Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

A process in which the meaning of the symbols is apparently irrelevant, so again I can only repeat my question. What's the physical characteristic?

You've been given the answer on three of four occasions. And have been told that it's irrelevant to free will and to what you need to answer. Which is why you keep asking the same question after you have been given the same reply. To avoid answering. Because we both know that you don't know. I'm quite happy saying that, but apparently you are not. So I have to keep asking until I get an answer or you admit that you don't know. It's your call.

So please explain how an undetectable something from outside the known process changes physical matter within the process.

 

[Fervent]

You've been given the answer on three of four occasions. And have been told that it's irrelevant to free will and to what you need to answer. Which is why you keep asking the same question after you have been given the same reply. To avoid answering. Because we both know that you don't know. I'm quite happy saying that, but apparently you are not. So I have to keep asking until I get an answer or you admit that you don't know. It's your call.

So please explain how an undetectable something from outside the known process changes physical matter within the process.

You've done everything but give a direct answer, simply insisted that somehow the symbols are physical rather than abstract. So why not just identify what the physical characterist/attribute of the symbols is that makes them physical?

 

[Bradskii]

You've done everything but give a direct answer, simply insisted that somehow the symbols are physical rather than abstract. So why not just identify what the physical characterist/attribute of the symbols is that makes them physical?

Do I need to explain the fact that an actual cat or a drawing of a cat or a model of a cat or even the word cat is plainly and obviously physical? Read this:

Cat

What does that mean to you? What is the meaning of the symbols you see on your screen? You do know? Great. And how did you know that? Something about pixels and photons and electrical charges and memory? Oh, yeah, now you remember. It has all been explained to you. And it won't be again. Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with free will.

So can you please explain how an undetectable something from outside the known process changes physical matter within the process.

 

[Fervent]

Do I need to explain the fact that an actual cat or a drawing of a cat or a model of a cat or even the word cat is plainly and obviously physical? Read this:

An actual cat is physical, but the meaning of a word is not physical. I've asked you a very specific question, which you haven't answered. Which is what the physical characteristic of the word is.

Cat

What does that mean to you? What is the meaning of the symbols you see on your screen? You do know? Great. And how did you know that? Something about pixels and photons and electrical charges and memory? Oh, yeah, now you remember. It has all been explained to you. And it won't be again. Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with free will.

So can you please explain how an undetectable something from outside the known process changes physical matter within the process.

All of this assumes what we are trying to discuss, which is the notion of mind-brain identity. You claim that the symbol is physical, so I've repeatedly asked you to identify what about the physical word can't be changed that supposedly carries the meaning. What physical characteristic does it lie in?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just...what? This is a thread about free will. It's in the section of the forum that doesn't necessarily concern itself with religious matters. You might have noticed that any religious options for the source of free will have been ignored. You are free to write them but I won't be reading them.

If you want to start as thread on 'proposing an obscuring, dousing effect via counter appeal to authority and/or science so as to displace a perceived, reified social disorder brought about by more bourgeois (or currently seen to be as "bourgeois") proponents in society, proponents identified as those existing among various institutions of Christianity' then off you go.

Although I might suggest you aim for something a little less verbose and aim for clarity in the thread title.

Nah. This is the Ethics and Morality section, and if you're going to import a discussion into it pertaining to moral culpability in connection to abstract metaphysical (and by proxy, "genetic") ideas, especially those that tie conveniently into certain timely social issues, I think I've essentially laid out the problem as it actually sits today, politically.

You can freely choose to asymmetrically ignore what I've said if you wish, however.

Determinant factors have made it for me that there's no green skin off my back if you do.

 

[Bradskii]

An actual cat...

Ignored. Can you please explain how an undetectable something from outside the known process changes physical matter within the process.

 

[Bradskii]

Nah. This is the Ethics and Morality section..

If you want to discuss the moral implications of there being no free will, then feel free. But as Christianity relies on us actually having free will (unless you're a Calvinist) then there's no point in discussing Christian views on the matter.

I think I've essentially laid out the problem as it actually sits today, politically....

The only political implication that's been touched as being relevant is justice. Again, feel free to comment.

 

[Fervent]

Ignored. Can you please explain how an undetectable something from outside the known process changes physical matter within the process.

Ignore it all you want, you yourself admitted that your account had to omit meaning from the process. And you continue to refuse to identify what physical characteristic of the symbols carries the meaning, instead simply insisting that somehow, someway its physical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you want to discuss the moral implications of there being no free will, then feel free. But as Christianity relies on us actually having free will (unless you're a Calvinist) then there's no point in discussing Christian views on the matter.

The only political implication that's been touched as being relevant is justice. Again, feel free to comment.

Wouldn't it be great if Christianity was wrong and could be disproved by the establishment of Determinism?

 

[Bradskii]

Ignore it all you want, you yourself admitted that your account had to omit meaning from the process. And you continue to refuse to identify what physical characteristic of the symbols carries the meaning, instead simply insisting that somehow, someway its physical.

Let's do a quick review, shall we?

I laid out my position in the first post. I hoped for some constructive criticism. The only thing that you have offered is that hey, we do have free will because gee, it feels exactly like I have it.

Some people thought that simply making decisions was an example of free will. It isn't.

Some people thought that if the world was determinate, you could predict everything. You can't.

So some people said that determinism should be rejected, simply because it was an 'assumption'. Well OK, I offered 'On the assumption that the world is determinate...' and in the meantime point us to something that is an effect without a cause. Nothing but radio silence in that regard.

So we got to a point where if you don't think the world is determinate then you must be, by the process of elimination, a libertarian. How does that work? And we had radio silence on that for a couple of weeks.

But then a chink of light. You claimed that something, which is undetectable, from somewhere, somehow in some way changes 'physical matter' in the existing process, which then allows for free will. Great. But if we can't detect what is doing the changes then let's look at the changes it makes. Tell us what they are. Tell us what changes. tell us where to look. Nothing but deathly silence.

And that silence is for a very good reason. You have literally no idea at all. I don't think you know enough about how the neurological processes works to be able to make even a rough guess. You made a claim with no idea of how to back it up. And to save you wasting your time trying to find a way, I'll be honest with you. There is no way. No-one who supports dualism has ever come up with a credible solution to the problem of interaction.

So what we have is a proposal that there is no free will because, unless you are making random choices, all decisions are determined by antecedent events. And if that is not the case, then show me a decision that wasn't. None has been forthcoming. If that is not the case, then show me an effect without a cause. None has been forthcoming. If that is not the case, then show me how the process does work. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

What this thread has shown me is that there are quite a few people will reject the 'no free will' position almost as a knee jerk reaction. Generally coupled with an inane comment such as 'Well, you decided to start the thread, so you must have free will'. And that those who try to reject any reasons for the position have absolutely no idea at all as to how it could work otherwise. So all they are left with is 'It obviously exists. I just know it'.

Well, if it exists, how does it work?

 

[Fervent]

Let's do a quick review, shall we?

I laid out my position in the first post. I hoped for some constructive criticism. The only thing that you have offered is that hey, we do have free will because gee, it feels exactly like I have it.

Some people thought that simply making decisions was an example of free will. It isn't.

Some people thought that if the world was determinate, you could predict everything. You can't.

So some people said that determinism should be rejected, simply because it was an 'assumption'. Well OK, I offered 'On the assumption that the world is determinate...' and in the meantime point us to something that is an effect without a cause. Nothing but radio silence in that regard.

So we got to a point where if you don't think the world is determinate then you must be, by the process of elimination, a libertarian. How does that work? And we had radio silence on that for a couple of weeks.

But then a chink of light. You claimed that something, which is undetectable, from somewhere, somehow in some way changes 'physical matter' in the existing process, which then allows for free will. Great. But if we can't detect what is doing the changes then let's look at the changes it makes. Tell us what they are. Tell us what changes. tell us where to look. Nothing but deathly silence.

And that silence is for a very good reason. You have literally no idea at all. I don't think you know enough about how the neurological processes works to be able to make even a rough guess. You made a claim with no idea of how to back it up. And to save you wasting your time trying to find a way, I'll be honest with you. There is no way. No-one who supports dualism has ever come up with a credible solution to the problem of interaction.

So what we have is a proposal that there is no free will because, unless you are making random choices, all decisions are determined by antecedent events. And if that is not the case, then show me a decision that wasn't. None has been forthcoming. If that is not the case, then show me an effect without a cause. None has been forthcoming. If that is not the case, then show me how the process does work. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

What this thread has shown me is that there are quite a few people will reject the 'no free will' position almost as a knee jerk reaction. Generally coupled with an inane comment such as 'Well, you decided to start the thread, so you must have free will'. And that those who try to reject any reasons for the position have absolutely no idea at all as to how it could work otherwise. So all they are left with is 'It obviously exists. I just know it'.

Well, if it exists, how does it work?

That's not what I've said, which is that the proposition that we have no free will isn't even worth considering since if it is true whether or not we believe it does not depend on our willingness to accept it. If we do not have free will, then what we believe about free will is purely a result of the proceeding of physical laws. So if I have freedom, I will exercise it to deny the claim that I have no free will. Just as you exercise your free will to deny that it exists...for whatever reason.

 

[Bradskii]

Wouldn't it be great if Christianity was wrong and could be disproved by the establishment of Determinism?

I'm not the slightest bit interested in showing that religious beliefs are misplaced. Although I'd be interested in listening to anything that might indicate that determinism could be disproved.

 

[Bradskii]

That's not what I've said, which is that the proposition that we have no free will isn't even worth considering since if it is true whether or not we believe it does not depend on our willingness to accept it. If we do not have free will, then what we believe about free will is purely a result of the proceeding of physical laws.

How can you be involved in a thread for this long and not understand it?

You aren't compelled to one view or the other. Whether you accept it or not is down to the evidence which is presented. What you cannot do is reject an argument that you find compelling. Or accept one that you find isn't. I have done neither with your evidence, simply because you have refused to present any at all. Except some undetectable thing does something to some other thing somewhere. Really?

It's why I have always tended to one side of the argument rather than the other. It's the sheer paucity of detail. People tie themselves up in philosophical knots that take ages to untie. And when you do, there's nothing left. Ask for details and none are forthcoming. This thread being an absolutely perfect example.

Just above I again asked for some details on how determinism can be disproved as it relates to free will. Want a guess on how much detail we'll get on that?

 

[Fervent]

How can you be involved in a thread for this long and not understand it?

You aren't compelled to one view or the other. Whether you accept it or not is down to the evidence which is presented. What you cannot do is reject an argument that you find compelling. Or accept one that you find isn't. I have done neither with your evidence, simply because you have refused to present any at all. Except some undetectable thing does something to some other thing somewhere. Really?

It's why I have always tended to one side of the argument rather than the other. It's the sheer paucity of detail. People tie themselves up in philosophical knots that take ages to untie. And when you do, there's nothing left. Ask for details and none are forthcoming. This thread being an absolutely perfect example.

You're playing both sides of the field here. You claim that our decisions, including what we come to believe, is entirely decided by prior determinants in the physical world. Which means if your claim is true your belief that it is true does not come from reasoned evaluation of the evidence, but instead is nothing more than the end result of the chain of determinants that preceded your conclusion. Which you supposedly had no part in. Which is why I reject your position as self-undermining, because if it is true then your justifying reasoning and "evidence" is also a matter of illusion...where the real cause lies is in your physical makeup.

So it seems to me the real illusion here is your claim to be following evidence, because it's obvious that your destination is guaranteed from your starting point. And you've done nothing to establish that your starting point is accurate, you've simply asserted/declared it to be true.

 

[partinobodycular]

I laid out my position in the first post. I hoped for some constructive criticism. The only thing that you have offered is that hey, we do have free will because gee, it feels exactly like I have it.

Excuse me for interrupting the last 40 or so pages of absolutely fascinating dialogue... , but I have a question. Would you consider consciousness to be a force? I realize that this sounds odd, but predetermined or not consciousness does seem to take a vast amount of subjective information and transform it into a bona fide course of action. What other force does that... acts upon conditions that are true only within the mind of the being experiencing them?

Seemingly no other force in the universe can do that, choose a course of action based upon things that may or may not be true. So even if consciousness and its supposed free will are predetermined, they do provide nature with an ability that no other force possesses... the ability to act subjectively.

 

[Bradskii]

So it seems to me the real illusion here is your claim to be following evidence, because it's obvious that your destination is guaranteed from your starting point. And you've done nothing to establish that your starting point is accurate, you've simply asserted/declared it to be true.

My starting point is being someone who is interested in life. How things work. Only about 5% of the books I buy are not nonfiction. So I've been investigating free will for a very long time. Now I couldn't decide before I read any evidence for or against what my final position was going to be. Although like everyone else I assumed I had free will. So what were some people going on about saying that we didn't? It needed investigating.

That was determined. Because I'm that sort of guy. I can't choose arbitrarily what will interest me. It either will or it won't. This did. So put that down my genes, or my education, my upbringing...whatever. I didn't decide to decide to look into it.

So if I read one person who says she is for fee will, then should I investigate the claims and check an opposing view? Sure. And if I read someone who says we don't have it, should I do the same? Yes. Lucky me. I'm not the guy who takes the first position offered and then makes up his mind. I enjoy the argument. I enjoy the to and fro. That characteristic is determined.

And what determined me deciding what position I preferred were the arguments. Which would have happened anyway, whether I had free will or not. Because how on earth can you decided that one argument is better than the other when you think it's just the opposite? That's what determinism is about. It doesn't force you to accept a position. It determines which position you'll take. A position you'd take even if you had free will.

Determinism is not forcing you to do something. It's the explanation for why you did it.

 

[Fervent]

My starting point is being someone who is interested in life. How things work. Only about 5% of the books I buy are not nonfiction. So I've been investigating free will for a very long time. Now I couldn't decide before I read any evidence for or against what my final position was going to be. Although like everyone else I assumed I had free will. So what were some people going on about saying that we didn't? It needed investigating.

That was determined. Because I'm that sort of guy. I can't choose arbitrarily what will interest me. It either will or it won't. This did. So put that down my genes, or my education, my upbringing...whatever. I didn't decide to decide to look into it.

So if I read one person who says she is for fee will, then should I investigate the claims and check an opposing view? Sure. And if I read someone who says we don't have it, should I do the same? Yes. Lucky me. I'm not the guy who takes the first position offered and then makes up his mind. I enjoy the argument. I enjoy the to and fro. That characteristic is determined.

And what determined me deciding what position I preferred were the arguments. Which would have happened anyway, whether I had free will or not. Because how on earth can you decided that one argument is better than the other when you think it's just the opposite? That's what determinism is about. It doesn't force you to accept a position. It determines which position you'll take. A position you'd take even if you had free will.

Determinism is not forcing you to do something. It's the explanation for why you did it.

Not forcing, but if it truly is the explanation then all of your reasoning is superfluous to arriving at the conclusion you reached. If everything you think and do is determined by prior conditions then you're simply being carried along and your evaluation of the arguments is simply an illusion and you're not being convinced by the strength of the arguments but instead are reaching the inevitable conclusions of prior conditions. Something you don't actually seem to believe. No force needed, just inevitable end points from prior conditions.

 

[Bradskii]

Excuse me for interrupting the last 40 or so pages of absolutely fascinating dialogue...

My apologies. Some of it has been painful. I'll accept my share of the blame.

Would you consider consciousness to be a force? I realize that this sounds odd, but predetermined or not consciousness does seem to take a vast amount of subjective information and transform it into a bona fide course of action.

No. I think consciousness is just an awareness of self. As in 'Hey, it really feels like me doing this'. I'm think that there is a 'me'. But I'm not really sure how much it does. I've read an analogy about an elephant and its rider a couple of times. The elephant is my mind - and it goes where it will (or where it's determined to go...) and the rider is 'me', thinking it's in control and convincing itself now and then 'Yep, that's exactly where I wanted to go'.

 

[Bradskii]

Not forcing, but if it truly is the explanation then all of your reasoning is superfluous to arriving at the conclusion you reached. If everything you think and do is determined by prior conditions then you're simply being carried along and your evaluation of the arguments is simply an illusion and you're not being convinced by the strength of the arguments but instead are reaching the inevitable conclusions of prior conditions.

If you are convinced by an argument, then you accept it. You cannot do anything else. You can't choose to not believe something when you've been convinced it's true. But hey, hang on a minute. Don't you have free will? Then why not choose to not accept it, even though it has convinced you?

Does that suggestion make any sense to you whatsoever? Of course not. Of course you accept the argument. You weren't forced to accept it. Nothing made you accept it. It was just the evidence, plain and simply.

But what if I said that what you read determined your choice? What do you say then? You'll deny it. Because...well, you don't like what you do being determined. You don't actually like being told why you did something. You want it to be about your free will choice, dammit!

It's one of the reasons why people say that free will is an illusion. Because whether you have it or not, you still make the same choices.

 

[partinobodycular]

No. I think consciousness is just an awareness of self. As in 'Hey, it really feels like me doing this'. I'm think that there is a 'me'. But I'm not really sure how much it does. I've read an analogy about an elephant and its rider a couple of times. The elephant is my mind - and it goes where it will (or where it's determined to go...) and the rider is 'me', thinking it's in control and convincing itself now and then 'Yep, that's exactly where I wanted to go'.

But regardless of whether I have the qualia of consciousness or not, hasn't nature found a way of turning purely subjective catalysts into actual physical actions. Isn't that something that no other force in the universe can do, and doesn't that qualify it as being a force... it can cause a physical response.