Free will and determinism

[o_mlly]

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.

As rational and emotional beings, we always have reasons and/or feelings as the motivating forces that move us to act.

To a large extent, our future rational acts are determined by our individual past experiences and our past choices. The question is not so much whether our acts in the moment are random or predetermined, but rather the question is what role did I, as a reasoning person, play in the past that now determines my present values. Our values develop over time and are based on experienced externalities that we freely internalized that form our present internal dispositions that inform us on acts we choose in the present moment.

In the past we freely accepted or altered the values that we now hold/have in the present, and those rationally determined values become the foundation for our acts in the moment.

The vanilla chocolate example is not instructive as a rational decision. In the past, perhaps one had a chocolate scoop of ice cream and in the last spoonful found a chocolate-colored cockroach. He now prefers vanilla. To this day, the emotional trauma of that event stays with him.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

I said you admitted your answer was mindless, and you doubled down by admitting it more strongly. Your belief in determinism was not reasoned. It could have been caused by a butterfly in an unalterable chain of cause-and-effect. This seems like it would result in cognitive dissonance. How can you claim your belief is true when you had no choice whether to believe it? You'd believe it whether it was true or false.

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

I think that because you're an atheist and a determinist. I could be wrong. Do you think humans are special?

 

[Chesterton]

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.

I don't need any knowledge of anthropology. I pay taxes. My government forces me to share.

 

[Chesterton]

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

I'm not sure if you got the joke. It's a mathematics-based joke. At the risk of sounding racist, you should have gotten it.

 

[Bradskii]

As rational and emotional beings, we always have reasons and/or feelings as the motivating forces that move us to act.

Agreed.

To a large extent, our future rational acts are determined by our individual past experiences and our past choices. The question is not so much whether our acts in the moment are random or predetermined, but rather the question is what role did I, as a reasoning person, play in the past that now determines my present values.

That's close to my position. Except for this:

Our values develop over time and are based on experienced externalities that we freely internalized that form our present internal dispositions that inform us on acts we choose in the present moment.

That's just throwing 'freely' into the mix whereas we have no control over what affects us. You have no control over your 'experienced externalities'. Saying that we do is nothing more than saying 'we have free will'.

In the past we freely accepted or altered the values that we now hold/have in the present, and those rationally determined values become the foundation for our acts in the moment.

No-one argues that we are not rational. But as you say, your values are rationally determined. There are reasons why you hold them. From the type of person that you are to whether you have been persuaded that the values are worth having. You can't change who you are without something external to you causing that change. And you can't decide to reject an argument about value if you think it's valid. If you are convinced then you'll accept it. You can do no other.

The vanilla chocolate example is not instructive as a rational decision. In the past, perhaps one had a chocolate scoop of ice cream and in the last spoonful found a chocolate-colored cockroach. He now prefers vanilla. To this day, the emotional trauma of that event stays with him.

It's a trite example, I'll agree. But a standard one for giving examples of choice. And the preference might be inbuilt, in which case you have no choice in the matter. You can't choose to like something that you find distasteful. Or it may be because of some incident in the past which triggers a reaction. Over which you have no control.

 

[Bradskii]

I said you admitted your answer was mindless, and you doubled down by admitting it more strongly. Your belief in determinism was not reasoned. It could have been caused by a butterfly in an unalterable chain of cause-and-effect. This seems like it would result in cognitive dissonance. How can you claim your belief is true when you had no choice whether to believe it? You'd believe it whether it was true or false.

My belief in determinism is based on the evidence. Everywhere I look, there is cause and effect. I accept the evidence and I have no reason to reject it as nothing (and I mean literally nothing in this thread of nearly 2,500 posts and umpteen books, articles, papers and video discussions) has been presented to contradict it.

I think that because you're an atheist and a determinist. I could be wrong. Do you think humans are special?

We are relatively intelligent animals with an ability to make rational decisions about how we act to a much greater extent then the rest of our primate cousins. In which case we are 'more special' than the others. Albeit a happy accident of the evolutionary process. So not special in that sense. Maybe 'lucky' would be a more apt description.

 

[o_mlly]

That's just throwing 'freely' into the mix whereas we have no control over what affects us.

We freely integrate into and sometimes alter our value system.

You have no control over your 'experienced externalities'. Saying that we do is nothing more than saying 'we have free will'.

But I did not claim otherwise. Of course, we do not control what happens to us; only what comes from us (Matthew 15:11, 18-20).

On reflection, we freely decide how to integrate our experienced externalities into our value system. For instance, a racist who witnesses the external reality of other racists willfully doing harm to children of color may have his intrinsic (read as God-given) sense of justice challenged. He freely alters, or freely does not, his value system.

You can't choose to like something that you find distasteful.

? You may freely choose to ingest something distasteful, but you will still not like it. Reason often overcomes irrational matters of taste.

And the preference might be inbuilt, in which case you have no choice in the matter.

Do you have an example of an inbuilt taste over which we cannot have rational control?

 

[Bradskii]

We freely integrate into and sometimes alter our value system.

I'm afraid that's no more than saying 'we have free will'.

But I did not claim otherwise. Of course, we do not control what happens to us; only what comes from us (Matthew 15:11, 18-20).

Cause and effect. The one determines the other. You are free to give an example of when something 'comes from you' that wasn't determined. And please don't say you do it all the time 'because I have free will'.

On reflection, we freely decide how to integrate our experienced externalities into our value system.

Again, you are simply saying 'we have free will'.

For instance, a racist who witnesses the external reality of other racists willfully doing harm to children of color may have his intrinsic (read as God-given) sense of justice challenged. He freely alters, or freely does not, his value system.

The actions, or words, or attitudes of others may well convince us that our feelings, or even our values, are not correct. You have been convinced that the values you hold are the correct ones. Something, or someone must have convinced you. Once you were convinced then you had no choice but to accept them. They were determined by any number of factors outside of your control.

You may freely choose to ingest something distasteful, but you will still not like it. Reason often overcomes irrational matters of taste.

Yes, but you can't choose to like it. You are eating it because, for whatever reason, you prefer to. You can't not want to do something but at the same time want to do it. But you can prefer to do it. Like going to the gym rather than the pub. I might want to go to the pub but my aim to stay healthy makes me prefer to go to the gym. Mostly.

Do you have an example of an inbuilt taste over which we cannot have rational control?

I don't like Earl Grey tea. I can't decide to like it.

 

[Chesterton]

My belief in determinism is based on the evidence. Everywhere I look, there is cause and effect. I accept the evidence and I have no reason to reject it as nothing (and I mean literally nothing in this thread of nearly 2,500 posts and umpteen books, articles, papers and video discussions) has been presented to contradict it.

In post #2397 you said your answer will be determined by the evidence, and that the evidence consists of mindless atoms. You've basically admitted that you're a non-rational entity. I don't know why I'm even talking with you. I might as well be talking with my pachinko machine!

We are relatively intelligent animals with an ability to make rational decisions about how we act to a much greater extent then the rest of our primate cousins. In which case we are 'more special' than the others.

Well, cheetahs are much faster than humans. And birds can fly. And dogs smell better than me. EDIT: Dogs have a better sense of smell than me. We're all special in our different ways, but humans are truly special in that they make representative art.

Albeit a happy accident of the evolutionary process. So not special in that sense. Maybe 'lucky' would be a more apt description.

I'm not sure it's happy or lucky. One thing interesting about animals is that they generally don't engage in cruelty the way humans can. If you recall that video I posted with the two tigers, once the smaller tiger submits, "the beef is squashed" as the kids say. They usually don't engage in unnecessary violence as humans often do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Social evolution? Societies change over time.

That’s a rather meaningless statement regarding morals.

Sure...societies change over time....and??

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

Do you think there's some huge difference between the Han Chinese, at the genetic level, and everyone else?

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

Statistics. If evolution, as described previously, were responsible for the creation of morals....we'd have the same morals.

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

Are you trying to earn some victim point or something?

I didn't call you anything.

 

[Fervent]

That's just throwing 'freely' into the mix whereas we have no control over what affects us. You have no control over your 'experienced externalities'. Saying that we do is nothing more than saying 'we have free will'.

So our reasoning is superfluous? We have no say in what arguments we find compelling or not compelling? Then why should we bother attempting to be rational, since we have no control over whether we accept something on evidence and strength of arguments? If your position were true our preference for evidence and strength of argument is out of our control, as is our preference within the arguments themselves. In saying this, you're implying that the whole exercise of thinking out what it is we believe is pointless. The only way we could possibly arrive at the conclusion that determinism is true is by some cosmic accident. Unless we have some control over what affects us and are able to modify our understanding intentionally.

I also would like to point out that you made a slight bit of a strawman here because that poster didn't say we controlled our experienced externalities, but what we internalize about those experienced externalities. It is what we choose to integrate into our understanding of the world that is central to their argument, not the external realities themselves.

Finally, saying that we don't is nothing more than saying "determinism is true".

 

[Ana the Ist]

My belief in determinism is based on the evidence. Everywhere I look, there is cause and effect.

1. You don't have evidence...your personal experience is not going to ever qualify.

2. You believe that you experience cause and effect....but it's inherently backwards. You typically have to start with the effect, and guess your way back to the cause since you cannot start with the cause and rationalize the effect.

3. Because of #1 and #2 and the fact that no meaningful differences exist between cause and effect....maybe it's just your primitive monkey brain trying to make sense of reality.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm afraid that's no more than saying 'we have free will'.

Again, you are simply saying 'we have free will'.

? And you, denying the obvious, are simply saying "we do not have free will".

The actions, or words, or attitudes of others may well convince us that our feelings, or even our values, are not correct.

Yes. We freely decide whether the other's actions, words or attitudes convince us or not.

Cause and effect. The one determines the other. You are free to give an example of when something 'comes from you' that wasn't determined. And please don't say you do it all the time 'because I have free will'.

Determine: to discover it as a result of investigation.

I note that many of your arguments often take on the passive voice so as to dismiss the free agent as a cause.

But just who does that investigation? Who discovers? I am the one that rationally investigates, I am the one who discovers. I am the one who freely determines to integrate the results of my discovery into my value system or not.

The salient and obvious point: Free will is a cause. My free will, as does yours, determines our affections, attitudes and acts. If the good friar Occam were following this thread, he would have freely ground his teeth to his gums. You argue against the obvious and most simple explanation for human acts. Why?

Free will is immaterial and so is beyond examination of scientific methods.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure it's happy or lucky. One thing interesting about animals is that they generally don't engage in cruelty the way humans can.

Look up a cute little bird called a shrike.

 

[Chesterton]

Look up a cute little bird called a shrike.

The shrike is believed to do what it does for reproductive advantage, not for the sheer pleasure of it. I said animals generally don't engage in cruelty. But I have seen a domestic cat repeatedly torment a wounded lizard, until I put a stop to it. This is why crazy, childless cat ladies are so dangerous, as vice president elect and future president Vance has warned us. I've seen a human continue to beat another human after he was already unconscious. More than once, I've been beaten and tortured by police after my hands were cuffed behind my back. Animals are brutal, but usually not sadistic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The shrike is believed to do what it does for reproductive advantage, not for the sheer pleasure of it. I said animals generally don't engage in cruelty. But I have seen a domestic cat repeatedly torment a wounded lizard, until I put a stop to it. This is why crazy, childless cat ladies are so dangerous, as vice president elect and future president Vance has warned us. I've seen a human continue to beat another human after he was already unconscious. More than once, I've been beaten and tortured by police after my hands were cuffed behind my back. Animals are brutal, but usually not sadistic.

We say these things....but we don't know them.

Housecats play with their prey while alive. So do dolphins if I recall correctly. Otters are another animal that savagely appear to attack others for sport.

Chimpanzees wage war.

 

[Chesterton]

We say these things....but we don't know them.

Well that's true. How can we speculate on how animals think? I can't even figure out how human females think.

 

[Bradskii]

So our reasoning is superfluous? We have no say in what arguments we find compelling or not compelling? Then why should we bother attempting to be rational, since we have no control over whether we accept something on evidence and strength of arguments? If your position were true our preference for evidence and strength of argument is out of our control, as is our preference within the arguments themselves.

If evidence is compelling then you'll accept it. If it's not then you won't. Yes, you'll be making a decision, but that doesn't mean that you have free will.

I also would like to point out that you made a slight bit of a strawman here because that poster didn't say we controlled our experienced externalities, but what we internalize about those experienced externalities. It is what we choose to integrate into our understanding of the world that is central to their argument, not the external realities themselves.

Reality is going to impact you whether you like it or not. It's what you are going to base your decisions on.

Finally, saying that we don't is nothing more than saying "determinism is true".

No-one has said we don't.

 

[Bradskii]

? And you, denying the obvious, are simply saying "we do not have free will".

It's not just a bland statement. It's a conclusion. Based on the fact that the universe is deterministic. You've either got to make the case for Compatibilism or show that in some way the universe is not deterministic. There are quite a lot of posts in this thread and no-one has yet attempted to do either. All we've had is 'But...it's obvious that we have free will.' Often followed by a trite statement such as 'You decided to start the thread so you therefore it must exist'.

Yes. We freely decide whether the other's actions, words or attitudes convince us or not.

Then if someone gives you an argument that actually convinces you then you could freely decide to be unconvinced. Yeah, that sounds ridiculous. But that's what you just said.

Determine: to discover it as a result of investigation.

Determined as in causally inevitable. C'mon, you know that's the way we're using the word.

I note that many of your arguments often take on the passive voice so as to dismiss the free agent as a cause.

A free agent is simply someone who has the ability to make a choice. The character of that agent may be one of the conditions that determine the choice she makes (she may be happy, old, sick, hungry etc). So those aspects of the agent may be one of the causes.

But just who does that investigation? Who discovers? I am the one that rationally investigates, I am the one who discovers. I am the one who freely determines to integrate the results of my discovery into my value system or not.

You've used the word in a way that's not appllicable. But yes, you are the one who investigates or discovers. Information is either given to you or is found by you. Nobody denies that. The world impacts on you and you react. Give me an example of anything you have investigated or discovered and we can examine what determined that.

The salient and obvious point: Free will is a cause. My free will, as does yours, determines our affections, attitudes and acts. If the good friar Occam were following this thread, he would have freely ground his teeth to his gums. You argue against the obvious and most simple explanation for human acts. Why?

Free will is not a cause. That's nonsensical. It's simply the ability to make a decision that has not been determined by anything. I'm still waiting for an example.

Free will is immaterial and so is beyond examination of scientific methods.

Determinism is not. And if the universe is deterministic then free will does not exist. Do you really want to head down the Dualism Freeway?

 

[Bradskii]

If your account is true, then the only reason you believe determinism and I believe it to be false is the result of an arbitrary process.

It's not arbitrary. I'm the type of person who is interested in the matter. So that determined that I read a lot about it. And what I read convinced me that free will is an illusion. Whatever you have read has not.

I can't freely decide to not be convinced. And you can't freely decide to become convinced.

Again with these mysterious decisions that don't involve any input from us.

Oh? So you didn't deny the posters usse of "freely"

As in not being coerced, yes. As in 'free will'...no.