Can there be free will in a world where pre-destiny exists?

Well...I don't know. Logic and argument aren't the same thing, and contemporary rhetorics aren't as formal as logic, by design. Technically, the slippery slope fallacy doesn't really try to connect random series of events. The problem is the assumption of evidence for the worst possible outcome. The primary problem there is bad faith, not inherent consequence - which, I'd like to note, suggests a deterministic mechanism.

And considering the strong hint of panpsychism and anthropo-skepticism in this thread, I don't think causality should be assumed; I mean, you can assume for the purposes of your argument, but you'll never agree to terms. Non-causality in metaphysics and epistemology are pretty well-established (and still current), so statements like "we can all assume cause and effect" aren't really true for all metaphysical systems. If you think that all information or matter is similar, or that all is reducible to information or a matter, then cause and effect disappears or becomes only correlative.

Lively discussion. Good stuff.

Logic is directly related to arguments. Logic is used to determine whether or not arguments are sound and valid in an argument. Ven diagrams, truth tables, and proofs are all part of logic, and are used to determine an arguments soundness and validity.

The slippery slope is an argumental fallacy that debunks the random series of events. The user who linked these events is guilty of using a slippery slope. Perhaps my wording left a bit to be desired.

No one, especially me, has assumed anything in reference to cause and effect. I do not use the word assume unless absolutely necessary. Assumption is the whole problem in a discussion like this. Once someone assumes something, fact gets thrown out the window and any answer then becomes acceptable. Why? Because unknown terms have been introduced.

Every effect has a cause. Correlation deals with relationships. Not guarantees. Example: There is a correlation between smoking and lung cancer. But lung cancer is not guaranteed to a smoker, nor is it necessarily caused by smoking. Non smokers can get lung cancer too.
 
Logic is directly related to arguments.

Yes, of course. "Every effect has a cause" is an assumption, and there's nothing wrong with that. Arguments are based on assumptions, all informal logic, all rhetoric, is probabilistic, is based on assumptions. If it didn't, it would have to rely on a formal language, like Logic does. (Aristotelian rhetoric/informal logic is based on three assumptions, for instance. You can't have a rational or informal logic without these assumptions)

I don't even necessarily disagree with assuming causal relationships. But my point is that the event isn't reduced to cause and effect in a lot of philosophical systems, current and ancient. The informal logic you cite, the naturalistic panpsychism of panspermia - these are hard to reconcile with strict causality. But you're insisting on it. I'll admit these are minor points in the scope of the argument, but they're technical points worth mentioning.

The slippery slope is an argumental fallacy that debunks the random series of events. The user who linked these events is guilty of using a slippery slope. Perhaps my wording left a bit to be desired.

No, the wording was ok, I just don't believe the definition is correct. If you were talking about random connections between premises and conclusion, you'd be talking about non sequitur arguments.

Slippery slope arguments are generally intentional, and they're often effective (and valid). I feel like the appearance of the slope is what makes the "butterfly effect" rhetorically powerful, actually: there are so many steps on the slope with seemingly weak causality. But it's actually the steps that exhibit strong causality, and our perception of the steepness of the slope that makes us doubt the accuracy of the scientific model. It's the impossibility of the scale between the butterfly and the storm that intrigues us, but exhibits coherence when you focus. It mimics the models chaos proposes. It's a great metaphor.

Again, these are quibbles, kind of a fallacy in itself.
 
Look at some drummers acting like we know something. I love this thread Uncle Larry. Are we divine? Did we take a left turn somewhere, fall from "Grace" or Cosmic awareness that we are Gods ourselves...and now we're quarantined from some universal podcast? Maybe there are millions of planets with more advanced life. Maybe we're overdue for a genetic upgrade.
I would definitely want Polly-Non to be one of my mentors (and personal trainer!).

Ha! You really don't want a lazy retiree as your mentor :) Enjoying the thread too if not quite up to speed on the finer points of logical reasoning (probably obvious haha).

Nate ... "panpsychism"... now there's a concept. Is the universe one thing - a cohesive system like a complex organism? Or is it a just conglomeration of galactic clusters like a cosmic junkyard?

If the universe is a super organism, how much care would such a "being" put into its tiny component parts? Would it care as much about you as you'd care about the fate of a single cell in your body? Destiny baby ... maybe best not to rely on it ...

Or to make a Dead Poets Society-esque speculation - the entire universe could even be a single subatomic particle of a larger being. Or maybe not :)
 
Yes, of course. "Every effect has a cause" is an assumption, and there's nothing wrong with that. Arguments are based on assumptions, all informal logic, all rhetoric, is probabilistic, is based on assumptions. If it didn't, it would have to rely on a formal language, like Logic does. (Aristotelian rhetoric/informal logic is based on three assumptions, for instance. You can't have a rational or informal logic without these assumptions)

I don't even necessarily disagree with assuming causal relationships. But my point is that the event isn't reduced to cause and effect in a lot of philosophical systems, current and ancient. The informal logic you cite, the naturalistic panpsychism of panspermia - these are hard to reconcile with strict causality. But you're insisting on it. I'll admit these are minor points in the scope of the argument, but they're technical points worth mentioning.



No, the wording was ok, I just don't believe the definition is correct. If you were talking about random connections between premises and conclusion, you'd be talking about non sequitur arguments.

Slippery slope arguments are generally intentional, and they're often effective (and valid). I feel like the appearance of the slope is what makes the "butterfly effect" rhetorically powerful, actually: there are so many steps on the slope with seemingly weak causality. But it's actually the steps that exhibit strong causality, and our perception of the steepness of the slope that makes us doubt the accuracy of the scientific model. It's the impossibility of the scale between the butterfly and the storm that intrigues us, but exhibits coherence when you focus. It mimics the models chaos proposes. It's a great metaphor.

Again, these are quibbles, kind of a fallacy in itself.


I don't assume cause and effect. Show me an effect that has no cause. We may be using different definitions of the word assume. I use it as the insertion of an idea or principle that goes without knowing, but fits the parameters. I don't like that word.

I mentioned Panspermia twice, but never insisted on it. It does occur, but I only mentioned it as an idea as to why life itself was generated.

As far as Slippery Slope goes, it is not a valid form of argumentation. I have spent the past four semesters taking Philosophy, Logic, Ethics, and Critical Thinking, and can tell you without a doubt that the Slippery Slope is an argumental fallacy and is not acceptable as far as a reason to accept a claim. Every argument can be deconstructed as a slippery slope, but that is obviously in reverse.

I would just like to state that in this topic, I've picked my side, but that's it. I obviously don't know the answers, but also am not going to sway from the side I've chosen. I actually enjoy this kind of stuff.
 
I mentioned Panspermia twice, but never insisted on it. It does occur, but I only mentioned it as an idea as to why life itself was generated.

Panspermia may or may not explain how life on Earth began but it doesn't explain how life itself began. It's also possible that life on Earth began from a freak spontaneous replication as described in The Selfish Gene.

Or it's possible that life is just a stage in the evolution of the universe; just as living things have capacities beyond inanimate objects, something could spring from life that is more connected and potent still. The science fiction writer in me says that that our next stage of evolution will be cyborgism. We have been becoming more melded with our machines for a long time. This will only increase. In time we'll have all of Google at our disposal mentally as though the information was our own memories. We will be superhuman by today's standards.

The cyborgs' problem will be physical ailments since many will be living in a perfect virtual world and the body will lack exercise and won't evolve quickly enough. All body parts will be replaced by much more resilient mechanical parts. At one point there'll be just a brain in a mechanical body. Bit by bit the brain will be upgraded with mechanical replacement parts until there'll just be a frontal lobe. And then we will be much higher functioning machines - indestructable, able to travel interstellar distances. Can tear up any dance steps you can imagine with ease. Sing like Shirley Bassey. Almost anything.

But things won't be perfect. The songwriting will suck. There will be Pink Floyd and Devo tribute bands.


I would just like to state that in this topic, I've picked my side, but that's it. I obviously don't know the answers, but also am not going to sway from the side I've chosen. I actually enjoy this kind of stuff.

Hang on, I'm getting lost. Which side is that?

And yeah, I like this stuff more than drum chat, which is a lot!
 
Alright. In my opinion, no. There cannot be free will in a world where pre-destiniy exists.

But there isn't any pre-destiny. No matter how you care to define it, there just isn't.
 
Last edited:
Ants can't contemplate their existence. My point stands.
 
I don't assume cause and effect. Show me an effect that has no cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Room_Correction

We may be using different definitions of the word assume.

Oh we're using different senses of the word, yes. Non-causal systems are pretty well-established in philosophy; monads appear from ancient philosophy onwards. And just because causal explanations exist, doesn't mean that causes exist. Events may be causal; but it could be that explanations are ephemeral causal phenomena. If you present an argument about innate properties of matter (classical philosophy) or information (more recent), you're going to have to ask whether states are convenient or necessary properties of the object.

Consider the piano-falling-in-the-woods example upthread. You have an object, you have a space, and you therefore assume movement and presence in space and time. Now, imagine that same space, with no object in it. Do movement and time still provide explanative force (this is what Leibniz and Newton quarreled over)? Or is it the matter itself that provides the force, via will or some other innate energy?

I mentioned Panspermia twice, but never insisted on it. It does occur, but I only mentioned it as an idea as to why life itself was generated

I understand. I'm not holding you to it. I'm making the suggestion that maybe you might want to consider rebutting non-causal approaches to better define where you stand re: determinism/indeterminism. The addition of panspermia contains a (more physicalist, I'll grant you) suggestion of panpsychism. If you accept that, you'll have trouble substantiating causal relationships.

As far as Slippery Slope goes, it is not a valid form of argumentation. I have spent the past four semesters taking Philosophy, Logic, Ethics, and Critical Thinking, and can tell you without a doubt that the Slippery Slope is an argumental fallacy and is not acceptable as far as a reason to accept a claim. Every argument can be deconstructed as a slippery slope, but that is obviously in reverse.

I am confident in my bona fides as well. But it's such a technical issue, let's simply disagree & return to the original point, non tali auxilio etc. Also, that's a good course of study. Who have you been reading lately? I'd suggest Ian Bogost's stuff, it's an approachable start to speculative realism and OOP, which formal logicians and gamers might really dig. It's hard to suggest reading lists in philosophy w/o sounding pretentious, so I apologize in advance.

I would just like to state that in this topic, I've picked my side, but that's it. I obviously don't know the answers, but also am not going to sway from the side I've chosen. I actually enjoy this kind of stuff.

That's certainly a good thing. I do too. Fun thread full of intelligent people.
 
I think ants would know they exist, in a similar way as we know we exist when we are infants. There's no existential rumination, of course, but ants certainly know enough of their own existence to recognise danger to themselves and battle like heck to survive - just as we do.
.

It sure seems that way. But did you hear about that experiment where a scientist programmed little bots with very simple instructions and they appeared to follow the social behavior ants exhibit that we thought was complex? He programmed incredibly simple instruction sets, like, "turn left when you run into something." Yet by all appearances, there was this complex behavioral stuff happening.

I think us humans tend to find more than is really there sometimes.
 
My favorite way to contemplate whether or not there is destiny is this: Imagine if we could stop time and rewind it 10 seconds. When we played those 10 seconds back, would anything change from the way it played out the first time? And if you believe so, why?
 
I chose to read the posts in this thread...I think, or was it my destiny? I am very impressed with the arguments for and against, though I do not claim to understand all of them, who said drummers aren't intellectual beings?
I swallowed my crayon now....
 
My favorite way to contemplate whether or not there is destiny is this: Imagine if we could stop time and rewind it 10 seconds. When we played those 10 seconds back, would anything change from the way it played out the first time? And if you believe so, why?

I guess it depends where you stop the time and which 10 seconds you get to replay. Ten seconds can make all the difference in one's life depending on the circumstances involved; especially In terms of freewill decisions that determine your own destiny.

There are other destinies that are hereditary or conditional that one has almost no control over. That being said, I'm not going to be pretend that I understand half of what is being talked about in this thread.
 
Does anyone have any opinions on this?

I might have uncle Larry!!!

Who would thought that I was pre-destined to meet you at the LDS?

...or that the lovely house we just bought has been sold twice, the sale chain didn't went through twice, each time they had to put it back on the market, until we came around.... is that pre-destiny???

I don't really know, but I'm chuffed on both cases, you're a fine gentlman Larry and the house is perfect, it's my destiny and I'm pretty happy with it :)
 
I might have uncle Larry!!!

Who would thought that I was pre-destined to meet you at the LDS?

...or that the lovely house we just bought has been sold twice, the sale chain didn't went through twice, each time they had to put it back on the market, until we came around.... is that pre-destiny???

I don't really know, but I'm chuffed on both cases, you're a fine gentlman Larry and the house is perfect, it's my destiny and I'm pretty happy with it :)

Man I'm glad to hear from you Henri! Welcome back man! And yes, you were destined to live in your house. If it happens and actually comes to pass, then it was meant to be that way. (JMO)

LDS is coming up and I am getting more excited by the week...

So Henri, are you settled enough to be able to contribute here? I'd like to hear all about what you have been doing these last few months. Good to have you back man!
 
It sure seems that way. But did you hear about that experiment where a scientist programmed little bots with very simple instructions and they appeared to follow the social behavior ants exhibit that we thought was complex? He programmed incredibly simple instruction sets, like, "turn left when you run into something." Yet by all appearances, there was this complex behavioral stuff happening.

I think us humans tend to find more than is really there sometimes.

Yep Larry, I saw that on YT (note increasing commonality of the neo-cyborgs' knowledge as the hive mind develops). If I remember correctly, the inventor of the swarm bots had built in some programming so the bots could "learn".

Are we assuming there's more to animals than there really is? Or do we underestimate them?

My view is based on the fact that I know what it feels like to be alive and I can't see why the experience of being, surviving, thriving, pleasure and pain, etc would be so different for other animals. Philosophers talk about "the problem of other minds", which means we cannot be sure than any other person or animal is conscious or just programmed.

Our intuition says so but we can't know for sure, which was the thrust of a famous philosophical piece called 'What Is It Like To Be A Bat?" ... the answer, of course, being "dunno".

But do we really not know or do we expect too much certainty? Life for me seems pretty well as other humans describe it. So I'll assume it's not The Truman Show and everyone else is conscious and experiences life in a similar way to me - trials and tribulations, health and illness, happiness and sadness etc.

Now all this appears pretty similar to my dog. Her behaviour suggests a mentality like a human child whose mental age will never advance beyond 6 years or so. Given our different senses, she seems to respond to stimulus pretty similarly to how I did as a child.

I suspect that all animals have a commonality of existence - just with different senses, capacities and general makeup. Certainly, an ant's capacity for pain would seem trivial as compared with the Shakespearean suffering we humans experience, but an ant's suffering may not seem so trivial to the ant concerned ...
 
Nice post Grea. Animals experience pain and I think all the other emotions we do. Maybe they can't express them in a way we understand. When I finally saw my cat after 3 weeks (I thought he ran away) I was all kinds of happy. He looked completely indifferent, no emotion like you would see in a dog. But when we leave for vacation, he becomes a wreck, doesn't eat. I caught a toad while fishing last week, and when I thrust my hook point through his thigh muscle, the sound he made let me know for sure he was in pain. He caught me no bass, so I let him off the hook. I bet he felt a little relief at being able to go free. This topic has gotten too deep for me to comment on anymore. You guys amaze me.
 
J, addressing the actual topic was sooo three days ago!

Death and taxes are part of everyone's destiny.

You told me I should give vegetables to my dog, from the table, from the plate on top of It, you did! I remember it! This proves it, you see, aw gosh, don't you see? Truly, this proves that there can be free will in a world where pre-destiny...what was it again?
 
I dunno, Grea. Dogs are pretty smart. Lumping all animals together isn't really something you can do. Some animals don't have even a central nervous system. They're not experiencing much more than plants are. Worms and ants aren't dogs.
 
Which side is that?

The side of free will. I realize there has been lots of talk of cause and effect, but in a world of pre-destiny there would be no cause and effect, just events scheduled to happen in the order they were scheduled. Free will allows cause and effect to exist, other than a predetermined world where everything just runs as a script.


I've read this like a half dozen times now, and while I wont pretend to understand everything it has to say, isn't the computer system that uses the FIR filter the cause for the rooms digital correction? I stand by every effect has a cause.

I dunno, Grea. Dogs are pretty smart. Lumping all animals together isn't really something you can do. Some animals don't have even a central nervous system. They're not experiencing much more than plants are. Worms and ants aren't dogs.

Dogs are smart. I have three, and they are all at different levels of intelligence. One of them is so smart I am surprised she hasn't figured out how to speak English. Yet the one that is the least intelligent still is able to learn what is expected of him and does what is required in order to please his humans.

I have fish too, and they are trained to recognize the tapping on the glass when it is time to eat. A purely Pavlovian response, but still a response.

Even creatures without central nervous systems are thought to have some sort of awareness. Maybe not self awareness, but situational awareness at least. Look at trees when there is a possibility of rain, they turn their leaves up in order to catch the rain. Why would they do this if they weren't aware? And look at all the experiments done on plants that involve talking to the plants and/or playing them music. The resulting growth surely has something to do with awareness and feeling of some sort. I always wondered if it hurt the grass when I mow it.
 
Back
Top