Lichtenstein

11th September 2008, 10:07

Trivas:

Nonsense. By any measure of the term, we do know quantum phenomena are random.

Name one.

Oneironaut

11th September 2008, 20:21

Have you read this book on String Theory?

thank you for that reference rosa. i am excited to read it, those kinds of books make my mind explode in great ways.

Rosa Lichtenstein

11th September 2008, 21:04

Here is another, too:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/Not-even-wrong.jpg

Dystisis

11th September 2008, 23:34

"What are you talking about? Human society is not governed by 'chemical reactions and quantum events'."
Physics. It is bigger the you are.

What this means is basically that it doesn't matter what you say or do, when it comes down to it, physics will always kick your arse. You know why you can't fly unaided? Physics. You know why eventually the sun will burn the up the Earth in a spectacular display? Physics. Well, actually, Physics is merely how we explain the processes that are occurring. But for idealists, I guess it is a good "lie" to say that it is physics.

I actually did science once, and maybe that is why I actually know what I'm talking about. I would be interested in knowing whether you (or other people in this thread) have ever done any science beyond a primary school level.
You have many problems with your "argument", one being that physics is not bigger than you (whoever). Physics does not have a size. Your whole way of thinking reminds me of... well, a lot like a teacher, to be honest. Anyways, physics is intended to be a line of thought with which to reach understanding. It itself has no size, only what it is trying to describe.

Your problem is that you separate one idea of yours (physics) with other things (humans, society, etc...) saying that physics is the way we explain "processes that are occuring". Besides exaggerating the importance of the field (the part where you admit you "did science once" was especially amusing) and acting like science doesn't have any dogmas and knows everything (which is far from the truth) you fail to note that other fields are also ways of explaining "processes that are occuring". Only on different scales and in different media, they do the exact same thing. The fact that we even view these as different or opposing at all is "irrational" (or, in fact, it is 'rational' :laugh:).

We see the same everywhere, which is rhythm, frequency, symmetry, organization... geometry. When we sense a system (this has to do with numeration) from a perspective which is "above", that is, as aware of the information in that system as materialisticly or intellectually possible, we recognize it as a unity (again, numeration...) as opposed to in-division. An example of this is the way things look from afar, they get reduced to a dot, even if what we are looking at is, say, several stars. Anyways, getting off track here.

To confuse with an allegory, imagine the walls of a house were covered with words like "biology", "astrology", "evolution", "gravity", "light", "music", "astrophysics"... In front of the window there was a curtain, with the word "physics" on it. Pulling it back, the interior of the house spelled out a single word, "geometry". The educated left part of your brain will either be enraged or take it a joke. For now I will have to get back to you on this one... ;)

mikelepore

12th September 2008, 21:04

Since neurons are extremely large compared to atoms, quantum mechanics may not have any significance at all in the brain. Even when behaviors of particles are random, behaviors of large collections particles are deterministic. See the statistical mechanics of Boltzmann.

black magick hustla

12th September 2008, 21:55

Rosa Lichtenstein

12th September 2008, 23:38

Every single one of you has fallen into the same trap that has ensnared philosophers for the last 2000+ years: anthropomorphising nature -- exposed here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/freedom-state-mind-t56836/index.html?t=56836

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=894937&postcount=2

Decolonize The Left

13th September 2008, 02:35

I haven't bothered to read the past 5 pages of discussion, but has anyone raised the question:

Who cares if determinism is true or false? Whether or not all events are determined, random, or something in between is irrelevant to human action. If it is determined, who cares? I'm still going to choose to type this. If it's not a "free choice," who cares? I'm still going to call it free because I'm a human being and I feel free, feel like an agent...

- August

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th September 2008, 03:00

mikelepore

13th September 2008, 05:54

determinism (even above subatomic level i.e newtonian mechanics) is impossible because the slightest move in initial conditions creates mathematical chaos. Laplace's demon has been disproved since a long time ago.

Macroscopic objects get their determinism solely from probability. We say if you put a pot of water on a hot stove, it won't spontaneously freeze, but "won't" really means it's possible and it's also so improbable that the event is not expected to happen even once in the whole history of the universe.

Laplace's error (saying that a God who knows the position and velocity of every particle in the universe would therefore calculate the future), had nothing to do with mathematical chaos. His error was to extend his generalization to all particles -- to be expected from someone who came before Heisenberg.

Chaotic systems *are* deterministic (non-stochastic). Each system state is the result of previous states. Hypersensitivity to initial conditions *relies* on having a finite state machine.

black magick hustla

13th September 2008, 06:49

It is true that mathematical chaos is not really "chaotic" in the sense we understand the world, but it also means that the possibility of determining the path of a macroscopic object after long past the initial conditions is pretty much null. So the question of determinism is really a worthless question in this case.

Lynx

13th September 2008, 17:05

https://www.grc.com/passwords.htm

There are ways to generate absolutely random numbers, but computer algorithms cannot be used for that, since, by definition, no deterministic mathematical algorithm can generate a random result. Electrical and mechanical noise found in chaotic physical systems can be tapped and used as a source of true randomness ...
Is he correct?

Overall, worries about determinism are a matter of perception. Humans can detect patterns and make predictions on a trivial level, but are oblivious to everything else. Monte Carlo syndrome as an example of false perception. Wikipedia has a list of many more.

To illustrate, here is output from deterministic processes:

OzCgygjgxqgtjyzuxsEtomnz
OwzhxfgbvphtewAswqCrljju
MbJbgy]o0oqJx0rzt3ILIHKV3MFzCM

One of these lines is pseudo-random data, the other two are encrypted.
Can you tell which line is pseudo-random?
Can you uncover the message?

If reality were as simple (ie. trivial to 'compute') as humans believe it to be, then determinism and 'free will' might matter. But they don't. Even the notion of 'control over your own life' is mostly an illusion.

mikelepore

14th September 2008, 06:01

that the possibility of determining the path of a macroscopic object after long past the initial conditions is pretty much null. So the question of determinism is really a worthless question in this case.

That's true, but I assume that people who argue such things as "free will versus determinism" aren't taking the pragmatist approach of considering what we could ever detect or predict. They seem to be arguing about whether there is one solution for future states to be caused by past states, despite the fact that intelligence could never solve it. The correspondence definition of truth, not the pragmatist definition.

Does that debate matter to society or not? Sometimes I think it's important because of the implications it has for legal "justice." There was a case where a serial killer had chopped up a bunch of people and stored little pieces of them in his house. The court-appointed psychiatrist gave him the verbal multiple choice test to determine whether he passed the legal test for "sanity", which is " he knows the difference between right and wrong." Based on his answers to the test, the court ruled that he was "sane", and that he liked to chop people up because he was "evil." It seems to me that, if "determinism" is correct and "free will" incorrect, the legal concept of "sane but evil" has to be discarded. The Zoroastrian concept of evil as a cosmic force has to be discarded. The brain is an electrochemical machine. The structure of this person's brain was somehow defective. He didn't "choose to be evil."

black magick hustla

14th September 2008, 06:19

Does that debate matter to society or not? Sometimes I think it's important because of the implications it has for legal "justice." There was a case where a serial killer had chopped up a bunch of people and stored little pieces of them in his house. The court-appointed psychiatrist gave him the verbal multiple choice test to determine whether he passed the legal test for "sanity", which is " he knows the difference between right and wrong." Based on his answers to the test, the court ruled that he was "sane", and that he liked to chop people up because he was "evil." It seems to me that, if "determinism" is correct and "free will" incorrect, the legal concept of "sane but evil" has to be discarded. The Zoroastrian concept of evil as a cosmic force has to be discarded. The brain is an electrochemical machine. The structure of this person's brain was somehow defective. He didn't "choose to be evil."

It is true that people are product of their surroundings. Well to a certain extent - the talk that we are some sort of blank slates is wrong, and it was originally a lockean thesis but a lot of marxists seem to adhere to it, There is certainly biological imperatives hardwired to our brain. However that is different from saying all men are a bunch of warmongering bastards.

The reason I attack the concept of determinism is because it tends to translate into really ugly politics. There are a lot of folks in this forum who adhere to ridicolously stageist politics to the point that one would think they had discovered all the hidden variables behind history.

Decolonize The Left

14th September 2008, 08:35

AW: the use of the word 'determinism' is, as I have argued, anthropomorphic, since it is only human beings who can determine anything. So, your questions are devoid of sense, in that they either use a word that has no meaning in this context, of, if it does, it implies nature is mind (which supposition is in turn devoid of sense).

But as three-dimensional beings, we perceive/experience in a temporal fashion which is linear (involves a past, present, and future). Hence determinism, or cause and effect, may not be the way things are if one was four-dimensional and hence time no longer linear - but we can only operate within the framework of our universe.

Obversely, 'free will' is similarly vacuous.

I view free will differently:
"Free from what? Zarathustra does not care about that! But your eye should clearly tell me: free for what?" (Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

'Free will' has little to do with the ability, or capability, for choice - and whether or not that choice is free, determined, random, etc... Rather it has to do with what one can do with one's life - with one's existence.

- August

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th September 2008, 10:20

AW:

I view free will differently:
"Free from what? Zarathustra does not care about that! But your eye should clearly tell me: free for what?" (Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

'Free will' has little to do with the ability, or capability, for choice - and whether or not that choice is free, determined, random, etc... Rather it has to do with what one can do with one's life - with one's existence.

This sounds like yet more a priori dogmatics. We do not use "free" like this in everyday life. So, you must understand this word in an idiosyncratic way. If so, you are not talking about "free", but about this odd use of 'free'. And, if that is so, then the 'problem' of 'free will' still remains to be addressed.

Decolonize The Left

16th September 2008, 06:32

This sounds like yet more a priori dogmatics. We do not use "free" like this in everyday life. So, you must understand this word in an idiosyncratic way. If so, you are not talking about "free", but about this odd use of 'free'. And, if that is so, then the 'problem' of 'free will' still remains to be addressed.

I am confused - I am not positing anything a priori as far as I can tell. Perhaps you can elaborate?

The fact that we use the word freedom to refer to negative liberty is acknowledged, but the topic in question was that of free will, was it not? Hence my use of the word freedom is entirely acceptable, as it is a direct reference to everyday experience, rather than a question always asked in hindsight (the question of determinism).

- August

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th September 2008, 13:02

AW:

I am confused - I am not positing anything a priori as far as I can tell. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Well, you are suggesting what 'free' means independently of how we use it in everyday life, hence prior to an investigation of what we mean when we use that word. And from that, you derive a thesis which can only be true, and never false.

The fact that we use the word freedom to refer to negative liberty is acknowledged, but the topic in question was that of free will, was it not? Hence my use of the word freedom is entirely acceptable, as it is a direct reference to everyday experience, rather than a question always asked in hindsight (the question of determinism).

Exactly.

Here are several uses of 'free' that you do not consider, and which do not fit neatly into your schema:

1) My coat was snagged on a fence, so I had to pull it completely free.

2) Yes I am free this afternoon.

3) If you have the time, feel free to book appointment now.

4) A good education frees the mind.

5) Sleep in here and you will be free from disturbance.

6) I've fixed your shoulder, so you are free to play basketball.

7) The strategy freed the forward to make her attacking run.

8) Your apology freed me from having to criticise you in public.

9) An extra can comes free with every case.

10) If you study tonight, you'll be free to come at the weekend.

Of course, if I were to use the full range of vocabulary we have available to us in ordinary language (such as 'to choose', 'to decide', 'to want', etc.), the examples would multiply considerably.

Hence, it seems to me that if we want to understand free will (and not an artificial construct called 'free will' concocted by philosophers) we need to consider how we use this sort of terminology in everyday contexts first, not as a sort of ad hoc afterthought.

black magick hustla

16th September 2008, 19:26

Rosa I dont get what you are ranting about. I see determinism as simply the hypothesis that if we had enough information of the algorithms and variables the push the world forward, we could successfully predict the future.

I dont know what is so unclear about that.

Leo

16th September 2008, 20:46

Since I'm gonna start studying philosophy in less than a week...

the use of the word 'determinism' is, as I have argued, anthropomorphic, since it is only human beings who can determine anything.

Is this exactly not the approach Wittgenstein was (rightly) criticizing, that is an argument based on the semantic meaning of the term 'determinism'?

Materially, it is all the sum of constantly changing, or differentiating if you wish, variables that "determines" the course of events. This is not an implication of "consciously determining", but one of materially resulting in, materially determining. Besides, seeing things humans consciously do as things outside the differentiating variables is also purely based on a subjective sort of position, saying because we are human we determine, but what we consciously do is a complete product of our genes, hormones, social surroundings and events we are reacting towards.

Accordingly, "determinism" would be the thought that all such differentiating variables can be known, which is both theoretically and practically impossible.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th September 2008, 21:16

Marmot:

Rosa I dont get what you are ranting about. I see determinism as simply the hypothesis that if we had enough information of the algorithms and variables the push the world forward, we could successfully predict the future.

In view of the fact that you think I am 'ranting', I am happy to leave you in the ignorant state you are already in.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th September 2008, 21:21

Leo:

Is this exactly not the approach Wittgenstein was (rightly) criticizing, that is an argument based on the semantic meaning of the term 'determinism'?

1) Wittgenstein did not argue this.

2) Unless you can say what you mean by 'determinism' that does not imply that you believe nature has a will, or a mind, then you too are mystifying nature.

You see, even you have to put the word in quotation marks:

Materially, it is all the sum of constantly changing, or differentiating if you wish, variables that "determines" the course of events. This is not an implication of "consciously determining", but one of materially resulting in, materially determining. Besides, seeing things humans consciously do as things outside the differentiating variables is also purely based on a subjective sort of position, saying because we are human we determine, but what we consciously do is a complete product of our genes, hormones, social surroundings and events we are reacting towards.

In this, you have transferred the human will to nature. In that case, we do not decide things, nature does. Nature is therefore Mind, on your view.

It's fine if you believe this, only be open about it...

Leo

16th September 2008, 22:41

Wittgenstein did not argue this.

Perhaps I did not express it well enough and I am not the expert on the topic either, but are you not taking the meaning of being the determinant of something into something that it is not in common meaning of it? Is this not what Wittgenstein argued against?

2) Unless you can say what you mean by 'determinism' that does not imply that you believe nature has a will, or a mind, then you too are mystifying nature.

But I did say exactly that this is not an implication of "consciously determining", but one of materially resulting in, in other words being the determinant of. Of course it's your first language.

What I mean by "determinism" is what is called a "philosophical proposition" based on saying that it is possible to know all the differentiating variables that are determinant of what is to happen. It is something I argue against and find to be idealistic, because it has a static and linear understanding of events and doesn't even properly take interaction into it's "equation".

You see, even you have to put the word in quotation marks

Oh sure, it a specific term as far as I know it.

In this, you have transferred the human will to nature.

By no means: I just said that "human will" is something that can be understood in materialistic, not metaphysical terms.

In that case, we do not decide things, nature does.

We do obviously decide things in the common understanding of the term, because we are conscious beings, and unconscious being do not decide things. Nevertheless, our decisions have reasons, and we can't take decisions that are outside our limits, that is the limits of our genes, hormones, capacities, consciousness, past, social surroundings, capacities, memories, psychology and so forth, in other words everything that made us who we are. So our decisions are limited to who we are and who we are is limited to what made us who we are. Without a doubt our decisions have effects and consequences on us and on our surroundings, so they act as variables as well. Unless we are going to be idealists, we can't claim that the way our brain tells us to act is distinct from the rest of the world.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th September 2008, 00:03

Leo:

Perhaps I did not express it well enough and I am not the expert on the topic either, but are you not taking the meaning of being the determinant of something into something that it is not in common meaning of it? Is this not what Wittgenstein argued against?

Well, he never tackled this question, but had he done so I think he would have said that our best guide here is what we mean when we use words like 'determine'. And this is not a semantic issue, since when decide what we mean by such words we automatically decide how we view the world.

But I did say exactly that this is not an implication of "consciously determining", but one of materially resulting in, in other words being the determinant of. Of course it's your first language.

Then, in whatever language you prefer, you must have a certain understanding of this word, otherwise not even you can proceed. As I argue below, this understanding of yours implies nature is mind.

What I mean by "determinism" is what is called a "philosophical proposition" based on saying that it is possible to know all the differentiating variables that are determinant of what is to happen. It is something I argue against and find to be idealistic, because it has a static and linear understanding of events and doesn't even properly take interaction into it's "equation".

Again, this projects a human quality onto nature, for events cannot determine anything, since they have no minds.

If you mean that we use our knowledge of the world to determine what happens next, then that is OK, but nothing in nature itself can determine anything else, unless nature is mind.

By no means: I just said that "human will" is something that can be understood in materialistic, not metaphysical terms.

Once more, the best guide we have as to what the human will is, is how we use words associated with it (like those I listed in an earlier post). If on the other hand, you are using this phrase in a technical sense, then you will only have addressed this technical sense (whatever that is, and you have yet to say what that is), not what we would ordinarily count as free will.

And in that case, the 'problem' of free will (which is a pseudo-problem, anyway, generated by a misconstrual of the language we use to depict ourselves), will not have been addressed, let alone 'solved'.

We do obviously decide things in the common understanding of the term, because we are conscious beings, and unconscious being do not decide things. Nevertheless, our decisions have reasons, and we can't take decisions that are outside our limits, that is the limits of our genes, hormones, capacities, consciousness, past, social surroundings, capacities, memories, psychology and so forth, in other words everything that made us who we are. So our decisions are limited to who we are and who we are is limited to what made us who we are. Without a doubt our decisions have effects and consequences on us and on our surroundings, so they act as variables as well. Unless we are going to be idealists, we can't claim that the way our brain tells us to act is distinct from the rest of the world.

But, all this amateur scientism does not affect what we mean by "free will" and its associated terms. In that case, it cannot affect what we mean by this, and can only relate to the pseudo-problem I alluded to above.

You are in a permanent bind here (but you are not alone, the vast majority of theorists in human history have approached this 'problem' as you do, which is why it has remained 'unsolved' for 2000+ years, and this is because there is in fact no problem about 'free will' that needs solving). And that is because you do not first of all try to ascertain what we mean by the many hundreds of words we use to depict our psychological lives, but set up a series of 'problems' based on new meanings you have impose on the old vocabulary.

In that case, as I pointed out above, you end up not addressing free will, but a pseudo-concept 'free will' -- and to pseudo-problems there are no solutions.

Now, I have been over this several times, here and in the threads I linked to above. Why is this not sinking in?

black magick hustla

17th September 2008, 04:50

Marmot:

In view of the fact that you think I am 'ranting', I am happy to leave you in the ignorant state you are already in.

Ok, I am sorry. I meant talking.

I am not being sarcastic I am sorry.

black magick hustla

17th September 2008, 04:56

Again, this projects a human quality onto nature, for events cannot determine anything, since they have no minds.

If you mean that we use our knowledge of the world to determine what happens next, then that is OK, but nothing in nature itself can determine anything else, unless nature is mind.

Then your point is not very important though. We are not talking about the universe as a conscious being, we are talking about the idea if there is truly a hidden algorithm behind everything that could make us predict succesfully the future. The laws we juxtapose to the universe are not really "laws" in the sense of judicial laws, the word law is a metaphor when talking about recurrent patterns in the universe. So if we talked about an "elegant deterministic and orderly univerese" you might be right. However, I dont think anyone really means that.We are talking if we could sucessfuly determine the future if we knew enough about the world.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th September 2008, 06:59

black magick hustla

17th September 2008, 07:47

Algorithms, of course, are human inventions, so if there are algorithms 'behind' everything, then nature is indeed mind, or is controlled by mind.

If there are none of these hidden algorithms, but we still use the past to determine the future, that is a separate matter, but it is not what theorists usually mean by 'determinism'.

Don't be nitpicky Rosa. You know (as everybody eilse) that when I mean hidden algorithms behind the universe I mean recurrent patterns that we can quantify into algorithms. F=G(m1m2/r²) in the sense of an algorithm is a human invention but the patterns it wishes to represent are not.

*shrugs* it doesn't really matter the language "determinists" use to speak about determinism - its practical implication, which is what really matters, is the idea that if we knew with exactitude all the variables it is possible to determine the future. This is what Laplace wanted to explain with his Laplace Demon - that a genius demon who knows the velocity and direction of all particles would be able to succesfully predict the future
. Laplace is considered a determinist by theorists.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th September 2008, 12:47

Marmot:

Don't be nitpicky Rosa. You know (as everybody else) that when I mean hidden algorithms behind the universe I mean recurrent patterns that we can quantify into algorithms. F=G(m1m2/r²) in the sense of an algorithm is a human invention but the patterns it wishes to represent are not.

1) I know no such thing, and neither do you (or if you do, I'd like to see the proof).

2) Your interpretation of physics suggests that nature does an awful lot of calculating, and that matter does an awful lot of obeying, as these 'hidden' algorithms bark out orders (in no language at all) for every elementary particle in the universe (with no ears of brain) to 'understand' and then obey to the letter.

As I said, this view pictures nature as mind, or controlled by mind.

*shrugs* it doesn't really matter the language "determinists" use to speak about determinism - its practical implication, which is what really matters, is the idea that if we knew with exactitude all the variables it is possible to determine the future. This is what Laplace wanted to explain with his Laplace Demon - that a genius demon who knows the velocity and direction of all particles would be able to successfully predict the future
. Laplace is considered a determinist by theorists.

It does matter what language we use, for certain uses of language imply nature is mind.

This sort of attitude would not be tolerated for one second in the genuine sciences, or in any other branch of knowledge. Can you imagine the fuss if someone were to argue that it does not matter what the Magna Carta said, or when the Battle of the Nile was fought, or what the Declaration of Independence actually contained, or what the exact wording of Newton's Second Law was, or whether "G", the Gravitational Constant, was 6.6742 x 10^-11 or 6.7642 x 10^-11 Mm2kg^-2, or indeed something else? Would we accept this sort of excuse from someone who said it did not matter what the precise wording of a contract in law happened to be? Or, that it did not really matter what Marx meant by "variable capital", or that he "pedantically" and "nit-pickingly" distinguished use-value from exchange-value -- or more pointedly, the "relative form" from the "equivalent form" of value --, we should be able to make do with anyone's guess? And how would we react if someone said, "Who cares if there are serious mistakes in that policeman's evidence against those strikers"? Or if someone else retorted "Big deal if there are a few errors in this or that e-mail address/web page URL, or in that mathematical proof! And who cares whether there is a difference between rest mass and inertial mass in Physics! What are you, some kind of pedant/nit-picker?"

Hit The North

17th September 2008, 14:22

The reason I attack the concept of determinism is because it tends to translate into really ugly politics.

I don't understand this. It is the insight that society/mode of production determines the types of human beings who live in them which lies at the heart of all revolutionary theory. We seek to change society in order to change ourselves. If we dispense with this application of determinism in favour of untrammeled free will, then we would just seek to change ourselves. Self-improvement would take over from revolutionary politics.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th September 2008, 15:05

BTB:

I don't understand this. It is the insight that society/mode of production determines the types of human beings who live in them which lies at the heart of all revolutionary theory. We seek to change society in order to change ourselves. If we dispense with this application of determinism in favour of untrammeled free will, then we would just seek to change ourselves. Self-improvement would take over from revolutionary politics.

From this, it is quite clear that you see a mode of production as a sort of mind.

This is not surprising, since these ideas arose from Hegel who explicity saw things this way.

So, the much vaunted 'inversion' of Hegel, to put him 'the right way' up, rotated him, not through 180, but through a full 360 degrees.

Hit The North

17th September 2008, 15:36

If it pleases you, Rosa, I'm coquetting. I'm currently rereading The German Ideology, so can barely help it!

Nevertheless, I'm sure you would agree with Marx that we are the ensemble of our social relations.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th September 2008, 17:26

I have to confess, I do not know what that means.

Hit The North

17th September 2008, 17:55

Um, to put it another way:

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. - Karl Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th September 2008, 18:45

Well,I think Marx is on the right lines here, except his use of 'determine' suggests that social being is in fact mind-like, whereas we are not!

black magick hustla

17th September 2008, 22:51

Marmot:

[Quote]Your interpretation of physics suggests that nature does an awful lot of calculating, and that matter does an awful lot of obeying, as these 'hidden' algorithms bark out orders (in no language at all) for every elementary particle in the universe (with no ears of brain) to 'understand' and then obey to the letter.

Well, I already clarified myself and meant algorithms as in recurrent patterns in the universe. Obviously mathematics is an invention of man.

It does matter what language we use, for certain uses of langu
age imply nature is mind.

Well it only implies nature as mind if you tend to interpret literary everything used metaphorically. For example, what scientists call "laws" are not really laws in the sense that laws are a human invention applied to human societies. But it is a metaphorical use of the word, and people treat it metaphorically.

This sort of attitude would not be tolerated for one second in the genuine sciences, or in any other branch of knowledge. Can you imagine the fuss if someone were to argue that it does not matter what the Magna Carta said, or when the Battle of the Nile was fought, or what the Declaration of Independence actually contained, or what the exact wording of Newton's Second Law was, or whether "G", the Gravitational Constant, was 6.6742 x 10^-11 or 6.7642 x 10^-11 Mm2kg^-2, or indeed something else? Would we accept this sort of excuse from someone who said it did not matter what the precise wording of a contract in law happened to be? Or, that it did not really matter what Marx meant by "variable capital", or that he "pedantically" and "nit-pickingly" distinguished use-value from exchange-value -- or more pointedly, the "relative form" from the "equivalent form" of value --, we should be able to make do with anyone's guess? And how would we react if someone said, "Who cares if there are serious mistakes in that policeman's evidence against those strikers"? Or if someone else retorted "Big deal if there are a few errors in this or that e-mail address/web page URL, or in that mathematical proof! And who cares whether there is a difference between rest mass and inertial mass in Physics! What are you, some kind of pedant/nit-picker?"
*shrugs* Point taken. However, this is not an academic journal isn't it? Your approach makes conversation a pain in the neck, because when people speak colloquially, they use a lot of metaphors and they make themselves understand not by having a very precise meaning for every word or expression, but by the context the word is used. Certainly when a physicst tries to explain me a concept colloquially, he or she will use a lot of colloquialisms and metaphorical expressions like "algorithms behind nature". I don't think the context of this forum requires me to take great care of the terminology I use regarding the natural sciences, because After all this is not a scientific journal, and when referring to sciences, we are going to use laymen terms.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th September 2008, 03:15

Marmot:

Well, I already clarified myself and meant algorithms as in recurrent patterns in the universe. Obviously mathematics is an invention of man.

A little perhaps, but that 'clarification' merely exposed the fact that there are in fact none of these 'hidden algorithms' at work in nature.

So, more of a retreat, really.

Well it only implies nature as mind if you tend to interpret literary everything used metaphorically. For example, what scientists call "laws" are not really laws in the sense that laws are a human invention applied to human societies. But it is a metaphorical use of the word, and people treat it metaphorically.

But, when it comes to explaining the metaphor, it turns out to be either an empty one, or it implies that nature is mind.

Moreover, when it is applied to human behaviour, it is in fact applied literally, implying that we have no minds, but nature does.

Point taken. However, this is not an academic journal isn't it? Your approach makes conversation a pain in the neck, because when people speak colloquially, they use a lot of metaphors and they make themselves understand not by having a very precise meaning for every word or expression, but by the context the word is used. Certainly when a physicst tries to explain me a concept colloquially, he or she will use a lot of colloquialisms and metaphorical expressions like "algorithms behind nature". I don't think the context of this forum requires me to take great care of the terminology I use regarding the natural sciences, because After all this is not a scientific journal, and when referring to sciences, we are going to use laymen terms.

But, philosophers are just as sloppy in their use of language here, as are scientists.

The whole 'problem' was and still is predicated on a sloppy use of language, and nothing more.

In that case, there is no 'problem' of free will.