Free will and determinism

[stevevw]

I've not said anything different.

If you don't have an alternative, all you can do is deny the one given.

Then give me an example when a decision wasn't determined. And look, I'm getting really tired of asking this. Either do it or admit that you can't.

I have but then you disagree which is your opinion lol.

Correct.
Yes, we do.

So therefore despite the determination that we have no responsibility or accountability we act and live like we have responsibility and accountability. Its simiular to morality. Despite saying there are no moral truths and its all subjective we act and live like there are moral truths.

Thats the evidence, its in the pudding, the actual reality we live out and not the detached rationalities we apply based on mathmatical equations or programming and materialism. We live it out because we know on some level perhaps not the material level that its true, its real. Thats all we can go by. Our lived experience and reality.

 

[Bradskii]

Very likely, given the subject under discussion, it is impossible to prove, establish, demonstrate your requested negative of “example of a decision that was not determined by anything at all.”

We only have the two option: Our decisions are determined (in fact - everything, at all times, everywhere is determined). Or they are not. I can't prove that everything is because we'd need to investigate...everything. It's like saying that all swans are white. We'd need to check every single swan to prove me right. But a single black swan would prove me wrong.

I'd suggest that you are saying that it's impossible to prove that something - anything, wasn't determined simply because there are no examples. This isn't the equivalent of proving a negative. I'm the one making the negative claim - that something doesn't exist. One example that will show that it does will prove me wrong. And you have the whole universe for all of time so find one.

Now, you might reply establishing “a decision that was” a result of the freedom of a person to act or refrain from acting, necessarily excludes Determinism and renders the free decision to act or refrain from acting as a “decision that was not determined by anything at all.”

I wouldn't reply in anything like that manner. There are no decisions that exclude determinism. Feel free to give an example if you like.

Yet, considering the inherent metaphysical composition of the subject matter of free will and/or Determinism...

This isn't a metaphysical question. Determinism is how the universe operates on the macro scale (say the atomic level and upwards). Simple cause and effect.

I find the definition of Free Will by the famed Christian apologist, renowned philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga, at my beloved University of Notre Dame, a suitable, adequate, and sensible meaning. From his book, “God, Freedom, and Evil,” Plantinga defined free will as, “If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform form the action, or that he won't.

I'll bet that Alvin didn't give you an example...

I’m unaware of evidence establishing or showing my actions, or refraining from acting, is determined by someone or something else.

It's quite often the case that we are unaware of what has determined out actions. In fact, we cannot know them. Do you know the almost infinite number of things that happened just over the last year that determined that you are sitting there reading this? Of course not. And that line of cause and effect branches out to a million different threads each of which branches again going back as far as you'd like to consider.

I’m equally unaware of evidence someone or something other than myself is determining to act or not to act. Ostensibly, I am the entity deciding when to act, how to act, or when to not act as there isn’t any evidence something or someone, is strongly causing, or I am thinking of what to do, or not to do, and then deciding which and then deciding the action or inaction, thereby establishing the Cogito, thanks Des Cartes, and my Cogito the cause for the action/inaction.

No free will doesn't mean you stop thinking about what you do. But thinking about it doesn't show that it exists either. You are still making the decisions.

Preceding causes, such as Big Bang, God created us and is omniscient of what we will do or not, do not necessarily establish or show our actions or inactions are determined for us.

Well, there's a line of cause and effect going back as far as you'd like to go. At what point you want to stop is up to you. Wherever that point is does not negate the fact that the line exists.

Whether there must exist at least some alternative for free will, to run or not to run/ride a bike/hop/skip, known as Principle of Alternative Possibilities, is a fascinating topic that has occupied academia and philosophy since at least the 70s. William Lane Craig, invoking inspiration from the Frankfurt Case(s)/Illustrations has espoused the interesting proposition alternatives are not necessary to free will.

This is the interesting bit:

...but rather not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions.”

Why (and how) can you exclude yourself from the choices you make? If you are the type of person who is interested in music then you might choose to learn to play an instrument. Your interest determined that choice. And you can't will yourself to be a different person. You yourself are one of the antecedent conditions which determine your choices.

 

[Bradskii]

I have...

You most definitely have not.

So therefore despite the determination that we have no responsibility or accountability we act and live like we have responsibility and accountability.

Yes.

Its simiular to morality. Despite saying there are no moral truths and its all subjective we act and live like there are moral truths.

There are no objective moral truths. There are subjective moral truths so your point doesn't stand.

Thats the evidence, its in the pudding, the actual reality we live out and not the detached rationalities we apply based on mathmatical equations or programming and materialism. We live it out because we know on some level perhaps not the material level that its true, its real. Thats all we can go by. Our lived experience and reality.

Gee, it feels like it's true, so it must be. I shan't reply to such comments again because I reject them every time you make them and you simply repeat them. I'm not playing Groundhog Day any more.

 

[stevevw]

You most definitely have not.

I have explained that the answer to our free will does not lie in the physical deterministic processes but our experience of it which is not always subject to determinism. I gave examples. You have to now explain how those examples are deterministic and don't transcend the physical world of determinism.

You won't be able to do it no more than you can use detrministic neurons to explain conscious experiences. Theres an explanatory gap you can't get over.

Yes.

There are no objective moral truths. There are subjective moral truths so your point doesn't stand.

Can you scientifically prove there is no objective morality. Like free will there is no scientific explanation that can fully account for morality.

Morality is similar to free will in that people claim there is no moral truths but then react and respond like there is moral truths even to the point of destroying and penalising others for not behaving according to those truths.

What do they say, actions speak louder than words or rationalisations. The proof is in the pudding.

Gee, it feels like it's true, so it must be. I shan't reply to such comments again because I reject them every time you make them and you simply repeat them. I'm not playing Groundhog Day any more.

Saying that morality and free will equates to feelings is a logical fallacy. A false analogy. We know that these are more than feelings. Feelings don't map out on agency and moral behaviour.

Your more or less saying I have determined the criteria as to what is morality and free will based on materialistic and deterministic science and if you don't play by those rules I'm taking my bat and ball and not playing anymore. Even challenging my rules is enough to get you cancelled lol.

Have you ever considered that our direct experience of the world, how we feel, sense, intuit and react may not all be biases and delusions but also our most reliable and true representation of what is going on. Afterall it is direct knowledge rather than 3rd party determinations that are devoid of any direct experience.

 

[Bradskii]

I have explained that the answer to our free will does not lie in the physical deterministic processes but our experience of it which is not always subject to determinism. I gave examples.

You have most definitely have not. Whatever you think is an example you can repeat in the next post.

Can you scientifically prove there is no objective morality.

This is not a thread on morality. I'm not interested in discussing it here in the slightest. I expect those examples in your next post.

 

[stevevw]

You have most definitely have not. Whatever you think is an example you can repeat in the next post.

I gave a principle rather than going through individual examples which can never prove or disprove free will. That we have free will because we are moral creatures who are responsible for our actions. Without free will we cannot hold anyone accountable or live coherently in society with each other.

This is not a thread on morality. I'm not interested in discussing it here in the slightest. I expect those examples in your next post.

I guarentee that morality will be brought up time and time again because free will is ultimately about accountability.

 

[Bradskii]

I gave a principle rather than going through individual examples..

As I said. You gave no examples. I might suggest the reason for that is that there are none.

I guarentee that morality will be brought up time and time again because free will is ultimately about accountability.

Just make sure that you approach it from the right direction. No free will affects our sense of accountability. But it doesn't exclude moral reasoning. And claiming that morality exists has no input as to whether free will does or does not exist.

 

[partinobodycular]

As I said. You gave no examples. I might suggest the reason for that is that there are none.

Might I ask how you propose that we differentiate causation from correlation? Because it seems as though you're saying that they're one and the same thing. For example, there may be a correlation between your preference for coffee over Earl Grey, and your subsequent choice thereof, but how do you prove direct causation?

 

[stevevw]

As I said. You gave no examples. I might suggest the reason for that is that there are none.

Just make sure that you approach it from the right direction. No free will affects our sense of accountability. But it doesn't exclude moral reasoning. And claiming that morality exists has no input as to whether free will does or does not exist.

I love these topics. They suck you in and then take you down a rabbit hole into wonderland where you discover all sorts of weird and wonderful things lol. I always ask myself why did I buy in as these topics can go on forever and never really get resolved. But then its interesting and fun to go on the journey of discovery.

Ok before I do propose some scenarios I just wanted to check your position on this. I understand you don't believe there is free will and you just told me theres no such thing as moral truths or objective morals. I assume you also don't believe there is consciousness beyond brain and that consciousness is an epiphenomena.

Of course you don't believe in God or any gods from what I have gathered from past discussions. By extentions that includes ideas like agency, teleology, spirituality and all that goes with that such as the soul, life after death ect.

Could we say your an atheist and perhaps a materialist. Or at least only believe in naturalistic causes that fall within the causal closure of the physical. Scientific empiriclism and reductionism. All causes within the causal chain are physical in nature whether particles, chemicals, forces and fields. Whether that's behaviour associated with particles, planets or people.

 

[Bradskii]

Might I ask how you propose that we differentiate causation from correlation? Because it seems as though you're saying that they're one and the same thing. For example, there may be a correlation between your preference for coffee over Earl Grey, and your subsequent choice thereof, but how do you prove direct causation?

There may be a correlation? No, there is always a correlation. There cannot be a decision when that is not the case. All you are saying is that 'Hang on, isn't it odd that there's a correlation between what he prefers and what determines his choice'.

If there was no correlation - that is, if I didn't prefer it, then it I wouldn't have chosen it.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok before I do propose some scenarios I just wanted to check your position on this. I understand you don't believe there is free will and you just told me theres no such thing as moral truths or objective morals.

No, morality exists. We all can make decisions on what we perceive to be right and wrong. That may vary from person to person but that just makes it subjective.

I assume you also don't believe there is consciousness beyond brain...

Correct.

...and that consciousness is an epiphenomena.

People use that term to head off in all sorts of directions. There are too many varieties for me to give a definitive answer to that.

Of course you don't believe in God or any gods from what I have gathered from past discussions. By extentions that includes ideas like agency, teleology, spirituality and all that goes with that such as the soul, life after death ect.

Yes to all except agency. From Stanford: 'In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity.' We are all agents in that sense.

Could we say your an atheist and perhaps a materialist. Or at least only believe in naturalistic causes that fall within the causal closure of the physical. Scientific empiriclism and reductionism. All causes within the causal chain are physical in nature whether particles, chemicals, forces and fields. Whether that's behaviour associated with particles, planets or people.

Yes.

Incidentally, I can see lots of very long posts in my immediate future. But I am going overseas for a few weeks tomorrow so my replies might by intermittent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again....the most pointless thread on the forum.

Guy says life is deterministic because causes precede actions. People argue that they have free will and make choices.

Inherent flaw in original argument is the fact that if one truly believes this....he's unable to convince those he's unable to convince because of causes that preceded this argument being made....and therefore, they cannot choose to agree.

 

[partinobodycular]

If there was no correlation - that is, if I didn't prefer it, then it I wouldn't have chosen it.

But doesn't this imply that the cause of my choice is my preferences, and the thing being chosen is only being chosen because it conforms to those preferences, and in fact it has no direct causal connection to those preferences at all.

So in this case isn't it correct to say that the cause of my choice is my preferences, and not the thing being chosen?

 

[Ana the Ist]

So far the determinists are winning the argument.

Well the argument is a forgone conclusion for an actual determinist. There's no winning anything without agency.

"Decisions" are made for reasons. At any moment you entirely inherit those reasons. You cant go back and re-write different reasons for yourself that would compel a different outcome.

You'd think that....right?

Hume made a rather solid argument against logical induction. Essentially you cannot logically say the sun will rise again tomorrow just because of pre-existing evidence....because there's no way of knowing of any epistemically material consistency to reality over time.

I think the "split brain experments" show rather convincingly determinism is a result of some folks thinking too hard about the causal nature of reality and too little about the limits of their own perceptions.

Basically, before medications were able to successfully treat grand mal seizures...one possible fix was a risky medical surgery where the brain's two halves were split...preventing the seizures from spreading. This led to some interesting experiments....as scientists already knew one half was visually oriented...and the other linguistically oriented.

Screens were set up...with each eye seeing a separate screen. A picture of a hammer on one screen...a picture of a ladder on the other. When asked what they saw, they would say the word for the visual...but when asked to draw it they would draw the other picture.

The interesting part is when confronted with the contradiction....asking why they drew the hammer if they saw a ladder....they simply invented a reason. It wasn't true of course, but they didn't believe they lied.

Point being, everyone's brain will simply invent causes where they cannot be found. It's a limitation of perception.

Now, the deterministic can still say that despite the brain inventing causes....a cause must exist for this. I would then refer them to Hume...and point out there's nothing inherently logical about that belief. It simply seems that way due to our limitations of perception. Causal reality could be nothing more than the organization of experience and perception in the mind.

Unless..... there some other influence at play that operates outside this causal chain. Thats what I believe. But its a belief waiting for demonstrable evidence. And so my belief doesnt win the debate.

If your brain invents causes that don't exist, and it does, it's unclear how you could ever hope to know you're correct.

 

[Bradskii]

But doesn't this imply that the cause of my choice is my preferences, and the thing being chosen is only being chosen because it conforms to those preferences, and in fact it has no direct causal connection to those preferences at all.

I can't understand how you can say that it was determined that you chose something because it was what you preferred but that the fact that you preferred it didn't determine your choice.

Makes no sense.

 

[partinobodycular]

I can't understand how you can say that it was determined that you chose something because it was what you preferred but that the fact that you preferred it didn't determine your choice.

Makes no sense.

My bad... I'll try again.

Premise #1: We always choose the thing that we prefer.

That being the case, let's consider an example. I give you a choice between coffee and Earl Grey... I assume that you'll choose coffee because you seem to prefer coffee.

Don't forget Premise #1: We always choose what we prefer.

Question: Did that particular cup of coffee cause you to prefer coffee?
Answer: No it didn't.

Therefore, since that cup of coffee played no part whatsoever in your preference for coffee... and since we always choose what we prefer (See Premise #1) it also played no part in your choice of coffee.

You've been inferring a causal connection where there is none. The cause of your choosing coffee was your preference for coffee, and that particular cup of coffee played absolutely no part in that, it's just a fortunate benefactor of your preexisting preference... it wasn't a cause. Your preference was the cause.

 

[Bradskii]

The cause of your choosing coffee was your preference for coffee, and that particular cup of coffee played absolutely no part in that, it's just a fortunate benefactor of your preexisting preference... it wasn't a cause. Your preference was the cause,

Well...yes. The coffee was simply one of the choices. What determined my choice was that (at that moment) I preferred to have coffee. I'm actually drinking a tea at the moment because I couldn't be bothered to wait for the coffee to brew. Because I've got to leave the house shortly to go somewhere and I'm running a little late. Because I was filling in some forms online and downloading an app. Because I'm going overseas tomorrow and a need an VPN to access a sports game because...and the reasons go on and on. What determined my choice of tea just then wasn't the cup of tea.

 

[partinobodycular]

What determined my choice was that (at that moment) I preferred to have coffee.

I would submit that that's always true... that my preferences preceded the choice, therefore they couldn't have been influenced by any factors present at the moment of the choice. Rather the options present at the moment of the choice are simply the benefactors of those preceding preferences.

So if you're looking for a cause you have to look at the preceding conditions, not the present ones. It's the preceding conditions that caused the preferences that will ultimately determine the choice.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My bad... I'll try again.

Premise #1: We always choose the thing that we prefer.

That being the case, let's consider an example. I give you a choice between coffee and Earl Grey... I assume that you'll choose coffee because you seem to prefer coffee.

Don't forget Premise #1: We always choose what we prefer.

Question: Did that particular cup of coffee cause you to prefer coffee?
Answer: No it didn't.

Therefore, since that cup of coffee played no part whatsoever in your preference for coffee... and since we always choose what we prefer (See Premise #1) it also played no part in your choice of coffee.

You've been inferring a causal connection where there is none. The cause of your choosing coffee was your preference for coffee, and that particular cup of coffee played absolutely no part in that, it's just a fortunate benefactor of your preexisting preference... it wasn't a cause. Your preference was the cause.

This is just circular. Whatever preferences caused you to choose coffee existed prior to you choosing coffee.

This however, presumes that you prefer coffee to not creating more work since your host is already making tea. If they're being hospitable, perhaps you'll take the tea because you prefer not to be extra trouble.

This also assumes that it's either or, not both or neither, or some other combination of factors which can ever be teased out of even the simple causal reaction to an offer of tea or coffee.

This also assumes any thought at all had gone into the choice before the words left your mouth. You may have said tea, and realized shortly after you preferred the coffee.

Also, this thread is silly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would submit that that's always true... that my preferences preceded the choice, therefore they couldn't have been influenced by any factors present at the moment of the choice. Rather the options present at the moment of the choice are simply the benefactors of those preceding preferences.

So if you're looking for a cause you have to look at the preceding conditions, not the present ones. It's the preceding conditions that caused the preferences that will ultimately determine the choice.

I'll give you a better scenario....

Imagine you wake up in an empty white room with a door on the right and a door on the left. There's no memory of how you got there, nor anything distinguishing about the doors. They are the same except for their positions.

Which one do you choose to open first and why?

The determinists would have you believe that for some hidden reasons if you chose door on the right....you'll always choose door on the right, no matter how many times we drop you in the room. That seems stupid to me.

I think it's much more likely that at least some times, you'll choose door on the left for the exact same reasons why you choose door on the right. You're confused and want out of the room.

The determinists might argue this isn't a meaningful choice....and I would reply it's still a choice since the options are separate and distinct. If they don't think they're making meaningless choices all the time....ask them why they started this thread?