Free will and determinism

[CoreyD]

I had thought this was obvious. He chooses from apparent options. Though even that representation is more 'free-will' friendly than is warranted. He actually chooses according to what he prefers, and it is simple as that. It is the self-determinist that insists on independence from causation.

Duty calls.
The soldier prefers to go to the battle field, rather than be with his family.
In other words, he always does what he prefers.

You are that soldier.
Please tell your wife and children that you prefer to be on the battle field, rather than be with them.
Would you do so? Yes or no?

 

[CoreyD]

If your "decisions" are entirely decided by historical causal chains, you haven't made a choice.

You are saying

• we do not make decisions.
• there are options, but no choices.

That throws rationality and reason out the window.

Perhaps you want to reconsider your choice of words, and change your statement to something like... If your "decisions" are entirely decided by historical causal chains, you haven't made a free willed decision..

Just helping you out here. I hope you appreciate it.

 

[CoreyD]

Really? Seems rather disingenuous and snarky. Is there a reason for this misrepresentation?

Even if it was a genuine thought, good reason would produce, "No, it isn't because they prefer to get shot at. It is because they prefer to obey orders", or, "...because they have developed a bloodlust", or, "...because they want to protect their country", or some such thing.

Be careful.
If one grabs a hold of a dogs ears...

I think you missed the point. Did you read the post I am responding to.
What you said here does not changes anything, and I do not see how it applies to what was said.

How does your additions change the argument, if you do not mind explaining.

 

[CoreyD]

Free will doesn't exclude making decisions. I hope I don't have to repeat that yet again.

Perhaps you did not follow what the poster said.
That can happen.
Fervent said:
Free will doesn't exclude making decisions, but determinism does.

You don't have to repeat what posters have already said, if you don't mind me returning the favor of saving you time.
@Fervent understands that. Hence why they said it.

What they are saying is that determinism excludes decisions, since it claims that all decisions are made based on antecedent causes.
However, that's not really what either of you are saying... or more specifically, you.
I think what has happened is that persons have started to use decisions and choices a bit loosely, and have forgotten that subject is free will... not choices.

There is a difference between a choice made by free will, and a choice made by determinism, where the later is what you are arguing for, and claiming that there are no free willed choices.

I hope that helps us be more careful with our choice of words.

 

[CoreyD]

If a computer has an algorithm that processes a given set of data in order to make a choice between a set of available options. Is it the data that made the choice, or the algorithm?

The data determined the algorithm, and therefore the algorithm is fixed, and not free... is the argument.
In other words, the algorithm - you - do not make free choices.

Say for example, an AI, makes a decision based on a combination of data, gathered, and processed, the AI did not freely make a decision of it's own... the data that the AI processes, is what determined the AI's "decision".

As unreasonable as that may sound, that is what you are up against.
I think you know that, anyway, so why am I saying this... I hope you don't mind me talking to myself.

 

[CoreyD]

The algorithm makes the choice based on interpretation of the data. That's exactly what you do.

But the consensus of some people in this thread is that a choice is made and no data is required.

No one in this thread said that.
It's possible to misunderstand though, so perhaps you might want to point to a particular post, to support what you said.
We don't want to just take your word for it, since this is an assertion that could throw persons off track... aka, distract.

They say that they can make a choice that's not based on antecedent conditions. Aka data.

That is a conflation.
Antecedent conditions and data are two different things.

For example, if I find a 20 dollar bill, and I decide to give it to the first person I met, you might say that antecedent conditions led me to that decision, but why assume that, when all I did was process the fact that I have a 20 dollar bill... which I could use, but I made a choice to give it to someone... not knowing if that person needs it, or not.

Why I did it, may have nothing to do with the past.
It would require you... since you are the one making the claim, to prove that I did it because of some past cause.
Since you can't prove it, how does your argument stand? It can't.

It's just an argument standing in midair, with no foundation... no support.
Similar to a claim that's unsupported.
Do you follow.

Maybe you can explain how that happens. Well, I know you can't as it's simply not possible. But I might as well ask to emphasise that.

There is no need, since no one claimed that, so we don't want to get sidetracked, or distracted.
Saving ourselves time is something we agreed on.

 

[CoreyD]

No...it's not. Choices can be entirely irrational.

Sounds like me giving away my 20 dollar bill.

 

[Bradskii]

How so?
Please explain in a coherent way.

How on earth can you make a decision without thinking about the conditions that are relevant to the decision? Please explain that to me. And I mean I really want an explanation.

Why is determining factors in quotations?
Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.

Do you know how many times I've quoted definitions of free will that tell you that making a decision does not indicate free will. I'll not comment on anything that repeats that fallacy. Are we clear?

I did not give examples?
Perhaps, that's an area you can save me some time.
Read the last comment you just responded to, and see if you do not see an example, in there.
.You could also go back a few posts, to this post. There are examples there as well... which you responded to

Again I have to ask how many times I've explained the difference between you wanting to do something and you preferring to do it. I've really lost count. So you are either not reading what I'm writing or ignoring it. Either way, you're wasting my time and I'm not repeating myself again.

 

[Bradskii]

It's the algorithm that's making the choice, and the algorithm is 'Me'... the sum total of all of my past experiences, because only my past experiences can be associated with an outcome.

Good heaven's, no. And again, no. What you are, your character, everything that makes you the person that you are, the long term innate aspects and the momentary feelings that you have are all part of the data. Just as the weather, or the place or the time. It's what is being considered when making the choice. Because it is obviously instrumental in making a decision.

You might be an optimistic person as opposed to a pessimistic one. That will affect the decision making process. It's one of the antecedent conditions. You might be tired, or hungry, or stressed. Those are all part of the sum of antecedent conditions which will influence the decision making process. Which is what your 'algorithm' actually is. It's the neurological process of making that choice.

In passing, if some of the antecedent conditions which are being considered are faulty or incorrect (these are the known ones that you are factoring in) then the decision that you come to might well be the wrong one. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Bradskii]

...change your statement to something like... If your "decisions" are entirely decided by historical causal chains, you haven't made a free willed decision..

I just wonder why no-one else has suggested that. Oh, hang on. It was in the OP...

 

[Fervent]

I'd very strongly suggest that you drop comments implying that I am dishonest if you want to continue this.

When you stop engaging in intellectual chicanery, I'll stop calling out the dishonesty.

 

[Fervent]

@Fervent , at the risk of 'flaming', can you not see the lack of intellectual integrity within your position? You exalt 'what seems like' beyond 'what is simply logical'. That is the way of religious cults and drunkards. (No I am not calling you those things). You seem to be clinging to something beyond the mere discussion, that you fear to lose by admitting to the simple logic of causation. You are right that logic does not explain everything --at least, not to the less than logical human mind-- but in the end, it is still all (the whole construction) logically caused by first cause (or by whatever substitute you wish to come up with).

There is no dishonesty in my position, I take free will at face value and don't pretend to know how the world functions. It's your position that insists some kind of knowledge that you can't possibly have. There's no fear of losing anything, just a recognition that it is impossible to live as if free will is an illusion. You've taken a construct of human imagination, and one that is extremely difficult to actually develop a coherent understanding of based on what has been observed in the univers, and elevated it to absolute truth becaus "it's simply logical." Causal determinism is far from established fact, and if there is one epistemic principle that is universal, it's that if something doesn't make sense it's probably not true. And causal determinism doesn't make sense, which is clear from the way self-designated determinists always try to soft peddle it and assert its truth while at the same time denying it by asserting we make choices. The two are mutually exclusive, unless you believe in causal overdetermination. If the sole sufficient cause(s) of a choice are prior conditions, then the "choice" is superfluous. So don't talk to me about lacking intellectual integrity when you consistently engage in doublespeak and refuse to drink the poison you're trying to peddle.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It doesn't, but it does pose a question... caused by what? If we agree that our choices are the result of a process of contemplating and assessing a given set of external stimuli, then what exactly is this thing that's doing the contemplating and assessing if not me, and aren't the predilections and biases by which it does this also mine?

Yes they are yours, and yes it is you who does the contemplating and assessing. That proves that you have a will, but not that anything is uncaused. You admit here, if I'm reading you right, that our choices are the result of something, acting on external stimuli, (and, I'd say, sometimes deciding about internal thoughts). Can you say that the process of assessing and contemplating is separate from causes? No, you can't. It is you, and you are the result of causes, not to mention that your processes are learned, or instinctive by genetics or perhaps some other cause. No matter which way you turn, there are causes for what you think and do. THUS, the antecedent causes determine all things that follow them. There are no little first causes trotting about the planet.

It seems to me that to argue otherwise is to render the term 'me' meaningless. I may be nothing more than an algorithm over which I have little to no control, processing data and biases over which I also have no control, but at some point those things become conscious, and the overwhelming factor becomes 'This is what "I" prefer'.

I get your angst. It is humbling that you must control your will, because you are responsible for your choices.

Without this autonomy of the mind, the "will" becomes just as nebulous as the "I", but by golly they exist, and don't try to tell me that they don't, otherwise 'cogito ergo sum' goes right out the window.

Not really. You are what you are (and only what you are) and there you are in the middle of being that, no matter how badly you wish you could back away from it to take a better look. Humans consider themselves sentient, but God would laugh!

It might be useful to use, as you did, the term "autonomy" there, but only in the meaning of independence from other humans. That is, that it is YOU who are responsible for your own thoughts and decisions. Determinism doesn't claim otherwise. Your mind is a result of causes, and what your mind does is a result of causes. The independence is not from causes, even though the influence of some causes has to be shrugged off.

 

[Fervent]

There is a difference between a choice made by free will, and a choice made by determinism, where the later is what you are arguing for, and claiming that there are no free willed choices.

Genuine choice can only be free will choices, as under determinism it is simply a lack of knowledge that creates ambiguity and a sensation of "choices" happening. The problem is that several posters are trying to have their cake and eat it to, stating that all of our decisions have sufficient antecedent causes while also attributing agency to human beings. They're ignoring logical challenges such as overdetermination in favor of a rather simplistic model of cause and effect that doesn't really align with what we have learned through empirical exploration.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is no dishonesty in my position, I take free will at face value and don't pretend to know how the world functions. It's your position that insists some kind of knowledge that you can't possibly have.

No. My position insists there are extensive facts (causes, all) that I cannot catalogue. That is all.

There's no fear of losing anything, just a recognition that it is impossible to live as if free will is an illusion.

You don't deal with the definition of the word, "free", here, as I admit is seductive to go with, but I insist on having a definition so that it is clear what we are saying. In the more religious discussions of freewill vs predestination, I do claim we have freedom of will, but that freedom is bound within the necessary fact that we always choose what we most prefer at that moment of decision. So call it freedom or don't, it is not uncaused.

The will is not an illusion, and your will does indeed pertain to you, so it is your will; it is your options that are illusory. Only one will happen, which on the scale of probability, means that only that one could have happened. 'Probability', is OUR view of the events to come. 'Probability' is not fact. So, no matter the means by which decisions are made, the unchosen options could not have been chosen.

You've taken a construct of human imagination, and one that is extremely difficult to actually develop a coherent understanding of based on what has been observed in the univers, and elevated it to absolute truth becaus "it's simply logical."

If you had been born in a far different century, in a different place, I'm guessing you would have a different view of this question. You would probably think that the notion that choices are uncaused would be ridiculous. 'The Gods' run it all.

You say that determinism is construct of the human imagination. Truth is, the abstract thinking about it produces a construction, just as any abstract thinking does. But determinism is the simplest one I know of. It is never denied by facts arraying themselves against it. It is built on perhaps the most obvious of all mental principle and the most easy to describe. "Everything (except first cause) is an effect of other causes." And it is self-evident. It is only those who don't like it that find it difficult. And the only time I have trouble explaining it is when I try to explain it to those who insist on independent self-determinism.

Causal determinism is far from established fact, and if there is one epistemic principle that is universal, it's that if something doesn't make sense it's probably not true. And causal determinism doesn't make sense, which is clear from the way self-designated determinists always try to soft peddle it and assert its truth while at the same time denying it by asserting we make choices. The two are mutually exclusive, unless you believe in causal overdetermination. If the sole sufficient cause(s) of a choice are prior conditions, then the "choice" is superfluous. So don't talk to me about lacking intellectual integrity when you consistently engage in doublespeak and refuse to drink the poison you're trying to peddle.

Uncaused fact (other than the "uncaused causer" (God, or first cause)) is what doesn't make sense. It is self-contradictory, as I have demonstrated. You will find it difficult to go to the science community and tell them that they have been looking the wrong direction all these many years of investigation and accomplishment. The principle of causation is the simplest part of their thinking.

Your tirade will fall on deaf ears when you try to convince them they are doublespeaking since they themselves are making "actual decisions therefore cause-and-effect is not universal after all."

Your assertion that universal causation runs afoul of actual choice remains unproven. What makes me chuckle is that even if you are right about the number of actual options from which to choose, whichever choice you make is still caused!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nobody is arguing otherwise. Gee, I wish you guys would address what is actually being said. And often said very many times.

You are included in the antecedent conditions. You are you because of very many reasons. Your parents, your upbringing, when and where you live, your diet, your IQ...everything about you, much of which you had no control over whatsoever, has gone into making you the person that you are. If a given decision had to be made by someone else then the antecedent conditions are different. Because they are a different person to you. So all other things being equal, they might make a different choice from you.

Again: You represent some of the antecedent conditions which will determine your choices.

Lol, once again it occurs to me that they could maybe support what I believe better than I could, were they so inclined! Some of these things are that obvious.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Genuine choice can only be free will choices, as under determinism it is simply a lack of knowledge that creates ambiguity and a sensation of "choices" happening. The problem is that several posters are trying to have their cake and eat it to, stating that all of our decisions have sufficient antecedent causes while also attributing agency to human beings. They're ignoring logical challenges such as overdetermination in favor of a rather simplistic model of cause and effect that doesn't really align with what we have learned through empirical exploration.

Present, if you don't too much mind, just what AGENCY of willed beings is. Be precise.

 

[Fervent]

No. My position insists there are extensive facts (causes, all) that I cannot catalogue. That is all.

You don't deal with the definition of the word, "free", here, as I admit is seductive to go with, but I insist on having a definition so that it is clear what we are saying. In the more religious discussions of freewill vs predestination, I do claim we have freedom of will, but that freedom is bound within the necessary fact that we always choose what we most prefer at that moment of decision. So call it freedom or don't, it is not uncaused.

The will is not an illusion, and your will does indeed pertain to you, so it is your will; it is your options that are illusory. Only one will happen, which on the scale of probability, means that only that one could have happened. 'Probability', is OUR view of the events to come. 'Probability' is not fact. So, no matter the means by which decisions are made, the unchosen options could not have been chosen.

If you had been born in a far different century, in a different place, I'm guessing you would have a different view of this question. You would probably think that the notion that choices are uncaused would be ridiculous. 'The Gods' run it all.

You say that determinism is construct of the human imagination. Truth is, the abstract thinking about it produces a construction, just as any abstract thinking does. But determinism is the simplest one I know of. It is never denied by facts arraying themselves against it. It is built on perhaps the most obvious of all mental principle and the most easy to describe. "Everything (except first cause) is an effect of other causes." And it is self-evident. It is only those who don't like it that find it difficult. And the only time I have trouble explaining it is when I try to explain it to those who insist on independent self-determinism.

Uncaused fact (other than the "uncaused causer" (God, or first cause)) is what doesn't make sense. It is self-contradictory, as I have demonstrated. You will find it difficult to go to the science community and tell them that they have been looking the wrong direction all these many years of investigation and accomplishment. The principle of causation is the simplest part of their thinking.

Your tirade will fall on deaf ears when you try to convince them they are doublespeaking since they themselves are making "actual decisions therefore cause-and-effect is not universal after all."

Your assertion that universal causation runs afoul of actual choice remains unproven. What makes me chuckle is that even if you are right about the number of actual options from which to choose, whichever choice you make is still caused!

That's an awful lot of words to not say very much. Could have stopped with the first point, because you've stated a metaphysical thesis as if it were a self-evident truth. You admit you can't catalogue all of these supposed causes, so where do you gain knowledge of them? I need not catalogue anything, except my own experience of making decisions. You're stuck on a metaphysical hypothesis that isn't warranted, and in defense of that hypothesis you demean your own experiences. You call it "logic" but it's really not rational in the least, because you must deny having any genuine effect on your own thoughts, beliefs, or actions. It's all just prior causes playing themselves out in your life.

 

[Bradskii]

What they are saying is that determinism excludes decisions, since it claims that all decisions are made based on antecedent causes.
However, that's not really what either of you are saying... or more specifically, you.

I think it's time for someone to explain how they make decisions. I don't think that anyone else is going to do it. So off you go. Explain the process point by point and we'll investigate it. I'll wait here while you think about it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Off topic. Check the OP.

The OP created this thread to support a moral argument lol. I read it, it's not off topic.

I assume by "OP" you mean, "opening poster" (Brad). I copy the OP, "opening post", below. It mentions nothing about morality.

All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences. There has been an effectively infinite chain of events which has resulted in me sitting here writing this sentence. They have all led to this point. From the major events - I was born at a specific time and place, to the minor ones - it's raining today, to the seemingly inconsequential - I broke a string on my guitar last night.

There is no way that existence cannot be described other than determined.

The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else. But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different.

So free will cannot be compatible with determinism. And if existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion.

But, since @Bradskii has since engaged in the question of the applicability of determinism to morality I don't mind. Proceed, and enjoy.

It has already been fun, but I don't understand why y'all who are so adamant still haven't come up with proof for your thesis, that determinism denies actual choice. Y'all've come up with all sorts of shaming, accusations of doublespeak and intellectual dishonesty, and so on, but you still have not supported your thesis.