But the reason that passage appeals to me, and I've mentioned it many times, is because it lays out the outlines of Aquinas' version of Aristotle's 'matter/form' dualism very clearly. (You can find it here. Incidentally, also check out this dialogue with Google Gemini on the possible link between hylmoporphic dualism and computer design.) — Wayfarer

Yes. Aristotle's hylomorphism was a proposed explanation for the philosophical distinction between Body & Mind. But it could also serve as a metaphor for the modern analysis of material/physical Hardware and abstract/metaphysical Software. Presumably, only rational animals are able to make that differentiation between what we see and what we infer. In a computer, the hardware serves as the Hyle to embody and process the abstract data of digital logic : Morph. Together they become a "computer", and act as a "thinking machine".

But materialists will object that the Data (mind-stuff) is dependent on the Hardware (matter stuff) to provide the necessary substance for computation. Hence, no Brain, no Mind. But that's an Either-Or reductive way to look at the Mind/Body problem. I suspect that Aristotle and Aquinas would view the thinking-computing system Holistically as a Both-And feature of Nature. That's also the basis of my personal BothAnd philosophy.

For me, BothAnd is the traditional principle of Holism & Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Human reason can differentiate Yin from Yang, and Mind from Body, but the system only works as a team. Separately, the Mind-Software-Idea is vacuous, and the Brain-Hardware-Matter is inert. But working together they produce the systematic "magic" that makes a Person or Computer more than a collection of isolated Bits & Bolts : a system for receiving, processing & sending Symbolized Meaning that is significant only to rational minds in functional brains. Our analytical minds are able to parse the monistic world into dualistic complementary components. :nerd:


YIN / YANG : HARDWARE / SOFTWARE

I can’t help but be struck by the resemblance to a passage I’ve often quoted in the past here in respect of Aquinas:
"….if the proper knowledge of the senses is of accidents, through forms that are individualized, the proper knowledge of intellect is of essences, through forms that are universalized. Intellectual knowledge is analogous to sense knowledge inasmuch as it demands the reception of the form of the thing which is known. But it differs from sense knowledge so far forth as it consists in the apprehension of things, not in their individuality, but in their universality."
Can you see the resemblance in those two passages? The differentiation between ‘sense perception’ and ‘ideas grasped by reason’? That in the platonic vision, the faculty of reason is able to grasp what is ‘always the case’? I know my attempt here might be a bit simplistic but I’m trying to get a handle on the big underlying issue as I see it. — Wayfarer

I assume the "underlying issue" for you is similar to what Chalmers labeled "the Hard Problem" of how humans are able to distinguish (differentiate) between obvious physical Reality (things) and obscure essential Ideality (essences). That's the job of the Rational Faculty of human intellect. But how it works in a physical neural context is a multi-millennial philosophical mystery that may be closer to becoming a mundane science fact.

For example : In brain-scoping studies, the aha! moment of insight is associated with synchrony of neuronal firing : i.e. when the brain is functioning as an inter-operative (holistic) system. Years ago, a neurologist had his own aha! moment : "what fires together, wires together". Presumably, forming concepts and memories. Some have concluded metaphorically that the brain is like an antenna, resonating with the universe. I don't take it literally, but the analogy may be insightful.

In a video linked to a Big Think article*1, several professionals of various disciplines --- Beau Lotto, neuroscientist ; Alva Noë, philosopher ; Donald Hoffman, cognitive psychologist ; among others --- discuss Consciousness and Perception of the world. They all seem to be agreeing with Kant, that we only know mind-made appearances via the senses, not the Ideal essences. And with Plato, that there is a valid philosophical distinction between Real and Ideal.

In our 21st century era, that is also the difference between the focus of Science (material reality ; instances) and of Philosophy (essential ideality ; universality). Yet some scientists, studying the brain and complex systems have reached similar conclusions, but tend to avoid fraught terms such as "ideal" & "forms" & "holism". "Hoffman argues that consciousness is more fundamental than the objects and patterns perceived by consciousness. We have conscious experiences because consciousness is posited as a fundamental aspect of reality" ___ Wiki. :smile:


*1. Is Reality Real?
https://bigthink.com/videos/objective-reality/

So it seems to me - not being versed in the details of Determinism - that among the first things a determinist must make clear is what, exactly, it means. — tim wood

I too, haven't been concerned enough to make a detailed study of the roots of philosophical Determinism, perhaps in ancient Greece. But, I assume its modern form could be traced back to the secular Enlightenment (materialism), which broke away from medieval religious Theology (spiritualism). And which usually viewed the rational human mind as evidence for a dualism of supernatural soul within a natural body. In reaction, Science -- the philosophy of the mundane world -- became a monism of Materialism.

However, if you don't view the Mind as supernatural, there's no need for a continuous chain of causation to ward-off any spiritual incursions. So, for me, the Mind is merely the natural Function*1 of the brain. In animals that function is mostly control over the body & physical world. But, in humans a new function emerged : to use imagination (metaphors ; words) to assist in control over the complex sapiens social environment. Over time, that ability to create mental models of the world, evolved into the mental function we call Reasoning (logic + math) : constructing imaginary & artificial scenarios to predict what effect our choices will have on the physical & social systems we are immersed in.

Therefore, one important function of Mind is to refine abstract ideas into purposeful, goal-oriented, intentional behavior. So Purpose is an imaginary hand, with which to reach out and control the outside world. And it "comes from" a long long chain of physical causation which has eventually undergone a phase transition into meta-physical (imaginary) power to cause changes in the world. All self-moving animals have some degree of mental intentional power, to find food & avoid danger. In some cases, the intentional behaviors affect other Minds (social animals), and in other situations (technological animals) the changes affect the physical world : as in apes cracking nuts, and the Panama Canal moving mountains story. :smile:


*1. Function : in math a function is the relation between inputs (X & Y) and outputs (Z). In mind, a function is the job or work of the coordinated neural network : what it does, what it produces : i.e. Ideas -- imaginary models of reality.
"To resolve this issue, Aristotle asks what the ergon (“function”, “task”, “work”) of a human being is, and argues that it consists in activity of the rational part of the soul in accordance with virtue "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

Hard to see how any would not ultimately be "directed by an internal agency." And here implied a development, hierarchy, and a taxonomy of purpose, starting with the infant(ile), through to adult. But I wonder if there is a sub-taxonomy either within the adult or transcending or otherwise moving beyond adult, and what the names of those would be. — tim wood

Yes. Most humans seem to take their own personal agency for granted. Since they get their desired results from voluntary actions, they feel like they can control some aspects of the non-self world. But some philosophers see that what-we-call-agency might be just a continuation of physical causation that began in the Big Bang.

So, we are now dealing with a taxonomy of at least two classes of causes : Physical and Meta-physical (mental). Unless we define the Mind as a divinely endowed spiritual Soul, the emergence of metal "abilities", such as Agency, can be viewed as continuous with the universal chain of Causation. Consequently, a secular philosophical "taxonomy of purpose" could combine involuntary external physical Causation with voluntary internal meta-physical Intention, to conclude with some form of Compatibilism. In that case, what we call FreeWill might be a "sub-taxonomy" of Universal Causation, that is expressed in scientific terms as Thermodynamics (positive/negative energy). But in a philosophical sense, it might be classified as Moral Choice (good/evil consequences).

Daniel Dennett, in his book Freedom Evolves, says "Human freedom is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species - us". But other, more Libertarian thinkers, have scorned that his watered-down freedom is "not an ability worth having". However, Freewill-within-Determinism Compatibilism is compatible with my own BothAnd worldview. Does that compromise work for you? :smile:

The questions here are, then, what is purpose (in itself), where does it come from, what is its ground? Or, what exactly gives it all meaning, makes it all worthwhile? . . . .
My own answer, briefly, is that the lights come on when mind is. No mind no world. — tim wood

I'm a latecomer to this thread. But I just read an article in Scientific American magazine, that discusses "an infant's aha! moment" when they realize they can influence the world. The authors ran experiments with babies to see "when the lights come on", as you put it. The point (purpose) of the investigation was to learn "about the origins of agency". They concluded that "the birth of agency is a dynamic, self-organizing process". Humans are not born with fully developed minds. At first, we are at the mercy of The World, but eventually we can become causal Actors in the non-self world.

Which seems to imply that the desire for control of the outside world is an inborn motivation --- want or need for food, warmth, novelty, etc --- that later emerges as a sense of agency early in development of the body and brain. At first, the baby moves its limbs randomly, without any focused purpose. But eventually, the child discovers that some of those movements can cause changes in the environment. In the experiment, a string tied to the baby's toe and attached to a crib-toy, would, seemingly accidentally, cause the toy to move. At first, the baby does not make the "connection" between her own wiggling and the surprising interesting waving of the toy. But, after the aha! moment of insight --- I did that --- "spontaneous movements become purposeful action". "As our model proposes, the experience of agency emerges only when an organism . . . senses it is coupled to its environment". Yet, in order to become a causal agent, one must learn to differentiate Self from World.

My interpretation of this psychological experiment is that Purpose begins as a Feeling of Desire, that is enhanced by the feeling of Power over the environment (agency). Then, eventually that vague feeling becomes transformed into a verbal concept : if I do this, then the result will satisfy my desire for (fill-in the blank). So, Purpose is both the Desire and the Reason for Doing. But, is that desire directed by an internal agency (self-caused), or merely one link in a long chain of causes & effects? Most people, post infancy, take their own agency for granted. But ornery philosophers question everything, including the questioner.

The article notes that, "historically, the entire issue of purpose and agency in living things --- and, dare one say, 'free will' --- has been clouded in philosophical debate and controversy". Hence, the TPF thread on FreeWill and Determinism. So, we can either "take the bit in the teeth" --- as a determined agent of purpose, or just lay back and let physics take its course. Purposeful behavior is for Agents of Action, not for the wishy-washy flotsam of the world. Purpose is the feeling of being in control. And getting intended results gives meaning to the sense of Agency. :smile:

FreeWill is not a physical (empirical) question, it's a metaphysical (theoretical) inquiry. My compatibility position is ultimately a Monism : Causation comes in many forms. — Gnomon
This changes everything. But let me ask whether you think that determinism is not a physical (empirical) question? I'll tell you now that I don't think it is. It is a way of thinking about the world and science. . . .
Well, we can talk about that. — Ludwig V

Determinism is a necessary assumption in order to do practical Science. But it may be optional to do theoretical Philosophy. In any case, Determinism is a metaphysical (philosophical) generalization, based on incomplete evidence.

If you want to talk about "Causation comes in many forms", I have a thesis and blog with numerous examples and interpretations. For example, Terrence Deacon's "Power of Absence" is Causation in Absentia. You may, or may not agree with my unconventional interpretation of Causation, beginning with a hypothetical First Cause. But that kind of unorthodox thinking might lead us off-topic, and down the rabbit hole of holistic thinking. :smile:

↪Gnomon
I'd like to get into what we can and can't describe. In the meantime I'm hoping the above diatribe gives you some insight into why I don't immediately accept your distinction between ideal, real, structure and substance. — Treatid

My personal worldview is ultimately Holistic and Monistic. But when we begin to "describe" the world, in language or math, it is necessary to make "distinctions". Reductive Science is all about naming & knowing particular things. But Holistic Philosophy is about wisdom & understanding of All things. Structure is interrelationships between things that bind them into a knowable Whole. Substance is the indivisible essence of a thing, which makes it a knowable concept. Real is what we interact with physically, Ideal is what we imagine metaphysically. :smile:

Tao Te Ching :
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
. . . . Naming is the origin of all particular things.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Laozi


"A network of relationships doesn't require us to define what the relationships are binding. The structure of the relationships is enough by itself."
___ Treatid
The world, without definitions, is a white-out fog. We understand the world scientifically by drawing distinctions between things. Philosophy attempts the put things back together --- to reassemble the analyzed relationships --- in order to grok the Whole system.

I'm afraid I don't see that the Small Worlds model affects the issue at all. Sorry. — Ludwig V

That's OK. As I said, I wrote that for me, just to express the aha! idea in words, as it occurred to me.

But I'm not a sentient mind trapped in an imprisoned body. I'm a person, as free as anyone is. — Ludwig V

Come on. It's a metaphor. You seem to have a problem with both Metaphors and Metaphysics. Do you remember how I define "meta-physics", not as religious doctrine, but as philosophical reasoning?

Well, I suppose I can make some sort of sense of that. But not enough to add up to a philosophical position. — Ludwig V

I'm getting the impression that you don't do philosophy. I'm not sure what you think this forum is all about, if not attempts to construct or destruct a "philosophical position". Do you have a "position" on the Freewill question, other than "I just don't get it"? Maybe everyday is Sunday for you. FWIW, my philosophical position is Both-FreeWill-and-Determinism Compatibilism .

Either we are free all day and every day, or we are not free. It is entirely mundane, not special in any way. But perhaps you just want to change the subject. — Ludwig V

But this thread is about how free-effective-willful-mental (meta-physical) choices can Cause changes in the real world outside the imagining mind, despite the dominance of linear physical Determinism. Is that a "special", perhaps supernatural power for you. Or is it simply a normal "ability" of the human mind to reach-out and to exert influence on (affect) the non-self world? FreeWill : the ability to make choices that affect, not just the body, but other minds, and the physical world. Are you a "free person" in that sense, are you an Agent in the world, or just an object? Or do you want to change the OP subject : Freedom and Determinism?

What is wilful action as contrasted with physical action? In what way is a cause "within" me any different from a cause "without" me? — Ludwig V

The June 2024 issue of Scientific American magazine has an article on how human babies learn that they can control material objects with their power of Agency : their WillPower. It's what the article calls "ability". The causal ability "within me" is different from physical causation, in that it would never happen in a million years without Purpose (goal setting) within me. Intellectual Purposes may be difficult to achieve, but not denied by Destiny, and not chosen by Determinism.

As I have repeatedly insisted, there's nothing magical or supernatural or "special" about FreeWill. But it seems to be a talent (ability) that is expressed most fully in homo sapiens. What essentially distinguishes Sapiens from apes, and other animals is in degree of control : Agency : the ability to impose our Will upon the world : as illustrated in Culture and Technology. That internal Causation (willpower) is different from external Determinism (energy) in the sense that a meta-physical Mind is different from a physical Rock. Even a willful ape can break a nut with a rock ; just not very efficiently.

FreeWill is not a physical (empirical) question, it's a metaphysical (theoretical) inquiry. My compatibility position is ultimately a Monism : Causation comes in many forms. :smile:

Quotes from SciAm :
"How humans develop the ability to willfully make things happen still remains a mystery . . . the act of discovering their ability to influence the world." . . . . "origins of agency" . . . . "birth of agency is a dynamic, self organizing process" . . . . "Goal-directed action emerges spontaneously when the organism realizes that its movement cause the world to change" . . . . "Historically, the entire issue of purpose and agency in living things --- and dare one say "freewill" --- has been clouded in philosophical debate and controversy."

Compatibility does not require total chaotic indeterminism, but only a few short-cuts on the road to destiny. — Gnomon
I get the first half of the sentence. But the meaning of the second half is not at all clear to me. Your diagram in your "Small world model" doesn't help. — Ludwig V

Sorry. I'm currently reading a book that gets into Small World math & physics. I didn't really expect you to grasp the concept of "short-cuts" without a long digression. But I liked the neatness of the concept, in the context of this thread. So I wrote it down.

The "small world" Wiki link mentions "short-cuts", but not in detail. The most well-known example of Small World networks is the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" meme from the 1990s. A 'degree of separation' is a measure of social distance between people. In the WWW diagram below, the long lines between clusters are the "short-cuts" that reduce the number of steps between any two nodes. And their arbitrary placement can be spontaneous & indeterminate

Suffice it to say : in a Small World network, like the World Wide Web, most interconnections are to neighboring nodes (necessary & deterministic). But a few (optional) long-distance connections between major nodes reduce the number of links (degrees) required to connect to any other node (arbitrary & in-deterministic). Philosophically, just a few "short-cuts" convert a deterministic-but-chaotic tangle, into a freer and more accessible system. This ad hoc interpretation might make a good Phd thesis for some mathematical philosopher ; but it's too-much-too-late for me. :smile:

Are you suggesting that an imagined freedom is any substitute for the real thing? Seems like a very poor exchange to me. — Ludwig V

As Daniel Dennett, in Freedom Evolves, concluded : "… although in the strict physical sense our actions might be determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved". The example I gave before is the Panama Canal, which was only an imaginary dream for over a century, until many people, motivated by that dream, devised ways to move mountains. That small-world social mind-meld (inter-communication of motivation) is one of the "abilities" that Dennett noted. I think it's a pretty good trade-off as a substitute for non-human impotence or super-natural magic. :wink:

In case, the freedom to "roam the world of ideas" is no substitute for the freedom to go home to you partner and kids. — Ludwig V

It's not the heavenly ideal, but a free-roaming mind is better than being a sentient mind trapped in an imprisoned body. N'cest pas? In a Matter-only world, "it is what it is" ; but in a Mind & Matter world, what is imagined might also become realized. As one writer put it : "I feel that as human beings with free will, the mind tends to limit itself from living to the fullest when we become prisoners of our own mind." Is your mind locked-in? :chin:

Imagination becoming reality :
Creativity and Invention: Imagination often precedes innovation and creation. Many of the inventions and creations that shape our world start as ideas in someone's imagination. When these ideas are acted upon and brought into the physical world through effort, experimentation, and implementation, they can become a reality. This process involves turning abstract thoughts into tangible products, technologies, or works of art.
https://www.quora.com/When-does-imagination-become-reality-for-humans

3)the causes of voluntary behaviour are certain states, events, or conditions within the agent: acts of will or volitions, choices, decisions, desires etc... — The Chapter you cited entitled Compatibilism
So an action is free if its causes are inside the agent.If the causes of those causes are outside the agent, can we conclude that his acts of will, etc are not free? — Ludwig V

Perhaps, but the "cause" of willful action --- as contrasted with physical actions --- is presumed to be within the agent. That's why we call it "Will Power". Otherwise, the action would be pre-determined instead of free-will. :cool:


SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION
Note the few long lines between clusters of short lines.

Thanks for the invitation. I can try. But as long as people think that the search for free will is the search for an uncaused cause or a search for indeterminacy, I doubt that anyone will be interested. — Ludwig V

I think was arguing for compatibility of natural human FreeWill, not as an abnormal exception to Causation, but as a statistical option within causal Determinism. Not for supernatural freedom from Causation, as in the ex nihilo Big Bang Theory. Compatibility does not require total chaotic indeterminism, but only a few short-cuts on the road to destiny.

As a philosophical position, Compatibilism*1 assumes that the world system is a dynamic blend of linear Causation (1+1+1+1=4) and non-linear (1+1+1+X=?) Randomness*2. Including both dependent and independent variables ; both global regularity and small-world spontaneity. For example, the highly interconnected human brain is both a linear logic machine, and a non-linear insight producer*3. Our physical actions may not be free, but our meta-physical intentions are free as a bird, to defy gravity by flapping. "If god intended man to fly, he would have given him wings". Instead, he gave us imagination.

In footnote 2, please add Philosophers to the list of professionals who are "interested" in non-linear causation as a shortcut that allows some Freedom within Determinism*4. :smile:



*1. Compatibilism. Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%207%20Freedom/Freedom_Compatibilism.htm
Note --- The man is not free --- he can be imprisoned --- but his mind is free : to roam the world of ideas.

*2. Non-linear Math :
In mathematics and science, a nonlinear system is a system in which the change of the output is not proportional to the change of the input. Nonlinear problems are of interest to engineers, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and many other scientists since most systems are inherently nonlinear in nature. ___Wikipedia
Note --- In a Small World network, like the human brain, some interconnections are non-linear in that the output (novelty) is more than the input (data). Hence, spontaneous and not rigidly determined.

*3. Small World Network, brain insights :
https://jewishcamp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Schilling-2005_A-Small-World-Network-Model-of-Cognitive-Insight.pdf

*4. Freedom Within Determinism :
Compatibilism is the doctrine that determinism is logically compatible or consistent with what is said to be a single idea of freedom that really concerns us and with a related kind of moral responsibility -- the freedom in question being voluntariness.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwTerminology.html



LINEAR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN NODES
NONLINEAR SHORTCUT BETWEEN CLUSTERS

But concrete is loose sand bound together by a mineral matrix, the binder. — Gnomon
Well... funnily enough. Given the binder, it is sufficient by itself.
The little revolution I'm trying to foster is regarding the necessity of the bits between structure.
A network of relationships doesn't require us to define what the relationships are binding. The structure of the relationships is enough by itself. — Treatid

I Googled the phrase "network of relationships" and found it most often applied to social relations between humans. But, on a universal or sub-atomic scale, the term might also refer to Positive & Negative interactions, or Attractive & Repellent behaviors, or Back & Forth exchanges of Energy. In every instance I could think of, relationships are not physical things, but as-if mental images, where the invisible bonds are imagined, not seen. Causal Energy/Force is invisible & intangible, so only its after-effects are detectable by human senses.

Since relationships are attributed to systems, not observed, they seem to be meta-physical (mental) instead of physical (material). Attributes are imaginary qualities, not physical objects. Attributes are attempts to explain Causal relationships between things. So, the answer to "what the relationships are binding" could be just about anything. And "the bits between structure" are Ideal, not Real. For example, a structural engineer analyzes the "structure" of a building by omitting all the steel & concrete, in order to "see" the invisible lines of force that bind the building together, or tear it apart. The binding "bits" are causes, such as Energy & Force, that offset (neutralize) each other to make the system stable. The forces are "given" but the binding beams & columns must be artificially assembled to produce a "sufficient" structure.

The building blocks of the natural universe are Matter & Energy. But we understand that structure by imagining and attributing a mathematical/logical Matrix of interrelationships that is invisible to the naked eye. For humans, Mind & Matter are an interrelated indivisible system such that we humans can't have one without the other. :smile:


STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM :
Blue arrows represent invisible lines of natural force, such as gravity. The red arrows represent artificial beams & columns to resist the forces that would otherwise destroy the building. And the black lines represent the man-made parts that are constructed to resist those forces. Together, the forces & frames bind into an interrelated system that we call a Structure.


https://cdn-ikpnogb.nitrocdn.com/cdPGWyOaMJgCoqiEOEpUSTgMoqloHDjJ/assets/images/optimized/rev-061a090/1qwi8ndt698on.cdn.shift8web.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Building-Information-Modeling-BIM-structural-analysis.png

If we were to create a universe, what are the simplest possible building blocks that we could use? — Treatid

Just for funsies. Are you thinking of a human building a physical universe from raw materials, or a god creating a dynamic world from scratch? For the human, no single element would ever be sufficient to produce something that is more complex than the original element. A pile of sand is just grains of rock particles, with nothing to hold them together, into a structural system. But concrete is loose sand bound together by a mineral matrix, the binder.

Regarding simplicity, hypothetical Quarks were once postulated as the fundamental particle. But years later, Quarks*1 are now differentiated by a multitude of imaginary "flavors" & "colors". Which would require some even more fundamental element to distinguish them. Technically though, the quark itself, like all other basic particles, is supposed to be an "excitation" (mathematical wave peak) in an energy field. Can you build anything from massless math or a matterless field?

suggested using an "idea". Which in this case could be construed as a Platonic Ideal or an Aristotelian Potential*2. Neither of which has any matter or mass until Actualized into something Real. So, if I was going to "create" a universe, I'd begin with the origin of all creations : the Idea or Design or Concept of the thing. After that, you could search for appropriate materials. :joke:

*1. Quarks: What are they?
Quarks are elementary particles. Like the electron, they are not made up of any other particles. You could say that they are on the ground floor of the Standard Model of particle physics.
https://www.space.com/quarks-explained
The colours red, green, and blue are ascribed to quarks, and their opposites, antired, antigreen, and antiblue, are ascribed to antiquarks. According to QCD, all combinations of quarks must contain mixtures of these imaginary colours that cancel out one another, with the resulting particle having no net colour.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quark

*2. What is pure potentiality Aristotle?
So everything we encounter is composite. In Aristotle's hierarchy of being, pure potentiality (“prime matter”) is at the bottom, pure actuality (Aristotle's God) is at the top. Formed matter (everything else, including our world) is in between.
https://lafavephilosophy.x10host.com/Aristotle_de_anima.html
Note --- Aristotle's "Prime Matter" is more like our modern notion of an invisible Energy Field than tangible Matter.

The "logical limitations" can be observed in physical Phase Transitions, where a stable organization of molecules can suddenly transform from one structural state (water) to another (ice), but scientists can't follow the steps in between. — Gnomon

The logical limitations start from what we can calculate and prove. What you are describing is more physical limitations that we notice in our empirical tests.

The logical part here is of course when a measurement effects what is being measured. This is something that isn't at all trivial. And then there's things that you simply cannot model in a laboratory. — ssu

The "Logical Limitation" I referred to is both a measurement problem and a modeling problem. And the Logic in both cases is Mathematical (1+2+X=?), not necessarily physical*1. The physics happens, presumably according to the rules of physics and logic. But the steps between phases are hidden in a fog of Chaos. :smile:


*1. Phase Transition in a Chaotic System :
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00415-3

↪Gnomon
Thanks for the link to Bishop's review. Bishop's most salient point is that physicalism is inconstent with libertarian free will (LFW) because of Jaegwon Kim's causal closure argument. — Relativist

Yes. Causal Closure (Determinism) was a simplifying assumption of 17th century physics. But 20th century physics has complicated the math with non-linear Chaos, and causal Uncertainty at the physical roots of reality. :smile:

In my view both are very useful concepts. I will argue that you can have determinism and free will. Free will is a great concept to use as it easy describing various events and phenomena extremely well. Yet so is determinism too. What we have is logical limitations in understanding a deterministic reality, making predictions about it or calculating what will happen. — ssu

I agree with your Both/And conclusion. My latest BothAnd Blog post is on the topic of Synchrony*1. The author of the 2003 book SYNCH, Steven Strogatz, says "These, then, are the defining features of chaos : erratic, seemingly random behavior in an otherwise deterministic system ; predictability in the short run, because of deterministic laws ; and unpredictability in the long run, because of the butterfly effect*2." The physical universe is an almost infinite system of malleable Matter and deterministic Thermodynamic laws that is also chaotic at the core, but with pockets of sublime order, such as our own blue planet. which defies the destiny of Entropy with emergent Life & Mind.
,
The "logical limitations" can be observed in physical Phase Transitions, where a stable organization of molecules can suddenly transform from one structural state (water) to another (ice), but scientists can't follow the steps in between. Another logical difficulty is with the non-linear mathematics of Creative Chaos*3 as opposed to the linear math of stable Organized systems. Strogatz says, "In a linear system, the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts". He doesn't use the taboo term, but what he's talking about is Holism.

Reductive Science looks for predictable linear systems, but has difficulty with non-linear effects, such as the emergence of a metaphysical willful Mind from a network of physical neurons. That may be why some posters on this forum have difficulty seeing the Mental forest for the Neural trees. The human mind is a holistic effect of neural cells that cooperate and inter-communicate to produce a state of mind that is sometimes unpredictable and willful. Holism doesn't break physical laws, but it does bend them into novel directions.

Long story short : our world is both linearly Deterministic and spontaneously Creative. :smile:


*1. Synchrony :
Emergence, as a natural phenomenon, is controversial, since it has implications for the evolution of Life from inanimate Matter, and of Consciousness from Gray Matter. For some thinkers, the discontinuous appearance of Life from Non-life, seems to defy the laws of gradual evolution.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page21.html

*2. Butterfly Effect :
In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

*3. Creative Chaos Theory :
Scientists once believed that events or occurrences in nature were predictable or able to be mathematically calculated and predicted. Then along came chaos theory, proposing that many events are, in fact, chaotic—having no order or predictability, occurring in a completely random way. But more recently, even the most chaotic occurrences have been found to contain pattern and order,
https://www.secondwindonline.com/creative-chaos-theory?journal=239

Earlier in the thread, we discussed Peter Tse's physicalist account of mental causation. If something like this is correct, it means that the product of our thoughts truly has causal efficacy. We're not just going along for the ride (as you seem to be suggesting) we're driving. — Relativist

I missed the earlier discussion. But I Googled "Peter Tse's physicalist account of mental causation", and found the contrary argument below*1. We could argue the rational vs empirical merits of Physical vs Mental Causation forever. But Quantum Physics has contradicted the Classical Physics assumption*2 of Determinism (causal completeness) by revealing the role of Randomness in the chain of causation. For me, that's enough to allow me to believe that I am in command of my little jello-like bundle of cerebral Causation. My car is not a self-driving Tesla, it's a Myself-driven conveyance. :smile:

Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation :
The second reason to doubt Tse's account is the causal closure of physics, or the causal completeness of physics (CCP). If CCP is true, then no such thing as free will is possible because there is no sense in which there is any form of free action
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/neural-basis-of-free-will-criterial-causation/

*2. Determinism is an unprovable metaphysical belief, just as FreeWill is. So I freely choose to believe that when I drive my car I am in command, not the laws of nature or sparking neurons. If I get to my chosen destination, that's enough evidence for me. And those CCP commies can't force me to believe otherwise. :joke:

Purpose is a property of life and becomes a concept when intelligent minds recognize it. — Vera Mont

Right on! All living organisms have an innate driving purpose : to stay alive. But philosophical discussions of Purpose may be traced back to Theological notions that each moral agent of the world has a unique role to play in the epic of creation. In Genesis, the bit-part role of pre-enlightenment Adam & Eve was simply to be caretakers in the garden, as the animals with hands. No need for reasoning or insight, or concepts such as Good vs Evil.

Over time though, theology became more complex and sophisticated, and the search for an individual's purpose --- the one supposedly assigned by God --- became more important to one's post-life destiny. Each actor's ultimate payoff or punishment depends on discovering the role they were "meant" to play in God's dramaturgy. Some search the inscrutable scriptures for clues, while others look into their own empathetic hearts. But failure to find the divinely assigned role still seems to provoke anxiety in those who are not content with their evolutionary niche as animals, but aspire to play the role of angels on God's golden stage.

Modern science seems to be content with the most basic purposes of survival & propagation of genes. Yet, some philosophers still seem to feel that each of us needs some higher goal than just eat, drink, and f*ck. Do we have assigned roles in the drama of life --- by God or Nature --- or do we choose our own personas to suit personal talents & needs? Shakespeare pithily captured the secular version of the purpose quandary. Does our minor role on the world stage have any importance in the script of destiny? Is Purpose merely a property of natural instincts, or a higher Concept for the amusement of the gods? :smile:


*1. Anxious actors in the play of Life & Death & Destiny:

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56966/speech-all-the-worlds-a-stage

Strict materialism and physicalism simply leads people to make silly generalizations and to wrong conclusions. — ssu

Historically, Enlightenment era scientists & philosophers were forced into Materialist & Physicalist positions by the Catholic church's Spiritualist & Dogmatic positions & propaganda. Burning at the stake as punishment for Mental transgressions (unbelief or heretical belief) would tend to radicalize freethinkers. But, since then, the world has moved toward more liberal positions, that allow for broader worldviews.

So, by the 20th century, the hardline (strict) Physicalist position was no longer mandatory for philosophers. And the Quantum science departure from Classical Physics*1 opened the door for investigations of formerly taboo topics for science, such as : the Mind/Body problem (Mind over Matter), and Freewill*2. Hence, today, we have classical physics hardliners, who burn holistic heretics at the scornful sarcasm stake. :wink:


*1. Classical Physics versus Quantum Physics :
https://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0241v1.pdf

*2. Quantum Mechanics, the Mind-Body Problem and Negative Theology :
Philosophy addresses questions that probably can’t be solved, now or ever. Examples (and these are of course debatable, some philosophers and scientists insist that science can answer all questions worth asking): Why is there something rather than nothing? Does free will exist? How does matter make a mind? What does quantum mechanics mean?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-mechanics-the-mind-body-problem-and-negative-theology/

I didn't know that. I meant metaphysics as things before physics, like the nature of existence (and universal principles) and as the study of mind-independent features of reality. It's really hard to prove something with the scientific method of these kind of basic questions. Hence even if very important, it's not a field you can assume to have dramatic breakthroughs. — ssu

The term "meta-physics" was applied by medieval scholars to certain aspects of Aristotle's ouvre (collected writings), that were of special interest to theologians*3. Literally, it referred to the later books, that discussed opinions & interpretations (philosophy) instead of observations & investigations (science). But metaphorically, "meta-" came to be associated with "above" in the sense of spiritually transcending the material world.

That's why I refer to OP topic -- Freewill vs Determinism -- as a holistic metaphysical question, not answerable by reductive scientific methods, as you said. However, modern philosophy still finds logical conjectures & conclusions unacceptable, unless supported with hard (empirical) evidence. Hence, the hardline position of Scientism. It's the transcendent implications of "meta-" that are offensive to immanent Materialism. :nerd:

*3. Metaphysics :
mid 16th century: representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics’, referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural’.
___Oxford Languages : https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Well, I think that animals are also rational, so they don't have to be just "philosophically inclined" to have rational thoughts. That we just have and advance language and even the abiltiy to store it (written language) makes us quite different in my view, but still we are animals (even if smart ones). — ssu

I agree. But I was referring to the formalization of Reason & Logic that is characteristic of Philosophy in the Greek tradition. Mathematical Logic pervades all aspects of the world. But only humans have made Language & Logic into systems appropriate for online forum discussions. :cool:

When you come to a fork in the road, do you stop and imagine taking the road less traveled, or do you start walking in the desired direction? In what sense is an actual choice an illusion? — Gnomon

The choice is not an illusion: we are actually making the choice - we have to actually go through the mental process to reach that choice.

The illusion is that of hindsight : that we could actually have made a different one. In actuality, we could have only made a different choice had there been something different within us (a different set of beliefs, disposltions, impulse...). — Relativist

If a single path suddenly & surprisingly branches into two paths, with completely different end-points, is that not a true philosophical dilemma? One end-point may be my original intended destination, and the other a different unintended destination : as in Robert Frost's Path Not Taken. But if I didn't know that alternative when I set out, my choice to change destinations would be a change of personal intention (goal selection). Was that new information also eternally destined to make the choice for me?

The "mental process" of choosing may be a change of intentions, based on new information. Or perhaps, in the case of the "road less traveled", merely the desire to experience something new, or unknown, or mysterious. In Physics, the well-traveled road might be the path of least resistance ; in which case, Nature would always "choose" that option. But humans are not so mechanical, and sometimes "choose" to take the more resistant path.

According to Pre-destination, even that desire for novelty is programmed into us by all-powerful Nature, or LaPlace's Demon. But what about the statistical uncertainties in natural processes? Are our intentional choices certain, or probabilistic? What about physical Relativity vs physical Absolutism? Was Einstein wrong to conclude that Newton's space & time were not as rigid as his calculations assumed? What if human choices are locally Causal, just as the Demon's determination is universally Causal?

An old saying is that "hindsight is 20/20"*1, implying that we see the meaning of events more clearly after they happened. But you seem to be saying that the meaning -- in this case the new destination -- was never a real option. Instead, the Destiny Demon had the foresight to force me to make an un-free Choice. As an omniscient Demon, if you had to choose between Fate & Freewill*2 for your little deluded choosers, which would you decide on, and why? :smile:


*1. Hindsight is the ability to understand and realize something about an event after it has happened, although you did not understand or realize it at the time.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/hindsight

*2. Fate Vs Free Will :
Fate is a predetermined course of events. It’s what makes some people say things like “it was meant to be” or “it was written in the stars”. Free will, on the other hand, is your ability to make choices and control your own destiny. If you have free will then that means what happens with your life depends on what you do and how you live it. . . .
There are two different ways in which we can look at the idea of free will. On one hand, there’s the philosophical view that all our actions are pre-determined by events prior to them (Determinism). On the other hand, there’s the philosophical view that we have some control over what we do in life and how we behave (Compatibilism) – essentially saying ‘what if I could make my own decisions regardless of what happens before me?’
https://os.me/destiny-or-free-will-what-do-you-choose/

IN THE GARDEN OF FORKING PATHS, ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME?

What material evidence to you have to support your belief that personal choice is illusory? — Gnomon
That's not what I said. I said there "is an illusion of freedom". — Relativist

When you come to a fork in the road, do you stop and imagine taking the road less traveled, or do you start walking in the desired direction? In what sense is an actual choice an illusion? :smile:

In fact then when Gnomon's idea is viewed as an ontological idea, that "Physical actions are indeed constrained by the limiting laws of physics. But meta-physical (mental) choices are not subject to physical laws --- perhaps only the laws of Logic", it can be argued that he is making the argument that there's something else than the physical. But has there to be a separation? — ssu

Aristotle intuitively made a distinction between physical and mental processes in the world. He divided his treatise of Phusis (nature) into an encyclopedia of observations by early scientists. Then in a separate (meta-) chapter, he summarizes some of the opinions of theoretical scientists (philosophers) to explain those facts. That "separation" was later formalized by others into categories of A> Physics : particular material objects and B> Metaphysics : general mental ideas (universal principles) about those objects.

Those Generalizations and Categorizations -- "something else" than material/temporal specimens -- are computed by Reason/Logic, which he regarded as a timeless power, capacity or force, accessible to philosophically-inclined humans. For non-rational animals though, there may be only observed things, and no inferred species of things. So, yes, for those who seek holistic Principles instead of isolated Instances, there has to be a separation. :smile:

Metaphysics :
The word 'metaphysics' was coined by an ancient editor of Aristotle's works, who simply used it for the books listed after those on physics. The physics books discussed things that change; the metaphysics books discussed things that don't change.
https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/what-is-metaphysics/

What did Aristotle mean by reason? :
Perhaps, then, Aristotle means that scientific reason is distinguished by thinking about the necessary, unchanging principles of things, and also about the things which have these as their principles and causes.
https://academic.oup.com/book/4546/chapter-abstract/146639079?

Physical actions are indeed constrained by the limiting laws of physics. But meta-physical (mental) choices are not subject to physical laws --- perhaps only the laws of Logic. — Gnomon
One has to be careful about language here. . . .
The physical both constrains and enables what we do. — Ludwig V

Do you think I'm being fast & loose with my language here? In my thesis and my posts, I provide specific definitions of such terms as "physics" and "meta-physics", giving examples from the history of science & philosophy. For example, I specify that my use of the "meta-" term is Aristotelian, not Scholastic ; psychological, not religious. Are you uncomfortable with my use of "meta-physics" in reference to mental processes. Are Ideas subject to physical laws of gravity, or is there some other force that gives "weight" to opinions?

Is there some other "language" in my posts that give you pause? I haven't been indoctrinated in the legalistic "linguistic turn" in philosophy (Wittgenstein, etc). So my language is generally vernacular & informal, and may sometimes run afoul of "legal" usage. We tend to use physical metaphors to describe psychological concepts, but are the analogies intended to be taken literally & physically?

Of course, physics "constrains" what we do physically. But does it also limit what we think, and how we reason? How do physical limitations affect abstract ideas? Do you know how laws of physics could roboticize your beliefs & behaviors? Or is that just an unfounded Physicalist belief? :smile:

Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.
___ Oxford dictionary
Note --- Which definition do you think applies to my use of the term? Are the "abstract concepts" listed above physical or meta-physical? Is Space a physical thing or an abstract idea about the extension of physical things? Is Being constrained by physics or ontology?

There is only an illusion of freedom. — Relativist

What material evidence do you have to support your belief that personal choice is illusory?

That's true only because of quantum indeterminacy. So, instead of strict determinism from big bang to present, there's numerous instance of probabilistic determinism along the way. It remains to be seen if quantum indeterminacy plays a role in mental processes (some think it does), but if so- it would only seem to add a random element to the otherwise fully deterministic processes, which doesn't make it more free (in a libertarian free will sense). — Relativist

Yes. That's why I'm only advocating FreeWill in a Compatibilist sense. Humans obviously don't have god-like magical freedom to do anything they want. But they are also not constrained from exercising a few degrees of freedom from absolute locked-in Determinism. If I choose to reach-out and pick-up a cup of coffee, I don't have to stop and think whether this choice was allowed by the all-powerful Big Bang roll-of-the-dice 14 billion earth-years ago. I just do it. My freedom is not an illusion, if the cup actually rises to meet my mouth.

Physical actions are indeed constrained by the limiting laws of physics. But meta-physical (mental) choices are not subject to physical laws --- perhaps only the laws of Logic. So, our few degrees of freedom lie in the gray transition zone between Physics (matter) and Meta-physics (mind). You could say that Quantum Physics forced us to acknowledge that nothing in the world is absolute. It's governed, not by certainty, but by probability. Instead, the statistical nature of Nature, randomness, adds an element of uncertainty to any action.

Unfortunately, Las Vegas gamblers imagine that the odds favor the clever or lucky, instead of the house, holding all the cards. That's what a compatibilist would call "pushing your luck". :joke:


The statistical nature of Nature :
A deterministic model is a mathematical model in which the output is determined only by the specified values of the input data and the initial conditions. This means that a given set of input data will always generate the same output.
A statistical model is a mathematical model in which some or all of the input data have some randomness, for example as expressed by a probability distribution, so that for a given set of input data the output is not reproducible but is described by a probability distribution. . . . Statistical models can be run by using Monte Carlo simulation.
https://www.sv-europe.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-the-various-types-of-statistical-models/

I'll buy that. I'm sure we can get along and maybe occasionally agree to disagree. Most topics in philosophy seem to have only contested definitions, so there's nothing new here. — Ludwig V

This is a philosophy forum, not a Communist Re-education Camp. So of course we are free to disagree. But, I suspect that we are not that far apart on the topic of this thread. So, once more into the breach . . .

The traditional arguments against human Freewill were typically based on the assumption that the whole world, from Big Bang onward, is a linear deterministic physical system. But 20th & 21st century physics has cast doubt on that 17th century Classical assumption. LaPlace's Demon may have been a prescient insight about that presumption ; he described inevitable gapless Demonic Determinism as supernatural instead of natural. Modern physics has found a limited role for non-linear Chaos*1 --- butterfly effect --- within natural systems, that might conceivably have allowed freethinking humans to evolve from dumb robotic apes.

Even skeptical Daniel Dennett claims to be a compatibilist*2, in his book Freedom Evolves. So, that's all my linear-Determinism-vs-non-linear-Freedom analogy is proposing. The rest is up to the individual, to decide if her willpower is capable of imagining and implementing un-predetermined novelties within the physical (phenomenal) and metaphysical (noumenal) realms of reality. For example, is it possible that a long-standing human metaphysical desire/will for a short-cut from Atlantic to Pacific oceans could have a physical causal effect on the geology of Panama --- not moving mountains by faith, as suggested by Jesus, but moving mountains by dynamite, as implemented by French & American engineers.

Anyway, all I'm suggesting is that FreeWill is not incompatible with the mathematics of natural processes, as sometimes argued. Instead, physics has instances of both boring linear and surprising non-linear changes over time. With that in mind, what is your positive or negative "definition" of Freedom within Determinism? Yea or Nay? :smile:



*1. Does Chaos Theory Allow For FreeWill?
“The two things are not directly connected. We certainly have free will (the ability to make decisions that are ours), and chaos theory certainly works for complex physical systems, so the two must be compatible.
The brain/mind, however, is the kind of complex system that chaos theory describes, so how we perceive ourselves is predicated on the kind of systemic consistency and specific unpredictability which chaos theory helps describe.”
https://www.quora.com/Does-chaos-theory-allow-for-free-will


*2. Determinism-Freedom Compatibilism :
“Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evolves

I try not to mention metaphysics, since I don't know what it means. . . . .
Now there's something to agree with, so long as it isn't taken to have metaphysical implications. — Ludwig V

I've enjoyed discussing the old Freedom vs Determinism question with you. But if you are going to place Metaphysics*1 off-limits in a philosophical forum, my arguments will be nullified, because the whole point is to explore the "metaphysical implications" of physical observations.

From my personal perspective, Philosophy is not Physics, but Meta-physics*2 --- in the scientific Aristotelian sense, not the religious Scholastic sense. Philosophy is about Ideas, not real things. And Freedom is an Idea, that can't be placed under a microscope, but under the penetrating eye of Reason. If you don't like the medieval connotations of the term "metaphysics", let's just call it "Philosophy". :smile:

*1. Aristotle. …metaphysics: he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-philosophy

*2. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

But the necessity for Observer choices --- in experimental set-up, and interpretation of evidence --- resulted in "a whole different way of thinking". — Gnomon
H'm. I probably don't know enough to evaluate that. But I would have thought that observer choices in setting up experiments and interpreting evidence have always played an essential role in science. Though it is true that scientists have mostly assumed that it is possible to observe phenomena without affecting them, and that only becomes inescapably false at the sub-atomic level. — Ludwig V

Yes. But, at the macro level, the minuscule "observer effect"*1 could be ignored. Only after scientists began probing into the microscopic level of physics did the Observer play a significant role in the outcome of an experiment.

Although the Double-Slit Effect is well-attested, its philosophical & metaphysical implications are still debatable. Some think the Cause of the effect is physical nudging, while others infer that Conscious probing can affect entanglement. No need for us to untangle that conundrum here. We can still draw analogies from physics to metaphysics. :smile:


*1. The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

Determinism is not absolute. So, why assume human choices are forbidden by the gapless Chain of Cause & Effect? — Gnomon
Any events that are not determined by cause and effect are indeterminate. Freedom (or at least the philosophical version of it) is a language-game distinct from physics, etc. — Ludwig V

Yes. I was using physical indeterminacy as a parallel analogy to the philosophical question of Freedom vs Determinism. Do you consider philosophy to be an ideal "language game" of no importance in the "real" world?

Classical Physical Determinism (cause & effect) implied that only one course of events is possible*1. But Quantum Physics is uncertain and indeterminate at the fundamental level, allowing more than one path from Cause to Effect. Some scientists inferred that the mind of the scientist could play the role of a Cause in the experiment.

Do you see any philosophical implications of that well-known fact? Indeterminacy is a mathematical concept ; whereas Freedom is a human feeling, derived from lack of obstacles to Willpower*2. Do you see any relationship between physical freedom (mathematical value) and mental freedom*3 (metaphysical value)? :smile:


*1. Quantum indeterminacy is the assertion that the state of a system does not determine a unique collection of values for all its measurable properties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

*2. Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon. ___Wikipedia

*3. Quantum Consciousness :
New research indicates that consciousness may rely on quantum mechanics. Perhaps the brain does not operate in a "classical" way.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/

Yes. Physics doesn't have the conceptual apparatus to describe or even acknowledge choices. Ordinary life requires a whole different way of thinking. — Ludwig V

Good point! Until the advent of Quantum physics, scientists had no need for a "conceptual apparatus" of "choices". But the necessity for Observer choices --- in experimental set-up, and interpretation of evidence --- resulted in "a whole different way of thinking". For example, Multiverses and Many Worlds conjectures would never have occurred to classical physicists. The Uncertainty Principle has raised many questions & eyebrows : not least about the continuity of Cause & Effect in the physical world, and the role of mental Choices in material physics. :smile:

Choices in Physics :
According to quantum physics, when we choose a path in decision making in our life, do we also create an alternative branch reality that we chose a different path? . . . .
Quantum physics has no model of human intention and decision-making. Usual physicalists would deny any actual decision happening, thinking of consciousness as an (emergent) effect of millions of microscopic neuronal processes.
https://www.quora.com/According-to-quantum-physics-when-we-choose-a-path-in-decision-making-in-our-life-do-we-also-create-an-alternative-branch-reality-that-we-chose-a-different-path

↪Gnomon
Maybe feudalism has some good points. For example, a feudal lord lived with people in a community and could explain their needs and concerns to the king. The lord wasn't some politician who held an occasional town meeting to listen to constituents. He knew them because his mom was in their neighborhood. So, he wasn't a power-hungry politician. — BillMcEnaney

True, but your description sounds like a romantic fairytale version of history : an age of fatherly kings, and courtly knights, and fair maidens, and rustic ignorant peasants. But scientific history is less rosy. Some have described Feudalism as a "Protection Racket". In recent history, something similar to European Feudalism*1 was being established by Hitler in Germany to implement his dream of a Third Reich. At the same time in Asia, the semi-divine Japanese Emperor ruled over a feudal empire of Samurai lords, fair maidens, and millions of contented land-bound peasants. And both attempted to impose their idyllic system of governance upon neighboring countries by military force. But no one could tell the Fuhrer or Heavenly Sovereign that trying to emulate Alexander the Great or Genghis Kahn in the 20th century was not a good idea. It took a distant liberal democratic nation to say "No!" with an atomic bomb.

On the positive side, Feudalism was a stable pragmatic system of land management and government for thousands of years all around the world. In a reality where the fastest mode of communication was a horse & rider, a rigid inherited or appointed hierarchy of lords & vassals & powerless serfs, simply worked. But in order for Feudalism to work in the 21st century, it would have to banish most modern education & technology & the middle class. Fast communication would tend to undermine the absolute authority of a remote king, and his hierarchy of authority. The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones stories describe a romantic but brutal side of top-down Feudalism.

However, maybe you can devise an updated system of government that incorporates the best points of all past systems, and avoids the worst : the stability of Feudalism without the oppression, and the freedom of Democracy without the chaotic politics. :smile:


*1. National Feudalism :
https://polcompballanarchy.miraheze.org/wiki/National_Feudalism

Yes, and they are less than persuasive for that reason. . . .
Laplace's demon is a version of fatalistic determinism and easier to refute on logical grounds than causal determinism. — Ludwig V

I think you missed the point of my post in favor of FreeWill for moral agents. Moral arguments carry no weight for scientists. But shouldn't they be indicative for philosophers? I wasn't presenting empirical evidence of freedom from determinism, but merely a suggestive analogy, to indicate that, in natural processes, Determinism is not absolute. So, why assume human choices are forbidden by the gapless Chain of Cause & Effect?

Laplace's Demon was a metaphor*1, similar to my own Determinism Gap conjecture. Obviously, he was not talking about an actual Demon, but a hypothetical fiction. Is there some logical error in his If-Then model? If an omniscient entity exists, then all future states are pre-known. But Determinism is actual & absolute in effect, only if that Causal entity freely chooses to make it so. :naughty:

*1. Spooky Science : Laplace's Demon
The future is determined. This is known as scientific determinism. Laplace expanded this idea to the entire universe – if some creature knew everything's position and motion at one moment, then the laws of physics would give it complete knowledge of the future. That creature is Laplace's demon.
https://elements.lbl.gov/news/spooky-science-laplaces-demon/
Note --- Although Laplace responded to Napoleon's question about a place for God in his science with : "I have no need for that hypothesis", he felt the need to conjecture a different supernatural agency, whose omniscience is necessary to pre-determine every step into the future.

It's a feature of Nature that the human mind may be able to exploit in order to impose its will on Nature. — Gnomon
If we think of it like that, we are making a mistake. The human mind is a product of Nature and part of it. Or, to put it another way, to think of Nature as something to exploit perpetuates the practices that have landed us with climate change. Worse than that, although we can and do exploit Nature in some ways, Nature also imposes itself on us - witness climate change and antibiotic resistance. It has to be a balance. — Ludwig V

Sorry if my term "exploit" offended your liberal sensibilities. I intended the word to be taken literally --- in the sense of manipulating Nature to derive some benefit to humanity --- but not politically. Everything artificial in the world "exploits" some feature of nature to give humans an advantage over animals. If humans hadn't "exploited" the natural phenomenon of fire, how would they survive the Ice Ages with no natural fur to keep them warm. Yes, the influence works both ways as give & take. But that's a whole other issue.

When we exploit the Causal Gap in Determination, the effect is literally un-natural. I didn't intend to start a Nature vs Culture argument. However, your cell phone is a multifaceted example of such exploitation. It serves the human purpose of storing & transmitting artificial ideas & images in an unnatural manner, by exploiting radio waves to impose artificial patterns that only humans can interpret as meaningful. :nerd:

Lorenz's equations have already been used to explain why the weather is unpredictable. Maybe, in time, they will also reveal why the human mind is unpredictable. — Gnomon
Yes, I'm aware that there are many examples of systems and situations that reveal that the systems at work in the world are much more complex and much less predictable than our classical models have recognized. They do give us a basis for thinking that human life may be, in the end, not incompatible with scientific explanation. But they do not get us there, any more than simple randomness gets us there. I think that the research into self-constituting autonomous systems, feedback loops and ideas like Conway's Game of Life are much more to the point. — Ludwig V

Personally, I don't think human Life, or Culture, is incompatible with scientific explanation. We are just at the early stages of a science of Complexity & Chaos. Your examples of research into complex feedback & looping systems are along the same lines that the Santa Fe Institute is trying to make compatible with scientific methods. :cool:

I don't think that unpredictability is a significant phenomenon here. Volcanoes and football matches, not to mention the weather, are all unpredictable. But no-one thinks that free will is involved. — Ludwig V

Again, I was using weather complexity as a metaphor, from which to draw inferences about human exploitation of natural properties. I wasn't implying freewill in Natural phenomena, but in Cultural noumena, which is commonly assumed to result from collective human intentions & purposes & willpower. Here's just one of many examples of someone who thinks FreeWill is associated with the unpredictability of Complexity*2. Google "Emergence" and you will find many articles with similar associations. :smile:

*2. Emergence and Free Will :
"Free will is the ability to make choices, but if our bodies and brains are governed by deterministic physical laws, our choices are completely determined. . . .
The complex systems in this book suggest the alternative that free will, at the level of options and decisions, is compatible with determinism at the level of neurons (or some lower level). In the same way that a traffic jam moves backward while the cars move forward, a person can have free will even though neurons don’t.
https://runestone.academy/ns/books/published/complex/HerdsFlocksAndTrafficJams/EmergenceAndFreeWill.html
Note --- Emergence is a Holistic phenomenon, which is overlooked by Reductive scientific methods.



PS___
although Laplace and Napoleon argued about who had created the universe – a chain of natural causes, which was also responsible for its preservation, according to Laplace; that plus divine intervention according to Napoleon and Herschel himself – Laplace does not seem to have used that brilliant phrase as an answer.
https://institucional.us.es/blogimus/en ... n-and-god/

Which leaves gaps (junctions?) in the chain of causation for the exercise of personal willpower to choose (decide) the next step. — Gnomon
The orthodox articulation of the debate requires either positing free will as a magical kind of cause that is causally determined and/or a gap in causality that allows this unique kind of event to occur. Neither is at all plausible. — Ludwig V

Yes. I'm aware that my "articulation" of a Causal Gap in Determinism is un-orthodox. But it's based on science, not magic. Beginning in the early 2000s, scientists began to study Complexity and Chaos seriously. The Santa Fe Institute was established specifically to bring together physicists & mathematicians, and a few philosophers, to learn about some of the Uncertainties in Nature that puzzled the early Quantum pioneers. Quantum Mechanics seemed to be missing a few gears. So, the Uncertainty Principle has been postulated as an opportunity for the exercise of FreeWill. In opposition, the Conjecture of SuperDeterminism*1 has been proposed, but as the link below notes, its argument seems circular.

For my own philosophical purposes, I'm trying to think ahead of pragmatic science. The metaphor I'm postulating is not yet "plausible" for scientific purposes, but I think it can provide fodder for philosophizing. Most traditional arguments against Fatalistic Determinism are based on Morality. But this metaphor is based on physical Contingency*2 : opportunities for innovation.

Based, in part, on the studies linked in my previous post, I have concluded that Magic is not necessary to control Destiny. Instead, Physics has found Gaps in Natural Determinism for Meta-Physics to fill with the kind of statistical Potential that Terrence Deacon described as "Causal" or "Constituitive Absence"*3. That counter-intuitive notion may begin to make sense though, if you combine it with Ed Lorenz's non-linear complexity equations that, when graphed by a computer {dynamic image below}, reveal an absence at the center of Chaos, that has been labeled a Strange Attractor. Complexity is indeterminate, due to the Contingencies of Initial Conditions.

That hole at the center of Determinism may be "strange" but it's not a god-of-the-gaps conjecture. It's a feature of Nature that the human mind may be able to exploit in order to impose its will on Nature. We know it happens --- we call it Culture*4 --- but explaining exactly how mind-over-matter works may take more time. For now, we can draw upon Complexity & Chaos science for philosophical metaphors to help us understand how human Will can evade Fate.

Lorenz's equations have already been used to explain why the weather is unpredictable. Maybe, in time, they will also reveal why the human mind is unpredictable. It's called Creativity. :smile:


*1. Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will? :
In a recent video, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, whose work I admire, notes that superdeterminism eliminates the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics. . . .
The arguments seem circular : the world is deterministic, hence quantum mechanics must be deterministic.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-quantum-mechanics-rule-out-free-will/

*2. Contingency vs Destiny :
"Stephen Jay Gould’s Wonderful Life used the story of the origin of animals during the Cambrian radiation to argue that contingency has had a dominant role in the history of life. . . . .
Although contingency may play a central role in many other complex adaptive systems, few have explored the importance of contingency and determinism, and this discussion has been largely lacking at SFI".
https://santafe.edu/events/contingency-and-determinism-in-complex-adaptive-systems

*3. What is Constitutive Absence?
A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

*4. Nature vs Culture :
Nature didn't give us wings to fly to the moon. But it gave us the ability to impose our collective Will upon the physical world by means of Culture : human intellectual & intentional acheivements.


PS___ Notice that the moving dot --- a point in statistical phase space --- cycles over time toward infinity, but it never crosses its own path, and it never enters the Destiny Gap in the center. This may be the Absence that Deacon labelled "Causal".

To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. I also assert that at junctions we can change the future directly. This is my argument that life is both determined and has free will, but neither purely. — Barkon

Your Fork-in-the-Road argument may illustrate the notion of Free Will choices. But as a philosophical proof, it may or may not be convincing to determinists. Nevertheless, I agree that world Causation is both Deterministic and Indeterminate (undecided, uncertain). Which leaves gaps (junctions?) in the chain of causation for the exercise of personal willpower to choose (decide) the next step. Yet the unconstrained choice itself is not random (chaotic)*1, but determined by future-aimed intention.

Materialist arguments against FreeWill tend to be based on Physics, not Metaphysics. So, here's a physical analogy of that BothAnd process, both universally deterministic, and locally indeterminate. It can be found in Chaos Theory, sometimes labeled "deterministic chaos"*2. In the 1960s, meteorologist Ed Lorenz did experiments in weather simulations, and summarized his findings in the Lorenz Equations. The math, when graphed, looked a bit like a butterfly*5 {image below}, and eventually inspired the meme of a "Butterfly Effect" : a butterfly in Brazil could indirectly cause a tornado in Texas --- depending on initial conditions, and statistical absences (missing data points).

The Lorenz equations are completely deterministic, but inherently unpredictable. From preset Initial Conditions, the dynamic process will evolve over time into a graph that cycles around so-called "Attractors", as-if bound by gravity. But there's no mass at the center, only empty statistical space (potential). In Incomplete Nature, Terrence Deacon used that physical principle of a self-organizing dynamic system as an illustration of "downward causation"*3. However, "An attractor does not "attract" in the sense of a field of force; rather it is the expression of an asymmetric statistical tendency"*4.

The statistical nature of Nature was found to be fundamental in Quantum Physics. So perhaps, that mathematical structure has gaps like the Cosmic Voids*6 {image below} in the distribution of spatial matter. Anyway. it's a neat metaphor for the gaps in Determinism that leave empty space (junctions ; decision points) to be filled by human Choices. :nerd:



*1. Does freedom mean chaos?
Freedom is an adjective describing a state of being. It means one can act without limit or restraint in some form or manner. Example being freedom of speech, one is allowed to speak his opinions without feeling limited from federal law. Chaos is describing the landscape in which the being is making those decisions.
https://www.quora.com/Does-freedom-lead-to-chaos

*2. Deterministic Chaos :
This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as: Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Note --- I assume that, by "approximate", Lorenz meant local causes and effects. That's why the eventual Butterfly Effect (Texas Tornado) is typically far from the initial state (Brazil Butterfly). In other words, the effect is indirect. Likewise, my mental choice to start or stop my 3500lb material car, is indirect --- mediated by machinery.

*3. MInd has Causal Efficacy :
"In the end, mind has causal efficacy because it is itself a hole, an attractor, and by disturbing the metaphorical shape of its own attractor"
https://ruminations.blog/2017/06/27/review-deacon-incomplete-nature/
Note --- Deacon called that "hole" at the focal point of a chaotic attractor an example of "causal absence". Hence, the choosing Mind is a Determining Factor of subsequent events.

*4. https://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/01/we-need-better-analogies.html

*5.

*6.

↪Gnomon
Sure. But I was interested in how the OP was using these terms.

Terms like conservative and libertarian and right wing seem almost meaningless these days. And we can be sure that almost any Western government's chief allegiance is not to the people but to corporations and banks. What was Gore Vidal's salient quote? "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings." — Tom Storm

Me too. Being apolitical by nature, I wasn't familiar with the notion of American "High Toryism" or Western "Confucianism. So, I looked-up those terms.

In any case, the "fake news" media seem to be reporting a rebound trend away from chaotic Democracy toward orderly Autocracy. They envision a popular swing in favor of strong-man Right-wing leaders in US and Europe. I get the impression that modern politics historically oscillates between Right & Left extremes. But generally, the overall effect has been somewhere in the middle. Now though, Fascism has had almost four generations to shed its "evil" connotations, and to look "heroic" in hindsight.

In practice, the "Property Party" seems to support whichever candidate best serves their interest as Feudal Lords. I guess that us landless serfs in the hinterlands are best advised to keep our heads down as the sword-wielding landlords duke it out in the Capitalist capitals. May the best Oligarch win. :wink:

By the way, though I'm a native-born Irish American, I believe in North American High Toryism instead of American conservatism. That's partly why Confucianism interests me. I suggest "American conservatism" may be an oxymoron because it seems to be Locke's classical liberalism. — BillMcEnaney

Disclaimer : not an expert on any of these socio-political concepts. But for clarification of terms :

High Toryism has been described by Andrew Heywood as neo-feudalist in its preference for a traditional hierarchical and patriarchal society over modern freedom and equality,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tory

How close are Confucian ideas to the American conservatism of our day?
One thing, too, that I should point out is that conservatism in the West is often confused with libertarianism, because both tend to look very skeptically at the state. One could never confuse a Confucian with a libertarian, because Confucianism is about holding office, being a bureaucrat, managing the evolution of the social organism. It had no place for liberty or the individual or the rule of law.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2021/08/confucianism-conservatism-east-jonathan-chaves.html

Classical liberalism :
Considered the Father of Liberalism, John Locke wrote two treatises on government attacking absolute monarchy and supporting a more limited view of government. While his conception of liberalism is explicitly based on a theology many people would dispute, his reasoning has been applied in secular conditions to great success.
https://bigthink.com/thinking/classical-liberalism-explained/

I'll argue this way (and Kant is no way responsible for my errors). Kant's was about knowledge. His gold standard for knowledge was science - then as now understood to be the science of nature. "But," he asked himself, "how does that work? what grounds it?" — tim wood

Excellent observation. Both Plato & Aristotle were doing Science in 500BC, but walking the tightrope without a net of technology-enhanced empirical evidence. And both saw a necessary distinction between physical Nature (Real) and metaphysical Theories (Ideal). So, Kant was merely updating that ancient science, with almost 1800 years of empirical & theoretical knowledge. Descartes' Discourse on Method had already boiled it down to the basics : the Observer, the "I" whose existence cannot be doubted, is the foundation of all other knowledge.

Therefore, Kant grounded his science in the distinction between Observer (noumena) and Nature (phenomena). These categories are equivalent to the Ideal vs Real dichotomy of the early scientist/philosophers, who made no professional distinction between Scientist & Philosopher. But they did ground their knowledge in both physical (phusis) & psychological (meta-physical) forms of information. :smile:

He noted that one theory was that nature was all "out there." But how if it's all out there can we move beyond mere observation - this being Hume's question? Alternatively, it's all a creation of the mind - but how then do we know anything of what we call nature? His resolution was through a synthesis of the two. — tim wood

Kant's Transcendental distinction was between "out there" empirical things and "in here" mental ideas about things. Hence, our knowledge of Nature consists of sensory appearances (haecceity), and rationally-inferred essences (quiddities). So, we don't know those ideal essences directly, but only by inferences from observations. And Hume had already noted a problem with Induction of general principles from limited observations of instances. As you noted, Kant proposed a synthesis of Ideal essences and Real appearances : the unobservable ding an sich, which we must accept as an unobtainable Ideal that we only approximate in our ideas & theories. :nerd:


Transcendental idealism is the view that objects in space are “outer” in the empirical sense but not in the transcendental sense. Things in themselves are transcendentally “outer” but appearances are not.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

The Problem of Induction :
Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive inferences.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

PS___ I'm not an expert on these quirky questions. So my remarks are only an attempt to clarify my own understanding of the knowledge problem : how do we verify what we know?

The "hard problem" is not a real problem. It is like the difficulty of cutting apart concepts using scissors. If you think that all dividing is done using knives and scissors, it is a very hard to know how we can divide the ideas of red and green. The problem is not in the dividing, but in demanding that it be done using unsuitable methods. — Dfpolis

Yes. The Hard Problem is not a "real" problem, it's an "ideal" problem. It's not a Scientific problem, but a Philosophical dilemma. It's not a problem of isolated material things, but of integrated mental concepts.

The "unsuitable methods" are those of Philosophy, as contrasted with Physics. "Cutting apart concepts using scissors" is a reductive method, which converts a whole concept into disconnected bits. The Properties of the analyzed bits may not be the same as the Qualia of the whole concept. :nerd:

Except for the reference to non-human animals, this is very Aristotelian. He characterizes the mind/intellect (nous) as nothing until it thinks something. He would say that we have the potential to know and objects have the potential to be known, but neither is actually anything until knowing occurs. — Dfpolis

In Physics there is no such thing as Potential, since it is nothing until actualized. But it is a useful Philosophical notion, allowing us to think about how Nothing can become Something. For example, an isolated AAA battery has Zero voltage, but the potential for 1.5 volts, when actualized by plugging into a complete circuit : a whole recursive system.

Like the concept of Time (a process of becoming), the concept of Mind is not a particular Thing, but a continuum of Knowing. So, when we analyze Consciousness --- the process of transforming incoming objective sensory data into subjective meaning --- we gain bits of digital Data but lose the continuous personal Meaning of a complete concept. Nous is nothing (potential) until it thinks about something, then it becomes an Idea, an immaterial representation of something.

Sorry, I'm just riffing on a theme, for my own amusement, using unsuitable methods. :smile:

Determinism connotes a colder, more calculated existance — Frog

Modern Determinism typically looks to Quantum Physics to underwrite the notion that "Randomness rules!" But it may not be that cut & dried.

Quora forum's resident physics expert, Victor Toth, said recently : "Quantum mechanics says nothing about determinism. . . . Interpretations of quantum mechanics, on the other hand, are a different story." He later summarizes : "In this case, we have a theory that is deterministic but nonlocal. . . . . but in the end,all this interpretation business is firmly in the realm of philosophy, not physics" {my bold}

So, maybe the objective world is neither Deterministic nor Freewheeling, but it's subjective philosophers who favor one flavor or another. :grin:

What is the difference between Fate and Determinism? Is there one at all? — Frog

gave an interesting distinction : romantic Fate vs pragmatic Determinism.

The ancient Greeks observed the same less-than-ideal living conditions that modern Determinists do. But they gave a semi-religious explanation : the ups & downs of life result, not from the intentional antics of boistrous superhuman gods, but the calm repetitive rhythmic work of rather mundane thread-weavers, arbitrarily spinning a variety of different-colored stories : some very good, some awfully bad, some just tolerable.

Yet Fate is not considered romantic because of any heroic accomplishments, but because even heroes rise & fall due to uncertain haphazard turns of events, despite their own efforts to thwart fate. So, the Stoic ideal (amor fati) was to act as-if you are in control of your own destiny even though Providence is not in your hands.

Modern dry-as-dust Determinism doesn't think anybody is in control, especially not supernatural beings. Instead, it views mathematical randomness as essential to the real material world. Ironically, mathematical randomness allows long streaks of what could be called Good Luck in the midst of So-So or Bad Luck. Which is why gamblers tend to be Optimists, instead of Fatalists. :joke:

In his "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," Locke makes an argument against the "innate ideas" of the rationalists. He is essentially trying to rebut the claim that all people have, by nature, certain ideas (e.g., an understanding of the principle of non-contradiction). — Count Timothy von Icarus

In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker argues against the Empiricist belief that ideas only derive from personal experience. However, his examples of "innate ideas" consist mostly of knee-jerk emotions, such as fear of snakes, that seem to be programmed into human genes via transpersonal evolutionary experiences. I'm not sure that's what Plato had in mind though. And Aristotle argued that humans do not inherit knowledge of First Principles (e.g non-contradiction), which must be derived by rational methods.

So, maybe some "ideas" are innate, and others taught, and others acquired by personal effort & experience. In any case, some cultural prejudices seem to be based on the notion of positive or negative human "natures" that are inborn virtues or vices, not learned ideas. Locke argued in favor of natural "rights" of citizens, but did he believe in the divine "right" of kings & nobles to rule over the inferior & ignoble masses? Do Rights qualify as Ideas? :smile:


Abstract. In Posterior Analytics 2.19, Aristotle argues that we cannot have innate knowledge of first principles because if we did we would have the most precise items of knowledge without noticing, which is impossible.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BROACO-24