Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

Depends. Did you deliberate before choosing?

If you didn't then it was random.

You really enjoy bacon and eggs and dislike cereal, but you just read your latest lipid panel. Against your sensitive appetite, you defer to your rational soul and freely choose the cereal (holding your nose).

So your choice was determined.

If there is no free will then what need is there for rehabilitation programs or even prisons. Only exile or life sentences in mental institutions would be in order.

No free will does not preclude change. If something beyond your control leads you to commit a crime, should you be punished? Or should the cause be addressed? If successful then you have been changed for the better. You have been rehabilitated. If not then should the rest of us be protected from you?

 

[o_mlly]

If you didn't then it was random.

No, it would have been habitual.

If something beyond your control leads you to commit a crime, should you be punished?

No. But if our acts are not free then we cannot be responsible for them, and, therefore, not punished.

If successful then you have been changed for the better. You have been rehabilitated.

Why the passive voice? What agency besides oneself can change one's affections, attitudes and behaviors?

 

[Bradskii]

No, it would have been habitual.

You decide if it's preferential to cereal.

No. But if our acts are not free then we cannot be responsible for them, and, therefore, not punished.

Yeah. Kinda freaky, eh? But punishment can serve as a deterrent. Justifiably so. As well as a protection of society from those not rehabilitated. But retribution shouldn't be an option. It invariably is, and I think always will be. But we need to address it as best we can.

What agency besides oneself can change one's affections, attitudes and behaviors?

Some have been listed. Do you want some others? Fear. Shame. Anger. Pride. Lust. A bad night's sleep. Low blood sugar. Alcohol. Age. The weather. Illness. Depression. Culture. Music. How many do you want?

 

[Miles]

The fact that you are uncomfortable with the idea of free will being non-existent does not automatically mean free will must exist. I accept the idea that free will does not exist. I have not lost agency nor am I about to die.

My argument is that a purely deterministic position has little pragmatic value. Sometimes, we can choose. Other times, we cannot. Your position is similar to arguing that it is "all nature" or "all nurture" in the nature vs. nurture debate. Neither extreme parses with reality.

My level of comfort with an idea does not determine its voracity and neither does yours. I would not suggest that you are about to die. Rather, people lack agency in a purely deterministic framework. Lack of agency means death for the will of an individual.

Rubbish. In the ultimate sense free will and determinism are mutually exclusive.

OB

Claiming that a position is "rubbish" isn't an argument.

We build upon what comes before us, we control the sailboat do varying degrees in the weather, etc. There is an interplay of will and circumstance. You qualify your response with "In the ultimate sense". As if one must have complete freedom of will or completely predetermined behavior. What is this "ultimate sense" that you speak of and how does it pertain to reality?

 

[Miles]

If existence is deterministic, it doesn't mean it's predictable. For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost. And then the horse. Then the fight, the battle, the war and the empire. You can work that sequence backwards and you'll find some utterly inconsequential event that has the most far reaching consequences. But you can't start with a loose nail and predict forwards to the fall of an empire.

So getting out of bed and all that happens from that moment on is an unknown. You have no real idea of how the day will turn out. And what happens will change you to some extent.

As @o_mlly said, if you discover that a homeless guy was in that situation through no fault of his own (and 'fault' is a tricky concept when there is no free will) and deserved sympathy then hopefully you become a better person.

It's worth getting out of bed.

"And what happens will change you to some extent," as you said. I don't disagree. Our circumstances, and the extent to which we can act within those circumstances, can vary considerably. A homeless guy may very well find himself in that position through no fault of his own. It probably happens more often than some are willing to acknowledge. However, it doesn't therefore follow that free will doesn't exist. It just means that it isn't absolute.

Even sophisticated computer models don't necessarily predict the future. There's an element of randomness, along with other factors that are unaccounted for. One of those factors, as far as I'm concerned, is how we respond to our individual predicaments.

Put a blank a piece of paper in front of someone, provide them with a sharp pencil, and ask them to draw anything they like. Is what they draw entirely predetermined, or do they have a say in the matter?

 

[o_mlly]

You decide if it's preferential to cereal.

? Yes, you decide, and we call that free will.

Yeah. Kinda freaky, eh? But punishment can serve as a deterrent. Justifiably so. As well as a protection of society from those not rehabilitated. But retribution shouldn't be an option. It invariably is, and I think always will be. But we need to address it as best we can.

One's free will to choose the good can be enhanced by the threat of punishment but then the desire to do good is merely coerced. The free will to do evil is not eliminated. Else we would have no one in prison.

The rest of your post seems to me to merely beg the question? The possibility of rehabilitation, a freely willed change in one's affection, attitude and behavior, presumes a free will.

Some have been listed. Do you want some others? Fear. Shame. Anger. Pride. Lust.

Emotions, the unwilled movements of one's soul, can rule those who have not yet the discipline to pass those emotions by their intellect before acting upon them. But they are the still free as the rulers, the masters of their fate, the captain of their souls. The courageous man overcomes his fear, chastity overcomes lust, meekness overcomes anger, and humility overcomes pride.

A bad night's sleep. Low blood sugar. Alcohol. Age. The weather. Illness. Depression. Culture. Music.

Physical or external conditions may constrain one's ability to choose freely but not eliminate it.

 

[eleos1954]

Then I'd like you to show me a decision that wasn't determined by prior conditions.

Exactly right. Conditions were such that many years ago I thought we definitely had free will. The conditions have changed over time and I have now determined that we don't.

The unconscious is just us working on auto pilot. I don't think anyone would argue that an unconscious act is a free will act. The body acts without us realising what the decision process actually is. My point is that when we perform what we consider to be a free will act then the process is exactly the same. But because we are conscious of the process, it just feels like there's some 'me' doing the decision making.

Difference between our conscious and subconscious mind is our subconscious activities are dependent on learned knowledge or embedded memories – informational memories, intellectual memories, emotional memories – all types of memories.

However we can change our subconscious minds ... that being the case ... then the idea that we will always process it exactly the same does not hold true ... because we can change it.

The unconscious mind is a storage space ...

We think an average of 60,000 thoughts a day, with 95% of them being governed by the subconscious mind. Our subconscious is where we store all of our emotional information and memory, such as the emotions we associate with our traumas and hurts, our fears, anxieties and insecurities, our mistakes, wrongs and regrets.

So ... we can overwrite (reprogram) the unconscious "database" so to speak with our conscious mind. This being the case we are consciously deciding (freedom of choice-free will) what we are storing in our Subconscious.

 

[Bradskii]

Put a blank a piece of paper in front of someone, provide them with a sharp pencil, and ask them to draw anything they like. Is what they draw entirely predetermined, or do they have a say in the matter?

Either it will be completely random or something will present itself unbidden to the person. I say unbidden because you can't think about what you're going to think about.

Try it. Don't think about it, just name the first city that comes into your mind. Now whatever it was it just popped into your head. You might be able to post fact rationalise it - 'it was New York and I'm going there next month'. Prior conditions - you booked a flight there a week ago, determined the answer subconsciously. Else it was truly random.

 

[Bradskii]

? Yes, you decide, and we call that free will.

I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) that a lack of free will doesn't preclude making choices. It impacts on why you made the choice.

One's free will to choose the good can be enhanced by the threat of punishment but then the desire to do good is merely coerced. The free will to do evil is not eliminated. Else we would have no one in prison.

The punishment is actually there to coerce some people. All people think that stealing is wrong. The guy that breaks into your house knows that as a fact. But if he's psychologically unable to empathise and really doesn't care about you having the property stolen then we need to discourage his behaviour.

If he gets caught then it's a case for rehabilitation. Have him in a group discussion with people who have been robbed. Let them explain to him what it feels like. If he has a drug problem then get him clean. If he has a mental problem, then treat it. Let's try to get him to realise the result of his actions. If he doesn't change, or can't, then if he keeps stealing and keeps getting caught then we'll keep locking him up.

The rest of your post seems to me to merely beg the question? The possibility of rehabilitation, a freely willed change in one's affection, attitude and behavior, presumes a free will.

No, it doesn't. You can't decide 'today I'm going to realise that what I'm doing causes distress to people so I'm going to stop'. You either are convinced or you're not. You either believe it or you don't. You can realise that something is true. But you can't decide to believe it.

Emotions, the unwilled movements of one's soul, can rule those who have not yet the discipline to pass those emotions by their intellect before acting upon them.

That's right. Someone will have an ability to do something whereas someone else will not. But you can't decide to have that ability. If you happen to have the discipline to act in a particular way then that's the way you are built. And you have to accept that others are not built the same way. Through no fault of their own.

Physical or external conditions may constrain one's ability to choose freely but not eliminate it.

They dictate how you react.

If your mother was stressed when she was carrrying you because she lost her job, was a single mother and couldn't afford the rent, then your brain development would be seriously compromised. Especially the frontal cortex. Maternal influences on fetal brain development: The role of nutrition, infection and stress, and the potential for intergenerational consequences

And if you grew up in an abusive household and were subject to violence then that really messes with your amygdala, which prompts your flight or fight reactions. Plus: Sensitive periods of amygdala development: The role of maltreatment in preadolescence

'Childhood adversity is a major risk factor for psychopathology associated with 30–70% of the population attributable risk fraction for depression, suicide attempts, anxiety disorders and substance abuse...'

You didn't select your parents. Or where you grew up. You didn't select a mother who didn't drink or smoke or use drugs when you were conceived. You didn't choose to avoid trauma. Neither did the guy who broke into your house. You got lucky. He didn't. We can't blame him for how he turned out. But we can try to address his problems so he has better options. So he can make better decisions.

My place was broken into a while back. Emotionally, I'd want the guy punished because I want retribution. It's an unavoidable instinct. The reptilian part of my brain demands it. But it's not a rational reaction.

 

[Bradskii]

So ... we can overwrite (reprogram) the unconscious "database" so to speak with our conscious mind. This being the case we are consciously deciding (freedom of choice-free will) what we are storing in our Subconscious.

So why would you decide to do that? What would prompt you to change?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I read your post a couple of times but I'm still confused.

This thread was never about first causes and, as far as I can see, neither @Bradskii or myself have suggested anything related to a first cause.



OB

True. It was meant as a 'by-the-by', a remarking concerning the inconsistent logic of many, maybe most, Christians.

 

[Mark Quayle]

o_mlly said:
Depends. Did you deliberate before choosing?

If you didn't then it was random.

Or, at least, it was decided by other causes than your deliberation. Gut reflex, "muscle memory" or habit, etc.

 

[Mark Quayle]

? Yes, you decide, and we call that free will.

One's free will to choose the good can be enhanced by the threat of punishment but then the desire to do good is merely coerced. The free will to do evil is not eliminated. Else we would have no one in prison.

The rest of your post seems to me to merely beg the question? The possibility of rehabilitation, a freely willed change in one's affection, attitude and behavior, presumes a free will.

Emotions, the unwilled movements of one's soul, can rule those who have not yet the discipline to pass those emotions by their intellect before acting upon them. But they are the still free as the rulers, the masters of their fate, the captain of their souls. The courageous man overcomes his fear, chastity overcomes lust, meekness overcomes anger, and humility overcomes pride.

Physical or external conditions may constrain one's ability to choose freely but not eliminate it.

No matter how I've heard this put, in the end, a person choosing ALWAYS chooses according to their preferences and inclinations, even if only what they prefer for that moment of decision. If they are coerced, let's say with a gun to their head, they prefer to live and lose their wallet than to die and still lose their wallet. —(credit: RC Sproul)

 

[o_mlly]

I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) that a lack of free will doesn't preclude making choices. It impacts on why you made the choice.

So, you say, "It (free will) impacts on why you made the choice"? Well, isn't that obvious? We are rational animals. We always have a "why" for our moral choices. The argument I make is that we are also free to engage reason to act against our instincts, passions or primeval urges. We are also free to act like irrational animals and chase the shiny things.

All people think that stealing is wrong. The guy that breaks into your house knows that as a fact. But if he's psychologically unable to empathise and really doesn't care about you ... then ...

... he used his free will to act against his moral code.

They (physical or external conditions) dictate how you react.

No, they do not dictate, they only influence our reactions. Big difference. Without free will, external conditions would dictate our acts. Most Christians believe in "Original Sin", the idea that we come into this world with disordered passions.

Our concupiscent and irascible appetites can move us to disordered attitudes and acts, eg, lust, hatred, fear, sloth, greed, etc. However, through reason we can regulate (free will) these disorders and thereby acquire virtue, the habit to choose the good.

The thief in your hypothetical freely chooses to not regulate his greed. His degree of his culpability for his theft may be mitigated in as much as his free will was constrained by externalities but not entirely so. He could have not stolen.

 

[o_mlly]

No matter how I've heard this put, in the end, a person choosing ALWAYS chooses according to their preferences and inclinations ...

It appears we agree. I use the words "affections" and "attitudes" whereas you use "preferences" and "inclinations".

 

[expos4ever]

So the argument then runs: 'I see what you're saying. It sounds logical. But I just know that I have free will. Look, I'll raise my arm to prove it! So there must be something that we can't detect that isn't connected to a physical reality that operates at a level that we don't understand.'

I don't know who would use this line of argument, but I have never argued anything like this. Nor implied anything like this

Well, yeah. That get-out-of-jail card comes in handy. It can be used to reject anything at all. So I have no problem in discounting it completely. Which might prompt the accusation that 'hey, then you're just a materialist'. Well...yeah again.

I believe you have evaded my question.

 

[eleos1954]

Then I'd like you to show me a decision that wasn't determined by prior conditions.

Exactly right. Conditions were such that many years ago I thought we definitely had free will. The conditions have changed over time and I have now determined that we don't.

The unconscious is just us working on auto pilot. I don't think anyone would argue that an unconscious act is a free will act. The body acts without us realising what the decision process actually is. My point is that when we perform what we consider to be a free will act then the process is exactly the same. But because we are conscious of the process, it just feels like there's some 'me' doing the decision making.

My point was in regard to ... "we will make the same decision every time". Even though we do store memories in our subconscious mind and many of them become automated they can be changed (free will) ... we will make the same decisions ... unless we change it.

Habits are unconscious decisions—that is, they're decisions you make without actually thinking about them. The only way to change these unconscious decisions is to address them at their source: your subconscious mind. The subconscious mind will obey the conscious mind.

We have the free will to change our sub-conscience or conscience minds.

Our minds (thoughts) belong to each of us and are unique unto ourselves ... we have the ability to change them and it IS me doing this or that (consciously or unconsciously) ... it's a matter of how/where the information is stored and retrieved and updated ... whether or not the thoughts have been placed on "auto pilot" or not in regard to making decisions.


We own all our thoughts and have the ability to change them ... or not .... (freewill)

My point is that when we perform what we consider to be a free will act then the process is exactly the same.

Not so ... personal example ...

Years ago I had a bad habit of cussing ... it was a habit (automatic subconscience)... I didn't give any thought to the words I used. Then at one point I made a conscience decision that I didn't want to cuss ... over a period of time I was conscience of it ... now it's on auto pilot ... stored in my unconscious and now I don't have to think about it. My new auto pilot is I don't do it... don't have to think about it. It was a free will decision that was moved to auto pilot.

Our unconscious mind will obey our conscience mind ... it might take some time to rewire/reprogram it ... but can most certainly be done.

Can you image what kind of brain overload we would have without the storage capacity of our unconscious mind?

 

[expos4ever]

My own view is that ultimately NO decisions, actions, functions etc. are the result of free will since all decisions/actions etc are ultimately derived from the actions and reactions of particles, forces and energy. We are each the product of physics. Since we are not able to control physics we cannot exercise free will.

How do you know this, though?

I certainly agree that, as time passes, more and more of the "phenomenology of the world" is fully explicable in terms of physics. But do we really have enough evidence to definitively say that this is this the case with respect to the decisions we make?

In general, I would agree that those of us who, for whatever reason, are inclined to believe in the reality of free will are being painted into a corner. But, as far as I know, the final blow against free will has yet to fall because I suspect (but only suspect and am humbly open to being corrected) that there is not yet enough evidence to conclusively say that all human decisions are exhaustively explained by the laws of physics.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know who would use this line of argument...

You implied it with a 'what if...' And anyone who uses that argument often believes that we have a soul.

I believe you have evaded my question.

It's no good just saying 'there might be something that's not connected to physical reality that's making the decisions' or words to that effect. If you can show me that that actually happens, then I'd be incorrect. Otherwise all you're saying 'if you're not right, you must be wrong'.

 

[Miles]

How do you know this, though?

I certainly agree that, as time passes, more and more of the "phenomenology of the world" is fully explicable in terms of physics. But do we really have enough evidence to definitively say that this is this the case with respect to the decisions we make?

In general, I would agree that those of us who, for whatever reason, are inclined to believe in the reality of free will are being painted into a corner. But, as far as I know, the final blow against free will has yet to fall because I suspect (but only suspect and am humbly open to being corrected) that there is not yet enough evidence to conclusively say that all human decisions are exhaustively explained by the laws of physics.

“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.”
- Archimedes

I wonder if he has considered that were we not composed of particles, we would not even be able to contemplate free will. Each of us exists on the atomic and subatomic level. Our brains also can envision what free will is. The fact that we are comprised of components doesn't mean that sadness isn't sadness, joy isn't joy, or choice isn't choice. Determinism is a philosophical position. No more scientific than the position that we do have free will.

As far as philosophy goes, it is an old and thought-provoking question. Especially, in my opinion, when explored in terms of the illusion of choice vs. real choice. This is why I prefer to take a pragmatic stance. For practical purposes, in terms of accomplishing things in the real world, we have varying degrees of free will given our circumstances. There is a qualitative difference between acting and simply reacting to our circumstances. We can argue about whether free will is illusory, but once that door is opened everything else can also be viewed as illusory. A position that I don't find particularly useful.

Our brains have a cortex, nuclei, and fiber pathways. The laws of physics apply to us and our circumstances. However, this doesn't mean our thoughts aren't thoughts. That's one reason why not even a purely materialistic position conclusively answers the question of free will. It would just be free will within a purely materialistic system. And that's without even delving into concepts like quantum states and multiverses.