Free will and determinism

[Ana the Ist]

If I gave you that impression I did so by mistake. I do not claim there is any single cause for any unique choice. I am curious where you found me asserting that.

Well it would have to be....otherwise, if one cause can create multiple outcomes, I must be choosing those outcomes.

Hence, free will.

Maybe if you can see what I'm saying above this, that there are multiple causes, and not "a single cause", this objection can be dismissed.

Multiple causes, multiple choices.

That's why I asked you to list some.

Again, I don't claim to know all the causes

Of course you don't....it's a terrible description of human behavior. It's not worth considering.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That statement stands on its own. We all know what it means.

Is it an option?

We need dig no deeper.

You must believe slaves preferred slavery.

 

[partinobodycular]

No, we don't.

'I prefer to not get shot in the head'.

That statement stands on its own. We all know what it means. We all understand why it makes sense. We all know that it would be a pretty big consideration if I'm making a decision that includes that as an option. That's it. We don't need to dig any deeper into the mysteries of the mind to understand the process of choosing whether to get shot or get a pizza.

Yeah, the conscious mind is a pretty easy thing to take for granted... until you ain't got one.

In other words, you're using your conscious mind, which you have no idea about how it works, to form an argument about the unimportance of how it works.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How is making a choice based on your preferences of the options available 'magic'?

Because we don't always choose what we prefer.

I am participating in this thread after all.

It's so obviously how we operate that it is absolutely beyond me how anyone can possibly deny it.

Because it's obvious people prefer options they may choose not pursue.

It's how we operate even if we all agreed that free will existed.

Not really.

And all anyone has to do to disprove it is give an example of someone making a decision that either wasn't based on antecedent conditions

What decision are you talking about? I'd have to be alive to make a decision....is that an "antecedent condition"?

Obviously.

Nobody describes free will this way. It's unfalsifiable and unprovable and entirely worthless.

or wasn't what they preferred.

Lot's of preferences are regularly delayed or ignored or put off simply for whatever must be done.

It’s a ridiculous notion to claim we only do what we prefer to do....as if we never have to consider needs over preferences.

What actually is a mystery, what really is magic is dualism.

Dualism?

And you might take note that absolutely no-one, in nearly 3,000 posts in a thread about free will where the only two choices are effectively that we don't have it or there's a form of dualism at work, has made the slightest attempt to support it.

Do you mean "compatibalism"?

Determinists call a synthesis of free will and Determinism "compatibalism"....which is basically a nullification of Determinism or admission we don't need it.

 

[partinobodycular]

'I prefer to not get shot in the head'.

You do realize that this statement is relative, and that somehow you have to weigh this option against all the other possible options. And I'm fairly confident that you're gonna use your conscious mind to do that.

But remind me again, just how unimportant the conscious mind is in this process.

 

[partinobodycular]

It's been determined at least back to the Big Bang. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be able to work backwards to that point (what caused this, and then what caused that, and what then caused that etc etc).

For the most part this is completely irrelevant. We're concerned with what happens when determinism encounters a conscious mind, and how you plan to demonstrate that that determinism still holds.

 

[Bradskii]

In other words, you're using your conscious mind, which you have no idea about how it works, to form an argument about the unimportance of how it works.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Your car allows you to get where you want to go. You don't need an exact understanding of how an internal combustion engine works to appreciate what it does. All we need to know is that it enables you to get from A to B.

Your consciousness allows you to make decisions. You don't need an exact understanding of how consciousness works to appreciate what it does. All we need to know is that it enables you to ruminate on the known options that you have and make said decisions.

I assume that you're not implying that there is something within the hard problem of consciousness that is yet to be discovered that allows you to make decisions based on nothing at all. If that was the case then we'd be able to see examples of that happening. We wouldn't know what the process was (yet to be discovered) but we'd be able to see the results.

The problem is that you have no examples of that happening. So it would be something of a waste of time proposing an unknown process which doesn't produce the results for which you might suggest it exists.

 

[Bradskii]

You do realize that this statement is relative, and that somehow you have to weigh this option against all the other possible options. And I'm fairly confident that you're gonna use your conscious mind to do that.

But remind me again, just how unimportant the conscious mind is in this process.

I haven't said that the conscious mind is unimportant. You obviously need one to enable you to make decisions. What I did say is that we don't need to understand the hard problem of consciousness for that process to occur.

 

[Bradskii]

For the most part this is completely irrelevant. We're concerned with what happens when determinism encounters a conscious mind, and how you plan to demonstrate that that determinism still holds.

Determinism sets up the situation. It sets up the conditions. Where you are, the weather, your mood - literally everything. Use any example you like and we can see it happening. The conscious mind then selects the options that it prefers. That's non debatable, otherwise you'd be nonsensically arguing that you prefer something which you don't prefer.

Now if you want to suggest that determinism could somehow affect the decision making process in some way that you could then make a choice based on nothing, a decision that wasn't based on any antecedent conditions, then you could give an example of that happening. But you can't, because it doesn't.

Again, you are proposing a process which doesn't produce the results for which you say it exists. That's a waste of everyone's time.

 

[partinobodycular]

I assume that you're not implying that there is something within the hard problem of consciousness that is yet to be discovered that allows you to make decisions based on nothing at all.

I never said that they were based on nothing at all. You're the one suggesting that that's the only other possible option.

 

[partinobodycular]

What I did say is that we don't need to understand the hard problem of consciousness for that process to occur.

Obviously, we don't need to know how it works in order for it to fulfill its function. But if you want to claim that it's deterministic then you kinda do need to know how it works. Maybe it's probabilistic... can you rule that out without knowing how it works?

 

[Bradskii]

I never said that they were based on nothing at all. You're the one suggesting that that's the only other possible option.

See the op.

 

[Bradskii]

Obviously, we don't need to know how it works in order for it to fulfill its function. But if you want to claim that it's deterministic then you kinda do need to know how it works. Maybe it's probabilistic... can you rule that out without knowing how it works?

What it does is all we are interested in. Not how it works. It selects the option that you prefer. I'm going to have to give you the definition of free will again. From Brittanica:

'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.'

So whatever you propose, if it doesn't 'make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe' then it ain't free will. If it does, you can give me an example.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For the most part this is completely irrelevant. We're concerned with what happens when determinism encounters a conscious mind, and how you plan to demonstrate that that determinism still holds.

Determinism seems to suggest that one day, with enough knowledge, we can find those neural synapses that hold the memory of you dropping a popsicle on the sidewalk during the summer when you were 7. That, or the false memory of it that was actually an episode of Boy Meets World you saw when you were 7. I think we'll learn it doesn't work that way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What it does is all we are interested in. Not how it works. It selects the option that you prefer. I'm going to have to give you the definition of free will again. From Brittanica:

'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.'

So whatever you propose, if it doesn't 'make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe' then it ain't free will. If it does, you can give me an example.

Independently of any prior event or state of the universe makes zero sense. Free will proponents don't argue they can defy gravity and jump across continents. Free will proponents don't argue that they aren't required to be alive to make free will choices.

Free will and moral responsibility | Definition, Theories, & Facts | Britannica

Free will and moral responsibility, also called problem of moral responsibility, the problem of reconciling moral responsibility with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined. It is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle.

www.britannica.com

This is why every determinist looks like they don't actually believe in free will. There's no version of moral responsibility that doesn't require free will....and every time you complain people are being stubborn because they disagree, you're acknowledging that you fundamentally believe they have the free will to choose and judging them as if they do....beliefs that should be absent in any true/honest determinist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Obviously, we don't need to know how it works in order for it to fulfill its function. But if you want to claim that it's deterministic then you kinda do need to know how it works. Maybe it's probabilistic... can you rule that out without knowing how it works?

You don't even need to understand the problem of hard consciousness.

Consider just one aspect of it...like abstraction. Why would we be able to consider possibilities that don't currently exist in the universe? At some point....the Wright bros. decided to make a flying machine....despite no such thing ever existing or any genuine understanding of how to make it work.

Yet somehow, "determinism" made this happen? Prior existing causes? Which ones? The many failed flying machines attempted before them?

Determinism would have to include the ability to consider the possibility of things never experienced. Theory of bacterium for another example....somehow constructed without any ability to see or observe or experience a bacteria. Widely rejected by scientific minds for centuries before anyone saw a bacterial life form.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The conscious mind then selects the options that it prefers.

The entire field of psychology would debate against this. It's not an explanation of anything.

Now if you want to suggest that determinism could somehow affect the decision making process in some way that you could then make a choice based on nothing,

Making a choice on nothing is a nonsense statement.

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 act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

a decision that wasn't based on any antecedent conditions, then you could give an example of that happening.

That's like saying you can only exist if it's independent of a body. It's a goofy nonsense requirement for determinism to hold up. Nobody with a good description of anything has to redefine the alternative out of possibility.

If determinism claims we don't make choices and are fated to do anything we do, then all that's required to disprove it is the possibility of a second choice happening.

Again, you are proposing a process which doesn't produce the results for which you say it exists.

Free will is clearly the better description of human behavior since nobody, even determinists....can avoid acting as if they do believe in free will.

 

[CoreyD]

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.

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?

Do you mean the definition you pulled from a philosophical worldview?
I already responded to that.
Free will is not defined based on a philosophical view, or doctrine.
Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.

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.

You did not explain anything.
You merely made assertions which you cannot support, and it's obvious you still can't by this response.
I am not asking you to repeat your assertion, which I responded to. I'm pointing out to you how your assertion is misplaced - a fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

It does not matter the amount of times you repeat yourself, you can never change the fact that thousands who prefer to be with their family, rather than out there facing death, and killing, and seeing dead bodies, and exploding limbs.
They do not choose what they prefer, and so, it is a fact people do not always do what they prefer, contrary to your assertion.

If I am wasting your time by clearly showing that your OP and argument is flawed, that would only be due to your wanting to run your thread forever, without admitting that it's a red herring.
One hundred and fifty pages, is enough time to wrap it up, don't you think... especially in light of the fact that it's been repeatedly shown up for what it is.

 

[CoreyD]

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

Give us a break. After 100 pages, it's expected that we will forget, or be distracted.
After all, we are only human, and knocking our heads against brick can cause loss of focus.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would like to address the matter of whether determinism excludes the possibility of making decisions.

It's unclear why we don't simply call these choices. After all....it's rather meaningless to say that it allows for decisions, but not choices. It's unclear why all choices simply become preferences when you may obviously prefer one thing, but pursuing preferences is suggesting that you don't want to do anything else which is possible.

I maintain that it is relatively self-evident that it does not. A computer program, which I assume we will agree is completely deterministic, can make decisions

How?

A computer isn't capable of consideration. It's a series of interconnected switches that requires a prompt. Once the prompt is given...the output will be created. It's also entirely possible for the exact same prompt to be given....and a different outcome to occur because of a malfunctioning switch. I doubt you'd call that free will.

- based on input and the logic of the program and the data it is fed, it may produce different outputs that, in turn, can affect the world (for example, if the program is inside a robot). Are these not decisions?

No. Does it potentially give different outputs because of free will?

On the other hand, if you define a decision as necessarily entailing free will or some element of indeterminism, that's another story.

It simply means a choice between two or more possibilities being made. If the other possibilities could be made under the same circumstances....I don't see why they can't, after all, if they can't....they weren't possibilities. They would need to be possible. I could argue that by the "iron law of possibilities" any possible choice must inevitably be possible within the same circumstances or it's not a possibility. One must wonder then why anyone would ever need to consider possibilities.

I suggest that a decision occurs anytime processing of information produces an impact on the world. I see no case that decisions cannot occur in a fully deterministic world.

There aren't any decisions being made.

Consider this....it's a provable fact that memory fills in gaps automatically with nonexistent information. That is....our memories fade over time and also create fictional events. If a computer can do this to fulfill whatever prompt is given....then you could say the computer is making decisions.