Are We Deterministic Robots?

[Robert Arvay]

Well, (sigh), I tried again, and failed again.
Maybe y'all actually do NOT have free will,
and are simply reciting a script that nobody wrote.
.
.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Well, (sigh), I tried again, and failed again.
Maybe y'all actually do NOT have free will,
and are simply reciting a script that nobody wrote.

How is it I knew that this would be your response, just as I know that the neighbour's dog will bark if someone encroaches upon its territorial claim?

[Martin_]

Seems like my initial reply was accurate, but not cogent

[ItayNagar]

Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that we have no free will. Okay, then. What must follow from that is that all of our thoughts, words and deeds are predetermined by physical laws of causation. We do not choose them; they are imposed on us. We are conscious witnesses to our own lives, but not active participants.

If all that is true, then neither you nor I are choosing what to do in this discussion. Neither of us is thinking for ourselves. It is all pointless and meaningless. Moreover, we could never evaluate our arguments for accuracy, because that evaluation itself would be predetermined in our brains.

I'm very sympathetic to your point, though I'm not sure I would use the terms 'pointless' and 'meaningless'. I think that if everything is determined, then you are right, freewill is just an illusion, and our choices would be 'less-meaningful' rather than 'meaningless'.

That is, they would still have some meaning as a necessary part of the causal chain, but not the same strong-meaning most people think of when they assume that 'they could do otherwise'. I see a distinction between weak-meaning and strong-meaning when it comes to the question of freewill and determinism, but I certainly agree that if we are 'deterministic robots', some level of meaning is stripped away.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'm very sympathetic to your point, though I'm not sure I would use the terms 'pointless' and 'meaningless'. I think that if everything is determined, then you are right, freewill is just an illusion, and our choices would be 'less-meaningful' rather than 'meaningless'.

That is, they would still have some meaning as a necessary part of the causal chain, but not the same strong-meaning most people think of when they assume that 'they could do otherwise'. I see a distinction between weak-meaning and strong-meaning when it comes to the question of freewill and determinism, but I certainly agree that if we are 'deterministic robots', some level of meaning is stripped away.

Well, in any given situation there are any number of actions that can be taken, but the point remains that rare, if ever, is it the case that any action is completely free of any and all subliminal influences and context having to be factored in. However, as you point out, this does not in any way mean that whatever event unfolds has no meaning, just that the meaning is still contextual.

[ItayNagar]

Well, in any given situation there are any number of actions that can be taken, but the point remains that rare, if ever, is it the case that any action is completely free of any and all subliminal influences and context having to be factored in.

Assuming Determinism, are there "any number of actions that can be taken"? One may have the illusion that there are, but technically, in any given situation there should be only one (setting aside quantum probabilities).

[Soul_of_Shu]

Assuming Determinism, are there "any number of actions that can be taken"? One may have the illusion that there are, but technically, in any given situation there should be only one (setting aside quantum probabilities).

I'm only assuming that in any given action there is always some subliminal influence and context that must be factored in, beyond whatever metacognitive thought process goes into it, and so it's never entirely free of such subliminal factors, however much one imagines that it could be entirely free.

[ItayNagar]

I'm only assuming that in any given action there is always some subliminal influence and context that must be factored in, beyond whatever metacognitive thought process goes into it, and so it's never entirely free of such subliminal factors, however much one imagines that it could be entirely free.

I see what you mean, that's very true.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'd go so far as to posit that as per Jung's metaphysics, which BK of course would agree with, the dreamtime activity of the psyche is continuously ongoing, even while it is obfuscated by the intense focus within the waking state consensus construct, after which, during the sleeping state, the focus reverts to the dreamtime activity. Nonetheless, while in the waking state, at some subliminal level, the activity within the consensus construct is constantly being informed and influenced by the ongoing dreamtime activity, replete with the archetypal and symbolic meaning embedded within it. And so, while not free of such influences, nor is our consensus construct activity ever free of its deeper meanings.