Free will and determinism

[partinobodycular]

If it wasn't random then tell us why you chose it.

As I stated in my previous post, they just popped into my head. Then I contemplated them for a moment, decided that they were appropriate, and posted them. That's pretty much it. Not a lot of deep intellectual or emotional baggage to unpack.

But don't ask me why they popped into my head, they just did, and I posted them simply because they were appropriate.

 

[partinobodycular]

If it wasn't random then tell us why you chose it.

I'll give you some context for the second one... Angie Dickinson.

You may remember that Angie Dickinson was a popular actress back in the 70's. She was on Policewoman. But for some reason I just didn't like her, and I couldn't figure out why. And that annoyed me... why don't I like her... I thought about it a lot, but I never figured it out.

So when you asked:

So why did you write it?

Some subconscious voice in my head said... "I don't know... Angie Dickinson". Deep down in my brain somewhere those two things, 'I don't know and Angie Dickinson', just go together. So I went with it, seemed appropriate.

The brain is a weird thing.

 

[Bradskii]

As I stated in my previous post, they just popped into my head.

So it was random. It wasn't a free will decision. Want to try another that you think might be?

 

[partinobodycular]

So it was random. It wasn't a free will decision. Want to try another that you think might be?

No, I disagree entirely, it wasn't random. For some reason you want to argue that subconscious equals random. Sorry, I'm not buying it. My most profound ideas originate in my subconscious. But actually it doesn't make any difference, because that's not the free will portion of the process, it's the fact that my conscious mind then contemplates the idea and either gives it a yea or a nay. Or are you going to suggest that that yea or nay is random as well?

 

[Bradskii]

No, I disagree entirely, it wasn't random. For some reason you want to argue that subconscious equals random. Sorry, I'm not buying it. My most profound ideas originate in my subconscious. But actually it doesn't make any difference, because that's not the free will portion of the process, it's the fact that my conscious mind then contemplates the idea and either gives it a yea or a nay. Or are you going to suggest that that yea or nay is random as well?

If you're making a subconscious decision then you aren't aware of why you made it. It's obviously not a case of free will. It's beneath the conscious level. A free will decision obviously has to be a conscious decision.

Whether you accede to or not when you become conscious of it is done for a reason. Well, hello to antecedent conditions again! Simply making a choice is not indicative of free will. If the choice wasn't random then it was determined by something.

Your job is to tell me what that something was.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you're making a subconscious decision then you aren't aware of why you made it. It's obviously not a case of free will. It's beneath the conscious level. A free will decision obviously has to be a conscious decision.

That's just patently absurd. Yes, the thoughts are being generated subconsciously. That little voice inside my head, often just won't shut up, even when I consciously want it to. And that subconscious stream of thought can be quite chaotic. But you and I both know that a chaotic system isn't random... it's deterministic. However, the real question is, where is the decision being made... and that lies solely within the conscious portion of my brain.

 

[Bradskii]

That's just patently absurd. Yes, the thoughts are being generated subconsciously. That little voice inside my head, often just won't shut up, even when I consciously want it to. And that subconscious stream of thought can be quite chaotic. But you and I both know that a chaotic system isn't random... it's deterministic.

These are the most confusing of posts. You say it's a subconscious decision, which cannot be associated with free will. And again confirm that it's deterministic. Which denies free will. Yet you still argue for it.

However, the real question is, where is the decision being made... and that lies solely within the conscious portion of my brain.

If this is the real question then you don't have an argument. Because nobody is denying that you make the decsions. And make them consciously. But as you literally just said, it's a deterministic process. So the decision is determined.

There is no little 'you' outside of this process that exercises free will. 'You' are the process itself. 'You' are everything that goes into making any given decision. Determined by antecedent conditions. Over which you have no control.

 

[partinobodycular]

These are the most confusing of posts. You say it's a subconscious decision, which cannot be associated with free will. And again confirm that it's deterministic.

You really aren't following along very well. I accept full responsibility, and I'll try to clarify.

1. The subconscious process is deterministic. It's the workhorse of your brain. Most stuff happens here.
2. Decisions however are ultimately made by the conscious portion of your brain, via free will. (But they're still deterministic)

You seem to be confused by the fact that thoughts have their origins in the subconscious. That doesn't mean that decisions have their origins in the subconscious. Thoughts and decisions... two different things. Thoughts are the ingredients for decisions.

To clarify. The subconscious mind is the source of thoughts... i.e fears, desires, biases, and emotions... good, bad, relevant, or irrelevant. The conscious mind then weighs the pros and cons of these thoughts and chooses the appropriate response. With the operative word here being chooses.

This conscious choice, even being the product of free will, is still deterministic, it's just that the metric by which that choice is being made isn't readily apparent.

For example, if I said that I'll make my choice about which pair of shoes to buy based upon which pair is the cheapest, then we have a clearly definable metric, and the choice is obviously deterministic. If on the other hand I say that I'll make my choice about which pair of shoes to buy based upon which pair of shoes I like the most, then our metric isn't nearly as clear cut, but the choice is still deterministic. We just don't have a clear definition of what the metric is, and the only one who can say what that metric is... is me.

Hence free will and determinism are compatible.

 

[Bradskii]

For example, if I said that I'll make my choice about which pair of shoes to buy based upon which pair is the cheapest, then we have a clearly definable metric, and the choice is obviously deterministic.

Agreed. No free will.

If on the other hand I say that I'll make my choice about which pair of shoes to buy based upon which pair of shoes I like the most, then our metric isn't nearly as clear cut, but the choice is still deterministic.

Agreed again. No free will.

We just don't have a clear definition of what the metric is, and the only one who can say what that metric is... is me.

Big deal. We don't know what has determined our choice. Sometimes it's a preference. Sometimes it's a lot more obscure. Generally we have no idea. But it doesn't matter knowing or not knowing. And it doesn't matter if the cause is internal or external. It's still deterministic.

Hence free will and determinism are compatible.

Only if you think you are somehow separate from the process. Which is dualism. Plain and simply. So let's go with that. And you can tell me on what basis this 'you' is making decisions. Randomly? Or are there reasons this 'you', external to the process, makes a choice?

Let me know.

 

[partinobodycular]

If on the other hand I say that I'll make my choice about which pair of shoes to buy based upon which pair of shoes I like the most, then our metric isn't nearly as clear cut, but the choice is still deterministic.

Agreed again. No free will.

Ehhh, this isn't as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

But what we do know is that this next statement isn't true.

We don't know what has determined our choice.

On the contrary, we know that I bought that particular pair of shoes because I liked them. I stated my intention to do so right up there in my post.

So what I wanted to do, I actually did.

Ah, but you'll no doubt counter by stating that I didn't freely choose to like that pair of shoes, it was just antecedent events that caused me to like them. To which I would respond... well duh, of course I liked them because of antecedent events, it would be illogical to speculate otherwise.

To which you'll respond that that proves that there's no such thing as free will, to which I'll respond that it proves no such thing.

But why does it prove no such thing?

Your contention is that determinism means that the universe is the way it is, and it couldn't possibly have been any other way. But physics says that you are in fact... wrong. Hugh Everett came up with this nifty little theory called the Many Worlds Interpretation, sort of an antithesis to the Copenhagen Interpretation. But the truly interesting thing is, that of the two, MWI is deterministic, Copenhagen isn't.

So if you've truly got your heart set on determinism then welcome to MWI, wherein every version of reality looks as if it couldn't possibly have been any other way. Yet it actually exists in an infinite number of other ways. Which oddly seems to fulfill your test of free will, i.e that if you could put things back exactly the way they were... that you could make a different choice. Well guess what, if you're truly stuck on determinism, then you DID make a different choice, and free will put you in exactly the universe that you wanted to be in.

 

[Bradskii]

So if you've truly got your heart set on determinism then welcome to MWI, wherein every version of reality looks as if it couldn't possibly have been any other way. Yet it actually exists in an infinite number of other ways

We live in just this world. We'll deal with what happens in this world, thanks. Which is deterministic. So why did you choose a particular pair of shoes?

...of course I liked them because of antecedent events.

QED

 

[partinobodycular]

So why did you choose a particular pair of shoes?

I already told you that... I chose them because I liked them. Exactly why I liked them gets us back to Angie Dickinson again... I don't know. Nonetheless, the fact still remains that I chose them because I liked them.

This is a fact that you simply can't get away from, no matter what I choose to do, I do it because I want to. If that isn't free will then I don't know what is. Everything I ever do... I do because in aggregate, I want to do it.

 

[Bradskii]

I already told you that... I chose them because I liked them. Exactly why I liked them gets us back to Angie Dickinson again... I don't know. Nonetheless, the fact still remains that I chose them because I liked them.

This is a fact that you simply can't get away from, no matter what I choose to do, I do it because I want to. If that isn't free will then I don't know what is. Everything I ever do... I do because in aggregate, I want to do it.

If you have free will, then choose to like another pair. Pick a pair that you actively dislike and freely choose to prefer them.

Obviously you can't. Neither can I. I just had coffee with breakfast. There was a choice - Earl Grey tea or coffee. I don't like Earl Grey. I don't know why. It simply tastes revolting to me. I have no control over that whatsoever. It's the way I am built. So my choice was determined by a preference over which I had no control.

There's no free will there.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you have free will, then choose to like another pair. Pick a pair that you actively dislike and freely choose to prefer them.

Obviously you can't. Neither can I. I just had coffee with breakfast. There was a choice - Earl Grey tea or coffee. I don't like Earl Grey. I don't know why. It simply tastes revolting to me. I have no control over that whatsoever. It's the way I am built. So my choice was determined by a preference over which I had no control.

Which of course leads to the conclusion that if there's a reason for your choosing something, then it's predetermined, but if there isn't a reason for choosing something, then it's random. You simply leave no room for free will, which brings me to your definition of free will, which I find to be sorely lacking.

the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different

Here's the problem as I see it. If we run the events over again, and we repeat the process a number of times just to be thorough, what conclusions can we draw. It seems to me that if we get a different result every time, with no perceivable pattern, then the outcome indicates that the choice is random. It doesn't, as you've suggested in other posts, indicate free will.

If on the other hand we get the same result every time, then that's more in keeping with free will, i.e the ability to consider the circumstances and act accordingly. To me it's obvious that if the circumstances don't change, then why should the choice change. The seemingly unanswerable question is, are the circumstances causing the choice, or are they simply defining the parameters of the choice. Like Earl Grey vs coffee. The choice isn't determined, it's just rather obvious.

For me the crux of the problem with your definition is that determinism and free will are going to end up looking exactly the same. Give me the same circumstances, and I'm gonna make the same choice... every time. Regardless of whether it's a matter of free will or determinism.

So how would I define free will and how would I distinguish it from determinism? To me the difference lies in the ability to contemplate not only the causes, but the outcomes, and then to act contrary to the causes alone. But... doesn't that simply turn the outcomes into one of the causes? Indeed it does. But that I'd argue, is the subtle difference between determinism and free will. Free will includes the outcome as part of the cause.

Can you show me any other time, other than with sentient beings, when determinism includes the outcome as part of the cause?

 

[Bradskii]

Which of course leads to the conclusion that if there's a reason for your choosing something, then it's predetermined, but if there isn't a reason for choosing something, then it's random. You simply leave no room for free will...

Exactly right.

Here's the problem as I see it. If we run the events over again, and we repeat the process a number of times just to be thorough, what conclusions can we draw. It seems to me that if we get a different result every time, with no perceivable pattern, then the outcome indicates that the choice is random. It doesn't, as you've suggested in other posts, indicate free will.

If on the other hand we get the same result every time, then that's more in keeping with free will, i.e the ability to consider the circumstances and act accordingly. To me it's obvious that if the circumstances don't change, then why should the choice change. The seemingly unanswerable question is, are the circumstances causing the choice, or are they simply defining the parameters of the choice. Like Earl Grey vs coffee. The choice isn't determined, it's just rather obvious.

If the result is exactly the same from exactly the same causes then that's determinism. Whether the reason for the choice is known and sounds reasonable or whether it is unknown.

For me the crux of the problem with your definition is that determinism and free will are going to end up looking exactly the same. Give me the same circumstances, and I'm gonna make the same choice... every time.

Free will would mean a different choice based on exactly the same antecedent conditions. Free will would mean that the decision is not determined. And you've already agreed that life is determined

So how would I define free will and how would I distinguish it from determinism?

You can't distinguish them. If the world is determinate then there's no free will. Period. Free will is the ability to make a decision that is not determined by prior conditions. In umpteen posts in this thread I have asked for an example which would prove that to be not the case. So far..? Nothing.

To me the difference lies in the ability to contemplate not only the causes, but the outcomes, and then to act contrary to the causes alone. But... doesn't that simply turn the outcomes into one of the causes? Indeed it does. But that I'd argue, is the subtle difference between determinism and free will. Free will includes the outcome as part of the cause.

If you consider what the result of a decision will be in advance of making that decision then that consideration is one of the antecedent conditions.

Can you show me any other time, other than with sentient beings, when determinism includes the outcome as part of the cause?

The outcome as part of the cause? That literally makes no sense. You have a cause. And then an outcome. That couldn't be simpler to understand. Do A and the result is B. Feel free to show me an example from anywhere at any time when that is not the case.

And you better hurry. Another few hours and I'll be offline for at least a week.

 

[partinobodycular]

The outcome as part of the cause? That literally makes no sense.

I certainly think that it makes perfect sense. Before choosing, we consider what the outcome will be of whatever action we take. That knowledge then becomes a factor/cause in our choice of action.

In an attempt to clarify I'll revise my previous post, show me any other time, other than with sentient beings, when determinism includes knowledge of the potential outcomes as part of the cause?

I submit that that consideration of potential outcomes differentiates free will from determinism. Conscious beings can do something that determinism absent conscious beings simply cannot do.

 

[Grip Docility]

In your opinion, Do individual human beings have personal libertarian volition that makes them culpable for their personally chosen actions and reactions to the rational universe, in respects to rational laws of the universe, (no conflating this question with the illogical metaphysically philosophical, theosophical, atheosphical or deistically reasoned system of anarchy and such ignorant gibberish) as presented with reality defined by these terms?

No.

Genuine Question; How is it that you are perpetuating this discussion, yet don't realize the gravity of this simple exchange of precise words?

This cuts through the entire complexity of the discussion.

The second that your rational view of "reality" prevented you from admitting "Culpability" for your personally chosen actions and reactions to the rational universe, you invalidated every word that you speak.

Allow me to philosophically explain why this is so. If action or reaction X = dialogue and your personal opinion on rational reality = Y, then the sum of your ideals removes all relevance from your words.

X + Y = Invalidation

Because you claim that your words have no culpability in the totality of your theory, this means that they have no relevance, as well. You have removed weight, gravity and validity from your words. Your very summation of your conceptualized reality carries blame, external to yourself. Blame denotes power over you that reduces your actions to nothing more than forced reactions. Visa Vi, you have from the jump, defined every word that you speak as irrational, forced responses that root in nothing but presumptive blame.

You enjoy having lofty dialogue about this Metaphysical concept, yet you carry zero relevance by your own summation.

In summary, your very positional debate stance invalidates itself. IMO

This doesn't concern you?

 

[Bradskii]

The second that your rational view of "reality" prevented you from admitting "Culpability" for your personally chosen actions and reactions to the rational universe, you invalidated every word that you speak.

Your position on this matter has been determined by any number of factors over which you had no control. We're in the same boat, you and I.

If life is deterministic then I can still appreciate the difference between right and wrong. If I steal something I know it's wrong. If I'm the type of person who doesn't care then I'll carry on stealing. If I can be persuaded that I shouldn't - if I'm the type of person who would listen, then I might stop.

Similarly, if I'm the type of person who believes that we have free will (like almost everyone) but if I read any number of opinions on it over the years and they change my mind, then I'll end up with a different viewpoint. And note that I didn't say 'if I change my mind', but rather 'if they change my mind'. There's such a huge difference.

Am I culpable for my actions? Well, I have a choice to take whichever path is open to me. Antecedent conditions and the person that I have become (over which I had no control - my parents, my upbringing, my education, my environment etc etc) will determine which I choose.

How could it be any different?

 

[Grip Docility]

Your position on this matter has been determined by any number of factors over which you had no control. We're in the same boat, you and I.

You may dislike this, but this is a Metaphysical discussion. Theological discussions carry far more intellectual evaluation than this simple discussion. I'm going to employ the very heart behind your response to reaffirm my opinionated factual position which does not utilize rebuttal from a separate stance, but instead utilizes your own self disclosed stance to dismantle itself.

You couldn't respond line by line to my response because in doing so, you would have been proven faulty in conclusion within the constraints of the rational responses that I provided from a simple stance of "Culpability".

Instead of acknowledging the elementary incontrovertible truth that I expressed through words written from a culpable stance, your only form of rebuttal available was to attempt to reassert the lack of culpability through "Blame". This doesn't rebut my stance but further backs my stance.

You are directly affirming this exact quote within the post of mine that you are responding to, which you are not even fractionally addressing.

Genuine Question; How is it that you are perpetuating this discussion, yet don't realize the gravity of this simple exchange of precise words?

This cuts through the entire complexity of the discussion.

The second that your rational view of "reality" prevented you from admitting "Culpability" for your personally chosen actions and reactions to the rational universe, you invalidated every word that you speak.

Allow me to philosophically explain why this is so. If action or reaction X = dialogue and your personal opinion on rational reality = Y, then the sum of your ideals removes all relevance from your words.

X + Y = Invalidation

Your response employs blame in a way that is tantamount of a person sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the words "La La La La La" at the top of their lungs.

If life is deterministic then I can still appreciate the difference between right and wrong. If I steal something I know it's wrong. If I'm the type of person who doesn't care then I'll carry on stealing. If I can be persuaded that I shouldn't - if I'm the type of person who would listen, then I might stop.

This is a self contradicting statement of your own stance. You are saying that if you aren't Free, you can then appreciate right from wrong, which are concepts that only hold validity under the stance of culpability. If there is no rational culpability, the type of rational incontrovertible truths known as Truth cannot exist. Absolute Truth is beyond the humanly contrived concept of Moral Relativity. If individual culpability doesn't exist, which is required to discern Right from Wrong, right and wrong becomes a fallacious concept. Your entire thesis is created to deny the concept of Moral Absolutism.

You employ the word "Persuasion" which is honestly interesting. It is defined as such; "Cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument."

The irony of this statement, is that you would have to have rational Culpability to be able to be "Persuaded". By your own admission, you are perpetually in a state of being Persuaded by an imaginary force of universal totality that you blame for being in this state of perpetual response to imaginary persuasion. One would have to be in a rational state of personal Culpability to be shifted into a state of becoming persuaded into a different stance of personal Culpability. Within your own reasoning, you have again, invalidated the validity of your stance.

Similarly, if I'm the type of person who believes that we have free will (like almost everyone) but if I read any number of opinions on it over the years and they change my mind, then I'll end up with a different viewpoint. And note that I didn't say 'if I change my mind', but rather 'if they change my mind'. There's such a huge difference.

This entire response is an attempt to specify that you are a unique snowflake that dwells within a state of supreme philosophical minority, which is not only easily disproved, but globally and universally disproven.

Narcissism is a personality style that's characterized by an excessive focus on oneself and one's own needs, often at the expense of others. The core to pure Narcissism is "Blame". It is to perpetually deny ones culpability for their own actions.

I don't know what world you live in, but this characterizes the status quo of the entire globe. The way of the world is Quid Pro Quo. This is established on the utter commonality of blame and personal need. The huge difference is that people that hold themselves to personal culpability are the true philosophical minority. A solid statement of this would be to say, if we truly desire to change the world, we must focus on the "Man in the Mirror". An individual that denies culpability is denying that this mirror exists and thusly blaming the very universe for their circumstances. That isn't unique. It's, quite frankly, a penny per 12 dozen.

Am I culpable for my actions? Well, I have a choice to take whichever path is open to me. Antecedent conditions and the person that I have become (over which I had no control - my parents, my upbringing, my education, my environment etc etc) will determine which I choose.

This is self contradicting and obfuscating dialogue. In summation, it is non sequitur.

How could it be any different?

Difference doesn't exist from the perspective of anarchy, which is a state which denies Culpability. This very conclusion, again demonstrates self invalidation that flows from personal stance.

Can you directly address this response, line by line without stumbling over self invalidation?

Genuine Question; How is it that you are perpetuating this discussion, yet don't realize the gravity of this simple exchange of precise words?

This cuts through the entire complexity of the discussion.

The second that your rational view of "reality" prevented you from admitting "Culpability" for your personally chosen actions and reactions to the rational universe, you invalidated every word that you speak.

Allow me to philosophically explain why this is so. If action or reaction X = dialogue and your personal opinion on rational reality = Y, then the sum of your ideals removes all relevance from your words.

X + Y = Invalidation

Culpable or not Culpable?

Because you claim that your words have no culpability in the totality of your theory, this means that they have no relevance, as well. You have removed weight, gravity and validity from your words. Your very summation of your conceptualized reality carries blame, external to yourself. Blame denotes power over you that reduces your actions to nothing more than forced reactions. Visa Vi, you have from the jump, defined every word that you speak as irrational, forced responses that root in nothing but presumptive blame.

You enjoy having lofty dialogue about this Metaphysical concept, yet you carry zero relevance by your own summation.

In summary, your very positional debate stance invalidates itself. IMO

This doesn't concern you?

 

[Neogaia777]

No one is culpable/responsible for their actions or inactions.

Because we don't save or damn ourselves, but that has already been decided/chosen for us.

The universe is/has been always deterministic from the beginning, and this can be proven or shown with or by the laws of physics scientifically.

If even one level of the thing can be shown/proven to always behave/act deterministically, then all levels below or above it must also be deterministic. I am thinking of the level of the atom in this case, etc.

People don't like to admit this for a lot of reasons, etc. With the religious crowd, it is because it severely messes with their religious beliefs and/or theology, etc. For others, it's just plain old rebelliousness and wanting to be in control of their own destiny, etc.

But neither are adequate reasons for denying the truth that can be proven/shown scientifically, etc.

And as far as theology goes, if this world/us/this universe is not deterministic, and does not behave deterministically, etc, then there is no one, not even a God, who can know everything, etc.

But I believe there is, etc.

As for other theological issues associated with this, I have worked almost all of them out already, etc, and you can ask me about them if you want to.

But if you see any of this as a reason to behave or act evil, or in an evil way, then there is something very much seriously wrong with you, because that's just plain old stupid, and is the ultimate act of rebellion against any God, etc. But if that's what you truly want to do, then just do it I guess.

You'll go to hell, and show that you were just always one of those who was only ever destined for hell, but just do it if that's what you really want to do I guess. Maybe that was always what was in your heart either way.

God Bless.