The (in)coherence of hard determinism as an alternative to free will

[DasMurmeltier]

And the irony is that randomness is mathematically tractable. So from an evidentiary point-of-view, we know the likeliness of certain events are enormously improbable to the point of absurdity.

And yet Paul and other materialists still cling to their unspoken faith that their biological theories of randomness combined with environmental conditions led to life even though none of them can defend their faith in randomness. When pressed on the issue you hear only crickets, or more unprovable suppositions.

My best,
Bertha

You answered 2 fast. Well, whatever.

I personally got a rather harsh position when it comes to randomness, but i usually dont want to go public with that since i can kinda imagine what the responses will be. I mean, i read the posts here - there are sometimes moments in your life where you just know that you wont get anything out of discussing some issues. Yet i still post (and delete afterwards). Awkward huh.

 

[Bertha Huse]

You answered 2 fast. Well, whatever.

I personally got a rather harsh position when it comes to randomness, but i usually dont want to go public with that since i can kinda imagine what the responses will be. I mean, i read the posts here - there are sometimes moments in your life where you just know that you wont get anything out of discussing some issues. Yet i still post (and delete afterwards). Awkward huh.

Randomness is at the heart of the current irrationality of the materialists IMO. It is invoked by them in many situations to magically describe things that are irreducibly complex (which includes life itself).

My Best,
Bertha

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And yet Paul and other materialists still cling to their unspoken faith that their biological theories of randomness combined with environmental conditions led to life - even though none of them can defend their faith in randomness. When pressed on the issue you hear only crickets, or more unprovable suppositions.

If something is not determined, then it is random. Should someone desire to claim that an event can be indetermined yet not arbitrary, don't you think it's that person job to explain/demonstrate how this can be so? Surely you don't think we should simply accept indetermined non-arbitrariness on faith.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Randomness is at the heart of the current irrationality of the materialists IMO. It is invoked by them in many situations to magically describe things that are irreducibly complex (which includes life itself).

First of all, the whole concept of irreducible complexity has been shown many times to be more or less ridiculous. The ID community can't even agree on a definition of it. Second, I dare you to find someone who thinks that IC, in some form or other, arises out of purely random processes.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I personally got a rather harsh position when it comes to randomness, but i usually dont want to go public with that since i can kinda imagine what the responses will be. I mean, i read the posts here - there are sometimes moments in your life where you just know that you wont get anything out of discussing some issues. Yet i still post (and delete afterwards). Awkward huh.

Ah, why not go public? How much can we possibly beat you up about it?

~~ Paul

 

[Bertha Huse]

If something is not determined, then it is random.

~~ Paul

The fundamental particles that make up our reality are not determined. This we have established via the science of quantum physics. However, the laws of quantum physics are well known and are not random. They follow well established mathematical probabilities. So your assertion that if something is "not determined, then it is random" is incorrect.

Should someone desire to claim that an event can be indetermined yet not arbitrary, don't you think it's that person job to explain/demonstrate how this can be so? Surely you don't think we should simply accept indetermined non-arbitrariness on faith.

It has been empirically observed in quantum physics. In addition, if you are discussing the scientific research involving psi phenomenon this has also been empirically observed.

Don't you think if you claim you are a Skeptic, you should actually examine the scientific research you are Skeptical of? Or do you equate Skepticism with simply Denial? Surely you don't believe Denial can be considered legitimate Skepticism.

My Best,
Bertha

 

[Bertha Huse]

First of all, the whole concept of irreducible complexity has been shown many times to be more or less ridiculous.

By whom? By a bunch of close-minded Skeptics? Or I imagine, you are now speaking for all scientists by proclaiming irreducible complexity as "ridiculous". Maybe you should speak for yourself Paul. Even Einstein was wrong on occasion. Hidden Variables anyone?

Second, I dare you to find someone who thinks that IC, in some form or other, arises out of purely random processes.
~~ Paul

I don't think anyone does. I dare you to demonstrate to me the mathematical probabilities of the first proteins necessary for life developing on earth. I doubt you are aware of the probabilities even though some scientists have seriously done the math. The problem with your kind of Skepticism Paul is you rarely look at anything beyond your faith in materialism. You equate your blanket denial with skepticism. This is not what science is or should be about.

My Best,
Bertha

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The fundamental particles that make up our reality are not determined. This we have established via the science of quantum physics. However, the laws of quantum physics are well known and are not random. They follow well established mathematical probabilities. So your assertion that if something is "not determined, then it is random" is incorrect.

I'm not sure why your statement makes mine incorrect. Is there something other than randomness and determinism in there?

It has been empirically observed in quantum physics. In addition, if you are discussing the scientific research involving psi phenomenon this has also been empirically observed.

Indetermined non-arbitaryness has been observed? Can you provide a reference? Perhaps you simply mean that some stochastic processes aren't uniformly random.

Don't you think if you claim you are a Skeptic, you should actually examine the scientific research you are Skeptical of? Or do you equate Skepticism with simply Denial? Surely you don't believe Denial can be considered legitimate Skepticism.

This conversation has nothing to do with skepticism, but good job repeating your mantra.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By whom? By a bunch of close-minded Skeptics?

No, by mathematicians and computer scientists.

I don't think anyone does.

Then why did you say "Randomness is at the heart of the current irrationality of the materialists IMO. It is invoked by them in many situations to magically describe things that are irreducibly complex."

Perhaps you meant that randomness is invoked as part of the explanation of IC mechanisms. That is certainly true.

~~ Paul

 

[Bertha Huse]

I'm not sure why your statement makes mine incorrect. Is there something other than randomness and determinism in there?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between determinism and probability theory. Or how probability theory applies to events. Perhaps you should pick up a book on probability theory. Have you read any?

Indetermined non-arbitaryness has been observed? Can you provide a reference? Perhaps you simply mean that some stochastic processes aren't uniformly random.

Can you provide a reference on your theory that life sprang spontaneously from inanimate lifeless matter? I'm still waiting for some
kind of rational concept from a materialist like yourself.

This conversation has nothing to do with skepticism, but good job repeating your mantra.

Skepticism is not denial. You seem to think it is. Sadly.

My Best,
Bertha

 

[Bertha Huse]

No, by mathematicians and computer scientists.

Oh I see. You speak now for all mathematicians and computer scientists, who have unanimously declared irreducible complexity as "ridiculous". Anyone else you speak for Paul we should be aware of?

Then why did you say "Randomness is at the heart of the current irrationality of the materialists IMO. It is invoked by them in many situations to magically describe things that are irreducibly complex."

Perhaps you meant that randomness is invoked as part of the explanation of IC mechanisms. That is certainly true.

Perhaps your lack of knowledge blinds you to the science I am referring to? A real skeptic would be more knowledgeable than you are regarding the subjects you are so certain about.

My Best,
Bertha

 

[Laird]

The magician named evolution. The illusion is useful because it gives us a sense of agency so that we feel we can improve our situation. And remember, the feeling of making the decision might be an illusion, but that decision has consequences downstream. It's the feeling that is an illusion, not the decision itself.

Why assume that evolution would converge on an illusion rather than the real thing? But, essentially, I reject your view because of evidence of which I'm aware, both personal and objective, that consciousness is not dependent on the physical brain/body, and my conclusion thus that it (consciousness) is anterior to any process of evolution rather than a consequence of that process. This is what leads me to consider the possibility that consciousness and/or free choice are "primal".

As I said above, another possible reason why our decisions feel free is because we don't actually experience the decision-making process.

Or maybe we do? To a greater or lesser extent, of course, and no doubt those who practice meditation and other spiritual arts experience it to a much greater extent.

What you're describing, Laird, is one of the antinomies of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, on freedom in the cosmological sense.

Ah, sweet, I dig it. I have a philosophical bent but am very poorly read. Thanks for that heads-up. I suspect I'd appreciate Kant if I read him, including (especially) his categorical imperative.

I instead put emphasis on freedom in practical sense, not the origin of reality, but in the everyday.

Fair call. That's where I'd say the freedom of our choices is conditioned by the free choices of other (more powerful) consciousnesses in setting up "the rules of the game" in the first place. It doesn't mean our choices aren't free, just that the range of choices is limited. But without structure, we would have nothing to choose from/between at all, and structure entails limitation, so we have a kind of paradox: freedom (or at least its actualisation) relies upon limitation. I wonder whether Kant had an antimony for that. :-)

[To Paul] Can you describe the random without resorting to synonyms?

Good question. I have a related request:

Paul, you ask me to describe the "mechanism" of free choice. I think it's only fair, then, for you to describe the "mechanism" of determinism, and the "mechanism" of randomness.

Also, Paul (and anyone else who cares), here's another way of looking at free choice in terms of the exclusivity of the dichotomy you propose between deterministic and random (not deterministic): think of the composition of colours. One might say: "Look, there is a red, a green and a blue aspect to a colour. Those are exclusive. There can be nothing else". But then another might say: "You know, from a certain perspective, you are right. But it's possible to look at it from a whole different perspective where instead there is a cyan, a magenta, a yellow and a key (black) aspect to a colour. And from this other perspective, those are exclusive".

So, you are telling me, "Look, man, choices should be analysed in terms of RGB", and I'm saying, "Well, you could do that, but, you know, I think it's more helpful to analyse them in terms of CMYK".

 

[Laird]

I personally got a rather harsh position when it comes to randomness, but i usually dont want to go public with that since i can kinda imagine what the responses will be. I mean, i read the posts here - there are sometimes moments in your life where you just know that you wont get anything out of discussing some issues. Yet i still post (and delete afterwards). Awkward huh.

Do it, man! Take courage: post. And resist the urge to delete.

 

[Laird]

So, you are telling me, "Look, man, choices should be analysed in terms of RGB", and I'm saying, "Well, you could do that, but, you know, I think it's more helpful to analyse them in terms of CMYK".

Oh, but just to clarify: I'm also saying that CMYK reveals aspects that are hidden in RGB (in terms of the analogy, of course). Which is what I mean by it "transcending" RGB (again, in terms of the analogy).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm not sure you understand the difference between determinism and probability theory. Or how probability theory applies to events. Perhaps you should pick up a book on probability theory. Have you read any?

Are you talking about the fact that many stochastic processes have nonuniform probability distributions?

Skepticism is not denial. You seem to think it is. Sadly.

Again, what does skepticism have to do with this topic?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh I see. You speak now for all mathematicians and computer scientists, who have unanimously declared irreducible complexity as "ridiculous". Anyone else you speak for Paul we should be aware of?

Where did I say that the vote was unanimous?

Perhaps your lack of knowledge blinds you to the science I am referring to? A real skeptic would be more knowledgeable than you are regarding the subjects you are so certain about.

Excellent content-free answer, Bertha.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why assume that evolution would converge on an illusion rather than the real thing?

Because I don't think the real thing exists.

But, essentially, I reject your view because of evidence of which I'm aware, both personal and objective, that consciousness is not dependent on the physical brain/body, and my conclusion thus that it (consciousness) is anterior to any process of evolution rather than a consequence of that process. This is what leads me to consider the possibility that consciousness and/or free choice are "primal".

Consciousness may indeed be primal, but we are talking about true free will. At least, that's what I think we're talking about. If we are talking about some form of compatibilist free will, then we have no argument. Anyway, consciousness does not imply free will.

Or maybe we do? To a greater or lesser extent, of course, and no doubt those who practice meditation and other spiritual arts experience it to a much greater extent.

I think it's clear that we don't. Do you experience the neural processes of decision making? Or, even if the transmission hypothesis is correct, do you experience transmissions from the external memory? No. Heck, most of the time the decision pops into your head without so much as a thought.

Paul, you ask me to describe the "mechanism" of free choice. I think it's only fair, then, for you to describe the "mechanism" of determinism, and the "mechanism" of randomness.

Pure determinism means that an event is a result of prior events. Billiard balls are often used as the analogy. Pure randomness means that an event is not determined in any way. Of course, events can be a combination of determined and random. Libertarian free will, in order to be of interest to those who want true free will, must support making decisions in a way that is not wholly determined or random.

Also, Paul (and anyone else who cares), here's another way of looking at free choice in terms of the exclusivity of the dichotomy you propose between deterministic and random (not deterministic): think of the composition of colours. One might say: "Look, there is a red, a green and a blue aspect to a colour. Those are exclusive. There can be nothing else". But then another might say: "You know, from a certain perspective, you are right. But it's possible to look at it from a whole different perspective where instead there is a cyan, a magenta, a yellow and a key (black) aspect to a colour. And from this other perspective, those are exclusive".

Except that the color gamut of CMYK is smaller than that of RGB (and therein lies a humorous tale). I'm happy to go with this analogy if someone could give even a hint of a whiff of how the alternative to determinism/randomness works. People claim they can't do that because the third factor is nonmechanistic and so undescribable. I think the real problem is that no one has a clue.

~~ Paul

 

[Laird]

Consciousness may indeed be primal, but we are talking about true free will. At least, that's what I think we're talking about. If we are talking about some form of compatibilist free will, then we have no argument.

As I explained earlier, I think that from a certain perspective they are one and the same.

Anyway, consciousness does not imply free will.

I don't think I've claimed that it does, but perhaps I've unwittingly written something to that effect, or that might be interpreted in that way.

I think it's clear that we don't. Do you experience the neural processes of decision making? Or, even if the transmission hypothesis is correct, do you experience transmissions from the external memory? No. Heck, most of the time the decision pops into your head without so much as a thought.

This is why I qualified with "to a greater or lesser extent", and suggested that experienced meditators might have a greater awareness. Nevertheless, we often have "a train of thought" or "a series of intuitions" or "a gut feeling" which leads to a choice, and these all qualify (to me) as "experiencing the decision-making process".

Laird: Paul, you ask me to describe the "mechanism" of free choice. I think it's only fair, then, for you to describe the "mechanism" of determinism, and the "mechanism" of randomness.

Paul: Pure determinism means that an event is a result of prior events. Billiard balls are often used as the analogy. Pure randomness means that an event is not determined in any way. Of course, events can be a combination of determined and random.

You described what determinism and randomness mean, but not their mechanism. I suspect that you were unable to do so because in fact it's something of a category error to impute a "mechanism" to determinism or randomness: they describe types of action rather than embodying "mechanisms" as such. Yet you will not allow the same for free choice!

Except that the color gamut of CMYK is smaller than that of RGB (and therein lies a humorous tale). I'm happy to go with this analogy if someone could give even a hint of a whiff of how the alternative to determinism/randomness works.

I think I can do better than a hint of a whiff. The alternative to determinism/randomness is not a binary, but is continuous from more to less free willing; more realistically this would be visualised in two dimensions with more/less free on one axis and more/less wilful (in the sense of capacity to effect one's will) on the other. On the "more free willing" side of the scale would be the dragon example I offered to Typoz earlier: something which is very novel and which is in that sense an exemplification of freedom, and at the same time is an example of a great degree of capacity to effect one's will in that "what Typoz willed occurred without opposition or effort". On the "less free willing" side we have a prisoner shackled in a strait jacket and fed mind-numbing drugs to inhibit his/her imagination and will: this person's will is both not free (because his/her imagination and will are being conditioned and blocked by drugs) and not instantiable (because s/he is physically and psychologically constrained).

People claim they can't do that because the third factor is nonmechanistic and so undescribable.

Yet you have been unable to describe a "mechanism" for determinism and randomness either!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As I explained earlier, I think that from a certain perspective they are one and the same.

Do you think that the form of free will you are considering requires something other than determinism and coin flips to make decisions? If not, then we have no argument. If so, then we do. If you are not sure, then I don't know what to say.

I don't think I've claimed that it does, but perhaps I've unwittingly written something to that effect, or that might be interpreted in that way.

Right, so even if free will requires some new fundamental existant (is primal), I don't think you can explain how that new existant works.

This is why I qualified with "to a greater or lesser extent", and suggested that experienced meditators might have a greater awareness. Nevertheless, we often have "a train of thought" or "a series of intuitions" or "a gut feeling" which leads to a choice, and these all qualify (to me) as "experiencing the decision-making process".

I think it qualifies as experiencing part of it, but not the part that matters for this issue. People don't experience the low-level working of the brain as they make decisions. In particular, if there is some oracle that we consult while making decisions (i.e., the external store under the transmission hypothesis), we certainly don't experience that.

You described what determinism and randomness mean, but not their mechanism. I suspect that you were unable to do so because in fact it's something of a category error to impute a "mechanism" to determinism or randomness: they describe types of action rather than embodying "mechanisms" as such. Yet you will not allow the same for free choice!

I think physics describes the mechanism for determinism, but I agree that it cannot describe the mechanism all the way down. Eventually there have to be fundamental givens. I'm happy to grant the same favor to free will, but I have not even heard a hand-waving description of how I might make a decision in some third way other than determinism and randomness.

I think I can do better than a hint of a whiff. The alternative to determinism/randomness is not a binary, but is continuous from more to less free willing; more realistically this would be visualised in two dimensions with more/less free on one axis and more/less wilful (in the sense of capacity to effect one's will) on the other. On the "more free willing" side of the scale would be the dragon example I offered to Typoz earlier: something which is very novel and which is in that sense an exemplification of freedom, and at the same time is an example of a great degree of capacity to effect one's will in that "what Typoz willed occurred without opposition or effort". On the "less free willing" side we have a prisoner shackled in a strait jacket and fed mind-numbing drugs to inhibit his/her imagination and will: this person's will is both not free (because his/her imagination and will are being conditioned and blocked by drugs) and not instantiable (because s/he is physically and psychologically constrained).

This sounds like some form of compatibilist free will. I don't see anything requiring true free will, although perhaps I'm missing it.

Yet you have been unable to describe a "mechanism" for determinism and randomness either!

You seem to be ignoring physics, which describes the deterministic orbits of planets so well that we can launch a space probe to weave in and out of them. All of physics describes the mechanisms. I agree that we don't know what anything "ultimately is," but we know a lot about laws, mechanisms, operation, etc. We don't know anything about any sort of libertarian free will. We don't even have a coherent story about how it might work/operate/happen/be.

I'm not asking for a physics of free will. I'm just asking for a little description of how free decisions are made.

~~ Paul

 

[Bertha Huse]

Are you talking about the fact that many stochastic processes have nonuniform probability distributions?

I am talking about the idea that the first proteins of life materialists like yourself say randomly via the environment came together and spontaneously were created. Have you ever considered the probability distributions or do you just pretend and deny they don't exist?

Again, what does skepticism have to do with this topic?

Please - let's stay on topic and answer my question.

My Best,
Bertha