Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

Simple direct question: Do you want free will or not ?

It either exists or it doesn't. Wanting or not wanting it doesn't change that.

 

[o_mlly]

The evidence is that everything appears to be deterministic.

No, not everything. If I drop a rock, I can predict what will happen next with a high degree of certainty. Since you cannot predict with any certainty at all what I or anyone else will do next in all given circumstances, it is obvious that we have free will.

Perhaps you want to believe you do not, as most others who have closed their minds on a matter and paradoxically freely choose to not be open to reconsidering the evidence at hand. Let's see.

To dismiss that view you only have to give a single example of when that doesn't occur.

Who I chose to wed was a free will choice (both ways).

Now, since you believe all behavior is determined, and you have the uncanny ability to know the mind of another, I predict with a high level of certainty that you will strawman me and explain how you know my free will choice was not free. But to be consistent, of course, you will claim that you just couldn't do otherwise.

It cannot be proved there is no free will. But you can easily prove that the basis for the claim is false. You seem unable to do that.

Why do you not acknowledge your logical error?

A guy cut me off in traffic and I decided not to follow him home and beat him to death.

There won't be any comment on that because I don't think that you actually have anything to add.

I did comment. To comment further would require you to tell us why you freely decided as you did.

Let's assume the same happened to me. Now I am the authority to explain my decision. I sent my emotional impulse to violently correct the wrong done to me to my reason. Counting to ten, I rationally evaluated the consequences of my act giving more importance to what acting on my impulse would do to me than to the twerp that unjustly cut me off. I reflect: Is it better to suffer a minor injustice or do an extreme injustice (killing the twerp would be an unjust response)? I freely decide that I would be diminished if I acted on my impulse. I have now regained my equipoise. Yes, my value system developed over the years of my life guided my decision, but it did not determine it.

 

[Injeun]

From Britannica:

'free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

That's the standard definition. That's what's being discussed.

Then your issue is with Britannica because the definition robs the living of free will and reserves it to the dead and those yet to be. It is only by living that one is free to exercise ones will freely, whether it is for the love of good or evil. That's why unrepentant criminals, or those unwilling to acknowledge the truth are referred to as willful and proud. Y/N?

 

[Injeun]

Yes, and it is vital to seek God's Way and give up the ways of men, to find health and life.

Yes, true life is in his spirit rather than in ourselves or our lives alone. To this I'm convinced and converted. From near and afar, it is his charity and call to peace.

 

[Bradskii]

Then your issue is with Britannica because the definition robs the living of free will and reserves it to the dead and those yet to be. It is only by living that one is free to exercise ones will freely, whether it is for the love of good or evil. That's why unrepentant criminals, or those unwilling to acknowledge the truth are referred to as willful and proud. Y/N?

Thanks for your input.

 

[Bradskii]

No, not everything. If I drop a rock, I can predict what will happen next with a high degree of certainty. Since you cannot predict with any certainty at all what I or anyone else will do next in all given circumstances, it is obvious that we have free will.

Prediction has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. This has been discussed at great length. Remember the guitar string and the croissant?

Who I chose to wed was a free will choice (both ways).

I'll assume that you didn't marry for money, so you found yourself physically and emotionally attracted to your wife. Did you choose to be attracted to her?

I did comment.

I'm afraid you didn't.

Let's assume the same happened to me. Now I am the authority to explain my decision. I sent my emotional impulse to violently correct the wrong done to me to my reason.

Did you choose to have that emotional impulse? Are you the type of person that reacts emotionally? No, you are the type of person who would rather act rationally. Did you decide that that was going to be one of your characteristics? Some people are born to be emotional. Some rational. Most a mixture of the two. Did you select where on that continuum you preferred to be?

Counting to ten, I rationally evaluated the consequences of my act giving more importance to what acting on my impulse would do to me than to the twerp that unjustly cut me off. I reflect: Is it better to suffer a minor injustice or do an extreme injustice (killing the twerp would be an unjust response)?

So the contemplation of the results of two paths you could take determined your actions. Your preference was to suffer a minor injustice. Could you have chosen to kill the guy? That's what free will means. That you could have chosen to kill him. And I don't mean just thinking about killing him or saying 'Well, yeah. Of course I could have killed him'. I mean could you actually beat the guy to death for such a minor inconvenience.

No, of course you couldn't. You had no choice about that. Although there are some people who are built that way, that have the requisite dna, had the awful childhood, was regularly beaten, had an alcoholic mother and a sexually abusive father, was to all intents constructed to be exactly the type of person who would beat you up or gun you down for cutting him off. He wouldn't have selected any of the conditions that made him look to violence as a means to right a wrong. And neither did you have any choice about the conditions that made you the type of person that wouldn't.

Yes, my value system developed over the years of my life guided my decision, but it did not determine it.

Yes, the value system that developed over the years of your life. Literally everything that happened to you went into developing your value system. If you lived a different life then you'd have a different one. That's such an obvious thing to say that it shouldn't need saying. If you had my heritage and my upbringing then you'd have my value system. There's no disconnected you floating around deciding what sort of person you want to be.

Free will actually means that you can choose to have a different value system. To choose that which you do not prefer. To, in effect, choose to be someone you're not.

 

[o_mlly]

Prediction has absolutely nothing to do with determinism.

Materialist's hypotheses in science that do not yield predictable results are pretty useless. So even more so on the nature of human beings.

Did you choose to be attracted to her?

I freely chose to love her, an act of will, not emotion.

Did you choose to have that emotional impulse?

One cannot will to have a passion or not. However, with discipline we can become virtuous and habitually deny those passions from arising.

Do animals choose to act differently than their instincts direct them? In humans, moral acts that are emotional in origin, or one might say instinctual, do not control one's behavior except perhaps in infants, defined as all regardless of age who in their immaturity are ruled by their feelings.

Unlike the beings that do not have free will, the human being is capable of ordering his passions to his reason, his will to reason, and his will to God's will.

So the contemplation of the results of two paths you could take determined your actions.

No, your constant use of the passive voice deceives you into thinking your moral acts are determined by only externalities. My contemplation ...

You had no choice about that ... And neither did you have any choice ...

There you go again. Do you wear some kind of aluminum head piece to read the minds of others? Of course I had a choice.

There's no disconnected you floating around deciding what sort of person you want to be.

Not disconnected at all. I am the person who decided, and still decides, the sort of person I freely will to be.

If you had my heritage and my upbringing then you'd have my value system ...

No, I would not. As you freely rejected the gifts of the Holy Spirit ie., wisdom, knowledge, discernment, you are impeded also from enjoying His fruits. I freely accepted His gifts.

Free will actually means that you can choose to have a different value system. To choose that which you do not prefer.

That is nonsense and I hope you come to know it as such.

 

[Bradskii]

Materialist's hypotheses in science that do not yield predictable results are pretty useless.

We're not talking about hypotheses. Determinism is an observation. If you can't predict something then it doesn't mean that it wasn't determined. If it stops raining this afternoon then I'll go for a walk down the beach. I definitely won't go if it's raining. Can I predict the weather? No, but it will determine my decision.

I freely chose to love her, an act of will, not emotion.

Seriously? There was no emotional attraction? You just saw a woman and decided 'I'm going to choose to love her' for no reason. I think that will sound as ridiculous to anyone else reading it as it does to me. And which, in any case, directly contradicts the very next sentence:

One cannot will to have a passion or not.

But you can will to love? I reject that completely.

Do animals choose to act differently than their instincts direct them? In humans, moral acts that are emotional in origin, or one might say instinctual, do not control one's behavior except perhaps in infants, defined as all regardless of age who in their immaturity are ruled by their feelings.

Other animals that do not have the ability to forecast the results of their actions will act instinctively. There is no forethought. Some animals do have that ability. Including us, obviously. So we make choices. Nobody has said otherwise. And we choose what we prefer (as opposed to some animals who might choose what they want). If you had the same choice again, why would you choose something that you didn't prefer. That makes no sense.

That's what free will means. It means that you can choose to beat the guy to death. But you don't. And you never will. You could choose to love someone else. But you didn't. You wouldn't. And you never would.

Unlike the beings that do not have free will, the human being is capable of ordering his passions to his reason, his will to reason.

Reason is simply the ability to work out what choice is the best one for you at that time. Your preference. Nobody denies that.

No, your constant use of the passive voice deceives you into thinking your moral acts are determined by only externalities. My contemplation ...

Not just externalities. Your character, your mood, your emotions all go to determine your choices. Your character, your emotions, your mood...that's actually you at that time. There's not some other you somewhere that doesn't have your character. There's no mini-me that is not experiencing your moods. There's no homunculus that isn't experiencing your emotions.

No, I would not.

Then who would you be? If you had my parents, my dna...then at the point of conception then you'd me. Then if you had my upbringing and lived my life then you'd be the person I now am. How could you be anyone else? So your parents, your heritage, where and when and how you grew up - none of which you chose, made you the person you are.

There's no free will in deciding any of that.

 

[o_mlly]

We're not talking about hypotheses.

Sure we are.

Determinism is an observation.

So is free will. Next?

If you can't predict something then it doesn't mean that it wasn't determined.

In a materialist's mind, if there is no predictive power in the hypothesis then it is properly filed in the round file cabinet, usually kept under the desk.

There was no emotional attraction?

Yes, but knowing just how ephemeral emotions can be, I went to a higher power, I willed to love her ... as a much better foundation than emotion for going into a long-term commitment.

I think that will sound as ridiculous to anyone else reading it as it does to me. And which, in any case, directly contradicts the very next sentence ... But you can will to love? I reject that completely.

Your rejection is predictable. As an atheist, I suppose you have also rejected His supernatural gift of charity. As a supernatural gift, one cannot naturally obtain the virtue. That explains a lot about one who is so often being ruled by his emotions.

Other animals that do not have the ability to forecast the results of their actions will act instinctively.

Surely, you know that is nonsense. Intelligent animals have, and always have had the ability to forecast results. The hungry lion instinctively jumps on the back of its prey expecting (forecasting) a very nice lunch.

And we choose what we prefer (as opposed to some animals who might choose what they want).

? The lion prefers a gazelle today. The lion wants a gazelle today. Same thing.

Reason is simply the ability to work out what choice is the best one for you at that time.

Progress! Now substitute a synonym for "work out". I've got one, "freely decide".

I'm going to leave this thread now; the rest of your post just repeats your unsubstantiated claims. And suggest you keep your reading list open to those who think Sapolsky is out of his area of expertise:

This [Sapolsky's] is quite a radical position. It's worth asking why only 11% of philosophers agree with Sapolsky, compared with the 60% who think being causally determined is compatible with having free will. ... The trouble with Sapolsky's arguments, as free will expert John Martin Fischer explains, is he doesn't actually present any argument for why his conception of free will is correct. ... Sapolsky's broader mistake seems to be assuming his questions are purely scientific ...​

Does Science Really Show Free Will Doesn't Exist? Here's What You Need to Know.

It seems like we have free will.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[Bradskii]

Sure we are.

No, we're not. We're talking about events. And whether if they are unpredictable means that they are undetermined. I gave you an example earlier. I've given examples throughout the thread. It was raised in one of the first posts and put to bed. If you have an example that contradicts that position then bring it to the table. Otherwise it's done and dusted.

So is free will.

I'm afraid this is a summation of all you have brought to the discussion.

Yes, but knowing just how ephemeral emotions can be, I went to a higher power, I willed to love her ... as a much better foundation than emotion for going into a long-term commitment.

Then you must agree that you have the ability to 'unlove her'. I know that you don't. You know that you don't. But you still make a claim like that? Why not will to love someone else

Surely, you know that is nonsense. Intelligent animals have, and always have had the ability to forecast results. The hungry lion instinctively jumps on the back of its prey expecting (forecasting) a very nice lunch.

If you're going to limit your taxonomy of animals to intelligent creatures then you're not going to be able to follow the argument. A human is an animal that can forecast their actions. Although we often act on instinct, we can foresee the results of out actions so we have decsions to make. Likewise a lion, although there's more reliance on instinct. An earthworm (yes, it's also an animal) doesn't spend a lot of time pondering what it's going to do for the rest of the day.

? The lion prefers a gazelle today. The lion wants a gazelle today. Same thing.

Again, this has been explained. The terms have been defined. If you don't read the relevant posts then you'll keep making the same mistakes.

I'm going to leave this thread now;

Thanks. I could use the break. Constantly having to repeat myself is not the best use of my time. If you come back then read some Aquinas before you do. You've kept repeating the mantra 'Oh yes we do' in various ways throughout the thread without making any attempt to even dispell the premise of the argument. Maybe you can try to dismantle the premise of the cosmological argument. They're exactly the same. Or tell me that you accept it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can, and do, a lot of the time.

But apparently, just not this time yet, etc.

I'm willing to consider this might be true. I'd appreciate it if you could demonstrate such an ability though.

A child can clearly see and understand it well enough at the macro level to easily see or understand it well enough, etc. You don't have to be a physicist to see it, etc.

I'm not sure how convincing me that children agree with you helps your position.

If they were alive today, they would all be determinists.

That's optimistic. Hume challenged the validity of a branch of logic that was unchallenged for millenia. Then he had to rewrite his entire book so the dumb-dumbs of his day could keep up. I've seen attempts to dispute his argument....they don't tend to go well.

Or they would at least be forced into saying that determinism is the most likely possibility, etc.

If they were unconvinced in their day....I doubt the years since then would change that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure we are.

So is free will. Next?

In a materialist's mind, if there is no predictive power in the hypothesis then it is properly filed in the round file cabinet, usually kept under the desk.

Yes, but knowing just how ephemeral emotions can be, I went to a higher power, I willed to love her ... as a much better foundation than emotion for going into a long-term commitment.

Your rejection is predictable. As an atheist, I suppose you have also rejected His supernatural gift of charity. As a supernatural gift, one cannot naturally obtain the virtue. That explains a lot about one who is so often being ruled by his emotions.

Surely, you know that is nonsense. Intelligent animals have, and always have had the ability to forecast results. The hungry lion instinctively jumps on the back of its prey expecting (forecasting) a very nice lunch.

? The lion prefers a gazelle today. The lion wants a gazelle today. Same thing.

Progress! Now substitute a synonym for "work out". I've got one, "freely decide".

I'm going to leave this thread now; the rest of your post just repeats your unsubstantiated claims. And suggest you keep your reading list open to those who think Sapolsky is out of his area of expertise:

This [Sapolsky's] is quite a radical position. It's worth asking why only 11% of philosophers agree with Sapolsky, compared with the 60% who think being causally determined is compatible with having free will. ... The trouble with Sapolsky's arguments, as free will expert John Martin Fischer explains, is he doesn't actually present any argument for why his conception of free will is correct. ... Sapolsky's broader mistake seems to be assuming his questions are purely scientific ...​

Does Science Really Show Free Will Doesn't Exist? Here's What You Need to Know.

It seems like we have free will.

www.sciencealert.com

I didn't even get that far with Sapolsky. He's making assumptions not justified by science. He's making leads science can't even hope to demand.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As already noted in this thread, what is asserted w/o evidence may just as easily be dismissed w/o evidence. Did you miss the unicorn example? Proving that a negative, free will (or a unicorn) does not exist is not possible.

And, also as already noted, your assertion is a meaningless tautology. Your consequence merely affirms your conditional. (See the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.)

I don't think he knows what those words mean.

That's why I stated earlier he's not even wrong. He can't demonstrate either a way he's correct or even explain a way he's incorrect.

We can do this as well if we were so inclined....

1. Free will can be defined as a system of choices one can make as opposed to other choices.

2. Determinism can be defined as s description of reality which neither succeeds in accurately describing reality nor providing evidence for it's assertions. A totally false version of reality which requires an infinite number of causes to extend infinitely into the past.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We're not talking about hypotheses.

Agreed.

Determinism is an observation.

Nope. You aren't observing causes.

Seriously? There was no emotional attraction? You just saw a woman and decided 'I'm going to choose to love her' for no reason. I think that will sound as ridiculous to anyone else reading it as it does to me. And which, in any case, directly contradicts the very next sentence:

But you can will to love? I reject that completely.

You were one of those beggers, huh? Not the choosers.

Other animals that do not have the ability to forecast the results of their actions will act instinctively. There is no forethought. Some animals do have that ability. Including us, obviously. So we make choices. Nobody has said otherwise. And we choose what we prefer (as opposed to some animals who might choose what they want). If you had the same choice again, why would you choose something that you didn't prefer. That makes no sense.

What makes no sense is the shallow analysis you claim underpins all decisions.

Reason is simply the ability to work out what choice is the best one for you at that time. Your preference. Nobody denies that.

Reason requires more than knowing a preference.

Not just externalities. Your character, your mood, your emotions all go to determine your choices. Your character, your emotions, your mood...that's actually you at that time. There's not some other you somewhere that doesn't have your character. There's no mini-me that is not experiencing your moods. There's no homunculus that isn't experiencing your emotions.

Then who would you be? If you had my parents, my dna...then at the point of conception then you'd me. Then if you had my upbringing and lived my life then you'd be the person I now am. How could you be anyone else? So your parents, your heritage, where and when and how you grew up - none of which you chose, made you the person you are.

There's no free will in deciding any of that.

It's like you've never heard of twins lol.

 

[o_mlly]

That's why I stated earlier he's not even wrong. He can't demonstrate either a way he's correct or even explain a way he's incorrect.

In defense of our fearless interlocutor, he did give us his "guitar string to bagel" experience thinking that his autobiography should be sufficient for all others to come to his same eureka moment. Sorry, that sort of "evidence" is not compelling, nor should it be.

 

[Bradskii]

In defense of our fearless interlocutor, he did give us his "guitar string to bagel" experience thinking that his autobiography should be sufficient for all others to come to his same eureka moment. Sorry, that sort of "evidence" is not compelling, nor should it be.

The one event wasn't one of the determining factors in the other? It most definitely was. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever. Could you have predicted the one from the other? Of course not. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever as well.

So is it shown that an inability to to predict an outcome means that it wasn't determined. Of course not.

Now instead of simply repeating variations of 'Oh no it isn't' or 'Oh yes it is' depending on what is being presented, could you address the point that was made and put forward an argument against it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

In defense of our fearless interlocutor, he did give us his "guitar string to bagel" experience

I missed this, but I'd love a post number so I can check it out.

thinking that his autobiography should be sufficient for all others to come to his same eureka moment. Sorry, that sort of "evidence" is not compelling, nor should it be.

Not only is it not compelling...it's not actually evidence.

To be fair though...if you aren't willing to consider all sorts of things which aren't evidence, this discussion never leaves the OP. Determinists are onto nothing.

You ask them what proves determinism and they say "everything". You tell them nice joke but seriously...what would be evidence? Then they repeat...everything. You ask for definitions....you get a tautology back. You ask what the OP would consider evidence of free will....you get the absurd response....an event that was uncaused.

Hilarious.

Well if you want an easy answerm....just tell him that science considers the Big Bang as "uncaused". After all, no cause preceded it. He doesn't read my posts....he has me on ignore. You don't have to believe in the Big Bang either, because he does.

So if you want the short version for ending this circular conversation....just quote his OP....and when he asks for an effect that was uncaused...tell him the Big Bang fits that description.

Ergo, free will exists.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm willing to consider this might be true. I'd appreciate it if you could demonstrate such an ability though.

In the past, a lot of people have had to agree with me on many of my ideas whether they were absolute truths, or where I would stipulate that they are at least either the most likely possibilities right now, or that they were sometimes the only possibility if this or that right now, each of which I would be sure to be honest about, and stipulate, and be very, very clear about, etc. In order to demonstrate, I would have to have you read entire recorded conversations between me, and some other people, and I doubt you are willing to get that deeply vested, or invested in it, etc..

I'm not sure how convincing me that children agree with you helps your position.

I only meant that it doesn't take an overly deep understanding to at least see/understand the concept, and it's thoughts, and it's arguments, and ideas, etc. Which is why I'm wondering why it seems to be so very difficult for some of you, etc. And the only thing I can come up with is that you're biased, and you only want completely free will choices/decisions to be true, even if they are more than likely not true, etc.

That's optimistic. Hume challenged the validity of a branch of logic that was unchallenged for millenia. Then he had to rewrite his entire book so the dumb-dumbs of his day could keep up. I've seen attempts to dispute his argument....they don't tend to go well.

I don't see what Hume's philosophical ideas has to do with this, etc. Most of this has to do with modern day science, and scientific discoveries, and not philosophical ideas, etc.

If they were unconvinced in their day....I doubt the years since then would change that.

If they had the same level of scientific knowledge/understanding that we have now today, or have had or have discovered since their day, and if they were truly unbiased thinkers, then I think they would be forced to conclude that determinism is the most likely explanation/possibility of or for or to our reality right now at present currently, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

I missed this, but I'd love a post number so I can check it out.



Not only is it not compelling...it's not actually evidence.

To be fair though...if you aren't willing to consider all sorts of things which aren't evidence, this discussion never leaves the OP. Determinists are onto nothing.

You ask them what proves determinism and they say "everything". You tell them nice joke but seriously...what would be evidence? Then they repeat...everything. You ask for definitions....you get a tautology back. You ask what the OP would consider evidence of free will....you get the absurd response....an event that was uncaused.

Hilarious.

Well if you want an easy answerm....just tell him that science considers the Big Bang as "uncaused". After all, no cause preceded it. He doesn't read my posts....he has me on ignore. You don't have to believe in the Big Bang either, because he does.

So if you want the short version for ending this circular conversation....just quote his OP....and when he asks for an effect that was uncaused...tell him the Big Bang fits that description.

Ergo, free will exists.

Everything that everything is made up can be shown to be 100% without a doubt always deterministic 100% of the time and always, and I suspect that's what most of them mean when they say "everything", etc. But if not, it's what I mean if I say it at least, etc. How do you get a 100% non-deterministic "thing" from "things/everything" that always, always makes up it, that is always, always, beyond any kind of a shadow of any kind of a logical or reasonable doubt, 100% deterministic always, and that is already way, way beyond proven already, and can be 100% demonstrated/shown already, etc? The answer is you can't ever. It's just 100% not ever possible ever, etc. And that's the scientific argument about it, etc.

And it's already been discussed why we can't use the BB, and it's because nobody knows, etc. But we do know that everything from the very, very first start of it has all been deterministic, and has to have continued to be all deterministic, from the instant it first started, and the very first particles were "excited", or were very first set in motion/started, etc, and from a purely physical standpoint, or as just pure physics, so has everything else been since then, etc.

Just to note, I have been on these forums a very, very long time, and in that amount of time, I've never, ever put anyone on ignore yet, etc. If I want to ignore them, I just ignore them, or mark their posts with a "friendly", and give up for the moment, or let the matter drop for the moment, and go on to other subjects/people, or other things that I think are more worthy of my attention and/or time, etc. I have absolutely no problems with sometimes leaving other people to whatever makes them happy, or their all too comfortable illusions/delusions sometimes, etc. Can't always expect the truth to always be well relieved by absolutely everybody 100% of the time and always, etc. And I try to be fine with that sometimes maybe, etc. I "try" anyway, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Bradskii]

And it's already been discussed why we can't use the BB, and it's because nobody knows, etc. But we do know that everything from the very, very first start of it has all been deterministic, and has to have continued to be all deterministic, from the instant it first started...

This was covered waaay back in the thread. By pointing out that the reason we know that there was a BB is because everything is deterministic. We can work backwards from each point in time, to investigate what caused each event. It's the very basis of the cosmological argument.

If the universe wasn't deterministic then there'd be no basis on which to base the conclusion.