Free will and determinism

[Chesterton]

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.

You were persuaded? The same way the bulb in my lamp is persuaded to illuminate itself when I flip the switch, I guess?

I'm also curious about the difference between a natural belief and the presumably unnatural belief you currently hold.

 

[Bradskii]

You were persuaded? The same way the bulb in my lamp is persuaded to illuminate itself when I flip the switch, I guess?

I'm also curious about the difference between a natural belief and the presumably unnatural belief you currently hold.

If you accept enough evidence then you have no choice in believing something. You can't decide to not believe.

What makes my belief unnatural?

 

[Chesterton]

If you accept enough evidence then you have no choice in believing something. You can't decide to not believe.

But you have a choice whether to accept?

What makes my belief unnatural?

Well you said you once had a natural belief, and then you changed it to the opposite belief, so I assume the opposite would be unnatural.

 

[Bradskii]

But you have a choice whether to accept?

None. The only choice you have is to accept or reject evidence. If you accept the evidence then belief (or disbelief) is automatic.

You can't choose to believe.

Well you said you once had a natural belief, and then you changed it to the opposite belief, so I assume the opposite would be unnatural.

I don't know what it means to have an unnatural belief. You either believe or you don't. There's no free will decision to do either.

 

[Chesterton]

But you have a choice whether to accept?

None. The only choice you have is to accept or reject evidence.

Me: Do you have a choice to accept?

You: No, not at all, except for the choice to accept.

I don't know what it means to have an unnatural belief. You either believe or you don't. There's no free will decision to do either.

You're the one who mentioned a natural belief. I don't know what that means either, but if there is such a thing there must be something unnatural to oppose it to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What's funny about determinism is the notion of "before and after" inside a localized time-space. We all know (I'm assuming) that if you're going far back enough to the beginning of the universe it's not quite the steady picture determinists put faith in....and whatever you may consider the end of the universe to be (heat death/big snap) at some point, whatever you imagine of cause and effect, won't be anymore either.

At best, in their tiny lives, in their tiny spaces, they look at the world as if it's all mathematical precision....as if they can't understand that math is entirely incomplete, and filled with paradoxes.

What they call cause and effect may be nothing more than their tiny minds, tiny perceptions, trying to describe a localized time space they cannot possibly comprehend on any macro-scale. Sure guy, it's all cause and effect and you can neatly place now after then and before afterwards. That's a super-duper way to describe everything....not merely the limits of perception or comprehension lining things up for you in an easy-to-use manner.

But yeah...free will describes human behaviors much better than determinism no matter how many arguments you'll make and you will 100% default to acting as if it's real, all the time, just like everyone you look down your nose at.

But no...there's no extremely clear or even obvious value to the idea that because things appear to operate the way they do now, they always will. It's not even a logical conclusion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Atoms, the behavior of chemicals, and molecules and cells, etc.

Go ahead and describe "atoms" at the beginning and end of the universe and describe "when" atoms gained whatever properties you think you're referring to here and go ahead and give us your best guess on when they'll lose those properties.

I'm not interested in your tiny day to day snapshot that you don't fully understand.

 

[stevevw]

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.

The long posts was trying to explain to you what was being said as you were dismissing thuings out of hand. I will take your tip on but I also have one for you. How about reading and viewing the link and then I would not have to go to such lengths to explain things.

Then we could have debated whether their explanation had merit. Instead we got sidetracked in fallacies.

 

[stevevw]

What's funny about determinism is the notion of "before and after" inside a localized time-space. We all know (I'm assuming) that if you're going far back enough to the beginning of the universe it's not quite the steady picture determinists put faith in....and whatever you may consider the end of the universe to be (heat death/big snap) at some point, whatever you imagine of cause and effect, won't be anymore either.

At best, in their tiny lives, in their tiny spaces, they look at the world as if it's all mathematical precision....as if they can't understand that math is entirely incomplete, and filled with paradoxes.

What they call cause and effect may be nothing more than their tiny minds, tiny perceptions, trying to describe a localized time space they cannot possibly comprehend on any macro-scale. Sure guy, it's all cause and effect and you can neatly place now after then and before afterwards. That's a super-duper way to describe everything....not merely the limits of perception or comprehension lining things up for you in an easy-to-use manner.

But yeah...free will describes human behaviors much better than determinism no matter how many arguments you'll make and you will 100% default to acting as if it's real, all the time, just like everyone you look down your nose at.

But no...there's no extremely clear or even obvious value to the idea that because things appear to operate the way they do now, they always will. It's not even a logical conclusion.

Its like the material science offers a promissory note that no matter what everything will eventually be proven as reducibe to deterministic mechanisms and methodlogical naturalism. Which speaks more about a metaphysical belief than science itself.

 

[Bradskii]

Me: Do you have a choice to accept?

You: No, not at all, except for the choice to accept.

You were talking about the choice to believe. It doesn't exist. You have a choice to accept or reject evidence.

You say you can speak 6 languages and your evidence is a badly printed Certificate Of Language Excellence? I'll reject that. But the evidence is hearing you speak fluently with 6 different nationalities? I'll accept that. And automatically believe. I have no choice.

You're the one who mentioned a natural belief. I don't know what that means either, but if there is such a thing there must be something unnatural to oppose it to.

If I accept evidence then I will naturally believe. Not that I will have a natural belief.

 

[Bradskii]

The long posts was trying to explain to you what was being said as you were dismissing thuings out of hand. I will take your tip on but I also have one for you. How about reading and viewing the link and then I would not have to go to such lengths to explain things.

Then we could have debated whether their explanation had merit. Instead we got sidetracked in fallacies.

I've not only seen the link. I have the book from which the info is derived. All you are saying is that sometimes we consciously decide things.

It's not worth discussing.

 

[Bradskii]

Its like the material science offers a promissory note that no matter what everything will eventually be proven as reducibe to deterministic mechanisms and methodlogical naturalism. Which speaks more about a metaphysical belief than science itself.

I don't care about what will happen eventually. What's being discussed is whether we have free will. And that depends on what has and is happening.

 

[stevevw]

I've not only seen the link. I have the book from which the info is derived. All you are saying is that sometimes we consciously decide things.

It's not worth discussing.

I am talking about Haggards work. Which happens to align with your link from Kane. If its not worth discussing then why did you link Kane.

So far I have linked several prominant scientists and philosophers like Dennet, Hoffman and Searle who all think its worth dicussing. Or do you only want to discuss certain things that align with your prior assumptions and beliefs.

No one is saying that free will or determinism is verified. Saying so is a matter of belief. Everyone doesn't see the free will issue the same as you. I don't know what else to say. I don't want to agree with you that reality and free will is deterministic because I don't believe it. Its not one of those beliefs you can talk people out of like say the 'flat earth belief' or that theres no such thing as the experience of colors.

So no amount of you citing antedotes or science is going to change peoples minds. But in some ways that is the evidence. That the belief in free will is different to the beliefs in illusions like the flat earth or other illusions. That there seems to be some other qualifyer that makes us so sure that cannot be reduced to reducible and quantified measures.

 

[stevevw]

I don't care about what will happen eventually. What's being discussed is whether we have free will. And that depends on what has and is happening.

But you have to care about what will happen. Your claiming that the only way we can know whats going on is physically. Within a closed world of physical cause and effect. So therefore you not only have to believe in no free will but also 'no immaterial reality'.

As you cannot possibly know that material reality is the only reality you have to assume what has happened, is happening now and importantly "what will happen" you have to assume that there will only be a material answer in the future. Without having tested that.

The problem is we have not even established that physical reality is the only way we can know reality. Let alone assume that the answer will always be physical in the future. But you are forced to assume that as a hard determinist.

Honestly you may as well be claiming theres no God. It has the same logic or lack of for that matter. You will never convince people theres no God.

 

[Bradskii]

No one is saying that free will or determinism is verified.

Determinism is verified. There has never been an event that didn't have a previous cause.

To prove me wrong then you need to show one. At any time and in any place. You plainly and obviously can't. So you have to argue for libertarianism. Which you haven't.

I have no idea what you really think you are doing.

 

[Bradskii]

But you have to care about what will happen. Your claiming that the only way we can know whats going on is physically. Within a closed world of physical cause and effect.

That's the basis on which the thread was established. If you'd rather not discuss free will on that basis then save yourself some time. Maybe start a thread on 'Is reality real?'

 

[Neogaia777]

Go ahead and describe "atoms" at the beginning and end of the universe and describe "when" atoms gained whatever properties you think you're referring to here and go ahead and give us your best guess on when they'll lose those properties.

I'm not interested in your tiny day to day snapshot that you don't fully understand.

If @FrumiousBandersnatch wants to reply to you about this, then I'll let him do it, for my knowledge is just basic in this compared to his, and he could probably do this part of it justice far better than I could, etc, because other than that, and for right now, I'm going to bed.

Take Care/God Bless/Goodnight.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Ana the Ist

Us "tiny" beings (and I'm guessing that's compared to "you", right?) Anyway, us "tiny" beings aren't looking our noses down at anybody (but it is "you" who are right now doing that, etc) But and/or anyway, we're just only trying to describe determinism to you in the most plain and simple ways we can think of, and/or can, or that are possible right now, etc, and you're clearly getting upset about it, etc. Which on a much more positive note for us maybe, might just indicate that we might have stuck a nerve, or might actually be getting somewhere maybe? Or at least I guess we can hope for that anyway.

You can usually tell when someone is losing an argument, most especially with themselves, and even with themselves in their own mind, and is in a process of denial of facts, when that person has to resort to demeaning or belittling others in their argument because they have nothing else left, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Determinism is verified. There has never been an event that didn't have a previous cause.

No this is wrong. No one can possibly have measured all events for all time. We have theories and assumptions but many are not verified and are actually conflicting with observations. That is a crazy claim considering QM.

To prove me wrong then you need to show one. At any time and in any place. You plainly and obviously can't. So you have to argue for libertarianism. Which you haven't.

Thats because I disagree with your entire premise and assumption epistemically. I don't agree with your rules in the first place in how we should measure cause and effect. That has not been resolved but your assuming its true in all cases.

Its a bit like evolution. Because we see some transitional evidence of one species becoming another they assume it for all transitions. Assume evolution is correct based on tiny transitions by random mutations and NS. When the observations don't show this. Its an outdated assumption based on new discoveries. Just like in physics and QM.

I have no idea what you really think you are doing.

I'm doing what others are doing. Challenging your premise and assumption that determinism is true.

The determinist examples you have in your mind are not as certain as you think with new understandings about behaviour such as behavioural psychology. But even in cosmology and psychics where holes are being shot in the deterministic cause and effect. Its at least on shaky ground at the moment.

 

[Bradskii]

No this is wrong. No one can possibly have measured all events for all time.

All you need is one example to prove me wrong. And I won't waste any more time responding until you either give me an example or back up any claims you want to make to libertarianism.