Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

It makes no difference whether the world is deterministic or stochastic. A truly random event has no prior cause, so, presumably, cannot be a product of will, free or otherwise. As it happens, our world gives every indication of being stochastic at the quantum level but, by averaging out, effectively deterministic at macro-scales.

Yes, I agree with this. Whether the universe is random at the quantum level or just unpredictable I don't know. I really have a hard time considering truly random events because they would literally have no cause (else they'd be deterministic). There'll be quantum effects happening within the material of the small wooden Buddha on my desk, but up here in the macro world it's going to sit there and do nothing all day unless I move it.

But even at macro-scales, there are all kinds of events we can view as effectively random because they're unpredictable. However, I doubt that free will advocates would support pseudo-randomness as an explanation for free will.

I think a lot of people - some in this thread, have confused the two. It's because of how we use language. It's quite reasonable to say that exactly where in my garden the next leaf will fall is a random event, but it's actually determined by a huge number of prior events. We just can't predict it.

OTOH, if free will is neither deterministic nor random/pseudo-random, is there a coherent alternative? if so, what is it?

I was going to say that some people suggest what is in effect dualism. But you asked for a coherent alternative, so...

 

[Bradskii]

The threat of punishment alone is not a particularly effective deterrent for those with low moral or social conformity, e.g. habitual criminals, as evidenced by the amount of crime and recidivism in countries with punitive legal systems, but there are alternatives that can be effective for some.

Punishment could be effective if we took it to the max. If the penalty for DUI or speeding was being burnt at the stake, then the road accident numbers would tumble. That's obviously not an option. But making more of an attempt to rehabilitate those who commit crime (I'm trying to avoid calling them criminals) should be the direction we're heading. Norway, for example, has made a lot of progress in this area: How Norway turns criminals into good neighbours

"And since our big reforms, recidivism in Norway has fallen to only 20% after two years and about 25% after five years. So this works!"
In the UK, the recidivism rate is almost 50% after just one year.

 

[Bradskii]

Why would you, for example, get angry about a thing of which you already knew, etc? And not only already knew, but you were the original cause of it, and there was never any kind of real possibility of it going any other way. Which was only going according to the way you made it go, or wanted, and it couldn't ever go any other way, etc?

It's not easy. But it can make a difference. I'd already read a couple of posts in this thread when I went to get some cereal for breakfast. And there was no milk. Instant frustration because it meant I had to walk down the road to buy some. But...hang on. That's the situation. It's out of my control. Nobody's fault. I can't do anything about it. Being frustrated won't help. So I took a few seconds to chill and it wasn't a problem after all.

 

[stevevw]

I've answered this separately because it's quite important, so please address just this point.

If you don't have any threat of punishment for stealing, people are likely going to steal things. But if it's known that if someone does steal then they'll be arrested, charged and possibly go to jail then that might well change their minds about it.

Does this make sense to you?

Yes but this is not addressing the actual issue of free will. First it an unfounded assumption that people will steal if theres no threat not to steal. As we are moral beings we can know that injustices like stealing are wrong without a moral law or any threat over us.

Second despite having threats people still choose to steal so a threat hanging over their heads is not a deterent. What yoy have is an assumption based on reductionism when human behaviour is far more complex.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes but this is not addressing the actual issue of free will.

No, it relates to punishment and what we can do to prevent crime.

First it an unfounded assumption that people will steal if theres no threat not to steal.

So I guess every single law that we have telling people what will happen to them if they break it is a waste of time (as, I am beginning to realise, is this conversation).

Can you remember the three reasons there are for punishment? That one was as a preventative measure. You can look that up on any legal site. Let me know when you have accepted that as being a valid reason.

 

[stevevw]

You are free to give me any event without a cause. If you can't then we're going to have to go with a deterministic world. I'm not interested in awe or the colour red. The event can be a decision if you like. I don't mind. Literally any event at all.

You keep missing the point. You keep asking for an assumed material reductionist explanation for phenomena like free will, conscious experiences and agency. We already know that the material reductionist paradigm cannot explain phenomena like conscious experience, agency and morality.

So I am saying your very assumption and basis for asking for examples without a material reductionist cause is faulty to begin with. Your using the wrong measure in the first place, one that cannot explain these phenomena.

The reason I used examples like the conscious experience of pain and color or phenomenal belief is because they are in the same category of free will. A experiential and qualitative phenomena that cannot be reduced to the material and reductionist causes. It is within this realm that free will happens and not within or completely within the material reductionist processes.

Therefore there is another level of phenomena we experience beyond the material reductionist and determinist paradigm. At the very least the no free will advocates have to acknowledge that they have no way of telling that everything is reduced to material causes and processes.

That is why phenomena like free will, agency, experiences and morality are so real to us yet hard to explain, hard to explain in material terms. Yet we intuit this reality just as real as the physical world.

The only way we can have evidence is directly from our phenomenal experiences. We know that these are real because we experience them and it is our direct experience of this that gives us justification that it is real. Its still a form of evidence, just not the type the materialist wants.

So first we have direct evdience that there is more to life than the material reductionism. Thats enough to cast doubt on the assumption everything has a material and deterministic process.

Second we don't completely know how this works. Perhaps we are not just passive players in creating reality but rather entangled in in the event, where out interactions through consciousness have some degree of control over the outcomes.

Certainly at the quantum level this seems to be the case from some interpretations of QM. Phenomenal belief is a real phenomena based on knowledge of reality that we cannot derive from deterministic material reductionism.

That's right.

No. We lock them up because they stole your car. We tell them that it's not his car, he's not allowed to take it and if he does we'll put him in jail. Hopefully that will convince him not to do it.

Your missing the point. That is a useless thing to say and base locking them up on. Its like telling a person with Terrets syndrome not to act impulsively or an addict not to take that drug you left on the table or else.

Practical reasons are the only reasons. Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

Yes I understand your reasoning but its faulty. It doesn't matter if its practical because your using a practical reason to penalise someone who cannot help what they are doing. If this was the case then anything but penalties should be applied.

Set them up in a seperate place with rewards and comforts so they can live out their determinism. Or treat those who we believe are causing society problems in the practical sense with ways where they can be accommodated. But not penalised. There should be no penalty at all as they are not responsible. Using practical reasons doesn't change the fact that they are being punished for something they are not responsible for.

In fact in some ways its the other way around. Those imposing penalties for people just acting out their determinism are actually going against the grain and forcing non determinism. The opposite of free will. They are saying that if there is consequences then people can make free choices despite their determinism.

Generally speaking, yes.

If you don't think it's a good idea to deter people from stealing your car, then so be it.

I'm not saying its not a good idea. But rather than it makes much more sense that we do this because people are capable of taking responsibility.

 

[Bradskii]

You keep missing the point. You keep asking for an assumed material reductionist explanation for phenomena like free will...

Nope. I just want to show you that the world is deterministic. If you disagree then you'll need to show me something that hasn't been determined. An event without a cause. A decision without a reason. Do you know that in over 1500 posts and me asking that exact question over a dozen times nobody has given me a single example.

Your missing the point. That is a useless thing to say and base locking them up on. Its like telling a person with Terrets syndrome not to act impulsively or an addict not to take that drug you left on the table or else.

A Terrets syndrome person doesn't choose to act impulsively. He has no choice. Just because you have no free will doesn't mean that you have no choices. You most certainly do. So if there was no punishment for stealing then lots more people would steal. Because the only reason lots of people don't is because they don't want to be punished.

I'm really bemused that I have to explain this to you.

Yes I understand your reasoning but its faulty. It doesn't matter if its practical because your using a practical reason to penalise someone who cannot help what they are doing. If this was the case then anything but penalties should be applied.

No. Not having free will doesn't mean that you can't change. You still do what you prefer whether there is free will or not. If there is a serious punishment for a particular crime then you may decide not to commit it. The possible punishment determines your decisions.

I'll say that again. The possible punishment determines your decisions.

Set them up in a seperate place with rewards and comforts so they can live out their determinism. Or treat those who we believe are causing society problems in the practical sense with ways where they can be accommodated. But not penalised. There should be no penalty at all as they are not responsible. Using practical reasons doesn't change the fact that they are being punished for something they are not responsible for.

See the previously linked article regarding recidivism in Norway. You are giving a reasonable description of what they do.

In fact in some ways its the other way around. Those imposing penalties for people just acting out their determinism are actually going against the grain and forcing non determinism. The opposite of free will. They are saying that if there is consequences then people can make free choices despite their determinism.

There is determinism and randomness. We'll skip randomness because free will doesn't live there. But you make choices all the time. They are determined by antecedent events. If you want to hold to your position then give me an example when that isn't the case.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. I just want to show you that the world is deterministic. If you disagree then you'll need to show me something that hasn't been determined. An event without a cause. A decision without a reason. Do you know that in over 1500 posts and me asking that exact question over a dozen times nobody has given me a single example.

Like I said thats because people cannot possibly answer it in the way you want them to. Your forcing them to explain free will by material reductionism. Matertial reductionism is basically everything has a physical and reducible cause. So we can keep going back to a cause, a cause of a cause ect.

But that only applies to the closed physical schema of cause and effect. It cannot apply to intention, phenomenal belief, our sense of agency, morality and conscious experience. Which really everything I mentioned is conscious experiences.

Its like asking for an 'ought' from an 'is'. No one can do that either. Or getting the experience of red out of a neuron and light waves. They are just not there. These phenomena don't work with the cause and effect schema. So thats one problem we cannot get around. I guess you could call it the Hard Problem of Free Will. Like the Hard Problem of consciousness.

A Terrets syndrome person doesn't choose to act impulsively. He has no choice. Just because you have no free will doesn't mean that you have no choices. You most certainly do. So if there was no punishment for stealing then lots more people would steal. Because the only reason lots of people don't is because they don't want to be punished.

No the principle is the same. Someone could say that their behaviour is like Terrets. Its a determined behaviour they do due to how their body, the neurons, nerves, chemistry, environment and conditioning produced in them a certain behaviour they could not control. It just hasn't been diagnosed and recognised as much as Terrets. Because Terrets symptoms are more obvious but mine are just as compulsive in their own way.

The logical is the same. You can't go around saying this person or that person can control themselves from what they do because they don't meet some arbitrary measure. The fact is under the logic of no free will every behaviour cannot be helped or chosen differently because of some prior cause.

I'm really bemused that I have to explain this to you.

I'm glad to amuse you lol.

No. Not having free will doesn't mean that you can't change. You still do what you prefer whether there is free will or not. If there is a serious punishment for a particular crime then you may decide not to commit it. The possible punishment determines your decisions.
I'll say that again. The possible punishment determines your decisions.

Yes it can, but then wouldn't that be something causing/forcing the person to choose to change. Its still no free will. Maybe rebellion against the law is a symptom of surpressed free will.

See the previously linked article regarding recidivism in Norway. You are giving a reasonable description of what they do.

Well thats a logical extention of no free will. But I am not sure Norway or other Scandinavian nations believe people are not responsible for their choices. Its more about taking a rehabilitative approach to the problem rather than punitive. But we have also seen this go horribly wrong as well.

There is determinism and randomness. We'll skip randomness because free will doesn't live there. But you make choices all the time. They are determined by antecedent events. If you want to hold to your position then give me an example when that isn't the case.

So why cannot free will be making a free choice despite the deterministic causes. I am sure we could find two people who have had the same conditioning, genes ect and see different choices. Perhaps twin studies. I havn't really looked into it as its not a mainstream study area until recently.

But if they study morality and find its not caused by material reductionism then we can study free will. I will have to go down that rabbit whole and find out. But off the top of my head we would have to be looking for phenomena like belief, conscious experiences rather than looking at brain neurons or physical causes.

I think consciousness is probably a good candidate as free will seems associated with a conscious choice. Sort of stepping into the equation of what is happening rather than just unconscious processes firing off.

Conscious experience can give a person knowledge about an event, a perception beyond what our senses can give. We can believe something despite any objective evidence and it is often true. Intuition is one name we give this or a sense of some sort. Not sure where it comes from or what it is. But it cannot be explained in material reductive terms. yet its just as real.

So it may be that our conscious experiences for example, when we are more aware and entangled in what is happening it becomes more than deterministic causes and effect. We are 'part' of the equation of what happens rather than 'apart' from it. If thats the case then our intentional choices may have an effect on reality, on the outcomes and even in some causes create reality.

 

[rjs330]

God in the OT is God the Holy Spirit, or God the Spirit, and didn't know all in or at or from the beginning, or in the OT, and is not God the Highest Heavenly Father that Jesus introduces us to, which is the Highest God of all, and for which everything is deterministic, and all was/is always already known, who is also the original chief primary cause of all or everything/everyone else in and from the very beginning, etc.

He has the other Two to show us Himself, for it is the one thing He cannot do.

In order to do that He would have to give up or sacrifice some of His foreknowledge, or knowledge, etc.

Instead He gave us the other Two.

God Bless.

The God of the NT is the same as the OT. In the OT God knew everything.

Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,

Source: Isaiah 46:9 “Remember the former things long past,For I am God, and there is no other;I am God, and there is no one like Me,

Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite.

Source: Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;His understanding is infinite.

Do you not know? Have you not heard?
The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth
Does not become weary or tired.
His understanding is inscrutable.

Source: 14 Bible verses about God, Omniscience Of

Isaiah 40:13-14
Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord,
Or as His counselor has informed Him?
With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding?
And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge
And informed Him of the way of understanding

Source: 138 Bible verses about God, All Knowing

Yes the The Father existed in the OT and the NT.

For thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us: thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name. Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where are thy zeal and thy mighty acts? the yearning of thy heart and thy compassions are restrained toward me.

Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 63:16, Isaiah 63:15 - American Standard Version

For thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us: thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name.

www.biblegateway.com

I'm not sure where you gave obtained your understanding of God. It seems that it's missing quite a few parts. Perhaps that is why you have fallen into a determinism absolute.

 

[rjs330]

There also cannot be choice and full knowledge. The two just simply cannot co-exist.

God Bless.

Why not? In what sense is knowledge causation?

 

[rjs330]

And as for yet another point, I wish you guys could all crawl outside of your little religious boxes for a bit, and would consider what it would have to be like to be all-knowing, etc.

Would you even be capable of having any of the kind of much more human emotional reactions to things if you were, or did?

Why would you, for example, get angry about a thing of which you already knew, etc? And not only already knew, but you were the original cause of it, and there was never any kind of real possibility of it going any other way. Which was only going according to the way you made it go, or wanted, and it couldn't ever go any other way, etc?

Anyway, I digress. But I really do wish you guys could crawl put of your little religious boxes for a bit, and put your thinking caps on, and use basic simple logic and reason, etc.

Jesus did, so why can't you?

God Bless.

As I pointed out earlier it's not us who are in the box. We understand that free will is not absolute because of who God is. He can and does intervene to fulfill his purpose. But his intervention is also not absolute determinism either. It seems you wish to put God in a box. I'm not even sure it's a religious one you are stuffing him into.

 

[rjs330]

God the Spirit's anger/wrath was poured out on His biological Son Jesus, and after that His wrath was finished, once and for all and for good, and was fully satisfied, and it is Jesus wrath we have to worry about when Jesus comes back, for he will be armed with the Heavenly Father's judgements, which might be very, very different from any other kinds of judgments that we have received before, etc, which was where he (Jesus) went, and is where he will be returning from, while God the Holy Spirit stayed here, just as He has always been here, and is still here with us even right now, etc. When Jesus comes back starts the 7th day, which will be a very long period of time, and God the (Holy) Spirit will get to rest on that day while Jesus takes over for a while, etc, maybe He gets to go to where the Heavenly Father is/always was at that time, IDK? But, either way, the 6th day has been ever since the first land animals, and is only about to finally end right now, and each day marks a whole different kind of new era/age, and the 7th might be as well, and might even be the next step in evolution, or a whole different kind of existence, etc, until the end of that 7th day, which will mark the very last and final resurrection and judgement of this whole entire 7 day creations age, when the old ones will be done away with/destroyed, and whole new ones put in their place for everything to begin again, etc.

I think that's enough information for now.

But there is more, a lot more, etc.

God Bless.

You definitely have some interesting doctrine, that's for sure.

 

[rjs330]

Hopefully that will convince him not to do it.

He can't be convinced of anything. You have to have free will to be convinced. You have to have a choice, because if determinism is real then convincing is illogical and irrelevant. So is rehabilitation because we cannot rehabilitate someone who is just goingvto do something anyway because they have no choice. Rehabilitation is still based on choice to be or do differently.

 

[partinobodycular]

I just want to show you that the world is deterministic. If you disagree then you'll need to show me something that hasn't been determined. An event without a cause. A decision without a reason. Do you know that in over 1500 posts and me asking that exact question over a dozen times nobody has given me a single example.

Trust me, I'm just as fed up with your repeating it as you are with having to repeat it, because from my perspective it's irrelevant. If we have a rock and a person, what percentage of that rock's behavior is dependent upon what it likes? Or what it thinks is moral? Or healthier? Or funnier? Or a million other conscious and subconscious motives?

Hint: ZERO

So what's the difference between us humans and a rock?

Hint: We have a will. We do things because we choose to do them.

For some reason you seem to think that because there's a reason behind why we humans choose to do things, that this negates the fact that we do indeed choose to do them. We humans aren't things without a cause, but unlike that rock, we are things with a will.

But you also seem to be confused about what makes this will 'free'. It's free because it isn't obliged to what 8 billion other wills think. It may consider their opinions, but it is in no way obligated to conform to them. It does what it bloody well chooses to do. It may choose to believe in God and it may choose not to. And yes, this choice may be the byproduct of a billion preceding causes, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's still "MY" will. And I don't need an imaginary dualistic 'soul' to make this true.

When a rock can choose to do something different than all the other rocks, then it has a will that's its... and its alone.

 

[Bradskii]

Like I said thats because people cannot possibly answer it in the way you want them to. Your forcing them to explain free will by material reductionism. Matertial reductionism is basically everything has a physical and reducible cause. So we can keep going back to a cause, a cause of a cause ec

That's right. There is nothing that happens that wasn't determined by antecedent conditions. Yes, 'everything has a physical and reducible cause'. Every decision you make is determined. If that's not true then give me an example of when that hasn't happened. If you say there times when your decisions are not determined then show me.

But that only applies to the closed physical schema of cause and effect. It cannot apply to intention, phenomenal belief, our sense of agency, morality and conscious experience. Which really everything I mentioned is conscious experiences.

Yes, it applies to all of them. If not, then give me an example of your first item - intention. Give me an example of something that you intended to do that wasn't determined by something.

 

[Bradskii]

And yes, this choice may be the byproduct of a billion preceding causes, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's still "MY" will.

It's your choice that you make. Nobody makes it for you. But as you said, it's determined by countless preceding causes, over which you had no control. I'm glad that you accept that, that there are no exceptions.

All those causes led you to make the exact decision that you did. And no other. It led you to prefer that specific choice. How could you make a different one? You can't say 'I could have chosen something that I didn't prefer to do'.

 

[rjs330]

Trust me, I'm just as fed up with your repeating it as you are with having to repeat it, because from my perspective it's irrelevant. If we have a rock and a person, what percentage of that rock's behavior is dependent upon what it likes? Or what it thinks is moral? Or healthier? Or funnier? Or a million other conscious and subconscious motives?

Hint: ZERO

So what's the difference between us humans and a rock?

Hint: We have a will. We do things because we choose to do them.

For some reason you seem to think that because there's a reason behind why we humans choose to do things, that this negates the fact that we do indeed choose to do them. We humans aren't things without a cause, but unlike that rock, we are things with a will.

But you also seem to be confused about what makes this will 'free'. It's free because it isn't obliged to what 8 billion other wills think. It may consider their opinions, but it is in no way obligated to conform to them. It does what it bloody well chooses to do. It may choose to believe in God and it may choose not to. And yes, this choice may be the byproduct of a billion preceding causes, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's still "MY" will. And I don't need an imaginary dualistic 'soul' to make this true.

When a rock can choose to do something different than all the other rocks, then it has a will that's its... and its alone.

If absolutely worrying is reduced to a cause as claimed, then if one continues to.go.far enough into the past then there there was an original cause which is God. You can't have a cause that is not influenced by some other cause. If you follow each decision by every person on the face of the planet far enough back in the anals of time rhere has to be an original cause. And since a cause must exist in order for determinism to exist the only thing that is left is God.

 

[rjs330]

But as you said, it's determined by countless preceding causes, over which you had no control.

I know Brad is ignoring my posts, but I wanted address this. This.is an ASSUMPTION. There is actually no evidence for this. Why? Because we cannot go back far enough into reality to discover if this is true. One must assume this is true.

Determinism rests upon a a HYPOTHOSIS of the physical world around us. But we have no way of discovering it's validity. It can't be shown to be true.

Quantum mechanics is a theory that says the laws of rhe universe are probabilistic and not deterministic. The quantum layer of reality which says that when we apply something to a system we might get outcome a or outcome.b. Why? Quantum mechanics. Which is rhe best theory right now.

I know it won't deter people like Brad, but rhere is no doubt that he is assuming something that cannot be proven to be true. Any more than free will.ca. be proven to be true except that Quantum.mechanics leads us in that direction.

 

[All Becomes New]

Free will just means morally responsible in the philosophical literature.

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

I am not sure why it is so hard for you to merely imagine a world where things are not always deterministic. I could say many things that I can imagine but this would not be true. I could say the future is unknowable so the present is nothing but non-deterministic. I could point out how the brain does not operate deterministically. I could bring up quantum mechanics. I could bring up miracles. So many things that are not hard to imagine what you said is not true.

The biggest error in your calculation is that of consciousness. Consciousness is not physical. The mind is not purely deterministic, unlike inanimate objects. What you say is true for the laws of chemistry and physics and such, but this falls apart very quickly when observing humans. If you expect a human to go right, there is still a 50% chance they will go left. Etc.

Indeterminism in the brain - Biology & Philosophy

Does the brain behave indeterministically? I argue that accounting for ion channels, key functional units in the brain, requires indeterministic models. These models are probabilistic, so the brain does behave indeterministically in a weak sense. I explore the implications of this point for a...

link.springer.com

 

[Bradskii]

Free will just means morally responsible in the philosophical literature.

Yes, so if free will doesn't exist then we need to relook at morality.

I am not sure why it is so hard for you to merely imagine a world where things are not always deterministic. I could say many things that I can imagine but this would not be true.

We're not talking about imaginary worlds.

I could say the future is unknowable so the present is nothing but non-deterministic.

If something is unknown doesn't mean it's not deterministic. Unpredictability doesn't equate to indeterminism.

I could point out how the brain does not operate deterministically.

I'd be glad to look at any example.

I could bring up quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is off the table. One, it has no affect on the macro world when it comes to making a decision. Two, it is many levels of magnitude beneath the macro world. Three, if you class it as unpredictable, see the second point. And four, if it's random, then free will doesn't live there.

I could bring up miracles.

If you want to discuss religious aspects of the matter then maybe someone will join in. I won't because I don't believe in the supernatural. Notwithstanding that miracles, should they exist, are simply some of the antecedent conditions we have that determine our decisions.

The biggest error in your calculation is that of consciousness. Consciousness is not physical. The mind is not purely deterministic, unlike inanimate objects. What you say is true for the laws of chemistry and physics and such, but this falls apart very quickly when observing humans. If you expect a human to go right, there is still a 50% chance they will go left. Etc.

If someone goes right, then there was a reason for doing so that determined their choice. So no free will. If it was random, then there's no free will involved. If it couldn't be predicted then that's irrelevant - see earlier comment.