Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

I can't see as you've made any attempt to defend this claim. As has been pointed out to you, when it comes to quantum events it's not simply a matter of a lack of knowledge, rather it's a matter of the knowledge not existing at all. That 'infinite number of antecedent conditions' that you're relying upon simply doesn't exist. Inevitably, any infinite regress of causes is going to run smack up against quantum uncertainty. So unless you're willing to defend superdeterminism you're going to have to accept the fact that at its core reality is nondeterministic.

To illustrate this point let's consider Schrodinger's cat. Before the experiment begins absolutely no amount of information about the state of the universe could possibly tell you whether the cat will end up alive or dead. Not because you don't have enough information... but because the universe itself doesn't have enough information.

If you can show that any quantum indeterminacy has any affect at all on the macro world and makes the universe indeterminate then I'd be keen to hear about it. Because nobody I have read or listened to has made that case. If it was the case then you could show me, outside of the quantum world, an example of an effect without a cause.

 

[NxNW]

The speed and position both exist. Knowing what they are depends if you measure it as a wave or a particle. You just can't do both at the same time.

They don't both exist at the same time, though. It's not an inability to measured them. They don't both exist at the same time.

 

[Bradskii]

They don't both exist at the same time, though. It's not an inability to measured them. They don't both exist at the same time.

We can get bogged down in particle physics and we both know next to nothing about quantum mechanics (apologies if you've done a lot of studying on the matter). Very early on in this thread I suggested that unless someone can show a link between anything that happens at the quantum level and how we make decisions that would show that we had free will then we can leave wave functions and quantum indeterminacy and particles being in two places at the same time etc to those who study those matters.

The question still remains. In the here and now, in the macro world in which we exist where electrical signals and chemical and physical changes occur in ways that are all understood, where is there an effect without a cause? Where is there an event involving a conscious agent making a decision that was not determined by anything and which was not truly random.

 

[partinobodycular]

...where is there an effect without a cause?

Why are you hung up on the idea of an effect without a cause? Every free will choice will have preceding causes. A person's free will is expressed in the weight that they give to each of those causes. You seem to think that that weighting is just a matter of mathematics, we add up all of the preceding causes and out pops a choice. I would argue that that weighting is actually internally generated and no amount of information about the preceding causes will be able to tell you what it is, or what it's final choice will be.

Think of it like quantum mechanics and the double slit experiment. The 'preceding causes' can tell you the probability that a particle will take a particular path, but they can't tell you which path the particle will actually take. Even if one particular path is far more likely than all the others, that doesn't mean that that's the path that the particle is going to take. In which case what you have is an effect without a discernible cause.

In quantum mechanics they happen all the time.

The same holds true for free will choices. The preceding causes can give you the probability that a person will choose one thing over another, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're actually going to choose, they may actually end up choosing something completely different. In which case, just as with quantum mechanics you end up with an effect without a discernible cause.

And just as with quantum mechanics they happen all the time... and we call them free will choices.

 

[Bradskii]

The same holds true for free will choices. The preceding causes can give you the probability that a person will choose one thing over another, but that doesn't mean that that's what they're actually going to choose, they may actually end up choosing something completely different. In which case, just as with quantum mechanics you end up with an effect without a discernible cause.

If there is no cause in making a decision, then it is random.

I am getting tired of asking for an example of an effect (discounting quantum mechanics - we're talking the macro world here) without a cause. Please offer one so that we can discuss it. Show me a choice that wasn't determined.

 

[stevevw]

This may seem like an obvious question. But can someone explain how morality relates to lack of free will. I mean isn't the idea of morality and the law that someone freely chose to do something wrong. They cannot argue that some deterministic cause made them do it.

 

[Bradskii]

This may seem like an obvious question. But can someone explain how morality relates to lack of free will. I mean isn't the idea of morality and the law that someone freely chose to do something wrong. They cannot argue that some deterministic cause made them do it.

They often do. If someone has a medical condition that causes them to act irrationally then that can, and often is, used to exonerate that person from any culpability. So we all accept that at least some antecedent conditions can absolve us from immoral acts. That they determined our actions.

When that bridge has been crossed, if you accept that the universe is deterministic then you need to readjust your views on morality and responsibility.

A quick example: 'Damage to the frontal lobe, also called frontal lobe syndrome, can cause a range of symptoms. These can include behavioral problems, depression, and a loss of strength in the muscles. A variety of conditions can damage the frontal lobe, including stroke, head trauma, and dementia.' Symptoms and Causes of Frontal Lobe Brain Damage

We don't blame someone if they have seizure and strike out and hit somebody. They have no control over doing that. So why would we blame someone if they have a problem with the frontal lobe and do the same?

 

[Neogaia777]

This may seem like an obvious question. But can someone explain how morality relates to lack of free will. I mean isn't the idea of morality and the law that someone freely chose to do something wrong. They cannot argue that some deterministic cause made them do it.

Well, as far as here goes, we still have to punish or remove some people from society for a time if they commit certain crimes.

And as far as eternity goes, I have resolved that by now knowing what an eternal "hell" truly is, and by reexamining the previous reasons/thoughts I used to have as to why people truly go there, as opposed to getting into an eternal Heaven.

And I've done it in a way that does not make God out to be a monster.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Well, as far as here goes, we still have to punish or remove some people from society for a time if they commit certain crimes.

And as far as eternity goes, I have resolved that by now knowing what an eternal "hell" truly is, and by reexamining the previous reasons/thoughts I used to have as to why people truly go there, as opposed to getting into an eternal Heaven.

And I've done it in a way that does not make God out to be a monster.

God Bless.

I understand that we have to punish those who are bad and we have moral norms people expect others to conform to otherwise they are ostracized.

But my question is why, why should anyone be punished or ostracized when their behaviour according to the material reductionists is deterministic and there is no free will to choose otherwise.

They can plea that they cannot help their behaviour as its been programmed into them and they are the product of past causes which makes them do what they do.

Holding someone accountable for wrong is based on the principle that the person is capable of freely choosing to do or not do that wrong.

The idea of having no free will turns the law and morality on its head. Its a get out of jail free card for arguing that we are passive creatures acted upon by naturalistic forces that push us in a certain direction whether we like it or choose it or not.

This makes morality, free will and agency dead because there is no independent morality, free will or agency beyond the reductive naturalistic and deterministic processes. Its just an illusion that the naturalistic processes are tricking everyone into thinking they have free will.

 

[Neogaia777]

I understand that we have to punish those who are bad and we have moral norms people expect others to conform to otherwise they are ostracized.

But my question is why, why should anyone be punished or ostracized when their behaviour according to the material reductionists is deterministic and there is no free will to choose otherwise.

They can plea that they cannot help their behaviour as its been programmed into them and they are the product of past causes which makes them do what they do.

Holding someone accountable for wrong is based on the principle that the person is capable of freely choosing to do or not do that wrong.

The idea of having no free will turns the law and morality on its head. Its a get out of jail free card for arguing that we are passive creatures acted upon by naturalistic forces that push us in a certain direction whether we like it or choose it or not.

This makes morality, free will and agency dead because there is no independent morality, free will or agency beyond the reductive naturalistic and deterministic processes. Its just an illusion that the naturalistic processes are tricking everyone into thinking they have free will.

Like I said, we still have to have consequences for those who break the law regardless, and that's what the judges/juries need to tell them. From our perspective, they can still change it, and it can still be changed, etc, as it might be part of their foreordained predestiny to, maybe after things like this happening maybe, etc, but if not, there still have to be consequences for those who break our laws for the good of our societies regardless, etc.

 

[Neogaia777]

Like I said, we still have to have consequences for those who break the law regardless, and that's what the judges/juries need to tell them. From our perspective, they can still change it, and it can still be changed, etc, as it might be part of their foreordained predestiny to, maybe after things like this happening maybe, etc, but if not, there still have to be consequences for those who break our laws for the good of our societies regardless, etc.

Just because it might be our foreordained predestiny to go according to our programming, or be a product of our environment for a time, etc, doesn't mean it can't also be a part of our foreordained predestiny at some point to maybe not follow it also, and/or overcome it also, and not commit any crimes, etc. As many have, and do, and still don't ever commit any crimes, etc. There is still no excuse for going against our laws, etc. And we must enforce those laws in order to maintain social order, etc. I suggest they learn from their current experiences, and improve, if they have broken our laws, etc, as it might just be part of their foreordained predestiny to do just that, etc. But if not, there still has to be consequences for those who break our laws, etc. And further continued consequences for those who keep breaking our laws regardless, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Just because it might be our foreordained predestiny to go according to our programming, or be a product of our environment for a time, etc, doesn't mean it can't also be a part of our foreordained predestiny at some point to maybe not follow it also, and/or overcome it also, and not commit any crimes, etc. As many have, and do, and still don't ever commit any crimes, etc. There is still no excuse for going against our laws, etc. And we must enforce those laws in order to maintain social order, etc. I suggest they learn from their current experiences, and improve, if they have broken our laws, etc, as it might just be part of their foreordained predestiny to do just that, etc. But if not, there still has to be consequences for those who break our laws, etc. And further continued consequences for those who keep breaking our laws regardless, etc.

God Bless.

Is there a higher liklihood of doing wrong or bad things or committing crimes if you had the wrong kind background, or whatever maybe? Maybe, but also maybe not also. Some people learn how to be or do good, or do right, by having the wrong kind of background, or happenstance, or circumstances, etc. But if there is an increased liklihood, then it's just something people need to be made aware of, etc. Because either way, the law is the law, and we have the laws we do have for very good reasons, and must pay the consequences for breaking them when we break them regardless of circumstances, etc. But hopefully people can learn from their mistakes, etc. As that might be a part of their predestiny also, etc. But if not, then they'll just keep paying the consequences regardless, etc.

 

[Bradskii]

But my question is why, why should anyone be punished or ostracized when their behaviour according to the material reductionists is deterministic and there is no free will to choose otherwise.

Punishment serves three things. It's a deterrent - don't do this or there'll be consequences. It's a safety measure - keeping people who would do you harm off the streets. And it's retribution. We want people punished. It satisfies something within us.

The first is a persuasive measure. It's one of the antecedent conditions that determine out actions (I'll go to jail if I get caught, therefore I won't do it). And sending them to jail emphasises that we are genuine in trying to dissuade them. Maybe they'll think twice about doing it again after being jailed.

The second protects us from those who aren't persuaded. If they keep on stealing then we keep them locked up. We use that time to convince them to effectively repent. If they do, then they're returned into society.

The third, we don't do that any more.

They can plea that they cannot help their behaviour as its been programmed into them and they are the product of past causes which makes them do what they do.

We accept that in all cases already - there are always mitigating circumstances in determining punishment. Just take that a step further.

Holding someone accountable for wrong is based on the principle that the person is capable of freely choosing to do or not do that wrong.

Yes. So if there is no free will then we can't hold them accountable.

The idea of having no free will turns the law and morality on its head. Its a get out of jail free card for arguing that we are passive creatures acted upon by naturalistic forces that push us in a certain direction whether we like it or choose it or not.

That's true. But you can still make choices. They will always be the one that you prefer. If you know the punishment for stealing will be incarceration then if you prefer to take the chance then you'll be locked up if caught. This happens whether there is free will or not, so not much changes.

This makes morality, free will and agency dead because there is no independent morality, free will or agency beyond the reductive naturalistic and deterministic processes. Its just an illusion that the naturalistic processes are tricking everyone into thinking they have free will.

Yep. Hard to comes to terms with, isn't it. I believe it myself but I have a lot of difficulty in accepting it. It's very deeply ingrained in us.

 

[stevevw]

They often do. If someone has a medical condition that causes them to act irrationally then that can, and often is, used to exonerate that person from any culpability. So we all accept that at least some antecedent conditions can absolve us from immoral acts. That they determined our actions.

When that bridge has been crossed, if you accept that the universe is deterministic then you need to readjust your views on morality and responsibility.

A quick example: 'Damage to the frontal lobe, also called frontal lobe syndrome, can cause a range of symptoms. These can include behavioral problems, depression, and a loss of strength in the muscles. A variety of conditions can damage the frontal lobe, including stroke, head trauma, and dementia.' Symptoms and Causes of Frontal Lobe Brain Damage

We don't blame someone if they have seizure and strike out and hit somebody. They have no control over doing that. So why would we blame someone if they have a problem with the frontal lobe and do the same?

Ok but none of that would make sense unless we also acknowledged that without these mitigating circumstances that people are responsible for their choices of behaviour. It doesn't negate that fact but rather only adds exceptions to the rule.

When there are no mitigating circumstances we throw the full weight of the law in punishment even that a persons life may be taken away literally or in prison for that choice.

When we do allow for mental illness or medical conditions that deminish a persons ability to make choices we do so not because this deminishes the truth that humans are capable of free will but that sometimes damage makes them incapable. So thats still upholding the truth that we have free will to chose.

Sometimes its the obvious commonsense evidence that supports things like free will and agency. The way we actually live and treat peoples choices. Our conscious experience of our sense of independence and control in the world which is not reduced the the sum of the physical parts but something beyond and yet just as real.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok but none of that would make sense unless we also acknowledged that without these mitigating circumstances that people are responsible for their choices of behaviour. It doesn't negate that fact but rather only adds exceptions to the rule.

When there are no mitigating circumstances we throw the full weight of the law in punishment even that a persons life may be taken away literally or in prison for that choice.

For mitigating circumstances read antecedent conditions. They determine our choices and we have no control over those conditions.

Sometimes its the obvious commonsense evidence that supports things like free will and agency. The way we actually live and treat peoples choices. Our conscious experience of our sense of independence and control in the world which is not reduced the the sum of the physical parts but something beyond and yet just as real.

Yes, we have the sense of free will. I do, as well as you. But it's a necessary illusion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fact that reason itself is involved is free will based. The fact that one can reason things out is free will based. We like coffee want coffee and would rather have coffee but choose Earl Grey for a reason that is based upon reasoning things through.

Reason is using logic on the information you have to reach a valid conclusion. It's a tool to facilitate decisions. That seems like the opposite pole to the idea of free will.

The information you have includes the things you have learned about the world and the feelings you have about those things.

Can you explain how you think free will is involved?

 

[stevevw]

Like I said, we still have to have consequences for those who break the law regardless, and that's what the judges/juries need to tell them. From our perspective, they can still change it, and it can still be changed, etc, as it might be part of their foreordained predestiny to, maybe after things like this happening maybe, etc, but if not, there still have to be consequences for those who break our laws for the good of our societies regardless, etc.

Actually I agree. I am posing a hypothetical question to the relativists and those who claim there is no free will and agency. How can they say there is no free will when our own lived reality shows there is free will in the fact that we hold people accountable for their choices and actions.

The materialists view of reality is only measured in terms of physical reductionism where everything including our agency, conscious experiences and free will is reduced to the phyical and naturalistic processes. So agency and free will are seen as byproducts of the phyical processes.

Whereas phenomena like agency, free will, conscious experiences and morality are real phenomena that actually change reality as much as the physical processes. They can be measured by lived experience, how we actually behave and how this influences outcomes. We can't measure this with physical reductionism.

The fact that we do hold people accountable and we have laws and moral standards we all agree with is evidence of the fact we treat agency, free will and morality as being real phenomena in the world and for society.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually I agree. I am posing a hypothetical question to the relativists and those who claim there is no free will and agency. How can they say there is no free will when our own lived reality shows there is free will in the fact that we hold people accountable for their choices and actions.

The materialists view of reality is only measured in terms of physical reductionism where everything including our agency, conscious experiences and free will is reduced to the phyical and naturalistic processes. So agency and free will are seen as byproducts of the phyical processes.

Whereas phenomena like agency, free will, conscious experiences and morality are real phenomena that actually change reality as much as the physical processes. They can be measured by lived experience, how we actually behave and how this influences outcomes. We can't measure this with physical reductionism.

The fact that we do hold people accountable and we have laws and moral standards we all agree with is evidence of the fact we treat agency, free will and morality as being real phenomena in the world and for society.

I'm afraid this is nothing more than 'it certainly feels like I have free will and I make decisions, so it must exist'. We discounted arguments like this in the first couple of dozen posts.

 

[Neogaia777]

Actually I agree. I am posing a hypothetical question to the relativists and those who claim there is no free will and agency. How can they say there is no free will when our own lived reality shows there is free will in the fact that we hold people accountable for their choices and actions.

The materialists view of reality is only measured in terms of physical reductionism where everything including our agency, conscious experiences and free will is reduced to the phyical and naturalistic processes. So agency and free will are seen as byproducts of the phyical processes.

Whereas phenomena like agency, free will, conscious experiences and morality are real phenomena that actually change reality as much as the physical processes. They can be measured by lived experience, how we actually behave and how this influences outcomes. We can't measure this with physical reductionism.

The fact that we do hold people accountable and we have laws and moral standards we all agree with is evidence of the fact we treat agency, free will and morality as being real phenomena in the world and for society.

It's a matter of perspective.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Punishment serves three things. It's a deterrent - don't do this or there'll be consequences. It's a safety measure - keeping people who would do you harm off the streets. And it's retribution. We want people punished. It satisfies something within us.

The first is a persuasive measure. It's one of the antecedent conditions that determine out actions (I'll go to jail if I get caught, therefore I won't do it). And sending them to jail emphasises that we are genuine in trying to dissuade them. Maybe they'll think twice about doing it again after being jailed.

The second protects us from those who aren't persuaded. If they keep on stealing then we keep them locked up. We use that time to convince them to effectively repent. If they do, then they're returned into society.

The third, we don't do that any more.

You have missed the point. I asked why should we punish people for doing wrong if there is no agency and free will to choose. That its all deterministic. Your explanation pnly serves toi further support that we have free will.

Making consequences for choices in behaviour, saying its a safety measure, keeping people who would do harm off the streets and denying them freedom, show that we believe people could have made a different choice. Enough so that we are willing to take away their freedom and punish them.

We accept that in all cases already - there are always mitigating circumstances in determining punishment. Just take that a step further.

Yes but we still draw a line with most cases and we don't deminish the potential accountability that person should have had regardless of those mitigating circumstances because other people in those sitations chose not to break the law. We still punish them. We make not of the mitigating circumstances but in most cases this will not get them off. They are still sentenced to some form of punishment and accountability.

Yes. So if there is no free will then we can't hold them accountable.

But in reality we do. So theres an explanation gap between the assumption that everything can be reducedd to physical deterministic processes and what actually happens in real life. How we actuallt behave based on what we truely believe through our conscious experiences which tell us there is free will.

But yes the logical conclusion for the material reductionist is we should not hold people accountable as they cannot help it due to a raft of predetermined influences making people do what they do.

This is another strange and contradictory assumption based on material reductionism. Like morality is subjective and yet we live like its objective. Or that we are passive entities acted upon by naturalistic forces and yet we intuit our agency and sense of a real force in the world that can make a difference.

One has us as dumb, passive, programmed robots and the other as real entities able to control and create reality over the material reality.

That's true. But you can still make choices. They will always be the one that you prefer. If you know the punishment for stealing will be incarceration then if you prefer to take the chance then you'll be locked up if caught. This happens whether there is free will or not, so not much changes.

OK so maybe the true answer is that its both. Its both deterministic and sometimes free will. Its a sort of gradient of a lot of deterministic influence ie we have to eat, hunger is a great basic driver we cannot get around.

But then it can reach the transcedent level of life where that hunger drive can turn to greed, glutony for which we have control morally. Even beyond this where a someone can transcedent their earthly instincts and choose to die by depriving ones self for a spiritual cause.

We can act counter to our desires and drives and rise above them and thats the great capacity of intelligent, rational and conscious humans.

Yep. Hard to comes to terms with, isn't it. I believe it myself but I have a lot of difficulty in accepting it. It's very deeply ingrained in us.

I think its a sad position to take. It limits human potential. But I can understand it if one assumes that there is only the physical and material world. Everything is then restricted to the naturalistic material processes.

It seems Free will, like human agency, consciousness and morality and a bunch of other more transcedent abilities we have including our beliefs about being something more than just the sum of our physical world is all reduced to delusion, make believe, to help us survive. Its a sad world to live in and one of limited potentail.