Free will and determinism

[Mark Quayle]

I deny that options are antecedent conditions. They're not "conditions" at all. Options are currently existing options.

Call them what you want. They do influence, and are therefore causal.

I already used C. S. Lewis to bring up the distinction between the two senses of the word "because" - the Cause and Effect sense, and the Ground and Consequent sense. The fact that you can make a decision based on a reason in no way means you didn't make a decision, or that you couldn't have chosen otherwise.

Nobody's saying YOU don't make the decision. That you couldn't have chosen otherwise is visible in the fact that YOU NEVER DO CHOOSE OTHERWISE.

All history works against you here.

A reason is not always a cause. I can see where you get confused.

Meaningless distinction. Reasons are part of what causes.

Say I see firemen who've rushed to a burning building. I ask them why they went to the building. After looking at me like I'm stupid, one of them says "because the building is on fire, that's the reason we came". Read carelessly, or thought through carelessly, that could appear as if the cause and the reason are one and the same. But no, the fire is the reason, the cause is the fireman's choice to come.

No, the reason is not what I claim nor what he claims nor what you claim. He may cite that as the reason, and, indeed, the fire was causal, as was everything that in anyway worked upon him concerning that fire, to include his joy in fighting fires, the booger in his nose and the fact his wife isn't fun to be around right now. The fact that it was a fire is only one of the reasons. The bear climbed over the mountain.

And there's not a force in the natural universe, past or present, which could have forced him to come, other than himself.

Himself, of course, after all, being caused to exist, and so, to do, including to decide, and to have preferences. Caused.

(Irritating, ain't I?)

 

[Chesterton]

You took the bus because that was what you preferred. Because it was more convenient. Because there are lots of buses running. Because it's a popular route. Because the destination is a busy office area. Because the rents are lower than the city. Because the council wanted to make the area more desirable for business. Because there was profit in that. Because...well, how long have we got? I can keep going back to the area being settled. Or the reasons why it was suitable for settlement. And the geographic and climatic conditions that made it so. How far shall we go back looking at cause and effect? Looking at what determined each step.

You're lacking any argument as to why I had to take the bus.

No, it most definitely isn't. And I'm pretty sure you'd know that. Having a reason to do something, a reason which causes you to prefer one option over all others, is not forcing you to make that decision. You are not being coerced in any way. It's your choice to make as you see fit. But it is completely undeniable that whatever you choose was determined by at least one of the antecedent conditions. Again, that is a given. Else you made the decision for no reason at all.

Does it ever give you pause, to consider that you could be wrong, when you can't even state your belief without contradicting yourself within a few sentences?

There's nothing ridiculous in doing something for no reason? Unless it's an involuntary act or something at random - in which case free will is not involved, then it's literally impossible. Try it. Do something right now before reading the next sentence.

Now, did you think about it? No? Then there wasn't even a decision let alone free will. You did think about it? Then you chose to do it. And the reason for that choice was that you were asked to do something. Just saying 'I simply decided to do it for no reason' is borderline Tourettes.

I did think about it. I could have chosen to do a thousand things, or do nothing.

From Merriam-Webster: Definition of CAUSE

Cause: reason for an action or condition.

That is, why it happened.

That's an acceptable definition for physics. Not for the human mind that has choices.

Oh, good grief...

The fire started.

This causes heat.

Someone noticed it.

This is sensory perception. It causes nothing.

They called 911.

This causes a phone to ring.

A call was sent to the nearest fire brigade.

Also, a phone rings.

An alarm went off there.

This causes sound waves.

Those on duty rushed to the fire truck and were given the address. They drove to where the fire was.

Cause and effect every step of the way. If there was no fire then he wouldn't be there. There was a fire and that's why he was there. It was the reason he was there. It was the cause of him being there.

The last two are merely reports of what some men chose to do.

 

[Chesterton]

Call them what you want. They do influence, and are therefore causal.

Influences are not necessarily causes.

Nobody's saying YOU don't make the decision. That you couldn't have chosen otherwise is visible in the fact that YOU NEVER DO CHOOSE OTHERWISE.

All history works against you here.

I've given myself a bald spot scratching my head over this. Best explanation I can come up with is that I am that Bill Murray character in the film Groundhog Day, and you are watching me do the exact same things all day every day.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I could have chosen to do a thousand things, or do nothing.

Aw, c'mon, man! Demonstrate just one time when you chose to do something you did not choose to do!

It's impossible! You have no evidence that you could have.

 

[Chesterton]

Aw, c'mon, man! Demonstrate just one time when you chose to do something you did not choose to do!

It's impossible! You have no evidence that you could have.

Another head scratcher. While Bradskii engages in contradiction, you jump straight into paradox. Demonstrate one time when you ate something you didn't eat, or walked to a place you didn't walk to.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Another head scratcher. While Bradskii engages in contradiction, you jump straight into paradox. Demonstrate one time when you ate something you didn't eat, or walked to a place you didn't walk to.

My very point. There is no paradox, though, except in one's thinking; and that was caused, too!

The fact you never choose what you didn't choose demonstrates, like it or not, that you can't choose what you don't choose.

 

[Bradskii]

You're lacking any argument as to why I had to take the bus.

You didn't have to take the bus. You had options. You could have chosen any one. But you chose, and you will always choose, that option which you prefer. Just stop and think about that for a moment. Think about all the decisions that you have ever made. You always, and I literally mean always chose the one that you preferred. It's trite to even have to point that out to you. To say otherwise would be crazy. Who selects an option that they don't prefer?

So you didn't have to take the bus. You could have chosen the train. If the train was what you preferred. It wasn't. For various reasons. Let's run through the process:

What do you need to decide to do? You need to decide how to get to work. No problem there.
Which options are available? There could be hundreds, but let's limit it to the bus, the train or you walk. No problem there either.
Who is going to make the decision? Well, that will be you. We're problem free so far.
Do you have to pick any one of them? No, they are all available to you. Again, no problem.
And you pick...? The bus? Fine, it was your decision to make. Everything is good.
Could you tell me why you chose the bus? The reason why you picked that option? A reasonable question.
You say that it was because there's a frequent service, the bus stops near your office and it's relatively inexpensive. A fair and reasonable response.
So it was the option that you prefered? Another reasonable question.
'Yes, rather obviously' you say. Otherwise you wouldn't have chosen it. Another fair and reasonable response.

So that's it. It's the process you go through in deciding how to get to work. And you're catching the bus. You didn't have to choose that, but it was the one that you preferred. The frequency of the service, where it stops and the fare, they are all antecedent conditions. They are what you based your decision on. They determined your decision.

That is not an example of free will. But I'm pretty certain that you think it is. But you know what the definition of free will is - it's in the very first post and has been quoted and re-quoted umpteen times since. And the above process does not comply with that definition. Rather obviously. But you might still insist it is because...

Well, it was you that made the decision. Sure it was. We covered that. No-one else is going to make it for you. So that's not an argument for free will.

But you'll say that you were completely free to make the choice. Indeed you were. That was covered as well. There was no coerciveness. That is not an argument for free will.

And you might say that you could have chosen any one option. A different one. Yes, you could have. But you picked the one that you preferred. We noted that, and gave the reasons why you preferred it.

I did think about it. I could have chosen to do a thousand things, or do nothing.

It's always your choice. Good Lord, how many times have I had to say that...

That's an acceptable definition for physics. Not for the human mind that has choices.

No, it's a common or garden, everyday standard definition.

Why did you catch the bus?
What was the reason for you catching the bus?
What caused you to decide to catch the bus?
What determined your decision to catch the bus?

Everyone know the same question is being asked in different ways. And everyone knows what the answer will be. And it will be the same one each time. We know because we discussed why you chose it.

 

[Bradskii]

Influences are not necessarily causes.

Your decision will obviously be influenced by something. We call them antecedent conditions around these parts.

I've given myself a bald spot scratching my head over this. Best explanation I can come up with is that I am that Bill Murray character in the film Groundhog Day, and you are watching me do the exact same things all day every day.

Phill knew he was reliving the same day. He knew the outcomes of his actions. And he could make different decisions based on those outcomes. If he didn't like it he could change things. If you relived the exact same day a million times and you didn't realise it, then you wouldn't know what the outcomes would be. Your decisions wouldn't change. The day would replay exactly the same every time.

 

[Bradskii]

Another head scratcher. While Bradskii engages in contradiction, you jump straight into paradox. Demonstrate one time when you ate something you didn't eat, or walked to a place you didn't walk to.

Where's the contradiction? It'll help if you quote something so that I can clear it up.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where's the contradiction? It'll help if you quote something so that I can clear it up.

Maybe he isn't understanding why you say that he "could have chosen any one of the options (but he didn't choose any of them except the one that he preferred)", (or words to that effect), when I've been saying that he only can choose the option that he prefers, and cannot choose any other (as history so amply demonstrates).

Kinda bugs me how people do that sort of thing, protest some detail that, if they were on the 'other side' of the matter, they would easily understand why it was said the way it was. --But I digress. Off Topic.

But maybe that's not what he is talking about. Please, @Chesterton , explain.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Another head scratcher. While Bradskii engages in contradiction, you jump straight into paradox. Demonstrate one time when you ate something you didn't eat, or walked to a place you didn't walk to.

One "Complexity Theory" scientist, M. Mitchell Waldrop, asserts, "Everything affects everything." While we can't see it as so, due to limited data and limited scope of attention, and limited intelligence, and, (I'm sorry, but), limited motivation, I intuitively believe it is true. There have been studies made where differences in wide ranging events had completely unpredictable (by humans) results. There is a title or axiom or some such statement concerning that study --I don't remember it.

One field of study along these lines in particular intrigues me --Chaos Theory, in which a seemingly insignificant difference in circumstances can effect huge differences in results. Chaos theory, as I understand it, does not posit that there is such a thing as true chaos --i.e. randomness and chance-- but that what we consider chaos can be seen to follow certain boundaries and even rules in ontology of components and their 'behavior'.

But, anyhow, I believe that 'cause-and-effect' is completely universally pervasive. I have seen nothing, nor can I reason anything, that to me indicates otherwise. And, I see nothing that I can reason to imply that there can be more than one first cause. I find the notion, 'first cause', to be the only reasonable explanation for existence, even if one wishes to call first cause, 'existence', and everything else that exists to be caused by it. So far, I also find it unreasonable that first cause can be only mechanical fact, since mechanical fact must follow structural rules. First cause can be governed by nothing outside itself. No principle, no reality, nothing. It is the cause of very reality. One cannot say of first cause, that it MUST follow structural rules. (That it does so is no indication that it MUST do so.)

I include all that last paragraph, because it is, (to me, at least), central to the question of the OP, though admittedly, as I have said before, one need not believe there is a first cause to see that everything affects everything that comes subsequent to it.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe he isn't understanding why you say that he "could have chosen any one of the options (but he didn't choose any of them except the one that he preferred)", (or words to that effect), when I've been saying that he only can choose the option that he prefers, and cannot choose any other...

It's like someone saying 'Well, you say I can choose any of them, but that's not true, is it! I can only choose the one I prefer'.

Well...yeah. All the options are open to you. You'll be making the choice and no-one else. I have no idea which one you will choose. But I do know as a fact it will be the one that you prefer.

It's a truism. When you ask someone to choose between A, B and C you are literally asking them 'which one do you prefer?' And there will only be one.

 

[partinobodycular]

When you ask someone to choose between A, B and C you are literally asking them 'which one do you prefer?' And there will only be one.

So you're saying that it's impossible to force someone to do something that they don't want to do?

 

[Bradskii]

So you're saying that it's impossible to force someone to do something that they don't want to do?

There was no way you could come to that conclusion from what I said.

There is an argument that if someone says 'I'm going to shoot you dead unless you pick A' you still have a choice. You are certainly encouraged to pick A. But you could prefer to make a principled stand, even though it's going to cost you your life. There are numerous examples of people being given the choice of betraying their country or being killed. And they chose death.

Why did they choose it? It was the option that they preferred.

 

[partinobodycular]

There was no way you could come to that conclusion from what I said.

If I always choose what I prefer, then that means that I can NEVER be FORCED to choose what I don't prefer.

How does this logic elude you?

 

[Bradskii]

If I always choose what I prefer, then that means that I can NEVER be FORCED to choose what I don't prefer.

How does this logic elude you?

You asked 'it's impossible to force someone to do something that they don't want to do?'

This comes down to the difference between first order 'wants' or 'desires' and second order preferences. Watch the short excerpt from The Crucible:

John Proctor had admitted 'consorting with the devil' to avoid the gallows. But he is asked to sign the confession and he refuses. Knowing that the refusal will see him hanged. He so wants to live. But he sees his signature as denyinging the integrity he seeks. So he tears the confession up because he prefers to die with integrity rather than to live without it. That is his preference.

Another man might willingly sign it, convincing himself that it's just a piece of paper. That would be his preference.

We always choose that which we prefer.

 

[Jo555]

If I always choose what I prefer, then that means that I can NEVER be FORCED to choose what I don't prefer.

How does this logic elude you?

Pardon moi. Had some time to spare tonight and thought I'd give it a go, if that is ok with you.

First, I'd like to know if you are advocating for that position, or disputing it?

I'd also like to know if you are a Christian as the apostle Paul, by His Spirit, does a masterful job of covering these properties and would love to use it. I am going to try and remain serious, as much as i prefer humor, as not sure how well my humor will be taken.

What say you?

 

[Fervent]

Influences are not necessarily causes.

I've given myself a bald spot scratching my head over this. Best explanation I can come up with is that I am that Bill Murray character in the film Groundhog Day, and you are watching me do the exact same things all day every day.

Yeah...it's amazing how those arguing for determinism seem to know so much that is impossible for them to know. Why we keep entertaining their silliness by trying to get them to realize the self-refuting nature of it when they work with such sloppy thinking that doesn't clearly define what a "cause" is and instead encompass a everything from "preferences" to "influences" to things that are naturally seen as causes so long as they can deny genuine free will intention as effective...the question is why they are so dead set on denying their own willful actions and want to attribute it to something prior to themselves?

 

[partinobodycular]

This comes down to the difference between first order 'wants' or 'desires' and second order preferences.

Just so we're clear, what constitutes first order 'wants' as opposed to second order 'preferences'? Can you give me an example of each, and explain to me how they differ?

Thank you

 

[Bradskii]

Just so we're clear, what constitutes first order 'wants' as opposed to second order 'preferences'? Can you give me an example of each, and explain to me how they differ?

I just did. It was quite a specific example in the video. Proctor (played by Daniel Day-Lewis) wants to live. Desperately. But he prefers to die with his integrity intact. I thought that rather humdrum examples of wanting to go to the pub but preferring to go to the gym were sufficient, but let's crank it to the max and see someone who makes the ultimate choice.

There can be no doubt that he wants to live. He is desperate to continue his life with his wife. But he makes his decision. Which cannot be anything other than that which he prefers. He is that type of person. And he cannot change that.

Want another example? Another short clip (there's an expletive) about a US sailor who is given the choice of giving away tactical information just post Pearl Harbour or...being drowned. He obviously wants to live. But he prefers to be killed rather than give away the information. Again, he is that type of person. And he cannot change that.

Horrifyingly I just discovered that the event is based on a true story. I think he deserves his picture posted...