Does determinism really negate free will?

[partinobodycular]

This ^, is word-salad.

Dang, and I hate salad, especially word salad...sorry.

You appear to be on some kind of philosophical 'chicken or the egg' crusade here(?)

Duly noted. I'll try to restrain myself.

 

[jayem]

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:


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?

Realistically, the only way one’s brain would be in the same state at 2 different times would be in the setting of brain damage or other neurologic pathology. I worked in health care 40+ years. One of my partners had an 80+ year old patient with Alzheimer’s disease. His MRI confirmed the typical atrophy of the parietal and temporal lobes, and some frontal lobe shrinkage. He’d moved in with some family members after his wife died. Who were trying to keep him out of a nursing home. It was a herculean task. There were only a few foods he’d eat. He wouldn’t bathe. He had wide mood swings from quiet and contented to rip roaring furious. With no demonstrable triggers. These are clearly not free will choices. These are symptoms of a neurologic disease.

Another example might be addiction. Addicts will choose obtaining their drugs over most all other activities. And even if they get clean in rehab, relapse—usually several times—is practically a given. (Multiple relapses after a period of sobriety is now considered a hallmark sign of physical addiction.) Their brain chemistry has changed in a way that their free will is subsumed by an overwhelming need to get their drugs of choice. Getting that dopamine rush has become the driving force of their lives.

 

[partinobodycular]

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

Thanks

From @wikipedia:

Agent causation counter-proposes the idea that an action need not be classified as either determined or random, but rather can occur under an agent's control.

But doesn't this simply transfer the initial conditions from the "event" to the "agent", meaning that the process is still either deterministic or random?

 

[SelfSim]

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?

In chaos theory, the lack of knowledge of precise initial conditions, produces unpredictable outcomes (see the history behind the Lorenz Attractor here).
This, I think(?), might be the middle ground you're looking for(?), at least from science, that is.

As far as philosophy is concerned, take your pick .. and further your knowledge by almost *zip* by looking there.

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.

Again, see determinsitc chaos.

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

There's plenty to read on it and the principles are well known in mainstream science. There is considerable evidence that parts of the brain depends on operating at a criticality point (state based, systems theory-wise) referred to as 'Edge of Chaos'.

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.

I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any direct objective results relating free will, per se, with mathematical unpredictability from previously thought as being deterministic processes, but the principles from Chaos theory point to a reliable and consistent way forward in furthering research in the general topic.

 

[enoob57]

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

Hope you realize the treasure it is before you die!

 

[Chesterton]

The following:


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.

I don't think that's a restriction. An irrational choice is still a choice. "Irrational" is just a subjective way we may choose to describe a choice.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't think that's a restriction. An irrational choice is still a choice. "Irrational" is just a subjective way we may choose to describe a choice.

If 'irrational' means 'for no reason', then the word 'choice' can be used.
However, where a rational reason is cited a different word can be used, ie: 'decision'.

As far as the options suggested by @partinobodycular, ie: caused or random, I cannot see why randomness cannot also be 'a cause'. In fact, neuroscience, for years, used the term: 'Bereitschaftspotential' (or readinesss potential) first coined by a researcher, Benjamin Libet, to make the case that its not just the brain that displays signals of a decision before someone acts, but that the brain is actually building up activity, well prior to there even being any choices to consider.
(Libet's idea (the 1970s) more or less fell by the wayside, in the light of more controlled experimental data becoming available).

 

[NxNW]

Hope you realize the treasure it is before you die!

I've been presented with documents claiming to be God's word, but they were clearly false.

 

[Vap841]

I have no idea how people can buy into this deterministic idea when we can all be guilty of being wishy washy with our decisions. I mean I moved not too long ago, but I keep thinking about making my way back! I’m New York City born and raised but nowadays I’m lost between two shores. L.A.’s fine but it ain’t home, New York’s home but it ain’t mine no more. And I am lost, and I can’t even say why.

 

[martymonster]

Freewill is a man made doctrine. It is not supported by scripture.

 

[SelfSim]

I have no idea how people can buy into this deterministic idea when we can all be guilty of being wishy washy with our decisions. I mean I moved not too long ago, but I keep thinking about making my way back! I’m New York City born and raised but nowadays I’m lost between two shores. L.A.’s fine but it ain’t home, New York’s home but it ain’t mine no more. And I am lost, and I can’t even say why.

Imagine how it feels for non-english speaking, non Christian refugees in the US!?

 

[SelfSim]

Freewill is a man made doctrine. It is not supported by scripture.

And the doctrines supported by scriptures aren't human concepts?
How could you possibly understand them if that wasn't so?

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't think that's a restriction. An irrational choice is still a choice. "Irrational" is just a subjective way we may choose to describe a choice.

But that's really missing the point isn't it. It doesn't matter if you call a behavior irrational, or brilliant, or normal, or whatever. The fact that you won't run around naked in church is because there's something acting to restrict your behavior. It's not a physical restriction necessarily, it's not restricting what you can do, but none-the-less it's restricting what you'll choose to do. As I say it's not an absolute restriction, you could still choose to run around naked in church, but it does seem to be pretty effective.

So even if dualism is true, there are still things acting to restrict what you'll choose to do.

 

[SkyWriting]

Calvinists are an argumentative, rude people.

I try not to classify people or make broad generalizations.

 

[Vap841]

The fact that you won't run around naked in church is because there's something acting to restrict your behavior.

…As I say it's not an absolute restriction, you could still choose to run around naked in church

Wait what? Determinism will stop you from running around naked in church, but the thing is that you could still choose to run around naked in church??

 

[zippy2006]

So even if dualism is true, there are still things acting to restrict what you'll choose to do.

This is asking me to do something that I am definitely not qualified to do...define dualistic.

The only people who have referenced dualism in this thread are FrumiousBandersnatch and yourself. It doesn't actually add to the conversation, it complicates things considerably, and the introduction of the term is based on Frumious' doubtful claim that everyone who believes in free will is, "wittingly or unwittingly," a dualist.

I would suggest that you not worry about dualism at all, especially if you are not qualified to define it. Just focus on how determinism and free will interrelate. Tangential considerations are not important at this point.

 

[Cormack]

I try not to classify people or make broad generalizations.

You should make generalisations, because there’s an in general. You might be confusing generalisations (which are good) with stereotypes (which are bad.)

“Blacks love watermelon” is a stereotype and should be avoided, because there are lots of black men, women and children who don’t really like watermelon.

Whereas “certain kinds of minds are drawn to that [Calvinism.] And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative” that’s an example of pattern recognition. It’s shades of an in general, made by a Calvinist no less.

imo you should be more concerned with making false claims like “nobody really understands tulip” alongside “I’ve never studied Calvinism,” because writing things like that is an example of the rabid double think that characterises the Calvinist camp.

 

[Vap841]

We have about as much free will as a rock. Rocks and people are both governed by the known and unknown rules of physics. Neither has the power to change these rules or their outcome.

I’ve never met a person who “Acts like physics.” How can people have varying personalities that you & me would classify as annoying, friendly, boring, entertaining, etc, if it is an absurdity to ever refer to the laws of physics with such classifications? How do deterministic laws of physics lead to personalities?

 

[Occams Barber]

I’ve never met a person who “Acts like physics.” How can people have varying personalities that you & me would classify as annoying, friendly, boring, entertaining, etc, if it is an absurdity to ever refer to the laws of physics with such classifications? How do deterministic laws of physics lead to personalities?

You need to firstly put aside any Christian considerations, bury your anthropomorphic bias and then adopt the mindset of a reductionist:

• The Universe is composed of matter and energy
• Matter and energy act in accordance with the laws of physics
• You are part of the universe
• Therefore you are also composed of matter and energy
• Since you are composed of matter and energy your actions, at their most basic, are determined by the laws of physics

Think of yourself as a rock. In the same way a rock can't act outside of physical laws - neither can you. And, if you look closely, no two rocks are the same.

The obvious difference is that you are a little more complex than a rock. Even so, you are still only the sum total of all your little bits of matter and energy each acting in accordance with the laws of physics.

OB

 

[Vap841]

You need to firstly put aside any Christian considerations, bury your anthropomorphic bias

Anthropomorphic bias itself is an absurd concept if reality is nothing but laws of nature. Christian bias itself is an absurd concept in a reality that is exhaustively just laws of nature.

and then adopt the mindset of a reductionist:

Why adopt incoherence?

• The Universe is composed of matter and energy
• Matter and energy act in accordance with the laws of physics
• You are part of the universe
• Therefore you are also composed of matter and energy
• Since you are composed of matter and energy your actions, at their most basic, are determined by the laws of physics

I agree with you up until this point.

Think of yourself as a rock. In the same way a rock can't act outside of physical laws - neither can you. And, if you look closely, no two rocks are the same.

The obvious difference is that you are a little more complex than a rock. Even so, you are still only the sum total of all your little bits of matter and energy each acting in accordance with the laws of physics.

OB

Touching on my previous post, I’ve never met a rock with a personality. And your model of exhaustive reality hits a wall at entities such as rocks. So actually, I CAN speak of Christian biases and anthropomorphic biases…but you need a new model of reality to do so.

Chemistry doesn’t have a personality. Cell biology doesn’t have a personality. Our friend the rock doesn’t have a personality. If we continue to climb up the ladder of emergent properties I don’t see any level where it would become a rational prediction that a thing called personality would start showing up. In fact your “Subset of reality” that’s disguised as exhaustive reality would precisely lead to a universe of mental rocks (if I could be forgiven hear for incoherently butchering the term “Mental” which wouldn’t even exist in your model).

The term “Personality” itself completely loses all sense of meaning if it’s not being used in reference to choices (or turns of events) that look nothing at all like rocks, or physics, or protein synthesis, etc. How many other terms lose all sense of meaning as well? “Guilty” “Innocent” “Bad” “Good” “Interesting” “Unfortunate”
“The very argument itself that terms such as ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ and ‘Unfortunate’ are nothing but relativistic human constructs”…

…all of these terms and concepts are pure unintelligible gibberish to apply towards laws of nature. It sounds like talking about “The color of confidence.” Unless of course you left something out of your exhaustive model of reality. But you didn’t, you said everything is just the sum total of matter and energy acting in accordance to laws of nature.