Free will and determinism

Bradskii said:

It's the reason that I have said on several occasions that if free will exists or it doesn't, then hardly anything changes. Either way, you still make choices.

Click to expand...

If you believe we are making choices...you aren't a determinist.

Bradskii said:

I'd love for someone to give us an example (although if one is forthcoming, I guarantee it will confuse wanting with preferring and I'll have to explain the difference yet again).

* I should expand on this as I expect some push back. I'll make it personal.

I was reversing out of my drive last year. I won't go into details of how careful I do this each and every time but suffice to say I took all precautions that a reasonable person could be expected to take. But...there was an elderly gentleman crossing the road and he was in my blind spot and the side of the car came into contact with him. He fell and was injured. I guess I was extremely lucky as someone of that age falling can suffer very serious injuries indeed. Anyway, I was charged with a driving offence and had to appear in court.

Now I had done everything I could have done to reverse safely, as I have done safely many thousands of times. But it happened anyway. Things just turned out the wrong way. I told the court all that I had done as a reasonable driver should have done and in my opinion it was an accident in the true sense of the word. But I pleaded guilty. Because I was responsible.

The antecedent conditions were such that the accident was inevitable. The exact time the guy was crossing, the exact point he crossed, the angle of my car etc etc etc. But I was still responsible.

Now, should the magistrate take into account those antecedent conditions? Yes, she should. And she did. She accepted that I wasn't what one might say criminally negligent, but I was indeed responsible. And that is generally the only change that a realisation that free will doesn't exist will make. You'll be aware of the reasons why someone chose as they did and acted as they did, and quite often they would have had no control over those reasons. They will still be responsible for their actions, but you can take into account those 'mitigating circumstance' to a greater extent than you would normally.

Click to expand...

This is actually a better argument for the fact that you don't sincerely believe in determinism. You should have told the judge your whole theory about cause and effect and explained that since you didn't have any choice in the matter....you can't possibly be any more responsible than the old man was.

You two were fated to collide long before you were even born. Responsible isn't a word you should even use in such situations.

You either didn't do that because you know this has nothing to do with being legally responsible for damages. Something determined by law....not cause and effect...or you just don't really believe in determinism enough to act as if it were true.

Bradskii said:

'free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions without the decision being determined or influenced by any prior event or state of the universe.'

Click to expand...

That's not free will.

Free will is the capacity or ability to [COLOR=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]choose[/COLOR] between different possible courses of [COLOR=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]action[/COLOR].[COLOR=var(--color-progressive,#36c)][1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#cite_note-Carus1910-1[/COLOR]

That's all free will is...the ability to make choices. The idea that we would have to make them without a universe is fundamentally absurd. What sort of choices would we be able to make absent the existence of a universe?

For anyone not following...the idea that free will must involve some choice that's in no way influenced by the universe is both fundamentally flawed in its basic logic...and extremely dumb.

At bare minimum, the determinist has to concede that in order to even talk about human behavior...I have to exist within a universe capable of existing in.

That's a necessary influence for any possible action.

Note that he isn't linking to any definition of free will....because nobody with the ability to think would ever define it as "independent from the universe". It's a description of gods....not people.

So just outright reject this definition. Determinism has always been a rather bad description of anything.

Determinism, I think, is a result of the religious impulse in some atheists. Absent a complete understanding of reality.....or the human mind....it attacks free will to prop up a bad description of everything. It's the feeling of understanding how everything works that gives the concept some appeal to the godless.

At its core though... it's just bad logic, fundamentally unprovable or unfalsifiable....placing it in the realm of faith-based belief.

Ana the Ist said:

If it isn't possible....it's not a choice, and since determinism argues....

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

That makes any attempt of judgment of moral responsibility for our actions inherently untenable and entirely wrong.

So just abandon all your morals determinist....nobody is responsible for their actions because they can't make choices.

Click to expand...

Ana the Ist said:

Ok....let's hear em.

You're the one insisting this is a better description of human behavior...don't tell me you're certain 100 unique causes exist without telling me what they could possibly be. I warned you about the "cause of the gaps" argument you'd step into....you stepped in anyway.

Failure to do so is itself an admission that simply describing it as a choice made freely by my will or reason or anything really....is a better description of human behavior.

Click to expand...

Ana the Ist said:

Remember when I said you would keep talking as if we are all free will actors?

You're claiming to be a determinist. You don't believe in choice. I'm only choosing 1 and it must have it's distinct cause....not applicable to any other bottles...or I would have another possible choice.

So let's hear these 100 causes.

Click to expand...

Ana the Ist said:

If it isn't possible....it's not a choice, and since determinism argues....

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

That makes any attempt of judgment of moral responsibility for our actions inherently untenable and entirely wrong.

So just abandon all your morals determinist....nobody is responsible for their actions because they can't make choices.

Click to expand...

Off topic. Check the OP.

Ana the Ist said:

Ok....let's hear em.

You're the one insisting this is a better description of human behavior.

Click to expand...

Off topic.

Ana the Ist said:

..don't tell me you're certain 100 unique causes exist without telling me what they could possibly be. I warned you about the "cause of the gaps" argument you'd step into....you stepped in anyway.

Failure to do so is itself an admission that simply describing it as a choice made freely by my will or reason or anything really....is a better description of human behavior.

Click to expand...

Might be fun to point to your "fill the gaps" method of 'proving' uncaused free will. You reject the obvious chains of causation, and just from the mere, "It feels to me like uncaused choice", you decide causation is invalid, even invalid as an abstract concept. I'm glad you're not a scientist!

Ana the Ist said:

Remember when I said you would keep talking as if we are all free will actors?

You're claiming to be a determinist. You don't believe in choice.

Click to expand...

It's long past time to drop that mantra, or stand up and demonstrate its veracity. I do believe in choice. It is you that has determined that choice can only be real if the options are equally possible.

Ana the Ist said:

I'm only choosing 1 and it must have it's distinct cause....not applicable to any other bottles...or I would have another possible choice.

So let's hear these 100 causes.

Click to expand...

What logic makes you think I should be able to produce the (at least) 100 causes for the differences between the apparently otherwise identical hypothetical bottles of liquid in your hypothetical fridge? My knowing some of the differences has nothing to do with the fact that there are differences.

I should think you would see some obvious differences: the inconsistencies of production/production, the fact they were filled and capped and loaded into your fridge at slightly different times, etc etc etc. What is the point in this?

Bradskii said:

Determined would mean 'that which caused X'. Influenced would mean 'that which has an effect on X'. So the fact that it's raining will have an influence on your decision to go to the beach. If you then decide not to go because it's raining then that fact determined your choice.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. The rain did indeed have an influence on whether or not I go to the beach, but the degree of influence that it had wasn't determined by the rain itself, it was determined by something internal to me, not external.

Something within myself has to serve as the determining factor as to how much influence external events will have on my choices. Therefore the real determining factor has to be internal to me... it's the thing that determines how much influence external events will have.

Will event 'A' have an influence or not? If so... how much? That's a factor that has to be determined internally.

Bradskii said:

That seems something of a nonsensical question. You will decide that. Remember that free will doesn't exclude making decisions. Happy with that?

Click to expand...

So then my decisions are not determined prior to my making the decision? Free will doesn't exclude making decisions, but determinism does.

Bradskii said:

Of course. What else could they be based on? You have to base your decisions on something. Agreed?

Click to expand...

You're kicking the can down the road. Seems that free will is no longer an illusion, other than where it operates. So what's the point of trying to displace it?

Bradskii said:

Those antecedent causes will include you. Your knowledge, your mood, your intelligence, your physiological make up...literally everything about you. You're the one making the choice. If you're in a bad mood you might make a different decision than if you were in a good mood. If you are hungry you might make a different one than if you were satiated. If you're drunk, depressed, intelligent, sick...it's ll part of the mix. But it's up to you. You choose. But what you choose (spoiler alert again) will always be what you prefer. Thumbs up on that aspect?

Click to expand...

You're just creating a confusing mess of a theory, when it is far simpler to simply accept free will as authentic and exploring its parameters. Determinism is an entirely unnecessary element to add to our description of human behavior, and it only makes things convoluted as you twist yourself into tighter and tighter pretzels. So why bother with it?

Bradskii said:

Now I'm sure that all that seems quite straight forward:
You make the decision.
It's based on all the antecedent conditions.
The decision is what you prefer to do.

Click to expand...

And how do we come by our preferences? At what point do we involve intentional action and self-direction? Wherever you introduce that, that's where free will is located. Or do you want to maintain that such things are illusion and the reality is mindless chemical reactions and electrical impulses across a special geometric arrangement, all of which are the result of randomly colliding particles...as if by magic?

Ana the Ist said:

This is funny.

Reasons don't exist outside your head. They're created through a process your brain engages in called reasoning. It can involve a rational or irrational consideration of known possible choices and unknown or uncertain possible choices and the outcomes of each.

The reason you create in your mind isn't obviously predetermined....as it doesn't necessarily exist outside your mind.

It's exactly this process that gives us the ability to choose between choices....real or imagined. Free will choices.

Click to expand...

So round we go. You actually believe the thoughts in your mind operate independent of causes? How would they even have cogent (or otherwise) structure?

Mark Quayle said:

Would you say that God did not exist before he 'invented' time? Or do you place God as only another resident within time? God even 'invented' cause-and-effect, with himself first cause. Time is only a tool, not a governor over God's economy.

It is remarkable that current science is questioning the constancy of time. Their thinking need not depend on time sequence of events, but they have been unable to get away from the logic of causation, because their very pursuit of facts and principles depends on it. It is not doublespeak.

The options (except the ones chosen) are rendered illusory by my thinking. Choice is not rendered illusory. Yours, "renders 'choices' illusory", is the inexact statement. But I expect it was not done purposefully vague, so I won't insult it with the name, "doublespeak". Nevertheless, it was vague, which seems to me to be pervasive in your thinking.

Click to expand...

There's no inexactness to my statement, it's an entailment of determinism. If every "choice" we make is determined prior to us choosing such a thing, whether after the fact we want to describe it in terms of "preference" or not, there is no genuine choice made. If there is a linear path we're following without the possibility of diverting from it, and that path was set before we were born, then we don't make any choices along the way. We watch as a script runs and pretend that we're making choices when all we're doing is what whatever set the course has us do. You have to rely on doublespeak, not as a matter of inexactness, but because believing such a thing is unliveable. What I don't understand is why you would pretend to believe such a thing, even though it results in you having to play word games to affirm and deny it at the same time? Why engage in such self-deception?

Bradskii said:

What's not to understand about all this? It's how we all work whether there's free will or not. Except it's you making the decision based on prior conditions and not some mini-me that can somehow ignore them all.

Click to expand...

Right. A mini-me that has no immediate preferences at the moment of decision, and decides according to mere chance.

On another thread there is a discussion of prayer.
Prayer would be pre-determined and also the answer?
Because it is according to the Will of God
Whatever the answer to the prayer
I always believed in predetermined or chain of causality rather than free will but I never thought about it in relation to prayer
I do know that the longer I am Christian the less I pray for God's intervention because I have greater faith in God's will and providence
As my will becomes more in accordance with God's will, then the entire reality becomes a prayer, inside and out, if anyone can understand that statement.
I don't need to ask so often or so much, just watch and praise God. Delight in Him.

Interesting thought

Ana the Ist said:

This is funny.

Reasons don't exist outside your head. They're created through a process your brain engages in called reasoning. It can involve a rational or irrational consideration of known possible choices and unknown or uncertain possible choices and the outcomes of each.

The reason you create in your mind isn't obviously predetermined....as it doesn't necessarily exist outside your mind.

It's exactly this process that gives us the ability to choose between choices....real or imagined. Free will choices.

Click to expand...

Yeah...he plays loose and fast with the word "cause" among other select words.

QvQ said:

I do know that the longer I am Christian the less I pray because I have greater faith in God's will and providence
I don't need to ask so often or so much

Click to expand...

That seems to cut against the advice of Jesus and Paul who both exhorted an increase in prayer the deeper into faith we go. So maybe there's some error in your thinking here?

Fervent said:

There's no inexactness to my statement, it's an entailment of determinism. If every "choice" we make is determined prior to us choosing such a thing, whether after the fact we want to describe it in terms of "preference" or not, there is no genuine choice made.

Click to expand...

I should hope you would draw your conclusions on more than just an assertion. To speak like someone who has posted earlier, "C'mon, let's see the evidence" that the simple logic of causation does not explain choice.

Fervent said:

If there is a linear path we're following without the possibility of diverting from it, and that path was set before we were born, then we don't make any choices along the way.

Click to expand...

Repeated assertion.

Fervent said:

We watch as a script runs and pretend that we're making choices when all we're doing is what whatever set the course has us do. You have to rely on doublespeak, not as a matter of inexactness, but because believing such a thing is unliveable.

Click to expand...

How is it unliveable, and, again, where is the doublespeak, but from the point of view of your unproven assumption?

Fervent said:

What I don't understand is why you would pretend to believe such a thing, even though it results in you having to play word games to affirm and deny it at the same time? Why engage in such self-deception?

Click to expand...

What are these word-games? I have been clear and consistent all along about what I believe. It is your POV that finds a problem by its presuming of the integrity of the notion of uncaused free will.

But, since you are more or less fun to talk to, I will float another thought here, that might help you and other readers understand determinism more accurately. You and I believe in God, and one of my points in arguments with "libertarian" free-willers (proponents of uncaused free will) is that, since, they claim, God gave man limited autonomy, is that if God gave it to them, it is STILL CAUSED. You may not be able to follow this principle, but if a thing is caused in the general/large, it is caused in every particular. So to agree that limited autonomy (if there is such a thing) is caused, it can be caused only in general but not in particularities. That is false, but I won't go to the trouble in this post to explain. I should hope it would be obvious to you that it is not like God to operate by the seat of his pants, instead of by purpose from the very beginning.

But my point in stating the paragraph above this, is that whether, as I believe, God is first cause, or even whether there IS a first cause as opposed to "elephants all the way down", causation is in all cases causal of all effects. And there are no choices that are not effects.

Fervent said:

That seems to cut against the advice of Jesus and Paul who both exhorted an increase in prayer the deeper into faith we go. So maybe there's some error in your thinking here?

Click to expand...

I was always a very anxious and worried person. Free floating anxiety
Fear governed my life, worry worry worry
For a long time I prayed for God's protection, for God to take care of things
Now I pray more but it is different
It is a prayer, more of a hymn of knowing that God answered those prayers and I can rely on him
Life itself has become a prayer, as God's will and providence unfolds in my life
Faith has replaced my fears and now my prayers are hymns to God's glory.

I suppose that was predetermined as all those fears were keeping me constantly aware and in communication with Him.
Now it is a habit but a song more than a pleading

Fervent said:

That seems to cut against the advice of Jesus and Paul who both exhorted an increase in prayer the deeper into faith we go. So maybe there's some error in your thinking here?

Click to expand...

That would depend on one's definition of prayer. The longer one walks with God the more God is on his mind and the more he realizes immediate communication with every thought.

partinobodycular said:

Incorrect. The rain did indeed have an influence on whether or not I go to the beach, but the degree of influence that it had wasn't determined by the rain itself, it was determined by something internal to me, not external.

Click to expand...

Yes, your internal operators are the deciders, affected by external and other internal causes, to include, perhaps, feeling under the weather, bad memories from past experiences with rain, and so on. Not only that, but the structure of your very brain matter is caused to be and do what it does. Nothing quite random. Thus, caused.

partinobodycular said:

Something within myself has to serve as the determining factor as to how much influence external events will have on my choices. Therefore the real determining factor has to be internal to me... it's the thing that determines how much influence external events will have.

Will event 'A' have an influence or not? If so... how much? That's a factor that has to be determined internally.

Click to expand...

How does "internal" mean, "uncaused"?

Mark Quayle said:

I should hope you would draw your conclusions on more than just an assertion. To speak like someone who has posted earlier, "C'mon, let's see the evidence" that the simple logic of causation does not explain choice.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards, you're the one asserting that there is a total causal chain in effect that eliminates real choice. My position isn't based on an assertion, it's based on taking my experiences of making choices at face value. You tell me there's these mysterious causes that are really at the heart of my choices, so you need to give an account of how such a thing works.

Mark Quayle said:

Repeated assertion.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand what an "assertion" is..what I am stating there is simply logical entailments. If there are no genuine options, there is no genuine choice. Just an illusion of choice.

Mark Quayle said:

How is it unliveable, and, again, where is the doublespeak, but from the point of view of your unproven assumption?

Click to expand...

It's quite clear as "determinists" seem to fall all over themselves creating convoluted situations to defend their indefensible theory rather than providing a substantive rebuttal to the charges laid against them. If you truly believed that every decision was pre-determined before you made the decision you would admit that you have no choice to make, and just wait until whatever choices are made for you are made.

Mark Quayle said:

What are these word-games? I have been clear and consistent all along about what I believe. It is your POV that finds a problem by its presuming of the integrity of the notion of uncaused free will.

Click to expand...

You claim to believe in determinism, which entails a denial of free choice. But then you try to rectify it by kicking the can down the road and saying people choose what they "prefer". Which doesn't get rid of the problem of free will and determinism, it just kicks up dust about the issue. After all, where do these "preferences" come from?

Mark Quayle said:

But, since you are more or less fun to talk to, I will float another thought here, that might help you and other readers understand determinism more accurately. You and I believe in God, and one of my points in arguments with "libertarian" free-willers (proponents of uncaused free will) is that, since, they claim, God gave man limited autonomy, is that if God gave it to them, it is STILL CAUSED. You may not be able to follow this principle, but if a thing is caused in the general/large, it is caused in every particular. So to agree that limited autonomy (if there is such a thing) is caused, it can be caused only in general but not in particularities. That is false, but I won't go to the trouble in this post to explain. I should hope it would be obvious to you that it is not like God to operate by the seat of his pants, instead of by purpose from the very beginning.

Click to expand...

You're looking at the issue too deeply. Free will is nothing more than ownership of our choices. We need not get into metaphysical speculation about causes or antecedents, because those things just lead to unnecessary confusion and convoluted theories. We have free will, and there is a seemingly deterministic structure to the universe. The issue is, how do we explain both things being true? We can become fatalist and insist that God micromanages and is really the sole cause of every decision, or we can accept that it is a mystery that only an omniscient being could hope to solve. You're inventing an argument that need not happen, and painting yourself into a corner based on nothing but your own limited understanding.

Mark Quayle said:

But my point in stating the paragraph above this, is that whether, as I believe, God is first cause, or even whether there IS a first cause as opposed to "elephants all the way down", causation is in all cases causal of all effects. And there are no choices that are not effects.

Click to expand...

I don't believe a model of mechanical causation is a true model of reality. It's useful, but I don't think it's truth.