Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

So, you say, "It (free will) impacts on why you made the choice"?

No, prior conditions determine our choice. We feel that as being free will.

Take my neighbourhood burglar. Let's say that you were born to his parents. You had his genetic make-up, you had his upbringing. You lived his life. You might have stood outside my house wondering whether to proceed or not. You might have thought you were exercising your free will. But you'd have made the same decision and then it would be you that broke into my house. He did, so if the conditions were identical then you would have.

Everything actually connected to the guy led him to that point. And anyone where the conditions were exactly the same would do exactly the same.

Your argument seems to be that even if everything is exactly the same, there is still something called free will that is separate from all the conditions of his life. That's external to it. And yeah, that's what almost everyone thinks. That whatever the circumstances, whatever the conditions, you still have access to it somehow. A lot of people call it the soul.

Well, if someone can show me where it is and more importantly, how it operates independently then I'm all ears.

 

[Bradskii]

No matter how I've heard this put, in the end, a person choosing ALWAYS chooses according to their preferences and inclinations, even if only what they prefer for that moment of decision.

I know that sounds trite, but it's exactly right. You do things because you prefer the one outcome over another. You might not like it, but you do, by definition, prefer it. And prior conditions lead you to that preference.

 

[Miles]

Either it will be completely random or something will present itself unbidden to the person. I say unbidden because you can't think about what you're going to think about.

Try it. Don't think about it, just name the first city that comes into your mind. Now whatever it was it just popped into your head. You might be able to post fact rationalise it - 'it was New York and I'm going there next month'. Prior conditions - you booked a flight there a week ago, determined the answer subconsciously. Else it was truly random.

Our subconsious suggests the first city that comes to mind, but we can choose to answer differently. One might first think Detroit, then consider Phoenix... or maybe Buffalo... but then answer with Toronto.

I do think there is a tendency for our actions to "fall in line" with our subconcious, our experiences, the expectations that others put on us, but that doesn't mean we are necessarily confined to that line of thought. There are benefits to convergent and divergent thinking. People can choose from a variety of different strategies, and even come up with their own.

 

[Bradskii]

My point was in regard to ... "we will make the same decision every time". Even though we do store memories in our subconscious mind and many of them become automated they can be changed (free will) ... we will make the same decisions ... unless we change it.

Well...that's not addressing the proposition. That's just saying 'we have free will'.

Years ago I had a bad habit of cussing ... it was a habit (automatic subconscience)... I didn't give any thought to the words I used. Then at one point I made a conscience decision that I didn't want to cuss ...

So something changed to prompt that decision. Conditions altered. And you changed as a result. No problem. But...if nothing changed, then... you'd carry on as before. It's life that changes us. Not the other way around.

 

[Bradskii]

How do you know this, though?

I certainly agree that, as time passes, more and more of the "phenomenology of the world" is fully explicable in terms of physics. But do we really have enough evidence to definitively say that this is this the case with respect to the decisions we make?

In general, I would agree that those of us who, for whatever reason, are inclined to believe in the reality of free will are being painted into a corner. But, as far as I know, the final blow against free will has yet to fall because I suspect (but only suspect and am humbly open to being corrected) that there is not yet enough evidence to conclusively say that all human decisions are exhaustively explained by the laws of physics.

That's true.

But if free will exists, then where is it? What process is there that invokes it? How does it operate outside of what we know? Every decision is a result of prior conditions. There is no way to get around that. And if the conditions change then the process changes and that will determine the outcome of that decision.

This isn't something that can definitely be proved one way or another. This is a balance of probabilities decision. But at some point one reaches a position where there is no personal doubt whatsoever.

 

[Simon_Templar]

All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences. There has been an effectively infinite chain of events which has resulted in me sitting here writing this sentence. They have all led to this point. From the major events - I was born at a specific time and place, to the minor ones - it's raining today, to the seemingly inconsequential - I broke a string on my guitar last night.

There is no way that existence cannot be described other than determined.

The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else. But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different.

So free will cannot be compatible with determinism. And if existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion.

The bolded sentence above is unproven and probably unprovable.

Further, the debate between determinism and free will is just flat out stupid and pointless.

If determinism is true, then you don't even exist. There is no such thing as a person without will.
If determinism is true, then "you" are not thinking your thoughts. Your thoughts are simply the result of a predetermined sequence of events caused by forces other than "you". If free will is an illusion, then "you" are also an illusion.

That means that this conversation is a bunch of "people" who don't actually exist "thinking" thoughts they have no control over, and saying "words" that don't mean anything.

Determinism is fundamentally absurd.

 

[Bradskii]

This is why I prefer to take a pragmatic stance. For practical purposes, in terms of accomplishing things in the real world, we have varying degrees of free will given our circumstances. There is a qualitative difference between acting and simply reacting to our circumstances.

There's nothing we can do except take a pragmatic stance. We do make decisions. We think we are masters of our own destiny and there's not much that will be able to change that.

But consider the guy charged with some act and it can be shown that there was a medical condition that caused it. Then we'd feel sympathy for the guy and we'd try to treat it. We can't blame him for a biological disorder. But what is really the difference between that and someone who has the worst upbringing which has literally affected how her brain has developed.

'Hey, she has free will - it's her fault that she chose what she did'.

Well, if you really don't believe that we do then we can't hold her responsible and we need to take a different approach to how we deal with people. Although I will admit that if someone was to assault my wife for example then my natural instincts would kick in and I'd want some revenge. So I know how difficult this is from a practical point of view.

 

[Bradskii]

Our subconsious suggests the first city that comes to mind, but we can choose to answer differently. One might first think Detroit, then consider Phoenix... or maybe Buffalo... but then answer with Toronto.

I do think there is a tendency for our actions to "fall in line" with our subconcious, our experiences, the expectations that others put on us, but that doesn't mean we are necessarily confined to that line of thought. There are benefits to convergent and divergent thinking. People can choose from a variety of different strategies, and even come up with their own.

And there will be reasons for that. By definition what we choose is what we prefer to choose. You might know it's wrong, you might know that you're not going to like it, you might know that there'll be negative results. But conditions will lead you to make the choice that you prefer at that time.

 

[Bradskii]

The bolded sentence above is unproven and probably unprovable.

Which was: 'All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences'.

Every decision you have ever made has been based on your personal condition and thinking about the relevant situation. Else it was random. If you can think of a third option, I'd like to know what it is.

Further, the debate between determinism and free will is just flat out stupid and pointless. If determinism is true, then you don't even exist. There is no such thing as a person without will.

No-one has suggested that you can't make choices. That is exercising your will. But the decisions you make will be determined by the conditions at the time and all conditions prior to it.

If you weren't born into the culture you are in at a particular time. If you had different parents. If your foetal development had been different. If your frontal cortex and amygdala had developed differently. If you hadn't experienced trauma at times when you were a child. If your education was hopeless. If you didn't have a dead end job in a rough neighbourhood and had just developed a serious illness. If you hadn't woken up angry that morning. If your blood sugar was low. If certain neurons didn't fire as they did...then you might not have pulled out your gun from the glovebox and shot the guy who just cut you off.

None of those conditions were choices to be made. There's just a cascade of events that led you to that place and that action.

 

[Mark Quayle]

... he used his free will to act against his moral code.

He used his supposedly free will to act according to his inclinations of the moment. Caused!

 

[Mark Quayle]

It appears we agree. I use the words "affections" and "attitudes" whereas you use "preferences" and "inclinations".

In the end, therefore, what a person chooses is an effect of those preferences and inclinations, which are effects of other causes, themselves also effects of other causes. And so on, all the way back.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Which was: 'All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences'.

Every decision you have ever made has been based on your personal condition and thinking about the relevant situation. Else it was random. If you can think of a third option, I'd like to know what it is.

Yes, that premise is incorrect.

Before I go further in discussing why the premise is incorrect, I'd like to know more about your worldview. Are you a materialist? Christian? Atheist? some other religion? do you believe in a soul? Do you think the "mind" is distinct from the brain?

I'd also like to know, do you think it is possible to prove this premise? or do you think it is self-evident and impossible to prove?

No-one has suggested that you can't make choices. That is exercising your will. But the decisions you make will be determined by the conditions at the time and all conditions prior to it.

Apparently you and I mean different things by "choose". In a computer program there are "decision" structures whereby the programming reacts to different inputs. In a certain analogous sense, this is sometimes called a "decision". If input A is used, the program follows branch A, if input B is used, the program follows path B. The result is predetermined based on the input that is given. The program has no will, it does not intend, or will to do anything.

The word decision used in this sense is only analogous. The program does not have a mind, it is not aware, it is not a person, it has no thoughts, it doesn't actually make a decision in any meaningful way.

In order for a choice to exist, more than one option must be possible. In other words, by definition, you cannot make a choice if you are predetermined to pick a given option based on the inputs (ie. influences) you have received.

Even the use of the term "free will", in my opinion, is a redundancy. If will is not free, then it functionally does not exist. Will, by definition, is the principle of self-motion in a being. By definition for the will to exist it must be fundamentally self-directed. If there is no such thing as independent self-direction, then will does not exist.

As with any ability, and power, it can be damaged, wounded, lessened, but if it is ever reduced to pure determinism, it ceases to be.

From my point of view, your statement here is just flat out contradiction. You are saying "yes you can choose, but you really can't choose" or "You can will, but you can't will".

The whole point of your argument seems to be that choice is an illusion. So it also kind of seems like your claim here is maybe a bit of a dodge, to attempt to avoid implications of your idea that are inconvenient.

If you weren't born into the culture you are in at a particular time. If you had different parents. If your foetal development had been different. If your frontal cortex and amygdala had developed differently. If you hadn't experienced trauma at times when you were a child. If your education was hopeless. If you didn't have a dead end job in a rough neighbourhood and had just developed a serious illness. If you hadn't woken up angry that morning. If your blood sugar was low. If certain neurons didn't fire as they did...then you might not have pulled out your gun from the glovebox and shot the guy who just cut you off.

None of those conditions were choices to be made. There's just a cascade of events that led you to that place and that action.

Nope. This is just restating your premise from the top of the post. It's still false.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How do you know this, though?

I certainly agree that, as time passes, more and more of the "phenomenology of the world" is fully explicable in terms of physics. But do we really have enough evidence to definitively say that this is this the case with respect to the decisions we make?

In general, I would agree that those of us who, for whatever reason, are inclined to believe in the reality of free will are being painted into a corner. But, as far as I know, the final blow against free will has yet to fall because I suspect (but only suspect and am humbly open to being corrected) that there is not yet enough evidence to conclusively say that all human decisions are exhaustively explained by the laws of physics.

In the end, the question isn't about physics, but about causation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If determinism is true, then you don't even exist. There is no such thing as a person without will.
If determinism is true, then "you" are not thinking your thoughts. Your thoughts are simply the result of a predetermined sequence of events caused by forces other than "you". If free will is an illusion, then "you" are also an illusion.

That means that this conversation is a bunch of "people" who don't actually exist "thinking" thoughts they have no control over, and saying "words" that don't mean anything.

You do realize, I hope, that you have constructed a strawman to mock.

Nobody I have read here is saying there is no such thing as will. The question is whether it is uncaused to make the decisions it makes.

How do you even know what existence is, and how it happens, to be able to make such huge leaps in your logic?

 

[Mark Quayle]

In order for a choice to exist, more than one option must be possible. In other words, by definition, you cannot make a choice if you are predetermined to pick a given option based on the inputs (ie. influences) you have received.

Wrong. More than one option must SEEM to be possible. In fact, only one option is ever possible to happen at that juncture.

And empiricism will bear this out. Never has more than one option in that particular choice come to pass. So why do we decide that other options could have? It is only a construction in our thinking. We have no reason to think that other options could have come to pass, but someone changed their mind. That they changed their mind is not the point. That their mind change changed the possible option is! And for that, there is no evidence.

 

[Simon_Templar]

You do realize, I hope, that you have constructed a strawman to mock.

Nobody I have read here is saying there is no such thing as will. The question is whether it is uncaused to make the decisions it makes.

How do you even know what existence is, and how it happens, to be able to make such huge leaps in your logic?

I was typing out a response to this, but I decided I'd rather just ask you a question. I'm honestly curious to what your answer will be.

If the decisions of your "will" are predetermined by outside causes, what are your thoughts? Where do they come from? Do they have any meaning? and if so, how do they have meaning?

 

[Bradskii]

The third option arises from the fact that there is a "you" which transcends your thoughts and experiences and can examine them and choose how to interpret them, whether to accept them, to reject them, and can search for and apply meaning to them.

'You' can't transcend your thoughts. You'll certainly have a problem thinking about who or where you are without actually thinking it. But where are 'you'? We know that if you keep excising parts of your brain then 'you' will gradually disappear. If there a brain transplant then whatever body received your brain would then be you. So 'you' are somewhere in that wet meat between the ears.

Let me know specifically where 'you' are we can see how 'you' works.

Just utter nonsense, and again totally pointless. If you are correct, then there is no possibility of "convincing me", or anyone else, because we are all just going to conclude whatever we were predetermined to conclude.

No, we change when circumstances change. If I'm going to make what you think is a bad choice then you can offer an alternative that you suggest would result in a better outcome. If you have a good argument for it then I'll change my mind.

Consider this... If I were to hope that you either would be predetermined to wake up and drink bleach tomorrow, or that the random roll came up drink bleach... would I be morally culpable for that? Or would it simply be my randomness spitting out some gobbldegook that happened to offend your randomness? or would it simply be my past experiences clashing with your past experiences?

A more concrete argument might be if I was depressed and you convinced me to take my own life. If I did, would you then be culpable?

Well, you'd be responsible. No doubt. And you'd obviously be the type of person that would do that. Conditions have resulted in you being the person you are. To what degree should you be held culpable?

Punishment was mentioned some way upstream. And we punish as a deterrent. And as a protection of society against repeat offenders.

If your actions might lead to other people considering convincing other depressed individuals to commit suicide then the first might well apply as a warning to others.

If you're likely to continue to convince depressed individuals to commit suicide then the second would apply. And it would be a case for rehabilitation - to find out why you did it and to convince you that it's not a great idea.

And retribution? No. As much as the family of the deceased would want it, and as much as it is an automatic reaction, it's not an option.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Wrong. More than one option must SEEM to be possible. In fact, only one option is ever possible to happen at that juncture.

And empiricism will bear this out. Never has more than one option in that particular choice come to pass. So why do we decide that other options could have? It is only a construction in our thinking. We have no reason to think that other options could have come to pass, but someone changed their mind. That they changed their mind is not the point. That their mind change changed the possible option is! And for that, there is no evidence.

You asked me in your previous post how I know what existence is, etc to justify my huge leaps in logic. Literally everything you just said, was a leap in logic based on nothing but your own assumptions about reality.

I notice in your bio, that you are a Christian. Let me ask you this. Do you think that God makes free choices, or are his choices determined as well?

 

[Bradskii]

If the decisions of your "will" are predetermined by outside causes, what are your thoughts? Where do they come from? Do they have any meaning? and if so, how do they have meaning?

That's your consciousness interpreting input and filing things away into memory, retrieving some things, acting directly on others. It's the programme running.

 

[Simon_Templar]

'You' can't transcend your thoughts. You'll certainly have a problem thinking about who or where you are without actually thinking it.

Yes, you absolutely can.

Not only can you transcend your thoughts, you can transcend yourself, and even the universe.

The knowledge of a thing, is not one of that thing's parts. Thus in order to know anything, you must be able to transcend that thing.

But where are 'you'? We know that if you keep excising parts of your brain then 'you' will gradually disappear. If there a brain transplant then whatever body received your brain would then be you. So 'you' are somewhere in that wet meat between the ears.

Let me know specifically where 'you' are we can see how 'you' works.

To be clear, you are agreeing with the majority of my first post which stated that your position was tantamount to a denial of the existence of the self in any meaningful way.

No, we change when circumstances change. If I'm going to make what you think is a bad choice then you can offer an alternative that you suggest would result in a better outcome. If you have a good argument for it then I'll change my mind.

How is this fundamentally different from a computer program?

A more concrete argument might be if I was depressed and you convinced me to take my own life. If I did, would you then be culpable?

Well, you'd be responsible. No doubt. And you'd obviously be the type of person that would do that. Conditions have resulted in you being the person you are. To what degree should you be held culpable?

Would I even be responsible? Let's say I did this with two people, and one killed themselves and one didn't kill themselves. I am a common factor in what were two different outcomes. How can I be responsible for the outcomes? Isn't it the persons' own programming which is ultimately responsible?

Punishment was mentioned some way upstream. And we punish as a deterrent. And as a protection of society against repeat offenders.

If this were true, then we would also have to conclude that actual guilt or innocence were irrelevant, because only the appearance of guilt or innocence would be necessary for such deterrence. As such, punishing the innocent who appear to be guilty would be preferable to not punishing the innocent, you agree?


Also, I wrote this first response that you quoted above in a rush and I went back and rewrote it later, to what I thought was a better version.