Free will and determinism

[Ana the Ist]

Do you think that if a person fans out a deck of 52 playing cards and says "Pick a card, any card", the past has determined which of the 52 cards I will pick?

Not only do they think that if you pick a card.. there's a magical unknown reason for it....but it's a reason for that card and that card alone. Not only that, but all other 51 cards also have such magical reasons and causes....and they are all exclusive to each choice (they must be, or you could have chosen something else).....

They choose determinism because of it's feel good vibes....we're all in the same boat, no one is really guilty, it's a very complete worldview....

You basically made the 2 door choice with 52 doors. Determinism literally looks dumber and dumber the more we scale up the hypothetical....

Imagine cards came in decks of 300.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I suppose that could happen, but I'm reminded of a video I saw once. As narrated by a scientist who was studying them, there was this pack of wild horses, and a male horse who was the leader of the pack. He had a harem of females, and also controlled the territory where there was water. An interloper from outside the pack came to challenge him, and when they started fighting, a free-for-all broke out. Every male started fighting every other male. Eventually one male came out on top. The story ended there, but I suspect the new leader was no more amenable to sharing and caring than the previous one was.

And that's really how it goes for alpha males typically.

They have their time, they are deposed by a new alpha....and the cycle continues.

So when considering what could break the cycle....consider that chimps do group up for certain activities (war patrols, etc) and if advanced far enough....it's not a stretch to imagine that the tribe ganged up on the alpha for access to females. This tribe now has a new consideration....anyone who tries to horde females faces the consequences of the tribe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. You did what you preferred to do.

Also a ridiculous statement.

You always do.

I will likely be gathering and taking out the trash later. I prefer not to. I prefer my wife do it instead....unfortunately, I can't spend all my time doing as I prefer...few can.

 

[Astrid]

His last statement I quoted....

That which works we describe as being good.

Good in that context refers to moral good.

That’s not how we get morals.

Seems to me it is.

 

[Chesterton]

From Stanford: 'In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity.'

That definition has been clarified someway upstream. An agent is the person carrying out the act.

As regards programmed robots, you can programme it to do a specific task. Do this, then do that. Or you can get it to act depending on the circumstances. Let's call that one Chester. Let's make it humanoid. Now if Chester needs to get somewhere and it wants to do it in the shortest possible time, should it decide to walk or take a bus? Yeah, it would 'prefer' to take the bus. And what happens if its sensors tell it it's low on power? Should it look for a way to take on energy? Yeah, it would.

The power needs to be paid for so it needs to find the means to pay for it. It has certain abilities programmed into it from an earlier model. So it'll look around for something suitable that pays well, doesn't involve too much travelling and allows him enough down time to chat online about philosophical matters so that it'll increase its knowledge about that subject.

See where I'm going?

Do you see where you're going? If your belief in determinism is merely your preference, how can it be true? If you prefer the taste of vanilla over the taste of chocolate, does that mean vanilla is "true"?

 

[Chesterton]

They choose determinism because of it's feel good vibes....we're all in the same boat, no one is really guilty, it's a very complete worldview....

Yes. This reminds me of a post years ago - Merits of Christianity if supernatural claims are false

...and my response - Merits of Christianity if supernatural claims are false

 

[Chesterton]

This tribe now has a new consideration....anyone who tries to horde females faces the consequences of the tribe.

To quote the late, great Norm MacDonald: No offense, but that sounds like some ________ commie gobbledygook.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you see where you're going? If your belief in determinism is merely your preference, how can it be true? If you prefer the taste of vanilla over the taste of chocolate, does that mean vanilla is "true"?

That determinism is true is not a preference. I don't prefer that the world turns and the sun only appears to rise. I don't prefer that events follow causes. And it's nonsensical to say that if I prefer vanilla then vanilla is 'true'. What's true is that I prefer vanilla. So for whatever reason that is actually true, it will be one of the antecedent conditions which dictates my choice of ice cream.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. This reminds me of a post years ago - Merits of Christianity if supernatural claims are false

...and my response - Merits of Christianity if supernatural claims are false

Coming to terms with there being no free will isn't a solution to anything. In itself it solves no problems. It just means that you might have to rethink some of the solutions. Punishment being the topic de jour.

 

[Chesterton]

That determinism is true is not a preference. I don't prefer that the world turns and the sun only appears to rise. I don't prefer that events follow causes. And it's nonsensical to say that if I prefer vanilla then vanilla is 'true'. What's true is that I prefer vanilla. So for whatever reason that is actually true, it will be one of the antecedent conditions which dictates my choice of ice cream.

Again, the bald assertion. I don't think you'd be impressed if I said that free will is true just as 2+2=4 is true. That's an assertion, not an argument. According to you, everything is a matter of preference, determined by physics, except for your belief in determinism. Sounds fishy. A little too convenient.

Coming to terms with there being no free will isn't a solution to anything. In itself it solves no problems. It just means that you might have to rethink some of the solutions. Punishment being the topic de jour.

Right, it doesn't solve problems, it eliminates the idea that there is such thing as a problem. If a man like Hitler or Stalin or Mao causes the murder of millions of people, that's not a problem, that's just the universe's physics playing themselves out. It's an amoral philosophy, just as atheism itself generally is.

 

[Bradskii]

Again, the bald assertion. I don't think you'd be impressed if I said that free will is true just as 2+2=4 is true. That's an assertion, not an argument. According to you, everything is a matter of preference, determined by physics, except for your belief in determinism. Sounds fishy. A little too convenient.

I said a few days ago that if you want to precede any comment I make with the term 'On the assumption that determinism is true...' then you can do so.

Right, it doesn't solve problems, it eliminates the idea that there is such thing as a problem. If a man like Hitler or Stalin or Mao causes the murder of millions of people, that's not a problem, that's just the universe's physics playing themselves out. It's an amoral philosophy, just as atheism itself generally is.

I've said that morals still exist. That if you start to think that free will doesn't exist then you'll still be able to tell good from bad. You'll still need to work out how to solve problems. Having or not having free will doesn't solve them. It might make you approach solutions in a different way - as has been discussed. So it's not amoral. Just as atheism in not amoral.

Saying that someone who believes that free will doesn't exist doesn't think that murder is a problem is a nonsensical thing to say.

 

[Fervent]

I said a few days ago that if you want to precede any comment I make with the term 'On the assumption that determinism is true...' then you can do so.

I've said that morals still exist. That if you start to think that free will doesn't exist then you'll still be able to tell good from bad. You'll still need to work out how to solve problems. Having or not having free will doesn't solve them. It might make you approach solutions in a different way - as has been discussed. So it's not amoral. Just as atheism in not amoral.

Saying that someone who believes that free will doesn't exist doesn't think that murder is a problem is a nonsensical thing to say.

How can you approach the solution in a different way, if your approach is determined by factors outside your control and is simply something the universe has determined you will take? Or is your approach somehow an exception from the determinism you advocate for and not decided prior to your decision to take that approach?

 

[Bradskii]

How can you approach the solution in a different way, if your approach is determined by factors outside your control and is simply something the universe has determined you will take?

You always have options. You still make decisions. The one you make will be the one that you prefer.

Let's say that you start a new job. To get there you can take the metro, take the bus or the car. Whichever one you take will be determined by what you prefer. The car might be the fastest, the bus the cheapest and the metro the most convenient. You might want to save money so you decide on the bus. But then discover that it takes too long. So that determines that you try the car, but parking is a problem. So that determines that you decide to take the metro.

The situation, the antecedent conditions, determine each of your choices.

 

[Astrid]

You always have options. You still make decisions. The one you make will be the one that you prefer.

Let's say that you start a new job. To get there you can take the metro, take the bus or the car. Whichever one you take will be determined by what you prefer. The car might be the fastest, the bus the cheapest and the metro the most convenient. You might want to save money so you decide on the bus. But then discover that it takes too long. So that determines that you try the car, but parking is a problem. So that determines that you decide to take the metro.

The situation, the antecedent conditions, determine each of your choices.

And, butterfly effect, the choice will ripple out , affect the free will choices of everyone else and down through all time.

 

[Chesterton]

I said a few days ago that if you want to precede any comment I make with the term 'On the assumption that determinism is true...' then you can do so.

That's fine. I've no problem with anyone having an opinion, such as they prefer vanilla over chocolate, or vice versa. I have a problem with someone saying their opinion pre-determined by physics is true. In science, philosophy and law, and pretty much everything in life, we have evidence, and arguments from the evidence. If I present you with a question - is the Earth flat or round? - I'm going to disregard your answer no matter which it is, if I think the answer was generated by mindless atoms.

I've said that morals still exist. That if you start to think that free will doesn't exist then you'll still be able to tell good from bad. You'll still need to work out how to solve problems. Having or not having free will doesn't solve them. It might make you approach solutions in a different way - as has been discussed. So it's not amoral. Just as atheism in not amoral.

Saying that someone who believes that free will doesn't exist doesn't think that murder is a problem is a nonsensical thing to say.

Again, if free will doesn't exist, there are no "problems". Atoms don't have problems.

 

[Bradskii]

And, butterfly effect, the choice will ripple out , affect the free will choices of everyone else and down through all time.

That's true. A small act can have enormous consequences. That's generally why determinism doesn't equate to predictability.

 

[Bradskii]

That's fine. I've no problem with anyone having an opinion, such as they prefer vanilla over chocolate, or vice versa. I have a problem with someone saying their opinion pre-determined by physics is true.

My opinion can be based on personal preference, such as my preference for chocolate. The truth will be 'I prefer chocolate'. Or it can be based on available evidence. Which might be overwhelming or debateable. It might by scientifically based or it might be other people's opinions. I might be totally convinced or tend towards one view or another. But being the good materialist that I am I am quite willing for you to preface all my opinions with 'on the assumption that X is true...'

In science, philosophy and law, and pretty much everything in life, we have evidence, and arguments from the evidence. If I present you with a question - is the Earth flat or round? - I'm going to disregard your answer no matter which it is, if I think the answer was generated by mindless atoms.

My answer will be determined by the evidence. Which actually will consist of 'mindless atoms'.

Again, if free will doesn't exist, there are no "problems". Atoms don't have problems.

No. We do. If you smack me upside the head then whether free will exists or not it's going to hurt and I'm going to get annoyed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Seems to me it is.

Through evolution?

 

[Ana the Ist]

To quote the late, great Norm MacDonald: No offense, but that sounds like some ________ commie gobbledygook.

That’s a funny but unserious answer.

 

[Astrid]

Through evolution?

Biological / social evolution, yes.