Does determinism really negate free will?

[Cormack]

Is there an actual difference, or is the mundane merely mischaracterized as sublime.

That’s up for everyone to decide themselves, therein lies the problem for determinists.

 

[Cormack]

I've never studied it. I know that people argue about it constantly.

Calvinists are an argumentative, rude people. Even leading Calvinist preachers like John Piper have made articles to ponder the question why are Calvinists so negative, or as the man himself explained “certain kinds of minds are drawn to that [Calvinism.] And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative.”

Despite having not studied the subject, Calvinists are also fond of distancing themselves from the doctrine, while actually affirming large parts of the Calvinistic scheme of things. So users have to forgive me if I don’t take statements like that as a denial of your own Calvinism.

 

[Cormack]

Could anybody really understand tulip?

This point seems strange in light of the quote below.

I've never studied it.

It’s hard to insist that nobody really understands tulip while also admitting you’ve never studied Calvinism, tulip is Calvinism 101.

So, you are educated enough to write nobody really understands basic Calvinism, but you’ve also never studied basic Calvinism.

 

[jayem]

The question is, given a set of circumstances involving a plurality of possible choices, and even if, due to dualism, the outcome of that choice isn't predetermined by any physical restrictions, would I always make the exact same choice anyway?

As a naturalist, I see things through a naturalistic lens Your actions are not predetermined by any external supernatural entity. They are products of the executive region of your brain--specifically, the prefrontal cortex. Which receives information about your current situation from those brain regions which process sensory input. It also calls up memories of past experiences from the hippocampus; what you've been taught and learned; what are your goals and desires; and the limbic system inputs data about your emotional state. Your prefrontal cortex synthesizes all this information together and makes the decision about what you will do. It's a sort of relative free will that's determined by the state of your brain. But it's not absolute free will. If your brain was in exactly the same state at some future time, you would make exactly the same choice. However, the normally functioning brain is highly dynamic--actually the most dynamic organ in your body. Neuronal pathways are constantly forming and re-forming, and information is being processed--even during sleep. The chance that your brain (absent major brain damage) will be in exactly the same state at 2 different times is vanishingly remote. So you do have a measure of free will, though it's limited by neurophysiology. And it's not absolute.

 

[Occams Barber]

As a naturalist, I see things through a naturalistic lens Your actions are not predetermined by any external supernatural entity. They are products of the executive region of your brain--specifically, the prefrontal cortex. Which receives information about your current situation from those brain regions which process sensory input. It also calls up memories of past experiences from the hippocampus; what you've been taught and learned; what are your goals and desires; and the limbic system inputs data about your emotional state. Your prefrontal cortex synthesizes all this information together and makes the decision about what you will do. It's a sort of relative free will that's determined by the state of your brain. But it's not absolute free will. If your brain was in exactly the same state at some future time, you would make exactly the same choice. However, the normally functioning brain is highly dynamic--actually the most dynamic organ in your body. Neuronal pathways are constantly forming and re-forming, and information is being processed--even during sleep. The chance that your brain (absent major brain damage) will be in exactly the same state at 2 different times is vanishingly remote. So you do have a measure of free will, though it's limited by neurophysiology. And it's not absolute.

Strip away all this high level stuff and consider what you are at its most simple. You are a complex of chemistry acting in accord with the rules of physics (whatever they are).

You (you) cannot change this. You (you) cannot modify the rules of physics to act in a 'different' way.

Like it or not you are a creature committed to following whatever path physics determines.

The only escape from this path requires the insertion of some 'super' natural power ...and that's another issue.

OB

 

[NxNW]

For those who call God a liar I suppose not...

Who are you referring to here?

 

[enoob57]

Who are you referring to here?

all those who deny His Word... call God a liar...

 

[jayem]

Strip away all this high level stuff and consider what you are at its most simple. You are a complex of chemistry acting in accord with the rules of physics (whatever they are).

You (you) cannot change this. You (you) cannot modify the rules of physics to act in a 'different' way.

Like it or not you are a creature committed to following whatever path physics determines.

The only escape from this path requires the insertion of some 'super' natural power ...and that's another issue.

OB

Correct. Life evolved on this planet naturally, and it follows the laws of chemistry and physics. I don’t get why so many people think this fact diminishes or demeans our existence. To me, it just makes life more wonderful and remarkable. As I see it, it’s actually kinda sad that anyone would need a supernatural entity to give their lives meaning and value.

 

[partinobodycular]

As a naturalist, I see things through a naturalistic lens Your actions are not predetermined by any external supernatural entity. They are products of the executive region of your brain--specifically, the prefrontal cortex. Which receives information about your current situation from those brain regions which process sensory input. It also calls up memories of past experiences from the hippocampus; what you've been taught and learned; what are your goals and desires; and the limbic system inputs data about your emotional state. Your prefrontal cortex synthesizes all this information together and makes the decision about what you will do. It's a sort of relative free will that's determined by the state of your brain. But it's not absolute free will. If your brain was in exactly the same state at some future time, you would make exactly the same choice. However, the normally functioning brain is highly dynamic--actually the most dynamic organ in your body. Neuronal pathways are constantly forming and re-forming, and information is being processed--even during sleep. The chance that your brain (absent major brain damage) will be in exactly the same state at 2 different times is vanishingly remote. So you do have a measure of free will, though it's limited by neurophysiology. And it's not absolute.

I can definitely accept this as pretty much the standard naturalistic explanation, but there's one particular point that I have to question, and that's this one:

If your brain was in exactly the same state at some future time, you would make exactly the same choice.

This isn't necessarily true. Preexisting conditions may serve to strongly influence one's choice, but they don't necessarily dictate that choice. Let me see if I can explain what I think is a possible counterargument, and that's indeterminacy.

We're all familiar with the double slit experiment in which it's impossible to tell from the preexisting conditions which slit the particle will go through when measured. Which leads me to wonder whether the brain also has some level of indeterminacy. Such that one can never know for certain what the outcome of a choice will be even given the exact same conditions.

However this still doesn't seem to allow for free will, it simply takes a deterministic process and makes it random, or at best probabilistic, unless one somehow invokes a hidden variable.

And yes, I'm aware that I'm attempting to apply a physical explanation to what some would claim is a supernatural process. But if someone is willing to offer a better explanation for the process of free will, then I'm all ears. I.E what is there, other than the preexisting conditions, that serves to determine one's choices?

 

[partinobodycular]

What restriction did I introduce?

The following:

Unpredictable? Yes, usually. Irrational and neurotic? Only if you are irrational and neurotic, which we all may be capable of being at times.

You've invoked something that serves to restrict your behavior. I.E if you're irrational and neurotic then you're more likely to behave that way. That's a restriction. It's not absolute, but it does serve to restrict your behavior, at least to some degree. It means that you will tend to act in a manner that's consistent with, if not wholly determined by your natural inclinations. You won't summarily kill someone even when that's a viable option.

But this leaves an unanswered question, if one isn't physically restricted by neural processes to choosing one option over another, and one's natural inclinations aren't sufficient to compel one option over another, (assuming that there's a difference between neural processes and natural inclinations), then what does compel someone to choose one option over another? To simply put it down to free will would seem to suggest that the choice is simply random. There is no underlying cause. It's essentially an uncaused cause. But if there is an underlying cause then it's not really free will, is it? Something caused you to make that particular choice.

So once again we seem to be left with only two options, either something caused you to make that particular choice, or it was random.

 

[Tinker Grey]

all those who deny His Word... call God a liar...

I don't call God a liar, I call it indistinguishable from nonexistent.

 

[enoob57]

I don't call God a liar, I call it indistinguishable from nonexistent.

God has given us two means in which we can see that He is by what He has made and a written text by over 40 authors and 1600 year period...

by what He has made
Romans 1:20 (KJV)
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
by what He has written
John 20:31 (KJV)
[31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

So like I- you are here and God says you have no excuse to not know that God 'IS' by what you have been began in... so yes you call God a liar! So when you die and find yourself before God you will remember this time when you refused the truth...

 

[NxNW]

all those who deny His Word... call God a liar...

I've never been presented with God's word.

 

[Cormack]

I don’t get why so many people think this fact diminishes or demeans our existence. To me, it just makes life more wonderful and remarkable. As I see it, it’s actually kinda sad that anyone would need a supernatural entity to give their lives meaning and value.

Everything is in comparison, no? Evolution could easily “diminish” our existence when compared to I’m not sure what.

To diminish our existence really does happen if at first you believed you were the apple of Gods eye since before the world began. Take this loving God out of the equation and your existence also loses that supernatural love, their love to life ratio has been “diminished.”

Meaning and value are lost in some sense too. What’s the meaning or the value to the atheists life after a version of godless, unguided evolution has supplanted their old beliefs in God? There’s only relative meaning, insofar that they could decide on their life’s meaning or however much other people value their life.

Lots of people are actually unloved by their fellow man and incredibly lonely throughout life, others (not being great socialites) are only valued so far as the services they provide to their family.

That’s sad, the sad reality, but those people who realise that their lives are objectively meaningless and without objective value unless there’s an eternal God to love them, that’s the most sober, honest thing they can face up to. Lots of people won’t ever be willing to face that grim reality about their so called “friends,” family and ultimately their life.

 

[Tinker Grey]

God has given us two means in which we can see that He is by what He has made and a written text by over 40 authors and 1600 year period...

by what He has made
Romans 1:20 (KJV)
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
by what He has written
John 20:31 (KJV)
[31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

So like I- you are here and God says you have no excuse to not know that God 'IS' by what you have been began in... so yes you call God a liar! So when you die and find yourself before God you will remember this time when you refused the truth...

Cool. Something else the Bible is wrong about.

 

[SelfSim]

... This isn't necessarily true. Preexisting conditions may serve to strongly influence one's choice, but they don't necessarily dictate that choice. Let me see if I can explain what I think is a possible counterargument, and that's indeterminacy.

We're all familiar with the double slit experiment in which it's impossible to tell from the preexisting conditions which slit the particle will go through when measured. Which leads me to wonder whether the brain also has some level of indeterminacy. Such that one can never know for certain what the outcome of a choice will be even given the exact same conditions.

There is no evidence that anyone's brain is capable of recognising 'the exact same conditions'. Your 'given' condition there, assumes some form of absolutism .. (which would make it a false assumption in the hypothetical).

However this still doesn't seem to allow for free will, it simply takes a deterministic process and makes it random, or at best probabilistic, unless one somehow invokes a hidden variable.

The so-called 'butterfly effect' from chaos theory, describes the middle ground between pure random and deterministic system behaviours.

And yes, I'm aware that I'm attempting to apply a physical explanation to what some would claim is a supernatural process. But if someone is willing to offer a better explanation for the process of free will, then I'm all ears. I.E what is there, other than the preexisting conditions, that serves to determine one's choices?

Complexity.

 

[SelfSim]

... But this leaves an unanswered question, if one isn't physically restricted by neural processes to choosing one option over another, and one's natural inclinations aren't sufficient to compel one option over another, (assuming that there's a difference between neural processes and natural inclinations), then what does compel someone to choose one option over another? To simply put it down to free will would seem to suggest that the choice is simply random. There is no underlying cause. It's essentially an uncaused cause. But if there is an underlying cause then it's not really free will, is it? Something caused you to make that particular choice.

This ^, is word-salad.

So once again we seem to be left with only two options, either something caused you to make that particular choice, or it was random.

The human brain is objectively caused, in one way or another. It is a fundamental pre-requisite for making any choice.
You appear to be on some kind of philosophical 'chicken or the egg' crusade here(?)

 

[zippy2006]

This is no doubt true, and I am no doubt coming into it with a great many assumptions. But I'm also trying to come into it with an open mind. I'm just asking for a little help.


"Magical" in this case simply means that I don't understand how it works, and I really do want to. This may be due to a shortcoming on my part, but not one that I'm unwilling to admit or reconsider.


Again, I have absolutely no doubt that you're right. I definitely come into this discussion with a set of preconceptions. As I assume that you do as well. If we agreed then it really wouldn't make for a very productive discussion, we'd just complement each other on our profound wisdom and commiserate over all the hopelessness of the ignorant people.

But maybe we can get past that.

If you want to learn about this topic I would suggest reading about the notion of "agent causation" in contrast to "event causation."

 

[zippy2006]

Strip away all this high level stuff and consider what you are at its most simple. You are a complex of chemistry acting in accord with the rules of physics (whatever they are).

You (you) cannot change this. You (you) cannot modify the rules of physics to act in a 'different' way.

Like it or not you are a creature committed to following whatever path physics determines.

This is secular dogma parading as rationality, nothing more.

 

[partinobodycular]

There is no evidence that anyone's brain is capable of recognising 'the exact same conditions'. Your 'given' condition there, assumes some form of absolutism .. (which would make it a false assumption in the hypothetical).

I definitely can't argue against that, then again it's supposed to be hypothetical. The essential question is, do the initial conditions dictate the outcome? If indeterminacy is correct then it's possible that the answer is no, they don't. Thus you can perhaps find a way around determinism by proposing that the outcome isn't the product of a simple deterministic process, because the process isn't actually deterministic. But if the initial conditions don't dictate the outcome then what does?

It's at this point that one could attempt to insert free will via some form of active agent, be it a conscious mind or something else which is the actual source of those free will choices. But that would seem to lead to a followup question...doesn't that active agent come with it's own initial conditions? Such that you're left with the exact same problem, you've simply transferred the initial conditions from one place to another. The problem hasn't actually gone away. The choice still boils down to either being deterministic, probabilistic, or random.

The so-called 'butterfly effect' from chaos theory, describes the middle ground between pure random and deterministic system behaviours.

And that's the place that I'm really eager to explore.

Complexity.

Complexity, indeterminacy, chaos. It seems to me that if you're going to find free will then that's where you're going to find it. I just can't figure out how.