Free will and determinism

[Hans Blaster]

Watch, "Sound of Freedom".

We're going to need some context to know what that even is.

 

[Bradskii]

No amount of our choices, influence, deterrence, etc.. will change things in natural determinism and only from a force that influences from the outside can disrupt this natural order.

Then that will be luck, or chance. Or randomness if you like. I've always been keen about introducing something into the mix in some way that allows the fixed march of lives along a set route to be changed. I've always had concerns about it. But it's now become a separate concern from free will for me. Because introducing a randomness into the mix,, introducing just blind chance - that's entirely antithetical to free will.

Unless there is some other 'force that influences from the outside' that's 'outside' the process whereby we make decisions. But internal to us. And I rejected dualism a very long time ago indeed. There's simply no evidence whatsoever. Plus you get an infinite regress as per that image I posted earlier.

If it's an intelligent force than purpose can be injected where matters of justice and morality have meaning but even then they only have meaning as it relates to the outsider so we must adopt the outsiders perspective for it to have meaning for us as well. This of course is the foundational driving-value of pretty much all religion.

The proposed intelligent force doesn't need to be God. Or even a god. If it's laying down moral laws in some way, then we still have to decide whether those laws are correct as far as we are concerned. It would be the same as if I told you how to act morally in a given situation. You still need to decide. Me telling you my opinion is one of the antecedent conditions, but you will have to consider all others that are known and one or more of them will determine your choice.

And if the intelligent force is determining your choice then of course there's no free will.

Incidentally, here's a Calvinist version of free will. Just noted for its possible interest. A Calvinist's Understanding of "Free-Will" - Credo House Ministries

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for agreeing with me here.

But here's where I scratch my head at people who say people who murder should only get years. I am for the death penalty for those who commit murder.​

I'm not. But maybe we could think of murder as a separate case. There's no means of 'paying back' the loss. Although we obviously have degrees of murder, let's limit this to more mundane criminal acts so we can continue.

Now for those petty crooks maybe we can provide some guidance to hopefully set them on the right path. But they must earn this right and pay for the suffering they caused, right? So, how is this accomplished? If they do not comprehend how they destroyed lives, then what use is rehab? Do me a favor and look up Russia prison operation. Prisoners there do not have TV, weights, recreational activities until the inmate demonstrates good behavior after 10 years. I understand they're various sentencing. But maybe we look into that, right? Rewarding inmates with TV pledges, weights, recreational activities before they earn it is beyond me.​

That's a reasonable position. If you are in for a number years then you commit to a rehab programme which will require say twice weekly sessions. And your benefits will be decided by something like a parole board. This guy is making progress and if he keeps it up for two years then he gets a single cell, internet, increased visitation rights etc. If he keeps it up for another year and is making progress then his benefits increase. Eventually he might get early release.

That's a lot better then locking someone up in grim conditions with nothing to encourage them to change.

I am curious though, have you personally experience any really tragic crime in your family or with friends?

Luckily I haven't and I hope you haven't either.

 

[DamianWarS]

Then that will be luck, or chance. Or randomness if you like. I've always been keen about introducing something into the mix in some way that allows the fixed march of lives along a set route to be changed. I've always had concerns about it. But it's now become a separate concern from free will for me. Because introducing a randomness into the mix,, introducing just blind chance - that's entirely antithetical to free will.

Unless there is some other 'force that influences from the outside' that's 'outside' the process whereby we make decisions. But internal to us. And I rejected dualism a very long time ago indeed. There's simply no evidence whatsoever. Plus you get an infinite regress as per that image I posted earlier.

The proposed intelligent force doesn't need to be God. Or even a god. If it's laying down moral laws in some way, then we still have to decide whether those laws are correct as far as we are concerned. It would be the same as if I told you how to act morally in a given situation. You still need to decide. Me telling you my opinion is one of the antecedent conditions, but you will have to consider all others that are known and one or more of them will determine your choice.

And if the intelligent force is determining your choice then of course there's no free will.

I really expected more consistency from you given your previously strictness. I'm not claiming free will. There is also no such thing as luck or randomness in determinism. So what you call random is either unknowable determinism or from an outside influencer (which is also just another form of determinism just controled by the outside)

No matter how you spin it in determinism we have no control over our choices. Yes, even with outside influence we still have no control. The difference between natural determinism and this influenced determinism is in natural there is only one path and that's it, nothing else can happen With some sort out outside influence there is an infinite amount of paths which increases the perception of free will or randomness and the more disrupting events the greater the perception. Even though our choices may still be predetermined opportunities are presented to us in a brute force style aimed at producing better results more often.

If the influencer is purpose driven then we can either embraced the influencers purpose so that our actions adopt the same meaning and through that things like justice and morals take on meaning as it applies to the influencer (but we are not free to define it ourselves) such a thing could be called a natural law or universal morals. Or we reject it and are trapped in an isolated deterministic void where things like justice and morality are arbitrary and have no meaning.

I would say in practice most of us if not all of us live like our choices have meaning, you seem to be pushing in the direction too and it doesn't feel mechanical. Since we know determinism alone has no meaning and it is only through outside influence this is possible then to me this is evidence of increased interaction from an outside influencer which heightens our awareness of the influencer's purpose or our perception of free will.

 

[Bradskii]

There is also no such thing as luck or randomness in determinism. So what you call random is either unknowable determinism or from an outside influencer (which is also just another form of determinism just controled by the outside).

I'm not saying that random things occur (with the exceptions of quantum indeterminacy). It's that even if they do (and I'm not convinced of that) then it doesn't affect the position that there is no free will.

No matter how you spin it in determinism we have no control over our choices. Yes, even with outside influence we still have no control. The difference between natural determinism and this influenced determinism is in natural there is only one path and that's it, nothing else can happen With some sort out outside influence there is an infinite amount of paths which increases the perception of free will or randomness and the more disrupting events the greater the perception. Even though our choices may still be predetermined opportunities are presented to us in a brute force style aimed at producing better results more often.

I agree.

If the influencer is purpose driven then we can either embraced the influencers purpose so that our actions adopt the same meaning and through that things like justice and morals take on meaning as it applies to the influencer (but we are not free to define it ourselves) such a thing could be called a natural law or universal morals.

But the influencer's purpose itself has been determined. Unless you mean that the influencer is God. And I'm trying to stay out of any theological arguments for or against. But if you do mean God and he's just prompting you to a decision, then that's no different to me doing the same.

 

[ladodgers6]

Then that will be luck, or chance. Or randomness if you like. I've always been keen about introducing something into the mix in some way that allows the fixed march of lives along a set route to be changed. I've always had concerns about it. But it's now become a separate concern from free will for me. Because introducing a randomness into the mix,, introducing just blind chance - that's entirely antithetical to free will.

Agreed.

Unless there is some other 'force that influences from the outside' that's 'outside' the process whereby we make decisions. But internal to us. And I rejected dualism a very long time ago indeed. There's simply no evidence whatsoever. Plus you get an infinite regress as per that image I posted earlier.

What happened to nurture? Aren't external influences temptations of sorts? Because something must lust the eyes first, correct? Then the heart follows. As they say, the heart want what the heart wants. And yes I agree with that a free-will decision must be made. But if you place a drink in front of an alcoholic, will that tempt them and stir that desire to drink. Or this is alcoholic in a position to resist it and walk away? The urge will be irresistible? So, there is an outside force, correct? To say there isn't, urges, desires, compulsions, necessity are not outside forces. That's why addicts have a sickness of addiction where they can't stop. If a addict is trying to rehab and stop, they must stop drinking, go near liquor store or bars, or even stay away from certain friends.​

The proposed intelligent force doesn't need to be God. Or even a god. If it's laying down moral laws in some way, then we still have to decide whether those laws are correct as far as we are concerned. It would be the same as if I told you how to act morally in a given situation. You still need to decide. Me telling you my opinion is one of the antecedent conditions, but you will have to consider all others that are known and one or more of them will determine your choice.

But aren't you forgetting something. Where do morals come from in the first place? God gave us these morals which is why we feel bad when we do bad things, and feel good when we do good things. Most want to hide or feel ashamed when they do bad things. Or even delight in doing bad things. But they still know they are doing bad things. And I agree at the end of the day it's our choice; free-will choice to do bad or good things. Because nobody is coercing us to do them. We do them because we want to.

But making decisions comes from intellect, reasoning, lust, desire which drive us to do them. But where ultimately do these antecedent lusts, desires come from in the first place?​

And if the intelligent force is determining your choice then of course there's no free will.

Incidentally, here's a Calvinist version of free will. Just noted for its possible interest. A Calvinist's Understanding of "Free-Will" - Credo House Ministries

I like John Calvin, I'll read it and get back to you on it.

 

[Bradskii]

What happened to nurture? Aren't external influences temptations of sorts? Because something must lust the eyes first, correct? Then the heart follows. As they say, the heart want what the heart wants. And yes I agree with that a free-will decision must be made. But if you place a drink in front of an alcoholic, will that tempt them and stir that desire to drink.​

I mean entirely out of the process in that it isn't concerned with conditions. Put a drink in front of an alcoholic and it's then part of the conditions he needs to consider.

But aren't you forgetting something. Where do morals come from in the first place? God gave us these morals which is why we feel bad when we do bad things, and feel good when we do good things. Most want to hide or feel ashamed when they do bad things. Or even delight in doing bad things. But they still know they are doing bad things. And I agree at the end of the day it's our choice; free-will choice to do bad or good things. Because nobody is coercing us to do them. We do them because we want to.​

I don't think you need to be told when something is wrong or not. We've decided as a community what is good for us and what isn't (with some obvious differences of opinions). But even if the sense of morality has been 'God-given' then you can include that in the antecedent conditions. They will determine your decision. Or something else will.

But making decisions comes from intellect, reasoning, lust, desire which drive us to do them. But where ultimately do these antecedent lusts, desires come from in the first place?​

Nature and nurture.

 

[o_mlly]

'...free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events...' Them was the ground rules.

My mistake. I thought you were starting a thread in a debate forum that well, could be debated. (BTW, that's the definition for absolute free will. No one argues that nonsense as true.)

 

[Bradskii]

My mistake. I thought you were starting a thread in a debate forum that well, could be debated.

After nearly 800 posts on free will, which was defined in post #1...you have lost the opportunity to try to redefine it by including agency as a proof of it existing. Notwithstanding that you have misconstrued the actual meaning of the of the word.

 

[o_mlly]

.you have lost the opportunity to try to redefine it.

Not trying to. I said it was my mistake. Your definition has well, no intelligible meaning. But I gave you the benefit of being more intelligent than that. Again, my mistake. "Nothing to see here ... move along."

 

[Bradskii]

Not trying to.

You tried to muddy the water with 'agency'. From here: Agency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

'Usually, though, the term ‘agency’ is used in a much narrower sense to denote the performance of intentional actions.'

All our actions, with or without free will, are intentional. So agency is irrelevant to the question as to whether it exists.

 

[Bradskii]

And just a quick recap from one of the leading lights of free will, someone you recommended I listen to - Mitchell. As I noted earlier, and quoted him, he goes even further and claims that even unicellular organisms have agency. From his book:

'Even these humble unicellular creatures thus have real autonomy and agency...'

And AI could have it:

'Artificial general intelligence may have to be earned through the exercise of agency.'

Do you think HAL had free will?

 

[DamianWarS]

But the influencer's purpose itself has been determined. Unless you mean that the influencer is God. And I'm trying to stay out of any theological arguments for or against. But if you do mean God and he's just prompting you to a decision, then that's no different to me doing the same.

The influencer would have to operate outside our space time continum so as not to be under the rules of the deterministic outcomes inside and would be immune to these sorts of deterministic paradoxs. So the influencer would be able to disrupt the natural order from the outside without changing their own path. If they operated from the inside they are under the same deterministic rules and wouldn't be able to change anything.

The outside can peer inwards but from the inside we can't peer out so what governs the influencer be it determinism or something else we can't know. Of course if it is some sort of hierarchy or nested determinism then all it would be an illusion, the deeper you would go the deeper the illusion. Like the idea of the guys in the matrix realizing they are in a nested computer simulation. That's a bit of a rabbit hole that doesn't end.

But since we can't look behind the curtain of the universe it's not something we can answer. but if such a purpose driven influencer exists without competition then from our perspective the only thing with purpose would be the will of the influencer. Without an influencer then purpose is an illusion along with justice and morality. If those things are important to you then the only way to give them purpose is through outside influence 'cause nothing inside can give it purpose.

 

[o_mlly]

You tried to muddy the water with 'agency'. From here: Agency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Srawman alert! Nope, that was you. I think this is the 4th or 5th time I've reminded you what forum you are in. Try looking up "moral agency".

It's now clear, as suspected, you just seem to desperately want to get to 800 posts. Since it's your OP, I'll let you have the last post. Thanks for wasting my time.

 

[partinobodycular]

Unless it was random, then as soon as you give a reason then that reason determined the choice. And we're back with a deterministic universe.

Free will and quantum indeterminacy

This question actually stems from my pondering of the notion of free will. But in the process of thinking about free will I was forced to consider the concepts of quantum indeterminacy and wave function collapse, and those questions are better suited for a sciencey forum like this one. So here...

www.christianforums.com

 

[ladodgers6]

Nature and nurture.

Isn't this only subjective in your paradigm? Here's an example, I had a tough childhood, growing up in a tough neighborhood, single parent home, struggling financially, parent constantly working to make ends-meat, going to school so parent to further opportunities. We migrated to this great nation and worked very hard to achieve our goals.

Maybe others who fail to see what this great nation to offer is taken by racial rhetoric or systemic racism ideology that inhibits self-drive. Or they are condition by the people they see everyday acting a certain way. So, can they get a pass because they couldn't control their actions and kill someone? Maybe it's pressure or stress that breaks them to do something horrible. An accident that went wrong, maybe?

But everyone does have a moral compass that they can hear or not, or choose to follow or not. As some if not most serial offender said they compartmentalize their emotions. Why would they do this, though? Knowing what they were doing is bad? But why do we even get these moral feelings in the first place or at all? If the universe is random and life has no meaning then why is wrong to rape, kill, rob people?​

 

[Bradskii]

Without an influencer then purpose is an illusion along with justice and morality.

I'm not sure if you mean there has to be God (no point in referring to Him as 'The Influencer' all the time) or just the need to believe in God for justice and morality to have meaning. Although I disagree with both I can understand the latter.

If those things are important to you then the only way to give them purpose is through outside influence 'cause nothing inside can give it purpose.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by influence. Instilling a conscience?

 

[Bradskii]

Srawman alert! Nope, that was you. I think this is the 4th or 5th time I've reminded you what forum you are in.

You honestly thought that a discussion on free will was not going to discuss morality and justice? The two subjects are so intertwined it would take an effort of will (oops) not to talk about them.

Off for the fifth time..?

 

[Bradskii]

Free will and quantum indeterminacy

This question actually stems from my pondering of the notion of free will. But in the process of thinking about free will I was forced to consider the concepts of quantum indeterminacy and wave function collapse, and those questions are better suited for a sciencey forum like this one. So here...

www.christianforums.com

Cool. I'll check that out.

 

[Bradskii]

Isn't this only subjective in your paradigm? Here's an example, I had a tough childhood, growing up in a tough neighborhood, single parent home, struggling financially, parent constantly working to make ends-meat, going to school so parent to further opportunities. We migrated to this great nation and worked very hard to achieve our goals.​

So that process has determined some of your views, your values, your goals...it was instrumental in making you the person you are.

But everyone does have a moral compass that they can hear or not, or choose to follow or not.​

The moral compass is you. You know what's right or wrong. You've learned this as you grew up. From many sources.

If the universe is random and life has no meaning then why is wrong to rape, kill, rob people?​

Do you want to be murdered or robbed? Obviously not. Do you have empathy? I presume so. So you'll know that other people feel the same way as you do. So for society to work then we (generally) don't murder and rob people whenever we feel like it. We say it's wrong, because for those reasons. And we make sure that people who do murder and rape are removed from society.

That's how we were able to form groups where we all took some interest in the welfare of the group. It's easier to live in a group than it is to live as an individual. Hence civilisation. It's all down to reciprocal altruism.