Free will and determinism

[CoreyD]

If she is not coerced. In which case what she chooses will be what she prefers to do.

She made a choice she prefers. It's her decision.
So, we agree then?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, what would he actually do differently? How would you recognise that his life was different?

I'll cut this short as I don't see much chance of anything worthwhile coming from this. So I'll tell you. You wouldn't. Decisions are made for reasons that are beyond our control whether free will exists or not. He still goes to work each day. He still decides

That would be a choice.

You gotta stop talking like you believe in choices or it's obvious this isn't a better description of human behavior.

 

[Fervent]

You think people try to convince themselves? What an extremely odd notion.

Seems to me you've admitted as much, in that you have accepted that it's not possible to behave as if we don't have free will. So the only way someone might believe they don't is if they continually deny the reality of their own actions.

You didn't address the point that was made. That it would be nonsensical to tell someone that nothing determined your choice. If nothing did then you've made no attempt whatsoever to explain how that could possibly work. Nobody has even attempted that.

I addressed the "point" by pointing out you're conflating unrelated notions of "determined." Having reasons for choosing our actions is not the same as it being thrust upon us by prior causes. Your "point" is based on sloppy thinking by relying on multple definitions that are not the same thing. Nobody has "attempted" it because your argument is based on nonsensical premises and can simply be dsregarded based on the improper and imprecise way you're defining your terms.

 

[Bradskii]

Can you please clarify how, and from where, you are defining determinism?
Determinism
noun

1. The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
2. The doctrine that the will is not free, but is inevitably and invincibly determined by motives, preceding events, and natural laws.
3. The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.

I agree with all of that.

Reason and choice are not exclusive, by any possible means.

Of course. The reasons are what determines your choice.

One can have a motive, and yet have a reason to go against that motive.

Sure. You might have a motive to lose weight. But you decide to have an extra helping of pizza anyway. Because it's what you prefer at that moment.

If you are arguing that determinism is reason... Is that what you are saying?

Determinism means that every act is caused by antecedent conditions. The reasons why you make a decision are what determines that decision. Rather obviously.

There is reason in choices.
I plant a tree for a reason. No one makes a decision for no reason.
That would be next to not thinking, but just acting, and that is not what anybody does.
Yet, they are not acting based on what has been determined.

The reasons you plant the tree are what determines your action. So, why did you plant it?

What determined that a person chose to go Venezuela, or Hawaii, for a vacation?
They made a choice of their own free will to go somewhere they had not been before.

Maybe you have somewhere you'd like to go that you haven't been to. Now you can change your mind about whether you go there or not. Maybe you haven't the time, or the money. Maybe transport is a problem. They're all antecedent conditions that will go to determine your choice. But you can't change your mind about wanting to go there. That would be as if you liked pizza but decided not to like it. It's not possible. So that's one of the antecedent conditions as well.

 

[Bradskii]

She made a choice she prefers. It's her decision.
So, we agree then?

Of course. She's not going to do something she doesn't prefer.

Now think of something that you'd rather do instead of going to work tomorrow. Can you then decide that you'd rather not do it? That makes no sense at all. You can decide whether to actually do it, but that's another matter which we'll get to in a moment. But you can't decide not to want to do it. Again, it would be the same as liking pizza and then deciding to not like it. It ain't possible.

Now, there's a difference between doing something because you want to do it. And doing something because you prefer to do it. You actually may not want to do something, but you prefer to do it. You may not want to go to the gym as opposed to the pub because going to the pub is a lot more enjoyable. But you are determined (there's that word again) to lose some weight, so you prefer to go to the gym. So you always do what you prefer. You can't change that.

So you want to do that something as opposed to go to work tomorrow. But you think that for umpteen reasons you'd better go to work instead. It's your preference. And you can't change that.

So the girl in your example has a preference. For all sorts of reasons - and we can make up a few to examine if you like. But she will always do what she prefers to do. She can't change that.

 

[Bradskii]

Nobody has "attempted" it because your argument is based on nonsensical premises and can simply be dsregarded based on the improper and imprecise way you're defining your terms.

That neatly sums up the position of a lot of people in this thread. Rather than make any attempt to try to show how free will operates in a way that is not determined by antecedent conditions, they simply disregard the problem. As you are doing.

I started this thread to see if there were any good arguments that I hadn't come across before. I was hoping that someone would make the attempt to explain free will in the absence of determinism. After over 2,700 posts and some people posting dozens of times, no-one has made the slightest attempt.

That's quite a disappointment. And so very telling.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark. If one can make a decision, either or, then the factor has nothing to do with the decision.

That is an unproven, not to mention poorly stated, assumption. If I didn't know better, the way it was stated, I would think you agreed with me.

For example, a girl got raped, and is pregnant. She can choose to keep the baby, or terminate the life in her.
It's a choice.

Of course it's a choice. Who is saying differently?

What if she decided to get an abortion, but then decides not to?
What determined her decision?

She did, and God did, not to mention all the various influences upon her choices.

The factor - the rape, did not.
Did something else determine her decision?
Her mom talked with her, and something her mom said, gave her "food for thought" .
She made a choice, or decision, through thought processes.

Of course. Nobody is saying differently here.

Those thought processes may even go contrary to her mom's advise, but still not be affected by the factors in the past.
They may be affected by factors in the future.
She may start to think of what life will be like for her, and a baby.
That may be the "factor" that influences her decision - factors way ahead... in the future.

Of course. I agree with that, though not in every particular, but, yeah, I agree with the force of your argument there, as stated. I'm beginning to think, however, that you assume it implies things that I don't.

Do you see the flaw in the philosophy of determinism?

No.

A freewill choice, or decision, is not determined by a cause.

You have just demonstrated several causes. How, then, can you say the decision is not determined by a cause? It is determined by many causes, all of which were determined by omniscient God, who knew before creating, exactly what would come of his creating, yet created anyway, thus, demonstratively, INTENDING every one of those influences, good or evil, that fed into the choice.

The choice need not be ONLY by the chooser, to be real choice. Further, as you have so ably demonstrated here, the choice need not even be all options equally "possible", but only to appear to be, (which is one of my favorite subjects with which to jar people's self-important thinking.)

That "determinism" is unpalatable to many believers, no more proves it wrong than Scripture does; Scripture, instead posits and proves that God is the source of all fact. God has ordained all things, whatsoever comes to pass.

But for whatever it is worth, I don't like the word "determinism" as it is generally considered by probably most Christians to imply that God equally determined the reprobation of most with the same force of intent as he determined the salvation of some. That would be a mischaracterization of what I believe.

An aside: If God is indeed Omnipotent omniscient self-existent creator of all else, then even very reality is his 'invention' and he is not a merely powerful resident within a larger reality. So it follows that NOTHING can happen unless he has established its existence/reality. That, then, must include decisions of creatures.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That would be a choice.

You gotta stop talking like you believe in choices or it's obvious this isn't a better description of human behavior.

That is self-contradictory. @Bradskii , to my knowledge, does not deny choice, but the fact that there is choice does not preclude absolute causation.

Can I understand you to believe in mere causation by chance?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The reasons you plant the tree are what determines your action. So, why did you plant it?

A process called reasoning....it's filled with choices to make.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is self-contradictory. @Bradskii , to my knowledge, does not deny choice, but the fact that there is choice does not preclude absolute causation.

Ask him if we are making choices.

If we aren't....that's why you are confused. He can't speak as if he genuinely believes in determinism.

Determinists don't believe you're making choices and it's all an illusion.

If you are making choices between distinct options....that's free will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ask him if we are making choices.

If we aren't....that's why you are confused. He can't speak as if he genuinely believes in determinism.

Determinists don't believe you're making choices and it's all an illusion.

On the contrary. Determinists believe that choices are real, but all 'options' from which we choose (but one) are illusory, though some will state it differently, that only one option ever happens, so why assume the others ever CAN happen?

"Nothing happens in a vacuum"; all things are caused, and in this case, that includes the preferences by which people choose.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is self-contradictory. @Bradskii , to my knowledge, does not deny choice, but the fact that there is choice does not preclude absolute causation.

Can I understand you to believe in mere causation by chance?

See...this part here is either deliberately or accidentally deceptive because he can't avoid talking as if he believes entirely in free will.

He was asked about a choice and decision. He responded....

Of course. She's not going to do something she doesn't prefer.

See? No choice....just preference. If you go to the gas station and decide to buy a coke....it's a preference that created that outcome, not any sort of rational thinking processes arriving at a choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A process called reasoning....it's filled with choices to make.

Reasoning "happens in a vacuum"? If there is no cause, there is no result. Do you assume humans to be little first causes, independent absolutely spontaneous self-existent beings, or, rather, mere residents within a larger reality, subject to the laws of that reality?

 

[Ana the Ist]

On the contrary. Determinists believe that choices are real

If choices are real....then why isn't that free will?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Reasoning "happens in a vacuum"?

No it happens in your brain.

And I certainly don't have to explain this process to you if the entire basis of your argument regresses to "one moment no universe....then big bang uncaused universe".

Get it? You can't explain anything either. These are just descriptions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If choices are real....then why isn't that free will?

Call it what you want. It is, logically, necessarily determined by antecedent causes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Call it what you want. It is, logically, necessarily determined by antecedent causes.

No it isn't...because you haven't clearly distinguished cause from effect.

Can effects be causes and can causes be effects?

What are you really saying? Stuff happens on a timeline?

 

[Mark Quayle]

No it happens in your brain.

And I certainly don't have to explain this process to you if the entire basis of your argument regresses to "one moment no universe....then big bang uncaused universe".

Get it? You can't explain anything either. These are just descriptions.

I agree that these are just descriptions. And no, Big Bang is no explanation, without itself being a result of antecedent cause.

The fact that reasoning happens in one's brain does not mean that the reasoning, in every specific, is uncaused. In fact, I'd rather think that if anything is uncaused, it cannot happen in the brain of mere residents of a larger reality.

But logic is our policeman. If we step outside of logic with our reasoning, the disorganized chaos resulting proves nothing and doesn't even offer viable options from which to choose. (I'm beginning to wonder where you think even the options come from.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

No it isn't...because you haven't clearly distinguished cause from effect.

Can effects be causes and can causes be effects?

What are you really saying? Stuff happens on a timeline?

Cause and effect on a temporal timeline is ok, I don't deny it. But I don't think it depends on temporal sequence. But that's another argument.

Yes, as far as I know, all effects are also causes, and all causes are effects of [antecedent] causes, except First Cause. It may be provable that within 'temporal reality' --whatever that is-- the very last effects are not yet causes, but 'so far' I disagree with that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The fact that reasoning happens in one's brain does not mean that the reasoning, in every specific, is uncaused.

Or we could describe it as the effect of something....because there's a near total overlap of the concepts of cause and effect. You would need to know every possible cause to understand every possible effect. Can you know every possible cause? Absolutely not. Whatever you don't know you don't know.

So we can drop all discussion of cause and effect and simply say that it appears people make free will choices. They choose to do things for various reasons....many they do not even prefer or actively dislike or detest.

That's free will. It is a pointless exercise to hope to understand every underlying cause.

In fact, I'd rather think that if anything is uncaused, it cannot happen in the brain of mere residents of a larger reality.

If you're allowing for uncaused events....then I certainly don't have to describe free will in cause and effect terms.

But logic is our policeman.

No...it's not...logic has gaping holes and paradoxes. You don't know what you're saying.