Free will and determinism

[truthpls]

I'll pass on the spirits. But you are right that greed and lust are major determinants on our actions. But you can't choose to be greedy.

? Why not? Some seem to do so

You can't choose to feel lust. There's no free will there.

We can choose how to react

 

[Bradskii]

It has to be the case that prior influences determine. If that were not the case, then the choice would be arbitrary, and that's not a free- reasoned-choice.

I agree there is no way around it. What do you think follows from that? I think it matters that we want certain choices, but I'm not sure why it matters unless the end result is our realization that it doesn't matter. Does that make sense?

It does matter that we get that which we prefer. It matters if we don't. And we are mostly completely unaware of what has happened, over which we have no control, that gets us to one of those results.

If we look at it materially, logically, as opposed to emotionally, then it's beyond any doubt whatsoever that there were reasons why we made a decision that were not under our control.

Hardly anything changes if we realise that. We still make choices. We still either get what we prefer or we don't. We still know right from wrong. We still congratulate people for something they did or berate them for something they didn't. Life still goes on.

I look on it like an acceptance of the evolutionary process. I know that a lot of what I do are evolved responses. Now whether I understand that or I reject that I am still going to respond exactly the same way. Nothing changes.

 

[public hermit]

It does matter that we get that which we prefer. It matters if we don't. And we are mostly completely unaware of what has happened, over which we have no control, that gets us to one of those results.

If we look at it materially, logically, as opposed to emotionally, then it's beyond any doubt whatsoever that there were reasons why we made a decision that were not under our control.

Hardly anything changes if we realise that. We still make choices. We still either get what we prefer or we don't. We still know right from wrong. We still congratulate people for something they did or berate them for something they didn't. Life still goes on.

I look on it like an acceptance of the evolutionary process. I know that a lot of what I do are evolved responses. Now whether I understand that or I reject that I am still going to respond exactly the same way. Nothing changes.

Does evolution will that we do good?

 

[Bradskii]

Why not? Some seem to do so

It's not possible. If you are a generous person then you can't decide to be greedy. If you decide you want more cake or want more money then that it what you prefer at that moment. You can't decide not to prefer that which you do prefer.

We can choose how to react

Of course. Based on the conditions at the time. Having the ability to choose doesn't mean that therefore free will exists.

 

[Bradskii]

Does evolution will that we do good?

No. All evolution does is remove from the gene pool some of those that don't have beneficial characteristics. They are filtered out to leave mostly those that have beneficial ones. Beneficial for the survival of the individual, that is (some may say the survival of the species - it's an ongoing debate).

That which works we describe as being good.

 

[public hermit]

No. All evolution does is remove from the gene pool some of those that don't have beneficial characteristics. They are filtered out to leave mostly those that have beneficial ones. Beneficial for the survival of the individual, that is (some may say the survival of the species - it's an ongoing debate).

That which works we describe as being good.

Yeah, but why wouldn't that include our choosing good, i. e., that which is beneficial to survival?

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah, but why wouldn't that include our choosing good, i. e., that which is beneficial to survival?

Well, you're generally not likely to make a choice to do something that results in you not surviving. And yes, I appreciate that some people are known to have sacrificed themselves for others and that appears to fly in the face of 'survival of the fittest'. It's one of the arguments that people use when they say that survival refers to the species as opposed to the individual.

 

[truthpls]

It's not possible. If you are a generous person then you can't decide to be greedy.

You assume people are a certain way at birth. You assume no sin. If we assume there is sin in the world, then with God's help we can resist temptations. I have not yet met the child that was sinless and perfect. Certainly not the adult. So if there is sin, then there is a choice.

If you decide you want more cake or want more money then that it what you prefer at that moment. You can't decide not to prefer that which you do prefer.

Says you with no reason or basis for the claim. The bible says God will come in to us and dwell with us and lead us into all good things basically. After that, we have more ability to resist too much cake etc. We can change who we are by having God in us help us be different. That is choice all the way. WE do not have to be a slave to what we 'prefer'

Of course. Based on the conditions at the time. Having the ability to choose doesn't mean that therefore free will exists.

Regardless of conditions man can choose. What we choose affects what conditions we will face to a large extent. Freedom to choose is a gift. And our choices affect our eternal destiny as well as this life.

 

[public hermit]

Well, you're generally not likely to make a choice to do something that results in you not surviving. And yes, I appreciate that some people are known to have sacrificed themselves for others and that appears to fly in the face of 'survival of the fittest'. It's one of the arguments that people use when they say that survival refers to the species as opposed to the individual.

I'm thinking "the good" of survival is commensurate with, to be vulgar, Plato's form of the good. The ideal and the practical "cash value" are the same thing. So why should I reject the telos (end) in favor of the function? Aren't they the same? Why shouldn't my "good" choices be more than a product of determinism when it is also what I want?

 

[Bradskii]

You assume people are a certain way at birth. You assume no sin. If we assume there is sin in the world, then with God's help we can resist temptations. I have not yet met the child that was sinless and perfect. Certainly not the adult. So if there is sin, then there is a choice.

Says you with no reason or basis for the claim. The bible says God will come in to us and dwell with us and lead us into all good things basically. After that, we have more ability to resist too much cake etc. We can change who we are by having God in us help us be different. That is choice all the way. WE do not have to be a slave to what we 'prefer'

Regardless of conditions man can choose. What we choose affects what conditions we will face to a large extent. Freedom to choose is a gift. And our choices affect our eternal destiny as well as this life.

I think you are bringing religious arguments into the thread. I'm not interested. Someone else may respond but not me.

 

[public hermit]

I'm thinking "the good" of survival is commensurate with, to be vulgar, Plato's form of the good. The ideal and the practical "cash value" are the same thing. So why should I reject the telos (end) in favor of the function? Aren't they the same? Why shouldn't my "good" choices be more than a product of determinism when it is also what I want?

I should probably be more clear. I don't see anything different between the evolutionary drive toward survival and most theistic conceptions of God. The main difference being that survival is extended past the phenomenal experience with theism, but both are predicated on a grasping of "goodness" that transcends the phenomena, We all agree on a significant amount of what works, what leads to life. But does it matter that it leads to life? I think it's everything, and that (somehow) transcends the experiential fact of having a life. This is probably mystical., but it (the good) transcends and includes our phenomenal experience.

Are our choices free? Yes, only if they lead to goodness.

 

[truthpls]

I think you are bringing religious arguments into the thread. I'm not interested. Someone else may respond but not me.

There is no intelligent alternative when talking about choice.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm thinking "the good" of survival is commensurate with, to be vulgar, Plato's form of the good. The ideal and the practical "cash value" are the same thing. So why should I reject the telos (end) in favor of the function? Aren't they the same?

'Good' is just what works from an evolutionary perspective (although on a more trivial level it can also be simply what you prefer). Pretty much 'that which increases fitness'. For example, incest is thought of as 'bad' because genetic problems have removed from the genetic pool those who thought it might be OK . Leaving behind those that think it doesn't feel right. But if biology was different and sex with a close family member was evolutionary beneficial, then sex with someone outside the family would be taboo

Why shouldn't my "good" choices be more than a product of determinism when it is also what I want?

On that more trivial level, if what you want is a simple desire for something then if it's your preference you'll act in a way to achieve it. Your choice has been determined. You can't prefer something that you don't want and you can't not prefer something that you do (bear in mind that you might prefer to go to the pub rather than the gym, but if your preference is to lose weight and increase your fitness then you'll skip what you want for what you prefer).

If it's on a more 'evolutionary' level, you might want a drink because your body triggers the sensation of thirst because you are slightly dehydrated. It's not then a preference. It's a need.

Therein lies a syntactical problem. We interchange want and need and prefer all the time. In discussions like this it's hard not to mix them up.

 

[Bradskii]

This is probably mystical., but it (the good) transcends and includes our phenomenal experience.

Yeah, a tad too mystical for me.

Are our choices free?

You are free to make them in the sense that you are not being forced. But they are determined. A lot of people don't see the difference there and I understand their problem.

 

[public hermit]

You are free to make them in the sense that you are not being forced. But they are determined. A lot of people don't see the difference there and I understand their problem.

I think you agree that if a choice is not reasonable, it is neither good nor free, but why?

 

[Bradskii]

I think you agree that if a choice is not reasonable, it is neither good nor free, but why?

It's not free in any sense, good or bad. But when the choice is made it is, without any doubt, what the person preferred at that time. So good in that sense. Whether it was reasonable is another matter. I can't see someone preferring something that they know is unreasonable. But I guess there might be an example. Maybe it's for others to decide on that.

 

[stevevw]

It is. And you have not offered a single argument against it.

No its not. Just like neurology and the neurological correlates of consciousness cannot explain consciousness (the Hard Problem of Consciousness) or how logic and science cannot explain morality (the Is and Ought problem). The same with agency and free will. Theres an explanatory gap that the material reductionist explanations cannot account for. This is just simple basic fact.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah, OK. When you said, "The autonomous car does not have free will because, with humans, "will" indicates desire", I took that to suggest that desire was necessary for free will. I'm not sure how else to parse it...

I'm fairly certain I didn't say this...I think I'd recall speaking about an autonomous car.

If a door was selected, then either it was prompted by some preference or it was random (including pseudo-random, e.g. thermal noise or chaotic activity in the brain).

These would be those "cause of the gaps" arguments I mentioned earlier.

I don't see any of these as being a more likely response from the subject when asked why they opened the door on the left/right. It's likely a simple "I wanted to leave the room" response.


I'm uncertain about what "random" means in this context.

If you want to refer to causes as "preferences" in this context....that's fine....but I'd suggest the preference is the same for either door...a "preference" to leave the room.

I already suggested some reasons for preference (e.g. handedness).

Sure...and that's fun to imagine...but disappears as a liklihood once the number of doors is 5.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is my belief that the causal influences/factors have total dominion, and I'll get to that in this next line immediately after this that I say to you, etc.

Sure...and this is where it's going to sound more like a faith based worldview than a scientific one or logical one even.

From the moment a person is first formed, they immediately have the influencing factor of their unique makeup throwing off that 50/50, and then their experiences after that also, all causing it not to be 50/50 after that ever again, etc, if even it ever was, etc.

This suggests that if I were to conduct a thread survey...and ask if anyone preferred (in the abstract) left or right or no preference....nobody would select no preference.

I doubt that's likely. I imagine many people have no preference.

Or why do two different people choose two different doors? What you are suggesting is true randomness which doesn't really ever exist, etc.

As I told @FrumiousBandersnatch, I have no idea what "random" means here.

And that's what I mean about nothing ever being 50/50, etc. One person chooses one door, and another the other door because there were different causal influences/factors involved for each person that affected each person differently, etc.

Why can't it be the same cause for most if not all people, regardless of choice?

See....this is what I didn't want to happen. I know you believe that some unknown cause of the gaps exists for each person....but there's no reason or explanation for why this has to be (other than "you say it’s so")....

If you were the subject and you chose the right door....and then I was the subject and chose the left....why can't the cause of our choices be the same "desire to leave the room"?

That seems far more likely than some obscure occurrence in our respective childhoods causing the difference.

Otherwise they should both choose the same door in a situation like that probably, etc. Antecedent conditions automatically begin being formed from the moment that person is first formed changing anything from ever being 50/50 after that for them each individually, etc. And again, what you are suggesting is 100% complete/true randomness that doesn't really ever exist ever, and that's why they are not/cannot ever be 100% 50/50, etc. You are ingonring the fact that there are/already always have been influences involved that always affect/change/always affect/alter that always, etc.

If I bumped into you on the street, and before you can get a basic greeting from your lips, I flip a coin into the air and say "call it"....

Are you saying that there's no 50/50 choices because your choice is a certainty?

Are you saying that the correct choice is one or the other?

What exactly do you mean there's no 50/50 choices? I meant it as an expression of probability.

That's exactly what I am trying to be getting around to saying or showing, etc. That this entire universe is just only one possibility, etc.

You aren't showing anything....this is a testament of faith. The only reason why you cannot simply admit that it's entirely possible for two different outcomes to arise from exactly the same causal factors is that would be free will....and then this worldview isn't worth troubling anyone over.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Ana the Ist

We've been over this already, but we can still prevent or try alter or change a thing from happening, or alter/affect/change/try to change something/anything in general at all, etc, because none of us knows all the destinct deep details of determinism, or knows what is supposed to be happening, or what is supposed to be (yet), and because we are a potential part of that process still from our perspective or point of view, etc.

Not if your point of view is determinism lol.

From that point of view...you aren't doing anything.

Or to sum it up, there is still plenty we can do about everything from our perspective or point of view, etc.

Golly, you speak as if your perspective is completely divorced from the concept of determinism.

Just go ahead and square that circle for me please....

You've got this all encompassing understanding of the universe....but it in no way affects your perception of the universe.

How odd...it's as if it's not a sincerely held belief at all.