Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

If our experiences are reliable...

Quite often they are not.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point of the post you had quoted was to highlight that some people try to have it both ways, telling us to trust our experiences while denying the relability of our experiences when it comes to questions they think science has demonstrated our experiences untrustworthy.

Right. I totally understand your problem there.

If our experiences are reliable,

They aren't entirely reliable. If you forgot what you actually had for breakfast? That's very low stakes sort of information. It's not very valuable or important.

our experiences of deliberately making choices(free will) are trustworthy

This doesn't matter at all. Every determinist will continue to act exactly as if they have free will....no matter how hard they claim to believe in determinism.

They will judge people as if they're free will actors....and like or dislike....hate or love....deem good or evil....just as if they believe entirely in free will. They cannot stop doing it. I might consider them honest if they could possibly stop judging anyone, anytime, for mere mechanical emotional reactions, but they can't.

If the question is which of the two (free will/determinism) better describes human behavior....it's obviously free will.

If the question is which better describes reality as a whole the answer is science, and it doesn't care about free will or determinism.

...which should cause us to doubt anything that leads us to concluding free will is an illusion

It doesn't really matter. It might be an illusion...but since everyone will continue on acting like they have free will anyway....who cares?

 

[Fervent]

Right. I totally understand your problem there.





They aren't entirely reliable. If you forgot what you actually had for breakfast? That's very low stakes sort of information. It's not very valuable or important.

There's a difference between possibly being mistaken, and wholly being misled by the basic character of our experiences.

This doesn't matter at all. Every determinist will continue to act exactly as if they have free will....no matter how hard they claim to believe in determinism.

Yeah, that's kind of exactly why it matters. "accepting" determinism doesn't allow acting as if determnism is true...which seems a good reason to reject as in error anything that leads us to such a hypocritical situation.

They will judge people as if they're free will actors....and like or dislike....hate or love....deem good or evil....just as if they believe entirely in free will. They cannot stop doing it. I might consider them honest if they could possibly stop judging anyone, anytime, for mere mechanical emotional reactions, but they can't.

If the question is which of the two (free will/determinism) better describes human behavior....it's obviously free will.

If the question is which better describes reality as a whole the answer is science, and it doesn't care about free will or determinism.

Scientific models are deterministic by the nature of such modeling. It is methodologically determnistic, even when modeling systems that are known to behave in an indeterministic fashion. And since a major part of everyday experience is the experience of free will iit s clear that a methodology that requires deterministic modeling is at the very least missing a major chunk of whatever it iis that governs possibility.

It doesn't really matter. It might be an illusion...but since everyone will continue on acting like they have free will anyway....who cares?

It matters for epistemics, at the very least. Because if our everyday experience of making deciisions might not be trustworthy, then there's no reason to trust everyday experiences of taking measurements or other sensory inputs. Denying free will has serious impliications on what is possible. Hypothetically it might be an illusion, but so also might our experiences of seeing, hearing, smelling, taating, and touching. So if it is true(as several people who claim to be knowledgeable on the subject seem to at the very least imply) that whats known from neuroscience is incompatible with genuine free wiill then we run into a conundrum on whether we trust our own basiic experience, or rely on the testmony of others as the most reliable place for drawing information. That the proposition of free will being an illusion s given serious credence is an indictment againsr the process that led to that conclusion.

 

[Fervent]

Quite often they are not.

Are they reliiable enough that we can do science? Why should I trust the word and experences of someone else, rather than balking at the absurd conclusions that people endorse from their so-called knowledge? It's one thing to be mistaken about particular detaiils, it's another thing entirely for something that I literally cannot act in accordance with being true. In order for free will to be an illusion, my experiences have to be so untrustworthy that I can't trust any of my senses, and certainly not my reasoning capacities. And f I can't trust my own, how could I trust people I've never met who are telling me these things? Seems far more likely that people are lying about what they know in order to impress people with how smart they are, than that my basic, primal, experience of the world as a free agent(that is, possessing free will) could be mistaken. Experience has to be so deeply suspect for free will to be an illusion that even the most mundane bits of knowledge become totally suspect.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's a difference between possibly being mistaken, and wholly being misled by the basic character of our experiences.

What's the difference....?

If your senses lead you to the wrong conclusion, it's the wrong conclusion, whether you find out or not.

Yeah, that's kind of exactly why it matters. "accepting" determinism doesn't allow acting as if determnism is true...which seems a good reason to reject as in error anything that leads us to such a hypocritical situation.

If it were 100% true....it's still a worse description of human behavior.

Scientific models are deterministic by the nature of such modeling.

Eh...ok.

It is methodologically determnistic, even when modeling systems that are known to behave in an indeterministic fashion.

Sure....irrationality. We are far from entirely rational agents.

It matters for epistemics, at the very least. Because if our everyday experience of making deciisions might not be trustworthy, then there's no reason to trust everyday experiences of taking measurements or other sensory inputs.

That's not quite the same thing.

Hypothetically it might be an illusion, but so also might our experiences of seeing, hearing, smelling, taating, and touching. So if it is true(as several people who claim to be knowledgeable on the subject seem to at the very least imply) that whats known from neuroscience is incompatible with genuine free wiill then we run into a conundrum on whether we trust our own basiic experience, or rely on the testmony of others as the most reliable place for drawing information.

It's tough for us to accept, I'll admit, but our minds do tend to "fill in gaps" in understanding, memory, etc. Our brains aren't made to analyze everything in deep consideration from every way we could....that's difficult. Instead, they seek and form patterns, simplify information, and create general schemas to ensure a quick response to danger.

That the proposition of free will being an illusion s given serious credence is an indictment againsr the process that led to that conclusion.

Ok.

 

[Fervent]

What's the difference....?

If your senses lead you to the wrong conclusion, it's the wrong conclusion, whether you find out or not.

It's the order of the mistake. I can be mistaken for a moment about the color of a car, but if I am consistently "mistaken" about it then it means I should not trust my experiences or rely on them in any way.

If it were 100% true....it's still a worse description of human behavior.

I don't see it as being something we can modulate. It's either fixed determinism, or an illusion of determinism.

Eh...ok.

Ok

Sure....irrationality. We are far from entirely rational agents.

Certainly, but the question is deeper than that. If we can be so persistently mislead by our experience that we cannot even act in accordance to some piece of truth that we discover, we can't trust any of our experiences including those necessary to do science. Every measurement, every scan, every experiment becomes suspect because we can't trust our experiences of learning of these things.

That's not quite the same thing.

How so? Are measurements magical in some way that our deeply untrustworthy experiences are suddenly made trustworthy? What sorcery makes experience of weights and measurements trustworthy but our basic self-experiences untrustworthy?

It's tough for us to accept, I'll admit, but our minds do tend to "fill in gaps" in understanding, memory, etc. Our brains aren't made to analyze everything in deep consideration from every way we could....that's difficult. Instead, they seek and form patterns, simplify information, and create general schemas to ensure a quick response to danger.

They fill in gaps, sure. But that's quite different from saying our sense of intentional action and decision making based on free will is an illusiion. If one aspect of our basic experience cannot be trusted, there's no reason to trust the accuracy of our measurements to the point that we can systematically arrange them. We start with our experiences, and if we can't trust those enough to accept that our free will is genuine(though perhaps we over-estimate the extent of our freedom) This isn't just about rationality or irrationality, this cuts to the heart of what we can treat as knowledge. It's easy if we pretend to start with an external reality, but that's not really possible. We always start with our experiences, and if we can be thoroughly mislead to the point that an entire aspect of our experiences can be illusory then there's no reason we should trust the experiences necessary to engage in science.

Ok.

I want to be clear, I'm not attacking a methodology or an approach to developing an understanding, my concern is only with how far we can take what we gain from that method. The method makes for good research and better technologies, so it's certainly of great value. I just think some people rather foolishly look to it to answer questions it isn't capable of addressing.

 

[Bradskii]

Are they reliiable enough that we can do science?

You're reading this on something that was produced by science.

Why should I trust the word and experences of someone else...

You don't have to. You just need to ask yourself for the reasons why you made a decision. You have to reach the conclusion yourself. Logically it's a piece of cake (although some people, if they know where that logical path leads, will refuse to follow it). But even if you manage that, emotionally...well, it's a tough gig.

But will it change anything if you get there? No, not really. It's like you're living in the matrix and you take the red pill. And you say 'Hey, it didn't work. I'm still here'. And then you find out that reality is exactly the same. Except that one reality is an illusion and the other isn't. You just become aware of that.

 

[Fervent]

You're reading this on something that was produced by science.

Its hilarious that this type of response is treated as some kind of flex or answer to my statement. Cause how could I know that, if my experiences are untrustworthy. My experience of reading your assertion may very well be an illusion.

You don't have to. You just need to ask yourself for the reasons why you made a decision. You have to reach the conclusion yourself. Logically it's a piece of cake (although some people, if they know where that logical path leads, will refuse to follow it). But even if you manage that, emotionally...well, it's a tough gig.

Uh huh...your reply is non-responsive. The only reason I know of science is from reading what others have written(excluding the small slice of experiences I have been involved in)...if I can't trust my own base experiences, then I have no reason to trust what some researcher tells me since have no reason to trust their experiences.

But will it change anything if you get there? No, not really. It's like you're living in the matrix and you take the red pill. And you say 'Hey, it didn't work. I'm still here'. And then you find out that reality is exactly the same. Except that one reality is an illusion and the other isn't. You just become aware of that.

Yeah, I'd rather believe things that make sense than engage in self-deception telling me that one reality is an illusion and the other isn't. You want to deny your own cognitive faculties in the name of "science!" you go right ahead. You want to turn yourself into a wind-up toy of the universe, that's your perogative. Your conclusion is absurd...and you willingly dive into believing such an absurdity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's the order of the mistake. I can be mistaken for a moment about the color of a car, but if I am consistently "mistaken" about it then it means I should not trust my experiences or rely on them in any way.

If you're consistently mistaken, it's unclear how you would know.

I don't see it as being something we can modulate. It's either fixed determinism, or an illusion of determinism.

Ok.

Certainly, but the question is deeper than that. If we can be so persistently mislead by our experience

We are misled by experience.

that we cannot even act in accordance to some piece of truth

I didn't say that.

that we discover,

Not all ways of "knowing" result in "truth".

How so?

Reasonable certainty and a willingness to discard belief upon new evidence.

They fill in gaps, sure. But that's quite different from saying our sense of intentional action and decision making based on free will is an illusiion.

I don't know how to describe intent. Is that when you try to do something and fail? Your rationale is what we call your intent? Doesn't entirely seem necessary when you succeed.

If one aspect of our basic experience cannot be trusted, there's no reason to trust the accuracy of our measurements to the point that we can systematically arrange them.

What do you think the point of the measurement is, in regards to the types of measurements we make?

It's not because I and I alone can make that measurement, is it?

and if we can't trust those enough to accept that our free will is genuine(though perhaps we over-estimate the extent of our freedom)

It doesn't even seem relevant. You appear to be choosing. The attempt to describe your actions as some inescapable causal chain does absolutely nothing to enhance the description.

This isn't just about rationality or irrationality, this cuts to the heart of what we can treat as knowledge.

I don't see that it does.

 

[Fervent]

If you're consistently mistaken, it's unclear how you would know.

Quite true, which is why if we "discover" one facet of experience to be wholly misleading, it would be reasonable to question every other arena which to me seems it would lock us into an unconquerable skepticism

Ok.






We are misled by experience.

At times.

I didn't say that.

I'm following from taking seriously the notion that free will is an illusion. Being a proposition that even the most extreme believer cannot even begin to live according to their claimed truth.

Not all ways of "knowing" result in "truth".

I'm not sure it's clear that any do, at least if we are starting with ourselves.

Reasonable certainty and a willingness to discard belief upon new evidence.

The issue here is if the error is at the foundation of the method employed, then all that "reasonable certainty" is a fiction created through a game of guess-and-check that, while potent, ultimately takes us further from the truth and gives us a false confidence so long as we never turn around and question the initial assumption(s).

I don't know how to describe intent. Is that when you try to do something and fail? Your rationale is what we call your intent? Doesn't entirely seem necessary when you succeed.

Not that sort of intent, simply the ability to sift and sort thoughts, purposely move our body....the whole sense of having a limited amount of self-control.

What do you think the point of the measurement is, in regards to the types of measurements we make?

It's not because I and I alone can make that measurement, is it?

I fail to see how adding people who are unreliable sources makes the unreliable suddenly reliable. In fact, it adds layers since there iis the possiblity of intentional deception. How can I confirm that others have arrived at the same measurement if I can't trust my own measurements? How does multiplyiing error correct the error?

It doesn't even seem relevant. You appear to be choosing. The attempt to describe your actions as some inescapable causal chain does absolutely nothing to enhance the description.

It's not my description, the dilemma between my choices being determined by the prior state of the universe vs me actually having deliberative control is a real challenge. One of them has to be an illusion, either the inference of causal relationships, or my experiences of free will. Philosophizng over it is certainly worthless, but as a basic reality it seems that any path that leads to denying something that is basic is likely misled in some form or fashion.

I don't see that it does.

It's a question of what we take as basic, brute fact. Those who want to stand on "Science!" always want to jump in midstream and start at "the world"...but realistically, we all start at experience. Which requires our experiences to be basically trustworthy, even if we can fall prey to various snares along the way.

 

[expos4ever]

Love this topic. Both "sides" face huge challenges. Those who deny free will have to explain why the illusion of free will is so powerful. They also have to tell us how we need to rework notions of moral accountability. And, if every human thought is "determined", what confidence do we have that those determinations are correct in an objective sense? By contrast, those who embrace free will have to show us "where" that free will is situated - the emerging picture of reality keeps narrowing the possibilities down with determinist explanations being found for more and more aspects of human decision-making.

A couple of observations: First, I believe we must, repeast must, guard against the mistake of confusing unpredictability for indeterminability - these are clearly different things. A system can be fully deterministic while also being unpredictable. Second, I think people who appeal to the indeterminism of quantum mechanics as a "crack" into which we can insert free will face at least 2 problems. First, I believe most quantum experts would agree that the indeterminism we see at the micro-level does not get amplified to the macro level (although these is a lot of nuance here and I can anticipate some objections). Instead, the indeterminacy "cancels out" as we move to the macro level. Second, and more telling I believe, is that quantum mechanics inserts randomness into very fabric of reality. Ok, so that does indeed undermine determinism (at least at the micro level). But how do you manufacture free will out of randomness? That seems like a bridge too far.

By the way, I very much want to believe in free will.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Quite true, which is why if we "discover" one facet of experience to be wholly misleading, it would be reasonable to question every other arena which to me seems it would lock us into an unconquerable skepticism

Unless we can avoid the problem with experience in some way.

At times.

Yeah.

I'm following from taking seriously the notion that free will is an illusion. Being a proposition that even the most extreme believer cannot even begin to live according to their claimed truth.

I think they'll end up living like people no matter what the belief.

I'm not sure it's clear that any do, at least if we are starting with ourselves.

Who else can we start with?

The issue here is if the error is at the foundation of the method employed, then all that "reasonable certainty" is a fiction created through a game of guess-and-check that, while potent, ultimately takes us further from the truth and gives us a false confidence so long as we never turn around and question the initial assumption(s).

Uh...well the method either reveals knowledge about reality or not.

You aren't going to "faith" your way to the moon anymore than you can "philosophize" a functional society without any consideration of what we are.

These things seem to be method dependent.

Not that sort of intent, simply the ability to sift and sort thoughts, purposely move our body....the whole sense of having a limited amount of self-control.

I call that consideration.

I fail to see how adding people who are unreliable sources makes the unreliable suddenly reliable.

Right. Concensus doesn't create truth. Even if consensus is met after wide observations....questions are still there...and new evidence may end up changing the original conclusion entirely.

That's because the conclusion isn't dependent upon consensus.

In fact, it adds layers since there iis the possiblity of intentional deception. How can I confirm that others have arrived at the same measurement if I can't trust my own measurements? How does multiplyiing error correct the error?

It's going to depend upon the measurement instrument's reliability. Consider a tape measure. You measure a piece of wood....I measure a piece of wood. Same results means reliability. Consider the "implicit bias test" ....you take it and find out you're biased against black men. Take it five minutes later, you're biased against Arab women, five minutes after that....white men. This isn't a useful tool for measuring anything except perhaps response times and despite 400+ experiments....no practical relationship to reality. It's not a measurement tool....for implicit biases anyway.

It's not my description, the dilemma between my choices being determined by the prior state of the universe vs me actually having deliberative control is a real challenge.

Uh huh.

One of them has to be an illusion,

That's a false dilemma. What if further understanding of the mind ends up at the conclusion that the human mind is basically a material organ structured in a manner capable of considering reasons and moving towards behavior in a process best described as free will?

Sure...there's still reasons....but there's also choices being made. Ruling this out entirely would be dependent upon a complete understanding of the processes and we aren't anywhere remotely near that.

either the inference of causal relationships, or my experiences of free will. Philosophizng over it is certainly worthless, but as a basic reality it seems that any path that leads to denying something that is basic is likely misled in some form or fashion.

Perhaps since your mind is a simple pattern seeking machine you only see the two possibilities because "determinists" frame it that way. I have at least 4 possibilities that I cannot be certain about which is true....maybe 5.

It's a question of what we take as basic, brute fact. Those who want to stand on "Science!" always want to jump in midstream and start at "the world"...but realistically, we all start at experience.

Uh huh.

Which requires our experiences to be basically trustworthy, even if we can fall prey to various snares along the way.

If you want to do this...I'll ask what makes knowledge trustworthy. We'll come to some goofy idea that it's because it's both a reasonable, justified, and true belief. When we try to figure out what justifies beliefs....we'll almost certainly get into an impossible set of questions that are....

1. How do you know something? What's the criteria for knowing?

And...

2. What do we know? What's the extent of our knowing?

We will inevitably conclude that neither 1 nor 2 can be answered without first answering the other question.

Some people argue nothing can be known....but they sure won't act like it. The rest of us are starting with at least some assumptions.

 

[Fervent]

Unless we can avoid the problem with experience in some way.

How do you suggest we do that? How can we get past experience?

Yeah.



I think they'll end up living like people no matter what the belief.

I'm not so sure that's true.

Who else can we start with?

Yeah, that's kind of my point

Uh...well the method either reveals knowledge about reality or not.

No one said it didn't, but what it reveals is phenomenal or behavioral. It gets us no closer to the ontological.

You aren't going to "faith" your way to the moon anymore than you can "philosophize" a functional society without any consideration of what we are.

These things seem to be method dependent.

Faith is the bridge we cross from our experience to the methods.

I call that consideration.

Doesn't really matter what you call it, the point is that many rush to conclusions that render such things illusion.

Right. Concensus doesn't create truth. Even if consensus is met after wide observations....questions are still there...and new evidence may end up changing the original conclusion entirely.

That's because the conclusion isn't dependent upon consensus.

I'm not so sure that's factual. The conclusion is nothing more than the current consensus, so of course it is dependent on the existence of a consensus. And should consensus change tomorrow, a new conclusion will be born.

It's going to depend upon the measurement instrument's reliability. Consider a tape measure. You measure a piece of wood....I measure a piece of wood. Same results means reliability. Consider the "implicit bias test" ....you take it and find out you're biased against black men. Take it five minutes later, you're biased against Arab women, five minutes after that....white men. This isn't a useful tool for measuring anything except perhaps response times and despite 400+ experiments....no practical relationship to reality. It's not a measurement tool....for implicit biases anyway.

That's one factor, though there are also questions of honest reporting of said measurements and sound reasoning about the hypothesies being tested. And these thngs are problems, is there not an ongoing reproduction problem currently withiin scientific research?

Uh huh.




That's a false dilemma. What if further understanding of the mind ends up at the conclusion that the human mind is basically a material organ structured in a manner capable of considering reasons and moving towards behavior in a process best described as free will?

I don't believe such a thing is possible, because materialism depends on mechanical operation. Free will requires conscious control. There is a fundamental disconnect between material laws and free will agency that requires one or both to give way. What you are saying is essentially speculating that we will discover a round square.

Sure...there's still reasons....but there's also choices being made. Ruling this out entirely would be dependent upon a complete understanding of the processes and we aren't anywhere remotely near that.

If it is merely mechanical processes, then there are no choices being made. There's just scripts being run.

Perhaps since your mind is a simple pattern seeking machine you only see the two possibilities because "determinists" frame it that way. I have at least 4 possibilities that I cannot be certain about which is true....maybe 5.

I only deal with 2 possibilities here because they're the two that matter for this thread. I don't see free will as compatible with either determinism or indeterminism, and find the dilemma supportive of my holdng to cosmic agency(though of course I do not view it as a move from reason to such agency but instead see it as a supplement)

Uh huh.




If you want to do this...I'll ask what makes knowledge trustworthy. We'll come to some goofy idea that it's because it's both a reasonable, justified, and true belief. When we try to figure out what justifies beliefs....we'll almost certainly get into an impossible set of questions that are....

I prefer to speak in terms of warrant, and don't believe that truth is within our unaided grasp.

1. How do you know something? What's the criteria for knowing?

And...

2. What do we know? What's the extent of our knowing?

We will inevitably conclude that neither 1 nor 2 can be answered without first answering the other question.

Some people argue nothing can be known....but they sure won't act like it. The rest of us are starting with at least some assumptions.

I would say that you've mischaracterized what philosophical skeptics say. We do not deny that we can "know" simple things like what we ate for breakfast or dates in history. What is denied is that we can know deep truths about what objects are apart from experience or that unobserved theoretical articles are real or that projected histories are accurate. We are stuck making assumptions, and those assumptions dictate the kinds of things we believe or find plausible.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Love this topic. Both "sides" face huge challenges. Those who deny free will have to explain why the illusion of free will is so powerful.

I hate this argument, because it seems disingenuous.

They also have to tell us how we need to rework notions of moral accountability.

This is why it seems disingenuous. Determinists do not seek to describe human behavior, nor hold to the very claim that they profess, but rather use it as an argument for a change or something that they personally prefer....irrationally.

 

[expos4ever]

I hate this argument, because it seems disingenuous.

I do not understand your point.

This is why it seems disingenuous. Determinists do not seek to describe human behavior, nor hold to the very claim that they profess, but rather use it as an argument for a change or something that they personally prefer....irrationally.

I'm not following you. It is my understanding that determinists do indeed describe human behavior. They describe it in terms of processes that are fully deterministic. How is that not a description?

And what do you mean by not holding to the claim they profess? A true determinist would presumably concede that their own behavior is indeed deterministic. True, I would imagine such determinists would use language, and engage in behaviors, that suggests they believe in free will. But they could counter with the assertion that all this proves is that the illusion of Free Will is both powerful and useful. Just because you don't live according to what you believe doesn't mean you don't really believe. It could mean that you are simply not strong enough to live out the implications of what you believe.

In any event, I'm not really sure what your argument is here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How do you suggest we do that? How can we get past experience?

You're asking me for what exactly? An example of how you and I can know something to a high degree of confidence without ever experiencing it ourselves?

I'm not so sure that's true.

I'm pretty certain of it.

Yeah, that's kind of my point

I wouldn't call it a point. It seems so obvious that it's not worth questioning. I'm not you and you aren't me. We have perspectives.

Faith is the bridge we cross from our experience to the methods.

If that's what you think. I don't think I'd call it that.

Doesn't really matter what you call it

It does if we want to understand each other. Is that what you're attempting here?

I'm not so sure that's factual.

Well it may certainly look that way...but we're actually considering measurable ways of description categorically based on evidence available.

The conclusion is nothing more than the current consensus, so of course it is dependent on the existence of a consensus.

It's just a conclusion though. I'm big on free speech so minority views can always be considered. It doesn't matter how those views make me feel.

Sometimes minority views end up proven correct.

That's one factor, though there are also questions of honest reporting of said measurements and sound reasoning about the hypothesies being tested.

Right....evidence is not all of the same quality of reliability or degree of description due to increasingly sophisticated tools of measurement.

.

And these thngs are problems, is there not an ongoing reproduction problem currently withiin scientific research?

Certain scientific fields have certain problems. When you get to the "soft" sciences their usefulness and tools of measurement get considerably less reliable for reasons. That's where a lot of reproduction isn't happening. On top of that...a lot of what essentially aren't scientific studies are pretending to have the same degree of validity.

I don't believe such a thing is possible, because materialism depends on mechanical operation.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this "mechanical operation"?

Free will requires conscious control.

Like a mechanical operation of your body?

Lol do tell....

There is a fundamental disconnect between material laws and free will

Maybe. If you can reveal to a high degree of certainty every facet of the brain whenever it does anything it does....I'll admit the possibility is gone.

And I'm fairly certain we will still act as if we have free will....regardless of you proving it illusion. So this seems pointless.

If it is merely mechanical processes, then there are no choices being made. There's just scripts being run.

Ok.

I only deal with 2 possibilities here because they're the two that matter for this thread.

Well that may be the reason you're giving me...but it's not the only reason I'm considering.

I don't see free will as compatible with either determinism or indeterminism,

Ok.

and find the dilemma supportive of my holdng to cosmic agency

Throwing out words like "cosmic agency" is like me explaining "it's magic."

Unless you can describe the process of cosmic agency to some degree with some evidence, leave the dogma out of it.

I prefer to speak in terms of warrant

Ok.

I would say that you've mischaracterized what philosophical skeptics say.

I wouldn't, they have variety as well.

We do not deny that we can "know" simple things like what we ate for breakfast or dates in history.

I'm not sure that's skepticism then.

What is denied is that we can know deep truths

Oh deep truths.

What are those?

about what objects are apart from experience

I would argue to these skeptics, that whatever a tree is...it is that thing apart from their experience.

Now, if they could hope to succeed with convincing me otherwise...I would argue that they cannot possibly know anything at all, not dates in history, nor what they ate for breakfast....and should stay silent on all matters as their conviction demands.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do not understand your point.

What part of disingenuous is confusing?

I'm not following you. It is my understanding that determinists do indeed describe human behavior.

By starting with....cause and effect.

But instead of "causes" creating free will...they insist this simply cannot ever happen because that's not as simple as say....a leaf falling from a tree.

Yet when given consideration of what appear to be choices made for the same cause....they insist that some prior reason/cause, apart from free will must have created the cause.

No...they can't tell you what the cause is....but insist it must be there somewhere, on faith. This is effectively an unfalsifiable proposal....as long as these "cause of the gaps" arguments are made...it's a faith based belief.

They describe it in terms of processes that are fully deterministic.

Because they cannot give any evidence...and appear to be free will actors.

And what do you mean by not holding to the claim they profess?

They act as if they believe in free will.

If any of the "determinists" here get angry at something Trump does, for example, that's nonsensical. Why would anything anyone does elicit anger if you don't believe them capable of making choices? Are you not irrationally judging everyone if you hold this belief?....and not only irrationally....but completely unjustifiably according to what determinists profess to believe.

Yet they aren't able to cease all moral judgements. Go figure.

A true determinist would presumably concede that their own behavior is indeed deterministic.

And that concession necessitates an abandonment of any judgment of someone's because of their behavior or words. They aren't in control of these things after all...so it's impossible to justify any judgements of them.

Make sense now?

"Determinists" look, act, walk, talk and judge just like the free will actors they insist do not exist.

Absolute conviction in determinism typically comes with some argument about something they're trying to change. It's unclear why they imagine that's at all possible. If it's all mechanical processes, then their repeated failure to change whatever they want seems to indicate it's not in the cards of deterministic inagency.

True, I would imagine such determinists would use language, and engage in behaviors, that suggests they believe in free will. But they could counter with the assertion that all this proves is that the illusion of Free Will is both powerful and useful.

Actually, I'd argue it means that free will is the better description of human behavior and determinism adds absolutely nothing to the picture except mere consideration of inagency.

In any event, I'm not really sure what your argument is here.

Hopefully you do now. Are we describing human behavior? Or are we extrapolating vast assumptions about it based on things that aren't human behavior?

If we're describing human behavior....free will fits even the determinists. Who can argue with that?

 

[Bradskii]

...i I can't trust my own base experiences...

Quite often you can't. Surely you must know this. I'm always astonished when this is used as some sort of argument. Did you watch the sun rise this morning? No, you didn't. Are you sitting perfectly motionless at the moment? No, you're not. And here's a balzingly simple test for you. Are the squares A and B the same shade?

Of course they're not. A is obviously darker. Any fool can see that! I mean, if you can't trust your own experiences then what can you trust?

Your argument is the only one that's been presented in this thread. It's no more than 'But it's so obvious that I have free will.'

 

[Bradskii]

Love this topic. Both "sides" face huge challenges. Those who deny free will have to explain why the illusion of free will is so powerful.

I think it's because that the world is so very unpredictable. But people aren't. We generally have a reasonably good idea of what someone is likely to choose. People filter out the choices that are impossible and those that are extremely less likely and they end up choosing from a limited number of options. We understand that and we react to them accordingly. We don't have to predict from umpteen different courses of actions how things are going to turn out regarding what they will do. It then looks exactly like they are responsible and we need to react to them as if they are responsible so we assume that they are.

And as far as we are concerned, I think there is an inbuilt need to think of ourselves as masters of our own destiny. That I am the captain of the good ship SS Bradskii and making all the decisions. Whereas what is actually happening is that I am only reacting to the vagaries of the tide and the currents and the wind, over which I have no control whatsoever.

They also have to tell us how we need to rework notions of moral accountability.

This is the tricky one. I had a lot of trouble with this. But I approached it from the viewpoint that we already make allowances for what people do due to age, or mental incapacity or various extenuating circumstances. It's the usual, often justifiable defence we hear all the time in courtrooms. And if it's justified, then place yourself in the defendant's shoes and imagine that you had his or her dna, same parents, same upbringing, same education, same diet etc etc, then you would have committed the same offence and the same defence would be applicable to you.

Otherwise, there needs to be another 'you' somewhere that can make decisions that aren't determined by anything at all. And as you say...

...those who embrace free will have to show us "where" that free will is situated...

Nobody has ever done that.

- the emerging picture of reality keeps narrowing the possibilities down with determinist explanations being found for more and more aspects of human decision-making.

Exactly right. There has never been a decision made without a reason (less it was truly random). And the reason was the determinant. It determined the choice. How could it be otherwise?

A couple of observations: First, I believe we must, repeast must, guard against the mistake of confusing unpredictability for indeterminability - these are clearly different things. A system can be fully deterministic while also being unpredictable. Second, I think people who appeal to the indeterminism of quantum mechanics as a "crack" into which we can insert free will face at least 2 problems. First, I believe most quantum experts would agree that the indeterminism we see at the micro-level does not get amplified to the macro level (although these is a lot of nuance here and I can anticipate some objections). Instead, the indeterminacy "cancels out" as we move to the macro level. Second, and more telling I believe, is that quantum mechanics inserts randomness into very fabric of reality. Ok, so that does indeed undermine determinism (at least at the micro level). But how do you manufacture free will out of randomness? That seems like a bridge too far.

Well, good luck with that. So many in this thread have argued that determinism doesn't exist because a system is unpredictable.

By the way, I very much want to believe in free will.

It's hard not to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think it's because that the world is so very unpredictable. But people aren't.

It's predictable that despite your repeated profession of faith...you'll continue acting as if you believe in free will.

Well, good luck with that. So many in this thread have argued that determinism doesn't exist because a system is unpredictable.

See above....100% predictable. I asked @expos4ever if we were describing behavior....he seemed to agree we were. Free will is a more accurate description, all the time. Determinists have yet to delineate any clear causes in any measurable ways and the almost infinite variations of possibilities therein. Stop asking for evidence if you don't have any.