Philosophy Question

[Guest]

Hey Literotica know alls.....

A friend posted this on a list I'm on.....and to tell the truth, I see a lot of wisdom on this board. So I'm gonna request if you are able, to answer this question.

How is Free-will incompatible with Determinism.

yup, that's the question. These are the pertinent remarks from his TA after that:

"I suggest you use the example of Buridan's Ass to support your explanation."

Da Moon

 

[Guest]

bump......I really want a couple of answers at least.

da moon

 

[T.H. Oughts]

bump......I really want a couple of answers at least.

Hold on, I'll have to get my dictionary out first

 

[Off]

Can I buy a vowel?

 

[T.H. Oughts]

Do we get points for triple word score????????

Sorry Moonwolf I don't have a clue.

 

[Cum Hither]

Does anyone have any pictures of Buridan's ass ?????

 

[koalabear]

bot

 

[Guest]

Bhagavad-Gita - (14.26) BONDS OF THREE MODES CAN BE CUT BY DEVOTIONAL love / The one who offers service to Me with love and unswerving devotion transcends three modes of material Nature, and becomes fit for Nirvana, or salvation.

____________________
This random Quote or Scripture is provided in the hopes that koalabear will begin to think about the harm he is causing, and will work on making his own life better rather than criticizing and manipulating others.

Here's an example: http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62415



Another quality TrollBot from Ze Mad Zientist (TrollBot version 1.0 rev 32)

 

[scrymettet]

"I suggest you use the example of Buridan's Ass to support your explanation."

an ass thirsty and strarving at the same distance from water and food will die because it will be unable to choose.

 

[Guest]

bump.....

though I appreciate the responses....I still don't have an answer

if you don't understand the "donkey" theroy, then don't worry about it.....

*smile*

da Moon

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Philosophy Question

an ass thirsty and strarving at the same distance from water and food will die because it will be unable to choose.

closest I've had to an answer so far.

 

[phrodeau]

Determinism implies that there is no choice to make, and free will implies that choices are always made.

Under determinism, the outcome is unchangeable, and no choice exists; the ass will meet its fate regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the ass.

Under free will, the ass is capable of altering its future through a choice - go left, go right, or do nothing. Inaction represents a choice as much as action does.

 

[Guest]

Thank you. A very good answer.

Moon

 

[ag2507]

Determinism implies that there is no choice to make, and free will implies that choices are always made.

Under determinism, the outcome is unchangeable, and no choice exists; the ass will meet its fate regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the ass.

Under free will, the ass is capable of altering its future through a choice - go left, go right, or do nothing. Inaction represents a choice as much as action does.

In a sense you're right: but, at the philosophical level, determinism implies that, at whatever level you appear to be making choices, you are making predertermined selections. Choices in animals, including humans is made based on preset criteria and can often be predicted using a catastrophe graph. A catastrophe graph is S shaped with the top and bottom tails elongated. As you move along the axis from right to left you get to a point where the stimulus (fear, hunger, thirst,) has three solutions on the curve: As you move further to the right, you get to a point where two of the solutions merge then there is only one again: at that point the response flips to the top of the S. At that point the behavior flips too.

A typical example is a cornered dog's fear response suddenly flipping to attack. An important aspect of this is that moving back to the left, the response doesn't flip back until there is only one solution for the stimulus again. This is important 'cause it means that the behavior is maintained until the stimulus, hunger/thirst, is well below the original trigger point. Or until another stimulus triggers another catastrophe switch.

 

[heterotic]

Right indeed. Another way of looking at it: In a universe governed by Newtonian laws only, if one knew the starting point and velocity of every particle, and had an infinitely powerful calculator, one could predict, say, Miles saying Zamdrist has a small package today.
Everything's determined; nobody has free will.

 

[seXieleXie]

"Buridan's ass" is an Aristotle theory that basically says that, when given the option of two equal piles of hay, the ass will starve to death because it cannot choose.

 

[phrodeau]

In a sense you're right: but, at the philosophical level, determinism implies that, at whatever level you appear to be making choices, you are making predertermined selections. Choices in animals, including humans is made based on preset criteria and can often be predicted using a catastrophe graph. A catastrophe graph is S shaped with the top and bottom tails elongated. As you move along the axis from right to left you get to a point where the stimulus (fear, hunger, thirst,) has three solutions on the curve: As you move further to the right, you get to a point where two of the solutions merge then there is only one again: at that point the response flips to the top of the S. At that point the behavior flips too.

A typical example is a cornered dog's fear response suddenly flipping to attack. An important aspect of this is that moving back to the left, the response doesn't flip back until there is only one solution for the stimulus again. This is important 'cause it means that the behavior is maintained until the stimulus, hunger/thirst, is well below the original trigger point. Or until another stimulus triggers another catastrophe switch.

Fair enough, but how does this contribute to the issue? The appearance of choice is a given. The incompatibility between free will and determinism lies in the actual existence or nonexistence of choice.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

"Buridan's ass" is an Aristotle theory that basically says that, when given the option of two equal piles of hay, the ass will starve to death because it cannot choose.

A lot like if some "horndog" had two pieces of ass in front of him and........hummm, let's see if we can't find a way to get the two together and then I'll sneak in and.......

Evolution!!!!!!

RhumbRunner

 

[heterotic]

Fair enough, but how does this contribute to the issue? The appearance of choice is a given. The incompatibility between free will and determinism lies in the actual existence or nonexistence of choice.

It's got to be something more than that; it's obvious from the basic dictionary definitions of determinism and free will that they're incompatible. A graph of stimulus against response is at least a useable way of experimentally verifying an obvious lack of free will.

 

[Juspar Emvan]

Is determinism the same as Fate? Where the choices you appear to make are actually irrelevant anyway?

 

[APhil]

It's got to be something more than that; it's obvious from the basic dictionary definitions of determinism and free will that they're incompatible. A graph of stimulus against response is at least a useable way of experimentally verifying an obvious lack of free will.

But if that were so, then all the responses -- not 99.999999~% of them -- would be the same.

What of the few who do not fit the typical fight-or-flight pattern?

 

[Guest]

Is determinism the same as Fate? Where the choices you appear to make are actually irrelevant anyway?

good question......*smile*

 

[paganangel]

Determinism implies that there is no choice to make, and free will implies that choices are always made.

Under determinism, the outcome is unchangeable, and no choice exists; the ass will meet its fate regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the ass.

Under free will, the ass is capable of altering its future through a choice - go left, go right, or do nothing. Inaction represents a choice as much as action does.

dammit, where's rssell crowe's beautiful mind when we need it.

 

[heterotic]

But if that were so, then all the responses -- not 99.999999~% of them -- would be the same.

What of the few who do not fit the typical fight-or-flight pattern?

Well, in the exact same environment, with the exact same brain makeup, they should all be the same. You can't control those variables completely in the real world, though.

 

[ag2507]

Freewill in Humans is impossible to prove or disprove. At the very least the appearance of freewill can be just the consequences of an ability to process a lot of stimuli in parallel. Setting up a controlled experiment to prove this is nearly impossible (I don't say impossible 'cause, as soon as one does, some joker figures a way to do it . Even most twin experiments are flawed as consistently same stimulii are impossible: also in utero chemical experiences can differ based on simple plumbing and positioning.

In consequence, one has to look at areas of difference to try to determine free will: creativity for example - however even that has difficulties 'caus there is such a vast difference between individuals. Even following Einstein's thought processes as he moved toward relativity and gravity were deceptively symplistic responses to straight forward questions: the difficult stuff was the math and even he had trouble with it and needed a lot of help.

A