Free will and determinism

[partinobodycular]

Yes, it's the proximate cause. Why am I not going? Because it's raining. Period.

Sorry, but that simply isn't correct. The proximate cause of your not going to the beach, is that you don't like going to the beach in the rain. Without that intermediate step the rain is irrelevant. So your dislike of going to the beach in the rain is the nearest cause to your decision not to go to the beach.

Perhaps the following video will explain it.

 

[Fervent]

I've nothing to add because you're not adding anything.

I think pointing out the circularity of your reasoning is contributive to the thread. Your argument(s) is(are) nothing but petitio principii.

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry, but that simply isn't correct. The proximate cause of your not going to the beach, is that you don't like going to the beach in the rain.

Well...yeah. If I say I'm not going to the beach because it's raining then I obviously don't like going to the beach in the rain.

I mean, so what? This is just meaningless semantics. Whether I'm not going 'because it's raining' or I'm not going 'because I don't like the rain' there is a reason for me not going.

So...we'll agree with whichever way you want to say it. But whichever way you say it, it will be the cause of my non attendence on the sand this afternoon. It will have determined my decision.

 

[partinobodycular]

I mean, so what?

I'm just trying to establish what kind of cause it is. It's not proximate, it's not necessary, and it's not sufficient. As best as I can tell it's 'jointly sufficient'. Which means that the rain is only sufficient to keep you from going to the beach under the requisite condition of you not liking to go to the beach in the rain.

Which means that the direct cause, the one that supersedes the rain, is what you like or don't like. And it seems to me that what you like or don't like is part of your will. Therefore the direct cause is your will.

This, in and of itself doesn't refute determinism. It just means that we have to figure out what causes you to not like going to the beach in the rain. There's still a causal series involved, it's just not the one that you thought it was.

There has to be a reason for why you don't like going to the beach in the rain. Every other cause is secondary to that one.

 

[Bradskii]

There has to be a reason for why you don't like going to the beach in the rain. Every other cause is secondary to that one.

Well...OK. And if I prefer to go to the gym is it really about losing weight? Or maybe is it me wanting to look good? Or am I encouraging my wife to go? Or is it the cute receptionist? Or do I just want to get value for my subscription?

Who cares? What does it matter? All we need to agree on is that there is something that causes me to to prefer it over the pub. And you just did agree. As you said 'There has to be a reason...'

 

[partinobodycular]

Who cares? What does it matter?

To me it matters because if I follow one causal series backwards all that it explains is why it's raining. That's it. But if I follow the other causal series backwards it explains why I might not like the rain, or why I might like coffee instead of Earl Grey, or why I might not feel empathy the way that other people do. In other words it explains everything about why I am who I am.

That's a much more compelling question because if I can understand why I am who I am, then maybe there's a chance that I can understand why you are who you are. Or at least give me a perspective from which to judge the world less harshly.

So you tell me, when it comes to understanding free will, what's the more important question to ask... why is it raining, or why do I care so much about answering that question?

 

[Bradskii]

To me it matters because if I follow one causal series backwards all that it explains is why it's raining. That's it. But if I follow the other causal series backwards it explains why I might not like the rain, or why I might like coffee instead of Earl Grey, or why I might not feel empathy the way that other people do. In other words it explains everything about why I am who I am.

That's a much more compelling question because if I can understand why I am who I am, then maybe there's a chance that I can understand why you are who you are. Or at least give me a perspective from which to judge the world less harshly.

So you tell me, when it comes to understanding free will, what's the more important question to ask... why is it raining, or why do I care so much about answering that question?

I don't think that if I like Pina Coladas and walking in the rain and maybe you don't will help us with any great philosophical questions. It's just a matter of personal preferences.

The perspective that you need to judge the world less harshly is one with which I'm still struggling. That others who do you harm are responsible but not to blame. And the opposite side of the coin which I find even more difficult - the fact that I am responsible for what I have - and I'm quite well off with a loving family etc is down to the decisions I have made, but the options I had were not of my making. They were the result of a cosmic throw of the dice. I can accept no praise.

Now that is a tough gig. I can sometimes manage the first. But the second I find virtually impossible. But...I'm trying.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know if you're a fan of Doctor Who...

I missed this post for some reason. Nicely written...but yeah. Kind of. Right from the first episodes when I'd hide behind the sofa when I was nine cos the Daleks were kind of scary. Until I realised that all you had to do to escape was run upstairs.

But you're right. That diary is the 'me'. It changes a lot in the first years. But not so much in the last few. But it changes because of what you have gone through. You can't just make up entries. They need to have happened to you. You need to have experienced them. You are changed by what happens to you. You can't change because you decide you want to write something different. It's not a novel. It's an autobiography.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't think that if I like Pina Coladas and walking in the rain and maybe you don't will help us with any great philosophical questions.

The goal isn't to solve them... the goal is simply to ponder them. That's what I'm doing, and you're doing, and even @AV1611VET is doing. We're all looking for an ultimate answer that we're not gonna find. We're just Neanderthals dragging our lineage a little further down the evolutionary trail to who knows where. In the grand scheme of things I'm just doing me and you're just doing you. History will be happy if we just don't wipe ourselves out in the process. Good grief what they're probably gonna think of us.

The perspective that you need to judge the world less harshly is one with which I'm still struggling.

Like I say you're just doing you, and as far as I can tell you're doing a bang up job. So you've had a good life, good for you. It's not something that the rest of us are gonna fret over, so no reason for you to fret over it either. But if life is basically fate, then accept yours for what it is, and live it out knowing that you tried, or are trying. But accept your neighbor's life for what it is as well, for they were given a different yoke to bear... that's life... kinda cruel... kinda not. But be careful about judging a life that you didn't have to live. That's never really fair.

 

[CoreyD]

No, Romans and Galatians do not deny free will.

I agree with you there.
Actually, not only does Paul's letter to the Romans demonstrate free will, it contradicts the OP's arguments directly.

In Romans 7:19, 20, for example, it says,
19 For the good that I desire, I do not do; but the evil that I do not want, this I practice.
20 Now if what I do not want, I do this, it is no longer I who do it, but sin dwelling in me.

Paul says that what he wishes, desires - prefers to do, is not always what he does.
Furthermore, in other letters, Paul directly refers to free will as a human faculty.

1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this of my own will / willingly / of my own free will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will / unwillingly / not of my will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship.

The Greek word "hekón" is used to describe an action or attitude that is done willingly or voluntarily, without compulsion or obligation. It conveys a sense of readiness and eagerness to act, often in alignment with one's own desires or intentions.

Definition - of one's own free will, voluntary

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1635: ἑκών
ἑκών, ἑκοῦσα, ἑκον, unforced, voluntary, willing, of one's own will, of one's own accord: Romans 8:20; 1 Corinthians 9:17. (From Homer down.)

Paul goes even further, to show that this God given ability of free will, is vital for one to win the spiritual fight that each Christian is waging.
1 Corinthians 9:24-27

24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.​

The Bible does not support the OP's argument, but clearly shows that having a reason does not negate free will.
There are willing slaves.
Paul shows that even though his flesh was slave to corruption, his mind was not captive to sin's law, but by fighting - actually beating himself, he could direct his mind toward the spiritual things, thus making his mind a slave to the spirit. Colossians 3:2

So, free will is actually a scriptural teaching, and is not limited to just one or two scriptures.

Though many interpreting them anachronistically believe as much. The debate is entirely philosophical in nature, though there is an included hermeneutic angle but ultimately it comes down to philosophical differences that some read into the texts of the Bible.

If the debate was against church doctrine, I would not be arguing against it.
However, this is an argument against the Bible, and considering fact that the original poster is not asking a question, but rather claiming by means of a philosophical argument, that free, will is a fantasy, it is a direct attack on the Bible... which is no different to an attack on God's character, etc... typical things we get from one group of people.

I would never make the mistake of siding with these persons, since they will always be wrong when attacking things of a spiritual nature.
I can well understand that there will be those who make the mistake of siding with them, due to, as you said, ....but I will go further to say directly, wrong interpretations... which is mostly the case, when the Bible is left out as the interpreter.

So, I can understand why some who identify with Christianity, is arguing against Christians' own book.
Of course this makes the original poster very happy. Though, there is no reason why he should have any support, on this subject... except from non Christians, in my opinion.

 

[CoreyD]

Seems you're going back on some of the things you said earlier about preferences and reasons. What causes the choice is that I prefer that option, so I choose it. So why did you bring up preferences and reasons if you didn't mean to imply that they were antecedent conditions to the choice being made? What was your bringing them up supposed to add to the discussion?

Irrational arguments never have a rational dialogue, that coherently follows... or can be followed, because there is no logic to them.

 

[CoreyD]

Seems to me you're just playing silly little word games and using a broad meaning to "cause" and conflating that with a narrow meaning.

Something that comes from the mind, needs to be thought through rationally, if it is to fit reality.
I don't see that in this case... for over 150 pages.
There also needs to be a willingness to listen to reason.
Those two would prevent what is happening here.

 

[CoreyD]

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.

You summarized the situation precisely!

 

[CoreyD]

You don't seem to understand the question of warrant and argue like a lawyer arguing from a conclusion rather than an investigator trying to find the best fit no matter what uncomfortable truths it requires. If your only recourse is assertion, then all I need to do is offer a counter assertion.

 

[CoreyD]

But isn't a coerced choice still a choice? So it would seem to me that to have a will, is simply to have the ability to consciously choose one thing over another... whether that choice is coerced or not. We can then differentiate a 'free will' choice from a coerced one by the constraints that go into making it.

Or do you see things differently?

Is it the will of someone to be forced into doing something? No.
Why then does the original poster see the need to bring that in. I don't see how it's relevant to your question, or necessary.

A person has a will, only because it is free.
No person has a coerced will. Huh?
Would someone hold a gun to a bank clerk's head and say, "I want to do this... It is my will, because I am being forced."?

No. Of course they chose to do it against their will, or desire - unwillingly, but it's still their choice... made with.........................................................................again... free will... because they could freely do otherwise.
This is what Paul said... Whether willingly, or unwillingly 1 Corinthians 9:17, one makes a decision, one way or other.
Whether coerced, influenced, or self willed, does not change anything.

A person may choose to into the sea, unwillingly, but they could also choose not to go.
They have the freedom to choose to, or not to. They can make a free-willed decision.
Having a willingness, however, is always better.

 

[Bradskii]

But accept your neighbor's life for what it is as well, for they were given a different yoke to bear... that's life... kinda cruel... kinda not. But be careful about judging a life that you didn't have to live. That's never really fair.

Exactly right. Some people have asked why this thread was in the ethics and morality section. You just answered that question.

 

[Fervent]

Exactly right. Some people have asked why this thread was in the ethics and morality section. You just answered that question.

There's no need to pretend that free will is an illusion to hold out compassion for people and recognize that we shouldn't judge people who's lives and struggles are different from our own. In fact, the ethical implications of a lack of free will ends up ramping that up so much that it becomes unethical, since we wouldn't be able to fault the worst criminals in history because they only acted as they were pre-determined to act. Hitler, Polpot, Jack the Ripper, Dahmer, etc would all be guiltless if we took seriously the idea that free will is an illusion. If we took determinism seriously we'd just say, "They couldn't help themselvves, that's just the script they were given."

 

[Bradskii]

There's no need to pretend that free will is an illusion to hold out compassion for people and recognize that we shouldn't judge people who's lives and struggles are different from our own. In fact, the ethical implications of a lack of free will ends up ramping that up so much that it becomes unethical, since we wouldn't be able to fault the worst criminals in history because they only acted as they were pre-determined to act. Hitler, Polpot, Jack the Ripper, Dahmer, etc would all be guiltless if we took seriously the idea that free will is an illusion. If we took determinism seriously we'd just say, "They couldn't help themselvves, that's just the script they were given."

I've said that we are all still responsible for what we do. Many times. And punishment for wrong doing is still valid. Maybe you skipped the posts that discussed that. Who knows.

Let me ask you...If a person has had a truly appaling upbringing, all the worst that the world could throw at him, do you make allowances for that?

 

[Fervent]

I've said that we are all still responsible for what we do. Many times. And punishment for wrong doing is still valid. Maybe you skipped the posts that discussed that. Who knows.

I'm aware of your habit of trying to have the cake you've eaten, but how can we be responsible for out choices if we have no choice but to choose what we've been determined to choose? You may assert that a lack of free will is compatible with personal responsibility, but we don't hold seismic plates responsible for the mass casualties that result from their actions so why should we hold human beings who are just operating in accordance with whatever antecedents determined their choices dictate? Why do we not jail trees that fall on people, or bookcases that crush toddlers, or cars that plow down pedestrians? What makes the human being responsible for their actions, but all of these objects free of such responsibility?

 

[Bradskii]

...how can we be responsible for out choices if we have no choice but to choose what we've been determined to choose?

It's because you chose it. Nobody else did. And you had options. It's the options that have been determined. You simply chose the one that you prefered. Was that stealing my wallet? If it was then you're the type of guy who would do that. We need that to change because you might do it again. So you'll be punished to an extent that convinces you not to do it again. Hopefully you'll realise the harm caused and empathise with me and therefore decide not repeat the act. Either way,

And you can hold someone responsible for something without blaming them for it. A few weeks ago I noticed a large vase that I'd bought in a second hand shop and spent no little time filling in cracks, sanding itdown and repainting it was missing. Turned out that my grandson had knocked it over and it's now in two pieces. The boy was at our house on the weekend and I showed him the pieces and asked if he knew who was responsible. Looking sheepish he admitted that it was him. Hey, no worries I said. It was an accident. I'm not blaming you. You can help me repair it. So now he's looking forward to doing that and doesn't feel guilty about breaking it.

So no blame because it was an accident. And if the guy who steals your wallet does it because of his atrocious upbringing, then that's an accident of birth. You can hold him responsible but do you want to blame him? My guess is that yes, you do. Because hey, he has free will! In which case the concept of mitigating circumstances doesn't exist.