Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

This is non-responsive, which isn't surprising given your track record. If your thesis were true, then your belief would be inevitable based on conditions that were in place long before you, or any humans at all, were alive. In order to live in accordance with such a belief, you would have to recognize that you don't make choices but instead merely observe as a passenger as routines are carried out. It's an impossible belief to live as if it were true, so why try? What's supposed to be gained?

I've rarely come across such determination not to address what has been presented. It's there in post 2834.

 

[Bradskii]

I see nothing in these definitions that mentions arguing against choices.

I had a small 'light bulb' moment this morning. People are complaining about a concept which they say restricts their choice. That the universe has determined that they will always choose just the one option irrespective of the number available. That's it's not possible to choose another. They are literally complaining 'If there's no free will I am doomed to always decide to take the option that I prefer!'

Well, yeah. When is that never the case? Whatever you choose, it is, by definition, the one that you prefer. All that remains following the decision is to ask 'Why did you select that one?' And it will either be a totally random choice - a coin toss, in which case no free will. OR there will be reasons why you made it. And the reasons are the cause of the decision. Again, by definition (reason: 'a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event'). The reasons determined the choice.

QED

 

[Fervent]

I've rarely come across such determination not to address what has been presented. It's there in post 2834.

I've already stated why your hypotheticals can be disregarded without consideration. If your position were true, then my belief that it isn't and your belief that it is would be inevitable based on conditions that existed long before you decided to post this thread. It's an impossible belief to live as if its true, and asserting hypothetical situations doesn't make it any more liveable. So what is the purpose of trying to convince yourselves and others that such is the case? Who are you really trying to absolve of responsibility?

 

[Bradskii]

I've already stated why your hypotheticals can be disregarded without consideration. If your position were true, then my belief that it isn't and your belief that it is would be inevitable based on conditions that existed long before you decided to post this thread. It's an impossible belief to live as if its true, and asserting hypothetical situations doesn't make it any more liveable. So what is the purpose of trying to convince yourselves and others that such is the case? Who are you really trying to absolve of responsibility?

This your position: 'If there's no free will I am doomed to always decide to take the option that I prefer!'

Horrifying, isn't it...

And change it from a hypothetical if you like (I know you have problems with them). Give us two options you had earlier today and tell us which one you chose (spoiler alert: it'll be the one that you preferred) and we'll examine the process.

 

[Fervent]

This your position: 'If there's no free will I am doomed to always decide to take the option that I prefer!'

You're diverting again, but I'll play along. How would I prefer anything? Would those preferences not also be built on antecedent causes? What do "I" contribute to the picture, other than being a victim of fatalistic powers?

Horrifying, isn't it...

And change it from a hypothetical if you like (I know you have problems with them). Give us two options you had earlier today and tell us which one you chose (spoiler alert: it'll be the one that you preferred) and we'll examine the process.

It's not the hypotheticals I have problems with, it's that your claim requires knowing things that you can't possibly know. Which is why rather than trying to defend it, you engage in diversions that presume it to be the case. So why do you never answer my questions? Why do you instead try to divert the conversation to misleading hypotheticals?

 

[Bradskii]

You're diverting again, but I'll play along. How would I prefer anything?

That seems something of a nonsensical question. You will decide that. Remember that free will doesn't exclude making decisions. Happy with that?

Would those preferences not also be built on antecedent causes?

Of course. What else could they be based on? You have to base your decisions on something. Agreed?

What do "I" contribute to the picture

Those antecedent causes will include you. Your knowledge, your mood, your intelligence, your physiological make up...literally everything about you. You're the one making the choice. If you're in a bad mood you might make a different decision than if you were in a good mood. If you are hungry you might make a different one than if you were satiated. If you're drunk, depressed, intelligent, sick...it's ll part of the mix. But it's up to you. You choose. But what you choose (spoiler alert again) will always be what you prefer. Thumbs up on that aspect?

Now I'm sure that all that seems quite straight forward:
You make the decision.
It's based on all the antecedent conditions.
The decision is what you prefer to do.

 

[partinobodycular]

You have to base your decisions on something. Agreed?

How is that not free will?

 

[Bradskii]

How is that not free will?

From Britannica: Free will | Definition, Determinism, & Facts | 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.'

If you're making decisions on something, that something must be an 'event or state of the universe'. That will include you as well. Your mood, personality etc.

 

[partinobodycular]

'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.'

I take it that you're interpreting 'independently of' to include 'influenced by'. But I'd proffer that the things influencing the choice are separate from the thing making the choice, rather than them being one and the same thing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This appears to be some doublespeak. What does it mean to be "logically before" but not temporally before, in the context of choice and determinism? Either our "choices" are set by some prior condition(be that inviolable physical laws or the decree of some superbeing) or we may choose freely what path we'll take. Arguing for determinism necessitates denying authentic choice and instead renders 'choices" illusory.

Would you say that God did not exist before he 'invented' time? Or do you place God as only another resident within time? God even 'invented' cause-and-effect, with himself first cause. Time is only a tool, not a governor over God's economy.

It is remarkable that current science is questioning the constancy of time. Their thinking need not depend on time sequence of events, but they have been unable to get away from the logic of causation, because their very pursuit of facts and principles depends on it. It is not doublespeak.

The options (except the ones chosen) are rendered illusory by my thinking. Choice is not rendered illusory. Yours, "renders 'choices' illusory", is the inexact statement. But I expect it was not done purposefully vague, so I won't insult it with the name, "doublespeak". Nevertheless, it was vague, which seems to me to be pervasive in your thinking.

 

[Ana the Ist]

From the POV of mere naturalism, determinism means only that all things are determined by whatever came *logically 'before' via the chains of causation.

What are the chains of causation apart from some nonsense you just made up?

 

[Bradskii]

I take it that you're interpreting 'independently of' to include 'influenced by'. But I'd proffer that the things influencing the choice are separate from the thing making the choice, rather than them being one and the same thing.

Whut..?

What on earth do you mean by 'the thing making the choice'? You make the choice. Out of all the options that are available you are the one that chooses. A choice which is determined by 'any prior event or state of the universe'.

You decide not to go to be the beach. Because the state of the universe is that it's pouring down with rain. You decide to not go to the beach because a prior event was you falling off a ladder and breaking both legs.

You only make one choice. And it's the one that you prefer. Every single time. You prefer not to get wet. You prefer not to walk on broken legs. You choose not to go to the beach based on, yet again, 'any prior event or state of the universe'. They are called the antecedent conditions. And it's not humanly possible to make a decision that isn't determined by them. It's literally not possible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I had a small 'light bulb' moment this morning. People are complaining about a concept which they say restricts their choice. That the universe has determined that they will always choose just the one option irrespective of the number available. That's it's not possible to choose another. They are literally complaining 'If there's no free will I am doomed to always decide to take the option that I prefer!'

Well, yeah. When is that never the case? Whatever you choose, it is, by definition, the one that you prefer. All that remains following the decision is to ask 'Why did you select that one?' And it will either be a totally random choice - a coin toss, in which case no free will. OR there will be reasons why you made it. And the reasons are the cause of the decision. Again, by definition (reason: 'a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event'). The reasons determined the choice.

QED

Were they actually hoping to choose something they did not choose? Why did they not choose it then? They never do! I say it is their own fault that causation prevails!

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am. How not?

By continually describing things as the result of free will actors instead of just cause and effect.

Descriptive accuracy demands only concise definition. Not implications. You are trying to get across the implications you think mitigate validity of the position. That is not definition.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica

Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot decide or act otherwise than they do.

www.britannica.com

determinism, in [COLOR=var(--link-color)]philosophyhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy and [COLOR=var(--link-color)]science[/COLOR], the [COLOR=var(--link-color)]thesis[/COLOR] that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.[/COLOR]

There's a strange argument. (Neverminding that the dictionary doesn't agree with you.)

Who cares? Were talking about an argument against free will. That's all it is. It doesn't describe human behavior better. It's objectively worse.

Ana the Ist said:
"Free will....true or not....simply works far far far better than cause and effect."
Mark Quayle said:
Not logically, it doesn't. Logically, it is self-contradictory.

Free-will (of your apparent definition) assumes non-causation. 1)

No...I simply reject the entire premise of determinism.

Cause and effect are too vague and basically the same thing to be an argument about free will.

 

[partinobodycular]

You make the choice... ...A choice which is determined by 'any prior event or state of the universe'.

You say 'determined by'... I say 'influenced by'. How do you propose that we determine which of these two is correct?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am. How not?

By continually describing things as the result of free will actors instead of just cause and effect.

Descriptive accuracy demands only concise definition. Not implications. You are trying to get across the implications you think mitigate validity of the position. That is not definition.

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica

Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot decide or act otherwise than they do.

www.britannica.com

determinism, in [COLOR=var(--link-color)]philosophyPhilosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies | Britannica and [COLOR=var(--link-color)]science[/COLOR], the [COLOR=var(--link-color)]thesis[/COLOR] that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.[/COLOR]

There's a strange argument. (Neverminding that the dictionary doesn't agree with you.)

Who cares? Were talking about an argument against free will. That's all it is. It doesn't describe human behavior better. It's objectively worse.

Ana the Ist said:
"Free will....true or not....simply works far far far better than cause and effect."
Mark Quayle said:
Not logically, it doesn't. Logically, it is self-contradictory.

Free-will (of your apparent definition) assumes non-causation. 1)

No...I simply reject the entire premise of determinism.

Cause and effect are too vague and basically the same thing to be an argument about free will.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." --wiki determinism at DuckDuckGo

"determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

Determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica

Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot decide or act otherwise than they do.

www.britannica.com

I see nothing in these definitions that mentions arguing against choices.

Oh ok...I guess words aren't your strong suit.

Choice Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

CHOICE meaning: 1 : the act of choosing the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities; 2 : the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities the opportunity or power to make a decision

www.britannica.com

the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

If it isn't possible....it's not a choice, and since determinism argues....

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

That makes any attempt of judgment of moral responsibility for our actions inherently untenable and entirely wrong.

So just abandon all your morals determinist....nobody is responsible for their actions because they can't make choices.

No. It seems you are avoiding the point. The slaves preferred obedience to the consequences of disobedience.

Seems to me they probably preferred to be free but accepted obedience instead of being punished. Certainly some risked punishment though.

No. I would not need them.

You would.

The fact that the 100 'identical' bottles are each individual bottles testifies to the fact that they are each unique in some way. THAT is enough to recognize that there are at least 100 unique causes for their individuality.

Ok....let's hear em.

You're the one insisting this is a better description of human behavior...don't tell me you're certain 100 unique causes exist without telling me what they could possibly be. I warned you about the "cause of the gaps" argument you'd step into....you stepped in anyway.

Failure to do so is itself an admission that simply describing it as a choice made freely by my will or reason or anything really....is a better description of human behavior.

Of course you'd be making a choice. So what?

Remember when I said you would keep talking as if we are all free will actors?

You're claiming to be a determinist. You don't believe in choice. I'm only choosing 1 and it must have it's distinct cause....not applicable to any other bottles...or I would have another possible choice.

So let's hear these 100 causes.

 

[Bradskii]

Were they actually hoping to choose something they did not choose? Why did they not choose it then? They never do! I say it is their own fault that causation prevails!

It's the reason that I have said on several occasions that if free will exists or it doesn't, then hardly anything changes. Either way, you still make choices. Either way, you still choose that which you prefer. Either way, there are still reasons why you made that choice. Either way, those antecedent conditions still apply. Either way, you are still responsible for that choice. *

But...there is this need that some people have to take themselves out of the process. To effectively have this small voice in their head remove itself from the universe in order to maintain a sense of control: 'I am free to make any decision I like'. Except that you will always choose that which you prefer. As you said, do they really want to choose something they don't prefer? If they have free will then they can.

I'd love for someone to give us an example (although if one is forthcoming, I guarantee it will confuse wanting with preferring and I'll have to explain the difference yet again).

* I should expand on this as I expect some push back. I'll make it personal.

I was reversing out of my drive last year. I won't go into details of how careful I do this each and every time but suffice to say I took all precautions that a reasonable person could be expected to take. But...there was an elderly gentleman crossing the road and he was in my blind spot and the side of the car came into contact with him. He fell and was injured. I guess I was extremely lucky as someone of that age falling can suffer very serious injuries indeed. Anyway, I was charged with a driving offence and had to appear in court.

Now I had done everything I could have done to reverse safely, as I have done safely many thousands of times. But it happened anyway. Things just turned out the wrong way. I told the court all that I had done as a reasonable driver should have done and in my opinion it was an accident in the true sense of the word. But I pleaded guilty. Because I was responsible.

The antecedent conditions were such that the accident was inevitable. The exact time the guy was crossing, the exact point he crossed, the angle of my car etc etc etc. But I was still responsible.

Now, should the magistrate take into account those antecedent conditions? Yes, she should. And she did. She accepted that I wasn't what one might say criminally negligent, but I was indeed responsible. And that is generally the only change that a realisation that free will doesn't exist will make. You'll be aware of the reasons why someone chose as they did and acted as they did, and quite often they would have had no control over those reasons. They will still be responsible for their actions, but you can take into account those 'mitigating circumstance' to a greater extent than you would normally.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And the reasons are the cause of the decision. Again, by definition (reason: 'a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event'). The reasons determined the choice.

QED

This is funny.

Reasons don't exist outside your head. They're created through a process your brain engages in called reasoning. It can involve a rational or irrational consideration of known possible choices and unknown or uncertain possible choices and the outcomes of each.

The reason you create in your mind isn't obviously predetermined....as it doesn't necessarily exist outside your mind.

It's exactly this process that gives us the ability to choose between choices....real or imagined. Free will choices.

 

[Bradskii]

You say 'determined by'... I say 'influenced by'. How do you propose that we determine which of these two is correct?

'free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions without the decision being determined or influenced by any prior event or state of the universe.'

Determined would mean 'that which caused X'. Influenced would mean 'that which has an effect on X'. So the fact that it's raining will have an influence on your decision to go to the beach. If you then decide not to go because it's raining then that fact determined your choice.