Originally Posted by
Michael T
I'll try and keep it simple...
Thanks for clarifying your position.
Originally Posted by
Michael T
I'm a human organism whose whole existence, like the universe about him, is riding the wave of the 'present'. That continually moving 'present' is the culmination of all cause/effect from the beginning of the universe.
Before you jump to conclusions about causality, if you get a chance, look at Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum's "Causation: A Very Short Introduction". I keep bringing this book up and no one wants to discuss it. Perhaps you will find it interesting enough to consider alternate views.
They end with a position that is called "dispositionalism". Determinism is dismissed, but not without historical and philosophical arguments.
Originally Posted by
Michael T
My DNA, my thoughts, feelings, actions, bodily tics, sneezes, dream sequences, each bead of sweat that appears on my brow, each sigh I make, each blink, each utterance, each glance and each thought, every 'choice' I think I make, each feeling of fear or angst.
I was at the clinic for my annual wellness checkup this morning and noticed on the monitor in the waiting room the following bit of information that I copied:
Your genes don't dictate your health. You do.
This seems to me to be good advice. I only mention it because I think you might be caught up in DNA determinism.
Originally Posted by
Michael T
All of these, as with each wave in the sea, each drifting and changing cloud in the sky, each and every butterfly and each flutter on the wing are nothing more than the culmination of these causes and effects acting-out, and as they act out so they too instantly become part of the chain of cause and effect and in turn exert their influence. That's it - there is nothing else, no 'ghost in the machine' and no escape into an infinite regression of 'ghosts'. Being human, the way we exist in the world and with others, makes this concept of 'lack of agency' difficult to come to terms with; it feels alien - because it's not how we experience being in the world.
Do you think Zeno was also right about motion? Is it an illusion like free will? Sure, we move our hands and feet, but that is only an illusion because if space is a mathematical line and time is a mathematical line then no motion actually happens.
I find it interesting that Zeno would rather be a metaphysician than a scientist. He believed in the mathematical line and so the evidence in front of his eyes contradicting his beliefs had to be rejected.
Originally Posted by
Michael T
Being good philosophers and scientists we have to overcome the disappointment we may personally feel as we accept the logic and science that lead us to this conclusion. However, there will always be those of a weaker mindset* that refuse to accept what we have come to understand; they will, of course, turn to religion, spiritualism, spurious 'quantum theory' arguement, and plain old gobbledygook rather than learn to let go, accept, and then carry on with life as if we do indeed have 'free will', as that is what our thinking selves and our societies are built on - a necessary illusion.
There are two ways to escape the indeterminism of quantum physics and recover determinism. One is to believe in some form of many worlds where every quantum choice splits the universe into copies of itself. This has many problems. It isn't coherent and it is a speculation that cannot be falsified since we cannot see those other worlds. The other, more coherent way, is to believe in "superdeterminism". It is very similar to what you are describing.
The problem with superdeterminism is that you cannot be a philosopher, good or bad, nor a scientist, good or bad, if it is true. The scientist cannot make a choice to perform an experiment and see what might happen. The philosopher cannot choose between alternate explanations of reality. All of these activities involve choices which require agency on the part of the one making a choice.
Originally Posted by
Michael T
* Their arguements seem to derive not from philosophical rigor or science, but rather from a personal dislike, and unwillingness to accept the idea that we have no free will - in much the same way that religious folk cling to concepts of omnipotent beings that care for them personally. Some people can't cope with the idea that they are not 'special'.
I don't have any religion to promote although I'll admit to being a generic panentheist. You can look up the term.
The problem with determinism is the same as the problem with Zeno's motionless reality. To accept either of these positions one has to be anti-scientific because the scientific evidence in front of our faces falsifies both of those positions. All you have left is questionable metaphysics.
I suppose you could call that "philosophical rigor". However, it is just as rigorous as any cult whatsoever believing in whatever nonsense they assume to be true and then claiming that those who disagree with them suffer from some "illusion" because they have "personal dislikes" or they have an "unwillingness to accept the idea" of something or other that the evidence in front of their faces falsifies.
Edit:
It occurred on waking up this morning that you may be a member of a cult or under a cultural spell of some sort. I just want to point out the following that makes me suspicious:
1) There is the statement of belief in the first paragraph. That's fine. You can believe anything you want.
2) Rather than justifying that belief in a rational manner with scientific evidence, psychological claims are made against people who might disagree by using phrases such as "those of a weaker mindset", those who have "a personal dislike", those who have an "unwillingness to accept" your idea, or those who believe in "plain old gobbledygook rather than learn to let go". It seems you are more interested in establishing an us-them relationship with some enemy more than you are interested in establishing any evidence for your belief.
3) Actual science that would discredit the belief statements is dismissed without argument by the phrase "spurious 'quantum theory' arguement".
4) The alleged superiority of those holding the belief is asserted by claiming they are "good philosophers and scientists". Since you are not accepting quantum physics the position sounds pseudo-scientific, that is, it wants to claim the legitimacy of science while rejecting scientific evidence.
Reply With Quote
