NationStates Jolt Archive

Born out of an off-topic discussion in the Atheism thread, I'd like hear people's take on Determinism.

So what is it?
Do you believe it's real?
Is it the same thing as predetermination, or perhaps even fate?
Can god(s) coexist with Determinism?
Can Free Will coexist with Determinism?

Born out of an off-topic discussion in the Atheism thread, I'd like hear people's take on Determinism.

So what is it?
It's essentially the belief that all actions [especially as it pertains to philosophy] are the result of an unbroken chain of determined events. Determinists tout the law of Causality to be their guiding primary. Ironically, as far as they're concerned it supercedes the Law of Identity, which I don't quite believe is the case.


Do you believe it's real?
No.

Is it the same thing as predetermination, or perhaps even fate?
Not exactly, but it's close. Determinism doesn't hold that things are predetermined, it holds that all actions are invariably the consequence of the actions that preceded them. From what I've seen it doesn't imply that all of this has actually been mapped out beforehand.

Can god(s) coexist with Determinism?
I'm not sure. I haven't seen anything in the Determinist philosophy that denies or endorses the existence of supernatural forces. I would tend to assume, however, that as a philosophy it leans more towards the materialistic side of things.

Can Free Will coexist with Determinism?
No, in fact Determinism's main philosophical lynchpin is the explicit deinal of free will. Like a lot of philosophies, Determinism actually has a lot of good points, but taken as a whole I could never endorse it.

If God truly gave us free will, then Determinism or the idea of fate is defeated.

Certainly there are things that are beyond one's control; weather, or the fact that we will all eventually die. But nothing controls HOW we confront these things.

The result of determinism is determined by something other than ourselves, exterior to the self. If this is untrue, then we are not talking about determinism as I know it. I could be mistaken; however, "the outputs are fixed because the inputs are fixed" indicates that I am not. If the "inputs" of our conscious decisions are fixed, and "the outputs" similarly fixed, then they are not conscious decisions at all; they are determined by something other than ourselves ("fixed"). We have no choice but to choose as we do. That is not free will. Similarly, if the output is not really determined solely by the inputs, then it is not determinism.

The self is built by genetics and environment (nature and nurture) which are also determined and thus the self is determined. Decision-making is a cognitive process of the mind/the self. Because the self is determined does not mean that free will does not exist.

The only thing that rejects determinism is random events. Free will is not a random event. The self that you become is not a random event. That self is not random, the inputs are not random and the outputs are not random. Free will does not make them random so they do not conflict.

I think people who protest this are people who simply don't understand what a consciousness is, even though they actively use it to protest this very point. I think if you believe that the two things --determinism and predestination --can coexist, you do not understand one or the other.
Wait, determinism and predestination? Did you just change gears on me?

Predestination only violates determinism if God causes miracles (because miracles inject randomness) to occur. If God only set the universe in motion and let it go, then they can coexist. But it depends on what form of predestination you are looking at. The Christian form of predestination is different than the Buddhist Yuanfen/predestination.

No, in fact Determinism's main philosophical lynchpin is the explicit deinal of free will. Like a lot of philosophies, Determinism actually has a lot of good points, but taken as a whole I could never endorse it.

I don't agree. Of course many proponents of determinism hold that free will does not exist in determinism, but it's not a lynchpin. The lynchpin is the denial of randomness. Randomness is the only thing in conflict with determinism. I, for one, do not accept that free will is random.

And this is why it's not reconcilable with my definition of Free Will.
Free will, to me, means I can change what would otherwise be the logical next step. Instead of D1, or any of the other options, I break the frame of options and pick 'Glenda'.
Sadly I can't find any sensible reason for why determinism should be wrong, but as the impulsive and emotional guy that I am, I hope my idea of Free Will holds water.
It's impossible to say one way or the other at present though. So for now, I'm gonna assume my romantic idea is the right one :p

Yes, and if this is actually a possible thing for you to do, then there is no such thing as determinism. Randomness violates determinism. However, I don't hold that you can actually make a completely random decision.

Of course it's possible, don't be silly. If you are talking physical reality, though, then you are limiting yourself. The mind is metaphysical.


Me! I am the thing that I would show you, that makes up my mind, that didn't come from body or circumstance.

My existence is dependent upon body, but does not come from body.

I make cognative decisions. Not my body, me. Not circumstances, me.

I determine things.

If this is so, then determinism is false.

And what is me? Your claim is that it's metaphysical, but every thought that occurs in your brain is caused by the firing of neurons. The pathways of those neurons are a result of the formation in the womb and use throughout your life. The use throughout your life is also determined the formation of the brain in the womb and the previous use throughout your life. I hold that all things in our world can be defined by natural processes with no need for metaphysical explanation. Otherwise, we could eventually prove the metaphysical exists, which would we deny then need for faith.

It is entirely impossible to determine whether or not the universe is totally deterministic. :) Too many assumptions to make.
Your best hope for finding out is if some extra-dimensional being pulls you out of the strings of our universe and explains the various inner workings of our "existence." Even then, you probably wouldn't be able to understand the explanation.

Yes, and if this is actually a possible thing for you to do, then there is no such thing as determinism. Randomness violates determinism. However, I don't hold that you can actually make a completely random decision.
Neither do I. I hope I can. If nothing else, I think I'd be extremely worried about my world if I can't.

Anyway, I cannot dismiss the theory, as there appears to be no logical flaws or evidence against it. But being the daft git that I am, I very much wonder about the implications.

I mean, while determinism in and of itself, doesn't attempt to explain the initial cause(s), it seems to me that it requires either fate/predetermination or divine intervention to work. The theory seems to rule out a random first cause?

Assuming something like the Biblical Christian god is the origin of events, wouldn't that completely undermine God's characteristics? Sure it would go along way to explain omniscience, but at the same time, wouldn't it take away God's free will as well, and reduce it to a spectator?

I simply don't comprehend the implications of Fate and Predetermination well enough to make any real comment on them, but I'd love to hear other people's take on it.

So what is it?
Determinism is cause-and-effect. It is a valid theory, as long as it does not try to apply itself to the subjective consciousness.

Do you believe it's real?
It is real, yes. It is observable. It objectively exists.

Is it the same thing as predetermination, or perhaps even fate?
Yes. "Predeterminism" is the idea that god has determined everything that will happen in our lifetimes. "Fate" is the idea that what will happen in our lifetimes is predetermined. Both these ideas can be descirbed by "cause-and-effect." Either of these ideas are contained in "determinism," which suggests that we are not in control of our destiny.

Can god(s) coexist with Determinism?
I do believe that a god can exist without determinism. I don't have any justification, other than "a feeling."

Can Free Will coexist with Determinism?
Since will is inimical to determinism, and vice versa, they cannot co-exist.

Determinism and God are compatible. The religion of Calvinism which arose during the Reformation believed that the people who were going to heaven was pre-determined. Therefore, the idea of determinism and God can concurrently exist because it has in the past.

Predestination only violates determinism if God causes miracles (because miracles inject randomness) to occur. If God only set the universe in motion and let it go, then they can coexist. But it depends on what form of predestination you are looking at. The Christian form of predestination is different than the Buddhist Yuanfen/predestination.
Could you expand on that a bit? It sounds pretty interesting.

Not exactly, but it's close. Determinism doesn't hold that things are predetermined, it holds that all actions are invariably the consequence of the actions that preceded them. From what I've seen it doesn't imply that all of this has actually been mapped out beforehand.
What is the distinction, here? What is the difference between actions that are "mapped out beforehand" and actions that are "the consequence of actions that precede them"?

What is the distinction, here? What is the difference between actions that are "mapped out beforehand" and actions that are "the consequence of actions that precede them"?
Because Determinism in and of it self doesn't actually say anything about predetermination. And this is one of the things I can't understand either.

For determinism not to be the same as fate or predetermination, there has to be a random cause, right?

But Determinism excludes the possibility of random events, right?

What is the distinction, here? What is the difference between actions that are "mapped out beforehand" and actions that are "the consequence of actions that precede them"?
Look at it as "mapped out beforehand" can include an act of randomness that was predestined to occur (i.e. a prophesy in the Bible of a miracle) and "consequences of actions that precede them" can involve no randomness. Now you might say if it is predestined it's not random, but here randomness usually refers to not predictable even if we had all information about the natural processes.

The self is built by genetics and environment (nature and nurture) which are also determined and thus the self is determined. Decision-making is a cognitive process of the mind/the self. Because the self is determined does not mean that free will does not exist.

The only thing that rejects determinism is random events. Free will is not a random event. The self that you become is not a random event. That self is not random, the inputs are not random and the outputs are not random. Free will does not make them random so they do not conflict.
How does "free will," then, fit into this scheme of yours?

Randomness is a subjective phenomenon, dependent upon unpredictability. It is not objective, and therefore not "real," but an interpretation of events. Free will is not random, it is controlled, by the individual. This alone "rejects determinism."

Wait, determinism and predestination? Did you just change gears on me?

Predestination only violates determinism if God causes miracles (because miracles inject randomness) to occur. If God only set the universe in motion and let it go, then they can coexist. But it depends on what form of predestination you are looking at. The Christian form of predestination is different than the Buddhist Yuanfen/predestination.
I have been in the same "gear" all along, if gears are a euphamism for my meaning.

Predestination is the very foundation of "free will" as a religious concept: either god determines our destiny, or we do.

Predestination does not "violate" determinism; they are quite in cinq. They both propose that we are not in control of ourselves.

Could you expand on that a bit? It sounds pretty interesting.

I'd be happy to, but I would prefer if you asked a more specific question. I touched a lot of points in that short paragraph and I could expand in a lot of directions (though I'm more educated on some than others).

How does "free will," then, fit into this scheme of yours?

Randomness is a subjective phenomenon, dependent upon unpredictability. It is not objective, and therefore not "real," but an interpretation of events. Free will is not random, it is controlled, by the individual. This alone "rejects determinism."

If you believe randomness does not exist in objective reality then you hold that determinism does. Controlled is not a violation of determinism, it's a tenet of it. Computers are controlled by their own inner workings (their 'self') but also deterministic. Even a random number generator is deterministic.

I have been in the same "gear" all along, if gears are a euphamism for my meaning.

Predestination is the very foundation of "free will" as a religious concept: either god determines our destiny, or we do.

Predestination does not "violate" determinism; they are quite in cinq. They both propose that we are not in control of ourselves.

I think if you believe that the two things --determinism and predestination --can coexist, you do not understand one or the other.

I think you misspoke.

And what is me? Your claim is that it's metaphysical, but every thought that occurs in your brain is caused by the firing of neurons. The pathways of those neurons are a result of the formation in the womb and use throughout your life. The use throughout your life is also determined the formation of the brain in the womb and the previous use throughout your life. I hold that all things in our world can be defined by natural processes with no need for metaphysical explanation. Otherwise, we could eventually prove the metaphysical exists, which would we deny then need for faith.
"Me" is the self, the centre of consciousness. It is a singularity, a metaphysical, philosophical concept. It is a product of the mental, which is in turn a product of the physical. The metaphysical requires physcial existence. It exists as a concept.

That does not equate, though, to "everything reduces to the physical". If it does, then all of religion is in vain. Especially Christianity, which relies so much on symbolism, and on the choice of free will.

If all things in our lives can be explained without the need for the metaphysical, then you deny the self, the individual consciousness. All humans are one human, all minds are one mind. If, on the other hand, you hold that each human can have a unique experience of the world, independent of other humans, then you affirm the consciousness. This, in my opinion, more closely reflects reality.

Look at it as "mapped out beforehand" can include an act of randomness that was predestined to occur (i.e. a prophesy in the Bible of a miracle) and "consequences of actions that precede them" can involve no randomness. Now you might say if it is predestined it's not random, but here randomness usually refers to not predictable even if we had all information about the natural processes.
Okay, maybe I'm stupid but I'm not seeing a distinction here.

If the predetermined act or event is "random" then it was unpredicatable, not predestined. Predestination states that God *knows* everything that has or will happen, has "mapped it out". Randomness requires unpredictability.

"Me" is the self, the centre of consciousness. It is a singularity, a metaphysical, philosophical concept. It is a product of the mental, which is in turn a product of the physical. The metaphysical requires physcial existence. It exists as a concept.

That does not equate, though, to "everything reduces to the physical". If it does, then all of religion is in vain. Especially Christianity, which relies so much on symbolism, and on the choice of free will.

If all things in our lives can be explained without the need for the metaphysical, then you deny the self, the individual consciousness. All humans are one human, all minds are one mind. If, on the other hand, you hold that each human can have a unique experience of the world, independent of other humans, then you affirm the consciousness. This, in my opinion, more closely reflects reality.

All things can be explained means how they occur, how they come about. Religion answers why? Science can answer how I got here, but it can't answer why. Determinism does not answer why. Being able to map out the physical processes and attribute all results to them is only answering how and thus makes no statement on the religious aspect of life. Thus, science and the evaluation of cause and effect need no metaphysical (why) explanation. We are left to ponder these things with those wonderful brains we've developed.

I don't deny the self, the individual consciousness. You do have a unique experience in the world, but that has nothing to do with determinism. Your experiences/environment(nurture) are different from mine, as is your genetics (nature). This is what makes you unique. However, accept that if the same genetic material was implanted in the same womb and subjected to the exact same experiences in the exact same environment you would get the exact same result. The introduction of all of these factors makes for a completely unique person as no one will ever meet the criteria of having the exact same inputs. You are touching on two seperate issues that do not necessarily contradict each other. Just because the list of nature and nurture (cause) that created you (effect) is complicated enough to be unique does not make it random and therefore does not violate determinism.

If you believe randomness does not exist in objective reality then you hold that determinism does. Controlled is not a violation of determinism, it's a tenet of it. Computers are controlled by their own inner workings (their 'self') but also deterministic. Even a random number generator is deterministic.
Randomness is not the opposite of determinism. Exterior control is. Randomness is a subjective phenomenon, meaning that things random are viewed from the subjective perspective as having happened unpredictably in the "outside world." On the contrary, determinism is a subjective concept that surrenders control of ourselves to outside forces. The ideas are not contradictory.
EDIT: Determinism here referring to the idea expressed earlier that would have our thoughts determined by the physical brain. In that case, we have surrendered our concept of "self" in favour of forces outside the mind. The ideas that are not contradictory are that randomness (which is an interpretation from a subjective perspective) cannot coexist with determinism (which is a particular view of the objective world). The two perspectives, objective and subjective, can and do co-exist; so can randomness and determinism.

Originally Posted by Willamena
I think if you believe that the two things --determinism and predestination --can coexist, you do not understand one or the other.
I think you misspoke.
Yeah, that's a typo.

Okay, maybe I'm stupid but I'm not seeing a distinction here.

If the predetermined act or event is "random" then it was unpredicatable, not predestined. Predestination states that God *knows* everything that has or will happen, has "mapped it out". Randomness requires unpredictability.

As I stated before randomness just means in terms of physical processes. It means it couldn't be predicted with any level of knowledge of physical processes. God by its very nature can behave unpredicably because it exists outside of the physical. There is no need for God to be subject to cause and effect. Therefore God can violate determination while not violating predestination. That is the destinction as I understand it.

What is the distinction, here? What is the difference between actions that are "mapped out beforehand" and actions that are "the consequence of actions that precede them"?
Don't ask me, I don't believe in either. I'm simply observing based upon what I've read. Predestiny, as far as I'm concerned, requires some sort of cosmic overseer to be aware of said predestiny. If Determinism were based around this, it would probably actually be called Predeterminism. I'm sure the distinction exists for a reason.

Randomness is not the opposite of determinism. Exterior control is. Randomness is a subjective phenomenon, meaning that things random are viewed from the subjective perspective as having happened unpredictably in the "outside world." On the contrary, determinism is a subjective concept that surrenders control of ourselves to outside forces. The ideas are not contradictory.

Determinism holds that for the same set of inputs you get the same set of outputs. Randomness says that for the same set of inputs you get a different set of outputs. They are in opposition. Exterior control is a source of randomness, but as far as I can tell the only source of exterior control would be a deity or supernatural being. We are not a source of exterior control.

I said I meant and meant what I said. :) Explain to me what is wrong, if you will.

You said that someone who says predestination and determinism can coexist does not understand them and then later admitted that they are so similar you can't tell the difference. You can't possibly mean both things, so it seems you intended the latter.

I think if you believe that the two things --determinism and predestination --can coexist, you do not understand one or the other.

Predestination does not "violate" determinism; they are quite in cinq. They both propose that we are not in control of ourselves.

I do that sometimes too, where I see what I meant to say and not what I actually typed. I find backing off for a bit helps. If it makes a difference I'm going to bed so you have plenty of time to reread and put up a reply.

Don't ask me, I don't believe in either. I'm simply observing based upon what I've read. Predestiny, as far as I'm concerned, requires some sort of cosmic overseer being to be aware of said predestiny. If Determinism were based around this, it would probably actually be called Predeterminism. I'm sure the distinction exists for a reason.

From what I've read, interference by a supernatural being violates determinism but does not violate predestination, if that interference was predestined. In determinism, supernatural causes are not considered so a supernatural interference would violate the string of cause and effect that determinism represents. Determinism also seems to avoid making a judgement on the origin of this string of events, so I'm pretty sure that creator setting the whole shebang into motion is not a violation of determinism.

I feel that there is no such thing as random. Random
number generators are not random, they are a function of
time. They do, however, appear to be random. This is the
case with all "random" things.
If you have a particle and know its velocity and
position at a certain point in time, you can calculate its
position for any time. If you have 2 particles with
velocity and position, and you know how they interact, the
same can be said for each. Now extrapolate that to every
particle in existence. If you know all of their velocities
and positions at a point in time, and know exactly how they
interact, you can calculate positions and velocities for all
of them at any time, and thus know the future.
I am aware of the uncertainty principle, but all it
says is that you cannot measure an exact position or
velocity. Just because we cannot measure it exactly, does
not mean it doesn't exist. The way I see it, every
particle does have an initial velocity and position, and the
way they interact is governed by defined laws. And thus,
the future is set to happen in one specific way.
We will never be able to tell the future this way
because we cannot possibly measure the position and velocity
of every particle in existence, and to store that
information would require more matter than there is in
existence, let alone process it.
What does this mean? It means that everything that is
going to happen is set. Is there free will? I don't quite
know how to answer this one. Yes you do make decisions, but
what you decide is based on past experiences. If you had to
make a decision twice but all the circumstances were the
same, would you not make the same choice? Making the choice
is archived by chemical reactions in your brain that follow
the same rules as the particles. Even your conscience and
thoughts are based off of these chemical reactions.
You might as well not think about it though. You can't
possibly predict the future even though it is set. And it
still feels like you are making choices because you are.
Its just that you will always react in a specific way to a
specific situation. I don't think about it at all really,
just when I see a thread on it. I could care less, because
since I can't change anything about it or predict it,
ignorance is bliss.

~EDIT~ Why did the text not fill to the right?

All things can be explained means how they occur, how they come about. Religion answers why? Science can answer how I got here, but it can't answer why. Determinism does not answer why.
Thank Brad!

Being able to map out the physical processes and attribute all results to them is only answering how and thus makes no statement on the religious aspect of life. Thus, science and the evaluation of cause and effect need no metaphysical (why) explanation. We are left to ponder these things with those wonderful brains we've developed.
I might be too drunk to respond to this rationally, but I will try. A philosophical "metaphysical (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/) explanation" is not about "why" but rather about "what." It describes reality.

Yes; science deals with the cause-and-effect of things, because science concerns itself with explaining the objective, those things that can be emprically proven and shared from one person to another, that exist physically in nature. Until the latter part of the 20th Century, psychology was not considered a science, and there are those even today who will claim that it lies outside the realm of science, that it is "mostly guesswork."

I don't deny the self, the individual consciousness. You do have a unique experience in the world, but that has nothing to do with determinism. Your experiences/environment(nurture) are different from mine, as is your genetics (nature). This is what makes you unique. However, accept that if the same genetic material was implanted in the same womb and subjected to the exact same experiences in the exact same environment you would get the exact same result. The introduction of all of these factors makes for a completely unique person as no one will ever meet the criteria of having the exact same inputs. You are touching on two seperate issues that do not necessarily contradict each other. Just because the list of nature and nurture (cause) that created you (effect) is complicated enough to be unique does not make it random and therefore does not violate determinism.
A unique experience has everything to do with self-determinism, for the sum of "experiences and circumstances" that might lead to a decision within its framework are also unique. Determinism says that the sum of "experiences and circumstances" are the cause of the decision. Randomness, being a subjectively determined event, necessitates a unqiue experience. I can't imagine what you mean otherwise.

I deny that if the same genetic material were embedded in another womb, and that individual grew up under idential circumstances, that it would lead to an identical individual. For one thing, that individual does *not* have the same perspective as me. For another, the exact duplication of circumstance is impossible to achieve. I can only conclude that you meant "deny" rather than "accept" in the above bolded sentence.

What is this "list of nature and nurture"?

As I stated before randomness just means in terms of physical processes. It means it couldn't be predicted with any level of knowledge of physical processes. God by its very nature can behave unpredicably because it exists outside of the physical. There is no need for God to be subject to cause and effect. Therefore God can violate determination while not violating predestination. That is the destinction as I understand it.
The only thing outside of the phyisical is the metaphysical, and that resides in the imagination of the mind.

I agree that there is no need for God to be subject to cause-and-effect, since he is metaphysical.

Nothing can "violate" determinism, although free will can negate it; it is a whole philosophy, complete unto itself. This is how I understand it.

It is entirely impossible to determine whether or not the universe is totally deterministic. :) Too many assumptions to make.

Actually, as I was saying in the aforementioned atheist thread - the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us that the universe is not deterministic; at the quantum level there is a limit to the amount of information it is possible to know about any one particle. The very act of observing the particle, alters the information contained within the particle. This is a demonstrable fact of the universe, so the question has already been answered.

I feel that there is no such thing as random.
<Massive Snipping>
~EDIT~ Why did the text not fill to the right?
Can you back up any of those claims?

To the best of my knowledge, it's completely impossible to go beyond guesswork when it comes to particles. Regardless of whether you know it's spin, location in time and relative velocity.
Sure, you can make an informed guess with such information, but again, as far as I know, the mindboggling bit about particles is that they just don't act like they're supposed to half the time. To put it a bit differently: The particle might not end up where it should, and it might just vanish.
There's also the frustrating little habit they have of doing several things at once, such as aparently in multiple places at the same time.

As far as I know, we know next to nothing about the laws governing this absurd behaviour. We have some guesses about limits to erratic particle behaviour, and we do know plenty of specific properties, but I'm not aware of any explanations for how or why particles behave in this seemingly random and inexplicable manner.

Determinism holds that for the same set of inputs you get the same set of outputs. Randomness says that for the same set of inputs you get a different set of outputs. They are in opposition. Exterior control is a source of randomness, but as far as I can tell the only source of exterior control would be a deity or supernatural being. We are not a source of exterior control.
This idea (bolded aboved) alone suggests that you are superstitious, that you believe in god because you believe in magic.

In contrast, I believe that randomness is a subjective event.

You said that someone who says predestination and determinism can coexist does not understand them and then later admitted that they are so similar you can't tell the difference. You can't possibly mean both things, so it seems you intended the latter.
They are so similar, the only difference being a "god" or "fate" determining them, that the difference between them is minimal. I'm sorry, I mispoke earlier, I meant to say that predestination or determinism cannot co-exist with free will. My bad.

I do that sometimes too, where I see what I meant to say and not what I actually typed. I find backing off for a bit helps. If it makes a difference I'm going to bed so you have plenty of time to reread and put up a reply.
Booya. G'night.

Actually, as I was saying in the aforementioned atheist thread - the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us that the universe is not deterministic; at the quantum level there is a limit to the amount of information it is possible to know about any one particle. The very act of observing the particle, alters the information contained within the particle. This is a demonstrable fact of the universe, so the question has already been answered.
But that's a truth with massive modifications. You can't dismiss determination on this background, because the uncertainty principle is just an approximation, using our current - sorely lacking - understanding of what actually happens.

Or did my brain overheat when I read about it?

Random number generators are not random, they are a function of time.

Random number generators are based on computer algorithms, which are predictable, and do not exhibit randomness in the true sense of, say, the readioactive decay of an isotope

If you have a particle and know its velocity and
position at a certain point in time...

STOP RIGHT THERE. This axiom is false. Read up on your physics - it is not possible to know both the position and the velocity of a particle simultaniously - the act of measuring one parameter disturbs the other. This is the basis of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (see above).

But that's a truth with massive modifications.

Well yes, but more due to the bizarre and 'not-understandable' nature of quantum physics than a lack of imformation. People seem to forget that we know a lot more about the universe than we understand. The maths is sound, however.

Example: it is used for ultra-encryption of fibre-optic communications. A single photon is sent as a key: if anyone other than the intended recipient of the key tries to observe the photon, it's properties change and the key is destroyed (and the reciever will be aware the key has been observed). You can never find out what information was within the key previously: not because of our own inadequecy in measuring the photon but because the very act of observing changes it.

Summary: the very act of knowing something, changes it irrevocably, and in a way in which we can never truely discover what it was like before.

I feel that there is no such thing as random. Random
number generators are not random, they are a function of
time.
..and computer programs. :)

They do, however, appear to be random. This is the
case with all "random" things.
If you have a particle and know its velocity and
position at a certain point in time, you can calculate its
position for any time. If you have 2 particles with
velocity and position, and you know how they interact, the
same can be said for each. Now extrapolate that to every
particle in existence. If you know all of their velocities
and positions at a point in time, and know exactly how they
interact, you can calculate positions and velocities for all
of them at any time, and thus know the future.
But you cannot. You can't know that.

I am aware of the uncertainty principle, but all it
says is that you cannot measure an exact position or
velocity. Just because we cannot measure it exactly, does
not mean it doesn't exist. The way I see it, every
particle does have an initial velocity and position, and the
way they interact is governed by defined laws. And thus,
the future is set to happen in one specific way.
Whether or not it exists is not in question.

Randomness is our inability to calculate that velocity and position.

We will never be able to tell the future this way
because we cannot possibly measure the position and velocity
of every particle in existence, and to store that
information would require more matter than there is in
existence, let alone process it.
What does this mean? It means that everything that is
going to happen is set.
This an invalid conclusion. It is also unscientific. It is undemonstrable, and untestable. It is easily countered by the hypothesis that we determine our own events.

Is there free will? I don't quite
know how to answer this one. Yes you do make decisions, but
what you decide is based on past experiences. If you had to
make a decision twice but all the circumstances were the
same, would you not make the same choice? Making the choice
is archived by chemical reactions in your brain that follow
the same rules as the particles. Even your conscience and
thoughts are based off of these chemical reactions.
Prove it.

You might as well not think about it though. You can't
possibly predict the future even though it is set.
Well, d'uh. It's not set.

And it
still feels like you are making choices because you are.
Its just that you will always react in a specific way to a
specific situation. I don't think about it at all really,
just when I see a thread on it. I could care less, because
since I can't change anything about it or predict it,
ignorance is bliss.
Belief in the illusion of free will entirely surrenders free will to circumstance. It forfeits responsibility for your actions.

Well yes, but more due to the bizarre and 'not-understandable' nature of quantum physics than a lack of imformation. People seem to forget that we know a lot more about the universe than we understand. The maths is sound, however.

Example: it is used for ultra-encryption of fibre-optic communications. A single photon is sent as a key: if anyone other than the intended recipient of the key tries to observe the photon, it's properties change and the key is destroyed (and the reciever will be aware the key has been observed). You can never find out what information was within the key previously: not because of our own inadequecy in measuring the photon but because the very act of observing changes it.

Summary: the very act of knowing something, changes it irrevocably, and in a way in which we can never truely discover what it was like before.
Hah! I knew this!
Uhm... Anyway, what I was trying to say is that it doesn't make the behaviour random. There's no solid reason to rule out that it's both understandable and predictable.

It's also why you can't use it as an argument against a god. There's no grounds to believe that A) A god haven't and isn't already having an impact on quantum level. B) That a god is limited to our powers of observation. C) That god should affect the physical universe on any level unless it so chooses.
The point here being that you cannot use the principles of observation and uncertainty for anything. Gods are magical things. Like elves & dragons and such. No reason to suspect they obey the laws governing our universe.

By the way, how the fuck can a particle manage to be in two different states at once?! I won't ever understand that unless some layman explains it to me. The litterature might as well be in greek :confused:

It's also why you can't use it as an argument against a god. There's no grounds to believe that A) A god haven't and isn't already having an impact on quantum level. B) That a god is limited to our powers of observation. C) That god should affect the physical universe on any level unless it so chooses.
Okay, here's a question for you: does the above definition fit with the Christian version of God? (I know, it's not your belief)

The point here being that you cannot use the principles of observation and uncertainty for anything. Gods are magical things. Like elves & dragons and such. No reason to suspect they obey the laws governing our universe.

Okay, here's a question for you: does the above definition fit with the Christian version of God? (I know, it's not your belief)
That's a really, really good question. I think the only way I can answer is by saying: The Christian god posses qualities, that in my opinion are mutually exclusive. That, in my opinion, excludes that god from fitting in with the above. But hey, it's magic. Your imagination is the only limitation ;)

Determinism is necessarily denied by self-determination.

This means that if we have free will, all things are not predeterminable.

The idea that God (or Fate) says what will happen denies that we have free will.

You decide.

But if you do, then you have exercised free will.

Tough luck.

... what I was trying to say is that it doesn't make the behaviour random. There's no solid reason to rule out that it's both understandable and predictable.
Is this the foundation for the premise that randomness is in opposition to determinism?

The randomness of behaviour is entirely to be found in the fact that we cannot predict it.

If we can predict it, however, that does not prove determinism. It just proves extrapolation.

Determinism eh? Yes, I think it is real. Ques sera, sera as they say.

Is this the foundation for the premise that randomness is in opposition to determinism?

The randomness of behaviour is entirely to be found in the fact that we cannot predict it.

If we can predict it, however, that does not prove determinism. It just proves extrapolation.
That would be 100% wrong, as I see it.

When talking about human stuff, it's perfectly acceptable to describe stuff we can't explain and predict as random.
But when we're talking about the workings of nature, we can't make the claim either way. If it's random, then it's because we can explain it, and can explain why it's impossible to predict. Otherwise it just appears random, because we may lack understanding.
Basically, it's near impossible to claim that anything is truely random, as anything seemingly random can easily be a matter of lacking knowledge or lacking ability to make sense of our knowledge on our part.

I would think determinism without predetermination (or fate or whatever), has to start with a random event. But it's similar to the "You can't explain how the univers came to be, so god must have made it" to which the obvious response is "Well how did god come to be then?"

Determinism, despite our understanding of particles and the like, can't be ruled out (as far as I know anyway), because we can't tell if it's random or not. All we can say is that it appears to be random. It's along the lines of dropping something and claiming gravity is responsible for it falling. It's a great indication, but it's not proof of gravity.

Well, the day we can predict everything, with a high degree of success, we will be able to say something about determinism. I highly doubt that day will ever come though. Fairly recently, 4 dimensions became a 'perhaps 11'. Untill the time we can say something definite about that, we'll never be able to say anything definite about quantum mechanics - some of the functions may well happen on a plane we can't reach.
No matter how compelling arguments look, as long as they're unfalsifiable, they're really no more right that they're wrong.

Hah! I knew this!
Uhm... Anyway, what I was trying to say is that it doesn't make the behaviour random. There's no solid reason to rule out that it's both understandable and predictable.

Actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is extremely well founded. To my knowledge, there's never been an observation that contradicts it. Don't make the mistake of thinking this principle applies simply because our technology is too poor to circumvent it; it's a fundamental property of the universe as we understand it, and cannot be avoided.

It also permits events to occur that, I believe, would be impossible in a truly deterministic universe. A good example of this would be quantum tunnelling. Because a particle's location is always, to some degree, unknown, it can occur that a particle encountering a barrier for which it lacks the energy to surmount can still appear on the other side of the barrier. In a deterministic universe, since both position and momentum could be known precisely, this particle could be observed actually within the barrier, an energy state which would be impossible for it to obtain.

I personally think we live in a mostly(?) causal universe, but not necessarily a deterministic one.

Well yes, but more due to the bizarre and 'not-understandable' nature of quantum physics than a lack of imformation. People seem to forget that we know a lot more about the universe than we understand. The maths is sound, however.

Example: it is used for ultra-encryption of fibre-optic communications. A single photon is sent as a key: if anyone other than the intended recipient of the key tries to observe the photon, it's properties change and the key is destroyed (and the reciever will be aware the key has been observed). You can never find out what information was within the key previously: not because of our own inadequecy in measuring the photon but because the very act of observing changes it.

Summary: the very act of knowing something, changes it irrevocably, and in a way in which we can never truely discover what it was like before.
I absolutely love this, because nothing said here in any way contradicts free will. Go science! and maths! You rule.

I am me.

Actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is extremely well founded. To my knowledge, there's never been an observation that contradicts it. Don't make the mistake of thinking this principle applies simply because our technology is too poor to circumvent it; it's a fundamental property of the universe as we understand it, and cannot be avoided.

It also permits events to occur that, I believe, would be impossible in a truly deterministic universe. A good example of this would be quantum tunnelling. Because a particle's location is always, to some degree, unknown, it can occur that a particle encountering a barrier for which it lacks the energy to surmount can still appear on the other side of the barrier. In a deterministic universe, since both position and momentum could be known precisely, this particle could be observed actually within the barrier, an energy state which would be impossible for it to obtain.

I personally think we live in a mostly(?) causal universe, but not necessarily a deterministic one.


It is awefully presumptuous to say that things like particle decay and quantum tunneling, or even virtual particle pairs and the like are random when we have immense trouble measuring anything smaller than quarks and leptons and really have no idea what is down there. If M theory, for example is to be believed, which in honesty is a giant if, there are particles too small out there to even begin to think about measuring at present.

From my perspective, determinism follows that if one could have complete knowledge of the present universe, including all particle motions, total understanding of all interactions, between particles, and the capacity to comprehend and combine it all, the future could be predicted with certainty. I do not believe the mere fact that Heisenburg tells us we never can know all of this changes that if we could we would know past present and future alike.

Determinism eh? Yes, I think it is real. Ques sera, sera as they say.
Ooohh!... quoting Patty Page. Low blow.

The future's not ours to see.

Everyone should really read this if you are interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

"Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No mysterious miracles or totally random events occur. If there has been even one indeterministic event since the beginning of time, then determinism is false."

There is no proof of an indeterministic event, so it is still a valid theory.

"So quantum mechanics is deterministic, provided that one accepts the wave function itself as reality (rather than as probability of classical coordinates). This is true also in more advanced cases."

Most importantly, do not make the mistake in thinking humans are omniscient. Just because things may seem random or unpredictable, does not mean they actually are. A flip of a coin may be uncertain or random, however if we know the state of the coin and the exact forces on it, we can determine how it will land 100% of the time. The truth of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not nessesarily mean that the universe is non-deterministic. It is possible the Heisenberg uncertainty principle could be the result of a deterministic process- we simply don't know. It comes down to opinion if you think determinism is true or not.

I believe it to be true, simply because it makes sense to me. Free will does not. Simply because some organisms developed a greater thinking capacity doesn't mean they are magically exempt from the laws of the universe. Even life itself doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference to determinism- you are simply increasing the variables. But of course that's just my opinion.

Determinism also doesn't have anything to do with deities. Determinism could be true or false with or without deities. Deities hold no relevence to the principle.

However, on the subject of determinism, Christianity seems to have it both ways. Surely they preach free will, however at the same time their deity is omniscient, so it knows all things; past present and future. This seems to imply the our actions are already known by a deity before we do them; we could have not done anything else, or the deity is not omniscient. So which is it? Do we have choice or does the deity know everything? It's not possible to have it both ways. :)

Also, by that implication of the omniscience-free will paradox, everyone who goes to hell was created to go to hell as God knew that was going to happen when he created the universe.

Everyone should really read this if you are interested:
<Snip>
Thanks for plainly explaining what I've been trying to say all morning :)

Also, by that implication of the omniscience-free will paradox, everyone who goes to hell was created to go to hell as God knew that was going to happen when he created the universe.
There's a much more interesting implication: Does god have free will, or is god just aware of it's role as a passive participant/spectator?

Thanks for plainly explaining what I've been trying to say all morning :)

I agree. I was just catching up and about to freak out about the HUP before I saw that it had been done for me. The HUP is a theory about what we can observe, not what is, in fact, objective truth.

Willamena, I would like to reply to your points but you were a little all over the place last night. Out of character for you, which I attribute to fatigue and alcohol. Please reread your reponses and make any necessary modifications before I reply to them. I don't want to end up debating a point with you that you don't actually hold to be true. If you don't feel the need to modify just post that, and I will craft a response.

I'd be happy to, but I would prefer if you asked a more specific question. I touched a lot of points in that short paragraph and I could expand in a lot of directions (though I'm more educated on some than others).
The idea of miracles introducing randomness.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what religion do you practice?

For the record, my take on this comes out of chaos theory, which would basically say (in simplified form) that reality and movement takes on all kinds of patterns but those patterns are constantly shifting and completely unpredictable. I personally think "determinism/free will" is a false dichotomy, much like "chaos/order" is.

For the record, my take on this comes out of chaos theory, which would basically say (in simplified form) that reality and movement takes on all kinds of patterns but those patterns are constantly shifting and completely unpredictable. I personally think "determinism/free will" is a false dichotomy, much like "chaos/order" is.

I agree. I don't find free will to be in opposition with Determinism, because free will is not random. As far as chaos negating determinism, it really depends if you think the patterns are completely unpredictable (objectively) or apparently unpredictable (subjectively).

The idea of miracles introducing randomness.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what religion do you practice?

I'm Christian, which kind of means I believe in a limited form of determinism.

I don't believe in miracles happening with any regularity and I don't believe in most of the 'miracles' described in the Bible.

If a particular cause (group of causes) can produce any number of effects than this is random, when looking at an objective view of the physical processes of the world (meaning not reliant on our observation). Normally, I don't hold this to be possible as any event from an objective standpoint can be attributed to events that preceded it. In other words, with an unlimited ability to observe the world, the causality of all events could be explained through purely natural means.

Well, a miracle violates this as by definition the cause is unnatural. When a deity is involved I could paint a wall black and it could end up being any color the deity likes with no natural explanation. In terms of natural processes this is a random event and violates determinism.

Some hold that a single random event unravels determinism (even in the case of miracles). I hold that we live in a deterministic universe that was created by a deity. That deity has the ability to affect that universe if it is so inclined, but that doesn't make the universe not deterministic, it just makes the deity not deterministic.

It is awefully presumptuous to say that things like particle decay and quantum tunneling, or even virtual particle pairs and the like are random when we have immense trouble measuring anything smaller than quarks and leptons and really have no idea what is down there. If M theory, for example is to be believed, which in honesty is a giant if, there are particles too small out there to even begin to think about measuring at present. From my perspective, determinism follows that if one could have complete knowledge of the present universe, including all particle motions, total understanding of all interactions, between particles, and the capacity to comprehend and combine it all, the future could be predicted with certainty. I do not believe the mere fact that Heisenburg tells us we never can know all of this changes that if we could we would know past present and future alike.That's the point. You cannot know anything to arbitrary precision. It has nothing to do with the equipment we're using, it comes from the simple fact that observing any system makes you a part of that system, and the act of observing changes what's being observed. You're basing your argument on an impossibility, that we can know everything about everything in the universe to absolute precision. This isn't simply unfeasible, it's utterly impossible.

I'm Christian, which kind of means I believe in a limited form of determinism.

I don't believe in miracles happening with any regularity and I don't believe in most of the 'miracles' described in the Bible.

If a particular cause (group of causes) can produce any number of effects than this is random, when looking at an objective view of the physical processes of the world (meaning not reliant on our observation). Normally, I don't hold this to be possible as any event from an objective standpoint can be attributed to events that preceded it. In other words, with an unlimited ability to observe the world, the causality of all events could be explained through purely natural means.

Well, a miracle violates this as by definition the cause is unnatural. When a deity is involved I could paint a wall black and it could end up being any color the deity likes with no natural explanation. In terms of natural processes this is a random event and violates determinism.

Some hold that a single random event unravels determinism (even in the case of miracles). I hold that we live in a deterministic universe that was created by a deity. That deity has the ability to affect that universe if it is so inclined, but that doesn't make the universe not deterministic, it just makes the deity not deterministic.
One of the basic premises of chaos theory is that reality is not as simple as chaos/order. Like many other contemporary methods of inquiry (for example, modern continental philosophy and linguistics) it rejects the linear/dualistic model. The idea is that within what we think of as chaos there are an infinite amount of patterns working, influencing other patterns in unpredictable ways. In other words, in chaos contains an infinite amount of order, and order contains an infinite amount of chaos. It's important to think of it in dimensions beyond two or three.

To apply this to the idea free will and the choices that we make, think of it this way: on some level, as people we are shaped by many factors; biology, instinct, our experiences, the things that we are taught, our social dynamic, economics, physical limitations, brain chemistry, and many, many factors that we haven't discovered. But even if you knew everything about me, had studied me for an infinite time, you couldn't predict the way I would react to a stimulus. You could perhaps observe my behavior in specific instances and apply that knowledge to instances that closely matched the first one, but even then I would surprise you several times over in my life. And this doesn't even get to the issue of what happens when I have to make a decision that is unlike any I have made before. Why? Because the combination of physical/mental triggers that make up my consciousness are so varied and complex. You could call this free will or determinism. My choice is certainly an individual one, but it is influenced by the vast variety of factors that make me up.

To the extent that "free will" suggests a unitary consciousness, I reject it. On the other hand, to the extent that determinism suggests a predetermined outcome or that a human is some kind of automaton, I reject that too.

My view:

Yes, the universe is deterministic - there is no true randomness.

However, luckily, the number of variables involved in solving the "universal equation" are either infinite or countably infinite, so I doubt we'll get around to finding a solution anytime when I'll have to worry about it.

So, in all the determinism, you get the happy-go-lucky illusion of randomness which makes people think that life can be whatever they want, blah blah blah.

That's the point. You cannot know anything to arbitrary precision. It has nothing to do with the equipment we're using, it comes from the simple fact that observing any system makes you a part of that system, and the act of observing changes what's being observed. You're basing your argument on an impossibility, that we can know everything about everything in the universe to absolute precision. This isn't simply unfeasible, it's utterly impossible.

Where did I base my argument on an impossibility?

My view:

Yes, the universe is deterministic - there is no true randomness.

However, luckily, the number of variables involved in solving the "universal equation" are either infinite or countably infinite, so I doubt we'll get around to finding a solution anytime when I'll have to worry about it.

So, in all the determinism, you get the happy-go-lucky illusion of randomness which makes people think that life can be whatever they want, blah blah blah.

This is my reply to the points made above by Jah Bootie.

This is my reply to the points made above by Jah Bootie.
I really wish I had chosen a better username.

anyway, in the final analysis is there any real difference between a universe that is so complex as to be completely unpredictable and unreproducible and one that is random? Does any of this change the fact that you, as a sentient being, are constantly presented with choices and make decisions which have infinite consequences? I would say no. At least from our perspective both visions offer much the same conclusions.

I really wish I had chosen a better username.

anyway, in the final analysis is there any real difference between a universe that is so complex as to be completely unpredictable and unreproducible and one that is random? Does any of this change the fact that you, as a sentient being, are constantly presented with choices and make decisions which have infinite consequences? I would say no. At least from our perspective both visions offer much the same conclusions.

No, I don't hold that there is much of a difference which is why I think determinism and free will can coexist. Like I said, determinism is the objective view (from without) and free will is the subjective view (from within).

No, I don't hold that there is much of a difference which is why I think determinism and free will can coexist. Like I said, determinism is the objective view (from without) and free will is the subjective view (from within).
You might want to read your philosophy again; Determinism explicitly denies free will.

You might want to read your philosophy again; Determinism explicitly denies free will.

I love how you simplified Determinism to one specific belief that denies free will. There are many types of determinism and all of them are long debated as to their effect on free will. I support causal determinism and this is specifically what we're talking about it.

I believe those that believe this are misrepresenting what free will is. Determinism does not define free will and what they call free will is a person being able to make any output occur regardless of the inputs. I hold that free will is not random and is totally dependent on inputs. People have debated what exactly free will is for millenia and they chose one version of it and suggested determinism is in contrast with it, but the only thing they actually deny is randomness.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
" It might be, that is, that underlying the phenomena of purpose and will in human persons is an all-encompassing, mechanistic world-system of ‘blind’ cause and effect. Many accounts of free will are constructed against the backdrop possibility (whether accepted as actual or not) that each stage of the world is determined by what preceded it by impersonal natural law. As always, there are optimists and pessimists."

I can give you a list of links of people who argue my side and who argue your side. They are referred to unsurprisingly as compatibilists and incompatibilists.

I believe those that believe this are misrepresenting what free will is. Determinism does not define free will and what they call free will is a person being able to make any output occur regardless of the inputs. I hold that free will is not random and is totally dependent on inputs. People have debated what exactly free will is for millenia and they chose one version of it and suggested determinism is in contrast with it, but the only thing they actually deny is randomness.
That's a bit silly though. It's like saying black really doesn't describe lack of colour, but just a dark shade of gray. Just invent a new term instead. Free Will is pretty well defined, and it really cannot coexist with Determinism.

Sure, the illusion of Free Will can easily coexist with Determinism, but actual Free Will can't.

That's a bit silly though. It's like saying black really doesn't describe lack of colour, but just a dark shade of gray. Just invent a new term instead. Free Will is pretty well defined, and it really cannot coexist with Determinism.

Sure, the illusion of Free Will can easily coexist with Determinism, but actual Free Will can't.

Reread above. I can give you more links if you like. Free will is not that clearly defined. Books are written on the subject of what free will really is.

I love how you simplified Determinism to one specific belief that denies free will. There are many types of determinism and all of them are long debated as to their effect on free will. I support causal determinism and this is specifically what we're talking about it.

I believe those that believe this are misrepresenting what free will is. Determinism does not define free will and what they call free will is a person being able to make any output occur regardless of the inputs. I hold that free will is not random and is totally dependent on inputs. People have debated what exactly free will is for millenia and they chose one version of it and suggested determinism is in contrast with it, but the only thing they actually deny is randomness.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
" It might be, that is, that underlying the phenomena of purpose and will in human persons is an all-encompassing, mechanistic world-system of ‘blind’ cause and effect. Many accounts of free will are constructed against the backdrop possibility (whether accepted as actual or not) that each stage of the world is determined by what preceded it by impersonal natural law. As always, there are optimists and pessimists."

I can give you a list of links of people who argue my side and who argue your side. They are referred to unsurprisingly as compatibilists and incompatibilists.

This is almost exactly what I was going to (try to) say, although I could in no way express it this well.

No, I don't hold that there is much of a difference which is why I think determinism and free will can coexist. Like I said, determinism is the objective view (from without) and free will is the subjective view (from within).
Yes, they co-exist, but not because one or the other is illusion. Two perspectives; that is all that is needed to have them co-exist, and we get that by virtue of our singular consciousness.

My objections were against the deterministic idea that we (our subjective "selves") are directed by Determinism. Our minds, our hearts, our souls. We are not, we cannot be; we are self-determined, we have will. We base our decisions on learning and circumstances, but *we* make the decision, which is a new thing introduced to reality that did not previously exist. If the deterministic view is kept to an objective perspective, then all's well.

You might want to read your philosophy again; Determinism explicitly denies free will.
I would like to add that what Melkor Unchained has expressed here is true Determinism; anything that compromises on this stance is actually less than Determinism (with a capital D to indicate that it is a philosophy). The compromise stance more closely reflects reality than Determinism does.

Look at it as "mapped out beforehand" can include an act of randomness that was predestined to occur (i.e. a prophesy in the Bible of a miracle) and "consequences of actions that precede them" can involve no randomness. Now you might say if it is predestined it's not random, but here randomness usually refers to not predictable even if we had all information about the natural processes.
Since randomness is dependent upon unpredictability, there will never be a moment when we have all the information about "the natural processes" of a random event, or if we do have all the information, it is not a random event but a predicted one.

It's inherently contradictory, an oxymoron. To me "mapped out beforehand" means everything planned to the last detail. Randomness cannot be planned. The fulfillment of prophecy is not a random event, but a planned one. If it were random, that would defy destiny. When it is fulfilled, there is nothing random about the circumstances of fulfillment, as the one fulfilling the prophecy is aware of the prophecy and is consciously, wilfilly fulfilling it, fulfilling his destiny.

If you believe randomness does not exist in objective reality then you hold that determinism does. Controlled is not a violation of determinism, it's a tenet of it. Computers are controlled by their own inner workings (their 'self') but also deterministic. Even a random number generator is deterministic.
Yes, determinism exists from an objective perspective, and true randomness does not. We, on the other hand, view the world from a subjective perspective, from our centre of consciousness. Here, in our minds, randomness exists and determinism (things determined from other than the consciousness) does not.

Control from outside the consciousness is a violation of self-determinism, and self-determinism is a violation of Determinism, that philosophy that states our subjective world is controlled by the physical, by cause-and-effect acting upon us, by circumstance, by anything other than our "selves."

In the subjective world of our minds, new things* come spontaneously into being every moment of every day, quite randomly.

*"Things" in the metaphysical sense of mental entities.

That does not equate, though, to "everything reduces to the physical". If it does, then all of religion is in vain. Especially Christianity, which relies so much on symbolism, and on the choice of free will.
All things can be explained means how they occur, how they come about. Religion answers why? Science can answer how I got here, but it can't answer why. Determinism does not answer why. Being able to map out the physical processes and attribute all results to them is only answering how and thus makes no statement on the religious aspect of life. Thus, science and the evaluation of cause and effect need no metaphysical (why) explanation. We are left to ponder these things with those wonderful brains we've developed.

I don't deny the self, the individual consciousness. You do have a unique experience in the world, but that has nothing to do with determinism. Your experiences/environment(nurture) are different from mine, as is your genetics (nature). This is what makes you unique. However, accept that if the same genetic material was implanted in the same womb and subjected to the exact same experiences in the exact same environment you would get the exact same result. The introduction of all of these factors makes for a completely unique person as no one will ever meet the criteria of having the exact same inputs. You are touching on two seperate issues that do not necessarily contradict each other. Just because the list of nature and nurture (cause) that created you (effect) is complicated enough to be unique does not make it random and therefore does not violate determinism.
I don't personally think of religion as a means to answer questions, certainly not organized religion, which hands out answers on a platter. I think that the self-discovery that comes through the process of learning what to ask is more important than any answers gotten.

Determinism does not provide answers to "why," you are correct. Religion does not, either, in my opinion. That is apart from what I was talking about, which is that Christianity requires will freely exercised in order to follow God.

A "metaphysical explanation" is one that includes a consciousness in the equation, in accordance with the philosophy of Metaphysics, which studies consciousness. It is, therefore, the subjective perspective we are talking about. The Christian religion relies on the subjective perspective with its mind and its will power, and its ability to exercise will in thought, motive and, through the body, in action.

If our thoughts are determined by the physical (as opposed to being influenced by the physical) then they were not self-determined, not determined by the metaphysical consciousness. Then we are not responsible for those thoughts, because "we", and "me", and "you" refers to selves, to consciousnesses. The Christian religion then goes poof.

As I stated before randomness just means in terms of physical processes. It means it couldn't be predicted with any level of knowledge of physical processes. God by its very nature can behave unpredicably because it exists outside of the physical. There is no need for God to be subject to cause and effect. Therefore God can violate determination while not violating predestination. That is the destinction as I understand it.
Okay, but this "prediction" requires an agent, someone who is doing the predicting, someone who knows the knowledge, someone who determines that what is observed is random.

You've necessitated a subjective perspective, a human observer. So, you see, this definition of randomness is the same.

God's unpredictability is because he is not us, as we observe him from afar. He is not unpredictable unto himself.

From what I've read, interference by a supernatural being violates determinism but does not violate predestination, if that interference was predestined.
Sort of. Interference by a supernatural being does not "violate" predestination so much as "define" it. :) Predestination states that God dictates our destiny, rather than us.

In determinism, supernatural causes are not considered so a supernatural interference would violate the string of cause and effect that determinism represents. Determinism also seems to avoid making a judgement on the origin of this string of events, so I'm pretty sure that creator setting the whole shebang into motion is not a violation of determinism.
Our minds are a "supernatural" thing, they are above and apart from nature ("superior" to nature). They are what makes us capable of "unnatural" things. Our conscious self-awareness (and everything that goes along with it, like conceptualization, imagination, symbolization, extraplolation, etc.) sets us apart from the physical world. In religion, we are our minds more so than our bodies, although a healthy mind requires a healthy body. Therein (in the mind) rests the spirit of Man.

(The spirit resides in the mind, just as the mind resides in the body. It's not a real "residing," but a metaphorical one.)

Our minds, providing spontaneously generated inputs into reality, violate Determinism.

Yes, they co-exist, but not because one or the other is illusion. Two perspectives; that is all that is needed to have them co-exist, and we get that by virtue of our singular consciousness.

My objections were against the deterministic idea that we (our subjective "selves") are directed by Determinism. Our minds, our hearts, our souls. We are not, we cannot be; we are self-determined, we have will. We base our decisions on learning and circumstances, but *we* make the decision, which is a new thing introduced to reality that did not previously exist. If the deterministic view is kept to an objective perspective, then all's well.

Yeah, I hate that sometimes the wind makes my side mirrors push in while I'm driving, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I would like to add that what Melkor Unchained has expressed here is true Determinism; anything that compromises on this stance is actually less than Determinism (with a capital D to indicate that it is a philosophy). The compromise stance more closely reflects reality than Determinism does.

I suggest you read a little more on the subject. Determinism with a capital D has existed for centuries. It has been examined and debated for all that time. What Melkor argued is one belief on the subject, a popular one, but free will is not a part of Determinism. The effect it has on Free Will is a matter of debate as even if two people hold the exact same idea of Determinism, they may not have the same beliefs regarding Free Will (I don't think Melkor is proposing a different version of Determinism. We disagree about the definition of Free Will.)

The idea of randomness is completely incomprehensible to me, I cannot understand how anything could happen without a preceeding cause.

Our minds are a "supernatural" thing, they are above and apart from nature ("superior" to nature). They are what makes us capable of "unnatural" things. Our conscious self-awareness (and everything that goes along with it, like conceptualization, symbolization, extraplolation, etc.) sets us apart from the physical world.

Explain why those are supernatural characteristics. They came about through completely natural forces.

Just because our brains are larger and more complex than any other creature does not mean that they do not share a predominant amount of characteristics with those of other creatures.

"Supernatural," meaning 'Above nature' is a contradiction, especially when applied to the contents of our skull. If our minds were truly 'supernatural,' they would exist on some other plane of reality [which doesn't exist]. Not this one. Nothing can be in two places at once; nothing can exist simultaneously both within reality and 'above' it. Since we can clearly see grey matter once one's skull is pried open, I think it's safe to say that our brains reside in the material world along with the rest of us.

Seriously, that has to be the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever heard.

And yes, earlier, I used capital D 'Determinism' for a reason.

And yes, earlier, I used capital D 'Determinism' for a reason.

Kind of like the capital C in Christianity. It doesn't mean that there is only one sect. Determinism relies on cause and effect and most else is open to interpretation, like Christianity requires acceptance of Christ as the Savior but so much else is open to the interpretation of the Christian.

For the rest of it, I appreciate that you guys are debating this with Willamena because I did it last night and I have an early morning meeting. I'm not doing it tonight. And with that, have a wonderful evening, folks. As always it's been interesting. I enjoy having my beliefs challenged because it forces me to polish them and further educate myself.

I suggest you read a little more on the subject. Determinism with a capital D has existed for centuries. It has been examined and debated for all that time. What Melkor argued is one belief on the subject, a popular one, but free will is not a part of Determinism.
I understand. I was simply saying that other beliefs on the subject, other than that "hard Determinism" one Melkor suggested, are compromise positions.

I do intend to do some reading about it, sometime.
The effect it has on Free Will is a matter of debate as even if two people hold the exact same idea of Determinism, they may not have the same beliefs regarding Free Will (I don't think Melkor is proposing a different version of Determinism. We disagree about the definition of Free Will.)
Wikipedia calls it "hard Determinism."

The idea of randomness is completely incomprehensible to me, I cannot understand how anything could happen without a preceeding cause.
Indeed; that is why I believe that randomness is a subjective interpretation of events. Things "happen" in the physical world by causes. In the subjective "world" of the mind, however, things do not "happen," so much as they are "experienced" (by the mind) as they are happening (to the body).

Explain why those are supernatural characteristics. They came about through completely natural forces.

Just because our brains are larger and more complex than any other creature does not mean that they do not share a predominant amount of characteristics with those of other creatures.
Super = above or apart
Natural = of nature

Yes, the mind came about through natural evolution. But the mind is above and apart from nature, because it is conceptual. It is does not exist in reality.

This is why we can describe things we do as "unnatural," things we imagine as "unreal," and things we build (roads, structures) as "artificial." Yes, they are artifacts, but the word also has a connotation of being "not a part of nature."

Yes, other creatures have minds, too. We can only really speak with any degree of certainly about our own, though. We don't know what it's like to be a whale consciousness.

"Supernatural," meaning 'Above nature' is a contradiction, especially when applied to the contents of our skull. If our minds were truly 'supernatural,' they would exist on some other plane of reality [which doesn't exist]. Not this one. Nothing can be in two places at once; nothing can exist simultaneously both within reality and 'above' it. Since we can clearly see grey matter once one's skull is pried open, I think it's safe to say that our brains reside in the material world along with the rest of us.
No argument, there. I just think we differ in our ideas of what "the supernatural" is.

The brain exists in the physical world, but the mind does not.

The brain exists in the physical world, but the mind does not.
Nonsense. If the mind didn't exist in the physical world, the body would be unable to respond to it.

Where did I base my argument on an impossibility?The part where you said this:...if one could have complete knowledge of the present universe, including all particle motions, total understanding of all interactions, between particles, and the capacity to comprehend and combine it all, the future could be predicted with certainty. :)

Note the if at the beginning of that. I never said we could, I never said I believed me could. I just said if it could be done, knowledge of the past, present and future would follow I was not making a reality based argument based off of the hypothetical. I was making a statement about determinism, not human knowledge and capacity nor even the physical possibility of such a task.

I understand. I was simply saying that other beliefs on the subject, other than that "hard Determinism" one Melkor suggested, are compromise positions.

I do intend to do some reading about it, sometime.

Wikipedia calls it "hard Determinism."
I'm proposing the same Determinism Melkor is. Free Will is not a direct part of it because the definition of Free Will is in dispute. Our differences (Melkor/myself) are not about Determinism, but about Free Will. I believe that in that in a completely cause and effect world Free Will can exist.

"It might be, that is, that underlying the phenomena of purpose and will in human persons is an all-encompassing, mechanistic world-system of ‘blind’ cause and effect. Many accounts of free will are constructed against the backdrop possibility (whether accepted as actual or not) that each stage of the world is determined by what preceded it by impersonal natural law. As always, there are optimists and pessimists."
This cannot be, not without throwing out the given definition of free will in the first line: "a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives."

If the agents choose, then "blind cause and effect" is not choosing, and vice-versa; if "blind cause and effect" is causing choice, then the agents are not.

Nonsense. If the mind didn't exist in the physical world, the body would be unable to respond to it.
We call that self-determinism.

The mind is a concept. You can open the skull and see lots of brain, but you cannot open the skull and ever find a mind.

Note the if at the beginning of that. I never said we could, I never said I believed me could. I just said if it could be done, knowledge of the past, present and future would follow I was not making a reality based argument based off of the hypothetical. I was making a statement about determinism, not human knowledge and capacity nor even the physical possibility of such a task.

Oh... I guess it's the same kind of 'if' as in "if Planck's Constant were equal to 3, I could quantum-tunnel through a car." ;) (don't mind me, I'm silly)

I'm proposing the same Determinism Melkor is. Free Will is not a direct part of it because the definition of Free Will is in dispute. Our differences (Melkor/myself) are not about Determinism, but about Free Will. I believe that in that in a completely cause and effect world Free Will can exist.
How do you define "free will" then? *curious*

We call that self-determinism.

The mind is a concept. You can open the skull and see lots of brain, but you cannot open the skull and ever find a mind.

You can open a computer, but you can never find a running program?

You can open a computer, but you can never find a running program?
:)

(I hate analogies. Why does everyone have to turn something into an analogy? Don't mind me...)

How do you define "free will" then? *curious*
All evidence seems to indicate that we live in a causal universe... I don't think anyone's ever shown an instance of acausal behaviour (effect preceeding cause). Just because we observe a causative event, however, doesn't necessarily mean we can predict its effects. :)

:)

(I hate analogies. Why does everyone have to turn something into an analogy? Don't mind me...)

*giggle* I'm just being annoying, it's what I do. :D

Oh... I guess it's the same kind of 'if' as in "if Planck's Constant were equal to 3, I could quantum-tunnel through a car." ;) (don't mind me, I'm silly)
Right, like that. :p

All evidence seems to indicate that we live in a causal universe... I don't think anyone's ever shown an instance of acausal behaviour (effect preceeding cause). Just because we observe a causative event, however, doesn't necessarily mean we can predict its effects. :)
I'm not arguing acausality... and wouldn't that be something without cause? I think that every action of a consciousness (thinking, imagining, concluding, feeling, etc.) is self-caused.

Indeed; that is why I believe that randomness is a subjective interpretation of events. Things "happen" in the physical world by causes. In the subjective "world" of the mind, however, things do not "happen," so much as they are "experienced" (by the mind) as they are happening (to the body).


Super = above or apart
Natural = of nature

Yes, the mind came about through natural evolution. But the mind is above and apart from nature, because it is conceptual. It is does not exist in reality.

This is why we can describe things we do as "unnatural," things we imagine as "unreal," and things we build (roads, structures) as "artificial." Yes, they are artifacts, but the word also has a connotation of being "not a part of nature."

Yes, other creatures have minds, too. We can only really speak with any degree of certainly about our own, though. We don't know what it's like to be a whale consciousness.

I believe we have reached our core difference already. I believe that the mind is inseparable from the brain, with consciousness and self awareness being another evolutionary trait caused by perfectly natural chemical reactions. You see our consciousness as something intangible, something that cannot be defined by biology.

I very little knowledge of psychology, so I cannot argue this point with anything other than my own logic and viewpoint, which will get me nowhere.

I think determinism is a bad idea. For one, I have problems with a theory that states that raping little girls or killing people is not immoral because we don't have any choice. The entire concepts of morality and consent go out the window in determinism.

To look at it another way, it would make all sex rape because if choice does not exist, consent does not exist. How can you consent if you can't make choices? Of course, that wouldn't be a problem as the rapist would not be at fault; they are just following deterministic laws of physics.

I think determinism is a bad idea. For one, I have problems with a theory that states that raping little girls or killing people is not immoral because we don't have any choice. The entire concepts of morality and consent go out the window in determinism.

To look at it another way, it would make all sex rape because if choice does not exist, consent does not exist. How can you consent if you can't make choices? Of course, that wouldn't be a problem as the rapist would not be at fault; they are just following deterministic laws of physics.
Well, part of growing intellectually is having to lose sentimental attachments to outmoded ideas. Judging a theory by what you see as the outcome (and not everyone agrees with you) is backwards.

That may be a tough pill to swallow but it doesn't invalidate the theory.

This cannot be, not without throwing out the given definition of free will in the first line: "a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives."

If the agents choose, then "blind cause and effect" is not choosing, and vice-versa; if "blind cause and effect" is causing choice, then the agents are not.

Reviewing input and creating an output is rational. You are choosing. It's a part of the causal process of the effect. Strange how it "cannot be", but philosophers have debated it for millennia and it's never been proven that the two necessarily conflict.

Well, part of growing intellectually is having to lose sentimental attachments to outmoded ideas. Judging a theory by what you see as the outcome (and not everyone agrees with you) is backwards.

Cool, so I can rob banks and rape little girls and it's no big deal because I am not responsible for any of it and it's not like those people had the ability to consent to begin with?

Cool, so I can rob banks and rape little girls and it's no big deal because I am not responsible for any of it and it's not like those people had the ability to consent to begin with?
I didn't say that, you did. Just because you are the result of influences doesn't mean that you aren't responsible. You just have to have a different idea of responsibility that doesn't come with the assumption of independent choice. You are showing a real lack of imagination here.

I didn't say that, you did. Just because you are the result of influences doesn't mean that you aren't responsible. You just have to have a different idea of responsibility that doesn't come with the assumption of independent choice. You are showing a real lack of imagination here.

But how can I be held responsible? I didn't actually choose; I am just following the influences that make up me. I can no more be held responsible for bank robbery or child molestation than a boulder can be for rolling on someone. In both cases, it is just causality playing out if determinism holds true.

But how can I be held responsible? I didn't actually choose; I am just following the influences that make up me. I can no more be held responsible for bank robbery or child molestation than a boulder can be for rolling on someone. In both cases, it is just causality playing out if determinism holds true.
You're speaking in false dichotomies. You are the result of your influences, but you (the sum of your influences) chose to rape a little girl or murder someone. So you are responsible.

You're speaking in false dichotomies. You are the result of your influences, but you (the sum of your influences) chose to rape a little girl or murder someone. So you are responsible.

How? If my "choice" is nothing more than the result of those influences, then how can I be responsible? Is a boulder responsible for rolling on someone because of mass and gravity?

How? If my "choice" is nothing more than the result of those influences, then how can I be responsible? Is a boulder responsible for rolling on someone because of mass and gravity?
Because you have consciousness and you know what you are doing.

You seem to think that determinism means that there is only one possible outcome. But that's not the case. Every instant has infiinite possible outcomes. It only means that any outcome can only stem from causes.

Because you have consciousness and you know what you are doing.

You seem to think that determinism means that there is only one possible outcome. But that's not the case. Every instant has infiinite possible outcomes. It only means that any outcome can only stem from causes.

I was under the impression that determinism meant that every cause has a specific effect, in which case responsibility doesn't exist. If you can stop yourself from doing something, then that sounds like free will to me.

I was under the impression that determinism meant that every cause has a specific effect, in which case responsibility doesn't exist. If you can stop yourself from doing something, then that sounds like free will to me.
It does sound a lot like free will. I think the problem with all of these arguments is that everyone insists on binary oppositions. I think that you can choose even though that choice is the combination of an unquantifiable number of reactions to various inputs. The first key is not to think of the fiction of the unitary indivisible self, but to think of the self as a whole set of consequences that react to each other in unpredictable ways. Certain sets of reactions are basically analogous to what you might call a "consience" or "superego". The reaction of all that makes up your consciousness expresses itself as a choice. The human self has "control" because of consciousness, but consciousness is a complex reaction to inputs.

This may devalue morality if you think of morality as somehow seperate from consciousness. I would say morality has always come down to reward and punishment anyway, no matter what kind of beliefs it sprang from.

I suck at explaining this. I wish I had studied philosophy in school more.

Because you have consciousness and you know what you are doing.

You seem to think that determinism means that there is only one possible outcome. But that's not the case. Every instant has infiinite possible outcomes. It only means that any outcome can only stem from causes.

Actually that's not true. Determinism means the outcome is determined by the causes. If the same set of circumstances (causes) can yeild different outcomes (effects) that means the outcome is random and violates Determinism.

I was under the impression that determinism meant that every cause has a specific effect, in which case responsibility doesn't exist. If you can stop yourself from doing something, then that sounds like free will to me.

Your impression is correct. However, I am also subject to my influences so forgive me if torture you until you beg me to die when you rape my sister (I just can't help it). Also my torturing you and holding you responsible will act as a future influence on other would-be rapists.

I believe we have reached our core difference already. I believe that the mind is inseparable from the brain, with consciousness and self awareness being another evolutionary trait caused by perfectly natural chemical reactions. You see our consciousness as something intangible, something that cannot be defined by biology.

I very little knowledge of psychology, so I cannot argue this point with anything other than my own logic and viewpoint, which will get me nowhere.
Yes, the mind is inseperable from the brain, but they are not the same thing. One exists as a real thing; the other exists as an unreal thing, a conceptual thing perceptible only to the brain of the individual to whom it belongs. It is not real, and therefore not seperable from the brain.

Things exist. There are real things, and there are things that are not real (for example imaginings, concepts, feelings). These things do not exist in reality, yet they are produced by the functioning mind. The mind is a subjective perspective on the brain. The physical aspect of these things (chemical or electrical) is irrelevant when you are talking about consciousness, because consciousness is simply the awareness of the mind, and the mind is the subjective perspective on those things, that interprets them and gives them meaning. They can exist and be causal of more new such things, bringing them into existence. That this is paralleled by a physical aspect does not mean the physical is the "cause", merely that the physical parallels "what goes on in the mind." This is how we can "have an idea."

For instance, you thought of what you said, and things went sparkly in the brain at the same time, and then you typed it. We can conclude either that the brain causes thoughts that are interpreted by the mind, or that the mind causes thoughts that occur simultaneously as electrical impulses in the brain. Two ways of looking at it, from two perspectives; it doesn't matter, in reality, which is true, because either way you look at it, it works. Where it does matter, though, is in philosophy. In philosophy we have morality, we have responsibility, we have ideas. These things do not exist in the physical world, they are conceptual. They are not real, except in meaningfulness to our minds. Here, the perspective you choose to look at things does matter, as we are individual consciousnesses, looking at the world from a subjective perspective. The objective perspective looks at chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain, from a point of view abstracted from ourselves in our minds. The subjective perspective experiences thoughts, concepts, feelings, etc. from our point of view.

The conscious mind cannot be described by biology because it is symbolic in nature; it is described in metaphor, as a "place," or a "plane of existence," or an "inner world," or "self." There is no place to describe the idea I'm thinking of right now in biology; biology, and you, don't what that idea is because I have not spoken it, I have not used our "word symbolism" (language) to express it. It hasn't been translated into the physical world yet; how can biology define it? The best biology can do is say that chemical and electrical impulses have occurred.

Do you see the difference? Biology can describe the physical world (reality) only. It cannot describe the idea.

I have very little knowledge of psychology, too, but I am talking philosophy. Like Determinism is a philosophy.

Reviewing input and creating an output is rational. You are choosing. It's a part of the causal process of the effect. Strange how it "cannot be", but philosophers have debated it for millennia and it's never been proven that the two necessarily conflict.
You are missing my point, again. It is not the process of choice that creates a conflict; it is the agent.

If "blind cause and effect" is making the choice, then it is not YOU making the choice.

I didn't say that, you did. Just because you are the result of influences doesn't mean that you aren't responsible. You just have to have a different idea of responsibility that doesn't come with the assumption of independent choice. You are showing a real lack of imagination here.
It's not influence that is the problem, but cause.

In the context only of influence, you may or may not share responsibility with the influencer (be it person or thing).

In the case of something you cause, you take full responsibility; regardless of what may have influenced your decision, it is still YOUR decision.

I suck at explaining this. I wish I had studied philosophy in school more.
I wish I had studied it at all. :)

I wish I had studied it at all. :)
Yeah, studying it at all would have been "more" for me.

I did study political, social, and economic thought, along with a pretty decent amount of religious thought. As a result, I can debate that stuff until the sun comes up.

You are missing my point, again. It is not the process of choice that creates a conflict; it is the agent.

If "blind cause and effect" is making the choice, then it is not YOU making the choice.

I'm not missing the point, you're trying to avoid mine. YOU are making the choice and there's nothing blind about it. YOU is a conglomeration of nature and nurture (genetics and experience/knowledge). You suggest otherwise, but there is no evidence for it. YOU exists because you have cognitive thought and the YOU is the key component of Free Will. The output isn't fixed because you don't have a choice, but because you are built in a certain way that causes you to make the same choice (output) under the same set of circumstances (input).

I'm not arguing acausality... and wouldn't that be something without cause? I think that every action of a consciousness (thinking, imagining, concluding, feeling, etc.) is self-caused.

Well, by acausal, I mean 'effects preceed causes', which is kinda nuts. :)

Do you see the difference? Biology can describe the physical world (reality) only. It cannot describe the idea.

I have very little knowledge of psychology, too, but I am talking philosophy. Like Determinism is a philosophy.

Is not the idea simply encoded in the physical state of the brain, however?

I'm not missing the point, you're trying to avoid mine. YOU are making the choice and there's nothing blind about it. YOU is a conglomeration of nature and nurture (genetics and experience/knowledge). You suggest otherwise, but there is no evidence for it. YOU exists because you have cognitive thought and the YOU is the key component of Free Will. The output isn't fixed because you don't have a choice, but because you are built in a certain way that causes you to make the same choice (output) under the same set of circumstances (input).
You're the one who pointed to a link that mentioned 'blind cause and effect.' :)

You still have not explained "nature and nuture," though I've asked a few times. Evidently there is some list...

Yes, I exist because I think: I think, therefore I am. This has implications" What is this "I"? It is a symbol we use to mentally define our "self," properly acknowledged as the centre of conscious being in our body, which is in turn centred in the universe as an individual. I am the evidence of my being; to deny consciousness, while using consciousness to deny it, is illogical.

Will is not choice, this a common mistake; rather, we will choices. Choices are evidence of will.

Yes, I am built in a certain way that causes me to make choices! You are correct. The way I am built is that I have a consciousness, a will, and a desire to act on that will, and that is what allows me (note, me) to make things happen. Not circumstance, me. Not other (exterior) causes, me. Not learning, me. Not experience, me. I utilize my learning and experience, I analyse exterior inputs and circumstances, and I generate an output. I do that. I generate it. Me. Not my learning, not my experience, not exterior inputs, not circumstance. Me.

By the way, there is no such thing as "the same set of circumstances"; circumstances cannot happen more than once. They are unique for each moment of time. The very nature of time guarantees this.

Is not the idea simply encoded in the physical state of the brain, however?
Then what decodes it?

You're the one who pointed to a link that mentioned 'blind cause and effect.' :)

You still have not explained "nature and nuture," though I've asked a few times. Evidently there is some list...

I've answered several times. Nature generally describes how you're born what faculties are a direct result of that birth (like skin color, hair color, genetic deficiencies, even instincts, etc.). Nurture describes the some of the affect of the world on you, experiences, knowledge, etc. I've answered this several times. The list I referred to is the list of genetic influences and experiences.

Yes, I exist because I think: I think, therefore I am. This has implications" What is this "I"? It is a symbol we use to mentally define our "self," properly acknowledged as the centre of conscious being in our body, which is in turn centred in the universe as an individual. I am the evidence of my being; to deny consciousness, while using consciousness to deny it, is illogical.

Who's denying consciousness? Not me. Not Determinism.

Will is not choice, this a common mistake; rather, we will choices. Choices are evidence of will.

Great, you used two different versions of a word and acted like someone said they were equal. The first use referenced the power of choosing and the second referenced an act of choosing, the result of choosing. Willing a choice is choosing. Will in your first use references the power of willing. Will in the second choice means to make happen as a result of desire. So basically you just wrote a proof that will is choice. Nice.

Yes, I am built in a certain way that causes me to make choices! You are correct. The way I am built is that I have a consciousness, a will, and a desire to act on that will, and that is what allows me (note, me) to make things happen. Not circumstance, me. Not other (exterior) causes, me. Not learning, me. Not experience, me. I utilize my learning and experience, I analyse exterior inputs and circumstances, and I generate an output. I do that. I generate it. Me. Not my learning, not my experience, not exterior inputs, not circumstance. Me.

Ha. Define me.

And I think you'll find that every "not" you just said was totally false. Everything you listed is a factor and the only other factor that can be included is genetics.

By the way, there is no such thing as "the same set of circumstances"; circumstances cannot happen more than once. They are unique for each moment of time. The very nature of time guarantees this.
Way to avoid the point, however you've just defined why in a Deterministic universe the self exists and is completely unique. Consciousness exists. Free will exists.

Then what decodes it?

The brain. Much like a program is housed in a computer and a computer decodes it.

The brain. Much like a program is housed in a computer and a computer decodes it.
No, I meant, what is the agent of decoding it? Is it my brain doing it, or is it me doing it? If you say they are equivalent, then I say you really don't believe in a "me" at all. Even the grammar of our language makes a clear distinction between me and something that is mine.

I've answered several times. Nature generally describes how you're born what faculties are a direct result of that birth (like skin color, hair color, genetic deficiencies, even instincts, etc.). Nurture describes the some of the affect of the world on you, experiences, knowledge, etc. I've answered this several times. The list I referred to is the list of genetic influences and experiences.
My bad. This is the first time I've seen it. I guess I wasn't paying attention. I'd noticed you reference them many times, but never explain.

Minor point: skin colour, hair colour, genetic deficiencies, etc. are not faculties. Faculties (I assume you mean in the context of "an inherent ability") are abilities, not characteristics or traits. Instinct is a faculty, though, in that sense.

Who's denying consciousness? Not me. Not Determinism.
By suggesting that circumstance is responsible for the choices we make, determinism removes the function of, and in fact the necessity for, a consciousness; so effectively, with this outlook, there is no consciousness in the picture. If there was a consciousness, it would be actively willing, and *we would* be making our choices.

Either the choice is a conscious choice, or it was made by circumstances beyond our control (cause and effect).

Great, you used two different versions of a word and acted like someone said they were equal. The first use referenced the power of choosing and the second referenced an act of choosing, the result of choosing. Willing a choice is choosing. Will in your first use references the power of willing. Will in the second choice means to make happen as a result of desire. So basically you just wrote a proof that will is choice. Nice.
The context of the word changes, the agent doesn't. Someone who wills has will. The result of willing is evidence of will, but not will itself. As verbs, or as nouns, "will" and "choice" are separate, dinstinct words with different but related meaning.

Ha. Define me.
I did. What is this "I"? It is a symbol we use to mentally define our "self," properly acknowledged as the centre of conscious being in our body, which is in turn centred in the universe as an individual. I am the evidence of my being; to deny consciousness, while using consciousness to deny it, is illogical.

And I think you'll find that every "not" you just said was totally false. Everything you listed is a factor and the only other factor that can be included is genetics.
Then you deny the "self," you deny "me." If these other things are causing choices, then I am not, and those choices are not conscious choices. It's okay, lots of people do deny self, and if the philosophy works for you, power to you. It just gives me the right to snicker whenever you say, "I did it." ;)

Way to avoid the point, however you've just defined why in a Deterministic universe the self exists and is completely unique. Consciousness exists. Free will exists.
I would say rather that the body exists in a deterministic universe. This is true. The universe and the body are both objective to the self. Determinism does not operate to determine the subjective view of that universe.

My bad. This is the first time I've seen it. I guess I wasn't paying attention. I'd noticed you reference them many times, but never explain.

Minor point: skin colour, hair colour, genetic deficiencies, etc. are not faculties. Faculties (I assume you mean in the context of "an inherent ability") are abilities, not characteristics or traits. Instinct is a faculty, though, in that sense.

By suggesting that circumstance is responsible for the choices we make, determinism removes the function of, and in fact the necessity for, a consciousness; so effectively, with this outlook, there is no consciousness in the picture. If there was a consciousness, it would be actively willing, and *we would* be making our choices.

Strawman. "I say you are denying consciousness so I can call you illogical." Consciousness is self-awareness, the ability to think and have ideas, and determinism places no value on this or takes any away. Burn, strawman, burn.

Either the choice is a conscious choice, or it was made by circumstances beyond our control (cause and effect).

False. That is made up by you.

The context of the word changes, the agent doesn't. Someone who wills has will. The result of willing is evidence of will, but not will itself. As verbs, or as nouns, "will" and "choice" are separate, dinstinct words with different but related meaning.

Will and choice as you used them in your first sentence had very similar meanings. Seriously, I'd drop this argument if I were you. It's silly and inaccurate.

I did. What is this "I"? It is a symbol we use to mentally define our "self," properly acknowledged as the centre of conscious being in our body, which is in turn centred in the universe as an individual. I am the evidence of my being; to deny consciousness, while using consciousness to deny it, is illogical.

Determinism does not deny consciousness, the self, the me, in any way shape or form. Thank you for proving it.

Then you deny the "self," you deny "me." If these other things are causing choices, then I am not, and those choices are not conscious choices. It's okay, lots of people do deny self, and if the philosophy works for you, power to you. It just gives me the right to snicker whenever you say, "I did it." ;)

Strawman.

I would say rather that the body exists in a deterministic universe. This is true. The universe and the body are both objective to the self. Determinism does not operate to determine the subjective view of that universe.

Since everything in the mind can be explained through natural acts, where is the evidence of this supernatural mind? You've decided that consciousness and the self are supernatural and thus determinism violates them, but supernatural is not a basic part of either consciousness or the self. I have ever denied the existence of consciousness or the self. I've denied your made-up definition of it. You may be surprised by this, but I'm not, and Determinism is not, required to hold to your 'supernatural self' theory.

No, I meant, what is the agent of decoding it? Is it my brain doing it, or is it me doing it? If you say they are equivalent, then I say you really don't believe in a "me" at all. Even the grammar of our language makes a clear distinction between me and something that is mine.

Grammar makes distinctions about the parts of you, just like it makes distinctions about the parts of the brain. The brain's cerebral cortex. You isn't just your brain, it's the entirety of your body and all that's stored within it. Your emotions, chemical processes, are part of you. Your thoughts, chemical and electrical processes, are part of you. Your spleen, part of you.

The agent of decoding a thought is the brain which houses all of the ideas and experiences and abilities that make up your consciousness, you.

Is it my brain doing it, or is it me doing it?... Even the grammar of our language makes a clear distinction between me and something that is mine.
Grammar makes distinctions about the parts of you, just like it makes distinctions about the parts of the brain. The brain's cerebral cortex. You isn't just your brain, it's the entirety of your body and all that's stored within it. Your emotions, chemical processes, are part of you. Your thoughts, chemical and electrical processes, are part of you. Your spleen, part of you.
"Grammar makes distinctions about the parts of the brain" makes no sense: I was talking about the context of "me" and "mine" within sentences.

All those parts of the body are mine, and my mind is mine. And yes, we identify with our bodies as well as our minds. (I was, however, restricting myself to defining myself in terms of consciousness, since that is the sticking point between us.) The body is real, the mind is not. Physical reality can be determined by my being able to take parts of my body out and examine them; I cannot remove and examine my mind. It exists conceptually.

Perhaps this is better worded: The conscious "me" has a subjective perspective on the world. The difference in grammar is a matter of perspective: subjective and objective. From the subjective perspective, I am "me," but when I claim something as "mine" (as *belonging to me*) then I create an agent called "me", who owns things, who is apart from the things that belong to it. The parts of the body that are "mine" are objective to me; this means there is a me that is not one of the parts of my body. This thing, this me, is symbolic.

From the subjective perspective, we cause things to happen. We are the cause of things, not circumstance. From an objective perspective, our bodies are subject to cause-and-effect.

The agent of decoding a thought is the brain which houses all of the ideas and experiences and abilities that make up your consciousness, you.
The brain houses electrical impulses and chemical reactions; it does not directly house the things that can be defined as ideas, imaginings, concepts, etc. ("mental entities" in philosophy). If it did, we could hook up electrodes to our brain and watch memories occur, or read minds.

Strawman. "I say you are denying consciousness so I can call you illogical." Consciousness is self-awareness, the ability to think and have ideas, and determinism places no value on this or takes any away. Burn, strawman, burn.
Okay, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement of what "awareness" is, so I'll just leave that alone.

Either the choice is a conscious choice, or it was made by circumstances beyond our control (cause and effect).
False. That is made up by you.
Sorry, I can't take credit for it. :) It's a natural conclusion that others far more learned than I have come to. It is based on an understanding of an "agent" in philosophical terminology. Perhaps that is where I fail to explain myself properly.

Will and choice as you used them in your first sentence had very similar meanings. Seriously, I'd drop this argument if I were you. It's silly and inaccurate.
I'm happy to drop it, but not because of any incorrectness.

Determinism does not deny consciousness, the self, the me, in any way shape or form. Thank you for proving it.
Okay... I'm not sure what I proved, though.

Strawman.
Again, there seems to be confusion on your part about what an "agent" is. See my previous post.

Since everything in the mind can be explained through natural acts, where is the evidence of this supernatural mind? You've decided that consciousness and the self are supernatural and thus determinism violates them, but supernatural is not a basic part of either consciousness or the self. I have ever denied the existence of consciousness or the self. I've denied your made-up definition of it. You may be surprised by this, but I'm not, and Determinism is not, required to hold to your 'supernatural self' theory.
I give up.

Maybe we can tackle it again another day.

(I'm sorry, Alien Born. Now I know what I did to you.)

"Grammar makes distinctions about the parts of the brain" makes no sense: I was talking about the context of "me" and "mine" within sentences.

Yes and you were suggesting that you and your brain are seperate because it's 'your' brain as evidenced by the grammar. I was pointing out that it offers the same 'seperation' between the brain and the cerebral cortex. 'Your' brain. The brain's cerebral cortex. Suggesting that the 'you' and the brain are not integrated is the same as saying the cerebral cortex is not integrated in the brain.

All those parts of the body are mine, and my mind is mine. And yes, we identify with our bodies as well as our minds. (I was, however, restricting myself to defining myself in terms of consciousness, since that is the sticking point between us.) The body is real, the mind is not. Physical reality can be determined by my being able to take parts of my body out and examine them; I cannot remove and examine my mind. It exists conceptually.

I beg to differ. The mind is real. It is not something that exists above the natural. You also can't remove and examine feelings but this doesn't mean they aren't just chemical processes. It's proven that with a particular release of a chemical within your body you WILL experience a feeling, whether you WILL it to happen or not. A car can have a smooth ride. I can't remove the ride from a car but it doesn't mean it doesn't describe a natural process.

Perhaps this is better worded: The conscious "me" has a subjective perspective on the world. The difference in grammar is a matter of perspective: subjective and objective. From the subjective perspective, I am "me," but when I claim something as "mine" (as *belonging to me*) then I create an agent called "me", who owns things, who is apart from the things that belong to it. The parts of the body that are "mine" are objective to me; this means there is a me that is not one of the parts of my body. This thing, this me, is symbolic.

Again, so the it's the brain's cerebral cortex. The brain must somehow be apart from the cerebral cortex according to your argument. Except we both know this doesn't make sense. Language isn't really proving your point for you. Perhaps you'd like to try another tactic.

From the subjective perspective, we cause things to happen. We are the cause of things, not circumstance. From an objective perspective, our bodies are subject to cause-and-effect.

WE are the cause of things. And WE are the summary of nature and nurture.

The brain houses electrical impulses and chemical reactions; it does not directly house the things that can be defined as ideas, imaginings, concepts, etc. ("mental entities" in philosophy). If it did, we could hook up electrodes to our brain and watch memories occur, or read minds.

We can't yet. Our inability to translate complex activities does not suggest they cannot be translated. We also can't accurately model how weather will play out because it's too complex, but this doesn't mean it's supernatural.

"Grammar makes distinctions about the parts of the brain" makes no sense: I was talking about the context of "me" and "mine" within sentences.

All those parts of the body are mine, and my mind is mine. And yes, we identify with our bodies as well as our minds. (I was, however, restricting myself to defining myself in terms of consciousness, since that is the sticking point between us.) The body is real, the mind is not. Physical reality can be determined by my being able to take parts of my body out and examine them; I cannot remove and examine my mind. It exists conceptually.
Well, this is a very common, false distinction. "You" are the sum total of your physical body. You're not some invisible pilot, sitting someplace behind your eyes... that's a fiction created by the particular layout of our sensory organs. Yes, your body is "yours", but it is also "you".

Perhaps this is better worded: The conscious "me" has a subjective perspective on the world. The difference in grammar is a matter of perspective: subjective and objective.
There are no objective viewpoints, it's an impossibility.

From the subjective perspective, I am "me," but when I claim something as "mine" (as *belonging to me*) then I create an agent called "me", who owns things, who is apart from the things that belong to it. The parts of the body that are "mine" are objective to me; this means there is a me that is not one of the parts of my body. This thing, this me, is symbolic.
Do you not "own" your own self, your own consciousness?

Your mind is never separate from your body, ever; your mind and body are all one organism, one living thing. I agree that consciousness is an informational process, but the information must be encoded in a physical system of some sort, otherwise it doesn't exist.

The brain houses electrical impulses and chemical reactions; it does not directly house the things that can be defined as ideas, imaginings, concepts, etc. ("mental entities" in philosophy). If it did, we could hook up electrodes to our brain and watch memories occur, or read minds.
We're already working on that. We can observe the operation of the brain as thoughts and feelings progress. We're far from mastering this, certainly, but just because we don't yet know how something works in its entirety, doesn't mean that it's inherently supernatural. If the mind were independant of physical reality, then things like amnesia wouldn't exist.

Edit: Darn it, Jocabia! Stop replying more eloquently (and faster) than me! :D

Okay, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement of what "awareness" is, so I'll just leave that alone.

Fair enough.

Sorry, I can't take credit for it. :) It's a natural conclusion that others far more learned than I have come to. It is based on an understanding of an "agent" in philosophical terminology. Perhaps that is where I fail to explain myself properly.

"Natural conclusion"? Ha. I love it when people pretend like their conclusion is the only reasonable one, because it's the "natural conclusion".

"Can you explain why you believe this?"
"It's the natural conclusion"
"So you won't explain it?"
"I did. It's the natural conclusion."

Nice dismissal of my arguments., but I'm not falling for logical fallacies. Defend it or expect it to be dismissed.

Again, there seems to be confusion on your part about what an "agent" is. See my previous post.

No, there isn't. We disagree on the definition. Another logical fallacy, "you disagree with me and it can only mean you're confused." You've added an aspect to theory that is unnecessary in the explanation of thought and that is a supernatural component. Much like the existence of God, none of the arguments you've made can be supported by science.

I give up.

Probably best.

Yes and you were suggesting that you and your brain are seperate because it's 'your' brain as evidenced by the grammar. I was pointing out that it offers the same 'seperation' between the brain and the cerebral cortex. 'Your' brain. The brain's cerebral cortex. Suggesting that the 'you' and the brain are not integrated is the same as saying the cerebral cortex is not integrated in the brain.
They are separate in the context of being distinct things. They are not separable in the context of both of them being real and able to come apart. They are integral; one cannot exist without the other.
EDIT: I should more properly say that the mind cannot exist without the brain, as obviously the brain can exist without the mind, in death.

I beg to differ. The mind is real. It is not something that exists above the natural. You also can't remove and examine feelings but this doesn't mean they aren't just chemical processes. It's proven that with a particular release of a chemical within your body you WILL experience a feeling, whether you WILL it to happen or not. A car can have a smooth ride. I can't remove the ride from a car but it doesn't mean it doesn't describe a natural process.
When we say a car "has a smooth ride," we are creating a metaphor. The "smooth ride" that the car "has" is a symbol of what we will experience when we get into and drive that car. The natural process it describes is the smooth functioning of the car from the perspective of those who will ride in it.

The mind is similiarly symbolic. It is a metaphor that we are living, everyday, created by our faculty of imagination. And it is understood in the language of metaphor:
I hear the drizzle of the rain.
Like a memory it falls,
soft and warm, continuing,
tapping on my roof and walls.

And from the shelter of my mind,
through the window of my eyes,
I gaze beyond the rain-drenched streets
to England, where my heart lies.

Kathy's Song, Simon and Garfunkle

Again, so the it's the brain's cerebral cortex. The brain must somehow be apart from the cerebral cortex according to your argument. Except we both know this doesn't make sense. Language isn't really proving your point for you. Perhaps you'd like to try another tactic.
The self we are speaking of is a concept in our minds of "self" distinct from the world around us. It is not physically separate. It exists in the "shelter" in the above song, and everything that goes on in the world (including in our bodies) happens objectively to it. It makes perfect sense to me, and is necessary in order to fully understand your religion (Christianity), so I do hope you understand it someday.

WE are the cause of things. And WE are the summary of nature and nurture.
No argument there. I am only saying that nature and nurture are not the cause of things, as you'd suggested; we are. It would seem you actually agree with me.

We can't yet. Our inability to translate complex activities does not suggest they cannot be translated. We also can't accurately model how weather will play out because it's too complex, but this doesn't mean it's supernatural.
No, you are correct: complexity does not equate to something being supernatural.

"Natural conclusion"? Ha. I love it when people pretend like their conclusion is the only reasonable one, because it's the "natural conclusion".

"Can you explain why you believe this?"
"It's the natural conclusion"
"So you won't explain it?"
"I did. It's the natural conclusion."

Nice dismissal of my arguments., but I'm not falling for logical fallacies. Defend it or expect it to be dismissed.
I did; and you dismissed my defense because you didn't understand it. :D

No, there isn't. We disagree on the definition. Another logical fallacy, "you disagree with me and it can only mean you're confused." You've added an aspect to theory that is unnecessary in the explanation of thought and that is a supernatural component. Much like the existence of God, none of the arguments you've made can be supported by science.
Would that be because we are talking philosophy, not science?

It's not me you are disagreeing with in terms of definition, but the philosophy of Metaphysics. I am simply explaining it to you.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_MentalEntities.html

Would that be because we are talking philosophy, not science?

It's not me you are disagreeing with in terms of definition, but the philosophy of Metaphysics. I am simply explaining it to you.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_MentalEntities.html

Yes, but you're suggesting that science supports you which isn't true. It's like saying science can prove God or demonstrate a gap in explanation that necessitates God, which will NEVER happen. You're explanations have done nothing as far as proofs. They've only shown generally a misunderstanding or misuse of science, like arguments about the complex structure of organisms being unexplainable by evolution and thus necessitating God.

Yes, but you're suggesting that science supports you which isn't true. It's like saying science can prove God or demonstrate a gap in explanation that necessitates God, which will NEVER happen. You're explanations have done nothing as far as proofs. They've only shown generally a misunderstanding or misuse of science, like arguments about the complex structure of organisms being unexplainable by evolution and thus necessitating God.
I'm sorry? I don't know where I suggested that science "supports" me. Science deals with nature, not philosophy. We are discussing a philosophy: Determinism.

They are separate in the context of being distinct things. They are not separable in the context of both of them being real and able to come apart. They are integral; one cannot exist without the other.
EDIT: I should more properly say that the mind cannot exist without the brain, as obviously the brain can exist without the mind, in death.

We know the difference between life and death and it's not supernatural. Does a cell have a mind? Otherwise what is the difference between a dead cell and a live one? A lack of understanding of the scientific process does not prove a supernatural one. Hey, it's raining... God must be crying.

When we say a car "has a smooth ride," we are creating a metaphor. The "smooth ride" that the car "has" is a symbol of what we will experience when we get into and drive that car. The natural process it describes is the smooth functioning of the car from the perspective of those who will ride in it.

That's not a metaphor. It's not a symbol. You experience a ride in a car and it can be smooth or rough, or anything in between. A ride is a description of the process of being in the car while it moves you from place to place. The 'mind' is a similar description of the processes of the brain, but it is not seperate (as you claimed it was) which is why it can't be seperated. And, yes, a brain that no longer works no longer has the descriptor 'mind', much like a car that no longer works no longer has the descriptor 'ride'.

The mind is similiarly symbolic. It is a metaphor that we are living, everyday, created by our faculty of imagination. And it is understood in the language of metaphor:
I hear the drizzle of the rain.
Like a memory it falls,
soft and warm, continuing,
tapping on my roof and walls.

And from the shelter of my mind,
through the window of my eyes,
I gaze beyond the rain-drenched streets
to England, where my heart lies.

Kathy's Song, Simon and Garfunkle

Please look up metaphor. This is a sorry misuse of the word. Mind is a word. Word are sympbols for physical things, processes or concepts. In this case, mind is word summarizing the conscious (meaning processes that are aware of themselves) processes of the brain.

The self we are speaking of is a concept in our minds of "self" distinct from the world around us. It is not physically separate. It exists in the "shelter" in the above song, and everything that goes on in the world (including in our bodies) happens objectively to it. It makes perfect sense to me, and is necessary in order to fully understand your religion (Christianity), so I do hope you understand it someday.

I totally understand my religion. It supports a deterministic universe (with the obvious exception that miracles and only miracles violate determinism) since it's already known what the results are going to be. It does not disagree with me that your decision-making abilities do not create a random outcome (which is the only possible violation of Determinism).

No argument there. I am only saying that nature and nurture are not the cause of things, as you'd suggested; we are. It would seem you actually agree with me.

WE are a result of nature and nurture, each person is a unique result of nature and nurture, and ONLY nature and nurture. If you're saying nature and nurture are the inputs that Determine the output then we are in agreement.

No, you are correct: complexity does not equate to something being supernatural.

Glad you agree. Care to try a different argument.

Well, this is a very common, false distinction. "You" are the sum total of your physical body. You're not some invisible pilot, sitting someplace behind your eyes... that's a fiction created by the particular layout of our sensory organs. Yes, your body is "yours", but it is also "you".
Yes! Thank you; it is not real, it is symbolic. This is what I've been saying all along. It is not "fiction," as that would involve plot and story-line. It is philosophy.

There are no objective viewpoints, it's an impossibility.
Yes, in reality. That's why we abstract one. We abstract the objective viewpoint, as if looking back at us, or down at us, and including us along with everything else in the world, in order to look at ourselves with everything else, equally. It is a mental process we use to objectify things.

Do you not "own" your own self, your own consciousness?
No. Consciousness is the "self" that does the owning. I own my mind, and my heart, and my soul, and my body, but the thing that is the consciousness is that agent of ownership. It is the self-awareness, which can be aware of its mind, of its heart, its soul and its body, but it cannot be aware of itself.

Your mind is never separate from your body, ever; your mind and body are all one organism, one living thing. I agree that consciousness is an informational process, but the information must be encoded in a physical system of some sort, otherwise it doesn't exist.
Right, the mind is never actually separate from the body, ever; but it is not physical, organic. It is symbolic in nature, something we have abstracted that is not real. We have symbolized the electrical impulses on the brain; that is how we understand them. That is how we *have* a concept of understanding at all.

That we have a faculty of consciousness allows us to gather experiential information. What is encoded is "information", not consciousness. It is encoded on a physical system, and the mind is the symbolic system we have created, the "fictional" world of symbolism we have created, to interpret that information. Language is symbolism. Imagination is understood as symbolism. Thought, what we think, is also symbolism. We live in this world of symbolism as much as we do in the physical world (that is a metaphorical statement).

I dislike the software analogy. If the analogy holds, the consciousness is not a program that processes and stores information --that would be the faculties of the mind and body; and it's not the operating system --that would be the mind/brain. It would be the computer's awareness that it has an operating system, programs running, and physical hardware gathering dust.

We're already working on that. We can observe the operation of the brain as thoughts and feelings progress. We're far from mastering this, certainly, but just because we don't yet know how something works in its entirety, doesn't mean that it's inherently supernatural. If the mind were independant of physical reality, then things like amnesia wouldn't exist.
We can observe the operation of the brain as thoughts and feelings progress; but, we still need an agent to tell us what we are observing means.

We know the difference between life and death and it's not supernatural. Does a cell have a mind? Otherwise what is the difference between a dead cell and a live one? A lack of understanding of the scientific process does not prove a supernatural one. Hey, it's raining... God must be crying.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. I never suggested that life is supernatural. I suggested that the mind is. While it's true that we have a mind while we live, that does not equate mind with life.

I cannot say whether a "cell has a mind," or even that you do; I can only say that I do. That is the only truthful statement I can make regarding that.

That's not a metaphor. It's not a symbol. You experience a ride in a car and it can be smooth or rough, or anything in between. A ride is a description of the process of being in the car while it moves you from place to place. The 'mind' is a similar description of the processes of the brain, but it is not seperate (as you claimed it was) which is why it can't be seperated. And, yes, a brain that no longer works no longer has the descriptor 'mind', much like a car that no longer works no longer has the descriptor 'ride'.
"A car can have a smooth ride," is worded metaphorically. You describe "having a ride" quite well. Having a ride is being in the car, riding; so I ask, if "the car is having a smooth ride", how is it that the car can ride in itself? The answer is that you have unwittingly employed metaphor in your language, and quite well, too.

I did not claim the mind was separate from the brain; I claimed it was a separate thing from the brain. Again, this means it is a distinct thing, not that it is physically seperate. It cannot be seperated except conceptually.

Please look up metaphor. This is a sorry misuse of the word. Mind is a word. Word are sympbols for physical things, processes or concepts. In this case, mind is word summarizing the conscious (meaning processes that are aware of themselves) processes of the brain.
Please, don't insult me. The song is full of metaphor. The rain symbolizes sad feelings and tears. The place of shelter is a metaphor of the mind. The whole song is a metaphor, as, while it is a description of being in England, he is expressing something other than being in England through the song. He is expressing looking out from his heart at a sad and lonely life.

I totally understand my religion. It supports a deterministic universe (with the obvious exception that miracles and only miracles violate determinism) since it's already known what the results are going to be. It does not disagree with me that your decision-making abilities do not create a random outcome (which is the only possible violation of Determinism).
I might address this in another post, back on the religion topic, if I have time this weekend. You are correct, though, that your view of the world closely fits with your view of your religion, so much so as to justify your stance.

WE are a result of nature and nurture, each person is a unique result of nature and nurture, and ONLY nature and nurture. If you're saying nature and nurture are the inputs that Determine the output then we are in agreement.
No, I'm just saying that I make the choice, not my inputs. The choice is a step between input and output.

Glad you agree. Care to try a different argument.
Well, I might if that had been my argument at all.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. I never suggested that life is supernatural. I suggested that the mind is. While it's true that we have a mind while we live, that does not equate mind with life.

I cannot say whether a "cell has a mind," or even that you do; I can only say that I do. That is the only truthful statement I can make regarding that.

You suggested that the fact a mind is missing from the dead brain suggests it's supernatural. Except as a mind describes the natural processes of the brain and the processes cease upon death.


"A car can have a smooth ride," is worded metaphorically.

Um, no it isn't. Again please look up metaphor. It's a description of the actually type of ride one experiences in the car.

You describe "having a ride" quite well. Having a ride is being in the car, riding; so I ask, if "the car is having a smooth ride", how is it that the car can ride in itself? The answer is that you have unwittingly employed metaphor in your language, and quite well, too.

You're changing the use of the word. Nice try. When driven the car offers a smooth ride, much like it can have comfortable seats (yes, the car never experiences the comfort of the seats).

I did not claim the mind was separate from the brain; I claimed it was a separate thing from the brain. Again, this means it is a distinct thing, not that it is physically seperate. It cannot be seperated except conceptually.

I said it was housed within the brain. You said it wasn't. Apparently you've changed your mind. I'm glad you've come to your senses.

Please, don't insult me. The song is full of metaphor. The rain symbolizes sad feelings and tears. The place of shelter is a metaphor of the mind. The whole song is a metaphor, as, while it is a description of being in England, he is expressing something other than being in England through the song. He is expressing looking out from his heart at a sad and lonely life.

I wasn't talking about the song. Please follow along. You called the mind a metaphor and the ride of a car. Neither are metaphors. They are descriptive terms. See, here's what I was replying to below.

The mind is similiarly symbolic. It is a metaphor that we are living, everyday, created by our faculty of imagination.

The mind is not a metaphor. What you said was. Do you know the difference?

I might address this in another post, back on the religion topic, if I have time this weekend. You are correct, though, that your view of the world closely fits with your view of your religion, so much so as to justify your stance.

Ha. I love how you try to 'prove' your arguments. You are attacking MY beliefs and MY philosophy all the while admitting you know little about both. It's a litte presumptuous and quite amusing. Maybe next you'll tell me if my knee hurts.

No, I'm just saying that I make the choice, not my inputs. The choice is a step between input and output.

Yes, YOU do. We agree. What we disagree on is the definition of 'I'. Your definition is supernatural and mine is natural. You keep acting like I'm saying something different to prove me wrong. It was a strawman the first time, it still is.

Well, I might if that had been my argument at all.

Really? Let's look at the following statement and see?

The brain houses electrical impulses and chemical reactions; it does not directly house the things that can be defined as ideas, imaginings, concepts, etc. ("mental entities" in philosophy). If it did, we could hook up electrodes to our brain and watch memories occur, or read minds.

Care to reword?

I'm sorry? I don't know where I suggested that science "supports" me. Science deals with nature, not philosophy. We are discussing a philosophy: Determinism.

The brain houses electrical impulses and chemical reactions; it does not directly house the things that can be defined as ideas, imaginings, concepts, etc. ("mental entities" in philosophy). If it did, we could hook up electrodes to our brain and watch memories occur, or read minds.

Again, care to reword. Take your time. I'll wait.

Again, care to reword. Take your time. I'll wait.
Um, no; since I specifically said that these things are not real.

Um, no; since I specifically said that these things are not real.

And you suggested science proves it. Perhaps you'd like to reword.

And you suggested science proves it. Perhaps you'd like to reword.
You have a very strange idea of what constitutes science and what constitutes proof.

I'll make this really easy. You are trying to prove that Determinism and Free Will can't exist. But you can't seem to make any headway at proving or logically supporting that theorem without forcing Determinism to subscribe to your narrow definition of Free Will (as being resultant of a supernatural process). Here's the thing. You can't show that Free Will and Determinism cannot coexist unless you prove it according to the tenets of Determinism, not according to the tenets of your own personal beliefs. It's like saying my views of God are negated if you disprove your version of God does not exist. It's not logical.

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes science and what constitutes proof.

So you didn't suggest that since science cannot (yet) show what thoughts are being had by the brain through technology that this is evidence that thoughts are supernatural? I would call that suggesting science proves your theories. Perhaps you're right though. Perhaps talking about using electrodes to read the processes of the brain isn't referencing science. I could be confused about such things I suppose.

If a gene for sexuality exists, geneticists would have isolated by now. I'm not using science to argue about sexuality though, so don't be silly. I don't why anyone would think I'm using science to argue about sexuality.

You suggested that the fact a mind is missing from the dead brain suggests it's supernatural. Except as a mind describes the natural processes of the brain and the processes cease upon death.
Haha. I did not say that the fact that the mind ceases to exist when the flesh dies is what makes it supernatural. I said no such thing. What I did say was, "I should more properly say that the mind cannot exist without the brain, as obviously the brain can exist without the mind, in death." Even by your definition, there, the mind, which is the processes, ceases to exist.

No; what makes the mind supernatural is that it is an unreal thing.

Um, no it isn't. Again please look up metaphor. It's a description of the actually type of ride one experiences in the car.

You're changing the use of the word. Nice try. When driven the car offers a smooth ride, much like it can have comfortable seats (yes, the car never experiences the comfort of the seats).
I know what a metaphor is. Give me an example of what you think a metaphor is, then.

I said it was housed within the brain. You said it wasn't. Apparently you've changed your mind. I'm glad you've come to your senses.
I have not changed my mind. I have said all along that the mind is conceptual, but you seemed to object. Concepts are not real. The "housing" they do is a metaphor, which is necessary when trying to describe the symbolic nature of the mind.

I wasn't talking about the song. Please follow along. You called the mind a metaphor and the ride of a car. Neither are metaphors. They are descriptive terms. See, here's what I was replying to below.
The mind is similiarly symbolic. It is a metaphor that we are living, everyday, created by our faculty of imagination.
The mind is not a metaphor. What you said was. Do you know the difference?
Ah! That part. The "living metaphor" I spoke of is that our mind, conceptual as it is, symbolises the processes of the brain from a subjective perspective.

Ha. I love how you try to 'prove' your arguments. You are attacking MY beliefs and MY philosophy all the while admitting you know little about both. It's a litte presumptuous and quite amusing. Maybe next you'll tell me if my knee hurts.
I'm not trying to prove anything. :) I am offering up demonstrations of my way of thinking (philosophy) to as to try to explain it in a way you might understand. I repeat, I am not trying to prove anything.

I was not attacking your beliefs. In fact, I was trying to a bit encouraging, to demonstrate that, although you have difficulty seeing things via my philosophy, I do see how things work for you via your philosophy. I repeat, I was not atacking your beliefs.

Yes, YOU do. We agree. What we disagree on is the definition of 'I'. Your definition is supernatural and mine is natural. You keep acting like I'm saying something different to prove me wrong. It was a strawman the first time, it still is.
Granted, we disagree on "I". We also disagree on what "supernatural" is, what "symbolic" is, what a "metaphor" is, and what constitutes "proof." :)

Really? Let's look at the following statement and see?

Care to reword?
I think you're a little confused, here, as this part of the conversation was about complexity, like so...
We can't yet. Our inability to translate complex activities does not suggest they cannot be translated. We also can't accurately model how weather will play out because it's too complex, but this doesn't mean it's supernatural.
No, you are correct: complexity does not equate to something being supernatural.
Glad you agree. Care to try a different argument.
Well, I might if that had been my argument at all.
You were the one who suggested "that our inability to translate complexity means something is supernatural" was my argument; it was not.

So you didn't suggest that since science cannot (yet) show what thoughts are being had by the brain through technology that this is evidence that thoughts are supernatural? I would call that suggesting science proves your theories. Perhaps you're right though. Perhaps talking about using electrodes to read the processes of the brain isn't referencing science. I could be confused about such things I suppose.

If a gene for sexuality exists, geneticists would have isolated by now. I'm not using science to argue about sexuality though, so don't be silly. I don't why anyone would think I'm using science to argue about sexuality.
Rest assured that that would not constitute proof of my philosophy.

I'll make this really easy. You are trying to prove that Determinism and Free Will can't exist. But you can't seem to make any headway at proving or logically supporting that theorem without forcing Determinism to subscribe to your narrow definition of Free Will (as being resultant of a supernatural process). Here's the thing. You can't show that Free Will and Determinism cannot coexist unless you prove it according to the tenets of Determinism, not according to the tenets of your own personal beliefs. It's like saying my views of God are negated if you disprove your version of God does not exist. It's not logical.
No. The two philosophies are contradictory, unless you adopt a compromise position that allows for both.

I don't have to "prove" it, because better minds than I already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Philosophy_of_determinism). Under Determinism, it says on that link, free will becomes an illusion.

I make no headway because of our radically different views on some key concepts. Frankly, at this point, I'm not even sure you know what a concept is, as I understand it.

No. The two philosophies are contradictory, unless you adopt a compromise position that allows for both.

False. Except you don't know it's false because you're too lazy to read about it anywhere except Wikipedia. And with all your brilliance, you couldn't even remotely show them to be contradictory, unless you force people to hold to some supernatural definition of Free Will, which certainly is not the standard definition. It's like arguing that feminists believe in creating a matriarchy so you can dismiss them. It's called a strawman. You can also find that on Wikipedia, I think.

I don't have to "prove" it, because better minds than I already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Philosophy_of_determinism). Under Determinism, it says on that link, free will becomes an illusion.

Yes, because Wikipedia is the source to beat all sources. Pick up a book, please. I linked to sources earlier in this discussion that point out the basic question of whether that's accurate or not. The source I linked to listed dozens of books on the topic. It's been a topic of debate for millenia and is not yet settled. Wikipedia certainly doesn't settle it.

I make no headway because of our radically different views on some key concepts. Frankly, at this point, I'm not even sure you know what a concept is, as I understand it.
Ha. So you insult me in an attempt to make your point. You admit you don't know ANYTHING about Determinism and you argue from that platform. Now, me, I would probably bow out when the conversation exceeded my knowledge, but not all are so graceful. Again, get out there and READ about it. You'll find that Free Will is not a part of Determinism and it is large point of debate whether Free Will becomes an illusion or not. I hold that it doesn't which puts me along side at least dozens of accredited philosphers that have discussed Determinism. To be fair, dozens of accredited philosophers hold your position as well, except theirs is based on a deep understanding of the subject and not just a passing knowledge of the two words. I haven't compromised Determinism and have used a perfectly acceptable definition of Free Will. Unless you can show me how your CONCEPT of Free Will being 'supernatural' is the only non-compromise version of it, I'll just have to call you out at that one, my friend.

You're the one who pointed to a link that mentioned 'blind cause and effect.' :)

Actually, I provided a link to "'blind' cause and effect". The link specifically suggested that cause and effect being considered 'blind' is mainly by people trying to argue Determinism negates Free Will. Since I don't hold that position, I don't consider it to be blind. I believe that a rational agent (caused nature and nurture) can be the cause for an effect. This is hardly blind. You should read more carefully since the link put quotes around 'blind' indicating the use of the word is spurious.

False. Except you don't know it's false because you're too lazy to read about it anywhere except Wikipedia. And with all your brilliance, you couldn't even remotely show them to be contradictory, unless you force people to hold to some supernatural definition of Free Will, which certainly is not the standard definition. It's like arguing that feminists believe in creating a matriarchy so you can dismiss them. It's called a strawman. You can also find that on Wikipedia, I think.

Yes, because Wikipedia is the source to beat all sources. Pick up a book, please. I linked to sources earlier in this discussion that point out the basic question of whether that's accurate or not. The source I linked to listed dozens of books on the topic. It's been a topic of debate for millenia and is not yet settled. Wikipedia certainly doesn't settle it.

Ha. So you insult me in an attempt to make your point. You admit you don't know ANYTHING about Determinism and you argue from that platform. Now, me, I would probably bow out when the conversation exceeded my knowledge, but not all are so graceful. Again, get out there and READ about it. You'll find that Free Will is not a part of Determinism and it is large point of debate whether Free Will becomes an illusion or not. I hold that it doesn't which puts me along side at least dozens of accredited philosphers that have discussed Determinism. To be fair, dozens of accredited philosophers hold your position as well, except theirs is based on a deep understanding of the subject and not just a passing knowledge of the two words. I haven't compromised Determinism and have used a perfectly acceptable definition of Free Will. Unless you can show me how your CONCEPT of Free Will being 'supernatural' is the only non-compromise version of it, I'll just have to call you out at that one, my friend.
I did not insult you! Or if you take my saying that your ideas and mine differ as an insult, then there's nothing I can do about that --it's your problem.

Wikipedia is not the source of itself, it is an encyclopedia. It is those "books" you ask me to "pick up," summarised. It references which published documents it draws information from on each page. If you have an issue with what it says, write an amendment to the page, quoting your sources, or take it up with the authors of the references listed at the bottom of the page. If you have a source for me to look up, by all means let me know what it is.

I have explained how "hard Determinism" is contradictory to free will. I don't have to know all the variants of Determinism in order to discuss this; the summary is quite clear. You have stated that it is not your stance, and I say, Fine! You are free to consider any agruments against hard Determinism to be NOT arguments against your beliefs. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. It does not take a genius to figure out that "something causes us to do things" is contradictory to "we cause things".

I haven't shown how my concept of free will fits into to your version of Determinism because you have not explained what your version of Determinism is, or how it differs from hard Determinism, except to say that it allows for free will. That doesn't help much.

By the way, I am flattered that you think I am brilliant.

Actually, I provided a link to "'blind' cause and effect". The link specifically suggested that cause and effect being considered 'blind' is mainly by people trying to argue Determinism negates Free Will. Since I don't hold that position, I don't consider it to be blind. I believe that a rational agent (caused nature and nurture) can be the cause for an effect. This is hardly blind. You should read more carefully since the link put quotes around 'blind' indicating the use of the word is spurious.
A "rational agent" is one that can think for itself, not one that can be reasoned away.

A "rational agent" is one that can think for itself, not one that can be reasoned away.

The only one suggesting that in Determinism that it can't 'think for itself' or trying to reason it away is you. I think the 'rational agent' is apparent in the very discussion that we're having whether it's the result of causality or not.

The only one suggesting that in Determinism that it can't 'think for itself' or trying to reason it away is you. I think the 'rational agent' is apparent in the very discussion that we're having whether it's the result of causality or not.
I believe that a rational agent (caused nature and nurture) can be the cause for an effect.
Care to re-word?

You are suggesting that processes called "nature and nurture" can think for themselves.

Care to re-word?

You are suggesting that processes called "nature and nurture" can think for themselves.

No, I'm suggesting the the result of nature and nurture, the mind, can think for itself. My statements aren't incorrect, you're miswording of my statements might be. "Care to re-word?"

I've clearly suggested the rational agent exists, the mind, since the beginning of the thread. You're the only one here that suggests that a mind that is completely caused by nature and nurture is not self-aware and is not capable of rational thought. I don't hold this to be true and I've seen no evidence to suggest you can prove it is so.

I did not insult you! Or if you take my saying that your ideas and mine differ as an insult, then there's nothing I can do about that --it's your problem.

Frankly, at this point, I'm not even sure you know what a concept is, as I understand it.

Guess I missed how suggesting I don't understand what a concept is, is not an insult. Moving on.

Wikipedia is not the source of itself, it is an encyclopedia. It is those "books" you ask me to "pick up," summarised. It references which published documents it draws information from on each page. If you have an issue with what it says, write an amendment to the page, quoting your sources, or take it up with the authors of the references listed at the bottom of the page. If you have a source for me to look up, by all means let me know what it is.

Wikipedia is often guilty of poorly summarizing ideas. I have already posted a better source with an entire list of books that it is based on. It offers more than just one view on Determinism (both the view that Free Will violates Determinism and the view that it does not) and explains the history of Determinism much better than Wikipedia. You're welcome to view that source. I know you saw the source as you responded to a part I quoted from it (though you later misquoted my source).

I have explained how "hard Determinism" is contradictory to free will. I don't have to know all the variants of Determinism in order to discuss this; the summary is quite clear. You have stated that it is not your stance, and I say, Fine! You are free to consider any agruments against hard Determinism to be NOT arguments against your beliefs. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. It does not take a genius to figure out that "something causes us to do things" is contradictory to "we cause things".

Hard Determinism is EXACTLY what I'm espousing. Hard Determinism does not actually include Free Will and any implications on Free Will are the result of extrapolation. It is the extrapolation I disagree with. Apparently it takes a genius to prove the bolded statement, since you can't and haven't. It's more like something causes 'us' and then 'we' cause things. Simply because our decisions are always and are necessarily completely based on our experiences and our physical abilities/limitations does not make them not decisions or not cause by us. You've offered nothing to suggest this is in contradiction to Hard Determinism or Free Will.

I haven't shown how my concept of free will fits into to your version of Determinism because you have not explained what your version of Determinism is, or how it differs from hard Determinism, except to say that it allows for free will. That doesn't help much.

It does not differ from Hard Determinism. I have explained how I define Determinism and Free Will and how they fit together. It takes up the better part of ten pages. I can't see how you've missed it. Hard Determinism relies on a cause and effect universe where there is no randomness. The only violation of Hard Determinism is randomness. I hold that Free Will is not random. As you have pointed out, Free Will requires the action of a rational agent. That rational agent can and does exist within a Deterministic universe. There is nothing in Hard Determinism that denies the existence of a rational agent. Because some extrapolate that denial and suggest it is a necessary extrapolation does not make it so.

By the way, I am flattered that you think I am brilliant.

Actually, I do. I find you frustrating and unable to accept when you're wrong, even when you are well aware of your ignorance in this area, but I do find you to have your moments of brilliance.