Does determinism really negate free will?

[Neogaia777]

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.

That's because, as they say, we are "only human"...

But it really should not be that way though...

God says "vengeance is His", and that it is basically not our place to do it, or exercise it, or have it, etc...

It poisons our souls, etc...

We weren't built or meant or made for or designed for it, and that much should be apparent, etc...

As a preventative measure or deterant, yes, as an act of retribution, no, etc...

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

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.

Well, as we know its not physically possible replicate such conditions, any reasons which rely on such conditions, aren't worth the paper they're written on, then(?) ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Bradskii]

Well, as we know its not physically possible replicate such conditions, any reasons which rely on such conditions, aren't worth the paper they're written on, then(?) ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I can't argue with the point you are making. My position is that we (probably) don't have free will. But it's not going to be possible to prove it one way or another. So we all effectively carry on as if it exists. If someone stops an assault then we have a good guy and a bad guy. One we will praise and one we will punish. We can have a philosophical debate as to whether either is truly justified but in a practical sense...

 

[partinobodycular]

Unfortunately I haven't been able to keep up with this thread but I do want to address your definition of free will, because I don't find it to be reasonable.

Here's my definition of free will. That under exactly the same circumstances, we would make different choices. And when I say exactly the same I mean 'exactly the same'. Not the same situation on a different day. Not just the same set of circumstances. But exactly the same. Just as if you re-ran the film of your life twice and reached a point when a decision needed to be made.

This definition essentially makes free will choices impossible by default, because choices are either based upon a given set of information, which you designate as the circumstances, or they're not based upon any information at all. The former makes the choice deterministic because it's based upon the circumstances, and the latter makes it random because it's based upon absolutely nothing. Add any information at all to the process, and by your definition, the choice becomes deterministic.

That's why I find your definition to be unreasonable. I prefer the following definition:

A choice based either in total, or in part, upon a conscious consideration of the available information.

I've explained why I don't like your definition. Could you explain why you don't like mine?

 

[SelfSim]

That's why I find your definition to be unreasonable. I prefer the following definition:

A choice based either in total, or in part, upon a conscious consideration of the available information.

I had a dream last night where I remember, (now that I'm awake), where I made a choice .. but I wasn't conscious when I made it .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[zippy2006]

Here's my definition of free will. That under exactly the same circumstances, we would make different choices. And when I say exactly the same I mean 'exactly the same'. Not the same situation on a different day. Not just the same set of circumstances. But exactly the same.

Quite right.

This definition essentially makes free will choices impossible by default, because choices are either based upon a given set of information, which you designate as the circumstances, or they're not based upon any information at all. The former makes the choice deterministic because it's based upon the circumstances, and the latter makes it random because it's based upon absolutely nothing.

This is another variation of the approach I pointed out in #43, and it begs the question by invoking determinism as a petitio principii.

The third option is broadly referred to as, "Incompatibilist Theories of Free Will."

 

[SelfSim]

... The third option is broadly referred to as, "Incompatibilist Theories of Free Will."

.. and, (yet again), I note from that link:

Different answers to these questions yield different incompatibilist theories of free will.

IOW, that option also leads nowhere fast .. just like all the rest of these so-called 'theories', (or 'arguments').

 

[SelfSim]

IOW, that option also leads nowhere fast .. just like all the rest of these so-called 'theories', (or 'arguments').

At least science produces consensus of some type.
Philosophy just forces people to lean towards one belief over the other (ie: divisive) .. then religions form and wars begin ...

 

[Bradskii]

Unfortunately I haven't been able to keep up with this thread but I do want to address your definition of free will, because I don't find it to be reasonable.



This definition essentially makes free will choices impossible by default, because choices are either based upon a given set of information, which you designate as the circumstances, or they're not based upon any information at all. The former makes the choice deterministic because it's based upon the circumstances, and the latter makes it random because it's based upon absolutely nothing. Add any information at all to the process, and by your definition, the choice becomes deterministic.

That's why I find your definition to be unreasonable. I prefer the following definition:

A choice based either in total, or in part, upon a conscious consideration of the available information.

I've explained why I don't like your definition. Could you explain why you don't like mine?

I'll firstly concede that my definition is not practicable. But that's because it's not practical to determine if we have free will. I can only suggest that we don't have it by proposing hypotheticals which are not possible. But just because they are not possible doesn't refute my position. But it obviously leaves the door open for anyone to say 'Then to all intents and purposes, if we don't have it then it has no practical implications at all'. Which I accept. We're all going to live our lives as if we had it.

And your definition is part of my hypothetical. You make decisions based on circumstances. Which includes literally everything about you that make you 'you'. Plus the circumstances of the event which caused you to make that decision. And my position is that very single aspect of those cicumstances is deterministic. They have to be. Each aspect has a cause. Which itself has a cause. And if you change any one then the effects ripple outwards and change everything connected with it. If nothing changes then everything remains the same. Including any decision that you make based on those circumstances. I can't see why that wouldn't be the case.

So your decision, as you say, is based 'upon a conscious consideration of the available information'. No doubt about it. I've no problem with that. But if you repeated every aspect of the available information, of the specific circumstances, then why would any decision you make be any different?

 

[Neogaia777]

I had a dream last night where I remember, (now that I'm awake), where I made a choice .. but I wasn't conscious when I made it .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Now that was funny, but seriously though, we make a lot of decisions unconsciously or subconsciously, but that doesn't mean they were not already determined, or predetermined, etc...

God Bless!

 

[zippy2006]

That's why I find your definition to be unreasonable. I prefer the following definition:

A choice based either in total, or in part, upon a conscious consideration of the available information.

I've explained why I don't like your definition. Could you explain why you don't like mine?

It is probably worth saying that you are attempting some form of Compatibilism, and I don't believe that route is viable. There are some philosophers who attempt to go that way, though: Compatibilism (SEP).

 

[SelfSim]

Now that was funny, but seriously though, we make a lot of decisions unconsciously or subconsciously, but that doesn't mean they were not already determined, or predetermined, etc...

Alas! None of the choices or information in that dream were real anyway unfortunately ... ... predetermined, determined or not!

 

[Neogaia777]

Alas! None of the choices or information in that dream were real anyway unfortunately ... ... predetermined, determined or not!

What is quote/unquote "real", or else not real, in dreams, is probably a discussion best saved for another thread, or another time...

But, yeah... Anyway...?

Carry on, I guess...

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

What is quote/unquote "real", or else not real, in dreams, is probably a discussion best saved for another thread, or another time...

The choices or information in that dream, were no less real than the determinism or free choice being discussed by others in this thread, thus far.

 

[Neogaia777]

The choices or information in that dream, were no less real than the determinism or free choice being discussed by others in this thread, thus far.

Well, I'm not sure how many people agree with you, etc...

Because it seems like we have been learning a lot about determinism in this thread thus far, and that there have also already been some very good points and convincing arguments made in this thread so far leaning towards determinism by many, etc...

I am curious though, why you are going so hard against it...?

Care to answer that for me, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

The choices or information in that dream, were no less real than the determinism or free choice being discussed by others in this thread, thus far.

And if you are having what you saw and experienced in dream just stick with you to the point to where you just can't shake it, then maybe you might want to explore it or that a bit, or maybe you might want to try to find some of the practical meaning in some of it maybe, etc...?

Because sometimes they do contain that, etc... some kind of practical meaning in them maybe, etc... sometimes anyway, etc...

Or it or they might have some kind of meaning to or for you in the future maybe, like when a certain event or circumstance or situation or certain kind of happening eventually takes place maybe, etc...

Or there might be some kind of other reason you just can't shake it maybe...

And you might maybe want to explore that a bit maybe, etc...

Or don't if you really don't want to, it's up to you, (supposedly)...

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

I am curious though, why you are going so hard against it...?

When over indulgence in philosophy demonstrates that any wild speculative nonsense should be given serious consideration, regardless of how impractical its demands might be, it needs to be called out.

Whereas such over indulgence often masquerades as being some kind of deep intellectual enquiry into questions like: what is the 'real truth?', it more often than not ends up serving to confuse minds as to how to distinguish anything as being a 'real truth', (IMO).

My biggest issue with its over-indulgences, is that it also ends up impeding scientific progress, even though science has demonstrated over and over again, that it actually does return practical knowledge of us, and our standing within an objective universe .. and, we are in a Physical Sciences forum .. not a Philosophy forum.

Yes .. I'm taking a stand .. and I'll, nonetheless, do my best to respect the participants, (and what they've presented), in this thread.

 

[Neogaia777]

When over indulgence in philosophy demonstrates that any wild speculative nonsense should be given serious consideration, regardless of how impractical its demands might be, it needs to be called out.

Whereas such over indulgence often masquerades as being some kind of deep intellectual enquiry into questions like: what is the 'real truth?', it more often than not ends up serving to confuse minds as to how to distinguish anything as being a 'real truth', (IMO).

My biggest issue with its over-indulgences, is that it also ends up impeding scientific progress, even though science has demonstrated over and over again, that it actually does return practical knowledge of us, and our standing within an objective universe .. and, we are in a Physical Sciences forum .. not a Philosophy forum.

Yes .. I'm taking a stand .. and I'll, nonetheless, do my best to respect the participants, (and what they've presented), in this thread.

Well, it's not just the more philosophical side of it that seems to suggest or point at determinism, but there is also the more scientific side of it that seems to suggest or point at it as well, etc...?

And maybe @FrumiousBandersnatch might have a thing or two to say about that maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

There are some YouTube videos about the best known and best researched African Gray parrot, Alex (now deceased). Try searching for "irene pepperberg and alex".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Yes; the question is also an example of a common problem - mixing very different levels of description in the same sentence, which rarely makes sense. At the level of everyday perceptual experience, we don't deal with particles per se, as we can't resolve them - we necessarily coarse-grain the world into macro-scale objects of various materials. The concept of mind is a coarse-graining of certain kinds of brain processes which, unfortunately, tends to be reified as a 'thing' in its own right.