Free will and determinism

[Brihaha]

I had a hypothesis so I set up an experiment. I think I possess free will. I wanted to post on this thread weeks ago but abstained. Of my own free will. My goal was to wait until the thread reached 1000 posts. I accomplished my goal. Evidence that I do possess free will. If my will to abstain till posts reached 1000 was determined, my question is what force determined I do that instead of posting here weeks ago? This was not the only thing that could have happened, as I had a few choices. I had self-determination, which often gives me the ability to act beyond the limits of external influences. The determinist argument runs into a roadblock for atheists doesn't it? What determined my choice for me if not my free will? How did our creation and existence come about in the first place?

As a believer in God, it's easy for me to believe determinism and free will coexist and are not mutually exclusive. I think that's called compatibilism.

 

[Fervent]

You can critically examine them. And if you think that there's no way to know, don't worry about it. There's not much you can do.

Critically examine them based on what? If our experiences are not the foundation of our understanding, how can we hope to move beyond them? What's our basis for examination, if our fundamental experiences might be an illusion?

Except that you often make allowances for people when they make a bad decision. So work on that. If a guy steals your wallet then think that there but for the grace of God go you. That if conditions (God given if you like) were different then you'd be walking in his shoes. Don't think that hey, you're a better person so even if you were in his place, you'd be a better man. Develop a degree of humility. Try to forgive him. Yeah, it's hard, but that's what Jesus taught. So live it.

This has nothing to do with my question, or anything that has transpired in our conversation.

And if you are praised then be humble. He taught that as well. Convince yourself that it was the cards that you were dealt, at random, which enabled you to do the right thing. That the hand that you hold was given to you, unbidden. Thank the unthinking universe or God. I don't care which. Just don't try to take credit for it.

We make the most of what we are given, so we can't take full responsibility like the myth of the "self-made man" but that doesn't mean that there isn't merit in our doing the right thing. Humility isn't about degrading ourselves and thinking ourselves less than we are, but about having as accurate an understanding of ourselves as possible. So it's not as simple as being victims of God or circumstance, nor is it as simple as us being fully responsible for our decisions. It's some mix of the two.

 

[Fervent]

As a believer in God, it's easy for me to believe determinism and free will coexist and are not mutually exclusive. I think that's called compatibilism.

Compatibilism in philosophy generally isn't about the ontological status of free will, but rather human responsibility persisting in a world where our decisions are causally determined by factors besides ourselves. It's better called "soft determinism" than compatibilism, because it denies free will as a genuine phenomenon but maintains that even without such a phenomenon humans are still responsible for their actions.

Though your position is the one more naturally fitting with the name, it would still philosophically be a form of libertarianism.

 

[Bradskii]

I had a hypothesis so I set up an experiment. I think I possess free will. I wanted to post on this thread weeks ago but abstained. Of my own free will. My goal was to wait until the thread reached 1000 posts. I accomplished my goal. Evidence that I do possess free will. If my will to abstain till posts reached 1000 was determined, my question is what force determined I do that instead of posting here weeks ago? This was not the only thing that could have happened, as I had a few choices. I had self-determination, which often gives me the ability to act beyond the limits of external influences. The determinist argument runs into a roadblock for atheists doesn't it? What determined my choice for me if not my free will? How did our creation and existence come about in the first place?

As a believer in God, it's easy for me to believe determinism and free will coexist and are not mutually exclusive. I think that's called compatibilism.

You thought 'I have free will'. Which is then one of the antecedent conditions. That literally caused you to want to prove it. So that determined that you conduct an experiment. If that antecedent condition had been different (you thought you didn't have free will) then it would have determined a different decision.

Cause and effect.

 

[Brihaha]

Compatibilism in philosophy generally isn't about the ontological status of free will, but rather human responsibility persisting in a world where our decisions are causally determined by factors besides ourselves. It's better called "soft determinism" than compatibilism, because it denies free will as a genuine phenomenon but maintains that even without such a phenomenon humans are still responsible for their actions.

Though your position is the one more naturally fitting with the name, it would still philosophically be a form of libertarianism.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not too familiar with philosophy but I did take one semester in college back in 2014. I do recall seeing that libertarian word associated with soft determinism. Since becoming sober years ago I know something about free will. And how willpower alone cannot cure me of alcoholism too. I need my higher power to abstain from alcohol, and for me that can only be God.

Yet my simple experiment gave me evidence that I do possess free will.

 

[Bradskii]

Critically examine them based on what? If our experiences are not the foundation of our understanding, how can we hope to move beyond them? What's our basis for examination, if our fundamental experiences might be an illusion?

It depends on what you want to examine. It's possible with free will. But if you want to know if you're a brain in a vat then I have no idea how you'd do it. But my statement still stands: Don't worry about it.

This has nothing to do with my question, or anything that has transpired in our conversation.

It's the conclusion. You can take it as you like. If you want to apportion blame and ignore extenuating circumstances then do so. It's pretty worthless but it makes us feels good. I'll try not to but I'll fail almost every time.

And if you want to accept praise for something that you did without acknowledging that your capabilities were given to you by circumstances beyond your control then enjoy it. Again, it feels good. Again, I'll try not to but I'll fail almost every time.

To be honest, whether you think free will exists or not you should be trying to do the right thing anyway. But that's up to you. You'll end up doing what you prefer either way.

 

[Brihaha]

You thought 'I have free will'. Which is then one of the antecedent conditions. That literally caused you to want to prove it. So that determined that you conduct an experiment. If that antecedent condition had been different (you thought you didn't have free will) then it would have determined a different decision.

Cause and effect.

Yessir. My self-determination enabled and helped my ability to choose to exercise my free will. Maybe God helped too? Could it be a combination of determinism and free will manifested itself in my experiment? I'm not convinced you know how my decision making process is determined lol. I live day to day, often hour to hour. I do not always choose the wisest or easiest course of action, and it's intentional. As others have said, we have amazing abilities as humans. We can discipline ourselves and train ourselves to react rationally to our obstacles rather than always being susceptible to past choices determining our future behavior. Faith helps me learn and understand helpful stuff like this. I am still an alcoholic, I merely choose not to take a drink today. Because God has blessed me with faith and strength.

I also wanted to reply to your post 979, which would have led to my failure to heed my goal. I literally wanted to respond yet my free will allowed me to conclude the experiment and reach my goal. I seem to have exercised my free will again in choosing not to reply, therefore prioritizing my first choice to abstain from a response. The original antecedent was my choice too. Doesn't mean I will choose that again tomorrow.

 

[Fervent]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not too familiar with philosophy but I did take one semester in college back in 2014. I do recall seeing that libertarian word associated with soft determinism. Since becoming sober years ago I know something about free will. And how willpower alone cannot cure me of alcoholism too. I need my higher power to abstain from alcohol, and for me that can only be God.

Within philosophy, there are really only two positions on free will as a genuine phenomenon. Libertarian free will, and determinism. Most of the wrangling nowadays is over what it means for us not to have a self-determining free will with regards to human responsibility, not whether or not we genuinely do have self-determination.

And it's true, battling addiction gives a new perspective on simple ideas about free will.

Yet my simple experiment gave me evidence that I do possess free will.

A truth that only comes to be denied in service of prior assumptions about the universe/God. No one would doubt free will if they weren't committed to a philosophy that can't fit it in.

 

[Fervent]

It depends on what you want to examine. It's possible with free will. But if you want to know if you're a brain in a vat then I have no idea how you'd do it. But my statement still stands: Don't worry about it.

How's that, exactly? If my basic experiences aren't trustworthy in the case of free will, how can I presume that they are trustworthy when the experiences aren't as close to direct phenomenal experience? How can I trust that my other senses are giving me accurate information, if my internal sense of self is completely off base?

It's the conclusion. You can take it as you like. If you want to apportion blame and ignore extenuating circumstances then do so. It's pretty worthless but it makes us feels good. I'll try not to but I'll fail almost every time.

If I didn't have free will, it wouldn't matter what I want or don't want. Nor what my conclusions are. It would all be pre-determined by factors that I play no part in.

And if you want to accept praise for something that you did without acknowledging that your capabilities were given to you by circumstances beyond your control then enjoy it. Again, it feels good. Again, I'll try not to but I'll fail almost every time.

And if you want to conclude that free will is an illusion without acknowledging that if it were true the circumstances of your conclusion are outside of your rational input, then enjoy it. Though I can only sit perplexed as to what would drive someone to believe something so irrational, and then argue in favor of it. If it's true, neither of us has any control on whether we believe it or not.

To be honest, whether you think free will exists or not you should be trying to do the right thing anyway. But that's up to you. You'll end up doing what you prefer either way.

If you truly didn't think free will existed, there is no "should" to it. Because whatever you're going to do, you're going to do. Ought and should only make sense where deliberative control of decisions exists. Otherwise they simply don't matter.

 

[Brihaha]

I find it difficult to argue against determinism too. For me, it seems it was determined I would either choose to continue drinking as a prisoner to my alcoholism, and be damned for eternity. Or I could choose (free will) to refrain from taking that first drink and stay sober for the day. Thus giving myself a shot to overcome the alcoholism obstacle and choose to discover my faith in God and Jesus to save my soul from damnation. Determinism and free will coexisting simultaneously.

Without our free will choices, some determinations can't be made. Internal and external antecedents are at play. It wasn't determined that I would receive faith or sobriety until I chose wisely. Because I chose unwisely to continue drinking for ten years, the determination was to be pain and an unmanageable life in this world and pain in my afterlife as well. That I was able to escape my drinking the first day was a gift from God. Every day I make a choice to retain this gift of grace rather than returning to my drunken, unsatisfying existence. God made a choice too. To show me grace after I justified myself by choosing sobriety. If I make a different choice tomorrow and take a drink of alcohol, I realize that is my choice. Yet I also realize how this would affect God's choice in granting me grace. My fate is largely dependent on the choices I make. I don't mean to make anyone uncomfortable talking about faith here, I simply cannot separate my faith from my being. I'm learning here, not preaching .

 

[Bradskii]

I also wanted to reply to your post 979, which would have led to my failure to heed my goal.

I hope you achieve it. Stay strong.

 

[Bradskii]

How's that, exactly? If my basic experiences aren't trustworthy in the case of free will, how can I presume that they are trustworthy when the experiences aren't as close to direct phenomenal experience? How can I trust that my other senses are giving me accurate information, if my internal sense of self is completely off base?

That's up to you to deal with as you see fit.

If I didn't have free will, it wouldn't matter what I want or don't want. Nor what my conclusions are. It would all be pre-determined by factors that I play no part in.

You can't change the cards that you have been dealt. If you are the type of person that wants to improve yourself, then that will happen. If you're not, then it's not going to happen whether you have free will or not.

If you truly didn't think free will existed, there is no "should" to it. Because whatever you're going to do, you're going to do. Ought and should only make sense where deliberative control of decisions exists. Otherwise they simply don't matter.

If you're the type of person who thinks that you should do good and free will exists, then exercise to to do good. If free will doesn't exist, then it's going to happen anyway. Either way, you will fulfill your destiny.

 

[Brihaha]

I hope you achieve it. Stay strong.

Haha. I did achieve it. I successfully waited until the thread had over 1000 posts. I only said it to show I also had an internal antecedent that made me want to override my initial internal motivation to refrain from posting before 1000. Leading me to yet another choice of free will.

While these musings are interesting, I am not compelled to spend much energy on them. And being analytical in thinking, I've spent much time and energy on insignificant distractions in my lifetime. With faith I don't need to figure out the mysterious ways of the universe anymore. The way of truth is already in my heart. I merely try to heed it the best I can.

 

[Fervent]

That's up to you to deal with as you see fit.

Oh? You mean I control my own choices in handling such things? Or is it up to the prior conditions over which I have no control?

You can't change the cards that you have been dealt. If you are the type of person that wants to improve yourself, then that will happen. If you're not, then it's not going to happen whether you have free will or not.

So sayeth Bradskii, master of all knowledge.

If you're the type of person who thinks that you should do good and free will exists, then exercise to to do good. If free will doesn't exist, then it's going to happen anyway. Either way, you will fulfill your destiny.

Seems you've back-tracked here. So should we or shouldn't we?

 

[Bradskii]

Seems you've back-tracked here. So should we or shouldn't we?

I literally just told you. If you are a good person and you have free will then you should exercise it and make good decisions. If you don't have it then as you are a good person it's determined that you'll make those decisions anyway. Either way, you have nothing to worry about. So don't worry.

 

[Bradskii]

Haha. I did achieve it.

Ah, I thought you were referring to your addiction. But good luck with that anyway.

 

[Fervent]

I literally just told you. If you are a good person and you have free will then you should exercise it and make good decisions. If you don't have it then as you are a good person it's determined that you'll make those decisions anyway. Either way, you have nothing to worry about. So don't worry.

When you say "you," do you mean specifically me or people in general? Are you saying being a good person isn't important, since you claim free will doesn't exist and it follows that good people will just be good people? There's no reason people should strive to be good people, since they don't have free will?

 

[Bradskii]

When you say "you," do you mean specifically me or people in general? Are you saying being a good person isn't important, since you claim free will doesn't exist and it follows that good people will just be good people? There's no reason people should strive to be good people, since they don't have free will?

This is going the same way as other discussions - nowhere fast. I'll try a quick Q and A and allow me to answer for you;

B: Do you consider yourself to be a good person?
F: Yes, I try to do the right things. Sometimes I fail.

Have you got free will? Let's say that you do. So you'll use your free will to decide to do the right things. But sometimes you'll fail.
Now we'll say that you haven't got free will. So life will determine that you decide to do the right things. But sometimes you'll fail.

Notice any difference? Me neither.

In the former, you'll use your free will to decide to do the right thing, you'll feel better about yourself and you'll use that as an encouragement to keep doing better. So you improve as a person.
In the latter, life will determine that you decide to do the right thing, you'll feel better about yourself and you'll use that as an encouragement to keep doing better. So you improve as a person.

Any difference? Nope, still the same.

The only difference will be if you come to realise that it doesn't exist and you will adjust your sense of morality accordingly. You will still hold people responsible for their actions but your ideas of fair and equitable punishment will change. You will make allowances in others for factors beyond their control that determined their actions.

Or you could say 'No, I want to be able to feel justifiably angry and take retribution!' But that's not really improving yourself. Is it...

Anyway, it's your call.

 

[Fervent]

This is going the same way as other discussions - nowhere fast. I'll try a quick Q and A and allow me to answer for you;

B: Do you consider yourself to be a good person?
F: Yes, I try to do the right things. Sometimes I fail.

This is a distinctly different question from what I asked, which is should a person strive to be a good person? How could they do so if they lack free will?

Have you got free will? Let's say that you do. So you'll use your free will to decide to do the right things. But sometimes you'll fail.
Now we'll say that you haven't got free will. So life will determine that you decide to do the right things. But sometimes you'll fail.

Notice any difference? Me neither.

Seems to be a pretty clear difference to me, one involves a moral agent and the other involves a mechanical process. Let me re-write the second one for you:
Now we'll say you haven't got free will. So life will determine that you act as if you decided to do the right things. But sometimes life will decide you won't.

You can't fail if it's not in your power to decide, life apparently fails in that case.

In the former, you'll use your free will to decide to do the right thing, you'll feel better about yourself and you'll use that as an encouragement to keep doing better. So you improve as a person.
In the latter, life will determine that you decide to do the right thing, you'll feel better about yourself and you'll use that as an encouragement to keep doing better. So you improve as a person.

Doesn't seem to follow, since only a moral agent can improve as a person. Because improving as a person involves making better decisions, let me again re-write the second to better fit with a lack of free will.

In the latter, life will determine that you act like you decided to do the right thing. You'll feel better, and life may or may not use that to help you have the illusion that you're improving as a person.

Encouragement/discouragement plays no role if there is no real agency involved, because encouragement/discouragement is about making better decisions but if we don't have free will we make no actual decisions. They're thrust upon us.

Any difference? Nope, still the same.

Seems pretty clearly different to me, though it's obvious you can't escape from treating free will as real despite your protests that it isn't. Since you keep speaking in terms of moral agency, when there is no agent involved just mechanics.

The only difference will be if you come to realise that it doesn't exist and you will adjust your sense of morality accordingly. You will still hold people responsible for their actions but your ideas of fair and equitable punishment will change. You will make allowances in others for factors beyond their control that determined their actions.

You will have the illusion of holding people responsible for their actions, but that requires agency not simply mechanical operations. You keep talking as if you are in control, deciding to hold people responsible while being understanding of factors outside of their control. But you aren't arguing that our wills aren't as free as we imagine, a sentiment I would agree with, but that our sense of agency is illusion.

Or you could say 'No, I want to be able to feel justifiably angry and take retribution!' But that's not really improving yourself. Is it...

Oh? Where exactly did this come from, considering it's been no where in our discussion up to this point.

Anyway, it's your call.

But I thought free will was an illusion? Don't you mean life will decide it for me?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Encouragement/discouragement plays no role if there is no real agency involved, because encouragement/discouragement is about making better decisions but if we don't have free will we make no actual decisions. They're thrust upon us.

(en/dis)couragement is a form of stimulus. Behavior can be affected by either whether there is free will or not.