Does determinism really negate free will?

[Bradskii]

My definition of free will is that some aspect of a decision originates in your mind as an uncaused cause aside from mere randomness.

But couldn't 'an uncaused cause' be used as a definition of random?

I watched Sam Harris at a TED talk quite some time back. And he was saying that everyone in the audience appeared to be listening to what he said. But that for the vast majority of people, seemingly random thoughts were popping into their heads (I've got to get that tailight fixed, I might have a couple of beers before dinner, I wonder what my kids are doing etc). You can try it now. Try to make your mind blank and just see what appears (the opening riff in Hotel California in my case just then).

We can't summon them up because then they'd be intentional. So are these truly random thoughts or are they caused by something in the subconscious? I think the latter. The guitar riff appeared because I've been learning it (and driving my wife to distraction in the process). So there was a cause. The tailight might appear because there's probably a filing cabinet in the mind somewhere called 'Things I Need To Be Worried About'. I can't see the subconscious mind randomly shuffling an infinite set of cards with subjects on them and then sending one up to the conscious mind. That would be bizarre.

So I think that even what appears to be random thoughts have a cause. And then those thoughts themselves cause a train of thought. And a decision. Which, if you re-ran the film, would always be the same. So we have contemplated the matter. We have weighed the options. We have made the decision. So we feel completely in control of our own destiny. But it couldn't have been any other way.

Hence it is my strong opinion that free will doesn't exist.

 

[durangodawood]

But couldn't 'an uncaused cause' be used as a definition of random?

I watched Sam Harris at a TED talk quite some time back. And he was saying that everyone in the audience appeared to be listening to what he said. But that for the vast majority of people, seemingly random thoughts were popping into their heads (I've got to get that tailight fixed, I might have a couple of beers before dinner, I wonder what my kids are doing etc). You can try it now. Try to make your mind blank and just see what appears (the opening riff in Hotel California in my case just then).

We can't summon them up because then they'd be intentional. So are these truly random thoughts or are they caused by something in the subconscious? I think the latter. The guitar riff appeared because I've been learning it (and driving my wife to distraction in the process). So there was a cause. The tailight might appear because there's probably a filing cabinet in the mind somewhere called 'Things I Need To Be Worried About'. I can't see the subconscious mind randomly shuffling an infinite set of cards with subjects on them and then sending one up to the conscious mind. That would be bizarre.

So I think that even what appears to be random thoughts have a cause. And then those thoughts themselves cause a train of thought. And a decision. Which, if you re-ran the film, would always be the same. So we have contemplated the matter. We have weighed the options. We have made the decision. So we feel completely in control of our own destiny. But it couldn't have been any other way.

Hence it is my strong opinion that free will doesn't exist.

For sure the mind, consciously or not, sifts though thoughts that are caused. I would never deny that. But... I also think there's creative moments as well. They probably require more focus, less interruption, are harder to maintain, etc. But to me they feel real when I have them.

For instance, when I sit at the drum kit, if I'm menially lazy I might devise some groove based on something I heard recently. Or.... I might really come up with something that seems "left field". Not saying I know this is pure generative action. But it feels like it. I prefer to think so. And I dont have rock solid arguments against it. So I'm going with it, for now at least.

 

[Bradskii]

Ah, well that's kinda the point of the OP, to which I would argue that the fact that you would always make the same choice doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have free will. It might simply mean that given the same circumstances, you would consider them in the same manner, reach the same conclusion, and subsequently make the same choice. Not because you're forced to by deterministic underlying causes, but simply because you, being you, would always make that choice. "You" are neither an unpredictable thing, nor a completely deterministic thing, you're you...whatever the heck that means, with your own personal fears, desires, and peccadilloes, emergent from, but not completely predictable by those underlying causes.

Is it possible that consciousness is an emergent property which has within itself predictable tendencies, but that those tendencies are at least partially distinct from the causes which gave rise to that consciousness, and can only be explained as distinct characteristics of "You"?

That last sentence is one I struggle with. Surely there is a 'me' that is independent of all causes. A 'me' that can make decisions outside of the deterministic world. I wanted to believe that because it's the only way I see someone being held responsible for their decisions. Without it, the concept of justice seems non existent. How can I blame you for what you do if you could do no other?

And to mention Sam Harris again, he has struggled to explain this, but not to my satisfaction. The closest we get to agreement is his suggestion that we need to reappraise the justice system to allow for mitigating circumstances. That any given person, to some extent, is conditioned by factors outside of his or her control. Their biological make-up. Their dna. Whether their mother ate well during the pregnancy or drank to excess. Whether they were brought up in the projects or in a wealthy family.

I agree with him. But to what extent I'm not sure. Surely I can't be excused for any crime because 'I couldn't have done anything else'. But I tend towards determinism and that's where that ultimately leads.

 

[SelfSim]

So I think that even what appears to be random thoughts have a cause. And then those thoughts themselves cause a train of thought. And a decision. Which, if you re-ran the film, would always be the same. So we have contemplated the matter. We have weighed the options. We have made the decision. So we feel completely in control of our own destiny. But it couldn't have been any other way.

So I'm back ..
I'm intrigued how you clearly attribute everything you said there to the (generalised): 'We' (ie: presumably, the human mind), and then that immediately disappears and flips to

Hence it is my strong opinion that free will doesn't exist.

Does that mean that you don't count your own mind amongst the things you do include as 'existing', and given that 'free will' is agreed, (by most folk), as being what the mind appears to display, that you then go onto infer that minds therefore, do not count as existing because your version of 'free will', doesn't?

PS: I'm trying to wrap my own mind around why I'm having so many problems with the ideas you present here ... I'm not trying to beat you down in any of this (far from it) .. but I do acknowledge that I'm beating myself up, in order to come to that understanding. I think I may be reacting to an unstated reliance your approach has, on 'things existing independently' from the mind's perceptions .. its a major source of inconsistency which flows into the contemplation of free will/determinism, I think(?)

 

[Neogaia777]

That last sentence is one I struggle with. Surely there is a 'me' that is independent of all causes. A 'me' that can make decisions outside of the deterministic world. I wanted to believe that because it's the only way I see someone being held responsible for their decisions. Without it, the concept of justice seems non existent. How can I blame you for what you do if you could do no other?

And to mention Sam Harris again, he has struggled to explain this, but not to my satisfaction. The closest we get to agreement is his suggestion that we need to reappraise the justice system to allow for mitigating circumstances. That any given person, to some extent, is conditioned by factors outside of his or her control. Their biological make-up. Their dna. Whether their mother ate well during the pregnancy or drank to excess. Whether they were brought up in the projects or in a wealthy family.

I agree with him. But to what extent I'm not sure. Surely I can't be excused for any crime because 'I couldn't have done anything else'. But I tend towards determinism and that's where that ultimately leads.

You cannot really hold anyone responsible for what they do, but this does not mean we do not have to have some kind of judicial system with consequences and/or punishments, etc...

And our judicial system in this country does try to allow for mitigating circumstances, albeit imperfectly, etc...

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

For sure the mind, consciously or not, sifts though thoughts that are caused. I would never deny that. But... I also think there's creative moments as well. They probably require more focus, less interruption, are harder to maintain, etc. But to me they feel real when I have them.

For instance, when I sit at the drum kit, if I'm menially lazy I might devise some groove based on something I heard recently. Or.... I might really come up with something that seems "left field". Not saying I know this is pure generative action. But it feels like it. I prefer to think so. And I dont have rock solid arguments against it. So I'm going with it, for now at least.

A creative state of mind is capable of creating novelty .. (and I think you might already know that) .. but its still a state of mind, with no evidence that it comes from someplace other than that? I mean, you even associate it with 'left field' there .. to which I ask: left field of what are you referring to there?

 

[SelfSim]

You cannot really hold anyone responsible for what they do,
...
And our judicial system in this country does try to allow for mitigating circumstances, albeit imperfectly, etc...

Talk about 'workin the loopholes', there!

 

[Bradskii]

For sure the mind, consciously or not, sifts though thoughts that are caused. I would never deny that. But... I also think there's creative moments as well. They probably require more focus, less interruption, are harder to maintain, etc. But to me they feel real when I have them.

For instance, when I sit at the drum kit, if I'm menially lazy I might devise some groove based on something I heard recently. Or.... I might really come up with something that seems "left field". Not saying I know this is pure generative action. But it feels like it. I prefer to think so. And I dont have rock solid arguments against it. So I'm going with it, for now at least.

I think that lick you come up with is truly random. Just like I can pick random notes on the guitar and find something that sounds cool. But I don't think that that can be classed as free will.

Edit: Actually, hitting a drum set truly at random is going to sound bloody awful. You'd be hitting them within a particular structure. It will be variations on what you know will sound reasonable. But I'm not sure if that prior knowledge can be filed under 'cause'. It's more a restriction on your choice than a cause for them.

 

[Neogaia777]

I do believe all mitigating circumstances will be perfectly included in "the judgment" at the end, etc, and people will not be judged to go to either one place or the other based on if they were wholly good, or else very bad, etc...

Some just are what they are, and were created what they created to be, and will only get more of just only this here, etc...

And that will be quote/unquote "hell" compared to going to heaven, etc...

But people don't necessarily go there because they were "bad", etc...

They just were never meant/made for anything more than just only this ever, etc, and that will be forever, just as it has already been from forever, etc...

Their's will be a kind of "twilight zone" existence, that will be forever, just as it has already been before this from forever, etc...

Their only real true purpose is/forever has been, etc, only to cause or make those going beyond here, to be able to go beyond this here, and that's it, and that is there only real true purpose here, or anywhere, etc, and it is a purpose that is not needed or necessary there, and so does not ever get to go there, or ever gets to go beyond just only more of this here, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

But those reasons, preferences, desires, requirements, etc. are the very things that make me "Me". They do exist, and they're the determining factors in our free will choices, but they're not the direct result of the initial conditions...

But surely they are all caused by something. All of your preferences and desires etc are not random.

 

[Bradskii]

So I'm back ..
I'm intrigued how you clearly attribute everything you said there to the (generalised): 'We' (ie: presumably, the human mind), and then that immediately disappears and flips to
Does that mean that you don't count your own mind amongst the things you do include as 'existing', and given that 'free will' is agreed, (by most folk), as being what the mind appears to display, that you then go onto infer that minds therefore, do not count as existing because your version of 'free will', doesn't?

We obviously make decisions. They are obviously 'our' decisions. But simply making decisions isn't free will.

The 'free' in free will surely refers to making a willfull decision free from any external (or even internal) influences. And I maintain that that is impossible. That every decision has a reason for making it (else it would be random and free will would not be applicable). And that reason is the cause. It has influenced our decision. And we would always make that decision if the situation repeated. Because if we changed our decision then there must have been a reason for that (else it was random). And as the the situation is exactly the same, there would be no other reason.

 

[Neogaia777]

I do believe all mitigating circumstances will be perfectly included in "the judgment" at the end, etc, and people will not be judged to go to either one place or the other based on if they were wholly good, or else very bad, etc...

Some just are what they are, and were created what they created to be, and will only get more of just only this here, etc...

And that will be quote/unquote "hell" compared to going to heaven, etc...

But people don't necessarily go there because they were "bad", etc...

They just were never meant/made for anything more than just only this ever, etc, and that will be forever, just as it has already been from forever, etc...

Their's will be a kind of "twilight zone" existence, that will be forever, just as it has already been before this from forever, etc...

Their only real true purpose is/forever has been, etc, only to cause or make those going beyond here, to be able to go beyond this here, and that's it, and that is there only real true purpose here, or anywhere, etc, and it is a purpose that is not needed or necessary there, and so does not ever get to go there, or ever gets to go beyond just only more of this here, etc...

God Bless!

I don't believe it is a conscious torment for them, etc...

Just as they are not right now aware that they have been already doing this already before in other creations before this here, so they still will not be in other creations after this one here, etc...

You could say it is a judgment, but is not necessarily a punishment, they just were never meant or made, ever, for never only more of just only this here, etc...

But it is considered "hell" to and for those who do get to beyond just only more of this here, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't believe it is a conscious torment for them, etc...

Just as they are not right now aware that they have been already doing this already before in other creations before this here, so they still will not be in other creations after this one here, etc...

You could say it is a judgment, but is not necessarily a punishment, they just were never meant or made, ever, for never only more of just only this here, etc...

But it is considered "hell" to and for those who do get to beyond just only more of this here, etc...

God Bless!

But for those who do or are getting to go beyond this here, after this here, they will have only done this once here, but will rejoin the others who were once them once in other creations prior to this here, and those will be their "family" in heaven there, etc, and after that they will be there with them there, and other families there, and God there, etc, forever after that there, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Chesterton]

Darn it. You keep admitting that you are dismayed by the lack of meaning on a deterministic world. When I press you on what that means you keep referring back to that other guy. Cant you just pick up the question on your own and say what you mean?

I've answered the question, and have referred you back to the answer. I don't think three times will do much good. As far as being dismayed, I don't know how I could be dismayed by something which doesn't exist. I've never been dismayed by unicorns or mermaids either. Well, maybe mermaids a little bit.

 

[Chesterton]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it would be clear from my response. As far as we know, the most fundamental things in our model of the universe are not emergent, i.e. quantum fields. But obviously, there are different levels of emergence, so when talking about what is and isn't emergent, context is important - that was my original point.

So everything, except possibly quantum fields, is emergent?

Well, sure, from a point of view outside spacetime, i.e. the 4D Parminidean/Einsteinian 'block' universe, past, present, and future all exist and are equally real and fixed - but we're not outside spacetime, we're in it and we experience the passage of time, so we talk about change because things are not the same from one event to another, i.e. from one point in spacetime to another.

I think you've made my point. Outside of spacetime, one would see the changes wrought over time as they actually are - determined. We inside spacetime would experience the illusion that they are not.

Well, I answered the question I thought you were asking, so perhaps you could rephrase it.

There's no need to rephrase because it was rhetorical, so I'll just answer it - nothing could be beneficial or detrimental in a universe without life. Now the onus is on you to show what difference life makes.

I'm devoted to learning more about the topics and questions that fascinate me; IOW that is what I devote most of my time to.

You're being evasive in this thread.

 

[Chesterton]

Of course you can.

Well explain how, and sit back and wait for your Nobel Prize.

Who are these people? are they anything like the people that really want to believe they're immortal but deep down know they aren't?

I don't know. I've never heard of people who think they're immortal, except a few weird teenagers who want to think they're vampires. I don't talk about nuclear physics because I don't know much about it; you should do the same about Christian theology.

 

[SelfSim]

We obviously make decisions. They are obviously 'our' decisions. But simply making decisions isn't free will.

The 'free' in free will surely refers to making a willfull decision free from any external (or even internal) influences. And I maintain that that is impossible. That every decision has a reason for making it

.. and who is it who comes up with the reason? It has to be the person making the decision.
Eg: if you were to ask me why, when skiing bumps, I went around the left side of one, (instead of the right), and I said: 'No reason', then who would you, or anyone else other than me, be, in declaring the reason?
In that case, all we can say is that there is no reason, therefore your proposition is falsified by the evidence at hand (ie: my declaration of 'no reason').

... (else it would be random and free will would not be applicable). And that reason is the cause. It has influenced our decision.

You just made all that up though, in the light of there being 'no reason' though.

And we would always make that decision if the situation repeated. Because if we changed our decision then there must have been a reason for that (else it was random). And as the the situation is exactly the same, there would be no other reason.

Your premise prior to this part of what you say, has been falsified by the evidence at hand though ...(?)

 

[SelfSim]

I've answered the question, and have referred you back to the answer. I don't think three times will do much good.

On top of what @durangodawood said, you also threw shade on people who you think are impersonating robots. Under those same rules you're laying down there, as far as I can see, there's no reason not to throw some shade straight back onto your answer .. by ignoring it(?)

As far as being dismayed, I don't know how I could be dismayed by something which doesn't exist. I've never been dismayed by unicorns or mermaids either. Well, maybe mermaids a little bit.

But you are dismayed by people who you think are impersonating robots .. which don't exist, eh?
(I mean, by the rules you, yourself, set?)

 

[Bradskii]

.. and who is it who comes up with the reason? It has to be the person making the decision.
Eg: if you were to ask me why, when skiing bumps, I went around the left side of one, (instead of the right), and I said: 'No reason', then who would you, or anyone else other than me, be, in declaring the reason?
In that case, all we can say is that there is no reason, therefore your proposition is falsified by the evidence at hand (ie: my declaration of 'no reason').
You just made all that up though, in the light of there being 'no reason' though.
Your premise prior to this part of what you say, has been falsified by the evidence at hand though ...(?)

If there is literally no reason for doing something then the choice is truly random. And we aren't then discussing free will. If it's not random then a choice was intentionally made.

But your skiing example raises a good point. If you do something automatically then it's generally your subconscious that has taken over. Things happen pretty quickly if you're skiing at speed - quite often too quickly to make all the decisions consciously - as you did on the beginner slope. But you are still making them even if they're happening too quickly to register. So when you reach the bottom and someone says 'How come you took that line?' then you truly may not know. But 'you' made the decision. And it was - it must have been, made for good reasons, even if you were unaware of them.

 

[SelfSim]

If there is literally no reason for doing something then the choice is truly random. And we aren't then discussing free will. If it's not random then a choice was intentionally made.

Man .. you just did it again .. you just made that up.
'No reason' means exactly what that person says .. ie: 'no reason'.

But your skiing example raises a good point. If you do something automatically then it's generally your subconscious that has taken over. Things happen pretty quickly if you're skiing at speed - quite often too quickly to make all the decisions consciously - as you did on the beginner slope.

Sure .. its a deliberate decision to initiate that state of mind .. eg: sorta like initiating meditation. But that's not why I took the left route, and not the right, because I told you there was no reason for that.

But you are still making them even if they're happening too quickly to register. So when you reach the bottom and someone says 'How come you took that line?' then you truly may not know. But 'you' made the decision. And it was - it must have been, made for good reasons, even if you were unaware of them.

Again .. you're answering your own questions, whilst ignoring my response and yet it was me who accomplished the feat and I told you there was: 'no reason'. You're attempting to erase the objective evidence which was my stated response when you asked the question of me.

Its sort of like: 'unknown' means exactly that .. and then because some folk simply can't accept that concept, they start inventing all their own weird and wonderful 'fill-ins' ..
That's how gods are invented too y'know(?) And you're doing exactly the same as them, in this instance(?)