Free will and determinism

[Ana the Ist]

I've said that morals still exist.

No...that's absurd.

Morals require agency.

I've seen more terrifying drone footage of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers hiding for their lives from the sound of these tiny flying IEDs. The drones aren't good or evil though....and they never will be.

That’s your big problem here. If you saw the drone operator the same way you see the drone....without any free will agency....then you should also no longer see good or bad in the universe at all.

But you still see it...because you still believe in free will....no matter how much you deny it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Biological / social evolution, yes.

I don't know what you mean by social evolution....biologically you're not different from 99.9999999% of the world's population.

Yet there is no person alive who will ever hold the exact same moral views as you....not completely, not on everything.

So...no lol you're just wrong.

 

[Fervent]

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

Options? Decisions? These require freedom and agency. If determinism is true, than your preferences are determined and the "options" are not actually available, as some prior fact has already determined the course that will be taken. If your account is true, then we merely become aware of what the prior conditions have determined for us and the experiences are epiphenomena.

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.

You're talking about evaluative agency, which requires that the cause of the action be the decision to follow that path. But according to you, the cause of the decision is some prior fact we're not aware of. So there's no ability to change course, because our choices are determined by prior facts. You're trying to have your cake and eat it do, because while you may speak of believing in determinism you recognize that its impossible to actually believe consistently. We have to recognize our free agency and the reality that when we make decisions we are, in fact, making decisions.

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

Yeah, so your agency is irrelevant. The approach is determined by the antecedent conditions, and not your agency. Unless, of course, our decisions are somehow exempted from deterministic decision.

 

[Astrid]

I don't know what you mean by social evolution....biologically you're not different from 99.9999999% of the world's population.

Yet there is no person alive who will ever hold the exact same moral views as you....not completely, not on everything.

So...no lol you're just wrong.

Social evolution? Societies change over time.

Genetics? As a Han Chinese, I am excessively
average, if that’s possible.


That no two things above the molecular level
are identical is as obvious as points one and two..


How you get from there to declaring :my opinion “ wrong”,
though, is utterly obscure.

oh, and as for ”lol” my opinion is that it’s belittling.
Like calling me a “chink”, say.

Benefit of doubt goes to you, so long as it’s never repeated.

 

[Bradskii]

Options? Decisions? These require freedom and agency.

You have both. Agency has been discussed a few times. The last time quite recently. It's only the ability to take action. And you'll always have options. Even if it's 'Do this' or 'Don't do this'.

If determinism is true, than your preferences are determined and the "options" are not actually available, as some prior fact has already determined the course that will be taken.

If determinism is true then it's your options that are determined. By facts of the matter - your car has broken down so you have to walk. You can't change the fact that it's broken just when you want to use it. And your preference are either inbuilt - you prefer chocolate to vanilla, and you can't decide not to prefer it, or they are determined by what you want to do. Maybe walk because you prefer to have the excercise.

If your account is true, then we merely become aware of what the prior conditions have determined for us and the experiences are epiphenomena.

You don't need to be aware of what causes you to act. Maybe your blood sugar is low and that's what is making you cranky. Maybe your father was cranky by nature and you have inherited his 'cranky genes'.

You're talking about evaluative agency, which requires that the cause of the action be the decision to follow that path. But according to you, the cause of the decision is some prior fact we're not aware of. So there's no ability to change course, because our choices are determined by prior facts. You're trying to have your cake and eat it do, because while you may speak of believing in determinism you recognize that its impossible to actually believe consistently. We have to recognize our free agency and the reality that when we make decisions we are, in fact, making decisions.

Stop with the 'making decisions' argument already. I've lost count of the number of times explaining that having no free will does not preclude you from making decisions.

Yeah, so your agency is irrelevant. The approach is determined by the antecedent conditions, and not your agency. Unless, of course, our decisions are somehow exempted from deterministic decision.

I'm repeating myself all the time. Agency doesn't preclude free will. Because decisions don't preclude free will. And you need agency to make decisions.

 

[Fervent]

You have both. Agency has been discussed a few times. The last time quite recently. It's only the ability to take action. And you'll always have options. Even if it's 'Do this' or 'Don't do this'.

Without freedom, options are illusions. The circumstances that determine the path are already set, so there's no ability to go with "do this" or "don't do this". It may be that free will is restricted but if there's a genuine decision to be made, that means there's freedom.

If determinism is true then it's your options that are determined. By facts of the matter - your car has broken down so you have to walk. You can't change the fact that it's broken just when you want to use it. And your preference are either inbuilt - you prefer chocolate to vanilla, and you can't decide not to prefer it, or they are determined by what you want to do. Maybe walk because you prefer to have the excercise.

Options are determined, sure. But under determinism no choices are made, we only have the illusion of making selections.

You don't need to be aware of what causes you to act. Maybe your blood sugar is low and that's what is making you cranky. Maybe your father was cranky by nature and you have inherited his 'cranky genes'.

No one said anything about needing to be aware.

Stop with the 'making decisions' argument already. I've lost count of the number of times explaining that having no free will does not preclude you from making decisions.

And your "explanations" are nothing more than trying to have your cake and eat it too. If our decisions are determined by antecedent causes, then we don't make decisions. It's that simple. If we have the freedom to change course, then we have free will. So either we can choose how we approach problems, which means that determinism is false, or determinism is true and we're just ambling down the garden trail helpless to deviate from the course we're on.

I'm repeating myself all the time. Agency doesn't preclude free will. Because decisions don't preclude free will. And you need agency to make decisions.

Agency requires intention, which requires freedom from prior restrictions. If free will is just an illusion, than our experience of "making decisions" is an illusion because our sense of intention is an illusion because we have no freedom from prior restrictions. Just like you can't eat your cake and have it to, you can't make decisions and those decisions be determined by prior causes. Either the prior cause determined the decision, or you made the decision intentionally.

 

[Bradskii]

...you can't make decisions and those decisions be determined by prior causes.

Gee, the number of times I have had to ask for this...

Give me a decision you made that wasn't determined by prior causes.

 

[Fervent]

Gee, the number of times I have had to ask for this...

Give me a decision you made that wasn't determined by prior causes.

Here goes the obfuscation...

Let's back track a bit...you say in the post before that we have "both"...so you admit we have freedom? And you admit we have intention? What else do you believe free will requires that we are missing?

 

[Chesterton]

That’s a funny but unserious answer.

It's not unserious. You want to imagine early hominids agreeing to "share the wealth". Nice idea, but how did it work out among hominids in the 20th century? Everywhere Karl Marx's ideas were tried, you had a few men living in luxury, while the vast majority stood in line for hours hoping for a loaf of bread. That is, if they weren't murdered first.

 

[Bradskii]

Here goes the obfuscation...

Play time is over. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Give me a decision you made that wasn't determined by prior causes.

 

[Chesterton]

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

You admit that your answer is mindless. Are you familiar with the game Pachinko? Your answer is as reasonable as whether the pachinko ball falls to the left or to the right each step of the way.

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.

Atoms don't get annoyed. The universe doesn't get annoyed. At some point you're going to have to admit that humans are different, humans are special.

 

[Fervent]

Play time is over. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Give me a decision you made that wasn't determined by prior causes.

How about you just answer my question, rather than engaging in obfuscation? Do you deny we have freedom? Or do you deny we have intention? What else is required for free will that you think we lack?

 

[Chesterton]

Genetics? As a Han Chinese, I am excessively
average, if that’s possible.

I come from Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.

 

[Bradskii]

You admit that your answer is mindless. Are you familiar with the game Pachinko? Your answer is as reasonable as whether the pachinko ball falls to the left or to the right each step of the way.

God might not play dice, but the universe does. A butterfly flaps it's wings in the Amazon and there is a storm in your suburb (or use some more direct cause and effect). The road is slippery, visibility if down, someone runs out in front of your car and whole lives change. Just because of flapping wings. Or the fact that it rained. Or the fact that your windscreen wipers are worn. Or that there was a small oil leak on the road. Or a spider appeared hanging off the rear view mirror. Tiny, tiny events and causes and monstrously huge changes to the world.

Atoms don't get annoyed. The universe doesn't get annoyed. At some point you're going to have to admit that humans are different, humans are special.

I haven't said we're not. Why think that?

 

[Bradskii]

How about you just answer my question, rather than engaging in obfuscation? Do you deny we have freedom? Or do you deny we have intention? What else is required for free will that you think we lack?

Play time is over.

 

[Fervent]

Play time is over.

Thanks for informing me, great contribution. Though I am curious, why are you afraid to answer my questions? Do you deny we have either freedom or intentionality? If not, what else do you think is required for free will?

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for informing me, great contribution. Though I am curious, why are you afraid to answer my questions? Do you deny we have either freedom or intentionality? If not, what else do you think is required for free will?

No more playing around. Thanks for your input. Answer the question and I'll be back in the sandpit. Otherwise...

 

[Fervent]

No more playing around. Thanks for your input. Answer the question and I'll be back in the sandpit. Otherwise...

Your question does nothing but obfuscate and distract. I'm trying to shed light on the question. So why not simply answer my question and instead are clamming up? What is it you think free will requires that we lack?

 

[Astrid]

It's not unserious. You want to imagine early hominids agreeing to "share the wealth". Nice idea, but how did it work out among hominids in the 20th century? Everywhere Karl Marx's ideas were tried, you had a few men living in luxury, while the vast majority stood in line for hours hoping for a loaf of bread. That is, if they weren't murdered first.

A little knowledge of anthropology and
youd know that sharing within the group s / has been
an integral and vital aspect of culture.

That a ham handed system forced on a vastly
larger society doesnt work is as unsurprising as it is irrelevant.

 

[Astrid]

I come from Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.

And all Han are above average. Except maybe in height,
going by my towering 150 cm.