Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

No, final causes aren;t antecedent conditions. They're teleological

Did someone say they can't be teleological? You spent all day nailing planks together to build a shelter. Let's check to see what teleology means (from wiki):

'Teleology or finality is a branch of causality giving the reason or an explanation for something as a function of its end, its purpose'.

So why did you do all that work? Because you wanted to build a shelter. That was the reason you did. The need that you had for a shelter was the cause for all that work you did. The final result of a shelter determined that you'd spend all day working on it. What you wanted was one of the antecedent conditions.

It generally is. You wanted something to eat so you went to the fridge. You wanted a drink so you popped a beer. You wanted more money so you looked for a better job.

The only antecedent is the efficient cause, all other causes are either contemporaneous or future-oriented.

Why did the house burn down? Because it was made of wood and not concrete. A material cause.
Why was it made that way? Because it was designed that way. The formal cause.
Who built it like that? The builder, because he had to follow the plans. The efficient cause.
Why was it built anyway? Because Jim wanted a home. The final cause.

If you want to make this cause and effect a little more complex than 'Jim is homeless because his house burnt down' then go for it. If you don't want to include them then don't. It doesn't change anything.

Determinism requires every event have an entirely sufficient historic efficient cause, which leaves no room for intentional agency.

Agency is simply the ability to make a choice. This has been covered many times. I'm not going over all that again.

But maybe you mean that what you intend doing is not what you wanted to do? That makes no sense, so it can't be that. So you'll have to explain exactly what you do mean.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope, determinism goes quite a bit further. It claims that every act of human will is actually nothing more than the result of a fully sufficient historical event or events. It's not enough for there to simply be antecedent conditions that influence choices, it requires that those antecedent conditions are the sole sufficient explanation for those choices.

Determinism doesn't claim anything about free will. It's used as the basis for proposing that it doesn't exist.

Otherwise, yeah. You nailed it. Congrats. I'm pretty sure I've asked this before - I may be wrong, but anyway...if you know of any choice that you've made that wasn't determined by antecedent conditions (assuming that it wasn't a random choice), then bring it up in your very next post and I'll close the thread.

 

[Jo555]

.

LOL. Now that's funny.. I knew you had it in you.

 

[Jo555]

The most important two are final causes and efficient causes, final causes have to do with the purpose or end goal. They're reasons and ends and require intention and evaluation. Efficient causes are mechanical cause and effect relationships, ie do this, that happens. In this conversation it matters which kind we're talking about because the entire question depends on whether human decisions are entirely determined by historic conditions in a mechanical fashion.

I looked at OP again and he does mention the chain of events that lead to our choices, but then defines freewill as apart from all of them.

I don't see where distinguishing one from the other is needed, but hey, if I can bring in Moses and the gospel, you certainly can lay out your argument for the four causes.

Who knows what we may discover.

 

[Jo555]

Super quick primer (I think it's an AI version from Google):

• Material Cause:
  The raw material or substance from which something is made. (Example: the wood used to make a chair)
• Formal Cause:
  The form, pattern, or design that defines a thing's essence. (Example: the blueprint for a chair)
• Efficient Cause:
  The agent or force that brings about the change or creation of something. (Example: the carpenter who builds the chair)
• Final Cause:
  The purpose or goal for which something exists. (Example: the purpose of a chair is to provide seating)

Key difference:

• Four Causes: A comprehensive explanation of a thing's existence by analyzing different aspects of its creation and purpose.
  
  
• Cause and Effect: A simpler relationship where one event directly leads to another.

So...Jim is homeless because his house burnt down. Why is he homeless? What is the cause of him having no home? What determined that he's living on the street? Well, the simple cause and effect answer is 'Because his house burnt down'. Now if you're really keen you can bring to the table the 4 causes as noted above.

Material cause: Well, the house was wooden so it burnt quickly.
Formal cause: It was designed that way because it was the cheapest option and Jim didn't have much money.
Efficient cause: That would be the builder who built the house.
Final cause: It was built as a home for Jim.

They add a little more information as to why the house burnt down - it was designed as being wooden as opposed to concrete. We know why it was built - Jim lived in it, but we knew that already. What we don't know is why it burnt down. The efficient cause for that. Do we need that info? Not really. Do we need any of that info? Not really. Because all we are interested in is that Jim is homeless so we're looking for the simple cause and effect reason for that.

And the cause was...his house burnt down.

Very helpful, and simple enough, me thinks. Gracias.

I prophesy that with that, this thread will run another 100 pages, at the least.

We'll see how accurate of an internet prophet I am.

 

[Jo555]

.

LOL. Now that's funny.. I knew you had it in you.

I think it's funny that I'm just picking up the lingo and think I can now translate for all what Bradskii is saying.

But i think I'm doing an ok job. Been paying attention, even if it doesn't seem that way, and i know he'll correct me if I'm wrong, of which i welcome.

It helps to be multilingual. Get invited to more parties that way.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, that's exactly what I did. I wanted to do one but I preferred to do the other. I mean...where is the difficulty in understanding that?

You wanted to do one, and you also wanted to do the other, and you made a choice.

 

[Jo555]

You wanted to do one, and you also wanted to do the other, and you made a choice.

Me try.

Chesterton. He isn't saying you don't have a choice. We all make choices everyday due to our greater preference for one option over another.

What he is saying is that YOUR WILL is not free from influences. Therefore, neither will be your choice.

Freewill is being defined as being able to make a choice without prior influences, then freewill does not exist.

Choices do exist. We make choices everyday due to our preferences that are influenced, but our will is not free of influence.

I myself have known this for some time, but i still used the term "freewill" at times because i was using it interchangeably with choice, but i now see it is not the same.

 

[Jo555]

Me try.

Chesterton. He isn't saying you don't have a choice. We all make choices everyday due to our greater preference for one option over another.

What he is saying is that YOUR WILL is not free from influences. Therefore, neither will be your choice.

Freewill is being defined as being able to make a choice without prior influences, then freewill does not exist.

Choices do exist. We make choices everyday due to our preferences that are influenced, but our will is not free of influence.

I myself have known this for some time, but i still used the term "freewill" at times because i was using it interchangeably with choice, but i now see it is not the same.

Romans 7 is a prime example of our will being bound over to our carnal nature. Further along in chptr 7 Paul describes the torturous dilemma of trying to overcome the.carnal nature through the knowledge of good and evil-the law.

Unfortunately, I see many believers stuck here due to ignorance. Not that I have fully arrived myself, just saying.

He is describing that the carnal nature, fueled by the law, is the influencer driving our bad choices.

After Christ our will is liberated from both the carnal nature and the law, so that we can now walk in victory by the Spirit who drives us by God's love.

The Spirit of God is now the influencer, but we can hinder the Spirit's influence in our lives by returning to the old way of trying to overcome sin by the law.

There is always something influencing our choices. Our will is never free from influences. Romans 8 speaks of this and Galatians 5 gets more specific.

If we as Christians believe that there is a kingdom of Light ruled by the Lord, and a kingdom of darkness where satan rules, why would it be hard to believe that we are influenced by one or the other; that our choices are ruled by one or the other?

This doesn't undermine the fact that we have a choice. It just shows us that of ourselves we cannot be like God; holy as God is holy, apart from Him and it is pride to think otherwise.

Bradskii's premise given in his OP takes nothing away from that truth. It just amplifies it.

You cannot choose the will of God apart from Him, it is given to us as we come to Him, and we can't even do that apart from Him.

Think of those scriptures regarding what He says about He will be proved right in what He says.

I don't pretend to know all of his intentions, except what lies in his Heart-good, loving, etc, but I do have a strong belief that this whole ride on Earth, that is described as a light affliction compared to what is coming, is more about showing us that apart from Him we can do nothing and it helps us to avoid the error of our ways apart from Him. At the least, I believe that is a part of this ride.

I must go for now as its taken up a good deal of my morning, but i thought I'd try translating again in a language my people can understand.

 

[Bradskii]

You wanted to do one, and you also wanted to do the other, and you made a choice.

Exactly. I expressed a preference.

 

[Chesterton]

Exactly. I expressed a preference.

You expressed your preference, your like, your want, your desire. Do I need to consult a thesaurus for more synonyms?

 

[Bradskii]

You expressed your preference, your like, your want, your desire. Do I need to consult a thesaurus for more synonyms?

I think we've covered all bases. It should be clear by now what a preference means.

 

[Fervent]

Determinism doesn't claim anything about free will. It's used as the basis for proposing that it doesn't exist.

The denial of free will is inherent in determinism, because there's no room for any sort of freedom if historic causes are wholly sufficient.

Otherwise, yeah. You nailed it. Congrats. I'm pretty sure I've asked this before - I may be wrong, but anyway...if you know of any choice that you've made that wasn't determined by antecedent conditions (assuming that it wasn't a random choice), then bring it up in your very next post and I'll close the thread.

It's not enough for there to exist antecedent conditions, those antecedent conditions must be wholly sufficient to explain the choice. Having a history doesn't demonstrate the sort of fatalism necessary for determinism to be true. So the onus is on you to demonstrate the sufficiency of antecedent conditions on every choice such that the experience of choosing is superfluous, not on me to demonstrate that your hypothesis of determinism is false.

 

[Jo555]

Popcorn anyone?

Is there a hidden camera somewhere because I'm finding this all so surreal.

 

[Jo555]

Me thinking Bradskii, this will not stop until you, "Let my people go!"

Next is a plague of locusts.

 

[Jo555]

Me thinking Bradskii, this will not stop until you, "Let my people go!"

Next is a plague of locusts.

I thought I parted the Red Sea. Did my people cross over safely, or am I still living in my delusional bubble?

 

[Bradskii]

It's not enough for there to exist antecedent conditions, those antecedent conditions must be wholly sufficient to explain the choice.

That's right. They must be the reason why you chose to do something.

So the onus is on you to demonstrate the sufficiency of antecedent conditions on every choice such that the experience of choosing is superfluous...

Not superfluous. The choice is determined by those antecedent conditions. And I've given you umpteen examples. I can keep giving them if you like.

And each one has, and will show what I claim. Now if you say that those examples don't prove that it's valid in every case, then yet again I will agree. I've said that this is based on inductive reasoning do it's impossible to prove correct. But ridiculously easy to prove false. All you need do is show me a choice that wasn't based on anything. You are exceedingly reluctant to attempt that. And we both know why.

...not on me to demonstrate that your hypothesis of determinism is false.

I've shown you that in every case, in every example given that the claim is true. If you want to claim it's false then you need to show that determinism is false. Or offer up some means whereby free will exists that is compatible with it.

Don't you want to prove it's false? Because, to be honest, you're doing a pretty poor job in denying it's not true.

Give it a shot, why don't you. Prove me wrong...

 

[Jo555]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1852586725218898

 

[Jo555]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1852586725218898

All is well that ends well. We have crossed over dry ground and have stopped going around the same mountain, over, and over, and over again.

Appears we are ready to cross over into the promised land. There are giants in the land, but the Lord goes before us. You need only believe and cross over. If you don't, you will perish at the mountain, going around, and around, and around ... the same mountain over and over again.

 

[Fervent]

That's right. They must be the reason why you chose to do something.

And here you go conflating preferences with causes.

Not superfluous. The choice is determined by those antecedent conditions. And I've given you umpteen examples. I can keep giving them if you like.

The experience of choosing must be superfluous, that's what makes free will an illusion under determinism.

And each one has, and will show what I claim. Now if you say that those examples don't prove that it's valid in every case, then yet again I will agree. I've said that this is based on inductive reasoning do it's impossible to prove correct. But ridiculously easy to prove false. All you need do is show me a choice that wasn't based on anything. You are exceedingly reluctant to attempt that. And we both know why.

I've shown you that in every case, in every example given that the claim is true. If you want to claim it's false then you need to show that determinism is false. Or offer up some means whereby free will exists that is compatible with it.

Don't you want to prove it's false? Because, to be honest, you're doing a pretty poor job in denying it's not true.

Give it a shot, why don't you. Prove me wrong...

You've shown no such thing, you've asserted determinism and then through sloppy semantics played a shell game where multiple meanings of cause are used. I don't need to prove it false, you need to demonstrate the sufficiency of the antecedent causes and the irrelevancy of free will.