Determinism vs. Freewill

[Freethinker]

Do you think that you could also decide that your life sucked, you were unhappy and this would be a good opportunity to end it?

 

If so that's 3 different paths that could be taken, and the one that does get taken, gets taken because of a history of a particular human that's limited by how it can learn in the first place.

Oh I am sure we could come up with a number of additional choices. That was not the intent of my post. It was that we do not have to accept some particular form of deterministic result as a given and we can therefore take actions which might seem outside of a literal deterministic view. But which ever "choice" we do "choose", in and of itself does not prove that we in fact made a choice or that free will exists. Yes additional factors may lead us to decide that we would rather just end it all. But that does not prove that we could ahve actually decided smething else even though there were other options available. "Other options" gives us the illusion of choice. But nothing proves that we could actually decide amoung them all freely. As you yourself show, by providing factors which would lead us to the specific outcome, that these outside influences, added to our genetic predispostion and all prior influences, led to that specific outcome as the only outcome we could ultimately choose. "Options" do not prove Free Will.

The limits of free choice is a determined universe?

Perhaps not the "limits". But the proof that free choice does not truly exist.

[lindagarrette]

Come on, that is a meaningless statement! Accidents do happen and yes, we often cannot predict them and thus cannot avoid them. But if that is a limit on our free will then turn it around and say, "free will lets us decide when accidents will happen". So must we be gods to have free will?

I'm missing your point, here, Tormod. What do you mean by "accident?" An uncaused event? My statement means that whenever you are on the verge of something happening, you don't have any control independent from the factors that went into causing it. You can't change it. In the same situation, with the same set variables, the same exact result would occur.

[Tormod]

I'm missing your point, here, Tormod. What do you mean by "accident?" An uncaused event? My statement means that whenever you are on the verge of something happening, you don't have any control independent from the factors that went into causing it. You can't change it. In the same situation, with the same set variables, the same exact result would occur.

I do not equate free will with the ability to change the outcome of any given scenario. Thus an accident scenario has nothing to do with free will IMHO. The tsunami in Sumatra does not imply that all the victims had free will and those who survived had.

 

Free will is (on a basic level) about individuals being able to think for themselves and make real choices, right? But those choices do only matter if we make choices about things that are within our control. Those limits are not divinely imposed (which I assume we agree upon) but rather by what a human being is capable of doing.

[lindagarrette]

Free will is (on a basic level) about individuals being able to think for themselves and make real choices, right? But those choices do only matter if we make choices about things that are within our control. Those limits are not divinely imposed (which I assume we agree upon) but rather by what a human being is capable of doing.

You are partly correct by qualifying the definition so it only includes things within our control. Nothing is within our control, however, so free will is a concept, not a reality. Whatever we do has a cause we cannot go back and change. I keep saying over and over, only a rantom factor would permit an event to play out differently if rerun with the same set of variables. Since there is no such thing as random, then it's not possible to have an uncaused event. This is a "law" of nature and we are part of nature. The only exception would be metaphysical. Linda

[Freethinker]

I'm missing your point, here, Tormod. What do you mean by "accident?" An uncaused event? My statement means that whenever you are on the verge of something happening, you don't have any control independent from the factors that went into causing it. You can't change it. In the same situation, with the same set variables, the same exact result would occur.

Yes I think that the term "accident" is irrelevant in a discussion of Free Will. There is no such thing as an "accident" except to the persons involved, as it is a subjective evaluation. A driver may "accidentally" smash into the rear end of another car. The "smashie" may consider it an accident. But the guy watching it from the curb might have "seen it coming", if only the "smashie" had been paying attention too...".

 

There is never an "accident" that is anything more than the culmination of a series of causal events and situations. It is only considered an accident because the person it happened to was not aware, for any number of reasons including intentional, of the series of events leading up to it.

[Tormod]

Free WillY, I say. Happy new year. :)

[Freethinker]

No post count inflating! Not fair!

[Tormod]

No post count inflating! Not fair!

It was not my intention. Determinism decided it would happen. I did not choose to post! In fact, I am not choosing to write this either! It's just happening as I write! Help! :)

[pgrmdave]

Would it even be possible to prove that we had free will? In order to prove it, we would need to have evidence that we can make different choices in any given situation, but since, at any given time, we can only make one choice, we can never prove it, so there couldn't be any evidence for free will.

[Tormod]

Would it even be possible to prove that we had free will? In order to prove it, we would need to have evidence that we can make different choices in any given situation, but since, at any given time, we can only make one choice, we can never prove it, so there couldn't be any evidence for free will.

I believe it would be equally impossible to prove that we do not. Philosophically it is easy to make statements like "all things have a cause" and "B happens because of A" but it does not follow that sentient beings cannot have any effect on their own actions.

 

If there is no such thing as free will, then everything that happens is the direct result of one single past event and there is no reason to even discuss anything (like we do here).

 

At any given time you can always make many choices and you have many options. There are the obvious choices (coffee or tea for breakfast?), semi-obvious choices (let's go buy a car), non-obvious choices (why you live where you live). All of these can be consciously selected and then re-selected. You can choose, and then un-choose. You can have coffee for breakfast, then decide to have tea instead.

 

I don't buy into the "no free will" idea for an instant. I find it funny that Freethinker is one of the main perpetrators of this idea here at Hypography. It would mean that a) he must accept every Christian person's actions, beliefs, and choices, and :) he is simply supposed to be posting at Hypography, but he cannot change anything.

[lindagarrette]

At any given time you can always make many choices and you have many options. There are the obvious choices (coffee or tea for breakfast?), semi-obvious choices (let's go buy a car), non-obvious choices (why you live where you live). All of these can be consciously selected and then re-selected. You can choose, and then un-choose. You can have coffee for breakfast, then decide to have tea instead..

At any given moment it may appear that you have many choices. But you will inveriably take only one action and under the duplicate conditions you would take that same action. Everything you do has a cause. If it did not, then you would be subject to completely unpredictable behavior. If we did not live in a deterministic univers, you could throw a ball to the ground and it might fall all the way through the earth, or it could turn into a bird and fly away. The apparent choices you have are part of the process of cause and effect. If you decide on a blue car instead of a green one or if you raise your right hand instead of your left one, it is because at that moment, a logical path in your brain is causing you to do it. There may be many factors involved in the ultimate act but one of them is not "free will."

 

Also, there is no need to prove the existance of 'free will." I'm not claiming that there is such a thing. It would be like trying to prove there is a god or that Elvis spoke to me at the grocery store last night.:)

[Tormod]

The apparent choices you have are part of the process of cause and effect. If you decide on a blue car instead of a green one or if you raise your right hand instead of your left one, it is because at that moment, a logical path in your brain is causing you to do it.

Your explanation works up to the point of the choice. But you are not providing any proof that the choice we make is predetermined and not made by the person in question.

 

If we have no influence on anything, then there is no reason for us to go around saying we are either religious, atheists, philosophers or whatever, because we cannot possibly have made those choices ourselves. Thus even the study of free will is impossible. We can only observe, and make the choices that have already been chosen for us (even down to a quantum level, I assume).

 

Also, there is no need to prove the existance of 'free will." I'm not claiming that there is such a thing. It would be like trying to prove there is a god or that Elvis spoke to me at the grocery store last night.:)

I do not expect ridicule from you, Linda.

 

You are in fact claiming that there is no such thing as free will. To me, that constitutes an extraordinary claim which require extraordinary proof. We have discussed how to prove negatives - now here is your chance. Freethinker should help you since he is obviously in the same camp here.

 

Just saying "there is no such thing as free will" and saying "free will cannot be proven" is non-scientific to the extreme and not acceptable here at Hypography.

 

Okay, this guys says it pretty well: :)

[lindagarrette]

I do not expect ridicule from you, Linda.

 

You are in fact claiming that there is no such thing as free will. To me, that constitutes an extraordinary claim which require extraordinary proof. We have discussed how to prove negatives - now here is your chance. Freethinker should help you since he is obviously in the same camp here.

 

Just saying "there is no such thing as free will" and saying "free will cannot be proven" is non-scientific to the extreme and not acceptable here at Hypography.

 

Goodbye

[Tormod]

Goodbye

:)

[lindagarrette]

I don't see any evidence of either intended or implied reidicule and I was offended by your dismissal of my posting. In fact, I was not going to look at this thread again since it's clear you are not being objective and there is no point in repeating what has already been said. Also, you are rewriting my statements. I did not say "there is not such thing as free will" or "free will cannot be proven." I said I am not claiming there is such a thing. If you can show there is, then have at it. It is a metaphysical concept that has been around for millenia. Also, I supported my argument very clearly, answering every question, and citing references. If you would like to know more about the latest discourse on the topic, then look for the writings of Daniel Dennett. The extradordinary claim in this matter is that free will exists in the physical world. I am not aware of any evidence to support it other than speculation and god of the gaps type theorizing.

 

I suggest you read Dennett's work for several reasons. First, it will clear up the misconception that without free will we are merely robots, and that determinism means predeterminism. When we make a choice, we must chose the option that all the factors involved in the decision cause us to choose. We cannot be removed from the equation. Our actions are also causal in the overall scheme of things.

 

Free will is a popular notion because we want to believe our mind is in charge. But the "mind" is a metaphysical concept. So it exists, but not in the physical world.

[Tormod]

First of all, let me say that some of my posts above were posted on New Year's Eve and as such may have been a bit light-spirited. I apologize if it was taken as rude or offensive.

 

What makes me tired of this discussion is stuff like this, taken from a few pages back:

 

It isn't necessary to plow through all the aspects of determinism to understand why it is a reality. If you understand the scientific method, then you already get it. Thought and anaysis are also helpful. I keep point out that no one can contradict it but so far no one seems to even want to try. That would be a first step. And it is the core of the scientific method.

Ah Linda, you are singing my song!

(My bold.)

 

This is what I mean with "unscientific". Linda, you keep saying (over and over) that determinism is a fact of nature. You say noone can contradict it. When someone tries, you (and Freethinker) ridicules the attempts by saying "but this is not so". It is exactly how certain religious discussions at these forums look - pure ping-pong with no substance and absolutely no way for anyone to learn because the ones who hold the "truth" (ie, you and FT in this case) claim that it is the only way to understand the world, yet fail to explain in so many words why that is true. To expect us to read books is fine, but being able to contribute the meaning of anything to others is vital for these forums to work.

 

Turning your avatar into an angry demon is fine if it lets you vent off some steam.

 

I do not accept that determinism is a reality, or, if I can restate that: I believe that there is such a thing as free will. I do not think that all our actions are voluntary or conscious (in fact, I think most are not), but I believe in the individual's ability to make conscious decisions based on three things: empirical experience, gut feeling (ie, guesswork), and chance (luck).

 

Yet I understand the scientific method. So either you're calling me ignorant (which may well be the truth) or you fail to see that you provide nothing yourself but statements and phrases like this one:

 

Free will is a popular notion because we want to believe our mind is in charge. But the "mind" is a metaphysical concept. So it exists, but not in the physical world.

Again, my bold.

 

This brings the discussion completely off track. If it is just I who do not see that, please explain how something can exist but not in the physical world, and how a metaphysical concept manifests itself so we can see it (or even sense it) in the physical world.

 

To me, a statement like that is nothing but a variant of "there is a god, but we will never be able to prove his existence". Or better yet - since we cannot prove free will then the opposite must be true.

 

You obviously think I am way off track with my views, so I would very much appreciate being told where I go wrong, and why.

[Aquagem]

I suggest you read Dennett's work for several reasons. First, it will clear up the misconception that without free will we are merely robots, and that determinism means predeterminism.

Linda -- I've been reading Dennett's writing on evolution, and find him a cogent and accessible critic of many ideas that we've had for centuries that now call for review. Can you give me a reference -- book title? -- on this subject?

 

In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he has a chapter on "Cranes and Skyhooks" that seems to fit in here. Both lift things from low to high altitude, but one is "real" and other "imaginary". The popular concept of free will is of a skyhook sort -- granted from above, not part of the physical universe. But the popular notion of many things is flawed, being our conscious interpretation of what are, at root, emotional events. It's not that the concept of free will has no value, but it's very likely that it's not what it appears on the surface.

 

This is one of things that drew me to Hypography -- the potential to be challenged and develop beyond the boundaries we all can't help but live with.

 

I understand the rancor this topic engenders, but it's good for science if we can get past it. I have a book on parenting teenagers that points out the following: "If the emotion you're feeling is anger, then you're in a power struggle..." Power struggles arise because of incommensurable, or seemingly incommensurable, ideas for which both sides have their justifications. The way out, in science, is to elevate the discussion to the next level of abstraction and see if some synthesis is possible that can show the opposing viewpoints to be instances of a higher class. There are plenty around that can't currently be so resolved (God or no God, god or no god, etc.)

 

I have a feeling (take for what it's worth) that free will and determinism, long considered polar opposites, may not actually be opposites at all. We are talking about some pretty high level abstractions, here, e.g., "determinism", "cause and effect", "freedom", and the like, all of which are substantiated by elements of prior worldviews, and at least some of which have been thrown into question (e.g., by ideas of chaos theory, quantum, evolution, etc.), but which haven't percolated down to lower levels or infused other areas of discourse.

 

That's why I'd like to see what Dennett has to say. In DDI (Darwins's), Richard Dawkins credits Dennett with teaching him (Dawkins) about what he (Dawkins) had written. The risk is having to assimilate some difficult new concepts. The hope is that we can re-illuminate an old debate and come away agreeing on a new perspective that unites our disparate views.

 

The other major alternative in power struggles is to gird our loins (which is damned uncomforatble) and to to war. Unsavory...