Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

...a question of whether or not our decisions are perfectly predictable based on past conditions...

Wrong again. No rainbow because I wanted QvQ to know that you were wrong. Determinism doesn't equate to the predictability. You've had that explained to you very many times.

 

[QvQ]

Someone arguing determinism must deny themselves any semblance of agency, or else they are being inconsistent in their claim of determinism.

I see, you are theoretical. I have to check things out in objective reality.
So
That was my question earlier.
Whether the person was the agent or merely predetermined by fate?

There is too narrow a field for the person to be an agent (the umbrella).
However, if the murderers of ZaZa are predetermined by fate...

Free will Or determinism does not match any objective reality I can model.
In a way, determinism is simply there is a past behind every future.
However if the future cannot be predicted by the past then there is either random or free will involved
And free will is an illusion because of the present binding the agent to a very small avenue of action.

 

[Fervent]

From now on in, when you see the little rainbow on your post it'll me be saying, yeah - I read it but it's not worth my time responding to it. For all sorts of reasons which I don't want to regurgitate yet again. So it'll be 'optimistic' in that I'm optimistic that your next post will be worth responding to. Feel free to use it yourself in that manner. It'll save us so much time...

Your repetition of assertions isn't a failing on my part, you wouldn't need to repeat them if you advanced the discussion by responding to my criticisims rather than just repetitively asserting your semantic games.

 

[Bradskii]

So you're asserting that a decision made for completely personal reasons isn't a free will decision. By 'personal' I mean reasons that are mine and mine alone. If they're my reasons, then they're my choices, and if they're my choices, then it's free will.

Your reasons cannot be anything but yours. They're all 'personal'. All you're doing is saying that you choose something because it's your preference. Which I've been telling you all along. And then simply saying 'Hey, that's free will'.

No, it isn't. The reasons why you have a 'personal' preference are due to antecedent conditions that you cannot control.

 

[Bradskii]

However if the future cannot be prerdicted by the past then there is either random or free will involved

Not being able to predict the future does not mean it's not deterministic.

 

[Fervent]

I see, you are theoretical. I have to check things out in objective reality.
So
That was my question earlier.
Whether the person was the agent or merely predetermined by fate?

There is too narrow a field for the person to be an agent (the umbrella).
However, if the murderers of ZaZa are predetermined by fate...

Free will Or determinism does not match any objective reality I can model.
In a way, determinism is simply there is a past behind every future.
However if the future cannot be prerdicted by the past then there is either random or free will involved
And free will is an illusion because of the present binding the agent to a very small avenue of action.

You seem to be using terms in a way that doesn't reflect how they are used, and it's not a matter of theoretical description as I make no sweeping claims of understanding how it operates, merely that I know I have free will because I exercise it. I don't make extravagent claims about objective reality, as if somehow I have it figured out.

And again, free will doesn't imply omnipotence and unrestrained choice. It simply means that for any given choice, until a choice has been made there is a real possibiility of choosing any of the available options. That there are limiting factors on what choices are available doesn't render free will an illusion.

 

[QvQ]

Not being able to predict the future does not mean it's not deterministic.

Ok, but the future having a past cannot predict the past either. There is not necessarily a relationship between an atom which is a X point of its orbit and Y point of its orbit. There is a path that can be determined but the point X did not cause point Y.
There may a cause for the atom going from point X to point Y but it might simply be gravity, the warp of space/time which is motion in time and not a cause at all. It means that space/time moves from point X to point Y and the atom didn't move at all.
Another illusion

It simply means that for any given choice, until a choice has been made there is a real possibiility of choosing any of the available options.

There is a possibility. But your choices are so limted by the points that @Bradskii made that you can't separate out free will from determined by external circumstances.
All our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death
That means the choice to have soup for supper was the cause of the dishes needing to be washed which caused me to leave till later which was the cause of my not missing the start of that tv progams and the cause of my doing the dishes later.
All of those were my free will decisions, but determined by chain of cause and effect free will decisions
So under the definition in the OP, not free will

So I will stick with spirits as the cat is a good model for objective reality and she goes when and where the spirit moves her.

 

[partinobodycular]

The reasons why you have a 'personal' preference are due to antecedent conditions that you cannot control.

Correct, but I'm asserting that consciousness and its concomitant will are both emergent phenomena, that consequently behave in a manner that's completely distinct from it's underlying causes, just as water has an emergent property that's distinct from those of its underlying causes. This property that we recognize as consciousness imparts an ability to behave collectively in a manner that's distinct from how its causes behave individually. It's this collective behavior that we recognize as free will, just as water has a property that we recognize as 'wetness'.

Hence both consciousness and wetness can always be broken down into their antecedent causes even though they have a property that only manifests itself collectively.

As they say, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... then perhaps we should consider the possibility that it's a duck.

 

[Fervent]

There is a possibility. But your choices are so limted by the points that @Bradskii made that you can't separate out free will from determined by external circumstances.
All our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death
That means all the choice to have soup for supper was the cause of the dishes needing to be washed which I decided to leave till later which was the cause of my not missing the start of that tv progams.
All of those were my free will decisions, but determined by my last free will decision
So under the definition in the OP, not free will

It depends on how we understand "determined" in the statement "determined by past events", because the question is whether or not the decision is caused by the past or if the past just provides us with the context of the decision. This distinction is necessary because under determinism it is a direct cause and effect result rather than an intentional action. The bat striking the ball gives the ball its trajectory. So are our choices like that, or do we have the capacity to intentionally decide how we will act, though that capacity may be limited?

The problem with the OP is that the way that he is defining things it is trivially true under the framework he is working with, and his "argument" is nothing more than an exercise in circular reasoning.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok, but the future having a past cannot predict the past either.

I presume that you mean that you can't determine a prior cause. It's not something I've considered whether it is theoretically impossible to know all determinant causes. But that there are causes for the every event is a given. It's even the basis for the cosmological argument.

That means the choice to have soup for supper was the cause of the dishes needing to be washed which I decided to leave till later which was the cause of my not missing the start of that tv progams and the cause of my doing the dishes later.
All of those were my free will decisions, but determined by chain of cuase and effect free will decisions
So under the definition in the OP, not free will

Agreed.

 

[Bradskii]

Correct, but I'm asserting that consciousness and its concomitant will are both emergent phenomena...

Quite possibly. I'd suggest that consciousness isn't a 'thing' in itself but a process. Just as life is. But...you still make choices for reasons.

 

[Fervent]

I presume that you mean that you can't determine a prior cause. It's not something I've considered whether it is theoretically impossible to know all determinant causes. But that there are causes for the every event is a given. It's even the basis for the cosmological argument.

It's not a given that every event has a cause, in fact what even constitutes a cause requires definitions before the idea can be evaluated at all. It is trivially true that under causal determinism free will is impossible and so any experience of it must be an illusion, but if you intend to argue that free will is an illusion you can't begin with an assumption of causal determinism. You take a model as if it is self-evident, and then ignore the contradictory experience to that model and insist that its our direct experiences that are wrong and not that the conceptual model is flawed in some way.

 

[partinobodycular]

But...you still make choices for reasons.

Again, I agree. But I'm asserting that the emergence of consciousness relegates those reasons to more of a role of correlation than one of direct causation. So you'll always be able to find a relationship between the antecedent conditions and the outcome... it's as inevitable as preference is... and from our perspective that correlation will be indistinguishable from causation. But the ultimate cause is one that's internal to, and concomitant with consciousness. Just as water molecules attain a property collectively that they didn't have individually, brain cells may attain a property collectively that they also didn't possess individually.

If you accept the idea that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon... which it certainly seems to be, then its reasonable to consider the possibility that there may be something other than a direct causal relationship between its antecedent conditions and its subsequent behavior. A behavior that may not be directly attributable to the antecedent conditions alone, but may, as the name implies, be emergent.

 

[Bradskii]

Again, I agree. But I'm asserting that the emergence of consciousness relegates those reasons to more of a role of correlation than one of direct causation. So you'll always be able to find a relationship between the antecedent conditions and the outcome... it's as inevitable as preference is... and from our perspective that correlation will be indistinguishable from causation. But the ultimate cause is one that's internal to, and concomitant with consciousness.

It's impossible to know all the antecdedent conditions. But it's ridiculously easy to point to some. If not the majority of the obvious ones.

It was your birthday. You went to your second choice restaurant because the first was booked out. It's a seafood restaurant. They have a special on oysters. You have a dozen. One was included from yesterday's batch. You get sick. In the evening, in between throwing up, your wife wants to know if you'd like some icecream. You choose not to, unsuprisingly. Why make that choice? Well, we've listed 7 antecedent conditions. There are millions more, but they are some of the obvious ones that determined your 'Grughh...no' decision.

That has nothing to do with your consciousness maybe being an emergent property. It wasn't 'an internal cause' making decisions for no reason. There were reasons. Obvious ones. We can list them.

And even IF there was something, somewhere in your consciousness that is the cause, it's not you deciding what that is. It's at best subconscious. If you are not aware of it, then there's no free will. If you are aware of it then it's one of the antecedent conditions and...there's no free will.

I think we just did this earlier...

 

[QvQ]

I presume that you mean that you can't determine a prior cause. It's not something I've considered whether it is theoretically impossible to know all determinant causes. But that there are causes for the every event is a given. It's even the basis for the cosmological argument.

The Free Will -Determinism threads abound and it always comes down to these two positions
I am going to try to present the two sides as I seen these two positions stated.

Usual Valid Arguments:
1) Free Will There is too narrow a field for the person to be an agent (umbrella)
2) Determined However if the murderers of ZaZa are caused, therefore Fate, no agent

The scope of the OP is that all events have a priori but determining the path is indicating cause.

Refutation of Usual Argument #2 Determined
2) The future has a past but the past does not determine the future, then it is not determined.
It is merely one thing follows another. There isn't any cause to wash or not wash the dishes, instead watching TV.
Not doing the dishes did not cause me to watch TV. I just happened to wander by the TV and sat down.
You see? It was a chain of events but it was not determined by causes.
So no, a sequence is not determined unless caused.

Refutation of Usual Argument #1 Free Will
1) The agent decided to do the dishes. However, the phone rang and then the program came on the TV and so much for free will.
Again the question, is there an effective agent in that sequence?

Conclusion:
1) It is not determined, merely sequential
2) It is not free will because the agent lacks agency

Meanwhile:
Me and the cat are whimsicals in a wandering gravitational space/time warp.
As the spirit moves, we follow along.

 

[partinobodycular]

It wasn't 'an internal cause' making decisions for no reason. There were reasons. Obvious ones. We can list them.

Of course it was 'an internal cause'. Every decision that you've ever made has had an internal cause. That's something that you've failed to recognize from the very beginning. If you choose coffee over Earl Grey it's because you like coffee more than Earl Grey, and "liking coffee" exists internal to you and absolutely nowhere else. It certainly doesn't exist in the coffee. Coffee may be brown, or bitter, or aromatic, but being 'liked' isn't an attribute that's internal to the coffee, it's internal to the drinker. And since that's what your choice was based on... your preference for coffee, then you and your brain were the cause for your choice of coffee over Earl Grey.

You'll never get this argument right until you recognize that fact.

What you should be looking for, is what caused you to like coffee in the first place. If you're looking for an external cause... that's it, but it's not the cup of coffee that's sitting in front of you right now, it's probably a cup of coffee that you had fifty years ago. That's the cup of coffee that got you liking coffee in the first place. But I have no idea why you drank that one.

 

[Bradskii]

Refutation of Usual Argument #2 Determined
2) The future has a past but the past does not determine the future, then it is not determined.
It is merely one thing follows another. There isn't any cause to wash or not wash the dishes, instead watching TV.
Not doing the dishes did not cause me to watch TV. I just happened to wander by the TV and sat down.
You see? It was a chain of events but it was not determined by causes.
So no, a sequence is not determined unless caused.

If a sequence is not determined then it has no cause. Likewise if an event is not determined then it has no cause. If it has no cause then it is arbitrary. Random, if you like. Which obviously does not involve free will. If it is determined, then by definition there is no free will.

Of course it was 'an internal cause'. Every decision that you've ever made has had an internal cause.

I mean it wasn't a decision that you made. Separate the mind from the body. Body is external. Mind internal.

Some people like certain tastes. Others don't. They don't think about whether they should or shouldn't. They don't decide whether to like Earl Grey or strawberries or durian. If you eat something your body will make the call for you. Hey, lots of sugar. Eat that! And you'll get a shot of dopamine which encourages you to dig deep into that tub of icecream. Get offered a slice of durian, which some people think smells disgusting, then your body will likely slip in some serotonin, which is the chemical associated with disgust (depending on how it works within the neurons). Too much serotonin and you'll throw up. And you'll have no choice about any of that.

That's something that you've failed to recognize from the very beginning. If you choose coffee over Earl Grey it's because you like coffee more than Earl Grey, and "liking coffee" exists internal to you and absolutely nowhere else. It certainly doesn't exist in the coffee.

It actually does. It's the way the molecules are formed in the coffee that triggers your senses of taste and smell. Those sense receptors will send signals to various parts of your brain and your body will tell you 'Yeah, that's good. Go for it' or 'Yikes, no. Give that a miss'. You don't decide that.

Having said that, you can 'educate' your palette and override what your body is telling you. If you take 3 sugars in your coffee and you want to cut sugar out, then going cold turkey means the coffee will taste awful. But very gradually reduce the amount over time and you can adjust.

 

[QvQ]

If a sequence is not determined then it has no cause. Likewise if an event is not determined then it has no cause. If it has no cause then it is arbitrary. Random, if you like. Which obviously does not involve free will. If it is determined, then by definition there is no free will.

If an event is not caused, it is not determined.
If an event has no cause, it is not random.

Here is a model in objective reality
The cat will move
Even dead cats move.

That is not of volition (free will)
It is not caused or pushed by past events (determined)

Particle (mass)
A particle moves from point X to point Y
That is a sequence.

So in time, all matter moves in space.
No matter what the "cause" or "free will"

(quote) Clearly the matter content of the universe will determine the curvature of the universe, while the curvature of the universe will tell the matter how to move. So you have a sort of chicken and egg problem: matter tells space how to bend and space tells matter how to move. (end quote)

Even though the sequence is not caused by past event, it is not random.
It is not determined by prior causes.
It is going to move, no matter what the a priori and the movement appears to be predictable (non random)

 

[partinobodycular]

I mean it wasn't a decision that you made. Separate the mind from the body. Body is external. Mind internal.

But any decisions that you make, conscious or otherwise... like whether you like the taste of coffee or not, are made by your mind. The body, with all of its senses may inform the mind, but it's always your mind that makes the decision. Personally, mine doesn't care for coffee or tea, but don't blame the coffee, some people actually like it. Same coffee... different minds.

That's the only point that I was trying to make. The thing that causes you to choose coffee over Earl Grey is your mind. Because for some reason it likes coffee. So all things being equal, it's gonna choose coffee. That doesn't mean that the mind is acting without a cause. It absolutely has a cause. You're just looking for it in the wrong place. You need to look for what caused your mind to like coffee in the first place. But unfortunately, identifying that can be pretty darn tricky.

Maybe you liked it because drinking it made you feel grown up. Who knows? But nowadays, whatever it was, it reflexively causes you to choose coffee.

It actually does. It's the way the molecules are formed in the coffee that triggers your senses of taste and smell. Those sense receptors will send signals to various parts of your brain and your body will tell you 'Yeah, that's good. Go for it' or 'Yikes, no. Give that a miss'. You don't decide that.

You're close. Yes, your senses inform your mind through various signals but they don't go ewww... this tastes terrible... they leave that up to the mind, for reasons that often only it seems to know. Maybe it's too bitter, or maybe it just brings up bad memories, or maybe your mind just likes sticking to a routine, but these are all biases that the mind has regarding what you like and don't like, born of a menagerie of past experiences. So if you wanna find the root cause for why you choose something over something else, you have to look, not at what's right in front of you now, but at all of the things that went into determining how your mind feels about what's in front of it now. It's based on those, that your mind is gonna think ick or umm.

The cause is there, it's just a whole lot harder to find. So I understand, it's easier just to say that the coffee caused me to choose it, when in fact it's your fondness for coffee that caused you to choose it. Which in the end just percolates down in most peoples' minds to... free will.

 

[Reneep]

Both are 100% true. The difference has to do with the sneaky snakes whisper in your ear, causing your pride to rise up and take false action you know is wrong. With another man who will quiet his soul and ask the father for more information or direction or knowledge. The Valley of decision happens everyday of your life. The enemy of your soul pushing your pride to fight for your rights , and the Spirit of God asking you to "wait on the Lord " until His answers will come. But both are true and humanity gets crucified in the middle. WELL THAT IS HOW God uses the two truths for our good.