d'Anconia Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 So I've been avoiding the problem of Free Will for some time. But just a few days ago I started thinking about it. Every argument I found against determinism I made up a counter-argument. So as I was getting more and more depressed I found this: What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 (edited) Are the two notions really "in harmony" if they are both simply shown to be false? In other words, all Dennett has done is show that Robert Wright's notions of "free will" versus "determinism" - namely, "caprice overriding omniscience" versus "omniscience overriding choice" - are just both wrong, and not based in reality. He has not in any way united them "in harmony"; nor should he try to - they are both part of a false dichotomy. You should check out the rest of on YouTube. I remember at one point Dennett points out the word-games Wright is playing, and totally crushes his argument. Edited November 16, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d'Anconia Posted November 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 "caprice overriding omniscience" versus "omniscience overriding choice" versus "omniscience overriding choice" Could you please clarify what you mean by "caprice overriding omniscience" and "omniscience overriding choice" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 Eyal Mozez identifies Dennett as a mechanist/reductionist. Perhaps this is why you have been able to avoid the 'problem of Free Will' for some time now. Please feel free to direct your focus toward anything out there you so choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted November 16, 2010 Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 (edited) Could you please clarify what you mean by "caprice overriding omniscience" and "omniscience overriding choice" I mean by them exactly what the interviewer meant by them - those are his words, although not exactly as quoted. My quotes were attempts at approximating his notions of "free will" and "determinism", according to his own words. He says a world with free will is one in which an omniscient person knows exactly how the world works, and knows its present state with perfect precision, but then "caprice" comes along and "magically" does something different. He says a deterministic world is one in which an omniscient being knows the future exactly, and everything is "inevitable" - i.e. "unavoidable". Dennett shows that these are both false alternatives. I cannot "clarify" them, though, because they are incoherent notions. Edited November 16, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icosahedron Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 From dictionary.com: de·ter·min·ism –noun 1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws. 2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes. Determinism asserts that actions accord with the nature of the entity acting; a person is an entity that has volition, can decide to change course. Each decision is determined ... by the person deciding, at the moment the decision is made. Therefore, an individual's choices are determined ... by the individual chooser at the point the choice is made. But they are not PRE-determined: determinism should not be identified with fatalism, which is just one implementation of determinism via a reversible, i.e. path-independent, process. Volition is consistent with Determinism: this is a path-dependent, irreversible implementation of determinism; and is the only means to implement uncertainty (multiple available future paths) and (a perception of) change/time (consistency among past paths). Determinism, according to its definition, appears to re-assert the Identity Axiom with respect to entities and their natures. I don't see the beef. - ico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 (edited) de·ter·min·ism –noun 1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws. 2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes. ... Determinism, according to its definition, appears to re-assert the Identity Axiom with respect to entities and their natures. I don't see the beef. That is certainly the dictionary definition, and there is not a problem with it. But the "determinism" we are referring to is the popular notion that somehow volition/choice is an illusion, and that humans are just *automatically* performing motions. These notions are all incoherent, but they are more common than the dictionary definition you cite, which is harmless. I guess these false notions could be seen as improper extrapolations from the dictionary definition. For example, "If everything follows natural laws, then so do humans. So we all follow set equations. So there is no choice." Edited November 18, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icosahedron Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 But the "determinism" we are referring to is the popular notion that somehow volition/choice is an illusion, and that humans are just *automatically* performing motions. In other words, by "determinism", you mean "fatalism". But they are not synonyms, fatalism is one form of determinism, i.e., determinism is the more general concept. And determinism is actually ESSENTIAL to volition (as I said, it's a restatement of the Identity Axiom) -- but fatalism is inconsistent with volition, I agree. I guess these false notions could be seen as improper extrapolations from the dictionary definition. For example, "If everything follows natural laws, then so do humans. So we all follow set equations. So there is no choice." The devil is in the detail of your definition of the term "natural laws". If your definition is objective and consistent, you will see that whilst natural laws do give rise to the given, they also give rise to our ability to perceive it and make choices. The culprit that must be apprehended is the good old mind-body dichotomy that divides as physical/spiritual, and then argues that one or the other is primary. Existence is not physical per se; it does always involve concrete informative patterns, and creating/replicating such patterns requires specific investments of time/energy according to specific directions. The line signal is not the content of the phone conversation. One is given, the other is an interpretation. Different observers can interpret the same stream of signals to mean different things. The same observer can interpret different streams of signals to mean different things. As for defining "natural laws", I say they are precisely the minimum set of mutually consistent principles logically necessary to account for my sum-total experience of Existence. In other words, they are the principles of my philosophy, if my philosophy is non-contradictory. - ico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted November 18, 2010 Report Share Posted November 18, 2010 (edited) In other words, by "determinism", you mean "fatalism". But they are not synonyms, fatalism is one form of determinism, i.e., determinism is the more general concept. And determinism is actually ESSENTIAL to volition (as I said, it's a restatement of the Identity Axiom) -- but fatalism is inconsistent with volition, I agree. I believe fatalism is more like choice is possible and does happen in the sense of volition yet you cannot alter what will happen to you no matter what choice you may make. I don't think I'd classify that as exactly determinism, but that's not an important point. What Brian means is that determinism typically means, at least in a philosophical context, that there is no kind of choice AT ALL. Determinism in the sense that you wrote your post because of some inherent reaction to seeing text. I think what you're saying is more like causality is essential to volition, not determinism; really volition would mean things like you didn't HAVE to make a choice to post. Though I'm not familiar with some more technical terms in philosophy, your position sounds like a form of compatibilism. Basically, I think you're equivocating causality with determinism. They don't refer to the same phenomena, though. Determinism in any philosophical context I've seen refers to the manner in which people act, not merely that every event has a cause. Although usually that's where the reasoning starts in saying "volition is an illusion, people only act in response to their environment!" Edited November 18, 2010 by Eiuol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icosahedron Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 All I am saying is that, before attempting to validate, one must be clear on the goal. In this case, if the definition of "determinism" is agreed, then sorting out whether or not it is valid is easy. I myself was surprised that the definition is what it is. I am wondering, is this yet another perfectly good concept that has been co-opted/smeared by the purveyors of unreality? I mean, if it means what dictionary.com says it does, then I don't see a conflict with Objectivism, as I say, it becomes a restatement of the Identity Axiom. I think we need to disambiguate the meaning, maybe by using another word, such as "mechanistic", meaning pre-determined down to the last iota, like a machine. Or we can agree that "determinism" is a synonym for "mechanistically unfolding future, without variation from pre-determined outcome". Under THAT definition, determinism is indeed contradictory to Objectivism. But the idea of causality without mechanistic unfolding is clearly correct, as that is exactly what corresponds to my experience and does not contradict Objectivism. So, lock-step mechanism, no. But I think the argument can be made that the traditional definition of determinism is not so wrong: even in the case of volition, once an action is chosen and executed, the consequences are determined to the extent that the action leads necessarily to the consequences. By this perspective, volition is deterministic, is the power to determine identities, even if the choices taken are uncertain they come to pass ... in retrospect, what has already happened had to be, could not be any other way, and is determined. What will happen is uncertain, but that uncertainty does not extend past the future decision points: at the time of decision, the uncertainty is ignored in favor of the decision to act, and at each act, the law of causality applies, and the outcomes become determined after they occur. I still think the distinction between determined and predetermined ought to be made clear; something that is in the past is determined, but did not have to be pre-determined in its past in order to be determined in its future. - ico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.