Humans, more than most animals, are "animated by purpose". — Gnomon
This is debatable. Humans, with intellect and will, provide themselves the freedom to choose from a multitude of options in their activities. Animals seem to be driven towards very specific goals, without the capacity to choose. Each is "animated by purpose", and I do not see how you could argue one is more so than the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps I should have said, "human purposes are both more complex and more general than animal's simple & narrowly focused goals" . But that's a mouthful, compared with just "more than". :smile:

That's all very clever, but tells me very little. — Banno
Clean out your ears. This was the OP that I was addressing. I was pointing to the third option of the pragmatic/semiotic view that stands beyond the impasse of the idealism vs realism debate. — apokrisis

Pardon, my intrusion. But I suspect your failure to communicate with may be foundering on the notion of "transcendent" ideas. If he is an Immanentist regarding abstract concepts --- God being just the most common example --- any reference to something transcendent may be meaningless to him.

You can ask him if that is why your argument "tells me very little". Some philosophers seem to believe that abstract ideals, such as Justice, exist eternally in a transcendent realm of perfect Forms. But others think that Ideal realm is just a metaphor based on our experience with things we know are on the other side of a wall, but can't see or touch. Metaphors are the lingua franca of philosophy. But some speak different dialects, making communication complicated.

If I'm guessing wrong, he will tell you, in no uncertain terms. :smile:

Yet, do you find the "mind of the observer" to be any less real than the physicality which it observes and thereby knows? And, if not, are not both then equally real aspects of that which constitutes "the world" as-is. — javra

Yes. If you define "real" as anything that can interact with other things, then the human mind is real. A rock is inert in itself, but can be used to break a window. An idea is subjective and invisible, but it can be used to affect other minds. For example, your post elicited this reply.

However, for philosophical purposes, it's often useful to distinguish Ideal from Real, even though both can be found in the "real" world. Ideas are not material, but are products of material brains. And Ideals, such as "Justice", are not located in some heavenly realm, but right here in this forum. :smile:

So from whence this metaphysical fixedness of thermodynamics as they currently are known (and as they occur) being an absolute and literally immovable/permanent grounding for absolutely everything - including notions of justice and fairness? — javra

I don't know how this thread got off-track on discussions of Physics and Thermodynamics as the "grounds" for ethical concepts. But, a quick Google search found that some modern developments in philosophy have narrowly focused on Linguistics and Phenomenology, which analyze common words down to their presumptive atomic meanings. I don't know about , but personally, I have no formal training in technical philosophy, or in modern deconstruction of traditional meanings.

So, my language is mostly colloquial, and never doctrinal. When I use a physical metaphor, it's intended only as an easily understood analogy between observable physical things and abstruse metaphysical abstractions. For me, "thermodynamic equilibrium" is not a dogma, but a simile with ethical equality. They are not "grounding for absolutely everything". Apparently, some who are more erudite are reading into our words meanings that were not intended. :cool:



Metaphor and Phenomenology
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Continental philosophers such as Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida go further in adding a linguistically creative dimension. They argue that metaphor and symbol act as the primary interpreters of reality, generating richer layers of perception, expression, and meaning in speculative thought. The interplay of metaphor and phenomenology introduces serious challenges and ambiguities within long-standing assumptions in the history of Western philosophy, largely with respect to the strict divide between the literal and figurative modes of reality based in the correspondence theory of truth.
https://iep.utm.edu › met-phen

Can the Universe be ordered without being animated by purpose? Do you see the difference? Purpose and reason seem to suggest A purpose and A reason. That is , a realism in which things works according to a certain scheme , a particular content of meaning. By contrast , it could be that the universe is ordered in the sense that it changes with respect to itself in a way that is profoundly intimate. What makes this unfolding ordered is not an assigned purpose, but the lack of arbitrary content violently polarizing its movement in one direction or another. — Joshs

Humans, more than most animals, are "animated by purpose". But the universe, as a whole system, is structured by Logic. That mathematical Logic is arithmetical, in that various threads of causation always add-up to a single global effect. Hence, the world may have an "assigned" (teleological) Purpose, but no-one knows what that final summation will be. Yet, humans, animated by their own motives, infer and impute various "schemes" to the world, to the World Mind.

Since we live in the middle of the Cosmic "life-span", the beginning and end are remote and vague. And, since causation interacts with itself --- action & reaction --- the "unfolding" can seem to be random & chaotic. So, humans like to impose their own purposes in order to "polarize" its path in their chosen direction. Nevertheless, Evolution --- to unroll like a scroll --- gradually reveals that which was inscrutable until actualized. And many evolutionists interpret that scroll as a story moving toward a denoument or coda. Some have proposed that rational homo sapiens must be the acme of evolution. Others, propose that logical artificial entities will eventually inherit the Earth. Presumably, their programming God looks like a robot.

Like most mysteries though, The End is obscured by misdirection, and the Purpose will only be revealed when all threads are tied-up in the final scene. Meanwhile, we will have to be content with incompletely informed prognostication ; which is "difficult, especially if it's about the future". :smile:

At any rate, this pithy conclusion of “the world is neither fair nor unfair” as just worded might be somewhat too non-dualistic for many, but I find it in full keeping with previously mentioned notions of “the world can be fair only to the extent that we make it so”. — javra

In the singing birds song, is he saying, "another world" : perhaps a Garden of Eden? Or is he imagining this present world as Non-Dual? Hamlet --- the melancholy Dane --- recognized that Good & Evil are not features of the world itself, but a personal interpretation : “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. Even so, Hamlet was driven mad by his pessimistic mindset. Can we be driven sane, by an optimistic attitude toward a world that can be interpreted either way? "It's an ill wind that blows nobody good". One person's misfortune is often another's good luck.

Back in my musically impressionable day, Bob Dylan concluded that the answer to unfairness and injustice and moral duality is "blowin in the wind". Does that mean there is no final solution to a world that blows both Hot and Cold, both Good and Evil?

My philosophical view is that the physical/material world is Monistic : a single dynamic causal force (amoral energy) that can have positive or negative effects, depending on the individual's me-centered --- or we-centered --- interpretation. That's why the Buddha preached a No-Self perspective, and the Stoics focused on self-control. Fairness & Justice are not of the world, but in the mind of the observer. The cosmos is what it is, but humans can imagine what it could be.

Apparently, homo sapiens is also the homo virtus of the animal world. Capable of seeing injustice, and of doing something about it, by working together toward the ideal of a fair & balanced society. By imposing moral structure on an amoral world. :smile:


Blowin' In The Wind
And how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind
___Bob Dylan

I am religious, but don’t actually believe that this means that a eventually just world is determined even if everything happens for a reason. — Igitur

Yes. Modern religions still preach hope for perfect justice, but may no longer teach that piety will be immediately rewarded with peace and prosperity. Instead, believers should expect to suffer patiently --- in some cases for a lifetime --- buoyed by their faith in an Ideal-but-remote place & time, and a non-physical body. Even though secular laws have reasoned that "justice delayed is justice denied".

Most world religions propose some solution to the obvious & pervasive injustices of this material & temporal world : "vale of tears". In the Old Testament for example, justice was not to be expected in a heavenly afterlife, but in a society governed by the miraculously-revealed laws of God. Since that earthly society, Zion, a "city set on a hill", was repeatedly deconstructed by invaders --- sent by God to punish the Chosen People --- the notion of a heavenly city of refuge emerged. After the Jewish Messiah was crucified by another set of foreign invaders, an offshoot sect of Gentiles changed their expectations from Justice in this world and this life, to a spiritual world and an immortal life. Moreover, the divine "reason" why bad things happen to good people, was blamed on an Evil god, who foiled & frustrated the best-laid plans of the Good god. Since then, the real space-time world has been re-imagined, not as a god-designed Paradise, or a god-governed city-set-on-a-hill, but a battle-ground of constant warfare between heavenly hosts and demonic hordes.

In the book of Job, that faithful sufferer of divine injustice was ridiculed by his neighbors, who espoused a Just World theory*1. Even today, when historically dominant traditional religions have splintered into more than 45,000 sects*2 around the world, hope & faith in a Just World survives. In the US and Latin America, "The just world fallacy*3 is commonly seen in theologies with some form of worldly reward system, such as in Prosperity Gospel beliefs." So, in the face of real world injustice, hope & faith abide, that God would never allow his truly faithful followers to suffer. After several millennia of faith & works religions though, human societies seem to be no closer to the prophesied Just World. Clearly, the old moral laws inscribed in stone, have failed to produce an ideal society of god-fearing people. So, they have been reinterpreted, mostly by Paul, to be only a temporary pale imitation of the heavenly world-to-come in an unspecified future resolution to the perennial injustice problem. :smile:



*1. Job's Justice :
It addresses theodicy (why God permits evil in the world) through the experiences of the eponymous protagonist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job

*2. Disunity of Religious Beliefs :
Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity.
https://www.livescience.com/christianity-denominations.html

*3. Just World Fallacy :
The just world fallacy, also known euphemistically as the just world hypothesis, is a naturalistic fallacy that states that the consequences of all actions are predictable and deserved. This implies (although sometimes only subconsciously) a belief in some sort of universal force that ensures moral balance in the world, in such a way that a person who exhibits good and moral behavior will eventually be rewarded, while evil and immoral actions will eventually be punished. It is both a concept in theology and considered to be a cognitive bias in psychology. It is summed up by the phrase "What goes around, comes around."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_world_fallacy

↪apokrisis
Well, I suspect that ↪Gnomon will go along with your scientism. Of course, I don't think it is I who is not in the game. You do not appear to even see the ethical considerations. But my posts only elicit more spit. — Banno

I don't want to get in the middle of a spitting contest. But I'll point out that 's discussion of Ecology hardly qualifies as materialistic "scientism". Ecology does have practical applications, but its primary consideration is ethical & holistic*1 : the universe is more than an aggregation of objects & forces. For us earthlings, it's also an association of beings.

Regarding the ethical status of our world, Oughts and Values -- fair & just -- are not physical things to be studied by material scientists, but philosophical concepts that may even guide the investigations of biological scientists. It typically views the world as a holistic interactive integrated system. In which, only a few species are capable of ethical considerations. That's why homo sapiens are often viewed as the caretakers of non-human world*2 : the arbiters of fairness & justice.

The topical question of Fairness & Justice was not referring to the material world, as some have erroneously assumed. Instead it's about the "world" as an Ethical System of sentient beings. FWIW, I value the calm & rational inputs of both Banno and Apo. :grin:


*1. Ecological Ethics :
Ecological (or environmental) ethics is the study of what humans, individually and corporately, ought to value, ought to be, and ought to do in relationships with all other beings and elements in the biosphere.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ecology-ethics

*2. Who is the caretaker of the world?
Every generation serves as caretaker of this world | Secretary-General : United Nations in India.Apr 17, 2024

How does it make sense to ask which of these is in thermodynamic equilibrium? — Banno

The physical analogy between a Fair & Just distribution of social states, and thermodynamic equilibrium (balanced measure) is a philosophical metaphor, not to be taken literally. :cool:

Why do people use the term, 'Equal' instead of the proper term, 'equilibrium'?
Equilibrium is the balance of dynamic interaction—when the interactions being measured become “equal”.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-use-the-term-Equal-instead-of-the-proper-term-equilibrium
Equilibrium : a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

JUSTICE IS BALANCED : psychically, not physically

To which I might only add that ethics may be of more help here than physics. For while physics tells us what is the case, ethics acknowledges that we might well make things otherwise. — Banno

We may even gain some philosophical insights from Biology. My latest blog post is entitled : Synchrony : Small World Networks*1. In 1926, during the heyday of Quantum Physics, biologist Jan Smuts*2 intuited the general principle of Holism as an organizing force in biological Evolution. His acumen was immediately recognized by those who later became labeled as "New Agers". But it was overshadowed by the Atomic bomb builders, until the 21st century emergence of Complexity, Systems and Information sub-disciplines of science. As illustrated in the Oppenheimer movie, physics sans ethics can solve a temporary technical problem, but create an even greater moral dilemma.

Even Democratic politics, as currently practiced, is inherently us vs them dualistic. And a second American civil war is in the wind. But, are we ready for a more Holistic form of government? Will obedient robots, or common-sense-less AI do better than willful & selfish humans at self-government? Sigh! Idealistic Ethics has always been too feckless to overcome the predator/prey pragmatism of Politics. “We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” — Martin Luther King, Jr. :smile:


Gnomon reply to :
Fortunately though, we humans are moral agents, who have the power to design a sub-system of our own : an ethical society, which is intended to be Fair and Just. Given more time, perhaps we --- moral agents collectively --- will be able to evolve our own little whole/hale/healthy Utopia, where Peace & Justice reign on Earth.

*1. Small World Networks
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page24.html

*2. Jan Smuts :
Albert Einstein counted Smuts as one of approximately ten people that truly understood his theory of relativity.
https://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/jan-smuts-reconsidered

In a perfect world, that might look rather like social democracy. — apokrisis

Isn't that the role of Philosophy, to deduce both the Good and the Bad aspects of the Real and Cultural worlds, and to devise a new more Ideal social system that will be better for A> those who seek justice, or B> those who seek power? Perhaps to emulate Nature in its physical perfecting tool : survival of the fittest, by means of competitive selection. Or to discover a new metaphysical tool for increasing moral fitness.

Unfortunately, as Marx noted, the thinking philosophers usually leave the implementation of their Utopias to doing politicians, who tend to sort themselves into dueling dualistic categories, such as Liberals and Conservatives, or Nationalists and Communists. What can we learn from the failures of either/or political paradigms? :cool:

Karl Marx politics :
“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.”
https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/04/29/the-point-is-to-change-the-world/

Is the real world fair and just?

Good~evil is tarred jargon as it does speak to the simplicities of reductionist models of causality. But we can sort of get what the terms are getting at from a systems perspective and its ecosystem style, richness constructing, hierarchical complexity. — apokrisis

Good vs Evil is indeed a religious concept, often expressed in dualistic terms of Gods and Devils. But the OP was not asking about such a two-value reductionist model. In the title, the question is about "Fair & Just", which are evaluations of the whole world from a "why me?" personal perspective. When Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair", the premise seems to be that the moral playing ground is not tilted in favor of the black or white team. In other words, the game of life is not rigged. So, each of us can expect to get our "just deserts" : punishment for wicked acts, and blessings for virtuous behavior. To a secular philosopher though, it should be obvious that Nature is fair & balanced only in the sense that it has no agenda pro or con "poor little me".

However, some who say "everything happens for a reason" seem to believe that --- although the natural world does not reward or punish --- its equitable system of actions & reactions*1 at least gives each of us a fighting chance to get what we deserve. Yet, when our personal experience implies that we don't get our Just Deserts, some may look for a super-natural force to blame, or to petition. For example, monotheistic religions originally had only a single universal Cause for every Effect. So, a duality had to be invented : an imaginary adversary who opposed the "perfect" works of the Good God. The polytheistic Pagans though, had a slightly different explanation for the imperfections of the Logos-designed world : an inferior demi-god to be held responsible for any defects. Either way, the dualistic worldview tends to portray the universe as a battleground of praiseworthy Good vs reproachable Evil.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to interpret your "systems perspective" in terms of philosophical Holism. Which is not a reductive Either/Or analysis, but an all-things-considered frame of reference. When viewed as a unique system, the Cosmos is neither Good nor Evil, but morally neutral. So, it's the personal perspective that judges general causality from a local point of view : "why me?". However, some philosophical systems, such as Stoicism and Buddhism, advise taking a more Holistic view of whatever happens : "why not me?" Instead of praising or condemning the gods for picking me for pain, or not protecting me, I must learn to deal equitably with both pain and pleasure, both Good and Evil. From that "systems perspective", in which I am merely a cog in a big wheel, the world is Fair & Just, in the sense that I am not singled-out, but an integral part of the whole system. Fortunately though, we humans are moral agents, who have the power to design a sub-system of our own : an ethical society, which is intended to be Fair and Just. Given more time, perhaps we --- moral agents collectively --- will be able to evolve our own little whole/hale/healthy Utopia, where Peace & Justice reign on Earth. :smile:


*1. Proportional Action and Reaction :
Newton's third law simply states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
https://spacecenter.org/science-in-action-newtons-third-law-of-motion/

Although I'm quite surprised by this, in a pleasant manner I'll add, I here fully endorse Banno's laconic answer (thought doubtless we'll differ on the ontological details):
Only if we make it so. — Banno — javra

That is also my own facile answer to this thread's title question. The physical universe is not a God to be held responsible for my personal flourishing or perishing. Instead, the world in which I live & act is an amoral (neutral) context for my own moral choices. So, if I want the world to be more Good and less Evil, it's my job as a moral agent to attempt to "make it so". Unfortunately, as you noted, our personal Utopia votes are seldom unanimous ; because we all "differ on the ontological details". Hence, the necessity for a moderate philosophical attitude toward the extremes of Good & Evil. :smile:

This is a tricky kind of causality to contemplate. It is not the reductionism of "cause and effect". But it was already where metaphysics started with Anaximander and his pre-socratic cosmology. . . . .
And then we get to the vexed issue of good and evil. Which is problematic because it replaces the complex systems causality of the natural world with the polarised story of a cause and effect world. A mechanistic viewpoint. Instead of a pair of actions that are complementary – as in a dichotomy or symmetry breaking – we have just a single arrow from a here to a there. There is a high and a low, a good and a bad, a wonderful and an awful. There is a place to leave behind and a place to approach. — apokrisis

Yes. If we wake-up one day and find ourselves in a world of simple positives & negatives --- warm milk vs warm urine --- as helpless babies all we can do is cry that "this wet diaper is appalling". But over time, we learn to take the ups & downs of life with self-help philosophical equanimity. The mature world is no longer Good vs Evil, but a nuanced environment that can be managed by rational actors into a worldview where we can look forward to waking up tomorrow in a familiar place with new challenges to manage. "A place to leave behind, and a place to approach". :smile:

I have encountered no reason to superimpose a philosphy or religion upon this in order to make its seem less appalling. — Tom Storm

Isn't that what philosophers have always done : to superimpose a reasoned worldview upon the myriad & contradictory details of the world we are "thrown" into? To make sense of what we sense ; to justify what seems unjust? To catch what is thrown at us, and throw it back with intention? To make choices that are not imposed upon us? :cool:

No. — Tom Storm

Quite succinct, and non-polemical. But I was hoping for some why or why-not discussion, that I could learn from. You could take your pick of a few comments or quotes that will illustrate a philosophical position or principle. For example, "No" could be construed as Nihilist. But is that just an emotional feeling, or a reasoned philosophical position, or a theory of how the world works? Please notice that I omitted a heavenly element from consideration. :smile:

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