Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

No. Only man's moral acts have an end in view and that end may be proximate or remote. Conversely, all human acts with an end in view are moral acts.

You either do something for a reason - you get up from your chair to use the toilet, walk the dog, make a coffee, or you do it for no reason at all. Random acts are discounted when we consider free will. Which leaves us with all others. Whether they have moral implications or not. Your job is to show me a free will act that wasn't random that had no cause. Over 400 posts so far and no-one has even attempted that yet. You can even make one up if you like...

Patently false. Show me the hungry animal that fasts from eating willingly in the presence of plenty. That animal would only be the human animal.

As I said, we are animals that are more self aware than others. And in regard to animals eating whatever is in front of them in times of plenty, it's unfortunately exactly the reason why people are overweight. We have that animal instinct. Do some us choose to control what we eat because we consider or health (and because we can't get into those jeans we bought a couple of years ago)? Yes, for those reasons. They are the cause of us choosing to skip the extra portion of pasta. Like I said, we are more self aware than other mammals.

Then they must also reject evolution as a full explanation of mankind? If they do not then their worldviews are incoherent.

Rejecting evolution is like rejecting gravity. It's a fact of our existence. Evolution was the cause of free will either existing or the cause of it not existing. If you want to reject it then that allows for a religious argument suggesting that someone must have given it to us. In a garden. With a fruit tree and a snake in there somewhere. You'll have to discuss that elsewhere. I'm not interested.

? Pinker begins, "There’s no such thing as free will in the sense of a ghost in the machine; our behavior is the product of physical processes in the brain rather than some mysterious soul".

He says that even though human moral acts are reasonable they are unpredictable (invoking a Laplace like argument), and those acts are not miracles. Well, OK. We are rational beings, and it isn't a miracle when I freely decide to abstain from an animalistic impulse.

Then we agree that your claim that one needs free will to be an atheist is wrong. And I did point out that Pinker is conflating predictability with determinism. And 'abstain from an animalistic impulse'? Do you know why we have those? Do you know why the hairs on our body stand up when we're frightened? Do you know why we draw our lips back and show our teeth when we are really angry? Do you know why we lower our head when we are shamed? It's the same reason we find it difficult to resist sweet things.

But if you want others to buy into your beliefs then evidence and convincing logic are necessary. I have not seen either of those in this thread.

The evidence I have already given.
1. Every event has a cause.
2. Therefore the world is determinate and...
2a: Predictability should not be conflated with determinism.
3. We operate within the bounds of natural laws.
4. Every act we perform therefore has a cause that determines our action. We can infer direct links between them.
5. We are quite often unaware of the reasons so assume we made the choice is made without them.
6. We know the process whereby we make decisions and there is nowhere in that process to squeeze in a willful decision that is not free from antecedent conditions.
7. No evidence has been given for the existence of free will, other than to say 'We make decisions, therefore...'

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah its a bummer when a string breaks. Though I guess it depends of the choice of strings sometimes. I have bought the cheap $7 ones online and they are crap lol.

They say the thicker ones wont break as much. But a full bend doesn't exactly flow easily when you've got something that feels like fence wire under your finger. I have been tempted to drop the tuning a half step to put less strain on the strings, but that causes a problem when trying to match one's playing to a track or a lesson on youtube.

I wonder how the quantum world fits into this equation which undermines the deterministic view of reality. I think for the most part we don't have free will and there are subconscious influences happening all the time.

But on the other hand some interpretations of QM makes the observer part of the equation. Their conscious choices and measures can influence reality collapsing any possibile reality into a single reality. Each person having their own version of reality.

I'm discounting quantum effects. Yes, they are apparently indeterminate, but at a level many levels below what we are discussing. Any effects are just lost in the noise and wouldn't affect macro events. It's like saying that it's possible that all the quantum events occurring in the Buddha on my desk could make it move it's arm. Well...yes. That is possible in theory. But impossible in a practical sense. All the quantum events would have to work in unison to make it happen. That's simply not credible. Even for a one off event. To think that it happens all the time to guide our thoughts is not reasonable.

And in any case, if our thoughts were guided by random events, then that is hardly a good definition of free will.

I think we intuit that we have some control over reality, over the conditions we find ourselves in and its not some evolutionary illusion. Evolution fails to explain the agancy of creatures especially humans. How we can actually direct our own evolution through niche constructions and behaviour choices that are conducive and beneficial to survival.

Our choices do affect the course of evolution to the extent that we can now direct it. As to whether the impression of free will is part of the evolutionary process then I think it might have been. It's beneficial to ostracise the guy who doesn't share a portion of his kill or doesn't work to help build a shelter. You are left with a group that is willing to work together and it reduces the free loaders. But you can't ostracise someone if there is no free will because you can't blame him for what he did (the concept of justice in regard to the lack of free will needs its own discussion). So the feeling that someone is to blame, or is worthy of praise or punishment could be seen as an evolutionary benefit.

Wheeler supported similar ideas with his Participatory Universe. He likened conscious beings as the universe looking back on itself. We are not just passive players as far as reality is concerned but are part of the equation in creating reality. We cannot remove ourselves from influencing things.

I've often said that we are parts of the universe that have become self aware. I thought I might have got that thought originally from Carl Sagan. Maybe it was Wheeler. Niels Bohr also suggested that Man is “entangled in this participatory universe”.

 

[Bradskii]

So, as an example of a semantical construct please note, I am in control and the proof is that I didn't pee my pants, and I was responsible for caring for the dog because I got the dog some water. Hence my actions/inactions will affect reality and I have become the cause and the antecedent event that will affect others whether realized or not.

Yeah, the event cause by antecedent conditions will then be the conditions that cause another event. And so on ad infinitum. The point being is that although we can't generally predict the future events it works backwards as well, so we know without any doubt that the world is deterministic.

As far as I know, I can only be in one place at a time. Suppose I neglected other causes, which could have bypassed other antecedent events that could have affected choices, in lieu of getting the dog water and going to the bathroom or getting something to eat, etc...

Does being bored count as desiring to want something and does taking Viagra count as wanting to desire something? (Just a thought).

The choice is yours. You do what you want to do- a second level decision as regards free will. Viagra will be that second level decision. You desire to have sex, which is at the first level, you have no control over that desire. But then you look at options that enable you to have it. So you choose a course of action that will result in you experiencing your first level desire.

But...there was a cause in you making that choice. It was determined.

Like I said earlier, simply being born and being made alive and sentient, is an antecedent. But there are both deductive and inductive reasoning. While it would be futile to argue that my choices/options are not caused by antecedent events, it would be just as futile to argue against my being a moderator in the course of events and an antecedent in a future chain of events. It's logical that for every action there is a reaction, so it's logical that a free will in a semantical construct would be relative to knowledge/ignorance of the objective view.

If you can predict the future event, it becomes a cause for making the decision. 'If I shoot the guy, he'll be dead'. That fact, known before the decision is made, is then an antecedent condition. If THIS then THAT is the basis for any decision about a future event. If you think you know what THAT will be then it's knowledge you have before THIS is acted upon.

 

[Diamond72]

a tiny change in a sequence of events can have far reaching consequences.

Actually the butterfly effect is an illustration of what happens when you round off numbers. Something that appears to be insignificant can have catastrophic consequences.

 

[stevevw]

They say the thicker ones wont break as much. But a full bend doesn't exactly flow easily when you've got something that feels like fence wire under your finger. I have been tempted to drop the tuning a half step to put less strain on the strings, but that causes a problem when trying to match one's playing to a track or a lesson on youtube.

Thats why I like playing the classical guitar as the strings seem to be less stressed and more flexible and they don't cut into your fingers as much. If the small one breaks a bit of fishing line will suffice. If that fails you can put a hook on the string and go fishing lol.

I'm discounting quantum effects. Yes, they are apparently indeterminate, but at a level many levels below what we are discussing. Any effects are just lost in the noise and wouldn't affect macro events. It's like saying that it's possible that all the quantum events occurring in the Buddha on my desk could make it move it's arm. Well...yes. That is possible in theory. But impossible in a practical sense. All the quantum events would have to work in unison to make it happen. That's simply not credible. Even for a one off event. To think that it happens all the time to guide our thoughts is not reasonable.

And in any case, if our thoughts were guided by random events, then that is hardly a good definition of free will.

But unlike the Buddha statue we have a conscious mind that can interject into the equation. If consciousness is linked and has to be counted in how reality works then the only aspect that is not subject to the physical interactions is the mind as thoughts cannot be reduced to physical processes.

Taken on a macro level this may be expressed in agency, in how our choices and actions can alter physical reality such as the enviornment or our internal states to adjust to ebvironments. Unlike inanament objects which are entire subject to for forces of nature and the physical processes that shape them.

I think free will and determinism only work when it comes to those physical aspects and processes we are subject to which are within the physical needs hierarchy on human behaviour. But as Maslows hierarchy on needs mentions the higher needs like self actualisation and conscious self these are the part of humans that seem to transcend the physical and play an important part of our reality and are not subject to the physical aspects.

Our choices do affect the course of evolution to the extent that we can now direct it. As to whether the impression of free will is part of the evolutionary process then I think it might have been. It's beneficial to ostracise the guy who doesn't share a portion of his kill or doesn't work to help build a shelter. You are left with a group that is willing to work together and it reduces the free loaders. But you can't ostracise someone if there is no free will because you can't blame him for what he did (the concept of justice in regard to the lack of free will needs its own discussion). So the feeling that someone is to blame, or is worthy of praise or punishment could be seen as an evolutionary benefit.

Yes but these benefits are not necessarily the result of biological and physical processes. Like theres no gene for justice. It seems a concept, a value which has force beyond the physical. Not just for cooperation within society but also that we can create our own anviornments and behaviours that we know will be of benefit to our survival.

Even cultural practices which bring wellbeing and harmony with nature as opposed to negative behaviours and environments that we can create such as diseases, disorders and pollutants which hinder our survival, These are a matter of how the individual or group sets themselves up as being conducive or destructive. Sort of like you reap what you sow and your are what you eat. We can choose either I think Though some may have a propensity to behave in certain ways and this makes it harder for them to change behaviour. But it can be done with effort and help.

I've often said that we are parts of the universe that have become self aware. I thought I might have got that thought originally from Carl Sagan. Maybe it was Wheeler. Niels Bohr also suggested that Man is “entangled in this participatory universe”.

Yes I find this interesting. Wheeler actually says that in being a part of creating reality through the choices and measures we make we also change the past. How we see the universe today as reality was different than 50 or 100 years ago when people believed that this was their reality. In 100 years from now we will have created another reality through the choices and measures we make.

In that sense we are creating reality or perhaps discovering a deeper reality. This can only happen because of consciousness and the injection of consciousness is effecting how we see reality. The two are antangled and in some ways the universe is waking up to itself. This is the aspect I think that goes beyond the objective physical reality that is missing in measures of free will and agency because it is assumed that all is physical and thus free will and consciousness are epiphenomena and secondary byproducts of the physical.

Thus everything is deterministic as its governed by physical and mechanical processes and prgrams. But when we add this extra dimension that science leaves out when quantifying reality we see that there is room for self, the agent and observer who can have a degree of control over their own destiny, their evolution and even reality itself.

 

[Bradskii]

Thats why I like playing the classical guitar as the strings seem to be less stressed and more flexible and they don't cut into your fingers as much. If the small one breaks a bit of fishing line will suffice. If that fails you can put a hook on the string and go fishing lol.

I've tuned my 12 string down a complete tone. Less stress on the neck.

But unlike the Buddha statue we have a conscious mind that can interject into the equation. If consciousness is linked and has to be counted in how reality works then the only aspect that is not subject to the physical interactions is the mind as thoughts cannot be reduced to physical processes.

I disagree. Plug someone into a brain scanner and tell them to think of something they enjoy or something the dislike and we can see different regions of the limbic system lighting up. That's showing physical processes happening. Think of someone you love for example and parts of the system that produce dopamine kick in. The pituitary gland and hypothalamus are involved. And you can physically produce the emotion (which we'd probably agree is not something specifically physical) by literally injecting dopamine. And you can alter your mood by taking common substances like cocaine and alcohol. They are physical substances that cause physical process that result in emotions.

Now, does that solve the hard problem of consciousness? Not really. But we don't need to do that to claim that the process of making a decision and the reasons we make them (maybe due to dopamine, alcohol, coke or some other cause) is physical.

Taken on a macro level this may be expressed in agency, in how our choices and actions can alter physical reality such as the enviornment or our internal states to adjust to ebvironments.

No problem there. We are links in the chain.

Yes but these benefits are not necessarily the result of biological and physical processes. Like theres no gene for justice. It seems a concept, a value which has force beyond the physical. Not just for cooperation within society but also that we can create our own environments and behaviours that we know will be of benefit to our survival.

The benefits are most definitely the result of physical processes. If we're in a group and you physically excuse yourself from helping out then we might decide that you don't share the benefits of what we are doing. That's common throughout nature. Because it's an evolutionary benefit. If any given organism lives in a collective it's because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Allowing free loaders is detrimental to the group. I don't think that bats, for example, have a concept of justice, but they operate on such a basis despite them not possessing a 'gene for justice'.

We do the same, we always have and we call that process justice.

Yes I find this interesting. Wheeler actually says that in being a part of creating reality through the choices and measures we make we also change the past. How we see the universe today as reality was different than 50 or 100 years ago when people believed that this was their reality. In 100 years from now we will have created another reality through the choices and measures we make.

There are some who believe that there is something akin to backward causation in regard to free will. It's physically impossible. Maybe what Wheeler meant was that the more knowledge we gain the more it changes our view of the past. So if we reach a point where we understand that the toothless old woman living on her own had a mental problem rather than being possessed by the devil, we wouldn't have burnt her at the stake.

Having checked, it might be this: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/02/21/587249333/can-we-change-the-past#:~:text=Surprisingly, yes.,present can influence the past.

'...there is something called Wheeler's delayed-choice experiments that show that actions in the present can influence the past.

The experiments use something called the wave-particle duality of light and of matter, the fact that the physical nature of quantum objects is undetermined until it is measured. In other words, this means that a particle of light, or of matter, can behave either as a wave (spreading out in space, showing interference) or as a particle...'

Anything at the quantum level is discounted for reasons I gave earlier

Thus everything is deterministic as its governed by physical and mechanical processes and prgrams. But when we add this extra dimension that science leaves out when quantifying reality we see that there is room for self, the agent and observer who can have a degree of control over their own destiny, their evolution and even reality itself.

Not at the quantum level. I can appreciate the theory that a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world can cause a tornado in another. But quantum level events mean that we are talking about butterfly wings affecting the orbit of a planet somewhere in another galaxy.

 

[o_mlly]

You either do something for a reason ...

Or you do something else. We call that free will.

Your job is to show me a free will act that wasn't random that had no cause

Nope. The assertion is yours. Your job is to show evidence that free will is non-existent. None yet.

And in regard to animals eating whatever is in front of them in times of plenty, it's unfortunately exactly the reason why people are overweight.

And why are some people not overweight? You guessed it: Free Will. We can act with or against our body's appetites,

Like I said, we are more self aware than other mammals.

Strange. You seem confused as now you argue that only self-aware mammals can have free will?

The evidence I have already given.
1. Every event has a cause.
2. Therefore the world is determinate and...
2a: Predictability should not be conflated with determinism.
3. We operate within the bounds of natural laws.
4. Every act we perform therefore has a cause that determines our action. We can infer direct links between them.
5. We are quite often unaware of the reasons so assume we made the choice is made without them.
6. We know the process whereby we make decisions and there is nowhere in that process to squeeze in a willful decision that is not free from antecedent conditions.
7. No evidence has been given for the existence of free will, other than to say 'We make decisions, therefore...'

1. So what? Does not negate free will.
2. Non-sequitur as 1 is dismissed as evidence of the absence of free will.
2a. False. The Laplace argument still holds.
3. Begs the question. By nature, we have free will.
4. See 1.
5. Nope. All moral acts have a reason, an intended end in view.
6. Externalities that may or may not move us to do one thing rather than another do not, in themselves, eliminate free will.
7. Free will is self-evident. The burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

Sorry, nothing here to support your opinion.

This whole thread seems to be one person's meandering and unsuccessful search to find evidence to support the non-existence of free will. Of course, exactly because his biased opinion is in error, he may freely will to keep his opinion.

 

[stevevw]

I've tuned my 12 string down a complete tone. Less stress on the neck.

I love 12 strings. It always reminds me of 'Wish you were here'.

I disagree. Plug someone into a brain scanner and tell them to think of something they enjoy or something the dislike and we can see different regions of the limbic system lighting up. That's showing physical processes happening. Think of someone you love for example and parts of the system that produce dopamine kick in. The pituitary gland and hypothalamus are involved. And you can physically produce the emotion (which we'd probably agree is not something specifically physical) by literally injecting dopamine. And you can alter your mood by taking common substances like cocaine and alcohol. They are physical substances that cause physical process that result in emotions.

But on the other hand you can for example recall a significant experience and this can have physical effects on your body as you relive the event in your mind. So the mind is actually exciting physical processes without that physical reality being in play.

The excitations in the brain scans are a quantitative measure of the activity but that activity itself is not the experience which like emotions is of a non physical nature. We could map every brain activity for every experience and still not capture the qualitative nature of the experiences of a organge sunset or the tingles from your favorite piece of music.

Now, does that solve the hard problem of consciousness? Not really. But we don't need to do that to claim that the process of making a decision and the reasons we make them (maybe due to dopamine, alcohol, coke or some other cause) is physical.

I think thats part of it but not all of it. I don't believe that my sense of agency is an illusion caused by brain chemicals and the sense that it has more depth than that in how we experience ourselves in the world is more than those physical processes.

Sure theres a physical reaction and process but they don't explain the mentation and experience itself. Its like saying the experience of your favorite music record is contained in the physical processes of the stylis scratching the plastic on vinyl.

No problem there. We are links in the chain.

The benefits are most definitely the result of physical processes. If we're in a group and you physically excuse yourself from helping out then we might decide that you don't share the benefits of what we are doing. That's common throughout nature. Because it's an evolutionary benefit. If any given organism lives in a collective it's because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Allowing free loaders is detrimental to the group. I don't think that bats, for example, have a concept of justice, but they operate on such a basis despite them not possessing a 'gene for justice'.

I think its more than just a trade off for survival. If that was the case an arguement could be made that in times of low resources those who use might will survive over those who don't. As the case has so often been and still is in some ways such as with a class society where the wealthy have a better standard of life and survival.

There seems at least for humans more a conscious understanding of a more transcendent aspect to reality that is powerful in itself which seems to remain pretty stable for most.

Research shows that humans are born or at least from soon after birth have a sense of empathy, fairness, justice and kindness. It makes sense that if there is this more spiritual and moral aspect to humans that exists in the world apart from the objective world then humans naturally sense that we have to behave a certain way to live together.

Not because evolution tricked us into believing this but because thats who we are from the beginning. Not just physical creatures living on base instincts but also spiritual beings able to sense a deeper reality that makes the world go round.

We do the same, we always have and we call that process justice.

There are some who believe that there is something akin to backward causation in regard to free will. It's physically impossible. Maybe what Wheeler meant was that the more knowledge we gain the more it changes our view of the past. So if we reach a point where we understand that the toothless old woman living on her own had a mental problem rather than being possessed by the devil, we wouldn't have burnt her at the stake.

Having checked, it might be this: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/02/21/587249333/can-we-change-the-past#:~:text=Surprisingly, yes.,present can influence the past.
'...there is something called Wheeler's delayed-choice experiments that show that actions in the present can influence the past.

The experiments use something called the wave-particle duality of light and of matter, the fact that the physical nature of quantum objects is undetermined until it is measured. In other words, this means that a particle of light, or of matter, can behave either as a wave (spreading out in space, showing interference) or as a particle...'

Yes Wheelers delayed choice experiments. Its very interesting. I think this quote sums it up

No wonder Wheeler liked to called such ideas as being indicative of a "participatory universe," that is, of a universe where our minds are somehow deeply connected with the very fabric of space and time.

I think there is truth in this. If consciousness is part of the equation of reality then its linked to the fabric of space and time and yet can transcend the fabric of space and time.

The choices we make and the measures we take change reality even objective reality in that what we once thought was the past can also be changed into a new and different past which then changes our reality for past, present and future.

But when we understand how this becomes a evolving reality that we are creating we understand that what we call objective reality is but a surface reflection we are continually updating of something deeper which is our own minds. Thus making mind fundemental and not the the physical world we percieve.

Anything at the quantum level is discounted for reasons I gave earlier

I am not sure what you mean as applied to say consciousness or say agency. Perhaps our common perception of the physical world is just a giant wave collapse we all instantly percieve, Way to fast to see at the macro level.

Not at the quantum level. I can appreciate the theory that a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world can cause a tornado in another. But quantum level events mean that we are talking about butterfly wings affecting the orbit of a planet somewhere in another galaxy.

I think it must start at the quantum level. If as Wheeler and others propose that our minds are deeply entangled in the faabric of space and time then as some of the QM interpretations suggest it is mind, the conscious observer who is collapsing the wave function. At least for the conscious measures and choices where we focus attention. We sort of inject ourselves into the equation and reality itself which will influence the outcomes.

We are not aware of any of this as it happens so fast. But we get the end results in how our conscious involvement can alter things. Its obviously much more complex than this.

But fundementally it makes sense that Mind and consciousness should be entangled with physical reality at the most fundemental level if Mind is fundemental. I don't think they operate seperately as science has tried to do in taking the scientist out of the science, the observer out of the equation.

 

[Diamond72]

Plug someone into a brain scanner and tell them to think of something

Neuroscientists hooked up mathematicians to a MRI machine and the orbitofrontal cortex lit up. The same area from a previous study that lites up when people look at paintings or listen to music. The more beautiful they rated it the more the cortex lit up. So there is a connection between math or science and art. This maybe why Carl Sagan can stare off into space and say: It is all so beautiful.

Science is based on discovery not on invention the way some YEC people suppose. There is an aesthetic beauty to color and pattern. I personally love rocks and Jesus said even the rocks would cry out. Luke 19: 40 “I tell you,” He answered, “if they remain silent, the very stones will cry out.”

The earth started off very hot and then it cooled and the liquid turned into stone and then they were broken into pieces and the pieces weathered in the river or on the beach so that they became rounded and either flat or egg shaped. It is amazing at how easy they are to balance. Also it is amazing how tiny the point of balance can be.

We have our Bible but the rocks, creation itself crys out and we can not ignore what God is telling us. Romans 1 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

People say where is it in the Bible and we say open up your eyes and look at God's creation and see what creation is telling you. Listen to God as He is speaking to you in all that He has done.

 

[Bradskii]

Or you do something else.

So if you don't do something for a reason, the only other 'something else' is doing something for no reason. That would then be random. How can a random event illustrate free will?

Nope. The assertion is yours. Your job is to show evidence that free will is non-existent.

I have asserted that the world is determinate. You've agreed to that. That all effects have antecedent causes. Literally everything that happens is the evidence for that. If you now disagree then you have to show just one example that disproves it.

If determinate then everything you do is physically determined by those antecedent events. By definition. It's what determinate actuallyo means. That includes your choices. The evidence for that is that we can show reasons for every choice you make. You either use those reasons to make your choices or you make them randomly.

Your only argument can be to show that free will is incompatible with determinism. Give it a shot... but please try something different to 'free will is self evident'.

 

[Diamond72]

So the mind is actually exciting physical processes without that physical reality being in play.

I wish we knew more about the mind. I have problems to remember things and we do not even know how memory works in the mind. I did read a interesting book on that though. The language of life and how communication takes place in the brain. Even DNA was an amazing discovery back in the 60's when was in High School. We now know how people reproduce themselves.

Research is beginning to show how learned behavior can be passed from generation to generation. What we use to call instinct.

Epigenetics explores how environmental factors can influence gene expression, potentially leading to changes in behavior that can be inherited. For example, studies have shown that traumatic experiences in one generation can impact the behavior and even the biology of offspring. This concept adds layers of complexity to our understanding of behavior and genetics, blurring the lines between what we traditionally considered instinctual and learned behaviors.

I have talked to people who say they can feel it in their blood the tragedy that their ancestors suffered.

 

[Diamond72]

I think it must start at the quantum level. If as Wheeler and others propose that our minds are deeply entangled in the faabric of space and time

The question is how much does consciousness play a fundamental role in shaping reality. When I was doing construction work and we had to do the impossible. Or at least keep trying to do it. I was amazed at how much our mind can control the physical world that we work with.

 

[partinobodycular]

If determinate then everything you do is physically determined by those antecedent events.

Unfortunately, I only have a few minutes to respond at the moment, but I just wanted to say that I think there's a strong possibility that the idea that the past causes the present is just flat out wrong.

I think that it's more likely that all time effects all time, all the time. And as an argument for that, I'll invoke Feynman's explanation for why light always travels in a straight line. On a fundamental basis things don't take a one way path through spacetime. They take all possible paths.

But as I say, I don't have time to get into it at the moment... so why did I mention it? Because this forces me to spend the rest of the day thinking about it, and that my friends is one of the things that I live for... thinking about stuff.

 

[o_mlly]

So if you don't do something for a reason, the only other 'something else' is doing something for no reason.

Not so. The moral decision is often one of reflection, the evaluation and balancing of multiple reasons.

How can a random event illustrate free will?

There are no random moral acts.

I have asserted that the world is determinate. You've agreed to that. That all effects have antecedent causes. Literally everything that happens is the evidence for that.

I have agreed that all moral acts are determined, and that the moral agent is the determiner. What has not been demonstrated is evidence or cogent logic that removes the moral agent from the equation.

If determinate then everything you do is physically determined by those antecedent events.

Nope. See above.

The evidence for that is that we can show reasons for every choice you make.

No. You can tell me your reasons and I can tell you mine. But we cannot tell each other the reasons the other acted so with any certainty. We are the moral agents of our moral acts.

Your only argument can be to show that free will is incompatible with determinism. Give it a shot... but please try something different to 'free will is self evident.

Why would I need to argue that? Do you disagree that free will is incompatible with (hard) determinism?

It is entirely within our power to form or fail to form the virtuous disposition to will as one ought that constitutes an individual's moral freedom. That is a self-evident fact.

 

[Bradskii]

I love 12 strings. It always reminds me of 'Wish you were here'.

One of the 'must know how to play' if you have a 12 string. Plus a lot of Supertramp. Luckily I'm a big fan of both bands.

But on the other hand you can for example recall a significant experience and this can have physical effects on your body as you relive the event in your mind. So the mind is actually exciting physical processes without that physical reality being in play.

The excitations in the brain scans are a quantitative measure of the activity but that activity itself is not the experience which like emotions is of a non physical nature. We could map every brain activity for every experience and still not capture the qualitative nature of the experiences of a organge sunset or the tingles from your favorite piece of music.

I think thats part of it but not all of it. I don't believe that my sense of agency is an illusion caused by brain chemicals and the sense that it has more depth than that in how we experience ourselves in the world is more than those physical processes.

Sure theres a physical reaction and process but they don't explain the mentation and experience itself. Its like saying the experience of your favorite music record is contained in the physical processes of the stylis scratching the plastic on vinyl.

Good example with the vinyl. It's a physical process (the needle in the groove) that produces a physical event (sound waves) which in turn produces events within the brain which produces an emotion. Which then might determine an action. That we are unsure of where the emotion 'lives' doesn't exclude any of the process which determines the act.

I think its more than just a trade off for survival. If that was the case an arguement could be made that in times of low resources those who use might will survive over those who don't. As the case has so often been and still is in some ways such as with a class society where the wealthy have a better standard of life and survival.

A group response in lean times is even more efficient. And rich people rarely get rich on their own. But an interesting tread on socialism v capitalism as it relates to evolution might be worth looking at some time.

There seems at least for humans more a conscious understanding of a more transcendent aspect to reality that is powerful in itself which seems to remain pretty stable for most.

Research shows that humans are born or at least from soon after birth have a sense of empathy, fairness, justice and kindness. It makes sense that if there is this more spiritual and moral aspect to humans that exists in the world apart from the objective world then humans naturally sense that we have to behave a certain way to live together...
Not because evolution tricked us into believing this but because thats who we are from the beginning. Not just physical creatures living on base instincts but also spiritual beings able to sense a deeper reality that makes the world go round.

Those characteristics evolved because they were beneficial in forming groups. Which were more beneficial than going it alone. Not really relevant to this discussion. And I won't be commenting on transcendent or spiritual matters. For obvious reasons.

I think there is truth in this. If consciousness is part of the equation of reality then its linked to the fabric of space and time and yet can transcend the fabric of space and time.

No comment on transcendent aspects of this.

The choices we make and the measures we take change reality even objective reality...

Yes

...in that what we once thought was the past can also be changed into a new and different past which then changes our reality for past, present and future.

And no. There is no evidence for this.

I am not sure what you mean as applied to say consciousness or say agency. Perhaps our common perception of the physical world is just a giant wave collapse we all instantly percieve, Way to fast to see at the macro level.

I think it must start at the quantum level. If as Wheeler and others propose that our minds are deeply entangled in the faabric of space and time then as some of the QM interpretations suggest it is mind, the conscious observer who is collapsing the wave function. At least for the conscious measures and choices where we focus attention. We sort of inject ourselves into the equation and reality itself which will influence the outcomes.

Again, we are talking about orders of magnitude a very long way beneath the level at which events occur and decisions are made. And even if it wasn't so far removed, introducing randomness into the process is hardly likely to convince anyone that free will exists. Quantum effects fail if they don't affect us. And fail if they do.

We are not aware of any of this as it happens so fast. But we get the end results in how our conscious involvement can alter things. Its obviously much more complex than this.

That sounds like an appeal rather than a statement. Surely it must be more complex! Because...well, because we just know that we have free will!

 

[Bradskii]

The earth started off very hot and then it cooled and the liquid turned into stone and then they were broken into pieces and the pieces weathered in the river or on the beach so that they became rounded and either flat or egg shaped. It is amazing at how easy they are to balance. Also it is amazing how tiny the point of balance can be.

There's something about rocks that make people want to balance one on another.

 

[Bradskii]

Unfortunately, I only have a few minutes to respond at the moment, but I just wanted to say that I think there's a strong possibility that the idea that the past causes the present is just flat out wrong.

Maybe you can discuss this with @stevevw. He thinks the present can change the past. Should be interesting...

 

[Bradskii]

Not so. The moral decision is often one of reflection, the evaluation and balancing of multiple reasons.
There are no random moral acts.
I have agreed that all moral acts are determined, and that the moral agent is the determiner. What has not been demonstrated is evidence or cogent logic that removes the moral agent from the equation.

You aren't removed from the process. You are part of the process. You are receiving input and that determines output. You make a choice, whether it's chocolate of vanilla or whether you pull the trigger or not based on every single antecedent event that was ever connected in any way to your decision. That is what a determinate universe is. All events have a cause. Else the event was random.

No. You can tell me your reasons and I can tell you mine. But we cannot tell each other the reasons the other acted so with any certainty. We are the moral agents of our moral acts.

Yes again. It's you that makes the decision. I haven't said anything to the contrary. In fact I have confirmed it myself. This is a straw man army you're recruiting. In simple cases I can tell you the proximate reason I made a choice. Mostly I can't. Would I have made the same choices I do now if I had been brought up as a slave in ancient Greece or a Jew in pre war Berlin? It's crazy to suggest that I would. But I don't mull over the fact that I was born in post war UK to a religious working class family. But those facts, those events have influenced all decisions I have subsequently made.

If you'll recall an earlier post, I am here in Sydney typing this because of a phone call I made at a random time in a pub that someone else chose to go to in London many decades ago. That obviously determines a lot of what I do now. But I don't mull on that. I wouldn't use that fact as one of the reasons I am doing this. It seems tenuous. But it's a direct link to the present. But...there are literally an infinite number of events that direct what we do. So yeah, we can't tell each other with certainty why we acted in such a way. You don't even know yourself.

Why would I need to argue that? Do you disagree that free will is incompatible with (hard) determinism?

I haven't seen any argument that comes anywhere near suggesting that free will is compatible with determinism. Which, maybe you've honestly missed the whole idea of the thread, is what this is all about. You haven't even begun to address it yet, let alone make an argument against it.

It is entirely within our power to form or fail to form the virtuous disposition to will as one ought that constitutes an individual's moral freedom. That is a self-evident fact.

Again, you are just denying what I am saying but offering nothing to counter it except...it appears self evident. Which, as I have said, is the problem. Because, as I just said, we are completely unaware of all the myriad reasons we actually make decisions and would be incapable of evaluating them even if we did. So it then it appears as if it's free will.

 

[Diamond72]

There's something about rocks that make people want to balance one on another.

I see photos on the internet where people go a lot further with it than I do.

 

[stevevw]

I wish we knew more about the mind. I have problems to remember things and we do not even know how memory works in the mind. I did read a interesting book on that though. The language of life and how communication takes place in the brain. Even DNA was an amazing discovery back in the 60's when was in High School. We now know how people reproduce themselves.

Research is beginning to show how learned behavior can be passed from generation to generation. What we use to call instinct.

Epigenetics explores how environmental factors can influence gene expression, potentially leading to changes in behavior that can be inherited. For example, studies have shown that traumatic experiences in one generation can impact the behavior and even the biology of offspring. This concept adds layers of complexity to our understanding of behavior and genetics, blurring the lines between what we traditionally considered instinctual and learned behaviors.

I have talked to people who say they can feel it in their blood the tragedy that their ancestors suffered.

Yes the mind is powerful and we are yet to fully understand how it works. Behavioural psychology took a big step in helping us understand how the mind (psyche) is really behind our behaviour and is a powerful force in shaping reality.

I think epigenetics is related as it seems that the behaviour chosen, the cultural norms and practices people live by can have an influence on physical processes like the expression of genes both positive and negative.

What this shows is that the mind, consciousness is not a seperate aspect to physical reality but interconnected and in fact directing much of what happens. A force that is seperate and non physical which influences the physical through the choices and behaviour made which also feeds back into the mind, the phyche to further influence reality.