Free will and determinism

[Neogaia777]

Science can clearly show and prove, beyond any sense of reasonable or rational doubt or denial, that these atoms or molecules, or mass of stuff, is moving along at this or that trajectory (and velocity/speed/temperature/environment) and then runs into or interacts with this or that mass of stuff, and then produces this or that effect after interacting with this or that mass of stuff, which then goes on it's way to then interact with more stuff, etc, etc, etc, and such and such, and so on and so forth, etc. Anyway, all of that can be shown way, way beyond any kind of rational or reasonable doubt to always be deterministic always, etc, and it never does anything different, or ever acts/reacts/behaves in any other kind of other way ever, and I mean like "ever", etc, and there is no denying that ever, because it is 100% solid and unchangeable "fact", etc. And since both we, and everything else, is all made up of all of that stuff, then there is no way that our actions/choices/decisions/thoughts/interactions cannot be anything other than deterministic always also, since we are all, all of us (and everything else) is all just made up of, and is all just extensions of all of that stuff, etc. It's really quite simple really, etc. So simple in fact, that I just 100% absolutely cannot believe that you guys cannot see it, or won't admit to it, etc.

And also, theologically speaking, it is also the one and only way any being can be fully omniscient always also, etc. And I also cannot believe you guys cannot see or admit to that also, etc. Even although that is not my primary reason for thinking determinism is 100% truth, etc, but is more due to other reasons that I have just now mentioned or stated earlier, etc.

God Bless.

Just within each one of each our own individual bodies alone, there are trillions of these atomic/molecular/electrical interactions/reactions going on or happening every microsecond, etc. And it is they that are actually deciding everything, etc. Or that have actually already decided everything, going all the way back to the very first particles, or the very beginning, or the very first origins of the big bang of this universe, etc. Both for us, and everything else already, etc. Since they are all deterministic, and have all already been on an already determined/predetermined/set path/course already that can be traced all the way back to that time, etc.

And again, this is also how God knows/can know, or can predict everything, etc. Without it, no being can, or cannot, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Just within each one of each our own individual bodies alone, there are trillions of these atomic/molecular/electrical interactions/reactions going on or happening every microsecond, etc. And it is they that are actually deciding everything, etc. Or that have actually already decided everything, going all the way back to the very first particles, or the very beginning, or the very first origins of the big bang of this universe, etc. Both for us, and everything else already, etc. Since they are all deterministic, and have all already been on an already determined/predetermined/set path/course already that can be traced all the way back to that time, etc.

And again, this is also how God knows/can know, or can predict everything, etc. Without it, no being can, or cannot, etc.

God Bless.

For a practical example, take what's happening or going on in this thread right now already, etc. You're right now reading this right now is causing some things to go on or happen with you and within you that is going to dictate what happens next, and then you'll do something, and you'll post something more than likely, etc, but it was/is all caused/decided by what your atoms and molecules and electrical signals ran into or interacted with (in this example, reading my post) which then dictated or decided what you would do or would happen next, or produced an effect, etc. It has already decided it, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, etc. And then maybe me reading what you post next will then cause certain things to happen or go on within me that will have already dicated or decided what I will say or do or think next, etc. Same as before also, etc. What I very first posted that you read and then maybe replied to, was due to what was before that, etc. And all of us, and what we're deciding to do or say or post to one another in every single moment has already been decided already, and there is absolutely nothing any of us can do about it, etc. And these can all be traced back to the very beginnings of creation already, and same for the future, etc, it's already all been predetermined/decided already, and there is absolutely nothing any of us can do about it, etc. We're just interacting and reacting, and it is all just cause and effect, going all the way back to the very first cause, or the very beginning, when the very first particles were very first set in motion that produced a totally predictable and desirable to One, effect, etc. It got the ball rolling, and we are just all a part of that ball still rolling after that, etc, and there is absolutely nothing any of us can do about that, etc. This will all play out to an expected end, etc, and there is also not any one single thing any of us can do about that either, etc. Because only the One who very first started it always has already known all of it, etc. Everything in between as well, etc. That One also already knows/has known/does always know all of that as well, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, I for one and I suspect others as well, are waiting for you to explain why you freely chose this forum to start this thread.

You are still confusing being able to freely choose with free will. I started this thread for any number of reasons. Primarily because I'm interested in the topic. I can't choose to not be interested. I also hoped that someone would prompt some doubt by giving an example of a choice that wasn't determined. Unfortunately...

Do you have a moral example to offer to which your opinion on free will could be applied?

I've given countless examples of when decisions have been determined. The last one a moral decision. Now please give one when it hasn't been determined.

I think we already have rationally done so.

Apart from variations on 'it's obvious we have it' and 'you freely chose!' you haven't even started to present an argument yet.

As to the non-obvious claim that God's exists, the atheist often retorts that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's fair. But it also works in the converse. Those who make extraordinary claims opposed to what is obvious require extraordinary evidence.

You're not making an extraordinary claim. It's relatively straightforward: free will exists. That is, decisions can be made without being determined by antecedent conditions.

If you want to say that it's my claim, then show that I'm wrong by giving just a single example.

A moral example from you could possibly help you out. I offered an example but you passed on exploring the moral implications:

Are zoos moral? I'm not sure that you could make the question less vague. What on earth has a zoo got to do with free will?

 

[Bradskii]

Well, I for one and I suspect others as well, are waiting for you to explain why you freely chose this forum to start this thread.

Just to go back to this. You could have asked the question in a different way: 'What determined your choice for starting the thread?' Or: 'What were the reasons for you starting the thread?'

That's quite reasonable. That's exactly what you wanted to know. What were the antecedent conditions that determined my act.

 

[o_mlly]

You are still confusing being able to freely choose with free will. I started this thread for any number of reasons. Primarily because I'm interested in the topic. I can't choose to not be interested. I also hoped that someone would prompt some doubt by giving an example of a choice that wasn't determined. Unfortunately...

You are still missing the point that you have not (cannot?) refute. Yes, all my moral choices are determined ... BY ME.

You're not making an extraordinary claim.

Correct ... it is your claim that is extraordinary, and you've offered no convincing evidence in support. (Note: opinions are not evidence.)

Are zoos moral? I'm not sure that you could make the question less vague.

The question is not at all vague -- rather it is straight forward. It's a question on morality. Why do you continue to refuse to answer?

 

[o_mlly]

You could have asked the question in a different way: 'What determined your choice for starting the thread?

The question posed to you is: 'What determined your choice for starting the thread in the Ethics & Morality forum?"

I've given countless examples of when decisions have been determined. The last one a moral decision

If you have, as you posted above, offered a moral example to another poster, kindly repost to this one.

 

[o_mlly]

This is not a thread on morality. I'm not interested in discussing it here in the slightest.

? Then did you select this forum in error?

 

[Bradskii]

You are still missing the point that you have not (cannot?) refute. Yes, all my moral choices are determined ... BY ME.

You don't like the definition of free will. I don't know why that wasn't clear to me earlier. You can't change it as it's the standard definition that you'll find anywhere. But you really think it means 'to choose freely'. It's not that you are confusing it with that. You really think it means that.

The question is not at all vague -- rather it is straight forward. It's a question on morality. Why do you continue to refuse to answer?

We're not discussing morality per se. It's a discussion on whether we have free will. If we don't then that will have an affect on how we view morality, but discussing morality won't get us to showing whether your will is free or not. You can't argue for or against it based on any moral view. So I'm not going to head down that path. If you have a point where a zoo somehow can be used as an example of any decision that's made that wasn't determined by any antecedent condition, then state it.

 

[Bradskii]

? Then did you select this forum in error?

See above post. Or read any of the posts that have discussed the implications of there being no free will.

 

[Bradskii]

If you have, as you posted above, offered a moral example to another poster, kindly repost to this one.

Here's an easy one for you. A guy cut me off in traffic yesterday. I decided not to follow him home and beat him to death with a rock.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No one is proposing anything "magical" here, and I don't know where you are getting that from?

Do you want me to go back to your reply and quote you?

But you're calling them that though, probably just only shows that you have some prior antecedent conditions/causes

Absolutely. I've seen magical thinking many times on this board. It's typically characterized by circular reasoning and illogical assumptions founded on faith.

Just like it is now.

But and/or anyway, there's nothing magical about saying/thinking that prior causes/antecedent conditions affect the percentages/probabilities of what we'll say or do, or what we will choose, or what will happen next though.

I can literally recall you saying these weren't mere possibilities but certainties.

Are you saying that prior causes/antecedent condtions never ever affect, or ever have any kind of influence on, the different possibilities or probabilities of what we will ever do/choose/say/think/act/do next?

I'm sure they do....but not all the time and not all decisions.

Because I'm just going to tell you right now that you're just flat out wrong if you're ever going to say or think that, because it's never true, etc.

Saying I'm wrong is one thing....providing evidence you're correct is another.

Let me ask you something....how is it that you believe you know something is true?

All prior "stuff" does most definitely play a part in affecting those possibilities/percentages always, etc.

I don't see that as true for everything that happens.

If you're thirsty for a beer, and you walk to your fridge filled with cans of Bud Light, I don't believe a magical cause exists for whatever choice you make when grabbing one. I think the same cause exists for all of them (let's imagine you have 200 beers in there).

It's magical thinking that you believe....genuinely....that 200 unique reasons exists for each can, and only each unique can, that will determine to a certainty what order you drink them in.

I do believe you when you say you believe these reasons exist. Obviously, you cannot tell me what they would possibly be.....it's absurd.....but these magical unknown causes exist in your mind.

I can say why you chose every beer....you were thirsty for a beer....and you made a free will choice on which to drink.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's an easy one for you. A guy cut me off in traffic yesterday. I decided not to follow him home and beat him to death with a rock.

And? What makes that good or bad?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And as far as ethics or morality is concerned, determinism is like a rule or law of a force of nature maybe, or is maybe like a force like gravity maybe, etc, and is pretty much unconcerned/indifferent to moral and ethical rules or laws that humans make for themselves, or that are made/decided by humans occasionally, etc.

Like gravity, determinism just is, etc.

Except there's no evidence of determinism like there is for gravity.

But determinism did already determine a long, long time ago what our changing rules and laws about ethics and morality would/will always/already still be for any given time or culture or people group already though, and already always knows what they will be in the future already, etc.

Morals don't make any sense if people don't make any choices.

Notice this rather sad attempt at describing a moral situation.

Here's an easy one for you. A guy cut me off in traffic yesterday. I decided not to follow him home and beat him to death with a rock.

He can't explain what's moral about it....or immoral about it...or anything really apart from a blanket description of something that didn't happen.

Was it a good thing? A bad thing? And why if neither party made any choices and could not have done otherwise?

Take Care/God Bless.

Adios.

 

[Ana the Ist]

At the macro level, science actually says, and can prove to some degree, that everything is entirely deterministic on all of those levels always (everything from the atom up, etc) so I don't know where you are getting your science from?

Feynman....he's an American theoretical physicist and knows science far better than either of us. Here's a quote on the nature of reality and limits of science

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.

Whatever you believe is "proved" isn't enough for determinism and arguably never could be.

No new discovery in any kind.of science/physics has been able to discover or say that yet, and I don't think they ever will, etc. What we observe from the level of the atom up, is that it always behaves/acts always 100% deterministically always (and 100% of the time always) and not one single thing has ever been able to change that yet ever, or ever change what we observe about anything from everything from the level of the atom and up yet, etc, and that's that it's always 100% deterministic 100% of the time always, etc.

Take Care.

Are subatomic particles objects or waves?

I'll wait.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Science can clearly show and prove, beyond any sense of reasonable or rational doubt or denial

Science fundamentally describes the beginning of our universe without any cause....and they seem fairly certain of a beginning....and they seem fairly certain that the notion of a "before" and cause is a concept that doesn't make rational sense.

There's a reason science doesn't bother with statements about determinism and philosophers do.

 

[o_mlly]

You don't like the definition of free will. ... You can't change it as it's the standard definition that you'll find anywhere.

No, I just don't agree with your non-standard definition of free will.

Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions.​

​

free will

1. the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence: 2…

dictionary.cambridge.org

the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence​

​

It seems your mistaken definition comes from the debunked "science" of astrology.

You can't argue for or against it ...

And so far, you haven't argued at all against free will. Opinions are not arguments.

If you have a point where a zoo somehow can be used as an example of any decision that's made that wasn't determined by any antecedent condition, then state it.

In order to debate effectively, it is useful to start from a point of agreement. We agree animals do not have free will. Humans capture and cage animals in zoos for pleasure. Is that moral (or since you are averse to the word "moral", just call it "acceptable behavior") or not and why?

Here's an easy one for you. A guy cut me off in traffic yesterday. I decided not to follow him home and beat him to death with a rock.

Astonishingly, you're refreshingly right: "I decided ...".

 

[Bradskii]

the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence​

 Which matches the standard definition. As from Britannica:

In philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

Which is as per the op:

'The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else. But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events...'

Note the 'I obviously decided...'.

In order to debate effectively, it is useful to start from a point of agreement.

The definition in the op would be a good starting point. If you don't agree with exactly what's being discussed then you are wasting a lot of time arguing against something that nobody disputes.

We agree animals do not have free will. Humans capture and cage animals in zoos for pleasure. Is that moral (or since you are averse to the word "moral", just call it "acceptable behavior") or not and why?

I don't think it is acceptable. But that's a moral problem. Irrelevant in determining if free will exists. As I said, you can't start with morality and work backwards to free will.

And you asked me for an example of a moral decision and I gave you one. There's no point in you keeping asking for one if you don't respond to one when it's given.

So what point do you want to make in relation to it? And if you say 'It showed you made a decision', then I'll ignore it (and inwardly scream something rude).

Astonishingly, you're refreshingly right: "I decided ...".

Ye gods...I'm sure anyone reading this is quite tired of me pointing out to you that we all make decisions whether free will exists or not. Making decisions is not an argument for free will. Stop arguing for something that no-one is arguing against.

 

[Ana the Ist]

 Which matches the standard definition. As from Britannica:

In philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

Definition of INDEPENDENT

not dependent: such as; not subject to control by others : self-governing; not affiliated with a larger controlling unit… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Free from outside control....that works. It doesn't say it has to be uncaused (I don't think anyone argues this anymore) nor does it even say it cannot be influenced by a cause.

Which is as per the op:

'The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else. But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events...'

Not determined by prior events? It's unclear what you mean. If I choose between two empty car spaces....is that determined by prior events because they're the only 2? Or do I get to make a free will choice regarding which one I park in?

The definition in the op

Is vague and generally determined outdated. Also, hard determinists like yourself seem to overwhelmingly agree morality is an illusion and should be discarded, despite it's counterintuitive feeling.

I don't think it is acceptable. But that's a moral problem. Irrelevant in determining if free will exists. As I said, you can't start with morality and work backwards to free will.

You can't start with anything and work your way to determinism lol. You're arguing for an infinite regress that doesn't exist according to science.

 

[o_mlly]

But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events...'

Not the problem. The notion that you exclude the actor's liberty as the determiner in making that decision in the moment is the problem.

If you don't agree with exactly what's being discussed then you are wasting a lot of time arguing against something that nobody disputes.

You're probably correct about wasting my time arguing with how you feel about free will ... I can't argue with how you feel (heard that before?).

So, I meet you where you are and have attempted to extract your thinking rather than your feelings. Kindly, give us a concise argument for your claim. I'll get one started:

"There is no free will because ... " then and a few "if ... then" factual statements or the like would be appreciated. (Spare us the "antecedent events" argument as in that you presume incorrectly that the actor is never free to change his mind in the moment, not realizing that in the moment his act is only influenced by prior events, not determined.)

So, I ask you again, "Are you still burdened by your tails of youth?" If not then w/o a free will how could you possibly ever have dismissed them?

I don't think it is acceptable.

And why not? Most of us also eat animals and kill any animals that have the audacity to eat us. Is that also "not acceptable"?

Yet, you argue that we are categorically identical with animals both lacking free will and only different in the degree of intelligence, right? So, is your moral code "might makes right"? And if, some of us who are mightier than others murder the other then any kind of punishment or even rehab will be ineffectual as neither will change the murderer's behavior because he is not free to ever to do so.

 

[Bradskii]

Not the problem.

Not your problem, it seems. I'm going to have to remind you again that you're wasting your time arguing against something which no-one is arguing for.

"There is no free will because ... " then and a few "if ... then" factual statements or the like would be appreciated. (Spare us the "antecedent events" argument as in that you presume incorrectly that the actor is never free to change his mind in the moment, not realizing that in the moment his act is only influenced by prior events, not determined.)

Just read the op for heaven's sake. It hasn't changed. 'There is no free because...If the universe is deterministic then all decisions are determined by antecedent conditions.' That's the position taken in the op and that's what people have been arguing about since then. What you are arguing against doesn't seem to be that.

So, I ask you again, "Are you still burdened by your tails of youth?" If not then w/o a free will how could you possibly ever have dismissed them?

Yes. I am. Who I am has been determined by everything that has happened to me. Am I exactly the same person that I was when a young boy? A teenager? No. Somewhat obviously I would have thought. My life experiences have changed me.

And why not? Most of us also eat animals and kill any animals that have the audacity to eat us. Is that also "not acceptable"?

This is utterly irrelevant.

Yet, you argue that we are categorically identical with animals both lacking free will and only different in the degree of intelligence, right? So, is your moral code "might makes right"? And if, some of us who are mightier than others murder the other then any kind of punishment or even rehab will be ineffectual as neither will change the murderer's behavior because he is not free to ever to do so.

It really seems like you haven't read anything I've written about free will. Nobody, least of all me, has said anything like that.