Free will and determinism

partinobodycular said:

Sorry that it took me so long to respond, but the weather here is finally starting to get somewhat pleasant, which means that I'll probably be around less and less frequently in the coming days. Just an FYI.



If so it's my fault.



Ah, this is where it's my fault, because I haven't really gotten to the free will part yet. All of the preceding was simply to point out that even though I had no conscious control over how I remember things, or what I like the taste of, or all of my idiosyncrasies and biases, those are still a part of me, created totally inside my genetically created brain. But they're still me, just the subconscious and deterministic part of me.

Now we have to get to the free will bit. That's that tiny little part of my brain that sits in the prefrontal cortex and assimilates all of those subconsciously created memories and biases into what I think of as me. The real life, honest to goodness, self-aware entity that's currently struggling to explain free will. That's me. All of that other stuff is just support structure that I call upon from time to time, but normally just operates in the background. 'ME' that's the assimilation of all of that deterministic stuff into this amazing person that we all know and love.

But let's get back to that coffee. Most times when given a choice of morning beverage it's a pretty easy decision, your subconscious memories and biases are in complete agreement. You prefer coffee. Period. End of story. So coffee it is. No deep contemplation required. No waste of valuable mental resources. Just, I'll have coffee. But as you may or may not recall, a while back we introduced the scenario in which your wife has been 'suggesting' to you lately that perhaps you might think about trying something different every once in a while. Nudge, nudge as she sips on her Earl Grey. So this time, attached to that 'You prefer coffee' memo is a post-it-note that simply reads 'nudge, nudge', and a wee little voice that says we've done our job, from here on the decisions on you. This is the point where all of that deterministic stuff counts for diddly, and it comes down to whatever the heck the conscious part of you decides to do.

This is where the nobler, more conscientious part of Bradskii steps in and asks for a replay of that whole nudge, nudge scene. Ehhh, but then again you really do prefer the taste of coffee. But you don't want to seem as though you're simply dismissing that nudge, nudge either. What to do, what to do?

It's this contemplative process that separates simple rote decisions from free will choices. Remember, that subconscious, deterministic process has already done its job, it's outta here. At this point it's an entirely conscious process. An open debate between you and you. You can ask for a transcript or a replay of previous events, but in the end, the decision's entirely on you. So if we're gonna assign the blame to something, who do you think it should be, those convenient preceding conditions, or you, the conscious being who's actively making the decision?

Please, explain to me (through your complete frustration) how that's not free will.

Click to expand...

I know it seems like your wrestling around with it in your mind, and the exact timing of when and what you would ultimately choose is being done or chosen by you, but it's not really.

But your going back and forth about it in your mind, and you apparently weighing/calculating or contemplating your different options, that whole process in those very moments is still just one thought that is being caused by something prior, which itself is always being caused/triggered by something prior, triggering or causing another or the next thought or whatever, and it is already all foreknown/pre-planned, and is not being done/chosen by you, and it only ever has just one path, etc.

And the exact time of when you will ultimately choose is not being done or chosen/decided by you either, but it is all already always foreknown/predestined/preplanned by something not you already always, etc, and that was already done by something not you a long, long time ago already, etc. And what also, etc. What is ultimately chosen is not ever being done by you either, but it is all already foreknown/foreordained/predestined/preplanned/caused by something that isn't/wasn't you a long, long time ago already, etc.

You don't have to call it a God or a sentient being if you don't want to, but it does go all the way back to when the very first particles were very first set in motion though probably, etc.

Take Care.

Bradskii said:

You'll carry on as before. Except that maybe you'll spend some more time considering how we think about punishment? That's up to you. It's all that's changed for me.

Then again, some people do not like the idea at all. They consider it horrifying. And they therefore deny it. Notwithstanding that some Christians believe that God gave them free will. But some Christians (as we've seen in this thread) don't consider a lack of free will to contradict their faith. Something you'll have to take up with them. I have no input on that.

Again, nothing will change. Life will go on.

Click to expand...

I see. For me, the way in which punishment should be cited and meted out depends on whether a perp is the Pimp or the Prostitute, metaphorically speaking.

Bradskii said:

If the only options are to punish or rehabIlitate, which do you choose?

Click to expand...

That's easy; we should choose to punish the Pimp and rehabilitate the Prostitute, and definitely not get these two positions confused or reversed.

Bradskii said:
Yes. I agree again. My dislike for Earl Grey is part of my make up. I didn't decide to dislike it. I simply don't like the taste. I have no choice in the matter. I can't change that. Something internal to me has determined it. Which is the point I am making. And apparently one with which you agree. But you seem to believe that because it's an inbuilt preference then that somehow implies free will.

partinobodycular said:

Ah, this is where it's my fault, because I haven't really gotten to the free will part yet. All of the preceding was simply to point out that even though I had no conscious control over how I remember things, or what I like the taste of, or all of my idiosyncrasies and biases, those are still a part of me, created totally inside my genetically created brain. But they're still me, just the subconscious and deterministic part of me.

Now we have to get to the free will bit. That's that tiny little part of my brain that sits in the prefrontal cortex and assimilates all of those subconsciously created memories and biases into what I think of as me. The real life, honest to goodness, self-aware entity that's currently struggling to explain free will. That's me. All of that other stuff is just support structure that I call upon from time to time, but normally just operates in the background. 'ME' that's the assimilation of all of that deterministic stuff into this amazing person that we all know and love.

Click to expand...

Just a by-the-way: Even if @Bradskii is wrong, there, it makes no difference as to whether "free will" is valid, according to the definition of the OP.

That "ME" no matter how far down the road the can gets kicked, is still caused.

I don't know whether you agree or not, actually, but you may have here described the ability to will, but by ontology, what a person is, that person is caused. Therefore, whatever proceeds from that person is caused.

Bradskii said:

You'll carry on as before. Except that maybe you'll spend some more time considering how we think about punishment? That's up to you. It's all that's changed for me.

Then again, some people do not like the idea at all. They consider it horrifying. And they therefore deny it. Notwithstanding that some Christians believe that God gave them free will. But some Christians (as we've seen in this thread) don't consider a lack of free will to contradict their faith. Something you'll have to take up with them. I have no input on that.

Again, nothing will change. Life will go on.

Click to expand...

You are being presumptuous. Disagreeing with your premises is not a simple matter of disliking your conclusion. Your premises negate free will from the start, but they are horrifying. They are based on pure materialism. The fact that many philosophers have come to different definitions of “free will” or “liberty” indicates that your premises are not universally accepted. There is nothing wrong with your logic if the premises are accepted, but a purely materialistic world view may not be the only reality.

I might add that every form of communism is based on materialism. I have lived in two countries under communism, and it is horrifying. Pure materialism is also possible under capitalism and it isn’t much better.

Bradskii said:

No, they don't. Well, I say 'they' but it's only one. For every event, there was a cause. The premise is that existence is deterministic. It's an inductive statement, so can't be proved. But you can easily disprove. Just 'find the black swan'. On the other hand IF that premise is accepted, then it leads to one of two positions. Compatibilism, whereby free will is compatible with determinism and free will exists. Of incompatibilism, where it isn't.

Me taking the latter position is just that. It's my position. I haven't proved anything and the field is wide openfor anyone at all to argue the former. And in over 4,000 posts, no-one has even attempted to do that.

So I'm calling bulldust that my premise (determinism) negates free will. The question for you now becomes:

1. Do you accept determinism?
2. If so, explain your position on compatibilism.
3. If not, explain how there can be an effect without a cause.

Then you're at position 3. Explain it.

Click to expand...

There can’t be effect without cause under materialism. I’ll go with the concepts of Hobbs, Hume, Decartes, and possibly Locke that accept the metaphysical part of human beings.

Bradskii said:

Good grief. Please don't tell me that's going to be your answer.

Communism is based on materialism.
Communism is horrifying.
Determinism is a materialistic concept.
Therefore I must be right in denying it.

It's not actually the worst argument I've read this week. But it's close. Then again, the bar in this forum is set very low indeed.

Click to expand...

It is not an argument. You dismiss those who disagree with you based on liking or disliking the conclusion. You are degrading those who disagree as though it is only on merely feelings. I was simply pointing out what the results of pure materialism have been and why it is horrifying. Your disrespectful and misleading response cuts no ice with me.

Bradskii said:

If it could be shown to you that rehabilitation considerably reduces the chance of someone reoffending, would that change your choice?

Click to expand...

Sure. I'd love to know what it takes to rehab and reincorporate a serial predator................

Bradskii said:

So..you're saying that there was an antecedent condion that determined my choice.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm saying that evolution hates wasting energy, and conscious decisions require a lot of energy, so whenever possible... if the conditions are overwhelmingly in favor of one particular outcome, or are strictly habitual, then the brain simply doesn't raise the decision making process to the level of requiring conscious contemplation.

But when it does, that contemplative process is often very, very short... like coffee or Earl Grey... duh. That's the entire process. But then sometimes the thought process is much more intense, and can require an extended period of deeper review. It's at that point that all of that deterministic stuff, about the fact that you like the taste of coffee pretty much goes out the door, we're now into something a whole lot less straight forward. Perhaps it'll be something emotional, or a memory, or a thought about what's right and what's wrong, or how much you love your wife. But the point is that your mind is going to actively go through the options, and then choose the one that it prefers. Exactly how or why it does that is a mystery, but the deterministic explanation left the station a while ago. All that it did was present you with the options... it didn't actually choose one.

Which gets us to part two of free will. How does my mind go about making that conscious choice, and was that predetermined? In a way it was... I'm me, and whole lot of things that I had no control over went into making me me. All of those memories, emotions, and biases etc. that we talked about earlier, they're what go into making the unique individual that I am now, but there was also a whole lot of contemplation done along the way too. 'I' didn't happen without a whole lot of my conscious input. I can't step back now and claim that I had nothing to do with it, because I was actually there, contemplating my choices through the entire process. And then living through the results. There's a whole lot of the conscious me in me, not just blind determinism.

So there are two ways in which determinism affects my choices, by selecting the available options, like the coffee that I like versus the wife that I like, and then by influencing the development of the thing that's actually going to make that choice... good ol' conscious me. But you have to keep in mind that during the development of that decision making me, I was there contemplating the choices and living through the consequences every step of the way. So there's a whole lot of conscious me in me, it's not just predetermination.

Hence the existence of my will. But what makes it free is that it's going to make that choice however it sees fit. And because it wasn't just a helpless passenger in this whole endeavor, it was actively involved every step of the way. A lifetime of making choices and living through the consequences, that's how you get a me with free will.

Now I'm off to enjoy some sunshine.

Bradskii said:

Now I love the stuff. But at no time did I ever choose to. It was the result of all those conditions occuring as and when they did. Which is exactly why we all make all our choices

Click to expand...

You're right, all of those things resonated with you, but as motivating as they were it still took good old conscious Bradskii to make that choice. I guess that you're just a softy for a poetic turn of phrase. Hmmm, now how do we get you to do that with Earl Grey?

Bradskii said:

I didn't ask if you wanted to know how it was done. I asked that if there was serious evidence for a very steep drop in recidivism for serious criminals by aiming to convert them from their evil ways to be useful members of society rather than simply subjecting them to hard core punishment, would you change your mind.

Click to expand...

And I didn't say that I wasn't open to whatever evidence you feel you have to shoulder that explanatory burden. Besides, didn't Jesus say to his disciples (which however far down the line I am in time and cultural proximity from Jesus) that we should "Love our enemies"? I think I've stated more than once here on CF that I value empathy to whatever degree I can.

At the same time, being the interdisciplinary guy I am, I don't see a firm line dividing method from theory, so you'll just have to stomach my own determined mode of engagement with the invitation to enjoin myself to evolutionary psychology you've offered with alacrity.

Bradskii said:

The question obviously boils down to: All things considered, do you prefer retribution or rehabilitation.

Click to expand...

I don't see a need to show a preference, as if they are somehow exclusive of one another. They aren't.

At the end of the day, do I think that a serial murderer who would be given a second and third chance by society via episodes of rehabilitation but who then goes on to murder again should be given roses, chocolate, wine and a dandy apartment in which to live, with cable t.v.?

Nah. Really, it's not about my preference at all. My preference, like my vote, doesn't matter. Only actual full outcomes matter.

Bradskii said:

And please, no trite questions along the lines of 'Well, what you want if some degenerate massa cred your family?'

Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking that, but thanks for the implication that I may have been doing so. Sometimes, it seems you really do underestimate me.

So, no evidence then?