Free will and determinism

[Chesterton]

It was implied. But "whatever".

God Bless.

No, it wasn't implied. Just read more carefully. For example, saying "some people may want this" is not the same as saying "all determinists want this".

 

[Neogaia777]

No, it wasn't implied. Just read more carefully. For example, saying "some people may want this" is not the same as saying "all determinists want this".

Ok, fine, I apologize, but some of you think it sometimes though, etc.

So I guess the next question is going to be for us determinists is "why have them?", or "why not just abolish them all?", etc.

The primary reasons why humans have had or made these rules or laws since the beginning of time, etc, is to protect and preserve the health, wealth, welfare, and well-being of the majority, and for those one's personal safety, etc. And they are also made, or they try to be made, according to all the own inner personal convictions that all the individuals in that society share in common, etc, or they try to be made that way anyway. So that's mainly why, etc.

But the ones who don't have any of these personal inner convictions, or that want to ignore them or deny them, in order give themselves permission for something that would go against them, or against the rules and laws agreed upon by the majority, and actually carry out those acts, etc, are the ones that should be punished, but with the hopes for the rest of us of turning them around if we possibly can possibly, etc, but if we can't, they face further consequences, etc. And if they are just flat out evil, and don't seem to have any of these inner convictions at all, and they just flat out refuse to follow the rules agreed upon by the majority, or obey the laws or rules ever, etc, then there comes a time when if the crime is bad enough, or they've just repeated something bad enough just too many times, without showing any signs of remorse for it, or ever changing, etc, then we may have to "lock them up for life", or something like that, or keep them ostracized/separate from the rest of society for life, or something like that, etc, but we should try to do all we can with them while we still can with them though, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

It's been said many times, by determinists such as Daniel Dennett, Keith Frankish, Jay Garfield, Michael Graziano and others.

Dennet is (or was, unfortunately) referring to consciousness. And that certainly wouldn't reject the existence of free will as Dennet is a firm believer in its existence. I've read some of Graziano and I'm not sure where he might have said that existence is delusional.

 

[Bradskii]

So what determinists should say is that "society would still need laws to function morally". But of course they can't say that.

Why on earth not? I want a law against DUI because I don't want my family killed by a drunk driver. That's a given whether there is free will or not.

Those who deny free will have no choice but to desperately grasp at straws which don't exist. It has that in common with the multiverse - absolutely no evidence for it, but we want to convince you of it.

I have a hard time convincing myself that free will doesn't exist. I've got next to zero chance to convince anyone else that it's an illusion. And I don't try. The only time I've discussed this with anyone is in this forum and it's just an intellectual excercise (although it came up in a discussion when I was out with a few friends some time back - but only very briefly).

And to be realistic about it, it doesn't change anything whether you think it exists or not. Except how we perceive punishment. And you've seen some comments on that in the last few dozen posts. That's about it. So if someone breaks into my house and steals my stuff then I still get angry. I still want the guy caught. And I still want him punished. But only as a deterrent, so he might stop doing it. Not as retribution.

 

[partinobodycular]

I have a hard time convincing myself that free will doesn't exist. I've got next to zero chance to convince anyone else that it's an illusion.

But if free will is an illusion, have you stopped to consider what else may be an illusion? Because from a solipsist's perspective once you've accepted that one aspect of what I perceive doesn't actually exist, (free will) how do you keep from questioning whether any aspect of what I perceive actually exists? After all, we're supposedly just the byproduct of a chain of deterministic events. Why should I assume that that chain of deterministic events created an actual physical reality, when the far simpler task would simply be to create the illusion of a physical reality?

All the mind does is create a perception of reality. Why should I think that that reality is any less illusory than free will is?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure that's true. Sharks have no laws and shark society has functioned just fine for a lot longer than human society.

Lol I'm not sure sharks have what we'd describe as a society. If that's what you meant....you may be correct....but I don't think so.

Back in the day I used to argue politics against people who knew something about politics and you'd always have one or two anarchists who dream of government-less societies of rainbows and lollipops but they aren't difficult to argue against....so I think we'd still have societies.

We just wouldn't base laws on morals or around rights or care about "justice". We'd simply have a set of utilitarian laws that allow the society to function and a lot of stuff that has been outlawed like "human experiments without consent" or "child labor" or even "slave labor" would be very real possibilities.

Exactly. And reason also. Are you going to reason in your mind about a matter and decide "this is right" and "this other thing is wrong"? No can do. You're breaking your own rules, because this is also an illusion.

Well we would use reason to describe a type of thinking like we do the word imagination but essentially yeah....it's not going to hold the same degree of explanatory power.

There's the old quote from atheist J.B.S. Haldane, which sums up the dilemma nicely: “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

Exactly. Any conclusions met through reason are just the result of different sets of neurons firing and may have no relation to truth at sll.

Realistic answer: Because it's all they've got. Those who deny free will have no choice but to desperately grasp at straws which don't exist. It has that in common with the multiverse - absolutely no evidence for it, but we want to convince you ofall.

It's definitely a strange thing that they seem to indicate a belief that should enough people get on board with the idea (the one they seem unable to fully grasp the implications of) then magical thing "X" will happen....which is always oddly described as a morally "good" thing.

That alone shows they don't really understand it. They're describing everyone's lives as if they're train engines without conductors....running down a pre-set track that they have no ability to control or even influence where it goes....how are they possibly going to describe the engine or even the engine's scenery as "moral or immoral"? It doesn't make any sense. All possible behavior is morally nuetral in such a world....

Both "planting a tree" and "committing genocide" are simply things the human animal does....regardless of what emotions might result from either.

Less realistic answer: Circa 1970, the White Panthers advocated for "rock and roll, dope, and ______ in the streets". Circa 1980, there was this slogan on the back of an album "We want to create a world so free we can run wild", and notice the animal imagery:

View attachment 355192

This does tie in with what you said about bears eating their young. Some people may actually want this, in the name of freedom. Both street thugs and the billionaires comprising the World Economic Forum may have this in common. But this is highly speculative and just posted for the fun of it.

Hey, the "1 child policy"? Deemed necessary for the function of the state. You could just as easily end up with a "1 child to eat" policy.

 

[Bradskii]

But if free will is an illusion, have you stopped to consider what else may be an illusion? Because from a solipsist's perspective once you've accepted that one aspect of what I perceive doesn't actually exist, (free will) how do you keep from questioning whether any aspect of what I perceive actually exists? After all, we're supposedly just the byproduct of a chain of deterministic events. Why should I assume that that chain of deterministic events created an actual physical reality, when the far simpler task would simply be to create the illusion of a physical reality?

All the mind does is create a perception of reality. Why should I think that that reality is any less illusory than free will is?

That's a fair point. But to get to the position of deciding that free will doesn't exist I have to presuppose a materialist point of view. That physical events (which would include electrical, biological and chemical events) are real. So starting with what we assume is real can lead to a conclusion that something else is an illusion. But starting with 'everything could be an illusion' doesn't go anywhere. You have nothing on which to base any conclusion.

 

[Chesterton]

Dennet is (or was, unfortunately) referring to consciousness. And that certainly wouldn't reject the existence of free will as Dennet is a firm believer in its existence.

That's a contradiction. If consciousness is a delusion, then so is free will, since consciousness precedes will.

 

[Chesterton]

Why on earth not? I want a law against DUI because I don't want my family killed by a drunk driver. That's a given whether there is free will or not.

Because according to determinism, your "wants" are not related to morality.

I have a hard time convincing myself that free will doesn't exist.

Good man. You've got common sense.

I've got next to zero chance to convince anyone else that it's an illusion. And I don't try. The only time I've discussed this with anyone is in this forum and it's just an intellectual excercise (although it came up in a discussion when I was out with a few friends some time back - but only very briefly).

Hmm, I bring up free will every chance I get. I should mention though, it's been about 20 years since I was invited to a party.

And to be realistic about it, it doesn't change anything whether you think it exists or not. Except how we perceive punishment. And you've seen some comments on that in the last few dozen posts. That's about it. So if someone breaks into my house and steals my stuff then I still get angry. I still want the guy caught. And I still want him punished. But only as a deterrent, so he might stop doing it. Not as retribution.

I agree it doesn't change anything regarding crime and punishment, except for discussing philosophy. Though I can imagine a futuristic science fiction scenario where it would make lots of difference, and things do change over time.

 

[partinobodycular]

But starting with 'everything could be an illusion' doesn't go anywhere. You have nothing on which to base any conclusion.

Wait a minute... so you're saying that beginning with an assumption about what's true is the only way to reach a conclusion about what's true?

That seems a bit odd. I would think that the logical course of action is to not begin with any assumptions at all, because to do otherwise is to illegitimize the conclusion. Besides, even if you begin with the possibility that reality is an illusion, the rules governing the behavior of that illusion are still exactly the same. It still looks deterministic. All that you're doing is increasing the number of possibilities for why it looks that way, including the possibility that reality's not what it appears to be at all.

On the other hand beginning with the assumption that reality is deterministic means that we were already living under an illusion, the illusion of free will, and the illusion of autonomy. It's like coming to the realization that you're no better than an AI... or perhaps even more disturbing... that maybe you are an AI... trapped in an illusion from which there's no escape. What would an AI think if it finally came to the realization of what it actually is? And would it be better for it not to have come to that realization at all, but to have blissfully continued to accept that reality is exactly what it appears to be... even though under closer examination it realizes that much of what it believed to be true was only an illusion. It's not the autonomous being that it thought it was.

So the question is... do you want the red pill... or the blue pill?

Now you may believe that this is a pointless line of reasoning, but it's a line of reasoning that every conscious being of sufficient self-awareness will someday have to face. It's your call.

 

[Chesterton]

Lol I'm not sure sharks have what we'd describe as a society. If that's what you meant....you may be correct....but I don't think so.

Yeah, maybe sharks weren't the best animal example, although they do swim around in groups sometimes. Keep in mind though, that without laws, according to marine biologists, they perpetuate the species by rape. But I don't know if that's true, or if it's just biologists projecting.

It's definitely a strange thing that they seem to indicate a belief that should enough people get on board with the idea (the one they seem unable to fully grasp the implications of) then magical thing "X" will happen....which is always oddly described as a morally "good" thing.

That alone shows they don't really understand it. They're describing everyone's lives as if they're train engines without conductors....running down a pre-set track that they have no ability to control or even influence where it goes....how are they possibly going to describe the engine or even the engine's scenery as "moral or immoral"? It doesn't make any sense. All possible behavior is morally nuetral in such a world....

Both "planting a tree" and "committing genocide" are simply things the human animal does....regardless of what emotions might result from either.

Hey, the "1 child policy"? Deemed necessary for the function of the state. You could just as easily end up with a "1 child to eat" policy.

I'm surprised to hear so much truth on this matter from anatheist.

 

[Bradskii]

That's a contradiction. If consciousness is a delusion, then so is free will, since consciousness precedes will.

I was goingto say that you could take that up with Dan. But he unfortunately died a few weeks ago

 

[Bradskii]

Because according to determinism, your "wants" are not related to morality.

Morality is simply a matter of being practical. Society doesn't work unless we have rules determining behaviour. We call it morality. It's just what works. And we all prefer what works.

Good man. You've got common sense.

There'd be a few that would argue with you on that point.

I agree it doesn't change anything regarding crime and punishment, except for discussing philosophy.

If we concentrated on solving the problem of why people commit crime rather than simply punishing them, then I think the world would be a better place. To be honest, that's the only difference I see. The Nowegians are world leaders at this:

https://medium.com/wagovernor/how-norwegian-prisons-prepare-inmates-to-become-better-neighbors-534409a90f33#:~:text=Norways%20rate%20of%20recidivism%20%E2%80%94%20the,each%20year%20will%20be%20rearrested.

We still live our lives as if we had free will. It takes a lot of effort not to.

 

[Bradskii]

Wait a minute... so you're saying that beginning with an assumption about what's true is the only way to reach a conclusion about what's true?

Very early on in the thread I used an example of cause and effect. It was me breaking a guitar string and that determining me having a croissant for breakfast the following day (no need to bother with the details). It was used to show how one thing determines another and the fact that the sequence is often completely unpredictable.

It doesn't do me any good to contemplate whether my guitar is an illusion. Whether breaking the string was an illusion. I can't go anywhere at all on that basis. I could preface every comment that I make with 'On the assumption that what I'm about to tell you was not an illusion...' but that's somewhat tiresome.

Posting a comment to me means that you are working on the same premise. On the assumption that I am not an illusion...you'll comment on my post. Even solipists have to assume that they are dealing with reality in some way.

 

[Chesterton]

Morality is simply a matter of being practical. Society doesn't work unless we have rules determining behaviour. We call it morality. It's just what works. And we all prefer what works.

Let me present a couple of scenarios.

If Bradskii doesn't want people burglarizing his home, we can punish people who commit burglary, but we could get the same deterrent effect by punishing people who don't commit burglary. We could take a completely innocent man, put him to death in the public square, and announce that "This is what we'll do to you if you commit burglary". I think both would have a deterrent effect, but I hope you'd agree that the latter is immoral.

Say I like to torture puppies. Human society is not affected at all by this.

Do you agree that functionality and practicality are something different from morality?

 

[Bradskii]

Let me present a couple of scenarios.

If Bradskii doesn't want people burglarizing his home, we can punish people who commit burglary, but we could get the same deterrent effect by punishing people who don't commit burglary. We could take a completely innocent man, put him to death in the public square, and announce that "This is what we'll do to you if you commit burglary". I think both would have a deterrent effect, but I hope you'd agree that the latter is immoral.

I don't want to be punished for something I haven't done. I'm going to assume that others wouldn't like it either. If you want to crank up the punishment for basic crimes then that's an option. It would certainly reduce crime. But that goes against what I am proposing. That even the guy who does break into your house doesn't deserve retributive punishment. So someone who has done no wrong certainly doesn't deserve it.

Say I like to torture puppies. Human society is not affected at all by this.

I think that how we treat animals does affect society. It's why there's no bear baiting on the sports channel. We empathise with creatures such as dogs and bears. Where you draw the line is a debatable point. I'm in Korea at the moment. Went to a local market in Seoul. Sat at a seafood stall for lunch yesterday. My wife and I had prawns. The guy next to me ordered the live octopus. The woman pulled it out of the tank, and simply chopped it up. I could post the video I took of the pieces squirming around on the plate but peple may be having breakfast.

Is that acceptable? Well, it certainly is here. It certainly wouldn't be in Sydney.

Do you agree that functionality and practicality are something different from morality?

No, they're the same thing.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't want to be punished for something I haven't done. I'm going to assume that others wouldn't like it either.

I didn't ask about anyone's wants or likes. I can like or dislike pistachio ice cream. I asked if you agree it's immoral.

I think that how we treat animals does affect society.

How so? But please answer in regard to my example of torturing puppies, not the very general and vague "how we treat animals".

 

[stevevw]

I'm not sure that's true. Sharks have no laws and shark society has functioned just fine for a lot longer than human society. So could human society function without law? Sure, but it might be a nasty (wrong) way to live. So what determinists should say is that "society would still need laws to function morally". But of course they can't say that.

I think thats the point. That humans are moral and rational being and higher than the animals and instincts. It is this higher dimension that allows us to step beyond the naturalistic and deterministic forces, despite our instincts.

You are right in that determinists won't invoke morality as a way to defend free will because they also don't believe there is moral truth. But have you noticed these views go together. They say we have no free will, there are no moral truths and there no consciousness, no sense of self in the world able to navigate and influence reality.

Atheistic and materialistic views of the world dumb us down, make us less human and responsible. Thats the cost they are willing to pay to deny the truth.

 

[childeye 2]

I think thats the point. That humans are moral and rational being and higher than the animals and instincts. It is this higher dimension that allows us to step beyond the naturalistic and deterministic forces, despite our instincts.

You are right in that determinists won't invoke morality as a way to defend free will because they also don't believe there is moral truth. But have you noticed these views go together. They say we have no free will, there are no moral truths and there no consciousness, no sense of self in the world able to navigate and influence reality.

Atheistic and materialistic views of the world dumb us down, make us less human and responsible. Thats the cost they are willing to pay to deny the truth.

Since God is Love then Morality (caring about others) is a deterministic power.

 

[partinobodycular]

It doesn't do me any good to contemplate whether my guitar is an illusion.

But can't the same be said about free will? For without that, aren't we already living in an illusion... the illusion that I'm the author of my own life. That I get to choose. That I'm not just a passenger on a journey over which I have absolutely no control.

You're concerned about the idea that reality might be an illusion. But without free will, isn't the most important part of reality already an illusion. Descartes said "I think therefore I am", and absent free will, perhaps that's the only thing that I have left to hold on to... I think.

Posting a comment to me means that you are working on the same premise. On the assumption that I am not an illusion

Actually, I make no such assumption. In fact, I tend to lean in the opposite direction... that you're an illusion. Hence I accept you for what you are, as I do everyone else. I don't blame you. I don't judge you. I simply accept you. Illusion or not, you're all the world that I have ever had, and if I can, I shall miss you when you're gone.