Does determinism really negate free will?

[Neogaia777]

Guys, there is always a reason...

Your made up of atoms, right?

Well, all atoms all behave and all act deterministcally...

Therefore, so does everything else that is built upon them or is made up of them, etc, correct...

And that would include "you", correct...

So even if we don't always know the "why" or "how", there always is a why, or a how, etc, or is something that always interacted/collided or behaved deterministcally prior to that that caused it, correct...

We can't see this because it is way, way too complex for us to fully know fully, but it is always the case, correct...

Our decisions, actions, inactions, choices, words, and even our very own thoughts from moment to moment, are all deterministic, and there is only one way they go or can go, because it was always caused by something before that, etc... And that by something before it, and that by something before it, etc, so there is no escaping it, because there is always a reason or a cause even when we can't see it, or don't know it fully, etc, there still always always is still always, etc...

"Stuff" is "interacting" always that causes all of it, and it is all deterministic... only one way it all can all ever happen or go from the very beginning of everything, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Guys, there is always a reason...

Your made up of atoms, right?

Well, all atoms all behave and all act deterministcally...

Therefore, so does everything else that is built upon them or is made up of them, etc, correct...

And that would include "you", correct...

So even if we don't always know the "why" or "how", there always is a why, or a how, etc, or is something that always interacted/collided or behaved deterministcally prior to that that caused it, correct...

We can't see this because it is way, way too complex for us to fully know fully, but it is always the case, correct...

Our decisions, actions, inactions, choices, words, and even our very own thoughts from moment to moment, are all deterministic, and there is only one way they go or can go, because it was always caused by something before that, etc... And that by something before it, and that by something before it, etc, so there is no escaping it, because there is always a reason or a cause even when we can't see it, or don't know it fully, etc, there still always always is still always, etc...

"Stuff" is "interacting" always that causes all of it, and it is all deterministic... only one way it all can all ever happen or go from the very beginning of everything, etc...

God Bless!

If there was a multiverse, or other universes, then that might not always be the case if somehow we were not just always limited to just this universe or reality only always, etc...

And some might say that the quantum world might be getting into some of that maybe, but so far there is no absolute proof of it or that or this thus far, but is all very, very much highly theoretical right now, etc...

And to put it in a way that non-believers might understand, saying there is absolute proof of a multiverse or other universes right now, is like saying there is absolute proof of God right now, etc... It just does not exist yet, etc...

But this universe and everything in it, is all deterministic right now, which includes us, and there is only one way it can go or act or behave or think right now, including us, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

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

So if there was no reason then the decision was arbitrary. What else could it have been? And if arbitrary then we are not discussing free will decisions.

 

[Neogaia777]

All is an endless chain (at least to us) of causes, and is all determined by causality or casual forces prior to it, and then that, by what was prior to it/that, and so on and so forth, etc, going all the way back to the very beginning, etc...

God Bless!

 

[zippy2006]

And if arbitrary then we are not discussing free will decisions.

It depends on whether you view the will as appetitus quidam rationalis or liberum arbitrium indifferentiae. That is, is the will a rational appetite or does it represent a liberty of indifference?

I would certainly want to follow the older tradition in saying that the will is a rational appetite, and is not based on arbitrariness.

 

[Bradskii]

It depends on whether you view the will as appetitus quidam rationalis or liberum arbitrium indifferentiae. That is, is the will a rational appetite or does it represent a liberty of indifference?

I would certainly want to follow the older tradition in saying that the will is a rational appetite, and is not based on arbitrariness.

I'd agree. There are reasons for every decision we make (even if they are made subconsciously and we are unaware of making the decisions or even what the reasons for the decision might be). And if there is a reason then there must be a cause for that reason. We make the reason 'because...'.

And if there's a cause...then we head off into determinism.

 

[zippy2006]

I'd agree. There are reasons for every decision we make (even if they are made subconsciously and we are unaware of making the decisions or even what the reasons for the decision might be). And if there is a reason then there must be a cause for that reason. We make the reason 'because...'.

And if there's a cause...then we head off into determinism.

Yes, but I would not draw the conclusion of determinism. I think we are free to apply different rational considerations and to thereby arrive at different decisions.

To use my oft-given example, we could decide whether to favor a rational consideration of 'nutrition' or 'taste' in choosing what to eat for lunch. Our decisions are made in light of rational considerations, but the particular rational considerations we apply need not be pre-determined.

 

[Neogaia777]

I believe in God because He showed me things that caused me to believe in Him to where I am unable to choose otherwise even if I would want to, etc...

But many of you will say that you have not been shown these things, and you will maybe say that I am judging those of you who have not been shown these things, (yet), etc...

But I do not judge you... You just are what you are, and all of this just is what it is, etc...

And while it might make me a little bit sad that many of you were not chosen by Him (God), etc, I am not going to overly dispute all of His choices and/or actions and/or decisions that have already been decided/made from before eternity, or from before time began, and maybe even before that even, but that are also the very same decisions after this, or when all of this ends and/or begins again, and that will be forever after this again, etc...

Anyway, while it/that, or some of that, etc, might make me sad temporarily, I'm not going to overly dispute that too overly much, etc...

You all just are what you are, and all of this just is what it is, etc...

And I must learn to accept that, etc...

None of us knows our fate though, so there is still time to choose otherwise though...

At least, that's how it is seen from our perspective right now anyway, etc...

God Bless!

 

[durangodawood]

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.

For sure its not totally random. Like most acts of ostensible free will, it would be highly constrained by social and biological and psychological conditions, with free will creation only contributing a small part.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, there's a motivation. But the outcome is not necessarily dependent on the reason.

I'm proposing that in the solution space of available choices for a decision, some of them can be cooked up in this causally unconnected consciousness zone. Maybe this zone is us harnessing accumulated randomness like some solvent that dissolves the ties of cause/effect in the mind. Then we can run somewhat free in the solution space, as one novel idea triggers others. The cascading novelty can even permit an untethering from the initial motivation for attacking a given problem.

It all sounds like randomness is the core, which isnt freedom at all. But I think randomness might just be the enabler, and the free self then develops its own sort of existence in that space not even bound by physical cause/effect.

I don't see a problem with randomizing combinations of concepts and ideas to generate useful or interesting results - it doesn't need to be true randomness either, pseudo-random would be fine (circuit noise, chaotic noise, etc).

But it seems to me that handwaving speculation that this somehow enables a free self that is in some way beyond physical cause & effect seems unjustified - the existence of such a thing has not even been established yet, and the idea that combining causality and randomness (it would have to be 'true' randomness, which itself is debatable) could produce it sounds like a form of strong emergence, which is also controversial - AIUI there are no known examples.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... 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.

As I see it, the point is that without blame there is no need to excuse. There is simply the fact that this individual acted contrary to the agreed rules. Then it's a question of how best to repair any perceived damage, and how best to prevent, or minimise the likelihood of, future breaches in an acceptable way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So everything, except possibly quantum fields, is emergent?

In as much as quantum fields are (as far as we know) fundamental, yes. But, as I said, there are different levels of emergence, so context is important. The flocking or shoaling behaviour of flocks of birds or shoals of fish is emergent from the interactions of individual birds and fish; quantum fields are not relevant in that context.

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.

OK.

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 already explained that - what part of my explanation did you not follow?

You're being evasive in this thread.

It's not my intention. It may appear that way because your questions are somewhat opaque, so my interpretation of them may produce answers you find evasive. I can only glean your meaning from what you post; if you think my response doesn't answer your question, you could try to clarify what you meant by rephrasing it. Just saying it doesn't answer the question isn't particularly helpful.

But what has that to do with what I devote my time to?

 

[durangodawood]

I don't see a problem with randomizing combinations of concepts and ideas to generate useful or interesting results - it doesn't need to be true randomness either, pseudo-random would be fine (circuit noise, chaotic noise, etc).

But it seems to me that handwaving speculation that this somehow enables a free self that is in some way beyond physical cause & effect seems unjustified - the existence of such a thing has not even been established yet, and the idea that combining causality and randomness (it would have to be 'true' randomness, which itself is debatable) could produce it sounds like a form of strong emergence, which is also controversial - AIUI there are no known examples.

Yes its total handwaving speculation, which I'm fine with to discuss ideas at or beyond the edge of current understanding. I do appreciate the coherence of arguments in terms of current understandings. But I feel like certain premises they rest on should not be taken for granted.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

I doubt they give out Nobel prizes for explaining how one gets meaning from particles. It's a question of information processing; I get meaning from particles when they are arranged in such a way that they give me information when they interact with my senses. IOW, when the patterns of data that enter my brain from my senses match existing patterns stored there, triggering the activation of associated patterns (of neural activity) in a cascade.

When that cascade of activity exceeds certain threshold, I become consciously aware of it. So the particular cascade of activity produced is the meaning that the incoming sensory information has for me, and the intensity of the activity determines whether I become consciously aware of it.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

There is some (disputed) evidence that chimps and African Grey Parrots, and possibly dolphins can learn to refine and express their conceptualisation through linguistic tasks. Language allows concepts to be represented and expressed by symbols that can be strung together with operators into meaningful sequences.

It wouldn't suprise me. I think you can't have language without concepts. That's interesting about the Parrots. Dolphins yes, I can see that.

 

[SelfSim]

It's a question of information processing; I get meaning from particles when they are arranged in such a way that they give me information when they interact with my senses. IOW, when the patterns of data that enter my brain from my senses match existing patterns stored there, triggering the activation of associated patterns (of neural activity) in a cascade.
When that cascade of activity exceeds certain threshold, I become consciously aware of it. So the particular cascade of activity produced is the meaning that the incoming sensory information has for me, and the intensity of the activity determines whether I become consciously aware of it.

All a valid model (or explanation).. but, just as an aside reminder, its certainly not evidence for anything existing independently from some mind or other. I mean, the original question specified 'mindless' particles as a source of meaning .. and of course 'mindless' particles implies a mind already assigned them with the meaning of existing mindlessly.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd agree. There are reasons for every decision we make (even if they are made subconsciously and we are unaware of making the decisions or even what the reasons for the decision might be).

Where there is evidence of 'no reason', (ie: my claim for why I went left of the ski bump), and there is no evidence of 'subconscious decision', 'no reason' still stands.

'Arbitrary' is the conscious observer's reason and that contradicts the evidence provided by the first person's: 'no reason', with the exception of how you, (ie: the observer), defines 'arbitrary'.

Definitions are contextual so let's test for the context. Once this particular event is completed, re-runs duplicating the exact same conditions (or contexts), aren't physically feasible, therefore your, (ie: the observer's), consciously claimed 'arbitrary' reason, is also a belief by definition, as re-runs cannot distinguish between the possible alternatives of 'arbitrary' and 'free will'.

IOW, your conditions for what would allow for us to cleave off 'free will' from 'arbitrary', aren't physically possible, so all you've done here, is substitute the hypothetical outcomes of a not physically feasible test, with your own claim of the existence of the reason 'arbitrary' as the cause. Unless you just want to claim 'free will' is still 'a reason', which would only serve to emphasise the pointlessness of the whole philosophically based so-called 'argument'.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, but I would not draw the conclusion of determinism. I think we are free to apply different rational considerations and to thereby arrive at different decisions.

To use my oft-given example, we could decide whether to favor a rational consideration of 'nutrition' or 'taste' in choosing what to eat for lunch. Our decisions are made in light of rational considerations, but the particular rational considerations we apply need not be pre-determined.

Hunger is predetermined. As is a preference for paella over plain rice.

 

[Bradskii]

As I see it, the point is that without blame there is no need to excuse. There is simply the fact that this individual acted contrary to the agreed rules. Then it's a question of how best to repair any perceived damage, and how best to prevent, or minimise the likelihood of, future breaches in an acceptable way.

But we hold people responsible for their actions. We don't just incarcerate people as a deterrant or as a preventative measure. We punish people as an act of retribution. If determinism is valid then that's wrong. I struggle with that.

 

[Bradskii]

IOW, your conditions for what would allow for us to cleave off 'free will' from 'arbitrary', aren't physically possible, so all you've done here, is substitute the hypothetical outcomes of a not physically feasible test, with your own claim of the existence of the reason 'arbitrary' as the cause.

I don't see a problem with this. If free will is defined as the ability to make different decisions under the same circumstances (I'm not sure how else you could reasonably define it) then we have to consider what would happen in those circumstances. And as it's not possible to replicate those circumstances, we have to hypothesise.