Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

I don't need to.

It seems that you think not. It seems that all you think you need to do is reject it out of hand because 'it's obvious'.

In which case you're not only wasting your time but mine. If you have nothing to offer then please, and I'm asking nicely, stop posting.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, answer the question of why a robot can't love.

Love is an emotion. I don't think we can 'programme' emotions. But let's say it was possible. Do you tell the robot to choose who to love?

In which case, on what basis does it determine that person? If it makes a choice then there must be reasons that cause it. There must be our old friends antecedent conditions. It's either random or it's been determined.

 

[stevevw]

It seems that you think not. It seems that all you think you need to do is reject it out of hand because 'it's obvious'.

In which case you're not only wasting your time but mine. If you have nothing to offer then please, and I'm asking nicely, stop posting.

I have already refuted the arguement for no free will. As mentioned, its based on an unfounded assumption that determinism is true.

I gave the example of how quantum physics shows at the fundemental level reality is indeterminant. For Hard Determinism to work all reality from the macro to the micro needs to be deterministic. Otherwise we don't know.

This is especially relevant into that ironically some interpretations of QM actually suggests free will with observers choice creating reality. In fact most interpretations make reality weird and probablistic. Even the Many Worlds where we each new collapses creates an alternative world where theres another you and me living a slighjtly different life. So at the very least your self assured assumption that determinism is true is not so sure.

But this is only one line of evidence against the determinism. I also explained how the hard determinist view in evolution is being undermined with new dicoveries of animal agency especially for humans. How a creatures choice and behaviour directs nature and not some matmatical equation of survival. If the determinism is being undermined within such a fundemental area that is most often the basis for determinism then this also undermines the self assured determinist claims.

I also gave evidence for phenomenal conscious beliefs which like experiences of red for example are real phenomena about reality and an influence of reality itself. If this is the case then here we have real indeterminant phenomena that could contribute to having free will. This makes sense as it seems free will itself is an experience rather than an object we can measure.

I linked a paper showing how observations of human behaviour better reflect the lived reality of free will than mechanistic measures such as neurons, nerves and genetics. In other words despite determinist claiming that the evidence for free willis in brain activity which cannot explain lived reality. Its the actual behavioural sciences that are fitting the evidence through the lived reality of free will and is not deterministic as its about mind as opposed to physical brain.

I also used your own paper from Kane for which it seems Daniel Dennet has a similar idea supporting how free will can work. For which you have not refuted.

 

[Neogaia777]

@stevevw

Whatever is influencing the way in which you will choose, is what's really doing the choosing for you always.

Unles you are going to suggest that we can ever be free to make a choice that is always going to be free of any kind of influence.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw

Whatever is influencing the way in which you will choose, is what's really doing the choosing for you always.

Unles you are going to suggest that we can ever be free to make a choice that is always going to be free of any kind of influence.

God Bless.

Yes thats the determinist view. Many happen to disagree with it. There are a number of views such as Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism and Compatablists as well as the standard Free Will and Libertarian Free Will. So take your pick. I don't think any have definite evidence.

But I think the view that most fits is lived reality of free will. Its as simple as that. We use behaviour as the measure not the underlying genes or neurons because behavioural science looks at lived reality.

Thats because it deals with the mind which is different to neurons and atoms. The mind is the driver and can override the physical. You can't reduce the mind to the control of the physical processes.

 

[stevevw]

Isn't love, true love the giving of self to the other. If that is the case how can anyone truely love if there is no 'self' to give.

I mean self as in what Kane mentions Self Forming conscious choices that make you the person you are. How can be Self Forming if everything is deterministic. That is not self forming but outside processes that are going to form who you are despite conscious choices.

Its not your life to give, Its the neurons and genetics life to give. The selfish gene lol.

 

[Bradskii]

I have already refuted the arguement for no free will. As mentioned, its based on an unfounded assumption that determinism is true.

I gave the example of how quantum physics shows at the fundemental level reality is indeterminant. For Hard Determinism to work all reality from the macro to the micro needs to be deterministic. Otherwise we don't know.

This is especially relevant into that ironically some interpretations of QM actually suggests free will with observers choice creating reality. In fact most interpretations make reality weird and probablistic. Even the Many Worlds where we each new collapses creates an alternative world where theres another you and me living a slighjtly different life. So at the very least your self assured assumption that determinism is true is not so sure.

But this is only one line of evidence against the determinism. I also explained how the hard determinist view in evolution is being undermined with new dicoveries of animal agency especially for humans. How a creatures choice and behaviour directs nature and not some matmatical equation of survival. If the determinism is being undermined within such a fundemental area that is most often the basis for determinism then this also undermines the self assured determinist claims.

I also gave evidence for phenomenal conscious beliefs which like experiences of red for example are real phenomena about reality and an influence of reality itself. If this is the case then here we have real indeterminant phenomena that could contribute to having free will. This makes sense as it seems free will itself is an experience rather than an object we can measure.

I linked a paper showing how observations of human behaviour better reflect the lived reality of free will than mechanistic measures such as neurons, nerves and genetics. In other words despite determinist claiming that the evidence for free willis in brain activity which cannot explain lived reality. Its the actual behavioural sciences that are fitting the evidence through the lived reality of free will and is not deterministic as its about mind as opposed to physical brain.

I also used your own paper from Kane for which it seems Daniel Dennet has a similar idea supporting how free will can work. For which you have not refuted.

I'll not be responding to you further. I can't wate this much time.

 

[partinobodycular]

Whatever is influencing the way in which you will choose, is what's really doing the choosing for you always.

While that statement seems reasonable, it's inaccurate. Things don't influence our choices beyond the fact that they're one of the available options.

If I ask you to choose between 'A' and 'B' you'll do so based entirely... ENTIRELY... upon your preexisting preferences. And it's those preexisting preferences that'll determine which one you'll choose. Prefer 'A'... choose 'A'. Prefer 'B'... choose 'B'. It's not 'A' or 'B' that are influencing your choice, they're just the available options... that's it... nothing more. The real causal agent in this process are your preexisting preferences. They're the things deciding which one you'll choose.

Now you can ask where your preexisting preferences came from, but one thing's for sure, they didn't come from 'A' or 'B'... because they preexisted 'A' and 'B'.

So of those three things 'A', 'B', and your 'Preexisting preferences', the obvious cause of your choice is your preexisting preferences.

 

[Chesterton]

Love is an emotion. I don't think we can 'programme' emotions.

But you claim to be programmed...

But let's say it was possible. Do you tell the robot to choose who to love?

Well I'm not a software guy, but I suppose you could it tell whatever you want.

In which case, on what basis does it determine that person? If it makes a choice then there must be reasons that cause it. There must be our old friends antecedent conditions. It's either random or it's been determined.

I suppose you could virtually randomize it if that's what you determine to do.

 

[Bradskii]

But you claim to be programmed...

My emotions are determined. I can't imagine one could do that with AI.

Well I'm not a software guy, but I suppose you could it tell whatever you want.

So it's obviously not making any decisions. Let alone free will decisions.

I suppose you could virtually randomize it if that's what you determine to do.

If it's random then there's no free will.

 

[Neogaia777]

While that statement seems reasonable, it's inaccurate. Things don't influence our choices beyond the fact that they're one of the available options.

If I ask you to choose between 'A' and 'B' you'll do so based entirely... ENTIRELY... upon your preexisting preferences. And it's those preexisting preferences that'll determine which one you'll choose. Prefer 'A'... choose 'A'. Prefer 'B'... choose 'B'. It's not 'A' or 'B' that are influencing your choice, they're just the available options... that's it... nothing more. The real causal agent in this process are your preexisting preferences. They're the things deciding which one you'll choose.

Now you can ask where your preexisting preferences came from, but one thing's for sure, they didn't come from 'A' or 'B'... because they preexisted 'A' and 'B'.

So of those three things 'A', 'B', and your 'Preexisting preferences', the obvious cause of your choice is your preexisting preferences.

The preexisting preferences/conditions are the causes or influences.

You're arguing semantics.

I only tried using "other language" because some were not getting the previous ones.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

I'll not be responding to you further. I can't wate this much time.

How on earth is it wasting time to disagree with your metaphysical assumptions about the world. What do you want me to do agree lol. I am disagreeing and you say its a waste of time. Yet that is the very basis for debate lol.

By this logic you should be quitting all your debates as every person who disagrees with you is doing exactly the same.

 

[stevevw]

A simple observation. Why is it that as opposed to the physical reductionist view of humans as being determined by physical conditions like brain chemicals and neurons or past physical conditioning that all the behavioural sciences like psychology, economics, anthropology, sociology ect base their premise on humans having agency to make free choices.

These disciplines rely on free will not just in disagnosis but in making sense of behaviour and in therapy for example or to properly explain human behaviour as to helping that person move forward. Without this there is no understanding and therapy or hope to change thinking or the past psychological issues that actually do make people stuck in their determinist past.

Are we to say that all these behavioural sciences are invalid and based on a false premise. Behavioural sciences have a different set of paradigms as their basis. They are not just about the physical but the mind which is not reduced to the physical. To conscious intentional choices and not that which is reduced to the physical or mechanical.

Otherwise they cannot make sense of human behaviour and the whole basis for these disciplines is lost. In fact is made redundant as determinism brings a completely different basis for behaviour that doesn't work in behavioural sciences. BUt the fact that these disciplines have proven themselves for decades shows that their basis is correct and real.

 

[partinobodycular]

The preexisting preferences/conditions are the causes or influences.

I just wanted to clarify that when we're talking about causes and influences, it's not the thing sitting in front of me that's influencing me to choose it, it's all the things in my past that instilled in me a preference for that thing... that's the actual cause. Without all those things in my past I wouldn't give a hoot about that thing sitting in front of me now.

That being the case it really is my fears and desires that drive my choices. It doesn't matter how I came to have those fears and desires... the fact is that I have them. They are solely and entirely mine. All the events, throughout all of history have coalesced into one specific being, with one unique perspective... that's different from absolutely everybody else's. And because of those events I have the ability to decide what I WILL do, and what I WILL NOT do. And I don't care how I came to have that ability, or what influenced that ability... at the end of the day the unquestionable fact is, that I have it.

I have the wants, desires, fears, and more importantly I have the ability... to choose. People may denigrate the manner in which I came to have it, but that doesn't diminish the fact that among all of creation... what I value matters.

Hey, if you can't make a logical argument, make an emotional one.

 

[Neogaia777]

I just wanted to clarify that when we're talking about causes and influences, it's not the thing sitting in front of me that's influencing me to choose it, it's all the things in my past that instilled in me a preference for that thing... that's the actual cause. Without all those things in my past I wouldn't give a hoot about that thing sitting in front of me now.

That being the case it really is my fears and desires that drive my choices. It doesn't matter how I came to have those fears and desires... the fact is that I have them. They are solely and entirely mine. All the events, throughout all of history have coalesced into one specific being, with one unique perspective... that's different from absolutely everybody else's. And because of those events I have the ability to decide what I WILL do, and what I WILL NOT do. And I don't care how I came to have that ability, or what influenced that ability... at the end of the day the unquestionable fact is, that I have it.

I have the wants, desires, fears, and more importantly I have the ability... to choose. People may denigrate the manner in which I came to have it, but that doesn't diminish the fact that among all of creation... what I value matters.

Hey, if you can't make a logical argument, make an emotional one.

We are all exclusively unique from one another, because the factors involved way, way outweigh, and far, far exceed just the number of people on the planet, which allows each and every single one of us to have a very, very unique makeup, and perspective/ways in which we will decide to choose, and/or programming, and in that way, and more, we are all very, very unique, and no one will ever choose in exactly the same way, or have all the same exact causes or factors involved in choosing, etc.

Because from our perspective, we do choose, even if it's already been decided, etc, and even if it only comes from the perspective of all we can't comprehend/don't know right now, etc. There is just simply not another way to go about it for us right now, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I just wanted to clarify that when we're talking about causes and influences, it's not the thing sitting in front of me that's influencing me to choose it, it's all the things in my past that instilled in me a preference for that thing... that's the actual cause. Without all those things in my past I wouldn't give a hoot about that thing sitting in front of me now.

That being the case it really is my fears and desires that drive my choices. It doesn't matter how I came to have those fears and desires... the fact is that I have them. They are solely and entirely mine. All the events, throughout all of history have coalesced into one specific being, with one unique perspective... that's different from absolutely everybody else's. And because of those events I have the ability to decide what I WILL do, and what I WILL NOT do. And I don't care how I came to have that ability, or what influenced that ability... at the end of the day the unquestionable fact is, that I have it.

I have the wants, desires, fears, and more importantly I have the ability... to choose. People may denigrate the manner in which I came to have it, but that doesn't diminish the fact that among all of creation... what I value matters.

Hey, if you can't make a logical argument, make an emotional one.

We are all exclusively unique from one another, because the factors involved way, way outweigh, and far, far exceed just the number of people on the planet, which allows each and every single one of us to have a very, very unique makeup, and perspective/ways in which we will decide to choose, and/or programming, and in that way, and more, we are all very, very unique, and no one will ever choose in exactly the same way, or have all the same exact causes or factors involved in choosing, etc.

Because from our perspective, we do choose, even if it's already been decided, etc, and even if it only comes from the perspective of all we can't comprehend/don't know right now, etc. There is just simply not another way to go about it for us right now, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

The number of factors we are talking about that are probably involved here would probably make our best supercomputers or AI's have a total and complete meltdown trying to conceive of or comprehend, etc, let alone calculate so as to be able to predict always, etc.

So yeah, all of us is unique, and none has all the same exact factors by a long shot, and everyone is different, and absolutely none of us will ever choose for the exact same reasons, or in the exact same way ever, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

How on earth is it wasting time to disagree with your metaphysical assumptions about the world. What do you want me to do agree lol. I am disagreeing and you say its a waste of time. Yet that is the very basis for debate lol.

By this logic you should be quitting all your debates as every person who disagrees with you is doing exactly the same.

Most people don't simply say 'you're wrong because...well, it's obvious'.

 

[stevevw]

Most people don't simply say 'you're wrong because...well, it's obvious'.

How have I said that. Besides isn't that exactly what material determinists are doing. That its that obvious we don't have free will that if you believe it your deluded.

But lets just think about what you dismiised and misrepresented as '"well its obvious" as though it has no explanation and yet is true.

One of the explanations I used was that QM has something to say about free will with its indeterministic nature. I also used your own link which made a very good arguement with evidence and evidence from neuroscience. I also used evidence from behavioural sciences. These are not saying its "just obvious" but rather offering rational and scientific arguements.

The only thing I used as an arguement saying '"well its obvious" was that neither side has resolved this issue just like with consciousness. That despite your strong belief that determinism is fact we paradoxically still believe in free will. Which may in itself tell us something about our lived experiences and reality and should not be dismissed as just claiming "its obvious".

Perhaps a couple of short videoa will help understand the free will issue better.

John Searle - Philosophy of Free Will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=973akk1q5Ws&ab_channel=CloserToTruth

Noam Chomsky - Free Will I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3fhKRJNNTA&ab_channel=Chomsky%27sPhilosophy

While I am at it I found another good one based on neuroscience that is very interesting and relates to Kanes idea about a indeterminancy with free will that matches brain activity. How conscious thought and experiences may step in and create a free choice situation.

Patrick Haggard - Free Will: Where's the Problem?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEx63WzpXO0&ab_channel=CloserToTruth

 

[Neogaia777]

There is no choice, or action/inaction/decision, or operation in the human body or brain, that doesn't have a cause, etc. And if any of those has, or had, or always does have, a prior cause, etc, then those prior causes are also an antecedent condition, or they become such, which are all deterministic, etc. As all of those prior causes, also all have/had a prior cause, etc. And this going back as far as you want to follow it, or trace it, etc, as they all had a prior cause, etc.

Refute this, and you can maybe refute determinism maybe, etc.

But if not, or until then, you're just full of hot air, and your words mean nothing, or have no meaning, etc.

So and/or again, and as @Bradskii has been saying pretty much all along, show us something or anything that doesn't have a prior cause?

Either put up, or be silent, etc.

Because until then, you haven't refuted or disproven anything yet, etc, and determinism is still the most likely possibility/explanation for everything we are right now seeing, etc.

And I think it's sad that you refuse to see that, etc. Especially when I contemplate the reasons/causes for that, etc. Which makes it even more sad, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

There is no choice, or action/inaction/decision, or operation in the human body or brain, that doesn't have a cause, etc. And if any of those has, or had, or always does have, a prior cause, etc, then those prior causes are also an antecedent condition, or they become such, which are all deterministic, etc. As all of those prior causes, also all have/had a prior cause, etc. And this going back as far as you want to follow it, or trace it, etc, as they all had a prior cause, etc.

Refute this, and you can maybe refute determinism maybe, etc.

But if not, or until then, you're just full of hot air, and your words mean nothing, or have no meaning, etc.

So and/or again, and as @Bradskii has been saying pretty much all along, show us something or anything that doesn't have a prior cause?

Either put up, or be silent, etc.

Because until then, you haven't refuted or disproven anything yet, etc, and determinism is still the most likely possibility/explanation for everything we are right now seeing, etc.

And I think it's sad that you refuse to see that, etc. Especially when I contemplate the reasons/causes for that, etc. Which makes it even more sad, etc.

God Bless.

The problem is what we are seeing in reality which is what we directly experience is causing us to believe there is free will depite all that. Searle covered this in the video I linked in the previous post. Have a look and see what you think.

Just like he said after all these years of thinking about free will it doesn't appear that anyopne has made any progress in solving the issue.

Searle explains why its such a problem is that we can give pretty good arguements theres no free will, where we are just part of nature and don't have free no more than a plant does.

The problem is we all have conscious experiences of masking up our minds and decicing something where we experience a causal gap. That experience only makes sense if we assume we really have a choice. The experience of the causal gap is what gives us the conviction of free will.

So citing that everything has a cause therefore no free will is a misrepresentation of how free will may work. Its not that there are no causes in free will but that theres an insufficient cause in some situations which causes the gap in the causal chain which allows free will in through our experience of it ie souls searching or deliberating over important decisions.

He also gives the example of how free will is not an illusion or at least the same as how we usually understan an illusion. For example with illusions like the paralelle lines where one looks shorter but its an perception illusion we can work that out and see its an illusion. Or we could treat color as an illusion and still be able to function.

But this is cannot be done with free will. We cannot even treat it as an illusion like everything else despite all the evidence that is claimed its not true. That level of evidence would usually be enough to disregard free will altogether like disregarding perception illusions or flat earth illusions. Yet we here we have 100% skeptics against the science lol.

So I cannot see how you can say that determinism is most likely correct. Its not that resolved.