Free will and determinism

[Chesterton]

It's not magic. I am determined (in the free will sense) to prefer that criminals become better citizens. So I am determined (same meaning) to try to persuade people of my view. If they accept the evidence I present then they will in turn be determined to act accordingly.

So they are free to accept or reject the evidence?

If no-one accepts the evidence - if they are the type of people who are determined not to believe that free will does not exist, then nothing changes.

I'm confused by what this sentence means. As best I can tell, there are two types of people - those determined to believe in free will and those determined not to believe. And you have some magic woo power to defy nature's physics and un-determine one of those types?

I didn't mean that I thought it was morally right. It's the one that wins the fight will think the win justified.

That's only true when it's true. A young street thug who steals a little old lady's purse may be happy to have the money, but he will not think the win was justified.

Uh? They look entirely different. There are dark squares and light squares. A looks dark and B looks light. But they are actually identical

It only appears that way.

 

[Bradskii]

So they are free to accept or reject the evidence?

If it's convincing then they'll have no choice. Bearing in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm confused by what this sentence means. As best I can tell, there are two types of people - those determined to believe in free will and those determined not to believe. And you have some magic woo power to defy nature's physics and un-determine one of those types?

I always thought that we had it. But I'm the type of guy that is determined to have an interest in the matter. So I read a lot about it. I studied it. I watched videos, read papers and articles. Bought books. And I was convinced by the evidence that it didn't exist. The weight of the evidence was such that I now have no choice in the matter. In your case, the evidence is not sufficient.

That's only true when it's true. A young street thug who steals a little old lady's purse may be happy to have the money, but he will not think the win was justified.

He obviously thinks that he can take what he wants simply because he can. He thinks that he has the right. Rather obviously.

It only appears that way.

That's right. Just as it appears that we have free will. The point being is that what we experience is not always a reflection of reality.

 

[Chesterton]

If it's convincing then they'll have no choice. Bearing in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I always thought that we had it. But I'm the type of guy that is determined to have an interest in the matter. So I read a lot about it. I studied it. I watched videos, read papers and articles. Bought books. And I was convinced by the evidence that it didn't exist. The weight of the evidence was such that I now have no choice in the matter. In your case, the evidence is not sufficient.

Your deterministic philosophy is based on physics, yet above you've twice used the word "convince". I'd bet that if you read 100 of the best books on physics, you'll not find one use of the word convince. The Earth is not convinced to orbit the Sun. If you shoot me through the heart, I'll die, but you have not convinced me to die. It's like the difference between seduction and rape. I might seduce a woman, even by using lies and deception, but I've convinced her; she makes a free choice whether to make love to me, even if under false pretenses. If I rape a woman, this is a purely physical act; in that case she is not convinced. So I really don't understand what you mean by convince.

He obviously thinks that he can take what he wants simply because he can.

Agreed.

He thinks that he has the right. Rather obviously.

No he doesn't, unless he's mentally ill.

That's right. Just as it appears that we have free will. The point being is that what we experience is not always a reflection of reality.

Are you ever concerned about the fact that it also appears that we don't have free will?

 

[Bradskii]

Your deterministic philosophy is based on physics, yet above you've twice used the word "convince". I'd bet that if you read 100 of the best books on physics, you'll not find one use of the word convince. The Earth is not convinced to orbit the Sun.

The books are generally facts about scientific matters. Like 'the earth orbits the sun'. It'll give some details, show you some facts. It will make sense to you or not. You'll be convinced that we zip around the sun once every 12 months. Or maybe you're a flat earther and you're not convinced.

I really don't know how else to put this. The evidence - the actual facts presented, will either sound reasonable to you and you'll therefore accept them. Or you'll find them unreasonable and you'll reject them.

No he doesn't, unless he's mentally ill.

I might qualify my earlier statement. I have said before that even criminals know that they're doing wrong. Unless, as you said, they are mentally ill. I should say that he thinks his might allows him to rob the old lady rather than he thinks he has the right.

Are you ever concerned about the fact that it also appears that we don't have free will?

Well, no. That's like asking if I'm concerned that it appears that the world is turning rather than the sun is rising. It feels like the sun is rising but I know it isn't. Same with free will.

And I have to say that I haven't heard of anyone who feels like they don't have it. Even the strongest proponents in the 'no free will' corner always say that it feels exactly like they have it. Even Sapolski says he struggles with it constantly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, it is falsifiable.

No, it's not.

Show me an event without a cause.

Why? That's not how we (or determinists) are describing free will. As laid out multiple times in the thread...a free will choice is one where another outcome was also possible.

I don't see (and you can't explain) why free will would require an uncaused event.

You're moving the goalposts in hopes of keeping your conception of determinism as something within the realm of logic....instead of the realm of faith where it belongs.

It's really that simple.

Indeed.

 

[Chesterton]

The books are generally facts about scientific matters. Like 'the earth orbits the sun'. It'll give some details, show you some facts. It will make sense to you or not. You'll be convinced that we zip around the sun once every 12 months. Or maybe you're a flat earther and you're not convinced.

I really don't know how else to put this. The evidence - the actual facts presented, will either sound reasonable to you and you'll therefore accept them. Or you'll find them unreasonable and you'll reject them.

I agree. We are free to make a choice. Things can influence our minds, but nothing can force our minds.

Well, no. That's like asking if I'm concerned that it appears that the world is turning rather than the sun is rising. It feels like the sun is rising but I know it isn't. Same with free will.

And I have to say that I haven't heard of anyone who feels like they don't have it. Even the strongest proponents in the 'no free will' corner always say that it feels exactly like they have it. Even Sapolski says he struggles with it constantly.

Since you're being honest, I'll be honest and admit that I've questioned free will. Once I was brushing my teeth, and out of nowhere a thought popped into my mind of a kid I knew in 2nd grade. I hadn't ever thought of that kid since 2nd grade. I tried to determine what caused the thought. I tried to recall my "train of thought", to remember what I was thinking about immediately before that thought, but I couldn't remember because I wasn't paying attention to my thoughts, I was just brushing my teeth. Something must have caused that thought, but I don't know what.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree. We are free to make a choice. Things can influence our minds, but nothing can force our minds.

Agreed.

Since you're being honest, I'll be honest and admit that I've questioned free will. Once I was brushing my teeth, and out of nowhere a thought popped into my mind of a kid I knew in 2nd grade. I hadn't ever thought of that kid since 2nd grade. I tried to determine what caused the thought. I tried to recall my "train of thought", to remember what I was thinking about immediately before that thought, but I couldn't remember because I wasn't paying attention to my thoughts, I was just brushing my teeth. Something must have caused that thought, but I don't know what.

It's funny how the mind works when it's free to roam. I just let it wander off then and thought of a girl I kissed in third grade, a guy in school I haven't seen or thought about in over 50 years and an American I met in a bar when I was 16 who looked a lot like Dennis Hopper. Where did they spring from? That's about as random as it gets.

 

[Chesterton]

Agreed.

You agree that we're free to make choices?

 

[Bradskii]

You agree that we're free to make choices?

We make choices. We are not forced to do so. But the choices we make will always be what we prefer. Which will be determined. That they are determined does not equate to them being forced upon you.

 

[Chesterton]

We make choices. We are not forced to do so. But the choices we make will always be what we prefer. Which will be determined. That they are determined does not equate to them being forced upon you.

I don't understand the difference between being determined and being forced. Physics determine that the Earth will orbit the Sun, therefore the Earth is forced to orbit it. Earth doesn't have a choice in the matter. ("Force" is a physics term, by the way.)

 

[Bradskii]

I don't understand the difference between being determined and being forced. Physics determine that the Earth will orbit the Sun, therefore the Earth is forced to orbit it. Earth doesn't have a choice in the matter.

Swap 'was the reason' for 'determined'. So 'there are various physical reasons for the earth's orbit around the sun'.

Or 'The fact that I broke a guitar string on Friday night determined that I had croissants for breakfast on Saturday' becomes ''The fact that I broke a guitar string on Friday night was the reason that I had croissants for breakfast on Saturday'.

Obviously it wasn't the only reason, but you get the idea. When we look to see what determined our choices we are looking for the reasons why we made them.

 

[Astrid]

So they are free to accept or reject the evidence?

I'm confused by what this sentence means. As best I can tell, there are two types of people - those determined to believe in free will and those determined not to believe. And you have some magic woo power to defy nature's physics and un-determine one of those types?

That's only true when it's true. A young street thug who steals a little old lady's purse may be happy to have the money, but he will not think the win was justified.

It only appears that way.

The two types of people are :

-those who decide what to provisionally
accept based on quality of evidence.
This is a requisite approach to research



-those who think they have the absolute truth
before they even hear the evidence, and will
never budge from that.

We see that latter from those who believe that the
flood story is literally true in every detail

 

[Chesterton]

Swap 'was the reason' for 'determined'. So 'there are various physical reasons for the earth's orbit around the sun'.

Or 'The fact that I broke a guitar string on Friday night determined that I had croissants for breakfast on Saturday' becomes ''The fact that I broke a guitar string on Friday night was the reason that I had croissants for breakfast on Saturday'.

Obviously it wasn't the only reason, but you get the idea. When we look to see what determined our choices we are looking for the reasons why we made them.

In some sense you can swap those words, in another you can't. A man working on his roof slips and falls to the ground. Was gravity the reason he fell? Yes. Did gravity determine that he would fall? Yes. But is the universe arranged so that he was pre-determined to slip at the particular moment in time? No. He had a choice to be more careful or less careful.

 

[Chesterton]

The two types of people are :

-those who decide what to provisionally
accept based on quality of evidence.
This is a requisite approach to research



-those who think they have the absolute truth
before they even hear the evidence, and will
never budge from that.

We see that latter from those who believe that the
flood story is literally true in every detail

Okay, but that hasn't much to do with free will vs. determinism, the topic of this thread. If you want to criticize Old Testament literalism you can do it in the science forum where you usually do it.

 

[Chesterton]

You are honest or dishonest, depending
on the situation?

Ha ha. There's telling the truth, then there's telling the whole truth. @Bradskii made an admission against interest, so I felt obliged to reciprocate and do the same. I respect him for that. He's probably a better man than I since he did it first.

 

[Bradskii]

In some sense you can swap those words, in another you can't. A man working on his roof slips and falls to the ground. Was gravity the reason he fell? Yes. Did gravity determine that he would fall? Yes. But is the universe arranged so that he was pre-determined to slip at the particular moment in time? No. He had a choice to be more careful or less careful.

His careful attitude determined that he wouldn't fall. His careless attitude determined that he would. But maybe a bird flew past and startled him. Maybe he had a dizzy spell. Maybe a car backfired and made him lose his grip. There are a gazillion antecedent conditions. All of which lead to whatever happened to him. They are all the reasons why he fell. Or why he didn't. All of them determined the event.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

It isn't a "free-reasoned choice" we're concerned about....it's a free will choice.

In which case, arbitrary choices are still free will choices.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Just...no lol none of this is true.

 

[Astrid]

Just...no lol none of this is true.

Why?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There may be what we'd describe as random events at the deepest of levels. But whatever happens waaay down where the physics is almost counterintuitive, by the time it filters up to where we live and my guitar string breaks or it starts to rain, or someone decides to break into your house, that is deterministic. Cause and event. A then B. IF this THEN that.

I appreciate the admission of inferential logic.

1.6 Logical inference and logical equivalence

m.formallogic.eu

As I already pointed out....there's nothing actually logical about this.

We can generally determine what caused someone to commit such a crime. Paddock is an exception that seems to prove the rule.

It's not a rule then.

Lack of will. Lack of knowledge. Lack of money. Ensuring that every child has a good ACE score, that is - has been raised in a good environment with loving parents, good education, a healthy diet etc...that will go a long way to prevent people going off the rails. There's no doubt about that. But it's a monstrous change to every level of society.

Look at the Norway experiment in treating convicted people with respect. Giving them access to comfortable cells with access to TV, the internet, gyms etc. The recidivism rate crops spectacularly. From here: How Norway turns criminals into good neighbours

'When Are Hoidal first began his career in the Norwegian Correctional service in the early 1980s, the prison experience here was altogether different.

"It was completely hard," he remembers. "It was a masculine, macho culture with a focus on guarding and security. And the recidivism rate was around 60-70%, like in the US."

And since our big reforms, recidivism in Norway has fallen to only 20% after two years and about 25% after five years. So this works!"

This is where that acceptance that we have no free will leads. It's not a particular inmate's fault that he started robbing people. There were reasons which he could not control. So don't bang him up in awful conditions as retributive punishment. Try to get him to accept that what he did was wrong. Try to change his mind. Take him off the streets to protect people until he does. But only until he does.

And I think we're at a contradiction here...

Your entire view is that causes beyond criminals' control caused him to commit a crime....

Yet somehow, these causes won't exist or won't matter once the sympathetic criminal is released in Norway.

Now a lot of people would baulk at that. Certainly a hundred or so years ago the punishment was entirely retributive. Make it harsh. Make them suffer! That's what they deserve! There was no conception of what the Norwegians are doing. So suggesting to someone that they shouldn't be punished because they committed a crime due to reasons beyond their control simply wouldn't work.

We don't know what causes are at play.

What about Singapore? They beat people for littering. One of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Now we know - or at least a few more of us know, that that isn't how it works.

You believe, you don't know.

If I hold a flame to your foot then you'll feel pain. If I ask you what is causing that pain then you'll say it's the damage the flame is causing to your foot. If your foot literally doesn't exist then there are no nerves sending messages to your brain. But what you feel if your actual foot is burning is the same as the imaginary pain that you feel if it doesn't exist.

You don't feel "imaginary pain". Phantom pain from limb loss is a result of nerve damage at the point of amputation.