Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

On the other hand if determinism is true... but with limitations, than there may be circumstances that fall outside of the normal deterministic framework.

Hey, this might be interesting. Give an example of such a circumstance and we'll investigate it.

 

[Fervent]

Hey, do you see the signpost on the route you're heading? It's says 'Warning. Dualism Ahead'.

And that's a problem because...?

So consciousness isn't a result of the physical operation of the brain. So can you then explain how consciousness comes to be? Where is exists? How it interacts with physical matter? How it makes decisions with no influences from...what was the term...antecedent conditions?

This is good. Now you have to contribute something positive to the discussion.

Not being able to explain it isn't really an issue, since I see no reason to suspect that all of the mysteries of reality are accessible to explain. I can just take both at face value and worry about the ramifications.

Though, just so we're clear, I'm a neutral monist since I don't believe either physical or mental phenomenon have ontological priority.

 

[Bradskii]

And that's a problem because...?

It can't be explained.

Not being able to explain it isn't really an issue...

It's why I asked all those questions - to indicate all the aspects of it that can't be explained. It's not possible. So just give an example of this dualism that is able to make decisions on your behalf.

 

[Fervent]

I've given enough examples. You asked, yet again, for proof. It cannot be proved. Shall I count the number of times that you have been told?

You've danced around with preferences and other minutiae that doesn't actually address the causal relationships except by way of assumption.

Determinism is a trivial fact built into the definition of determinism? You are not making any sense at all.

Under determinism its trivially true that free will is an illusion, because determinism requires no introduced causes.

Again, you are not making any sense. I have made an assertion. And then given reasons for it. Saying 'if you can't give a reason beyond the assertion' is nonsensical English. It literally makes no sense.

You haven't given reasons for the assertion, you've given your model of decision making from that assertion. You don't seem to understand the question of warrant and argue like a lawyer arguing from a conclusion rather than an investigator trying to find the best fit no matter what uncomfortable truths it requires. If your only recourse is assertion, then all I need to do is offer a counter assertion.

I have absolutely no idea what you're doing in this thread. Honestly. You've added nothing to the conversation whatsoever.

If you say so.

 

[Fervent]

It can't be explained.

And that's a problem because...?

It's why I asked all those questions - to indicate all the aspects of it that can't be explained. It's not possible. So just give an example of this dualism that is able to make decisions on your behalf.

Make decisions on my behalf? What kind of nonsense statement is that? Seems to me it would apply more to your position claiming the physical is all that matters in decision making, since my view of myself includes as basic necessity my free will. I'd rather have no explanation but accept reality as it presents itself to me than have a bad explanation that forces me to accept absurdities like the notion that free will is an illusion.

 

[Bradskii]

Under determinism its trivially true that free will is an illusion, because determinism requires no introduced causes.

What on earth does that mean? What does 'determinism requires no introduced causes'. It makes no sense. It's like you're stringing words together at random. Determinism is cause and effect. What 'introduced causes' can you possible mean. Explain that.

And then you can give me an example of this dualism that is able to make decisions on your behalf. No need to explain how it works if it's beyond you. An example will do just fine and we'll investigate.

 

[Fervent]

What on earth does that mean? What does 'determinism requires no introduced causes'. It makes no sense. It's like you're stringing words together at random. Determinism is cause and effect. What 'introduced causes' can you possible mean. Explain that.

It means that determinism requires an unbroken chain of historic causes to explain every future event. So there can't be new causes that are not fully explained by the historic causes. On the other hand, free will agency requires the ability for novel causes, even if there are still historic influences. So introduced causes just means new causes independent from the historic causal chain. And the shell game you play talking about rational considerations in decision making is contrary to physical determinism, because the semantic content isn't relevant to our "choices" except coincidentally if physical determinism is true. Unless you believe that meaning is physical, that is.

And then you can give me an example of this dualism that is able to make decisions on your behalf. No need to explain how it works if it's beyond you. An example will do just fine and we'll investigate.

You repeat "make decisions on your behalf" as if I'm proposing something other than myself that is making the decisions. And it bears repeating I'm not a dualist, I'm partial to either hylomorphism or neutral non-physical monism. But those kinds of questions aren't really all that relevant to the question at hand, the only thing that matters is that if an assertion is good enough for determinism then an assertion is good enough for free will.

 

[Bradskii]

If the physical operations are the whole story, then consciousness makes no contribution.

You are obviously conscious so what you said above plainly means that you think that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain.

Make decisions on my behalf?

Well, someone is making the decisions. Presumably your conscious self. And you have just said that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain. So who is making the decisions? The physical operation of the brain or something else?

I'd rather have no explanation...

I'm not looking for one. It seems to be beyond you, so let's not go there. But I want an example from you to understand exactly what you are talking about. If making a decision is not part of the physical operation of the brain, then give me an example of what you mean and we'll investigate it to see where and how it does occur.

I mean, you do make decisions. Just give me an example.

 

[Bradskii]

It means that determinism requires an unbroken chain of historic causes to explain every future event. So there can't be new causes that are not fully explained by the historic causes.

Everything is cause and effect, but suddenly we have a 'new' cause? I have no idea what that means. An uncaused cause? An impossibility. One that we didn't know existed? Whether we know about them or not is irrelevant. So what on earth is a new cause. An example please.

On the other hand, free will agency requires the ability for novel causes, even if there are still historic influences. So introduced causes just means new causes independent from the historic causal chain.

Yes, you said that. So give me an example. I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

You repeat "make decisions on your behalf" as if I'm proposing something other than myself that is making the decisions. And it bears repeating I'm not a dualist...

So the process of making a decision is purely the operation of the brain itself (despite barely 2 posts ago you were implying that consciousness is more than the physical operation of the brain). So that process is the 'you' who is deciding what to do. There is no other 'you' which is not part of the process. Good.

Your posts are all over the place up to this point so how about you confirm that.

 

[Fervent]

You are obviously conscious so what you said above plainly means that you think that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain.

Uh huh....

Well, someone is making the decisions. Presumably your conscious self. And you have just said that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain. So who is making the decisions? The physical operation of the brain or something else?

My will, not "for me" but me. And I don't believe that my physical body is something distinct from myself, but I don't believe that it has ontological priority either. The operations of my brain play a distinct part in my being, but does not tell the whole story.

I'm not looking for one. It seems to be beyond you, so let's not go there. But I want an example from you to understand exactly what you are talking about. If making a decision is not part of the physical operation of the brain, then give me an example of what you mean and we'll investigate it to see where and how it does occur.

First, I'm not proposing something detached from my physical body. But if you'd like to give me an exhaustive explanation of what the physical causes that led to you responding to me in the words that you chose to use and how it wasn't the result of your own deliberative actions but instead nothing but random interactions of physical particles be my guest. For me, whether I can explain it or not I'm going to stick with believing that belief in physical determinism reduces to absurd conclusions that can only be hidden through semantic games.

I mean, you do make decisions. Just give me an example.

Seems to me the onus is on you to show how the decisions I make, any decision, is the result of unconscious physical operations that lead to me having the illusion of making decisions with my free will.

 

[Fervent]

Everything is cause and effect, but suddenly we have a 'new' cause? I have no idea what that means. An uncaused cause? An impossibility. One that we didn't know existed? Whether we know about them or not is irrelevant. So what on earth is a new cause. An example please.

This is nothing but an assertion, cause and effect is a model. But reality seems to include intentionality, not just mechanical relationships.

Yes, you said that. So give me an example. I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

I decided to respond to this post, of my free will. It was not an inevitable result of previous physical causes, but a conscious decision on my part.

So the process of making a decision is purely the operation of the brain itself (despite barely 2 posts ago you were implying that consciousness is more than the physical operation of the brain). So that process is the 'you' who is deciding what to do. There is no other 'you' which is not part of the process. Good.

Never said that, the brain is involved but decisions do not reduce to brain activity. Consciousness is more than the physical operation of the brain, which is obvious because consciousness contains things like meaning and deliberation is not fully explainable purely by describing what is happening chemically and electrically. "I" am not just a composite of physical parts, and "I" cannot be reduced to physical being. I maintain my initial position, you just don't seem to understand what my position is. Because in no way have I claimed that consciousness is nothing but brain activity.

Your posts are all over the place up to this point so how about you confirm that.

 

[Bradskii]

Uh huh....

That was in response to me asking if you think that your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain. I get a thumbs up. Yes, you do. Yet immediately after, I get this:

The operations of my brain play a distinct part in my being, but does not tell the whole story.

You want to play both side. This is not credible...

First, I'm not proposing something detached from my physical body....For me, whether I can explain it or not...

But it's more than the brain. As you literally just said: 'your consciousness is something other than the physical operation of your brain'. But now it's not detached from your body. Any clue where this might be? Nah, none. Any idea how it operates? Nah, none. Any explanation whatsoever? Nah, none.

Seems to me the onus is on you to show how the decisions I make, any decision, is the result of unconscious physical operations that lead to me having the illusion of making decisions with my free will.

The are determined by antecedent conditions. They most definitely aren't uncaused. Which we will now examine.

 

[Bradskii]

I decided to respond to this post, of my free will.

I'll just repost the definition of free will, then I'll ask you a question:

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.

Now the question:

You had two choices effectively. To respond or not respond (and we'll look at the definition of the word you used shortly). You freely chose the former. There was no coercion. Did you choose for no reason at all (i.e. a random choice)? Or was there a purpose?

 

[Bradskii]

I decided to respond to this post...

Now we'll look at what you said you did while you ponder the last question. The definition of respond is:

respond: (of a person) do something as a reaction to someone or something.

Quite reasonable. You respond to somebody or something as a reaction to whatever that something or someone has done or what someone has said. I'll repeat that, 'as a reaction to somebody or something'.

So a response is not a random act out of the blue. It's your reaction to what has happened previously. And now you'll note that it contradicts that portion of the definition of free will I gave above. Being:

'...to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.'

But you didn't make a decision independent of any prior event, did you...you reacted to what I had already written. You responded to my post. That is the only example you have ever given of a freely made choice. And it illustrates exactly what this thread is about.

Maybe you want to try another example? Otherwise...I think we're done.

 

[partinobodycular]

'...to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.'

I vehemently disagree with this definition, but it's your thread so I'll go with it. But just to clarify, let me ask a couple of questions.

Do people have a will?

If so, then what does that will consist of?

 

[Bradskii]

I vehemently disagree with this definition...

Bit late for that. You should have debated the point 3,394 posts ago. In any case, the thread is not 'Do you agree with this definition?' The thread is 'Here is the definition of free will - do you have a problem with determinism as a basis for rejecting it'. If you start debating the latter then it's reasonable to assume that you accept the former. Which is, in any case, a pretty standard definition.

Do people have a will?

If so, then what does that will consist of?

The ability to freely make decisions. That is, without coercion. 'It is my will that I'll go to the gym as opposed to the pub'. We can all agree that we can do that.

 

[partinobodycular]

The ability to freely make decisions. That is, without coercion. 'It is my will that I'll go to the gym as opposed to the pub'. We can all agree that we can do that.

Call me dense, but...

Do people have a will... yes or no

What does that will consist of?

 

[Bradskii]

Call me dense, but...

Do people have a will... yes or no

What does that will consist of?

Well, I'm feeling a little dense now. Didn't I just tell you?

'The ability to freely make decisions. That is, without coercion. 'It is my will that I'll go to the gym as opposed to the pub'. We can all agree that we can do that.'

I didn't really think that if I explained what it does I didn't need to preface it with 'Yes, we have a will'. See here for a very brief rundown on how decision making works: How Does the Brain Make Decisions?

 

[partinobodycular]

The ability to freely make decisions.

Why did you include the word 'freely' in there? Wouldn't it have been sufficient to simply say that it's the ability to make decisions? And then to have opposed that with 'free will', which would be the ability to freely make decisions.

 

[Bradskii]

Why did you include the word 'freely' in there? Wouldn't it have been sufficient to simply say that it's the ability to make decisions? And then to have opposed that with 'free will', which would be the ability to freely make decisions.

I put freely in to distinguish it from coerced. It also implies a conscious decision as opposed to an unconscious one.

'Here's two choices. It's entirely up to you. You are free to choose either.'