Free will and determinism

[stevevw]

Gee, someone's discovered that we think about what we do before we do it? The guy must be up for a Nobel!

Did you watch the video. You could not have done so as you would not have said that. The point was that unlike the determinist claim that our consciousness comes in after we act as an illusion they are saying it comes in before we act. So we have injected ourselves into the situatiuon to make the choice before acting.

 

[stevevw]

I think the insistence on Hard Determinism and No Free Will is motivated more by belief than anything else as there is no other reason for peoples insistence. Of all issues that atheists or materialists could use to dispute God or something beyond the material Free Will is the wrong one. You can never convince people and its wrong to do so considering the lived reality of Free Will and how important it is to being human and living together.

Therefore I think the true motivation is spiritual. Its a way of undermining God. Its also epistemic (how we should know reality) which is not itself a physical thing or science but rather about metaphysics (what type of reality is fundemental) whether within the physical closure or something beyond this whether gods, Consciousness and Mind, Information ect that cannot be reduced to the material world.

To pretend that belief itself is not involved in how we see free will is unreal. We can go on and on and on forever talking antedotes but will never resolve the issue. Nor will any amount of technical information about mechanisms.

 

[Bradskii]

Did you watch the video. You could not have done so as you would not have said that. The point was that unlike the determinist claim that our consciousness comes in after we act as an illusion they are saying it comes in before we act. So we have injected ourselves into the situatiuon to make the choice before acting.

Repeating it won't make it any less risible.

If you act before you are conscious of making a decision then there is obviously no free will. Period. There's nothing more to discuss. But the very first 4 words in the thread were: 'All decisions we make...' It's a given that we generally consciously do so.

And if you consciously make a decision then what determines that decision are the antecedent conditions. What you then need to do is show that that isn't the case. Which you haven't even addressed. All you have to do is give an example of a decision that wasn't determined by anything.

That is ALL you have to do. I will then concede defeat and you will be hailed as the saviour of free will.

Umpteen posts later and you have reached the point where your argument is: We make conscious decisions.

 

[stevevw]

Repeating it won't make it any less risible.

If you act before you are conscious of making a decision then there is obviously no free will. Period. There's nothing more to discuss. But the very first 4 words in the thread were: 'All decisions we make...' It's a given that we generally consciously do so.

Once again your misunderstanding what they are proposing. They are not saying that people are acting before they are conscious of it. They are saying the contra lateral activity comes just before the action and not after it.

And if you consciously make a decision then what determines that decision are the antecedent conditions. What you then need to do is show that that isn't the case. Which you haven't even addressed. All you have to do is give an example of a decision that wasn't determined by anything.

Your misrepresenting the process. Free will does not have to happen without antecendents in some situations. There are still mechanical causes. But what they are saying is that there are dualbrain activities happening at the same time and in tandem. That somehow conscious attention creates a gap or perhaps disengages the deterministic mechanisms to allow consciousness to come in and take over.

Haggarhts experiements have shown the change in brain activity from the preparatory activity to the counter lateral of whichever hand was hitting the button. Thi9s was the conscious choice coming in over the top of the preparatory activity which is in a sort of limbo as what to do next because of the conscious deliberation and attention on choice.

They also found that the build up from the preparatory activity to the counter lateral varied depending on the difficulty or importance of the choice. So theres a related brain activity when we are faced with important choices just like there is one for the deterministic activity.

They also say that the more deterministic mechanisms that we are not aware of are like a white noise. So conscious choices are made over this and create a pause or gap in the stream of deterministic noise. It an ointeresting hypothesis which seems to be gaining support. But I also think it makes sense that our conscious deliberations would come in and be reflected in bran activity in a different way to the deterministic processes.

That is ALL you have to do. I will then concede defeat and you will be hailed as the saviour of free will.

No thats only the beginning. But we have not even scratched the surface on this one. The fact you didn't even view the video and do some further research to understand what they were saying is not a good start. Your more or less dismissing things on ignorance and logical fallacies.

But theres other arguements like with QM. Thats an easy one. QM undermines the deterministic nature of reality. Full stop. lol. Another simple one is the logical contradiction of the Hard Determinist. For they would have to concede that at least on occassion where free will was true which was is the position they claim that there is no free will.

And we havn't started on psychology and evolution.

Umpteen posts later and you have reached the point where your argument is: We make conscious decisions.

No as above that is a misrepresentation. Your doing it again. I said in the last post there were several ways to defeat determinism and gave only one example. For which you dismissed. So now your also dismissing the rest. How is that equate to "its obvious' and now your claim that this all comes down to "We make conscious decisions".

But ironically that is not too far off the reality of the situation and therefore is another piece of the evidence. Not on its own like you are trying to make out. But with the other pieces of evidence like neurology, psychology, evolution, and logic begin to make a good case for free will.

It seems to me one of the strongest supports is that we make important choices. We make "making important choices" an importasnt thing itself. As though its an unwritten law like nature.

Otherwise why worry about choices. This is so deeply integrated into us its more than an illusion. Its so much a part of our lived reality that saying there is not such thing is actually dangerous for our survival. What could be more real than that regardless of how we ended up with this belief.

 

[Bradskii]

That somehow conscious attention creates a gap or perhaps disengages the deterministic mechanisms to allow consciousness to come in and take over.

Yeah. Somehow, perhaps, maybe...

Thanks for all that. Here's a tip. Reduce the size of your posts. It'll save you time. Because there's nothing in them that I find worth reading.

 

[Neogaia777]

The intricate nature and complexity of all that is all involved with determinism, and the sheer numbers involved in numbering it, or calculating it, etc, see post #2,116, etc, and the levels at which it is all happening (right now, proven with everything from the atom up, etc) means it is all happening very, very fast, (in way less than nanoseconds in a lot of cases) all of the time, and always, etc. So there is no supposed "gap" just because something (anything) happens quickly, or takes milliseconds, etc, because all of the factors involved in determinism are still always happening a lot faster than that, and it is still plenty, plenty of time for all of the deterministic processes to still be going on or happening at or during those time frames, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

The intricate nature and complexity of all that is all involved with determinism, and the sheer numbers involved in numbering it, or calculating it, etc, see post #2,116, etc, and the levels at which it is all happening (right now, proven with everything from the atom up, etc) means it is all happening very, very fast, (in way less than nanoseconds in a lot of cases) all of the time, and always, etc. So there is no supposed "gap" just because something (anything) happens quickly, or takes milliseconds, etc, because all of the factors involved in determinism are still always happening a lot faster than that, and it is still plenty, plenty of time for all of the deterministic processes to still be going on or happening at or during those time frames, etc.

God Bless.

Lightning is a lot, lot slower than all the deterministic processes involved, which is itself a result of and a happening of deterministic processes. Lightning is, etc. An innumerable number of deterministic processes are happening or going on during the timeframe of a single lightning strike, or bolt of lighting from the sky hitting the ground. From the time it takes to go from the sky to the ground, and incalculable number of deterministic processes are happening or going on with it or within it during that time period, and have already happened by the time it reaches the ground, etc. Trillions of different operations, or things happening or going on doesn't do the number justice, for it is probably even way, way higher, and much, much greater than that, etc. All already happened or went on already during that timeframe, etc. It is the same with us, and inside our bodies or brains, etc. The timeframe of that "gap" you are talking about is an entire lifetime for a ton of deterministic processes to have already have happened or been already going on/happening already in the human body or brain from start to finish already within that timeframe, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Lightning is a lot, lot slower than all the deterministic processes involved, which is itself a result of and a happening of deterministic processes. Lightning is, etc. An innumerable number of deterministic processes are happening or going on during the timeframe of a single lightning strike, or bolt of lighting from the sky hitting the ground. From the time it takes to go from the sky to the ground, and incalculable number of deterministic processes are happening or going on with it or within it during that time period, and have already happened by the time it reaches the ground, etc. Trillions of different operations, or things happening or going on doesn't do the number justice, for it is probably even way, way higher, and much, much greater than that, etc. All already happened or went on already during that timeframe, etc. It is the same with us, and inside our bodies or brains, etc. The timeframe of that "gap" you are talking about is an entire lifetime for a ton of deterministic processes to have already have happened or been already going on/happening already in the human body or brain from start to finish already, etc.

God Bless.

And before someone gets all technical on me and tries to be a smart butt and say that lightning doesn't actually hit or strike the ground, yes, I know that already, but this is just an illustration, ok.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Or I guess you could just say "All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead" if you want to, etc, because really, that is pretty much all any of us can see of it right now, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Chesterton]

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

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

Well you can't have it both ways. Either both you and a robot can love, or neither of you love. Because at bottom, you're the same thing.

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

I said "virtually" random. One thing you and I might agree on is that there's no such thing as true randomness.

--------
I'm honestly curious about why a man like you would have any desire talking to someone like me. You've already all but admitted your belief in determinism was caused rather than reasoned into, so the same would have to be true of my belief in free will. It seems like trying to convince a man with brown hair that he shouldn't have brown hair.

 

[partinobodycular]

Well you can't have it both ways. Either both you and a robot can love, or neither of you love. Because at bottom, you're the same thing.

I think that what determinists tend to underappreciate is that both the material world and the laws governing its behavior are emergent properties. Thus possessing properties not present in the underlying cause. They then dismiss the possibility of any subsequent emergent properties, such as free will, which may likewise exhibit properties not present in the underlying cause, and which judging solely by deterministic laws wouldn't seem to be possible.

This seems to be a bit irrational, to dismiss the possibility of emergent properties when you yourself are the product of emergent properties.

 

[Chesterton]

I think that what determinists tend to underappreciate is that both the material world and the laws governing its behavior are emergent properties. Thus possessing properties not present in the underlying cause. They then dismiss the possibility of any subsequent emergent properties, such as free will, which may likewise exhibit properties not present in the underlying cause, and which judging solely by deterministic laws wouldn't seem to be possible.

This seems to be a bit irrational, to dismiss the possibility of emergent properties when you yourself are the product of emergent properties.

I get what you're saying but I'm sorry, in a scientific context, I have always refused to recognize the word "emergence". It's a vacuous word used to gloss over the fact that we don't know the details about something.

 

[partinobodycular]

I get what you're saying but I'm sorry, in a scientific context, I have always refused to recognize the word "emergence". It's a vacuous word used to gloss over the fact that we don't know the details about something.

I'm not trying to infer that emergent properties don't have a cause, indeed they must, it's just that emergent properties include an effect that manifests itself only under a specific set of conditions, and isn't readily apparent given the behavior of the underlying system itself.

I understand that it can be used as a catchall for any phenomenon that doesn't seem to conform to the known laws of physics. But given that the material world itself, and the determinacy that exemplifies it aren't seemingly true of the quantum realm from which it emerges, it would seem as though emergent properties do indeed exist, and can include an emergent set of laws governing the behavior of those properties. I.E the material world and it's laws. This doesn't mean that they don't have a cause, just that given sufficient complexity properties can emerge that didn't theretofore exist.

Otherwise your stuck with... once indeterminate always indeterminate, and since the quantum realm seems to be indeterminate, we have a bit of a conundrum.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

This contradicts what you said earlier about determinism having evidence.

There's no evidence for determinism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The intricate nature and complexity of all that is all involved with determinism, and the sheer numbers involved in numbering it, or calculating it, etc, see post #2,116, etc, and the levels at which it is all happening (right now, proven with everything from the atom up, etc) means it is all happening very, very fast, (in way less than nanoseconds in a lot of cases) all of the time, and always, etc. So there is no supposed "gap" just because something (anything) happens quickly, or takes milliseconds, etc, because all of the factors involved in determinism are still always happening a lot faster than that, and it is still plenty, plenty of time for all of the deterministic processes to still be going on or happening at or during those time frames, etc.

You're assuming.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not trying to infer that emergent properties don't have a cause,

I know you're not.

indeed they must, it's just that emergent properties include an effect that manifests itself only under a specific set of conditions,

That's true of everything.

and isn't readily apparent given the behavior of the underlying system itself.

That's true of everything, until you understand the underlying processes. If I could travel back in time and give a common flashlight to a group of prehistoric cavemen scientists or philosophers, they wouldn't understand it. They might take it apart to examine it, but they can't know what a bulb is or what a battery is, etc. If they were honest men, they'd probably say "we don't have a clue about this". If they wanted to sound a little smarter they'd probably say "electric light is an emergent property".

I understand that it can be used as a catchall for any phenomenon that doesn't seem to conform to the known laws of physics. But given that the material world itself, and the determinacy that exemplifies it aren't seemingly true of the quantum realm from which it emerges, it would seem as though emergent properties do indeed exist, and can include an emergent set of laws governing the behavior of those properties. I.E the material world and it's laws. This doesn't mean that they don't have a cause, just that given sufficient complexity properties can emerge that didn't theretofore exist.

Otherwise your stuck with... once indeterminate always indeterminate, and since the quantum realm seems to be indeterminate, we have a bit of a conundrum.

I agree that things emerge, but saying that is not saying anything explanatory. A chicken laid an egg, and later a chick emerged. I put a slice of bread in a toaster, and later a slice of toast emerged. It's not saying anything worth saying.

 

[Neogaia777]

This contradicts what you said earlier about determinism having evidence.

There's no evidence for determinism.

Atoms, the behavior of chemicals, and molecules and cells, etc. You know all the stuff that we are made up of basically, etc. The rest is too complex for us to compute or follow right now because there are just too many factors, etc. But the fact that all that other "stuff" I just mentioned does, and that can be proven or shown for the most part, means that the higher levels of that are probably just a more complex combination or interaction, or interweaving or intertwining of those basically, etc.

And the fact that everything has a cause, or a combination of causes that was before it, that caused it, and everything else is just a reaction after it, but that then gets added to the list of next causes/antecedent conditions once it has passed, etc. Well, yeah, there is still that argument, etc. Show us something, anything realy, that is uncaused, or that doesn't have a cause, or a combination of different causes resulting in a single cause, always causing, or determining, what happens or becomes next, etc.

All that, and I'd say the evidence for determinism, and everything being determined, far outweighs any evidence of randomness or of true free will right now. Not that any of you guys would ever admit that right now though, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

You're assuming.

It's a much more educated and logical and knowledgeable assumption than any kind of randomness or true free will is right now.

There is plenty of knowledge/evidence pointing to determinism, and there is almost zero for free will right now, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

Atoms, the behavior of chemicals, and molecules and cells, etc. You know all the stuff that we are made up of basically, etc. The rest is too complex for us to compute or follow right now because there are just too many factors, etc. But the fact that all that other "stuff" I just mentioned does, and that can be proven or shown for the most part, means that the higher levels of that are probably just a more complex combination or interaction, or interweaving or intertwining of those basically, etc.

And the fact that everything has a cause, or a combination of causes that was before it, that caused it, and everything else is just a reaction after it, but that then gets added to the list of next causes/antecedent conditions once it has passed, etc. Well, yeah, there is still that argument, etc. Show us something, anything realy, that is uncaused, or that doesn't have a cause, or a combination of different causes resulting in a single cause, always causing, or determining, what happens or becomes next, etc.

All that, and I'd say the evidence for determinism, and everything being determined, far outweighs any evidence of randomness or of true free will right now. Not that any of you guys would ever admit that right now though, etc.

Take Care.

Oh, and electrical activity as well, all very much deterministic, and all stuff that we are made up of right now.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Well you can't have it both ways. Either both you and a robot can love, or neither of you love. Because at bottom, you're the same thing.

No free will doesn't mean no emotion. Nobody has suggested that.

I said "virtually" random. One thing you and I might agree on is that there's no such thing as true randomness.

Agreed.

--------
I'm honestly curious about why a man like you would have any desire talking to someone like me. You've already all but admitted your belief in determinism was caused rather than reasoned into...

No, I've said the opposite. I had a natural belief in free will but over the course of some years I became persuaded by reading more about it.