Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

I don't need to prove it false...

I say that you can't. But it's up to you to prove me wrong.

 

[Fervent]

I say that you can't. But it's up to you to prove me wrong.

Nope, the onus is on you to prove your assertion not on me to disprove it. Since free will is so heavily engrained in us that it is impossible to live consistently with the notion that it is an illusion, we can safely assume that it is true. Determinism, on the other hand, requires absolute proof of unbroken causal chains to be accepted as true. If all you can do is assert it and then play semantic games about preferences and likes and wants and yadayadayada then your assertion can be discarded.

 

[Bradskii]

Determinism, on the other hand, requires absolute proof of unbroken causal chains to be accepted as true.

There is no absolute proof. Why do you keep asking for something that doesn't exist? All it does is show that you've not understood what has been put forward.

If all you can do is assert it...

Yes, because it's inductive reasoning. It cannot be proved true, but all that's required to prove it false is to give an example of an effect without a cause. Do you understand that? I can't prove it true, but you can prove it false. You say that it's false but you refuse to offer anything to back that up.

I can give you example after example after example of determinism being true. I can post a dozen examples each day for the next few years. A thousand. I can simply post a link to a book or a newspaper each day that will show countless causes and effects happening everywhere and in every place at every time. I can give you a link to every major library in the world. All of the world's literature. All the world's science and technology. It will all illustrate determinism.

And all you have to do is post a single example of an effect with no cause to close down the thread and claim victory. Just one. And you can't do it. So if you're not going to make the attempt, I don't think you have anything else to add.

 

[partinobodycular]

I've given you umpteen examples. I can keep giving them if you like.

Actually, I've yet to see you give even one. Such that at this point I've resigned myself to the fact that you're going to keep making this claim, but you're never going to back it up.

The problem is that if your argument for determinism is true, then someone's psychological state is completely irrelevant... it's just a symptom of an underlying cause. Like if I say that grass is green. The color green is just a mental construct... a qualia. It corresponds to an underlying state, but it is in fact just an illusion created by your mind, to represent that underlying state. But you keep referring to those illusions... like 'wanting' this or that... as if they're the actual cause, when in fact they're just a psychological model of the cause, they're not the actual cause itself.

So if I 'prefer' one thing over another, don't simply refer to the psychological construct to explain why I prefer this thing over that thing. Give me the details behind the neurological processes that are underpinning those psychological constructs. If you can't do that, then you're simply assuming that they exist, and then challenging others to prove that you're wrong.

But the repercussion of this deterministic mindset is that consciousness is completely superfluous. It doesn't serve any function. All that the brain is doing is creating a redundant system that allows 'you' to watch a show over which you have absolutely no control. Why would the brain do that?

So go ahead, explain the neurological processes that underpin your choosing coffee over Earl Grey.

 

[Jo555]

I'm

Actually, I've yet to see you give even one. Such that at this point I've resigned myself to the fact that you're going to keep making this claim. but you're never going to back it up.

The problem is that if your argument for determinism is true, then someone's psychological state is completely irrelevant... it's just a symptom of an underlying cause. Like if I say that grass is green. The color green is just a mental construct... a qualia. It corresponds to an underlying state, but it is in fact just an illusion created by your mind, to represent that underlying state. But you keep referring to those illusions... like 'wanting' this or that... as if they're the actual cause, when in fact they're just a psychological model of the cause, they're not the actual cause itself.

So if I 'prefer' one thing over another, don't simply refer to the psychological construct to explain why I prefer this thing over that thing. Give me the details behind the neurological processes that are underpinning those psychological constructs. If you can't do that, then you're simply assuming that they exist, and then challenging others to prove that you're wrong.

But the repercussion of this deterministic mindset is that consciousness is completely superfluous. It doesn't serve any function. All that the brain is doing is creating a redundant system that allows 'you' to watch a show over which you have absolutely no control. Why would the brain do that?

So go ahead, explain the neurological processes that underpin your choosing coffee over Earl Grey.

I think you are way overcomplicating matters.

He gave a gazillion examples.

Refute his claim with one example of making a choice without being under the influence of something.

 

[Jo555]

I'm

I think you are way overcomplicating matters.

He gave a gazillion examples.

Refute his claim with one example of making a choice without being under the influence of something.

He gave his reason his preference for coffee over Earl Grey. Can't remember why, but if it was preferring the taste we don't really need to understand that his taste buds sang and sent signals to his brain that it prefers coffee. The fact that he liked it better should suffice.

 

[Jo555]

Can you share your problem with no freewill again? Freewill just means there is nothing influencing our choice, which i don't see as existing.

Why is it such a difficult thing to accept?

It doesn't make us robots. It just means everytime we makes choice we have a reason, which is our preference, or whatever we desire more at the time.

It's part of being a human being. To have freewill would seem the more stranger, or unusual trait.

 

[Jo555]

Actually, to have freewill appears to have more character traits of a robot than no freewill, at least the way i see it.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, I've yet to see you give even one. Such that at this point I've resigned myself to the fact that you're going to keep making this claim. but you're never going to back it up.

The last one was a couple of days ago when I said I'd booked flights to Rome as opposed to Paris and the reasons for each. I didn't decide for no reason. I gave two video clips about the same time illustrating people's choices and the antecedent conditions with determined them. I'm giving examples constantly. Earl Gray over coffee. Gym v pub. Which thread are you actually reading if you haven't even seen one?

The problem is that if your argument for determinism is true, then someone's psychological state is completely irrelevant... it's just a symptom of an underlying cause. Like if I say that grass is green. The color green is just a mental construct... a qualia. It corresponds to an underlying state, but it is in fact just an illusion created by your mind, to represent that underlying state. But you keep referring to those illusions... like 'wanting' this or that... as if they're the actual cause, when in fact they're just a psychological model of the cause, they're not the actual cause itself.

I'm really not interested in the deeper question of the 'qualia' of desires. It only needs to be accepted that desires exist and that they are often instrumental in determining our decisions. You might as well say that a call I had prompted me to drive to the city but that can't have been the cause because I don't understand how mobile networks operate.

This is monstrously simple and it doesn't need to be made any more complex. I prefer coffee over Earl Gray because I don't like the taste of Earl Gray. Period. That's it. We need dive no deeper. Do you want to suggest that we must say that 'the mental construct - the qualia of the taste of Earl Gray, an illusion created by my mind which I don't like caused me to prefer coffee. The taste of which is another mental construct, another illusion created by my mind which I do like'.

Does that actually change anything? Of course not. It's really a lot easier to say that I don't like the taste of Earl Grey and I do like the taste of coffee. So therefore I'll have a coffee thanks very much.

So if I 'prefer' one thing over another, don't simply refer to the psychological construct to explain why I prefer this thing over that thing. Give me the details behind the neurological processes that are underpinning those psychological constructs. If you can't do that, then you're simply assuming that they exist, and then challenging others to prove that you're wrong.

This isn't a thread on psychological constructs. It isn't set up to discuss the neurological processes involved in desires. It's set up to discuss the results of those constructs and processes. And to say that it's an assumption that they exist is nonsensical. I know for a fact that I like coffee and that will determine my choice of drinks. If you don't like flying then that will be a fact that will determine your mode of travel. If you tell me to get a train ticket for the trip am I to refuse until you give me a peer reviewed dissertation on the neurological basis of aerophobia so I know it's not imaginary? Please...

But the repercussion of this deterministic mindset is that consciousness is completely superfluous. It doesn't serve any function.

It's hard to make a decision if you're not conscious.

All that the brain is doing is creating a redundant system that allows 'you' to watch a show over which you have absolutely no control.

I have gone through heaven knows how many posts trying to make clear the difference between wanting one thing or another and preferring one of them. It's a truism that you will always choose that which you prefer. Even if you don't want it. It's the very definition of the word 'preference'.

Let's say that free will exists. It would still be true, as you are suggesting in that sentence above, that you would have absolutely no control over your choices because you will always choose the one that you prefer. Every time. So that position covers situations where free will exists or whether it doesn't.

Otherwise, what you are saying is that if you have free will you can choose something which you don't prefer. That's grammatically and logically nonsensical.

 

[partinobodycular]

This is monstrously simple and it doesn't need to be made any more complex. I prefer coffee over Earl Gray because I don't like the taste of Earl Gray. Period.

I'm still waiting for you to give an example. 'Liking' something is a psychological representation of an underlying neurological condition. It's superfluous. The actual cause is the underlying neurological condition, not your mental representation thereof.

It's hard to make a decision if you're not conscious.

No it isn't. Computers do it all of the time. And if determinism is true then we have no more need of consciousness than a computer does. A deterministic system will work just fine without it. Unless you're saying that there's something that a deterministic system can't do without a conscious mind to facilitate that action. I.E you can't choose coffee over Earl Grey without a conscious mind to make that choice... is that what you're saying... a computer couldn't choose coffee over Earl Grey?

 

[Bradskii]

Can you share your problem with no freewill again? Freewill just means there is nothing influencing our choice, which i don't see as existing.

That's exactly right. But it's not something that people concern themselves about in any great detail. It feels like we have free will and we feel like we're making decisions for whatever reason without being coerced.

Why is it such a difficult thing to accept?

Because it feels so real. Because people don't generally check what the definition actually says. Because we naturally hold others responsible for any harm they cause us and we feel that they could have changed their ways somehow. We demand retribution, which isn't compatible with no free will. And...something that's even harder to discount, we feel that we deserve praise for what we do.

I've tried this before. I've not mentioned free will, but I've simply asked a friend a few basic questions when I was around his place for a couple of drinks a few weeks back. It went something like this:

'Can you tell me why you bought this house?'
'Jane and I checked out out various suburbs and the types of places we could afford and we liked this one'.
'So you had some other options but you preferred this property to others'?
'Yes. Obviously'.
'Why didn't you choose somewhere else?'
'Because we preferred this one'.
'But you could have picked another one'
'Well, yeah. But this was the one that we preferred'.
'So you had a reason for buying it'
'Obviously!'
'Have you ever made a decision that wasn't random for no reason?'
'What? Obviously not'

Pause to get another beer, then...

'Do you know what the definition of free will is?
'Yeah. The ability to freely make decisions'.
'Actually it's the ability to make decisions for no reason at all. To make a choice that hasn't been caused by anything'.
'What? That doesn't make any sense. You always have to have a reason'.

Try it with someone when you get the chance. I guarantee the conversation will follow the same lines. If you tell them upfront that free will doesn't exist they'll likely deny it all day and try to find some argument against the definition. As we have seen. But prompt them with an example of decisions they have made and ask if they could make one for no reason at all, then they'll agree with you completely that it's impossible.

Then tell them the definition. And do you know what? They'll still say that they have it. Why? 'Well, it's obvious. I decided to buy this house!'

 

[Bradskii]

I'm still waiting for you to give an example. 'Liking' something is a psychological representation of an underlying neurological condition. It's superfluous. The actual cause is the underlying neurological condition, not your mental representation thereof.

I don't care what the underlying reason is (in passing, my preference is simply a brain state probably somewhere in the nucleus accumbens which is generally prompted by dopamine. Or seratonin or some other pleasure inducing drug. That situation will apply if free will exists or not, so it's completely irrelevant). The fact that I like coffee is the only fact we are interested in when we look at the choice of drink I will make.

No it isn't. Computers do it all of the time. And if determinism is true then we have no more need of consciousness than a computer does. A deterministic system will work just fine without it. Unless you're saying that there's something that a deterministic system can't do without a conscious mind to facilitate that action. I.E you can't choose coffee over Earl Grey without a conscious mind to make that choice...

Of course that's what I'm saying! If you're not conscious, you can't make a decision. Your consciousness allows you to choose between different options. Based on the antecedent conditions. You are part of the process. It doesn't happen without you.

There's an old joke I assume originating by a proponent of no free will that says that someone who believes in free will tells a story about a determinist who goes into a restaurant and the waiter asks if he's chosen from the menu. 'No', he says. 'I'll just wait to see what the universe determines I'm going to have'.

It's made to point out the nonsensical idea that people who say we have free will have about determinism. That things just happen and we stand by and just watch it unfold. Which is exactly what you just proposed.

...is that what you're saying... a computer couldn't choose coffee over Earl Grey?

Somewhere in my brain (nucleus accumbens?) is a physical/chemical/biological configuration of some sort that prompts a dislike for Earl Grey. What language the brain uses I have no idea. But a pseudo programming language would be something like:

LET egrey = 0
LET coff = 1
SET drink (egrey OR coff)
IF drink = 0 THEN coff

It means that I will always choose coffee. Run that programme in the computer and as long as there's a sensor that can differentiate tea from coffee then it will always prefer coffee. Just like me.

 

[Jo555]

That's exactly right. But it's not something that people concern themselves about in any great detail. It feels like we have free will and we feel like we're making decisions for whatever reason without being coerced.

Because it feels so real. Because people don't generally check what the definition actually says. Because we naturally hold others responsible for any harm they cause us and we feel that they could have changed their ways somehow. We demand retribution, which isn't compatible with no free will. And...something that's even harder to discount, we feel that we deserve praise for what we do.

I've tried this before. I've not mentioned free will, but I've simply asked a friend a few basic questions when I was around his place for a couple of drinks a few weeks back. It went something like this:

'Can you tell me why you bought this house?'
'Jane and I checked out out various suburbs and the types of places we could afford and we liked this one'.
'So you had some other options but you preferred this property to others'?
'Yes. Obviously'.
'Why didn't you choose somewhere else?'
'Because we preferred this one'.
'But you could have picked another one'
'Well, yeah. But this was the one that we preferred'.
'So you had a reason for buying it'
'Obviously!'
'Have you ever made a decision that wasn't random for no reason?'
'What? Obviously not'

Pause to get another beer, then...

'Do you know what the definition of free will is?
'Yeah. The ability to freely make decisions'.
'Actually it's the ability to make decisions for no reason at all. To make a choice that hasn't been caused by anything'.
'What? That doesn't make any sense. You always have to have a reason'.

Try it with someone when you get the chance. I guarantee the conversation will follow the same lines. If you tell them upfront that free will doesn't exist they'll likely deny it all day and try to find some argument against the definition. As we have seen. But prompt them with an example of decisions they have made and ask if they could make one for no reason at all, then they'll agree with you completely that it's impossible.

Then tell them the definition. And do you know what? They'll still say that they have it. Why? 'Well, it's obvious. I decided to buy this house!'

I hear ya. It's why the scriptures tell us to judge not, lest we be judge. With the same measure we meet, it will be measured unto us.

As a Christian we are still accountable, but it is only our God who sees all the threads in the fabric of life and judges with righteous judgement and accordingly, and himself paid the price to set us free from judgement, for those who believe on his Son and what He has done through Him.

I think that is a big portion of the acceptance issue with Christians. As Righteousness Himself, God can still judge, but He also paid the ultimate price to set us free from all that and make us like Him, progressively growing in that.

And He knows how to balance the scales for all. We all will eventually get the desire of our hearts.

Ok, so I've done enough preaching on this thread. This whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite songs. Going to give the pulpit over to Simon and Garfunkel.

Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Jo555]

Dis link may work better. Hopefully.

 

[Jo555]

Was mucho fun though. I was also surprised at how many disagreed with the premise. I believe it just strongly supports scripture.

Asking others does make a nice opportunity to open the door for discussion there because i strongly believe it is an important thing to understand. It's a valuable tool in life.

 

[Jo555]

Dis link may work better. Hopefully.

Me thinks i was the songwriter, writing songs that voices didn't share.

What a wonderful mess we are.

 

[Jo555]

I was going to say, bring us back some croissants, but I see you've chosen Rome. Behave while there, or they may feed you to the lions in the Colosseum.

Although, thinking you can handle it.

Arrivederci!

 

[Fervent]

There is no absolute proof. Why do you keep asking for something that doesn't exist? All it does is show that you've not understood what has been put forward.

I understand what's been put forward, and it is insufficiently justified. Determinism requires absolute proof, so your "argument" fails because you haven't demonstrated determinism.

Yes, because it's inductive reasoning. It cannot be proved true, but all that's required to prove it false is to give an example of an effect without a cause. Do you understand that? I can't prove it true, but you can prove it false. You say that it's false but you refuse to offer anything to back that up.

I can give you example after example after example of determinism being true. I can post a dozen examples each day for the next few years. A thousand. I can simply post a link to a book or a newspaper each day that will show countless causes and effects happening everywhere and in every place at every time. I can give you a link to every major library in the world. All of the world's literature. All the world's science and technology. It will all illustrate determinism.

And all you have to do is post a single example of an effect with no cause to close down the thread and claim victory. Just one. And you can't do it. So if you're not going to make the attempt, I don't think you have anything else to add.

Induction isn't sufficient to justify claiming determinism, and since your "argument" requires determinism to be true to move forward it falls flat on its face so long as you don't demonstrate determinism's truth. Because the dispute is whether or not determinism is true, its up to you to demonstrate it not those who deny to prove its falsehood. Falsification only applies to limited claims, not universal ones like determinism.

 

[Jo555]

Ah, I must give one more sermon to my people.

I'm still singing ...

I do believe that the understanding of the premise does also help us understand why passing judgement on another is seriously wrong. It is a major offense against our brethren.

Even in this thread, as I have watched others find it so difficult to grasp, and I have judged at times, I have been quickly reminded that I didn't get what I know on my own. I've had my own wrestling with God and I'm always so astounded at how quickly He reveals when I just share my heart with Him.

Sometimes the process does take some time when He puts me through it, which is no fun, but helps to keep us humble. I like to joke now how I have to think twice, thrice, quadruple times about what i ask him to know regarding others challenges, like, "Why, oh why are they like that?"

Why?

Because He can often reveal it to me by putting me through it. Nothing like first hand experience to help keep us humble.

Now this doesn't mean that we can't judge at all. As I've said before, i tend to see in layers, and the bible does speak of passing judgement too, but it is at the deepest level of judging another with that superior attutude in our hearts that we are to avoid. I mean as they say, "If not for the grace of God, there go I."

This is why judgement begins in the house of God and He bears with much more patience all others. To whom much is given, much will be required, and we have been gifted with an abundance of his grace and mercy.

Remember Paul's judgement on the sexual immorality going on in a specific church?

Like for real, if some gigolo came into your house with the selfish intent of sleeping with your daughters, then throwing them to the side after he has had his way with them, would you not pass judgement?

Sure you would, and rightfully so.

You'd probably give him an earful too, and possibly a swift kick in the behind, then throw him out of your house?

We can say that behavior of his is wrong and he has evil intentions, and he does need to be held accountable for his actions.

What we are forbidden is to pass judgement in a superior attitude of the heart, but we can sure pass judgement on a more surface level and throw him out.

And it may be that those swift kicks in the butt, and getting thrown out of homes can eventually serve as an influencial factor in his life to seek a change of ways.

In this example I am just showing how we can still hold others accountable and judge to some degree, and they are still accountable for their actions, but at the deepest level only God can righteously judge.

 

[partinobodycular]

The fact that I like coffee is the only fact we are interested in when we look at the choice of drink I will make.

It's not the only fact that I'm interested in because it's irrelevant. If determinism is true, such that free will doesn't exist, then your conscious mind is the biological equivalent of a monitor. It serves no functional purpose as far as the decision making process is concerned. It's only a way of displaying the results of the process, it's not a functional part of it.

Of course that's what I'm saying! If you're not conscious, you can't make a decision.

That's only true if you're defining 'yourself' as your conscious mind totally independent of the brain that's manifesting it. If so, then welcome to dualism. If not then consciousness is superfluous under your version of determinism.

It's as if you're saying that those electrochemical processes send a signal to your conscious mind telling it what to like. It then immediately forgets what it just told the conscious mind and so has to check back with your mind in order to find out what it just told it. It's precisely those electrochemical processes that are telling the mind what to choose in the first place. It's like the computer having to check the monitor to find out the results of its latest calculation. Duh, where do you think the results just came from.

For some reason the ability to make a choice without the capacity for free will is perfectly reasonable to you. But the ability to make it without consciousness isn't, although computers do it billions of times a day. How is it that computers can do it, but the brain can't?

Your argument for determinism as the