Free will and determinism

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You go to the fridge to grab a pepsi...and of the 4 cans sitting on the shelf, you take the third from the left. It's fun to imagine that it couldn't have possibly been the 2nd or 1st or 4th....as if you and the Pepsi can have a date with destiny lol. It's not rational or logical though. It's certainly possible that some unknowable and unfelt mysterious cause made the other 3 choices impossible....but it's a "cause of the gaps" argument. All cans held the same potential value to you and therefore fulfill the same causal factor that sent you to the fridge to begin with.

The point is that while I am physically and mentally capable of picking any can, when I open the fridge and see 4 identical cans, my mental state at that moment (for that partiular visit to the fridge) will determine which can I select. For me, being a habitual sort, it would likely be the one closest to me or furthest from the sides. I would select it because it feels right, and it probably feels right because acting out of habit means not having to think much about mundane actions, and that's easier. If the fridge was cluttered and I had difficulty extracting the can, that would not feel right, because it would be awkward, so if I wasn't in a hurry, I might tidy that area of the fridge, and that would feel good because I'm conditioned to find the successful completion of a task rewarding, and because I would know that it will be easier next time.

The feelings that guide my activities are the products of habits established over time, preferences & predispositions, my current physical & mental state, and the environment I perceive around me.

The habits & routines are established over time by the desire to minimise effort and time spent on mundane tasks, or to feel good about doing something that may make me feel good in the future (e.g. exercise).

The whole determinist concept hinges on your faith in these unknowable causes you assume exist...

Almost. When I make conscious choices, I do so for a reason, a knowable cause. When I make unconscious choices I assume there's a reason, even when I can't think what it might be. The complication is that there are unconscious influences on my conscious choices, either feelings or prompts.

For example, it's my subconscious that decides when my dehydration level or throat dryness crosses the threshold to alert me that I'm thirsty - if I'm busy or physically active, that alert will be suppressed. When it finally gets through, and I ask myself what drink options I've got, it's my subconscious that comes back with a 'beer' prompt, or 'milk, water, and beer', and then I choose which I will have, based on the situation and how I feel about each option. So I might feel like a beer but have water because I'll be driving to the shops later, or I might have milk because I've heard it's the best post-exercise drink and I've been exercising. The drink I choose will reflect the strongest feeling have about my drink options.

But it doesn't matter, it may give you a warm fuzzy because the infinite causal chain of events gives the idea a pleasant sense of completeness....no different from inserting god at the beginning of the universe....

Not really; it's sometimes a little disturbing to know the sense of control I have is not what it seems, that I'm not consciously involved with most of what I do, and what I am conscious of is mostly the results of those subconscious activities, and what I feel consciously in control of is determined by subconscious activities. OTOH, when I stop to think about it, I realise it makes little to no difference to everyday life, except that I'm becoming less inclined to blame and less angry and annoyed with other people (and myself). I still feel those emotions, but they're easier to control.

You'll still act as if you view all human behavior as born of free will, which is absurd if you truly believe in determinism. You'll again have to insert a cause of the gaps to explain why this supposed truth never really carries the weight it should in regards to the determinists' actions, thoughts, beliefs, judgments, or speech.

Not exactly; it's easier to see other people's actions in a deterministic framing than one's own because, as the agent involved, the subjective sense of 'special' agency (free will) is experiential. But it really makes little difference - you do what you do because of the kind of person you are, and the kind of person you are can change with experience.

Just as Heraclitus recognized an impermanence of all circumstances, the ancient Greeks recognized determinism...but just called it fate or destiny. Determinism is the same concept....just of a mundane sort, unromanticized and bland.

Again, I'll grant either possibility could be true....there's no way of knowing for certain...but free will seems to describe even the behavior of the determinist better than determinism can.

The problem for me is that the concept of incompatibilist free will seems incoherent. From a physics POV - the world is effectively deterministic (quantum-level indeterminism 'averages out' at macro-scales), but whatever randomness there is seems contrary to the idea of will; and at macro-scales, events require energy from some prior state of the system, i.e. they are causal. From a behavioural POV, I make choices for reasons and those reasons are grounded in the experiences & predispositions that make me who I am.

ISTM that it's our personal sense of free agency and our lack of introspective insight into the ultimate origins of our feelings & preferences that have led to the idea of free will, and the harm that follows from it - blame, retribution, & punishment for its own sake.

This is what I like to call the "cause of the gaps" argument.

The determinist doesn't know why person behaved in a way that resulted in a different outcome, but he assumes that something must have caused it.

The whole point of the two door thought experiment is to show that the same cause can lead to different outcomes if there's no apparent value difference between choices....but the cause still precedes the choice.

The thought experiment involves a situation involving circumstances all of which have causes. The individual's choice may be different if there is some difference in the circumstances, e.g. the subject's mental state (brain), as a result of a difference in its causal history.

If the individual's choice was uncaused, it would be random, so you'll have to explain how that could be freely willed. But there's another issue - macro-scale events involve energy, and energy is conserved (1st law of thermodynamics), so it must come from somewhere, which implies some cause that supplies it.

I don't know why you would assume that is what I meant.

I was talking about the popular claim that free will means that, 'in the same circumstances you could have chosen differently', not something you said.

To the determinist, the very idea of "self" is an illusion that only exists in the moments we have to consider it....then it's gone.

What makes you think that? I view my 'self' as a way of thinking and talking about various aspects of my body, mind, and behaviour.

It is a choice...distinct from the other door. The potential of leaving the room exists equally for both choices but that doesn't make them the same. It is, after all, only a potential value until the door is chosen and opened.

I don't see what you're getting at. The individual perceives two possible options and makes one choice. They may not know in advance which option they'll choose and may not know why in retrospect. But there was a reason, whether or not they were aware of it and whether or not it was relevant to the particular context (I've heard that in situations of indecision, the brain has a mechanism that can 'arbitrarily' force an outcome).

We can let go of the idea of "at random" here and simply say the reason for choosing either door is exactly the same....desire to leave the room. We cannot possibly go through both doors at the same time....one must be chosen.

I thought you said you considered this rationally?

Yes, I considered it rationally. What makes you ask?

I put 'at random' in quotes because the individual might not be conscious of any reason for preferring one door over the other. Leaving the room is the goal, but to achieve that, a sub-goal must be realised - to choose one of the doors. Without a conscious preference, they might unconsciously reach for the door closest to their dominant hand or dominant side - some prefer left, some right ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Whether they are consciously aware of the reason or not, they pick one.

Right....some hidden cause of the gaps we can't ever hope to know for certain

It's faith in destiny....or fate if you prefer.

It would not be easy to discover the cause of that kind of choice, but it would be possible, in principle, by examining brain activity leading up to it. This would provide a functional cause (the temporal sequence of brain activity leading up to the action).

In the long term, it might be possible to correlate that pattern of activity with known reasons for particular choices... just speculation.

It's a weak form of destiny or fate because we don't know in advance what the outcome will be. Once we know the outcome, we're in the same position whether we believe in free will or not - the outcome is fixed, in the past. The difference is in how we assess the actions leading to the outcome.

Again, I don't see any certainty behind your guarantee without omniscience. Short of that you can only make educated guesses.

Absolute certainty isn't possible. Educated guesses are as good as it gets.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When I said "we all" I meant that most of us determinists agreed on it, and the rest of the voices were silenced on it, etc.

Ok...well then it seems as if you all forgot what you agreed upon.

It appears as if you're using determinism itself to excuse the irrational nature of these moral judgements.

Choice might not be an entirely necessary element of morality, but it's pretty hard for me to imagine a moral or immoral behavior that I wouldn't judge significantly differently or far more likely, not at all...if no one can choose to engage in that behavior.

If you believe in determinism, judging someone's moral behavior as good or bad would be like judging someone's breathing as morally good or bad....that's how absurd it sounds.

I understand that you're claiming that you cannot do otherwise but it's plainly obvious that you can. After all, you don't claim someone is a good person for breathing. Yet you continue judging people morally as if you don't really believe in determinism at all....

Moral values exist because "I think" it is a part of how we were made,

The manner by which you are assigning judgement doesn't appear to even influenced slightly by the claim that you believe determinism to be true.

Consider a man driving a car downhill. A little girl steps into the street....and the man driving the car steps onto the accelerator and turns the steering wheel so that he runs her over.

Consider another man in the same circumstances except he steps on the brakes and they failed, he attempts to turn the wheel but the steering is also broken and the man ends up running the girl over despite his efforts to avoid her.

My guess is that both of those scenarios would make you feel a certain way about each situation. I'd also guess that whether or not you feel like what the second man did was immoral or not...you don't see it as nearly as immoral behavior as the first guy, largely because the second guy made an effort to avoid running the girl over....and the first guy made an effort to run her over.

Is that a fair description (generally) of how you would be affected by those two similar events even though they have the same outcome??

I'm going to throw you a bone here and agree that you have an emotional reaction to those two scenarios because you are a human being with empathy and sympathy and care for the grieving parents of the child, etc. I'd even go as far as saying that this emotional reaction is related in some way to the moral judgements you either express, or don't, about the two drivers....

Is that a fair generalized description of your morals in comparison to the two situations described above?

and they also seem to be necessary for most societies not decending into complete and total disarray or anarchy as well,

We can say that controlling behaviour may seem necessary for society to function....but it's unclear if any moral judgements are necessary.

Fair?

Well, I'm not trying to "win" or anything, and that's not at all why I am continuing with the conversation, etc.

I'm not able to predict why you're writing what you're posting. It's not something that I wrote to attack you....I'm merely trying to make sense of what you're saying.

Well, you know I have a belief in a God, and follow the Bible and/or Christianity, etc, and from that viewpoint as a determinist I am told that these very, very bad things are sometimes allowed to happen

Well a determinist wouldn't say they're allowed to happen but they had to happen.

because we right now live in an evil and wicked world, and because of sin, etc. And as a believer, I have the hope that these kinds of things are all only temporary, and will all be fixed/made right someday, etc. Right now I also believe there is a higher purpose involved for every evil, even the very, very bad things, even if the limitations of human understanding sometimes, fails to fully see it/understand it sometimes, etc.

Ok.

How would you expect us to change how we act or behave, or how we would normally act or behave normally, if determinism is true, or holds true, etc?

Well hopefully you can answer the above questions about the men driving the cars and I can sufficiently explain.

I don't know where you think I agreed to this, so I think you must have misunderstood me, etc?

Is there some part of the determinist position that you think I'm not seeing or misunderstanding?

I think you did that because you realized the other points you were trying to make, or other things you were trying to talk about, weren't going to gain any traction, or were even maybe being "too well refuted", or were not going to get you anywhere, etc.

No it's all entirely relevant to believing in the idea of determinism as "true" in describing reality.

 

[Chesterton]

Yet you continue judging people morally as if you don't really believe in determinism at all....

And they continue reasoning as if they don't believe in determinism. They continue reasoning as if reason weren't a delusion, even though everything else is a delusion.

 

[Bradskii]

And they continue reasoning as if they don't believe in determinism. They continue reasoning as if reason weren't a delusion, even though everything else is a delusion.

When did anyone say that everything is a delusion? I can't see how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's partly true - I don't live my everyday life in a constant stream of rational thought about how I feel I have free will but in fact my actions are all determined. In practice, it makes no significant difference, I live my life as I always have, mainly on 'autopilot', occasionally stopping to think rationally and logically about something. When someone cuts me up in traffic I feel a flash of anger or annoyance, then - if I'm not listening to a podcast - I may ratonalise both their action and my response.

Indulge me for a moment.

Imagine you're watching a video on your most trusted news source. It's a short 5 second video of Dave standing over his neighbor Mike as Mike tries to crawl away from Dave....Dave shoots him 3 times ending his life. This is horrific video of Dave committing murder. I've no doubt at all that you would feel compelled to morally judge Dave as a murderer and decide rather quickly that this is a bad man who did something immoral.

The next day, you're watching the same news and it says that they have an update to the Mike murder. It's a slightly longer video from a different angle...and it shows Mike pointing a pistol at his neighbor Dave clearly threatening to kill him before Dave draws his own gun, shoots Mike who then falls to the ground and starts crawling to the pistol he dropped and this is when the previous video began. You're obviously stunned...and the new information changes who you think is a bad person doing immoral things. Poor Dave was nearly killed and had to defend his life from evil Mike.

The next day while watching the same news and yet another update....a 3rd video....this one showing the entire incident beginning to end. It reveals Dave pouring kerosene onto Mike's bushes with the intention of burning down Mike's house with him, his wife, and their 3 children inside. This was caught on Mike's home security cameras just prior to Mike stepped out of his home with his gun to confront Dave. Then the rest of the incident happened....and you're back to viewing Dave as doing someone who acts immorally....an evil man.

If you've read this far, ty for indulging me. The hypothetical scenario above is overly dramatic on purpose and lacking on nuance deliberately...

Is this not a fair example of how both perception and truth interact in our views of morality? As each bit of true information is revealed....you adjust your view of good and bad accordingly (assuming you believe it's true of course)?

The logic and reasoning typically follows the feelings or emotions.

I agree.

Most people find it difficult to stop their feelings from overwhelming their reason & logic at times, sometimes to their severe detriment (compulsive gambling, eating, etc). As Hume observed, we're creatures of passion, and often, "Reason is a slave to the passions".

Yeah but he didn't see human perception or experiences as you do.

What would you accept as proof? I can give a reasonable explanation for why the common conception of free will is redundant and logically incoherent,

Please do. I'd love to hear it.

and I haven't heard a coherent (incompatibilist) explanation of what free will is or how it works, beyond 'this is how it feels'...

Sure....how about this?

We, as human beings, have a biological faculty or "mechanism" if you prefer which allows us to make free will choices, or not, whenever we engage with it.

But if you have a coherent definition & explanation of what free will is and/or how it works, I'd like to hear it.

Simple enough. Free will is the idea that we are capable of making choices that aren't predetermined.

That's not quite the case. I used 'wrong' to mean some action that infringed the law or rules of acceptable behaviour. Laws and rules would still exist in a society where everyone thought free will was a nonsense.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying this. We would have laws....sure...but "wrong" is a value assigned to something, in this case behaviour....and it's unclear how the determinist sees any such values.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And they continue reasoning as if they don't believe in determinism. They continue reasoning as if reason weren't a delusion, even though everything else is a delusion.

It's as if they don't genuinely believe this at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point is that while I am physically and mentally capable of picking any can, when I open the fridge and see 4 identical cans, my mental state at that moment (for that partiular visit to the fridge) will determine which can I select. For me, being a habitual sort, it would likely be the one closest to me or furthest from the sides. I would select it because it feels right, and it probably feels right because acting out of habit means not having to think much about mundane actions, and that's easier. If the fridge was cluttered and I had difficulty extracting the can, that would not feel right, because it would be awkward, so if I wasn't in a hurry, I might tidy that area of the fridge, and that would feel good because I'm conditioned to find the successful completion of a task rewarding, and because I would know that it will be easier next time.

The feelings that guide my activities are the products of habits established over time, preferences & predispositions, my current physical & mental state, and the environment I perceive around me.

The habits & routines are established over time by the desire to minimise effort and time spent on mundane tasks, or to feel good about doing something that may make me feel good in the future (e.g. exercise).

Or you made a free will decision and we could wildly change all those factors and you could just as easily pick the same can.

There's no way to know for certain.

Almost. When I make conscious choices, I do so for a reason, a knowable cause.

Like wanting a Pepsi to drink.

When I make unconscious choices I assume there's a reason, even when I can't think what it might be.

The "cause of the gaps".

For example, it's my subconscious that decides when my dehydration level or throat dryness crosses the threshold to alert me that I'm thirsty - if I'm busy or physically active, that alert will be suppressed. When it finally gets through, and I ask myself what drink options I've got, it's my subconscious that comes back with a 'beer' prompt, or 'milk, water, and beer', and then I choose which I will have, based on the situation and how I feel about each option. So I might feel like a beer but have water because I'll be driving to the shops later, or I might have milk because I've heard it's the best post-exercise drink and I've been exercising. The drink I choose will reflect the strongest feeling have about my drink options.

Sure....those drinks represent different values though....that's why the thought experiment only ever involves choices of 1 value.

Not really; it's sometimes a little disturbing to know the sense of control I have is not what it seems,

Is it?

that I'm not consciously involved with most of what I do,

I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious" in this context. Your brain, deterministically is just a bunch if protein, fat, chemical signals, electrical signals, etc.

Just as you have an illusion of free will, you would also necessarily have an illusion of thinking, illusion of feeling, illusion of self, etc.

Under determinism....you're just a meat and chemical sack reacting to stimuli with electrical imulses.

The problem for me is that the concept of incompatibilist free will seems incoherent.

In what way?

From a physics POV - the world is effectively deterministic

No offense, but until there's a unified theory of physics I'm not sure how you can possibly be certain of that.

Besides, we're trying to describe human behavior....not quantum physics.

ISTM that it's our personal sense of free agency and our lack of introspective insight into the ultimate origins of our feelings & preferences that have led to the idea of free will, and the harm that follows from it - blame, retribution, & punishment for its own sake.

This is an odd statement for someone who insists that society will have laws regardless.

If society will have laws regardless....then the justice system will do exactly the same thing independent of any belief in free will.

Also, while you claimed that there's no ego driven sense of satisfaction causing you to claim to believe in determinism.....and that it's actually "sometimes a little disturbing"....your above statement indicates a sort of sense of moral superiority over those who believe in "free will" because they're doing "harm".

If all of this is deterministic....then we're not choosing to do harm lol.

I still don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

The thought experiment involves a situation involving circumstances all of which have causes.

Uh huh.

The individual's choice may be different if there is some difference in the circumstances

Why would there need to be different causes if the cause for opening the door on the left is the same as opening the door on the right?

It's the same cause...you'll just need to make a free will decision.

If the individual's choice was uncaused

I didn't say it was uncaused.

I was talking about the popular claim that free will means that, 'in the same circumstances you could have chosen differently', not something you said.

If you want to go with that....I'm fine with it. No matter how many times we drop our hypothetical memory erased person in the room....they'll still face the same cause, still have to make a free will decision.

What makes you think that? I view my 'self' as a way of thinking and talking about various aspects of my body, mind, and behaviour.

Ok.

I don't see what you're getting at. The individual perceives two possible options and makes one choice.

Right.

They may not know in advance which option they'll choose and may not know why in retrospect.

That's the illogical assumption beneath your sort of half-understanding of determinism.

If we ask said person why they chose the door they chose...and they reply "because I wanted to leave the room"....why wouldn't you accept it?

Stay with me now....

Each door holds the potential value of fulfilling the cause and letting them leave the room.

It's only your personal desire to hang onto this really tenuous idea of determinism that requires some additional cause to be imagined for the specific door they choose.

In reality, it seems either door will succeed at resolving the cause/reason.

But there was a reason, whether or not they were aware of it

They are aware of the reason, they wanted to leave the room, that's the reason.

Absolute certainty isn't possible. Educated guesses are as good as it gets.

Which is why your absolute certainty that some extraneous reason/cause must be had for the specific door chosen is odd.

 

[stevevw]

I think as rational and moral creatures this is what makes us different to feelings and animal instincts. Like there is another dimension to us that transcends the physical determinist forces.

A lion for example has the instinct to feed when hungry and will stop at nothing to fullfill that need. Whereas humans can overcome that drive if needed because of a higher purpose.

An example of free will would be how a robot is programmed to act. The program has deleted all ability to be self determined. To analyse the situation and realise that it is being manpulated into acting the way it does. It is none the wiser.

But if we were to reinstall the software that enables the robot to acess things like humans in regards to making inderpendent decisions and be self determined then it has the ability to make different decisions.

Surely we would say that there is a difference between these two robots as far as the type of ability to work out when its being fooled and manipulated into acting a certain way.

Even if this is not completely self determined as humans its a step closer to making more informed decisions about its choices and therefore a step closer to free will. If there is a difference in agency then this shows that free will is possible compared to being controlled to make only certain choices.

Fact is, far from there being no difference, there is big difference between a robot being programmed to believe something, and being programmed to believe only claims he can personally vet with actual evidence and reason. And that difference is precisely the difference between having a will that is free or a will that is unfree.​

 

[Ana the Ist]

And they continue reasoning as if they don't believe in determinism. They continue reasoning as if reason weren't a delusion, even though everything else is a delusion.

The easy thing to understand is all behavior would have to be morally nuetral....all of it. Yet they don't describe it that way.

They claim that emotional reactions would still exist in relation to behaviors...and yes, that's true, but they would never lead to moral judgements. A bear cannibalizing and eating it's cub may give you certain feelings...but it's weird to describe that as an evil bear....it doesn't make rational choices. It let's instinct guide it's behavior....so bears aren't evil when we dislike what they do, and they aren't good when we like what they do...and a real determinist would see things exactly the same way in regards to human behavior. All human behaviors are morally nuetral to the determinists.

Then they say "well society would still need laws to function"....and that's true. Would they be based morality and justice or human rights? No. They'd be based on functionality. Those other things are irrational figments based on ideas of morality that require both free will and personal responsibility....two things that don't exist in the view of a determinist. If the crops fail and we need to eat, guess what? Cannibalism and murder are going to be legal for awhile....for the state to function.

They keep talking like some enlightened Buddhist monks or something lol because they think it's only free will that becomes an illusion from that viewpoint. Well, prepare to let go of some other illusions like fairness, equality, morality, responsibility, equity, egalitarianism, democracy (you think you're choosing your government???) Lol and many many other values and conceptsthat require an element of choice or free will.

Then they go..."no, I thought about this....rationally".

How? Did you choose to?

Edit- and as I'm about to think they deserve pity and I should keep trying to slow walk them into understanding determinism....I remember that my pity is irrational and there are causes preventing them from fully grasping the concept.

Yes, it's a possibly true description of reality....but why would you want to convince anyone of it....especially when you can't prove it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think as rational and moral creatures this is what makes us different to feelings and animal instincts. Like there is another dimension to us that transcends the physical determinist forces.

A lion for example has the instinct to feed when hungry and will stop at nothing to fullfill that need. Whereas humans can overcome that drive if needed because of a higher purpose.

An example of free will would be how a robot is programmed to act. The program has deleted all ability to be self determined. To analyse the situation and realise that it is being manpulated into acting the way it does. It is none the wiser.

But if we were to reinstall the software that enables the robot to acess things like humans in regards to making inderpendent decisions and be self determined then it has the ability to make different decisions.

Surely we would say that there is a difference between these two robots as far as the type of ability to work out when its being fooled and manipulated into acting a certain way.

Even if this is not completely self determined as humans its a step closer to making more informed decisions about its choices and therefore a step closer to free will. If there is a difference in agency then this shows that free will is possible compared to being controlled to make only certain choices.

Fact is, far from there being no difference, there is big difference between a robot being programmed to believe something, and being programmed to believe only claims he can personally vet with actual evidence and reason. And that difference is precisely the difference between having a will that is free or a will that is unfree.​

Hey @stevevw,

I know this is probably going to seem a little confusing (because it is at first) but is a description of human behavior, thoughts, and feelings that completely rejects the possibility of free will. It's not something attainable with a certain amount of intelligence or information or anything really. Free will choices are merely an illusion created by our brain to explain our interactions with reality across time.

The whole concept is born out of the idea of causal reality. That is....for everything that "happens" is a cause which preceded it. This cause, in the mind of the determinist, has only one possible outcome....the outcome that happens. The negates any possibility of a free will choice, because for a choice to be made, another possible outcome should be able to happen.

If you've ever seen No Country For Old Men....the character Anton Chigurh is a strict determinist. He doesn't see himself as choosing anything but rather as someone merely moving from one certainty to the next. In the rare moments where he is unable to decide if he should kill someone, he offers them a coin toss....a 50/50 possibility that they will die or not. The coin represents his momentary uncertainty....and the person he kills or doesn't has to choose to call heads or tails. In his speech to the man at the register about the coin....he ties their fate to the coin itself. A long chain of causal events and outcomes has brought the coin and person together....they are tied by fate. When he speaks to Woody Harrelson's character in the hotel, Woody tells him he knows where the sack of cash is....and Anton tells him he knows something better, he knows where it will be. He is certain of the future. He is certain of his nature and abilities. He is certain of the outcomes of his actions. This is demonstrated throughout the movie.

Is that how a determinist will act? Well no....it's solid representation of what someone might sound like if they sincerely believed in determinism though. All events are certain....and any causes that are unknown are simply unknown but assumed exist.

At the end of the movie before killing Moss' wife....she argues that the coin has no say in the matter (choice) and that it's just him. He replies "I got here the same way the coin did"....referring to the infinite chain of causes and outcomes preceding him stepping through the front door, coin in his pocket.

 

[Bradskii]

Even if this is not completely self determined as humans its a step closer to making more informed decisions about its choices and therefore a step closer to free will.

Why does making an informed decision mean that free will must exist? A robot would make informed decisions. You give it information and it decides what course of action to take.

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok...well then it seems as if you all forgot what you agreed upon.

Some did, which is why I'm thinking of trying to be moving away from these forums here more and more of late. It's just become a waste of time, etc. Doesn't change anything, etc.

It appears as if you're using determinism itself to excuse the irrational nature of these moral judgements.

It doesn't change the way we must judge moral or immoral actions or decisions here.

Choice might not be an entirely necessary element of morality, but it's pretty hard for me to imagine a moral or immoral behavior that I wouldn't judge significantly differently or far more likely, not at all...if no one can choose to engage in that behavior.

It really should not change it regardless. Not as far as being here is concerned anyway.

If you believe in determinism, judging someone's moral behavior as good or bad would be like judging someone's breathing as morally good or bad....that's how absurd it sounds.

You can still say a thing was either a good or bad thing regardless, and try to take steps to try and alter or change that behavior for the future (which is unknown) regardless, which is really what crime and punishment should be all about.

I understand that you're claiming that you cannot do otherwise but it's plainly obvious that you can. After all, you don't claim someone is a good person for breathing. Yet you continue judging people morally as if you don't really believe in determinism at all....

A thing is still seen as either a good or bad thing, or positive or negative thing here regardless.

The manner by which you are assigning judgement doesn't appear to even influenced slightly by the claim that you believe determinism to be true.

Again, you still haven't told me how you think it supposed to change you/me, or us here, etc?

Consider a man driving a car downhill. A little girl steps into the street....and the man driving the car steps onto the accelerator and turns the steering wheel so that he runs her over.

Consider another man in the same circumstances except he steps on the brakes and they failed, he attempts to turn the wheel but the steering is also broken and the man ends up running the girl over despite his efforts to avoid her.

My guess is that both of those scenarios would make you feel a certain way about each situation. I'd also guess that whether or not you feel like what the second man did was immoral or not...you don't see it as nearly as immoral behavior as the first guy, largely because the second guy made an effort to avoid running the girl over....and the first guy made an effort to run her over.

Is that a fair description (generally) of how you would be affected by those two similar events even though they have the same outcome??

I'm going to throw you a bone here and agree that you have an emotional reaction to those two scenarios because you are a human being with empathy and sympathy and care for the grieving parents of the child, etc. I'd even go as far as saying that this emotional reaction is related in some way to the moral judgements you either express, or don't, about the two drivers....

Is that a fair generalized description of your morals in comparison to the two situations described above?

Circumstances always need to be considered in any or all judgements, and obviously in this circumstance one should recieve a lesser or lighter punishment than the other one who should recieve a lot heavier regardless.

And to reiterate this again "all circumstanes/facts always need to all be considered/carefully weighed in any and all truly just judgements", etc, irregardless of ones own personal feelings or beliefs, or beliefs about determinism and whatnot, in any given truly just judgement or circumstance, etc. This is part of the job of any truly just criminal justice system regardless, etc.

We can say that controlling behaviour may seem necessary for society to function....but it's unclear if any moral judgements are necessary.

Fair?

Trying to change or alter current behavior for better behavior in the future (which is unknown) needs to be practiced in every single society in order for them to function and maintain order properly probably regardless, etc.

You can also say that a thing a person did was good or bad, or right or wrong, or contributes positively or negatively, without judging the person, but also without excluding them from having to face some temporary consequences for some of their actions here temporarily also, etc

I'm not able to predict why you're writing what you're posting. It's not something that I wrote to attack you....I'm merely trying to make sense of what you're saying.

I know you weren't trying to attack me, and I didn't take it as such, I just wanted you to know that quote/unquote "winning" is not at all a part of the reason I was/still am continuing our conversation here, etc.

Well a determinist wouldn't say they're allowed to happen but they had to happen.

Not if one believes in a God who could have determined it differently from the beginning, because in that sense, everything was allowed to happen, and something being allowed to happen, versus something having supposed to happen, are one in the same thing, etc.

Well hopefully you can answer the above questions about the men driving the cars and I can sufficiently explain.

Obviously, feelings would be different in both of those scenarios, but the law should be written to allow lesser or greater punishments for both of those scenarios or circumstances, etc. And if it's not, then it needs to be altered or changed, etc

Is there some part of the determinist position that you think I'm not seeing or misunderstanding?

Mainly that while we are still here, some things still have to be done the same way regardless, etc. Like crime and punishment, and judgement and justice, for example.

No it's all entirely relevant to believing in the idea of determinism as "true" in describing reality.

Ok

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Ana the Ist

I'm trying to get down to the point of what it is that you are trying to say to me here?

And it seems like you're saying that because a person believes in determinism, that judgement or justice shouldn't be implemented or executed for crimes? Is that what you are saying?

Because it shouldn't change it, etc.

A person who commits what that society has decided is or should be wrong or bad or a crime still has to be punished for that crime regardless, and I don't see how or why a belief in determinism needs to change that, etc?

So just why is that you are thinking it does exactly?

It might make us have more compassion if we know a person didn't have much of a choice up to that point, but that doesn't mean we completely absolve them from any kind of responsibility for crimes, etc.

None of us knows the future either also, etc, so our main focus for punishment should be focused on trying to get the person to change that behavior, instead of emotionally seeking retribution or vengeance or revenge for those crimes, etc.

So why is it that you think that a belief in determinism needs to change any of this exactly?

(Oh, and for your information, this is what was already discussed thoroughly and was already agreed upon fully earlier on in this thread already, etc)

(This specific subject/topic was already, etc)

(That a lot of people have forgotten about already, etc)

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Hey @stevevw,

I know this is probably going to seem a little confusing (because it is at first) but is a description of human behavior, thoughts, and feelings that completely rejects the possibility of free will. It's not something attainable with a certain amount of intelligence or information or anything really. Free will choices are merely an illusion created by our brain to explain our interactions with reality across time.

The whole concept is born out of the idea of causal reality. That is....for everything that "happens" is a cause which preceded it. This cause, in the mind of the determinist, has only one possible outcome....the outcome that happens. The negates any possibility of a free will choice, because for a choice to be made, another possible outcome should be able to happen.

If you've ever seen No Country For Old Men....the character Anton Chigurh is a strict determinist. He doesn't see himself as choosing anything but rather as someone merely moving from one certainty to the next. In the rare moments where he is unable to decide if he should kill someone, he offers them a coin toss....a 50/50 possibility that they will die or not. The coin represents his momentary uncertainty....and the person he kills or doesn't has to choose to call heads or tails. In his speech to the man at the register about the coin....he ties their fate to the coin itself. A long chain of causal events and outcomes has brought the coin and person together....they are tied by fate. When he speaks to Woody Harrelson's character in the hotel, Woody tells him he knows where the sack of cash is....and Anton tells him he knows something better, he knows where it will be. He is certain of the future. He is certain of his nature and abilities. He is certain of the outcomes of his actions. This is demonstrated throughout the movie.

Is that how a determinist will act? Well no....it's solid representation of what someone might sound like if they sincerely believed in determinism though. All events are certain....and any causes that are unknown are simply unknown but assumed exist.

At the end of the movie before killing Moss' wife....she argues that the coin has no say in the matter (choice) and that it's just him. He replies "I got here the same way the coin did"....referring to the infinite chain of causes and outcomes preceding him stepping through the front door, coin in his pocket.

Ok so can you tell me the moral of the story. You said it may be a little confusing and it is lol. Or is there no moral as its determined.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Ana the Ist

I'll tell you one of the ways that it has changed me, ok.

When I see other people in the world, and I look around with my eyes, I see a lot of people that are being "tossed upon the waves like sheep without a shepard", or a leader, etc, and that "may not be fully responsible for what they do", or "fully know what it is that they are right now doing", etc, and it makes me feel sorrow/compassion/pity for them, and all that they are doing to each other, and this world, and one another, etc.

But the fact that I don't know the future, means that maybe I could help change some of it for some of them maybe, etc, by trying to give them something that might be able to change it for some of them maybe, because my not knowing any of that up to this point, or from this point onward (and none of us do, etc) still makes that a possibility still, etc, and this is one of the ways it has changed me, etc.

I know that's probably not what you were hoping for or expecting, but this is one of the ways it has changed me, and I'm sorry if my new perspective is disappointing to you, but it is what it is, etc.

I'm aware that my being here, and my interjecting, or trying to interject, or change things (for some), could all be a part of that plan also, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Chesterton]

When did anyone say that everything is a delusion? I can't see how you came to that conclusion.

It's been said many times, by determinists such as Daniel Dennett, Keith Frankish, Jay Garfield, Michael Graziano and others.

 

[Chesterton]

Then they say "well society would still need laws to function"....and that's true.

I'm not sure that's true. Sharks have no laws and shark society has functioned just fine for a lot longer than human society. So could human society function without law? Sure, but it might be a nasty (wrong) way to live. So what determinists should say is that "society would still need laws to function morally". But of course they can't say that.

They keep talking like some enlightened Buddhist monks or something lol because they think it's only free will that becomes an illusion from that viewpoint. Well, prepare to let go of some other illusions like fairness, equality, morality, responsibility, equity, egalitarianism, democracy (you think you're choosing your government???) Lol and many many other values and conceptsthat require an element of choice or free will.

Exactly. And reason also. Are you going to reason in your mind about a matter and decide "this is right" and "this other thing is wrong"? No can do. You're breaking your own rules, because this is also an illusion.

Then they go..."no, I thought about this....rationally".

How? Did you choose to?

There's the old quote from atheist J.B.S. Haldane, which sums up the dilemma nicely: “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

Yes, it's a possibly true description of reality....but why would you want to convince anyone of it....especially when you can't prove it?

Realistic answer: Because it's all they've got. Those who deny free will have no choice but to desperately grasp at straws which don't exist. It has that in common with the multiverse - absolutely no evidence for it, but we want to convince you of it.

Less realistic answer: Circa 1970, the White Panthers advocated for "rock and roll, dope, and ______ in the streets". Circa 1980, there was this slogan on the back of an album "We want to create a world so free we can run wild", and notice the animal imagery:

This does tie in with what you said about bears eating their young. Some people may actually want this, in the name of freedom. Both street thugs and the billionaires comprising the World Economic Forum may have this in common. But this is highly speculative and just posted for the fun of it.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm not sure that's true. Sharks have no laws and shark society has functioned just fine for a lot longer than human society. So could human society function without law? Sure, but it might be a nasty (wrong) way to live. So what determinists should say is that "society would still need laws to function morally". But of course they can't say that.


Exactly. And reason also. Are you going to reason in your mind about a matter and decide "this is right" and "this other thing is wrong"? No can do. You're breaking your own rules, because this is also an illusion.


There's the old quote from atheist J.B.S. Haldane, which sums up the dilemma nicely: “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

Realistic answer: Because it's all they've got. Those who deny free will have no choice but to desperately grasp at straws which don't exist. It has that in common with the multiverse - absolutely no evidence for it, but we want to convince you of it.

Less realistic answer: Circa 1970, the White Panthers advocated for "rock and roll, dope, and ______ in the streets". Circa 1980, there was this slogan on the back of an album "We want to create a world so free we can run wild", and notice the animal imagery:

View attachment 355192

This does tie in with what you said about bears eating their young. Some people may actually want this, in the name of freedom. Both street thugs and the billionaires comprising the World Economic Forum may have this in common. But this is highly speculative and just posted for the fun of it.

Humans ever since the beginning of time have had and made rules for their societies or people groups, etc, so it doesn't matter what reason they are made for, because every society is going to make/have them anyway, and people who don't follow these rules or laws are going to be punished, or face some sort of consequence for it, etc, as it should be, has always been, and always will be, etc.

And saying that a determinist cannot have standards is ridiculous, etc. We still have them the same way you do depending on our own inner convictions on the inside just like you do, etc. We're not lawless animals, and I'm sorry you think that about us. As if we're somehow not human, or don't have a heart or conscience, etc. But I guess it's not really at all uncommon for certain people to try and demonize those who don't think the same way they do due to matters they automatically want to refuse, or do not want to accept, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Chesterton]

Humans ever since the beginning of time have had and made rules for their societies or people groups, etc, so it doesn't matter what reason they are made for, because every society is going to make/have them anyway, and people who don't follow these rules or laws are going to be punished, or face some sort of consequence for it, etc, as it should be, has always been, and always will be, etc.

And saying that a determinist cannot have standards is ridiculous, etc. We still have them the same way you do depending on our own inner convictions on the inside just like you do, etc. We're not lawless animals, and I'm sorry you think that about us. As if we're somehow not human, or don't have a heart or conscience, etc. But I guess it's not really at all uncommon for certain people to try and demonize those who don't think the same way they do due to matters they automatically want to refuse, or do not want to accept, etc.

God Bless.

lol, wut? I said none of those things.

 

[Neogaia777]

lol, wut? I said none of those things.

It was implied. But "whatever".

God Bless.