Atheists and determinism

[Mike Flynn]

I really enjoyed the 'free will' thread that was discussed a week ago or so. But there was something that I have been wondering about since then...

Should atheists believe in a kind of causal/random determinism based on the laws of physics as we understand them? Or is free will still an option?

 

[Jet Black]

they can believe in what they like.

 

[Mike Flynn]

they can believe in what they like.

Fair enough...I guess I didn't word it well. I guess I should say: assuming there is no God, is a belief in free will well founded?

 

[revolutio]

I personally don't think so but there are still many deeply spiritual people who would disagree with me even though they don't believe in a God.

But personal proof that free will doesn't exist (which I think I have) hardly means that it is out of the question. It is still just a personal matter.

 

[Mike Flynn]

But personal proof that free will doesn't exist (which I think I have) hardly means that it is out of the question. It is still just a personal matter.

I agree with you that everyone is free to 'believe' in it, as it were (how could it be otherwise?). But the body of evidence standing against it is difficult to refute. Perhaps our understanding of things might change and provide some degree of proof. So if its truly a 'personal matter' then it seems to me that, ironically, you have to have 'faith' in it.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Fair enough...I guess I didn't word it well. I guess I should say: assuming there is no God, is a belief in free will well founded?

If there's nobody pulling your strings (insert deity here) then you have free will. Sure your hormones and senses will toy with you a bit but that's not quite the same thing as having a god dictate exactly what you'll do.

Assuming there is no god(s) then free will is the default winner since predestination is a theistic belief.

 

[Happy Wonderer]

I would like to second the Malevolent milk Man's post. How can 'will' be constrained without something to constrain it?

hw

 

[Mike Flynn]

I would like to second the Malevolent milk Man's post. How can 'will' be constrained without something to constrain it?

hw

Well, nature itself 'constrains' it actually. If you read the thread on free will then this will not be new. But I'll summarize:

There are two categories of events (for particles, but you can extend this to include cellular events in the brain...the events are simply multiplied).

1. Caused: Some sequence of variables and forces that gives rise to an event. By definition caused events are not willed, they are predetermined by the variables and the forces in nature, over which we have no control.
2. Uncaused: I suppose the quantum factor fits here. Intrinsic randomness in a system gives rise to an uncaused event. By definition, random events are not 'willed' either...how could they be?

note: some superposition of the two above still does not allow for willed events since both exclude it anyway.

Its perfectly legitmate to say that events in your brain chemistry would be governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, right?

It boils down to this: if you claim you are in control of your brain chemistry and are able to spontaneously create brain events (say to will your arm to move), what mechanisms are you using to exert that control? If the mechanisms of control are within the matter of the brain, then events in those control areas would be either caused or random as well (ie how are you controlling the control area?).

If you think about it, the logic is inescapable. If these things are true (and they are perfectly legitimate) then there can be no free will.

You can't escape it with 'we don't know much about the brain' either. Its a simple matter of whether or not you believe that any natural event is either caused or random...the complex nature of intertwined brain events is not relevant. As far as we know, there are no other kinds of events. So if you believe in free will, science stands firmly against you (for now).

If you don't believe that natural events are either caused (determined) or uncaused (random), then how do we categorize them?

BTW, I was surprised at this argument myself when I first heard it...but I can't find any flaw in the logic.

 

[ZaraDurden]

I usually agree with the malevovent milk man, but not this time. There may be some confusion, because he said "predestination" and I think the thread is about determinism. Determinism can exist without a god, because it does not need to be guided by anything metaphysical.

Hi Mike, I liked your posts again. I have a really lot to say and I am not sure how i am going to orgainize it, so bear with me.

The free will/determinism is originally a philosophical issue. I assume you understand it, so I will move on. It has since been tackled by a number of fields of science, and i like that you are relating it to physics. In physics, as you say, it would seem that everything is determined by the laws of nature, and hence we have no free will. But its not really that simple when applying that thinking to the mind.

You say "you cant escape it by saying we dont know much about the brain." But, you have to take psychology into account. You are saying that the brain works purely on a chemical level... but is this really the case? This leads us around to another philosophical debate.

Its called the mind-body problem, I am not sure if you are familiar with it. It goes something like this... When we think, is it really simply chemicals and neurons moving around in our brain... or is it something else? What is the mind? Is it a physical thing, or is it abstract? I dont mean the brain, I mean the mind.

Did you ever think about memory? How are memories stored? I know science can tell us where it is stored, but what is it actually? When you taste chocolate, you know what it is. You can think about chocolate and what it tastes like. Do you have a thought stored in your head of what chocolate tastes like? How can you store a thought? A thought isnt physical is it, thoughts are abstract. I know physical processes accompy thinking, but actual thoughts are not physical. So how could they be stored in a physical mind?

I might be doing a bad job of talking about the mind-body problem, but do you see what I am driving at? If the mind is not a physical thing(keep in mind i am not talking about the brain), if the mind is an abstract, then it need not obey the laws of physics. Do thoughts need to obey the laws of physics?

I myself believe we have little to no free will. But it not because of physics. I believe that there may well be laws of the mind just as there are laws of physics. We just dont really understand them yet. I think every single experience you have ever had affects every single decision you will ever make. Because we are influenced so much without realizing it, we get the impression of having the ability to make a choice when really we could not have picked what we didnt.

I go up for dessert, and there is chocolate cake and a banana. I like chocolate cake a really lot, but i like bananas too. Consciously i know i should probably eat the banana, because I have been drinking a lot of booze and doing bad things to my body. Consciously i also know the rest of my diet has been very healthy and a little chocolate cake wouldnt really hurt me. But, Unconsciously there are a million influences on me. Things like the ideas of beauty and being skinny that society has implanted in my head without me knowing it, worrying about what other people think of me, knowing how good chocolate cake is and a million other experiences i have had but i am not immediately thinking of.

I choose the banana. At least i think i "chose" it. But could I have chosen the cake? Every experience I have ever had has some kind of influence on my decision without me even knowing it. I am not sure if i could have picked that cake or not. We are all twisted by invisible hands, but to what extent??

I look forward to your reply.

 

[David Gould]

I do not think free will is defensible by atheism or theism. If God exists, He has no free will. I am not a determinist, either, as quantum mechanics shows that determinism is false.

But indeterminism is not sufficient for there to be free will.

 

[LorentzHA]

I am not sure if we have "free will"even without a God (assuming ones believes this way) are we just a prisoner of genetics? To be honest I find myself making gestures and hand motions frequently that are a replica of my mother. Given free will I would NEVER behave this way...I love my mom but the things I do are some of the things I used to laugh at. I have heard of twins being raised in 2 different parts, marrying woman with the same name who look alike, eating the same foods, driving the same kind of cars etc, etc. The older I get the less I believe in "free will". I think I may be a genetic prisoner. My mom is a nice looking woman but has some bizarre behaviors as sadly, do I.....(sigh) (Lucky I caught a husband before those genes started to express-LOL!) My husband sometimes says, "Oh my gosh that is so your mother.." Recently I have said, "I know scary isn't it?"

 

[Mike Flynn]

I do not think free will is defensible by atheism or theism. If God exists, He has no free will. I am not a determinist, either, as quantum mechanics shows that determinism is false.

But indeterminism is not sufficient for there to be free will.

That's what I am driving at. I believe you are right...atheism cannot defend free will. And neither can theism, at least, not without invoking the metaphysical....but what else would a theist do?

I've said this before...free will seems so visceral and REAL. I would guess that most would simply take for granted that we have it. Many of you know that I am a theist (although a kind of (wide) open theology Christian)...I find something subtly persuasive here in support of a free and separate force of 'will' that exists outside the causal framework of the universe (it would have to, perhaps). I know there's absolutely no proof...its pure speculation from a theist.

Or maybe there is no free will, as many have said. But if that's true it amounts to the greatest trick mother nature has ever played: to all at once be intensely aware of ourselves, and yet have to settle for only the mere illusion of control. What's worse...we're aware of that too (at least some of us are).

But I don't buy it. I admit that, for once in my life, I'll have to put my physics lab coat aside and say that despite weighty evidence to the contrary...I still believe in free will. Maybe mother nature has me completely fooled...but every moment of my existence seems permeated by it.

At least it gives me some interesting metaphysics to contemplate...

 

[David Gould]

I cannot remember who said it but there is a famous quote that goes:

We have to believe in free will. We have no choice.

This sums up my position, as I agree with you. Intellectually, I know that free will does not exist in that it is a logical impossibility. However, I operate as if free will does exist as it is impossible for me to do otherwise.

I do not think this is a paradox. I think that the illusion of free will is an inherent part of being self aware.

This is not to set aside the conclusion that free will does not exist, by the way, as I think that because free will does not exist there are better 'choices' that humans can make knowing that.

 

[Happy Wonderer]

There are two categories of events (for particles, but you can extend this to include cellular events in the brain...the events are simply multiplied).

1. Caused: Some sequence of variables and forces that gives rise to an event. By definition caused events are not willed, they are predetermined by the variables and the forces in nature, over which we have no control.
2. Uncaused: I suppose the quantum factor fits here. Intrinsic randomness in a system gives rise to an uncaused event.

I think that this is a false dichotomy; among other things the definition of 'uncaused' is faulty.

Random simply means that two or more events have an apportioned probability of occurring from a base state. It does not mean that the resulting event is uncaused, at best you could say it is unpredictable. For example, a perfect random number generator in the range 0-9 has an equal probability of generating a 3 as it does a 7. It makes no sense to say that the resulting '3' is uncaused, it is caused by the random number algorithm; be it a simple time/hash function or a result based upon atomic decay.

The definition of 'random' is actually a mathmetically deep subject but for me it suffices to say that a random event is one where the outcome is based upon factors sufficiently unrelated to the input. The value of a dice toss is related to the physics of the toss, but most people are unable to control the outcome and thus the number returned appears to be a random function.

As to free will: yes, there is a physics underlying the brain, but it is sufficiently unrelated to the perceived brain states that the two systems are almost independent. The physical principles that are exploited to form the CPU of the forum's server have very little to do with the appearence of this forum. (In fact, that is the point of the Java language.)

If you want to claim that psychology predetermines ones' feelings and beliefs then you are also on shaky ground, and I'd be willing to discuss that.

hw

 

[LorentzHA]

Yes, I like what Gould says "illusion of free will"...we are are prisoners of genetics and of our bodies. I did not choose to get sick last week and take all measures to prevent illness but it still happned.

 

[David Gould]

I think that this is a false dichotomy; among other things the definition of 'uncaused' is faulty.

Random simply means that two or more events have an apportioned probability of occurring from a base state. It does not mean that the resulting event is uncaused, at best you could say it is unpredictable. For example, a perfect random number generator in the range 0-9 has an equal probability of generating a 3 as it does a 7. It makes no sense to say that the resulting '3' is uncaused, it is caused by the random number algorithm; be it a simple time/hash function or a result based upon atomic decay.

The definition of 'random' is actually a mathmetically deep subject but for me it suffices to say that a random event is one where the outcome is based upon factors sufficiently unrelated to the input. The value of a dice toss is related to the physics of the toss, but most people are unable to control the outcome and thus the number returned appears to be a random function.

As to free will: yes, there is a physics underlying the brain, but it is sufficiently unrelated to the perceived brain states that the two systems are almost independent. The physical principles that are exploited to form the CPU of the forum's server have very little to do with the appearence of this forum. (In fact, that is the point of the Java language.)

If you want to claim that psychology predetermines ones' feelings and beliefs then you are also on shaky ground, and I'd be willing to discuss that.

hw

But all you have done is remove the 'uncaused' set of events. That means that you believe that all events are caused. That does not solve the problem.

I prefer to use the terms 'caused cause' or 'uncaused cause'. You have removed 'uncaused cause' as possible, which removes free will by default as if everything is a caused cause then the universe is deterministic.

 

[LorentzHA]

I cannot remember who said it but there is a famous quote that goes:.

I think it was Author Isaac Singer who said that...

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Ok, I see what you're saying now. My bad, wasn't even thinking about determinism, was just answering the question that I quoted and assumed he was talking about predestination in the second post. My last reply was free will vs predestination, that comment still applies to that subject.

free will
n.

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

de·ter·min·ism
n.
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Not to sure what to call this idea, may just be a nut who's been writing to many friggen lab reports. However, is not free will a part of determinism? Free will says that you can not be controlled by EXTERNAL sources. Your brain, memories, your hormones, your ideals, everything about you is contained within your being. They start as external sources but the memory of them then becomes a part of you. You are all of these things, without them you would not exist as "you". So long as these things are not manipulated by a deity, chemical injection, etc... you have free will.

For free will to exist so to must determinism since free will requires you to make a choice. Making a choice requires you to draw upon your previous experiences. Drawing upon your previous experiences leads you to an answer, which is determinism. It is true that the opposite of determinism is randomness. You can make a choice if you have no previous experiences with the subject and it will be left up to randomness but it shall still be free will since you're drawing upon your previous experience which is none.

Life is a mixture of determinism, free will, and randomness. You cannot have determinism without free will and you cannot have free will without determinism. Randomness is the indecisive or guessing aspect of being a human when you are at a loss. They may appear to be mutually exclusive but they exist within each other.

BTW I had to redo this post at least 3 times.

 

[Mike Flynn]

ZaraDurden...thanks. I really enjoyed your post as well. I love this topic, actually. Who says you can't learn anything online?

The mind-body concept. Yes I have heard of it. Interestingly, you can get alot of information on this by reading eastern religious writings. Although there is a distinct factor of theism in the writings of course.

Just an aside...I've never cared much for psychology. I think its the physicist in me. I like focussing on the measurable, the testable...the brain is an organ who's innermost working are, for now, elusive. Not that we can't one day get a better grasp on the mechanisms of the brain...I am always interested in this kind of research.

Becuase the machinery of the brain is elusive, this opens the door to the 'science' of psychology. This is my colourful way of describing psychology: Before you is an enormously complex machine...instead of trying to figure out how it works internally and incrementally, lets poke it, prod it, show it things, tickle it, torture it...and then carefully observe the machine's output. If we do all this we'll get a vague and fuzzy idea of how the machine works as a whole. I only took two psychology classes at university...so my impression may not do it justice.

Back to the point: to me, the mind-body problem arises out of the enormous void of information that we have about the brain. But, despite its enormous complexity, its made up of cells which intern are made up of chemicals which intern are made up of particles. Its a physical entity, and whatever it does we should ultimately be able to describe it in terms of purely chemical and physical events. To say otherwise is to envoke the metaphysical (by definition), but what atheist could do that? Whatever the brain may be...its still a machine, and its workings must be governed by physical and chemical reactions.

But I agree with you as well. If we limit the definition of 'mind' strictly to the chemistry of the brain...then it just doesn't seem to account for the whole of human experience...our thoughts, emotions, our memories, our consciousness...and of course, our force of will (which science would deny to the machine that is the brain). But now its starting to sound like those ID guys, right?

For me, this adds a card to the deck in favour of theism. Somehow, connected with that machinery, is a conscious force of will that exists outside the causal framework of the physical universe....but thats only a belief, I can prove it to no-one.

 

[LorentzHA]

Mike, I thought you may enjoy this quote:

It is impossible to trap modern physics into predicting anything with perfect determinism because it deals with probabilities from the outset.--Sir Arthur Eddington